phd and no job reddit

• Career Advice

How to Turn a Ph.D. Into a Nonacademic Career

By  Christopher Cornthwaite

You have / 5 articles left. Sign up for a free account or log in.

aramyan/istock/getty images

As my Ph.D. drew to a close in 2018, I had no plan. I had been living abroad with my spouse and our three children, completing a final fellowship that I was sure would make me a better candidate for academic positions.

Instead of heading off to a new post, our family moved back into my parents’ basement. It was an anticlimactic end to my academic career and, frankly, one of the hardest periods of my life. Many professors don’t appreciate how difficult leaving academe can be on their students who expected to be professors. It can be a devastating loss of purpose and identity.

From the darkness, we tried to put the pieces of our lives back together. We decided to move to the city of Ottawa, Canada’s capital, anticipating that it was probably the best option in the country for getting a nonacademic job with a Ph.D. (My spouse is a graphic designer and location independent.) I had been to the city once in my life and knew nobody there. We used the last of our cash to rent a small town house outside the city, with the pressure on me to find a job.

I’d never understood what I could do with my humanities Ph.D. outside academe. As I learned about the world of work, I was surprised by the options. I would email people with interesting careers or reach out to them on LinkedIn asking if I could talk to them. Sometimes I would connect through the networking app Shapr. Many of them were kind enough to take the time to talk to me.

All this networking led to a job running economic development projects for a think tank. It was a far cry from my religious studies Ph.D., but I watched my projects go through the Canadian news cycle and enter policy debates. My work was having an immediate and visible impact on my country. I eventually moved on from that job and worked for the government as a policy analyst, helping foreign countries explore and launch refugee programs.

When I left higher education, I imagined that things couldn't get much worse for my colleagues. Little did I know what the future had in store. These are especially difficult times -- many people have lost job or funding offers and need to explore what life outside academe looks like. Here’s the advice I have for building a career with your Ph.D.

Become the CEO of your life and career. I don’t know whom to attribute this idea to. I’ve heard versions of it from different sources but certainly something like it from Fordham University professor and author Leonard Cassuto in the academic space.

Personal agency is a powerful tool in building a career with any degree, but especially with a Ph.D. If you need to leave academe, you may not find anyone to tell you what to do or give you permission. (In fact, some departments or supervisors are actively hostile to alt-ac conversations.) You need to make the decision about what’s best for you and your life and can’t look to anyone else to make it for you. The onus is on you to learn how your skills apply in the marketplace and find somewhere you love applying them. So, stop waiting for permission and start building.

Recognize that networking is everything. Most Ph.D.s preparing to leave academe will start by working on their résumé and firing off job applications. For many, especially humanities grads like me, those applications disappear into a black hole. Why wouldn’t they? Unless your knowledge is in high demand -- as is the case for some STEM graduates -- employers can’t draw a line from your degree to being the employee they need.

The answer is networking. It’s the most transformational tool that Ph.D.s have at their disposal.

I know, you hate networking. Just about everybody does. But, unfortunately, the beautiful transformation that you are about to go through -- from grad student to career professional -- requires other people to help you make the transition. And if you don’t know anyone outside academe, it’s time to remedy that.

That doesn’t mean printing business cards and going to networking events. It just means contacting people who do things that intrigue you and asking them questions about their work, as well as for any advice they would have for someone in your position. Look for family and friends doing work that appeals to you. Check your alumni association. Ask your supervisor or committee if they know anyone doing interesting things outside academe and see if they’ll give you an introduction.

If you don’t have those options, you can do what I did and start messaging strangers on LinkedIn. (You’ll have the best chance of a response if you pick people it makes sense to connect to -- for example, those in your city, from your university or in a similar field.)

Be creative in meeting the people you need to meet. Recognize that each potential connection may lead to your career, and take the conversations seriously. This is far more valuable than sending résumés into the void. One of those people will inevitably change your life. They’ll tell you something you didn’t know or put in a good word for you somewhere that’s hiring. You just need one person to take a chance on you, and the rest will be history.

Create a brand for yourself. Developing a personal brand is especially vital for Ph.D.s. It may be an anathema for many students (and professors). But when paired with your degree, proper branding can transform you from looking like a grubby graduate student to looking like a leader.

Yes, Ph.D.s are perceived as leaders, even in the marketplace. But all too often, their command of their online presence and brand doesn't match the level of their skills. LinkedIn is a gift for Ph.D.s, an opportunity to present themselves to the world and control the narrative. If you’re not on there, I’d recommend creating a profile and sharing ideas. ( I wrote a guide on how to do that here .)

Your new goal is to be seen and taken seriously outside higher ed. Write op-eds. Engage with people on Twitter if you are comfortable doing that. Leverage the technology and media at your disposal to build your presence and reputation. The more positive visibility you have, the more employers will want to work with you.

Learn nonacademic language. Being in academe is a bit like living in a foreign country. Academics learn a language to talk about themselves and their skills. That language makes perfect sense inside the academy. But speaking it outside higher education can be the kiss of death in a job interview.

It's not to say that you can't have intelligent conversations outside academe. But overuse of jargon and buzzwords, or droning on about the complexities of your research, will mark you as an outsider in the nonacademic world.

Remember, an employer’s first question is “Can they solve X problem for me?” If you seem to only know academe, they might be uncertain of the answer to this.

Instead, try to learn the language of whatever workplace you are exploring. You can take note of key terms during your informational interviews or while looking at job postings. When I became a policy analyst, I had to learn a lot of new lingo that came with it. This included government-specific language, acronyms and other ways of wording things that helped me operate in that world.

Translate your CV into a résumé . Many people know this is necessary, especially in North America, where the résumé is the industry standard. While I don’t think it’s the most important thing, or the thing you should be spending most of your time on, we usually do need résumés at some point.

Translating your CV will require a brutal assessment about what actually fits in a résumé. I had to delete my publications in religious studies, totally irrelevant to my nonacademic work, and replace them with a single line: “Two peer-reviewed articles in top-tier journals.” Ditto my fellowships, which I replaced with, “Grant writing and proposals won over $200k in funding.”

In fact, after reading hundreds of Ph.D. CVs and résumés over the past year, I’ve realized that a lot of the best stuff is often in the overlooked “Service” section at the end of the CV. It’s here that students have led committees, launched projects, worked on teams creating an edited volume or conference, and just generally done the sort of things that make sense outside higher ed.

Be creative with your career. The question I am asked most often is “What can I do with a Ph.D. in X field?” While there are lists out there (some of the best are at The Versatile Ph.D. ), they should be thought of as starting rather than ending points.

Be creative about how you apply your skills and think about your career. Your Ph.D. will probably not fit into a single career box -- and that is great! Focus on topics that interest you, causes you are passionate about, issues that move you. That’s the way to build a great career with a Ph.D. and not simply drop into the first organization that will have you.

Oh, I know in the Ph.D. hierarchy of needs a paycheck can be the most important thing. I’ve been there. To pay the bills, you might need to take the first job offer you receive. But in the long run, you should develop a vision that goes beyond what you can do with your Ph.D. to what you want to do with your Ph.D. Because the sky is the limit.

UT Austin Changes Course to Require In-Person Work

Many staff staunchly oppose the new policy, arguing that commuting is expensive and that administrators made the deci

Share This Article

More from career advice.

Bad-Faith Counteroffers

Black and other minoritized faculty don’t receive equitable ones if they receive them at all, which harms both them a

A 3-Step Process for Gaining a Tenure-Track Job

Susanna Semerdzhyan, a first-generation college graduate, shares strategies that helped her overcome the obstacles.

