@Andras

I agree. My answer is an over simplification of the issue; there are more than 2 solutions to the scientific job market. I initially offered the 2 simplest solutions need based on the economic logic of the problem to get the conversation going; either decrease supply or increase demand for equilibrium in scientific job market.

*The data does make answers to the situation more objective.

*Answer A seems to be the most popular.

Downfalls to answer A;

*Long-term shortage of scientist could occur

*May discourage students from entering the sciences

Advantages: Saves the government money, adds security to those with PhDs

Downfalls to answer B:

*cost the government money

*May lead to an over increase in scientist entering the job market

Advantages: can never know too much.

Most practical is answer A. I think that Answer B may work better in the longer term.

@Surya, I am not partial to either solution.

I actually think that B is the better solution; can never know too much ;)

Dear Michael,

The provided statistical data cannot allow an objective view for me.

Are there only two options to solve the situation?

Regarding the general tendency of students’ quality and interests etc. I would vote for option A.

@Andras

I agree. My answer is an over simplification of the issue; there are more than 2 solutions to the scientific job market. I initially offered the 2 simplest solutions need based on the economic logic of the problem to get the conversation going; either decrease supply or increase demand for equilibrium in scientific job market.

*The data does make answers to the situation more objective.

*Answer A seems to be the most popular.

Downfalls to answer A;

*Long-term shortage of scientist could occur

*May discourage students from entering the sciences

Advantages: Saves the government money, adds security to those with PhDs

Downfalls to answer B:

*cost the government money

*May lead to an over increase in scientist entering the job market

Advantages: can never know too much.

Most practical is answer A. I think that Answer B may work better in the longer term.

@ Michael

I think that the answer depends on the domain. In the biomedical sciences, each scientist with a faculty position will ask for more students and post-docs, leading to an exponential growth, which means that answer B alone is not satisfactory. What should be done instead in this domain is to change the organization of work, with more technicians and less students at the bench.

Both A and B can work and also a combination of both could be used. Overproduction of scientists is also a problem in several other countries. Of course, some extra students have to be accepted as not all graduate; also, not all wish to become scientists (e.g. some go to politics, some to business, some to ministries...); moreover, some surplus is necessary to keep up some competition (otherwise, some scientists would become too lazy) but the current overproduction is a problem: now, several intelligent people will not decide to become scientists as they understand that competition is tough, a lot depends on getting grants and career perspectives are not always good.

@Tiia/Daniel. solving this problem with not be easy and will involve a combination of both A/B strategies

However, no matter what decision is made we still have an abundant supply of post docs/graduate students currently in the system. What to do with these scientists?

Secondly, who will implement these strategies? Daniel as you mentioned, It is in the interest of current faculty members to have as many graduate students/post docs and universities rankings depend on the # of graduate students they admit.

Should the government give stipulations on funding for graduate research? This intervention in the US would come with a big up roar.

Your suggestions indicate that funding for graduate studies should almost be as competitive as for faculty members/post docs.

Dear Michael,

You have forgotten that option B does not guarantee the standard of PhD students and may increase the commercialization of PhD training.

For the society, it costs less to pay for educating a smaller number of PhD students than for paying for more of whom many will never need their degree in science or elsewhere. Also, from the student's perspective it's better to be told that you will not be accepted to the program than that ok, you studied for 4 years or more and got your degree, but we'll never need you. So, I would not accept so many students as now (at least in my university, I've met several students who unfortunately don't seem to be good enough to ever make their career in science; lots of them never manage to get their degree, so why should we waste time on teaching them?).

Weighted flexible combination of A/B may stimulate required competition and provide alternative ways of development for scientists. If tenure is the only way to achieve success in the science?

All of this sounds like the kind of discussion one will find in the back rooms of union halls. Worried about coveted careers instead of quality science; you don't need government money to do good work, though it helps. You don't need a PhD to produce quality research, nor even to have influence in a field of academic endeavor. Finally, a PhD should never been seen as a privilege. Instead, it should ever be seen as a mark of intellectual command over knowledge and an ability to use that command to generate new knowledge. Nothing more, nor less. Indeed, and specifically, it should never be seen as a route to material benefits available only to an anointed few.

Pure elitism you preach here.

@Andras,

This is precisely what is happening in the United States right now; our quality student pursuing PhDs is lower than ever. Plus, private universities are virtually commercialising the degree; free labor

@Tiia,

"Most be cruel, to be kind"-Hamlet. Your comment is a harsh reality. Poor graduate student = drain faculty. Additionally, it is not fair to the students.

