Until recently I was living this problem. I finished my PhD in Computational Biology and then joined the ranks of the long term unemployed. I got 1 job interview in 1 year. Things have improved and I now have a position in academia (the first academic position that I applied for).<p>I personally don't see that doing a PhD should be a issue for recruiters in industry. I worked as a programmer for 10+ years before doing a PhD and can confidently say that doing research was one of the most rewarding times of my life. I learnt an incredible amount - especially how to independently research and tackle hard problems. Does industry not have any hard problems?<p>Perhaps this is just a period of adjustment. The people recruiting don't have PhDs so they don't know what research involves or what someone with a PhD can bring to a company.<p>I have seen both sides of the fence and if I was ever in a position to recruit I would certainly consider someone with research experience on an equal footing with a new graduate. I often joked that I would have had the same employment chances if I'd have spent 4 years sitting on a beach instead of doing a PhD. In a complex modern world such as ours this is truly twisted and bizarre.
I think for the hard sciences and engineering we should be creating more research jobs in the private industry for PhD's. We have no shortage of problems that need to be solved and discoveries to be made.<p>Private industry needs to be incentivised to do more long-term R&D.
One rarely mentioned thing is that most PhD degrees are worthless.<p>This IMO is a key factor to understanding many problems plaguing postgraduate world. Of maybe dozen PhDs (spanning two different countries and fields of mathematics, physics and CS) I've been acquainted with, only one had uncompromising, endurance runner attitude that serious research takes. He was the only one who landed at research career after the defense.<p>I fail to fully realize the reasons behind the motivation of the less successful ones. Whatever it was, it was certainly not a thirst for knowledge. Their contribution to advancing the state of art was zero. Those in the fields were I have a glimpse of understanding, should not have defended. They were net waste of grants/taxpayer money, and their own life.<p>As it is now, postgraduate research is like uranium enrichment: a costly process with majority of output being waste. Of course the thing wasted in this case is people's effort and time which could (maybe) better spent elsewhere.
The same problem was true for engineering/CS graduates in developing countries. The problem in that case was that the skills available did not meet the economic profile of the countries they were working in. For instance, labour may be so cheap it is not cost efficient to automate processes.<p>In many cases, we need to properly analyze the chain of value creation, from basic sciences to applied engineering, and iron out the inefficiencies. Once this occurs, PhDs will again enjoy their proper place in the economy.
I would suggest that graduate programs begin requiring applicants work for a year or two before applying for or starting a PhD (not unlike MBA programs). This would help bridge the gap between the academic and working worlds and provide students with some much needed savings to carry them through graduate school as well as a potential placement after graduating. And, having seen what they can earn in the working world, only the truly dedicated would accept a graduate student stipend for five years, solving the PhD overproduction problem.
One of the problems with CS PhD graduates at least is the lack of broad familiarity with their and related fields.<p>Outside of a handful of top US schools the resources (i.e. high level graduate courses taught by people who actually understand what they are talking about) are simply not available. Indeed even there one needs to make an effort to take classes from other departments.<p>Somewhere like UK with no course work requirements at all, it is not as easy to find a PhD student with an understanding of the proverbial bigger picture (of course there are exceptions etc).<p>It is the broad understanding of the relations between methods employed in different fields that makes a PhD useful in an industry setting and not the narrow topic of their research (for example someone familiar with ideas used in numerical computing can do research level work in many fields).
The problem with not only PhDs but even the first levels of higher education is only one and it is universal: We see it from an economic perspective.<p>A bachelors degree is good if it helps you do a masters degree.<p>A masters degree is good if it improves your chances at finding a job.<p>And then a PhD is good if it increases your expected salary.<p>Well, I am sorry, but we shouldn't be complaining about "the PhD problem" then. If you do a PhD, do it to learn. Don't do it to find a job that will pay more.