Let’s Finally Tackle the Problem of Pay Inequity

Higher ed must go beyond buzz words and stop hiding behind performative equity, which does not create change, w

• Become a Member
• Sign up for Newsletters
• Learning & Assessment
• Diversity & Equity
• Career Development
• Labor & Unionization
• Shared Governance
• Academic Freedom
• Books & Publishing
• Financial Aid
• Residential Life
• Free Speech
• Physical & Mental Health
• Race & Ethnicity
• Sex & Gender
• Socioeconomics
• Traditional-Age
• Adult & Post-Traditional
• Teaching & Learning
• Artificial Intelligence
• Digital Publishing
• Data Analytics
• Administrative Tech
• Alternative Credentials
• Financial Health
• Cost-Cutting
• Revenue Strategies
• Academic Programs
• Physical Campuses
• Mergers & Collaboration
• Fundraising
• Research Universities
• Regional Public Universities
• Community Colleges
• Private Nonprofit Colleges
• Minority-Serving Institutions
• Religious Colleges
• Women's Colleges
• Specialized Colleges
• For-Profit Colleges
• Executive Leadership
• Trustees & Regents
• State Oversight
• Accreditation
• Politics & Elections
• Supreme Court
• Student Aid Policy
• Science & Research Policy
• State Policy
• Colleges & Localities
• Employee Satisfaction
• Remote & Flexible Work
• Staff Issues
• Study Abroad
• International Students in U.S.
• U.S. Colleges in the World
• Intellectual Affairs
• Seeking a Faculty Job
• Advancing in the Faculty
• Seeking an Administrative Job
• Advancing as an Administrator
• Beyond Transfer
• Call to Action
• Confessions of a Community College Dean
• Higher Ed Gamma
• Higher Ed Policy
• Just Explain It to Me!
• Just Visiting
• Law, Policy—and IT?
• Leadership & StratEDgy
• Leadership in Higher Education
• Learning Innovation
• Online: Trending Now
• Resident Scholar
• University of Venus
• Student Voice
• Academic Life
• Health & Wellness
• The College Experience
• Life After College
• Academic Minute
• Weekly Wisdom
• Reports & Data
• Quick Takes
• Advertising & Marketing
• Consulting Services
• Data & Insights
• Hiring & Jobs
• Event Partnerships

4 /5 Articles remaining this month.

Sign up for a free account or log in.

• Create Free Account

Stack Exchange Network

Stack Exchange network consists of 183 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow , the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.

Q&A for work

Connect and share knowledge within a single location that is structured and easy to search.

Omit a doctorate from resume if overqualified?

I have a Ph.D. and recruiters have told me that employers will view me as overqualified for certain positions and will therefore not consider my job applications. I'm considering omitting my Ph.D. from my resume, as follows:

• Indicate that I received a M.A. degree. (This is true.)
• For the years between my M.A. and my Ph.D., indicate that I was a research fellow at the university. (This, too, technically is true, though that wasn't my title. I did have a fellowship and it was for doing research.)

Some questions:

• Is this ethical? ( A previous answer on this site implies that it is , but what if the application asks specifically to list all post-secondary education?)
• Might it work? (Some sub-questions: Will it be seen right through? If not, will anyone who views me as overqualified with a Ph.D. view me as overqualified with the above resume also? And if he will, then is there another way to rewrite my resume so that's not the case?)
• applications
• united-states

• 5 Put your Ph.D. on job applications that would benefit from it, otherwise leave it off. There's no harm in telling a recruiter you have one, but leave it off the resume for jobs where it won't matter to the employer. I have a friend with a doctorate whose role is basically high-powered Database Administrator. In such circumstances, no one cares. –  Meredith Poor Commented Apr 20, 2014 at 7:52
• 1 I second @MeredithPoor Nothing unethical about omitting the PhD. There was nothing unethical about getting a PhD in the first place but you have to play that game because somebody got pointy headed about PhD's –  Vietnhi Phuvan Commented Apr 20, 2014 at 11:38

3 Answers 3

Is this ethical?

You are under no obligation to include all of your degrees on your resume or application. Since it's usually best to tailor your resume to the desired job anyway, when you apply for a position where you feel a degree would be a negative, simply omit mentioning it.

Might it work?

If you are correct in your assessment that a doctorate is viewed as a negative for a particular position, then it certainly could work.

In general, I don't believe employers think that degrees themselves ever make people overqualified. Instead, an employer worries that a candidate expects that their advanced degrees entitle them to more than others receive. That might mean more salary, quicker advancement, or high-level positions.

For some positions, an advanced degree may indeed be beneficial or even required. But for other positions, such degrees hold little or no benefit. A potential employer might simply worry that the degree holder can't distinguish between the two situations. Once you have some work experience, and a track record of employment, that worry usually goes away.

• 1 I feel that by hiding it to have access to simpler jobs, as a way to amplify your opportunities, you are deceiving your future employer. He is worried about your getting bored in a couple months since you are doing a simpler job, not of your degree. If you want to hide the degree, I urge you to show it and explain why you are still a good option as a candidate on your cover letter on somewhere else. –  Spidey Commented Apr 20, 2014 at 19:06
• 4 @Spidey You seem to be talking about PhDs like one would talk about past criminal history :| 'By this logic, it's unethical to omit a qualification in, let's say, nail varnishing techniques, when applying for a role in accounting. That doesn't make sense to me. You show your relevant facets, depending on the job you're applying for, NOT everything about you. – yochannah Apr 20 '14 at 16:56' –  BCLC Commented Aug 12, 2015 at 19:09

It depends whether the job and your doctorate are in the same area of expertise, which I don't think you mentioned.

The answer you're pointing to speaks about omitting a certain piece of information from a CV, because the person applying to a new job does not want to work in his previous area of expertise and doesn't even want to be connected to it. That seems perfectly ethical to me.

But when you're applying for a job in the area of expertise that is the same as your doctorate, then not telling this to your possible future employer is – in my opinion – a typical example of hiding important information. Pretty much the same as problem discussed here .

From this point of view, whether you're hiding information about one of your previous positions of employment or hiding one of your university degrees, it sounds in both cases as a specific form of lie. That's not ethical at all in my opinion. Saying that I did three stages of education, not four, is pretty much the same as saying that I have work experience in seven, not eight, companies. I'm "silently" forgetting about one of them in both cases, right?

Consider what you're going to say if your interviewer finds out (by any means – piece of cake in our Facebook-like world) that you're actually a Ph.D., not merely an M.A. holder. He'll straightly ask you: "Tell me, why did you lie in your resume?"

If you're looking for a job in a completely different area of expertise, then answering such a question is pretty simple. "That's not a lie. I found this information completely not relevant to current interview process, as I don't see any connection between metallurgy, in which I have my Ph.D., and IT, in which I would like to work."

But, when you're applying to a company in the same area of expertise, then answering such questions could possibly be embarrassing and that's why the whole situation sounds pretty much unethical to me.

Finally, consider that in certain countries (like my homeland Poland) not mentioning your real education level is considered illegal according to local laws and regulations, as it is a lie in fact.

• Can you provide evidence that "it is a lie in fact" to omit specific degrees that you have taken? –  March Ho Commented May 10, 2016 at 4:29
• I don't know, what kind of evidence you expect. This is purely speculation and personal point of view. For me, saying "I'm not a doctor, I'm M.A." or saying just "I'm M.A." is the same kind of lie as saying "I'm not 45, I'm 33". Or just saying "I'm 33". All statements are true to some (I am M.A., because I have this degree even though I have higher one and I'm 33, because I have this age (and a little bit more)). But, I of course understand that for many this kind of thinking may be incorrect or some may disagree with me. –  trejder Commented May 10, 2016 at 5:41
• Plus -- of course (the most important argument) -- the question is not, what I am thinking or what you're thinking, but what a recruiter is going to think, when he finds out, that one of his applicants "forgot" to mention something in resume. This seems to be the most important thing and it seems most people are forgetting about this. If recruiter shares applicant's point of view, then fine. If he/she take this as a lie, then applicant is in kind of serious problems and nothing, we said here will help him (I said that I'm not Ph.D. because Workplace.se community told me to do so?). Right? –  trejder Commented May 10, 2016 at 5:44
• 1 The point is that omitting specifics in a document that did not require that you provide any and all qualifications does not even constitute a lie of omission. The analogy would be closer to saying "I like to read books" when asked about your hobbies, and omitting that you also like to cook. –  March Ho Commented May 10, 2016 at 5:48

This is the Sin of Omission . Regardless of whether you're religious or not, it's a falsehood.

If you want to downplay it, don't title your CV as "Doctor John Lennon Ph.D" - simply use your name without any prefixes or suffixes.

Place your education towards the bottom, if you have to. But don't leave it off.