@Dariusz,

Typically only the best graduate students end up as faculty member; considered the end goal by many of those who get PhDs. Without a faculty position getting funding for research, in the US, is an impossibility. The academic route is basically the only way for a scientist in most countries.

I agree, the actual solution would involve a combination of A/B.

@William,

You have touched on some interesting points.

*Getting research funding without a PhD is almost impossible.

* Science is expensive; in most fields of study without research funding, doing experiments is almost impossible.

*It is not fair to admit students that have no chance of getting faculty spots into PhD programs,

*dare to say this; PhD programs should be intellectually elitist!

Not intellectually elitist. Intellectually demanding, requiring of quality. Elitism is a completely different thing, much akin to bigotry. Demonstration of mastery of subject and ability to generate new knowledge (irrespective of PhD possession) should be the only basis of determining the quality of a researcher. And, as for fairness of admittance, your basis has applicability only on the chance expectation of the student that a research position is in the offing. For any student who has scholarship (as opposed to employment) in mind, your basis is patently unfair and inappropriate.

One more comment.

Science, like education, is not in and of itself particularly expensive (though some experimentation may be). Rather, like teachers (and the administrators behind them), it is scientists who are expensive.

@ William, as I said above, all depends on the domain. You don't have to make a strong selection for mathematicians at the PhD level, because they can demonstrate their ability by themselves. However, in biomedical sciences, students will have a long time at the bench directed by their supervisor, not sure that it is a good way to select creative scientists.

@William

*What scientific disciplines are referring to in your comments? Many biomedical projects could costs of upwards of a million dollars to publish; science is expensive, period.

*Intellectual elitism not in the sense of ideas, but in the quality of scholarship capable to be produced by the students entering. PhD programs should be targeted toward the intellectually inclined, period.

Let us be clear.

At the bench, one produces technicians, persons who have the hand/eye coordination, experience in handling materials and following procedures, and persons who have skill at accurately and thoroughly characterising observations, all so as to produce data.

For researchers, one needs to provide freedom of exploration, and nothing more.

For expensive experimentation, one needs to provide money.

I claim these truths to be self-evident.

@William,

*experimentation and data production is the most fundamental part of the scientific method; science is data

*Science in the absent of experiment is religion; simply assertions, nothing proven to be true.

Truths are not self-evident, but proven to be true!

As for who is to be taught, I do think that the judgment of the instructor is important. Tina's point about being saddled with less than motivated students is apropos. Yet, I bristle at the notion that limitations in post-educational employment is a reason to deny access to advanced training. Indeed, interest, aptitude and commitment should suffice.

As is the adage, a mind is a terrible thing to waste, and it is an philosophical fallacy (not to mention being counter to common sense) to assert that nothing good came come from effort well spent.

I rather will call for greater production of competent persons, as opposed to the generation of ever greater numbers of incompetent persons.

@Daniel, your domain argument is valid. In math and physics so few students go on to the PhD level that most are extremely talented and that competition in the field is virtually nonexistent.

The problem of over abundance seems to be in the biological, biomedical, and chemical sciences. Additionally, these three groups comprise roughly 95 percent of scientist as well.

I agree with the idea that the only thing more expensive than knowledge is ignorance and that with the increasingly problems from disease, climate change, food production, etc., we may need more knowledge rather than less. Furthermore, I think it’s the rate of change that determines the impact of things and future needs. When one looks at the rate of doubling of DNA sequence information, which by far beats More's law for computing speed and Kryder's Law for hard disk storage, then one might say that we have entered into the age of cell biology. Like the age of electronics or computers there may be a lot of new jobs that we had not expected under the prior age of manufacturing for example. Under this consideration, the need for advanced training in biology, chemistry and biomedical science may show a rather large - even amazing - increase that would impact this discussion.

@Michael: The production of data does not a science make, and your claims regarding production of more scientists has more to do with protecting your bailiwick than with the quality of those scientists who are produced. Finally, it is the marketplace that is best able to determine the value of contributions; your notions of personal quality and grandeur not withstanding.

@John. I agree; solution B, increasing funding for scientist works best in the long-term; can never know too much.

I like the Idea that man has went to the moon, evaded technology, and is now entering the age of the cell.

Data confirms your statement; 2/3 of all published papers in the United States since 1997 are in the area of biological/biomedical/medical sciences(article data attached).

http://www.scimagojr.com/countryrank.php?area=0&category=0®ion=all&year=all&order=it&min=0&min_type=it