to phd or not to phd

[Wonka]

or, long time listener, first time caller

I'm putting the tl;dr version up front:
====
quick summary: got a Master of Science in the early 2000s, worked as research tech/associate/lab manager since then in a couple of labs, thought about going back to school for the PhD, applied to a couple of places and was rejected, now thinking about whether to reapply. I'm now in my early 30s and I do not relish the thought of spending the rest of the decade being poor and overworked.
====

I've been reading a lot on the subject of whether or not one should pursue a PhD, and the consensus seems to be "not unless you really, really in your heart want one"

I made it to the interview process in both places I applied to, and was rejected after that. I think the biggest obstacles for me were that I was applying to programs that were different from my background, and I may have run into institutional attitudes about this; I also probably did not appear as knowledgeable as some of my competitors. I come from a heavy duty cell molecular biology background and I was trying to transition into evolutionary genomics, and while I read quite a bit beforehand, it didn't seem to prepare me enough. In addition, I don't think I came across as enthusiastically as some of my competitors, which perhaps says something about how I feel inside.

Afterwards I was told another mistake I made was that I only applied to two institutions and that the way to make it is to spam applications everywhere. When I applied to grad school the first time, all those years ago, I only applied to one place and my interview was fine (I was fresh out of undergrad and didn't know anything about anything) and I got in with no issues, and I suppose it's possible that nearly a decade later the competitive environment has changed. But I also didn't understand why I should apply to places with faculty research listings that did not elicit any sparks from me.

Anyway, now the clock is ticking and in a few months I would have to reapply if I'm to do it at all. I'm having severe pangs about this process and wondering if I'm just not personally built for the academic science environment.

One of the things I'm fighting is a serious feeling of failure. I enjoy science and discoveries and asking questions and doing different things in my day, namely all the practical aspects of bench work. But the aspects of science as a career, sweating the grant applications, the occasional cronyism I witness, those things make my skin itch. I've told myself for a few years that this is just in this immediate environment and it's not all like this, but I'm not sure I believe it anymore.

I've searched a lot on the internet about different views on leaving science and the general consensus appears to be that it's no sin to get out. The problem, and the reason I'm writing this, is that these perspectives always seem to come from people who are getting out of science *with the PhD*.

The agonizing issue for me is whether I will have shot myself in the foot by not at least obtaining that one credential.

And so here I am, having lived in a lab for nearly a decade, trying to figure out where to go from here -- the thought of not pipetting anything ever again is still rather scary to me at this point. It's possible I could pursue technical work in industry, for instance, but again that brings me to the fear that without the PhD I'll have a definite ceiling above me. Or I could get out of technical work altogether and find something else that a scientifically trained person could do. Flirted briefly with a MLIS actually, just thoughts at the moment.

So do any of you wise people have any insights on being of a scientific bent of mind and hoping to work in that world, but lacking the final stamp?

My apologies for introducing myself with a request for psychoanalysis, but I reached a point where I think I need actual feedback from responsive individuals.

Cheers,
W

[Dr Mike]

You are very welcome here, Wonka, and please don't worry about hitting us with this first thing. I really sympathise with your position and I think it's great you're thinking hard about what to do.

It's definitely no sin to get out of science at any time, but in my experience (having watched friends do it), it does limit the sorts of science-related jobs you can be truly competitive for. It might help to know what country you hail from: all of my advice will apply to the UK (though could be universal, I don't know.) Nowadays it's hard to get ahead in scientific publishing without one, because postdocs are leaving science and that's one of the places they tend to choose first. We postdocs just don't have many job prospects in academia, so that's raising the goalposts for qualifications for related jobs.

If you really love doing science, it sounds to me like you might be suited for the technician life - if you can't find a stable position as a tech/lab manager in academia, have you considered industry? A few friends of mine really love the constant hands-on nature of the work and the job security/pay.

Or, if you're just plain undecided and don't want to narrow your options at this time, you might consider starting a PhD and seeing how you get on. The pay isn't bad and you might find you take to it - if you don't, again it's no sin to bow out. If you go this route, definitely don't apply to lab heads whose work doesn't excite you. And don't apply to the place - apply to the individual. Spam applications are universally regarded as being crap.

[Beatrice]

Welcome Wonka! Nice to meet you.