Unlikely. At some point, your employer or co-workers will probably find out. How do you think they will feel about your deception? You lied to get the job, and you hid a significant part of yourself from them.

Ultimately, you wouldn't ask this question if you didn't think it was ethically sketchy.

Any decent employer will not reject you because of your qualifications. And, do you want to work for someone who feels threatened by your education?

• 16 By this logic, it's unethical to omit a qualification in, let's say, nail varnishing techniques, when applying for a role in accounting. That doesn't make sense to me. You show your relevant facets, depending on the job you're applying for, NOT everything about you. –  StackExchange What The Heck Commented Apr 20, 2014 at 16:56
• 2 There might be a miscommunication here. I believe what @terence tried to say is that if OP titles him/herself as a Dr. [OP]. Then the subsequent doctorate must be present in his/her resume. –  Bluebird Commented Aug 12, 2015 at 21:30
• 3 This is just wrong. There is no standard that a resume must include every detail of your history (it's not a CV) - you're allowed to include whatever true items you feel are relevant . –  nobody Commented Aug 14, 2015 at 3:14
• "Any decent employer will not reject you because of your qualifications. And, do you want to work for someone who feels threatened by your education?" An employer, even a decent one, is not going to hire a Ph D. for a low wage job (unless that doctorate is in Art History, or something equally unmarketable). It doesn't matter if you're truly sincere about wanting that job. Employers want continuity in their employees. And an employer who believes you will leave after a couple of months, because you have many more options than other candidates, is probably somewhat right in his assessment. –  Stephan Branczyk Commented Jun 12, 2016 at 20:20

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for browse other questions tagged resume applications ethics united-states ..

• Featured on Meta
• Upcoming sign-up experiments related to tags

Hot Network Questions

• Is there any reason to keep old checks?
• 3 doors guarded by 1 knight and 2 knaves
• What was the Nuclear Boy Scout's Eagle Scout Project?
• Is the complement of this context-free language also context-free?
• Article that plagiarized our paper is still available and gets cited - what to do?
• Reviewers do not live up to own quality standards
• How (if at all) are the PHB rules on Hiding affected by the Skulker feat and the Mask of the Wild trait?
• Power window switches stopped working 04 Chevy venture
• Why do some op amps' datasheet specify phase margin at open loop?
• Limitations on pain and pleasure, and the ratio of extremes assuming perfect technology
• Truncating seconds on label
• さくらが投げられた = Sakura got thrown, so why 私が言われる not "I got said"
• If I'm using HSTS, can I skip the scheme from my CSP directives?
• QGIS Batch Process
• Is a judge's completely arbitrary determination of credibilty subject to appeal?
• How can the CMOS version of 555 timer have the output current tested at 2 mA while its maximum supply is 250 μA?
• Can I enter France on an expired EU passport?
• Are many figures in a paper considered bad practice?
• Why was the SNES color gamut RGB?
• What is the use in arguing for or against the existence of metaphysical things?
• Advice for beginning cyclist
• Do AOSP users have "usernames"?
• Replacing grass against side of house
• Is there a second-order non-linear addition to Maxwell's equations?

Stack Exchange Network

Stack Exchange network consists of 183 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow , the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.

Q&A for work

Connect and share knowledge within a single location that is structured and easy to search.

As a PhD student, I want to limit myself to 40 hrs/week. How to maintain this boundary?

So I am considering a PhD position as it appears one opened up and I was contacted about it by a professor. I'm not desperate to get a PhD. I think it's a nice goal and I am interested in the subject but its completion is not something I am dead set on.

I have read some horror stories about hours worked which I refuse to fall into. I plan on documenting my hours worked and limit it to about 9-5, mon-fri, basically view it as a very poorly paying industry job while maintaining time for personal projects/startup ideas.

So my question is if my advisor starts to get pushy and demand I spend more time working, what's the best way to respectfully maintain my boundaries?

I figure the worst that could happen is my advisor cuts my funding at which point I would terminate. Practically speaking my MS is complete so besides giving me a bad reference there's not a ton that could be done to me.

• work-life-balance

• 6 Many people draw conclusions out of your post like "I am not dedicated to research", "I will under no circumstances work longer then 8 hours", "as soon as I find something better, I will go". Can you comment on them how true or false they are? Also, which country do you want to do the phd in? –  user111388 Commented Jul 12, 2020 at 11:23
• 2 My interest in completing the PhD is dependent with how much benefit I gain from it vs doing something else which depends on opportunities available at the given time. Again I think it's a nice goal, probably worth trying but I will continue to also spend time on other things. I live in the US. –  FourierFlux Commented Jul 12, 2020 at 15:50
• 6 The best weeks of grad school were the ones where I worked 80 hours because I couldn't stop thinking about the fascinating problem I was solving. I'd wake up in the night with a new idea and start working on it then. Of course, not every week can be that way. –  David Ketcheson Commented Jul 13, 2020 at 12:34
• 7 A PhD is an exercise in personal development. If you treat it like a job you can leave at the office, you're only really cheating yourself. You're right that the pay is poor - because the dividends are paid in experience. People work hard at a PhD because you have a limited window of opportunity to make the most of your time there. If you're planning to just treat this like a job, I'd seriously consider just getting a normal job. The pay is better and you don't seem terribly interested in taking advantage of the non-financial incentives that make the PhD worthwhile. –  J... Commented Jul 13, 2020 at 12:54
• 3 I strongly disagree that wanting to keep regular hours is missing the point of a PhD. I would actually say the opposite: failing to set boundaries around work during your PhD is a great way to ruin your mental and physical health, can make you susceptible to workplace abuse, and, ironically, will probably make you less productive. I would recommend that OP look into Cal Newport's blog posts on "fixed-schedule productivity" which address this exact issue in the context of graduate school. –  Patrick B. Commented Aug 10, 2020 at 19:33

13 Answers 13

First of all, I know many PhD students (also myself) who did exactly that and finished their phd: They worked 40 hours a week (or less), had a "normal life" , knew they would go to industry afterwards and wanted to learn/do research before (and stay connected to the system "university") because they loved uni/studying. It helps that in my country, studying and also titles are traditionally seen as something valuable (so there is no feeling of "only study if this aids you in your future job" in my country). Some students also saw it as a fun experience to live abroad before returning home. For me, it was similar: I didn't want to become a researcher because for me the postdoc life seems horrible -- but one can do a phd realtively risk-free. (Now I teach at university).

It is certainly not possible to work only 40h with all profs/in all subjects. Maybe also not in all countries (in which one do you want to study?) Probably it is also not possible with the most famous universities/professors.

I do recommend you to do good research on your prof what kind of person they are. Is it possible to do this kind of work with them or not?

I do think your attitude "I am not dead set on completing" is great. If the prof makes unreasonable demands (or other things like misconduct), just go. When they suggest longer working hours, tell them you don't want to do this unless absolutely necessary, if they keep insisting, just go. Do keep your eyes open while doing the phd for skills you need in industry.

Note that there are even (incredible) people who finish a PhD and have little kids (and some of them, no partner!)

(Of course, you might have two fewer papers afterwards for a good university career, but as this doesn't seem to be your goal..)

• 32 +1, though I would strengthen "do good research on your prof" to "explicitly discuss expectations and goals with the prof before accepting the position." –  cag51 ♦ Commented Jul 10, 2020 at 17:54
• Bear in mind that this "just go" ultimatum is equally likely to be wielded against you. PIs are used to being able to hold completion (and future career / network) over their PhDs, so you will need to mean it when you say this won't work on you –  benxyzzy Commented Jul 11, 2020 at 11:38
• 4 @benxyzzy: Yes. But if the professor says "do this bad thing or I kick you out" it is better not work with them. –  user111388 Commented Jul 11, 2020 at 13:23
• 5 This is almost word for word what I intended to reply. I was in that exact situation, had great fun with my PhD, had great fun with my friends partying hard, had great fun with my girlfriend to the point of marrying her and had a great time working for a company by the end of my PhD (which lengthened it by a year or so). I left academia after that (a mixture of not wanting to work in a feudal system, attraction to industry and willingness to quit at the top of the fun and to have only great, fondling memories of that extraordinary time in my life) –  WoJ Commented Jul 11, 2020 at 14:39
• 1 +1 across the board. I'd also advise you to contact some students who have worked with your prospective mentor to get a feel for what that person's expectations are like in practice. –  Patrick B. Commented Aug 10, 2020 at 19:41

One of the nice things about working at a university is that the working hours tend to be very flexible. In my experience, this is the main reason why PhD students (and faculty) don't have a 9 to 5 workday. Some work late, but many of those start late. Some work in burst, working long hours for some weeks (before a deadline), and taking it easy in other weeks. This flexibility is realy nice, but it does make it easier for advisors to demand unreasonable working hours from PhD students. We have all heard horror stories, but none of this happened to me or anyone I know directly. Most advisors are just normal humans who don't want to exploit others. Also, the topic of the power imbalance between advisors and PhD students is very well known in universities, and in all universities I have been at there are many faculty who may not be actively searching for signs of abuse, but do keep an eye open. None of this guarantees that no abuse happens, but it does put the horror stories in perspective (that does not help if you find yourself in such a horror story)

I have known one PhD student who maintained a Monday to Friday 9-5 workweek. This requires a lot of discipline, as you cannot rely on the institution to impose those hours on you (that is the flip-side of flexibility). She could do that by being very efficient while at work. By doing so, she got more work done than most PhD students who worked long hours. People, including her advisor, knew that, and respected her for that.

However, given the way you describe your "interest" in the position (not interested in completing, very poorly paid industry job), it does not seems you have the right motivation for this job. So I would recommend you think again whether this is really what you want to do.

• 28 I don't see the OP is not interested in completing the PhD. They mention they are not dead set on completing. I think that means "I want to finish, but if my advisor demands unreasonable things like abandoing the rest of my life I would rather give up". This is a good attitude, not a bad one. Remember that on this site, there is usually the advice "walk, don't run" and not "finish the phd no matter how much your health suffers". –  user111388 Commented Jul 10, 2020 at 10:53
• 17 The complete sentence is "I think it's a nice goal and I am interested in the subject but its completion is not something I am dead set on." That does not sound very motived to me... –  Maarten Buis Commented Jul 10, 2020 at 11:34
• 29 It does exactly sound very motivated to me. OP wants to do research but not at the cost of their personal life. This is totally reasonable. (If everyone would do this, conditions for phd students would be much better) –  user111388 Commented Jul 10, 2020 at 11:36
• 19 @user111388 There's commonly a point in the middle of your PhD where you'll inevitably feel like giving up (which is an ok thing to do obviously, if need be, but may have an adverse impact on you in the short term). The thing that gets you through that is generally determination. The OP sounds half-hearted about finishing the PhD before even starting it. As a result, the chances that they'll end up giving up half-way through seem quite high. That won't be good for the OP. Few sensible PIs would accept someone with this attitude going into a PhD. –  Stuart Golodetz Commented Jul 10, 2020 at 11:53
• 18 Note also the comment "I want some side hustles though and if they get funded or we're successful I would put the PhD on hold" - i.e. "I'm only doing the PhD as a 'faute de mieux' thing while I try and make other things work, and if they do, then 'c'ya!'." That just means taking up a PhD slot that the PI could have given to somebody else who actually intended to finish the PhD. –  Stuart Golodetz Commented Jul 10, 2020 at 11:57

"basically view [the PhD] as a very poorly paying industry job while maintaining time for personal projects/startup ideas"

Only that a PhD is not an industry job. In fact it is not even a job , at least not in most cases, or the successful cases.

How does the following sound like? "I want to star in films by Quarantine Tarantino or Martin Scorsese and become a Hollywood star. But I'm afraid they will push me to work beyond 40 hours per week for each film I'm starring in! "

Like any other highly creative and competitive work (e.g., film starring), doing research is not a job (again, in the successful cases). It is a dedication that one usually is passionate about. Viewing research and being an academic as a job is flawed in my opinion. Although it is possible to reduce it merely to "a job", it is logically flawed. If it is merely a job then it is not a good one: you can work less, be under much less pressure, and earn more and faster in other jobs.

Hence, my answer is that the premise of your question is dubious, and thus there seems not to be an appropriate answer to your question in the first place.

• 9 (Not the downvoter). I see no flaw: The user is motivated enough to work for less pay because of passion. But they don't want to work crazy hours. With "a job", IMO OP means "work job-like hours", not "doing something without motivation and passion". –  user111388 Commented Jul 10, 2020 at 11:52
• 8 Research is not highly competitive work, except for those aiming for a tenured position in a research university, or something similar. As most PhD graduates end up with jobs outside the academia, we should not assume that PhD students are even trying to become academics. –  Jouni Sirén Commented Jul 10, 2020 at 18:52
• 9 "except for those aiming for a tenured position in a research university, or something similar." ---which is basically the vast majority of PhD students. So the fact that they don't end up with academic jobs just proves the extreme level of competition. –  Dilworth Commented Jul 10, 2020 at 20:10
• 9 @Dilworth: do you have a source for your claim that this is true for the "vast majority of PhD students"? Among the math/computer science PhDs in my social circle, as well as among the psychology PhD students my wife supervises (and I work with on their statistics), I would say 10-20% of the students aim at a professorship. The vast majority I know just want to stay in academia for a few more years, go into more depth in a particular subject, and then leave. (As did I.) –  Stephan Kolassa Commented Jul 10, 2020 at 20:44
• 11 There's quite a bit of research that shows working more than 40 hours a week makes your work quality worse and lowers your total work output. You haven't made a very good argument for working more than 40 hours a week on a PhD -- the gist of your argument is pretty much survivorship bias. –  Kathy Commented Jul 10, 2020 at 22:37

I do think it is possible to do a PhD and only work 40 hrs a week on a normal week, if you are head down, supper efficient and committed with in that time. I'm not sure how possible it is if you are absolutely ridged about that, never working more than 9-5 irrespective of the circumstances. There will be times when experiments take longer, or deadlines are approaching when more is needed. The better organised you and the supervisor are, the less common such time will be, but I don't think they can ever be completely eliminated. For what its worth, I think this is also true of any profession job, academic or not.

In terms of commitment, I think its healthy to feel that you could walk away if it doesn't work out. But do have to want it to work out. The way you word things makes me feel like it working out and you finishing are not even your best case scenario (which would be your side hussle to pay off). If you are taking a PhD, the supervisor (at least a good one) if investing a lot of their personal capital and work into you. A student who leaves is a black mark against a supervisor. For a young supervisor in a competitive field it can be career-ending. For a poor or abusive supervisor this is deserved. And if the PhD is making somebody unhappy, hopefully a good supervisor would be able to take it on the chin. But to go in with this being your preferred outcome is not a good sign. This is what I meant when I talked about taking a PhD "in good faith" on your previous question .

If what you want is a poorly paying industry job, get a poorly paid industry job. A PhD is not an equivalent experience.

If you want to maintain this boundary, I would say it's quite simple. You tell the professor now, before starting the PhD: "I will not work beyond 5pm or on the weekends. I do want to keep side hustles going. Do you still want to offer me the PhD position?"

If they say yes, awesome, start the job. If they ask for more time from you, remind them of the boundaries you told them about before starting. As you say, there is not a whole lot that can be done to you, if getting the PhD or the recommendation is not important to you. However, do not be surprised if under these conditions, they do not want to offer it to you: I know of multiple professors who refused to take students who wanted to keep their own company going during the PhD. Precisely for the reason you mention: if the company takes off, the student will usually want to focus on that and not their PhD. And do be honest about this: pretending the PhD is your ultimate goal to the professor, while it's not, is not ok.

That said, even if the professor says yes, I would think really hard about whether you want to do this. There is nothing wrong with protecting your time off, and I actually think that on average I did not work much more than 40 hours per week during my PhD (I did some 80-hour work weeks before conference deadlines, but there was probably also enough slacking to offset the extremely busy weeks).

But this attitude of really not wanting to work a minute more and not caring (a whole lot) whether you finish is not often found in PhD students. It is also an attitude that may limit what you get from the PhD in terms of opportunities. If you're also happy to walk away after two years with no papers and no new opportunities (and possibly some burnt bridges) - then you have nothing to lose. If you would not be happy with that outcome, then consider it some more.