I wonder if you shouldn't actually listen to your inner pangs-they could reflect your true feelings about going after a PhD. On the other hand (again depending on what country you're in) it's not the longest detour in the world and in giving it a try you will at least know you did try-and the qualification will make your prospects better on the other end if you don't want to stay in academia.

About this statement: "I suppose it's possible that nearly a decade later the competitive environment has changed." But isn't there also a difference in that you wouldn't expect a Masters programme to be the same as a PhD programme? Also your sample size is really small: 1/1 success and 0/2 failure. I wouldn't be put off by the 0/2 thing if you think there were sound reasons, that they wanted someone with different skills and experiences...

[Wonka]

Thanks Dr. Mike and Beatrice!

I'm from Canada, but currently living in the US with no immediate plans to return (i.e. still on the green card. once I'm eligible for citizenship I might be able to relocate)

it's funny because it never occurred to me that I might start a PhD and then not finish it if things aren't well. I just had a fixed image of multiple years of suffering. heh

Beatrice, the program I went into was a common entryway for Masters and PhDs. After one year in, you had a preliminary presentation in which you showed data and project plans and requested to be moved into the PhD path if you wanted. At the time I thought it wouldn't be a big deal to just get the MSc and get a PhD later. HA. HA I tell you.
But you're right, my n is limited.


EDIT - I think the problem is also a basic fear of the unknown -- namely, I am very unclear as to what doors will be forever closed to me without a PhD. If I had a better handle on that, I might be able to calm the hell down about it.

[Editor]

Well, as far as scientific publishing these days, not having a PhD does somewhat limit your chances of advancement. When I was looking after journals I was supervising a group of very bright Editorial Assistants who were constantly under the shadow of knowing that their chances of being made Senior Editors in major journals was slim. For the most competitive spots, even a few years of post-doc'ing is considered important. I think it's a function of all the increased numbers of post-docs leaving research because there are not enough jobs in academia, which just upped the ante for everyone else competing outside of academia for science-related posts.

Have you also considered that you don't have to work in science at all? Studies have shown that people with science PhDs earn more money than their non-PhD colleagues in non-science jobs?

[Mad Dan Eccles]

I read that as "For the most competitive sports"

Hum, OK.

[Editor]

Maybe you didn't come across as enthusiastically as the others because you'd applied to labs that weren't in the area you were used to. Were you particularly enthusiastic by the topics you would be studying in those labs? I think it's really important to choose a lab that's doing a number of things you're really into - not just one thing in case that doesn't pan out.

[Joao]

Three quick thoughts:

1- Correct me if I'm wrong: Wonka is applying to Programs, not labs, as far as I understand. That choice would come later. Although many times lab heads will be present in the interview process (in our case 6-8 of them at a time, to ensure the student may have a future with ONE...), sometimes they are not (too busy harassing Journal editors) and there is specific faculty for this. So I would add that you should apply to Programs with more than one lab you may be interested in, and research the hell out of them. Be aware of what research goes on, what researchers the Program/Labs has turned out, be aware of what the alumni did. Heck, read a few papers, especially if this isn't really your original field. If you are not really into the field/Program you want to join it shows immediately, although candidates seem to think not, for some odd reason. I would not send "spam" applications, but surely in the US there are at least a few (good) Programs that fit your interests, and it is common for students to apply to several, if just to know what their "market value" is. Also: if you hate the city/region don't apply. It's the sort of thing that really bites if the work goes south (and it will, at some point, for some time).

2- As a Program Coordinator loosely overseeing a bunch of PhD students I can safely say there is no fullproof path for success, but there are clear paths for failure. Basically those come down to (not) finding a lab that fits you on a personal as well as scientific level. And that is different for everyone at different time points (cliché, but only because its true). So, when that time comes, take advantage of the lab rotations, or whatever the rule is, to talk to everyone, not just PIs.

3- Oh yeah, you need a PhD. OK, maybe not "need" but it would be very useful. It can be an easy (and reasonable) cutoff in long application lists. If nothing else: be prepared to be asked why you don't have one at every science-related interview you get into (and I agree with Editor, posdoc experience is becoming more and more crucial), and that is clearly not the ideal situation.

Also (oops, that's 4 things..), any bad thing in the science professions can be found anywhere else. I write about them, instead of bothering friends and family or spending too much time in bars. So don't let that get in the way. It's a fun ride.
Good Luck!