• 2 "It's quite simple" -- if and only if you have good social skills to formulate this well. "I don't want to work more than 40 hours on average" might sound bad to say in an interview, even if the prof was okay with it. –  user111388 Commented Jul 10, 2020 at 18:59
• I would try to publish at least one paper, making it somewhat worth while even if I didn't complete it. –  FourierFlux Commented Jul 10, 2020 at 19:27
• 1 @FourierFlux If a professor still says yes after you say to them what you described here, here's something to think about (although it's less of an issue with PhD positions than "postdoctoral" ones): Is there a chance that this professor was just looking for more manpower for their lab? Someone to get mechanical work done? Do the programming, do the experiment, move the big project forward (their project, not yours): these are things you can do Mon-Fri 9-5 and treat as a normal job. –  Szabolcs Commented Jul 12, 2020 at 11:37
• @FourierFlux If this is what that professor expects of you, you'd also be denied any independence, the chance to set your own course, the opportunity for creative work, all of those things that are worth getting out of a PhD. If you present yourself as just wanting to be a worker, with strict separation between work and personal time, you risk being treated as a mere worker. Except you'd get much lower pay than if they hired a programmer or a technician. So what would you be gaining from the PhD? –  Szabolcs Commented Jul 12, 2020 at 11:40

basically view it as a very poorly paying industry job while maintaining time for personal projects/startup ideas.

That is a bad way to start a PHD. There are a lot of "poorly paid industry jobs" in which the misalignment between you and your supervisors expectations will be smaller.

Yes, you can do a PHD 9 to 5, yes you may even get the title, and yes, maybe your supervisor is ok with the 9 to 5 part. What they definitely will be not ok with is that getting the phd for you is a low priority.

Maybe they would be happy to hire you as a lab technician (yes, bright people are needed there too, even if they don't want to get professor). But the continued mismatch between your goals and what you signed up for can not be a persistent thing. What I could imagine what works is: you check for 6 months, maybe you opinion changes. If it doesn't, you talk to you prof an tell him you are willing to work in the lab, but that a scientific career may not be for you (that is a discussion they will have had more often in their life).

Same as with a related question , there is an issue of the field.

You might not be able to, if your field does not permit

• Are you basically doing an office job in a low-competitive field? Probably, yes.
• Are you literary working in a field? Probably, no.
• Are you working with animals or cell cultures? Probably, no. And also forget about holidays and weekends for the duration of your PhD.
• Is it easier / cheaper to get machine / instrument time during non-working hours and you really need those 1000000 cores / 100000 MWh / 1E14 MeV / 7 meter dishes for your research? Probably, no.
• Do the experiments take a lot of time and typically finish in the middle of the night? Probably, no.
• Do you need to perform observations at night, because Sun is evil? You guess it!
• It is well accepted in your field that a person cannot maintain top intellectual performance for the full 8 hours and you really need that to get your research done? Probably, yes. (However, my impression is that mathematicians use quite every single moment of time for their research, they just interweb highly demanding parts with routine.)
• Are there too many aspiring PhD candidates and too few positions? Probably, no. Because, why get someone, who works 40 hours/week, if you can get someone willing to work 80 hours/week for the same money? Sorry, this is cynical and probably against the law.
• Again, are there too many aspiring PhD candidates and too few positions? Then it would be possible to hire someone for 20 hours/week and to coerce them to work 40+ hours and also on a weekend. Again, labor laws might have a different opinion on that. But, probably, no.

What are your goals?

People here mentioned a lot about PhD studies not being a job, research passion, and so on. If some anecdotical evidence helps you, most people I know, who have remained in academia, do not work 9-to-5.

So, if your goal is to stay at the university after your PhD: probably, no.

You might ask, why are we doing all this? Why are many of us sacrificing a lot of non-working time to do work-related things? Very simple. Research, and, by extension, academia, is not a job. It's a passion, which, coincidently, gets the bills payed.

• I think the problem is more the funding than the field itself. It is completely thinkable that people in biology etc. have holidays, get properly compensated for working at night - the problem is only that their is too less money and too many people are willing to take the little money. –  user111388 Commented Jul 13, 2020 at 17:37
• Funding is a problem, too. But the thing I've head through a grapevine, almost verbatim: "If you work with cell cultures, you don't have weekends, because you need to feed your cells every day". It might be insufficient funding for technical personnel, yes. Or it might be just how some labs roll. –  Oleg Lobachev Commented Jul 14, 2020 at 22:59
• But that's not the cell cultures, but funding or a sadistic professor. In the so-called "real life", there are also jobs where 24/7 someone has to work (eg prison or public transportation), yet people alternate on weekends and get paid a bonus for working on weekends and get the time they worked off during the week. –  user111388 Commented Jul 15, 2020 at 7:19
• @user111388 No, it's the cell cultures, or the animals, or so forth. There are similar jobs in industry where you know going into it that you might need to work a weird shift or late nights here an there since someone has to be there to do the work. Ideally you work in a big enough group where you coordinate the bad shifts (academia) or you are compensated for it (industry), but sometimes it just is what it is. –  anonymous Commented Apr 20, 2021 at 21:59

I like your question. I don't think so what you propose is possible. Time limits would only be enforceable in jobs which are well defined for example cutting the grass, fielding sales calls, etc. PhD is an open-ended job, quite unlike conventional ones. It is done with a fixed goal in mind. The goal may be to publish a certain amount of papers, do sufficient research, etc. Basically do some amount of work which would satisfy your supervisor. When the works are ill-defined they are less enforceable in the amount of time they take. This problem is surely going to torpedo your working hour limits. Hence it would either cause you to leave within a month or so or you would continue to solder on having completely betrayed yourself.

Of-course all this is assuming you can get an advisor to agree with your terms of working hour limits. You should count yourself to be very lucky indeed to get hold of such an advisor in the first place.

You state clearly that you wish to have finite commitment because you want to reserve time for other projects. What you are describing is de facto part-time studies.

If you are serious about your PhD, it will require as much time as needed to complete it, with little to no time for start-ups. If you are serious about a start-up, this will also require as much time as needed, leaving no time for a PhD. [Famous quote: you do not own a start-up, the start-up owns you.]

In a PhD or in the start-up world, there will be moments when 40hrs/week will be vastly insufficient because of deadlines, i.e. exams, presentations, prototyping etc to prepare. If you are working on an experiment or doing field work, you need to do as much as possible when the apparatus works or when you are in the field: one does not stop at 5pm after spending all day correctly tuning some piece of equipment. If you have an investor meeting on a Monday morning, expect to spend the weekend working on your product, or the sales pitch, or whatever is required by your boss on Monday morning or before.

Finally, if you want your supervisor to commit time and resources towards your success, you better first show that you yourself are willing commit all the time needed.

It is an interesting question. What you did not mention is what discipline you want to do a PhD in and in what country.

For instance, in the UK, PhD costs a lot of money (about £9000 per year for at least 3 years for home students and at least twice that for internationals). So, if you are paying and have done 2 years already (and spent £18000 only on fees and about the same on living costs) you are unlikely to do out.

Saying that, most people do not pay for themselves though. There are a lot of funded positions (and you will even get reasonable bursary), but they have a catch. If you are funded by the department or university, you will have to do teaching (usually, 500 hours per year, lab sessions, marking, etc). Alternatively, your position can be funded through the project grant which your supervisor has. In that case you will have to work on the project besides your PhD topic. In any case, you will effectively have two jobs.

Also, discipline do matter. I cannot say for Humanities (probably reading enormous amount of literature), but on physics, chemistry, biology you will have at least some experimental work. Some experiments are very-very long and/or require attendance over several days (including weekends). You may have some resources they require regular maintenance, e.g. mice or mosquitoes which need to be fed and cared for 7 days a week. So, in this case keeping it to 40 hours a week is virtually impossible.

In disciplines like maths, computer science, data science etc it is a bit easier. You can choose when and where you are working, but these disciplines usually involve a lot of coding, which again usually requires about 10 times more time than planned (due to code debugging).

I have done PhD in applied math, I was definitely working much less than 40 hours a week (except about 2 months during writing thesis) and still did it in less than 3 years. Yes, I was also teaching and doing actually much more than 500 hours a year (getting very generous pay for the extra hours).

In general, I would not say that normal prof will demand you to work any specific number of hours. Academia is about flexibility. Nobody cares whether you are working 1 hour a day or 20 hours a day. All people care is the results you get.

The biggest issue here is that I am afraid, you have a bit wrong attitude towards academic work in general and PhD in particular. Even if you do not actively working on something, you usually keep thinking about something ("where is the mistake?", "How to make this work?", "How to improve this?", etc). Academia is not an industrial job, it is a way of life. And PhD is not different. And you should enjoy this way of life. At the same time I should admit that I can spend a lot of time with family and maintain healthy work-life balance.

So, if you are not sure, I would suggest going to industry for several years and then decide whether you need a PhD or not. Actually, many large companies would happily fund your PhD course if you will make a compelling case that you need it to fulfill your duties better.

• It does not change much, but fees for home students are less than half of that (£4,327 for 2019-20) –  fqq Commented Jul 12, 2020 at 8:41
• 1 "Alternatively, your position can be funded through the project grant which your supervisor has. In that case you will have to work on the project besides your PhD topic." In most cases the PhD topic is part of the bigger grant project, not a separate one. –  fqq Commented Jul 12, 2020 at 8:44
• Thank you very much for correcting regarding fees. You are right, PhD fees are a bit lower than UG and taught PG degrees. Yet, it is still a lot. –  Vitaly Commented Jul 13, 2020 at 9:46
• Regarding the project funding, PhD topic is usually related to larger project, but in most cases not exactly the in line with the project. So, whereas learning part can be combined, actual research is actually separated. That is from my experience working in several research groups with PhDs... –  Vitaly Commented Jul 13, 2020 at 9:49

Talk about this in your interview. If you aren’t having an interview, you need to make sure there is one - you need to hear the professors expectations, and share yours. If you aren’t on the same page with the professor about hours and other factors, you’ll have a challenge staying in the limits you want to set yourself, or it will lead to conflict.

A 40-hour per week doctorate is possible, if you are not expected to teach or pick up other duties besides those purely related to your research.

• But, as I said somewhere else, formulate your statemwnt well! Most supervisors I know who have no problem with someone working "only" 40h would be turned off if someone says at the interview "I only want to work 40h on avarage". First impressions are important! –  user111388 Commented Jul 13, 2020 at 17:32

The first thing would be to make sure the professor you would be working with does not expect anything else. That would mean speaking to people who know them, have worked with them, or even email some of their past PhD students to see what they are like as a supervisor. Even better if there is someone in the department you know well that you can ask about them (via unofficial channels as any bad habits are more likely to be glossed over via email ect). And when speaking to them about it, it is worth raising this as a concern and ask about it. If they try to emotionally manipulate you (e.g. 'you should do this because you love it' or something to similar effect) then you can just safely ignore the offer.

A practical point if you do start is to organise regular meetings with your supervisor (which you can also ask them about) and keep track of what you accomplished in the last week and what you aim to do in the next week and in the next month to help keep you on track. This may help you be more productive, but you are going to have to work smart during those 9-5 hours. You may also have to be flexible and expect to work longer some weeks and less other weeks, or working a non-standard work week (particularly if you have international collaborators or experiments to run).

But the most important question is why are you considering doing this PhD? You said that you would be happy not to complete. Is this a field that you are interested in and want to learn more about? Is this a field you want to work in at some point in the future or are open to an academic career? Are the skills you would pick up important for future work or would you like to do a start-up in this field? Is this a placeholder that you aren't against doing but really is just there to fill time?

If this is not important for your goal career or not something that you really want to learn more about (and are willing to dedicate a number of years of your life to) then you might want to ask yourself what other options could you take that would help you towards that goal. If you are interested in start-ups you could try to get employed at a start up to see how people run them, as well as potentially getting some connections that are important for initial funding. But also keep in mind that if you are interested in start ups in this field you have been working on then the skills you would gain in a PhD would be useful, particularly there are some similarities between a start-up's lean development, and the hypothesis design/testing of research (I'm particularly thinking in the sciences).

It is actually very difficult to maintain any boundaries while doing PhD. Up to degree that in some universities PhD students employed 50 % are expected to work somewhat 120 %, and whose who do not are quickly dismissed by professor simply saying "I think you are not the right person type for a scientist".

Researchers are, you see, mad a little bit, just like a pop culture pictures them. If you want to "balance life and work" or something the like, just do not join them.

Similarly, students are often expected to work hard and not to "balance life and work" instead. PhD is still considered an education.

I do not know, maybe somebody see this answer as disrespect to something but I would like bystanders to know how the knowledge and technology we all later enjoy is built. Regardless if you search for a new planet or a new algorithm of computing, it is always a real hell of work and uncertainty.

• 1 As someone who is about to finish his PhD soon, the fact that you consider this "normal" is the problem itself. If what you're suggesting is true then it means that Academia is toxic to a healthy lifestyle on principal. –  Aventinus Commented Jul 16, 2020 at 14:17
• 1 I do not know exactly the recent situation, but at the time I was doing PhD it was not uncommon to employ PhD students in some branches (notably biology) 50 %. This does not mean that these students were expected to work 50 % only, and I know the case when a person who assumed have been dismissed as I describe. This was happening inside a highly reputable university on the center of Europe. I know laboratories where professor called a meeting on Saturday, expecting all to be present. As a researcher, I see unethical to adjust the truth regardless if it looks toxic to somebody or not. –  algorithmic_fungus Commented Jul 16, 2020 at 14:35
• 2 I agree with h22 that this thread is giving prospective PhD candidates a false impression, which is unethical. The current publish or perish working culture is more often than not toxic to a healthy lifestyle (look up mental health surveys of PhDs, almost all of them excelled as undergraduate students), and we should not hide that, putting all responsibility on the individual with statements like "but if you are very disciplined you can do it in 9-5" or "you don't belong to us if you are not passionate enough to be in work mode 24/7". –  kapibarasama Commented Jul 16, 2020 at 21:16
• The overworking culture may not be worth it, and we need to think something about that. The overworking culture exists. –  algorithmic_fungus Commented Jul 17, 2020 at 7:10

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for browse other questions tagged phd work-life-balance ..

• Featured on Meta
• Upcoming sign-up experiments related to tags

Hot Network Questions

• The term 'sfp' is not recognized
• 2D Pathfinding with rope constraint
• Do rich parents pay less in child support if they didn't provide a rich lifestyle for their family pre-divorce?
• When hiding behind something, can you even make a ranged attack with advantage?
• RMS of sine wave curve defined between two points
• Why was the SNES color gamut RGB?
• Did the NES CPU save die area by omitting BCD?
• Geographic distribution of Bitcoin users
• Is there a second-order non-linear addition to Maxwell's equations?
• How do I apply the negative of a gate in Qiskit
• Do AOSP users have "usernames"?
• Advice for beginning cyclist
• Are there good examples of regular life being theory-laden?
• Does the recommendation to use password managers also apply to corporate environments?
• Animated series about a tribe searching for a utopia with a kid who is different from the rest of them
• "Could" at the beginning of a non-question sentence
• Why is my bike clunky, and what is this loose string?
• Checking if a certain fragment is located earlier in the document
• How to draw this abstract curve design
• Why should you want to use a smaller size control group?
• Approximation algorithm for binary (linear) programs
• Why are heavy metals toxic? Lead and Carbon are in the same group. One is toxic, the other is not
• Calculating percentage coordinates on an arc
• QGIS Batch Process

The Ever-Tightening Job Market for Ph.D.s

Why do so many people continue to pursue doctorates?

If you’re a grad student, it’s best to read the latest report from the National Science Foundation with a large glass of single-malt whiskey in hand. Scratch that: The top-shelf whiskey is probably out of your budget. Well, Trader Joe’s “Two Buck Chuck ” is good, too!

Liquid courage is a necessity when examining the data on Ph.D.s in the latest NSF report, “ The Survey of Earned Doctorates ,” which utilized figures from the University of Chicago’s National Opinion Research Center. The report finds that many newly minted Ph.D.s complete school after nearly 10 years of studies with significant debt and without the promise of a job. Yet few people seem to be paying attention to these findings; graduate programs are producing more Ph.D.s than ever before.