[Wonka]

Yes, I applied to programs, not specific labs. Perhaps that was another mistake.

I appreciate all the comments. It's been quite a bit stressful to be thinking about this during any kind of brain downtime, non-stop.

I think I'm coming to the realization that my paralyzing anxiety about this comes not from trying to decide whether or not to pursue this, but rather from fear of the unknown should I not pursue the PhD. Because that's pretty much what I seem to be leaning to.

for example, every research field I look into seems so interesting and then upon reading a few papers/reviews about it, a nagging voice in my head quickly asks "could you really see yourself delving deep into this for years and years?" and the answer is always no. that's just one example.

I consider myself very fortunate that I'm basically going through a career change mini-crisis while safely employed, and therefore I have the luxury to really think about this and consider my options. It horrifies me to think that some people have to go through this out of necessity because they lost their jobs and *have* to find something else to do.

thanks again, all.

[challenge]

Welcome Wonka!
I'm late to the party since I have been trying to decide what I think and if I could write something that would make sense. Anyway, what struck me when I read your question is that it asks partly what I asked myself a while back when looking for jobs after my post doc. "What is my PhD worth/ why would I be 'better' at this job than someone who hasn't gotten one?"

You write:

One of the things I'm fighting is a serious feeling of failure. I enjoy science and discoveries and asking questions and doing different things in my day, namely all the practical aspects of bench work. But the aspects of science as a career, sweating the grant applications, the occasional cronyism I witness, those things make my skin itch. I've told myself for a few years that this is just in this immediate environment and it's not all like this, but I'm not sure I believe it anymore.

I think you can have a career in science without a PhD, as a bench scientist/technican. In Academia, not as a PI no... as a higher technician/senior lab personal - sure. Will people treat you as they would a PhD? Maybe, possibly not. Then again, it's apples and oranges since it depends on if you take in the whole picture, half of it or what you want. For example, I love discoveries and science, but don't like writing grants. That would make a choice of going into PI world foolish (or at least a bit hard) although I have the choice as a PhD (do I have enough publication though? that is also part of it all). Does that mean that I can't have a science career? No (but Academia turned much harder, if not impossible).

I love my PhD time (mostly in hindsight) since it gives me a stamp of "I took on a task, dived into a question, suffered and finished it all and wrote it up". For all intent and purposes, I do think a person who worked in a lab with me without having that could've gotten a similar experience, and gotten the same scientific knowledge, but not the final stamp of approval... and I think that is partly what people see when they look at the degree, it's not as interesting exactly which subfield of biology you did your thesis on, you did it in area X... But that's my view of all these titles/academia degrees - they don't really say much about how much you know, they might say more about the fact that you did them and finished them.

Some companies don't care about them at all (I have several friends who dropped out of engeneering before their degree was done, got a job and are high in the organisation. Granted, the ones who hadn't climbed enough when the first economical dip came, got let lose and went back to obtain said degree.) and then as previously mentioned in this thread, there are places nowadays who wants you to have both a PhD and a post doc although really, that may not be necessary... but "if we have that experience, it will look good and we need to distinguish between the applicants".

Maybe this didn't help at all, but at least you got some ramblings from a PhD with post doc experience who is now working as a tech (the only one in the group with a graduate degree) so I'm not sure what to make of that.... but I think the time as a graduate student is grueling and not really safe (either in time or money) so I'm not sure I would go that route unless I knew I really wanted the degree. Otherwise I think there are more options to do science by the bench and maybe find another type of degree to go with it. To a point, experience and time in a lab as a lab manager for example, would count a lot compared to a fresh PhD student with limited lab and no managing experience. It's all depending on what kind of jobs there are....imho.

[hedge]

What Joao and Challenge said...
but also...
"could you really see yourself delving deep into this for years and years?" into something else? Working on a journal? Learning how to write patents? Is it fear of a specific scientific problem, or fear of committing to ANYTHING?

[Dr Mike]

Way to ask the tough questions, hedge

To be fair, i think there is a huge difference between specialising in one bitty biological pathway, say, and specialising in "scientific publishing" or "patent law". The latter two will always have a broader exposure to a variety of things, whereas with the former you're sort of roped to the topic, for better or worse, for a number of years. Sure you can shift focus a little bit within those restrictions, but not a whole hell of a lot...