Getting a Ph.D. has always been a long haul. Despite calls for reform , the time spent in graduate programs hasn’t declined significantly in the past decade. In 2014, students spent eight years on average in graduate school programs to earn a Ph.D. in the social sciences, for example. It takes nine years to get one in the humanities, seven for science fields and engineering, and 12 for education, according to NSF. In other words, Ph.D.s are typically nearing or in their 30s by the time they begin their careers. Many of their friends have probably already banked a decade’s worth of retirement money in a 401K account; some may have already put a down payment on a small town house.

While most doctoral students rely primarily on some combination of grants, teaching assistantships, and research positions to cover tuition and living expenses, they also often use personal savings, spouses’ earnings, and student loans. Consequently, more than 12 percent of all Ph.D.s complete their doctoral programs with over $70,000 of combined undergraduate and graduate student-loan debt. Rates are especially high in the social sciences and education. Those debt levels are alarming, especially because fewer students have jobs lined up immediately after graduation than was the case 10 years ago.

The job market for those with advanced degrees is clearly tightening, according to the NSF study, with many more Ph.D.s in all fields reporting no definite job commitments in 2014 compared to 2004. Nearly 40 percent of the Ph.D.s surveyed in 2014 hadn’t lined up a job—whether in the private industry or academia—at the time of graduation.

It may not be surprising that Ph.D.s in the humanities and social sciences are struggling to find tenure-track faculty jobs. After all, graduate schools produced two new history Ph.D.s for every tenure-track job opening in 2014. However, with the heavy push towards STEM at universities and opportunities for positions in the private industry, the employment woes for engineering and science Ph.D.s are puzzling.

Ph.D. graduates who reported that they had accepted positions found work in the private industry, academia, or as post-docs. Most Ph.D.s in the humanities, education, and social sciences who have secured plans will work in academia—but the report does not indicate whether they are employed in tenure-track positions, in non-tenure track jobs, or as temporary adjunct jobs , which have grown in popularity in recent years.

A Ph.D. who wins the rare job as a tenure-track professor earns on average about $60,000 per year, according to the NSF report. In contrast, post-doc positions—temporary research spots that are most common in the sciences and draw 39 percent of the Ph.D.s with post-graduation commitments at universities—pay a little over $40,000 per year. Incidentally, the median entrance-level salary for college graduates with a B.A. in 2014 was $45,478 .

It’s unclear what happens to the 40 percent of Ph.D.s who don’t get a job of some sort—even of the post-doc variety—after graduation. Perhaps some move onto other professions after a year or so. Maybe some work for peanuts as adjuncts. Others may rely on their partner’s income. What’s more, as Inside Higher Ed’s Scott Jaschik notes, the tightening job market means increases in job-market competitiveness, as new Ph.D.s must compete for positions not only with their own cohort but also with the unemployed Ph.D.s. who graduated in previous years.

So, you would think that this kind of information, which has already been discussed in many news articles and books over the years, would dissuade universities from admitting more students. You might even think that super-smart students would try their hands at other careers. After all, when news about the bad employment market for lawyers came out, the number of applications to law schools plummeted . Wouldn’t the same thing happen to Ph.D. programs? Apparently not.

In 2014, doctoral programs in the United States awarded 54,070 Ph.D.s—12,000 more than 2004. All fields, except for education, saw an increase, with the biggest increases in science and engineering.

Why hasn’t all this information helped winnow down the ranks of aspiring professors—why hasn’t it proved to be an effective Ph.D. prophylactic? Are people risking so much in the hopes of getting a cushy job with a six-figure salary and no teaching requirements? Is it because academia is a cult that makes otherwise sane people believe that there is no life outside of the university? Are graduate programs failing to inform their students about the realities of the job market? There are no answers to those questions in the charts and graphs from the NSF.

Without serious changes in higher education, such as higher pay for adjunct professors or decreasing the time spent in graduate school, chances are thousands of new Ph.D.s in their early 30s will be struggling this fall.

• Jul 22, 2022
• 11 min read

Is a PhD Worth It? The Pros and Cons of Getting a Doctorate

To get a PhD or not to get a PhD? That is the question.

Valerie David

Lifestyle and Career Expert

Reviewed by Hayley Ramsey

Entering the job market for the first time can be a stressful experience, especially if you don't feel completely prepared. When deciding how to take those first steps toward your ultimate career , and how to give yourself a chance at the best jobs, you may find yourself asking: “Should I do a PhD?”.

While academics looking forward to a life of learning may consider this a no-brainer, there are important factors for everyone to consider. Finances, job prospects and quality of life issues can greatly affect the success of furthering your education.

To help you decide if the time and effort of a PhD is worth it, here are the major benefits and disadvantages of getting that doctorate.

After four or more years of intellectual pursuits, adding a PhD may seem like overkill. Before you make your choice, let's look at all the benefits that are exclusive to earning the most advanced degree.

1. You can contribute new knowledge to the world

Embarking on a PhD programme means delving into your preferred subject in a much deeper way than you have in any of your previous studies. The beauty of this advanced degree is that it allows you to sail in uncharted waters. Your goal is to find new information, draw new conclusions and, hopefully, make a significant contribution to your field.

Your intensive research, travel, collaboration and study will lead you on an unpredictable path to telling a story that no one has heard before. For some students, this pursuit of knowledge and discovery is enough to make all the hard work of earning a PhD worth it.

2. You'll have access to more prestigious jobs

One of the key benefits of a PhD is that it opens doors to careers at the highest levels. This can include leadership positions in science and engineering, government roles in economics and political science, and prestigious teaching posts for English and arts majors. Even if an advanced degree isn't required for the job you want, that PhD can give you an extra air of authority in your field and an edge over other candidates.

Another obvious upside to continuing your postgraduate studies is that landing these powerful positions can lead to large financial rewards. Some areas of study, like medicine and the law, tend to be more lucrative, but it can also depend on the type of job. For example, a university professor or researcher post can pay well for a wide variety of disciplines. Check out sites like the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the National Careers Service to investigate potential salaries.

3. Employers look for candidates with your superior writing skills

A study arranged by the National Commission on Writing discovered that blue-chip businesses (long-standing companies with stable stock growth) are spending more than $3 billion a year on remedial writing course for current employees. This includes staff with undergraduate degrees.

So, when a hiring manager peruses your résumé and sees that you've earned a PhD, they'll know immediately that you've spent years honing your skills at compiling research, organizing mountains of data and writing about your results in a cohesive and persuasive way. This will clearly set you apart from your competition, while landing your dream job will prove that pursuing that advanced degree was worth it.

4. You'll improve on all your soft skills

While pursuing your undergraduate degree, you likely noticed that you were learning more than just the subject matter taught in each class. Completing your studies also required time management skills , focus and problem solving .

Getting a doctorate degree requires even more of the soft skills that employers look for in applicants . Your intensive study and finished thesis should lead to improvements in your problem solving, critical thinking , patience and adaptability . These desirable skills won't just help you land a job but also excel in whatever career you choose to pursue .

5. You'll collect an extensive network of professional colleagues

When weighing the pros and cons of earning a PhD, consider all the professional contacts you'll make during the course of your studies. Working closely with professors, department heads, experts in your field, as well as fellow researchers, helps you develop an important resource. This network of colleagues can provide continual assistance with references, job leads, career advice and collaboration.

6. You can wait for a more favorable job market

Job prospects may not look that promising when you've completed your undergraduate degree, or even after you've been in the workforce for a few years. While there's no guarantee things will improve after a delay, some students may appreciate the benefit of a steady graduate assistant salary while they work on enhancing their résumé with a doctorate.

If you couldn't get a good internship during or after your undergrad studies, the PhD work also gives you the time to build that professional network . These contacts could prove to be the key to breaking into a specialized or highly competitive field.

You may still be thinking about all that time and commitment and wondering, “Is a PhD worth it?”. While there are always positive results from improving your education, there are some downsides to getting your doctorate.

1. It's expensive

This is a substantial factor for many students when weighing the merits of pursuing a PhD versus entering the job market right away. If you already have student loans , continuing your education will just increase your burden and add substantial pressure when you eventually begin your job search.

If cost is a concern, investigate graduate assistant jobs that help with expenses. Some programmes offer tuition assistance in return for teaching or research work. For those who already work full time and are hoping a PhD will help them advance in their career, consider keeping that job and pursuing your studies on a part-time basis.

2. Getting a PhD can be a lonely experience

Despite your interactions with professors and other students, pursuing a doctoral degree is ultimately a solitary pursuit. Your thesis topic is unique to you, and you'll spend a lot of time alone doing research and writing. Your social life can suffer, especially if you're also working in addition to your studies.

Career experts often talk about the necessity of work-life balance for physical and mental health, and this is just as important for PhD students as anyone else. It may take you a little longer to complete your degree, but it's worth taking the time to visit family and hang out with your friends. These positive interactions can help you stay motivated through the most tedious parts of your work.

3. You'll experience extreme stress and frustration

Pursuing a PhD may seem like a noble and interesting endeavor, and extended life as a student can appear more attractive than wading into the job market. You must be aware, however, that getting a doctorate can be a very stressful and frustrating experience.

A topic that seemed intriguing at first may not live up to years of scrutiny, causing boredom at best or requiring a complete thesis change at worst. Not all programmes are well-run, either, and you may have a supervisor who is too critical, offers poor advice or is just unavailable and unhelpful.

The difficulties of a PhD programme lead to rather substantial dropout rates. In the US alone, only 57% of PhD students obtained their degree within a decade of enrolling. If you want to be in the successful half of those stats, take extra time to review your choice of supervisor and topic focus. Ask every professor you have for advice on making the right decisions and talk with current graduate students to see what their experience has been.

4. There may be limited job openings

While getting a PhD can qualify you for better and higher-paying jobs , it can also put you in a position where you're competing for an extremely limited number of job openings. This is especially true of university jobs, where the number of advanced degree graduates far outpaces the need for full-time instructors, researchers and administrators.

Earning your PhD with a very obscure thesis in a niche speciality can also limit your options. When there are only a handful of jobs that suit your expertise, and they're already occupied, it can make you feel that your doctorate was a waste of time. Consider the job market before you make decisions about getting another degree. If you're determined to study in a niche area, think ahead of time about related fields or industries where your knowledge and skills will also prove useful to employers.

5. There may be little to no financial reward

While most studies concur that having a PhD increases your income potential substantially over the lifetime of your career, it's not a guarantee of job security or a financial windfall. A study by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) found that 5 years after earning their doctorates , 45% of grads in Germany were still on temporary contracts and 13% ended up in lowly occupations.

Other European countries, including Slovakia, Belgium and Spain, had similar results. In the US, in fields like engineering, the difference in pay scales between employees with a master's degree and a PhD was a mere 7%. When that small bump in salary is weighed against the amount of debt taken on in order to get your degree, you may decide it's not worth it.

6. You could lose out on valuable job experience

New forms of technology continue to change how organizations operate, and those changes can happen fast. If you've already spent several years in school, toiling away in solitary study of obscure subjects can cause you to fall further behind in learning the skills you'll actually need for a future career.

Before you invest in getting a PhD, research your chosen field and learn which type of degree will give you the most value. Many scientific, financial and computing careers rely more on skills acquired on the job, rather than in coursework that can quickly become outdated.

Questions to ask yourself

You’ve listed out the pros and cons, but that still may not be enough to help make your decision. When it comes to a life-altering change like getting a doctorate, it’s okay to take enough time to ask yourself specific questions to ensure you’re making the right move. Consider asking yourself the following:

• Why do I want to get a PhD?
• Do I have the pre-requisites to move forward to a PhD?
• What are my strengths and limitations?
• Am I financially prepared?
• Am I mentally prepared?
• How will this affect my relationship with my family or friends?
• Where will I study?
• What am I trying to achieve?
• What jobs will be available to me after I get my PhD?
• Are there other options or avenues to consider?

Unfortunately, you may not have the answer to every one of these questions, because let’s face it, you don’t know what you don’t know. You might not know how it will affect your relationship with family or friends, but why not ask them? Reach out to those closest to you and see how you pursuing this degree could trickle down to them and allow that to play into your decision. Evaluate the answers to these questions and use it to help you make an educated decision on your future moving forward.

The best PhD degrees

If you’ve weighed out the pros and cons, asked all the important questions, and now you’re set on getting your PhD, congratulations! To help you along the way, let’s look at a list of the most valuable PhD programs to start you on your way to this degree.

• Criminal Justice
• Engineering
• Cybersecurity
• Business Administration

These fields are rapidly growing and are among the highest-paying doctorate degrees in 2022 , so they might be worth considering as you start your journey.

Key takeaways

Pursuing your PhD requires an incredible amount of commitment, and it's important to take the necessary time to make the decision. As you’re evaluating a doctorate degree, remember the following:

• Evaluate the pros and cons list right from the beginning to ensure you’re weighing out both sides of the coin.
• Ask yourself the necessary questions. A doctorate degree commitment can affect more than just you, so be sure you’re factoring that into your decision.
• Review specifically which PhD would be best for you and your field progression.
• Research your chosen field carefully and evaluate the job market before you finalize your degree choice.
• Once you’ve selected your degree, stay focused and stay driven. It’s going to be a hard few years, but it will be worth the work!

Who knows, this may prompt you to move on to postgraduate study — never stop achieving!

Have you decided to pursue your PhD, or are you still considering your options? Join us in the comments below and let us know what’s stopping or encouraging you from getting a PhD.

Originally published on July 24, 2019. Updated by Shalie Reich.

Continuing Education

Courses and Qualifications

More From Forbes

Still struggling to find a job here's why it is so hard.

• Share to Facebook
• Share to Twitter
• Share to Linkedin

Job hunters feel they have to try harder to find a new job in this economy. Nearly 70% of people ... [+] said their current job search was more challenging than their last one, according to Aerotek.

If you are struggling to find a new job, you are not alone. More than 70% of job seekers believe that the current labor market is not conducive to landing a new employment opportunity, with job hunters feeling they have to try harder to find a new job in this economy, according to talent solutions provider Aerotek. Nearly 70% of people said their current job search was more challenging than their last one.

Research by human capital advisory firm Josh Bersin Company and workforce solutions business AMS found that the duration for global hiring is at an “ all-time high .” The recruitment process now averages about 43 days, which the report calls “unsustainable if companies are to remain competitive and keep pace with the fast-changing needs of their industry.”

Why Has The Hiring Process Become So Unbearable?

When the economy and overall mood are positive, businesses generally expedite the hiring process, so as not to lose out in the war for talent. Conversely, geopolitical concerns, supply chain disruptions and high inflation and interest rates create a perfect storm of economic turbulence, leading employers to cut back on spending and take a wait-and-see approach when it comes to hiring.

The tech industry, in particular, has seen a reversal of trends that were favorable for employment, such as increased hiring to meet consumer demand and the ability to raise capital and invest in growth due to slashed interest rates. The layoffs that have taken place in this sector since mid-2022 were part of a market correction, as companies adjust their staffing levels to align with their current revenue and growth projections.

A competitive white-collar job market, caused partly by many displaced workers due to job cuts, gives companies the green light to take their time selecting candidates. In this hiring environment, employers have the upperhand, while job seekers typically hold less bargaining power.

Best High-Yield Savings Accounts Of 2024

Best 5% interest savings accounts of 2024.

Additionally, as businesses compete in the artificial intelligence arms race, they are actively redirecting resources and budgets from other divisions to fund and prioritize AI-based projects and hiring the talent to work on these specific teams.

Moreover, the layoffs that followed the Great Resignation hiring boom disproportionately impacted human resources professionals , which means that organizations are also working with less HR firepower, and may explain why the hiring process has felt disjointed.

Candidates for white-collar positions must endure a seemingly unending number of interviews. The pandemic ushered in video interviews, displacing in-person meetings. This online trend has made it easier for recruiters to request and conduct more and more rounds of interviews compared to the prior process of setting up an appointment and going into an office.

Employment Data

The United States economy added 272,000 jobs in May, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Although more jobs were added last month than predicted, in contrast to April’s disappointing numbers, the growth was mainly driven by three predominant sectors: healthcare (+68,000), government (+43,000) and leisure and hospitality (+42,000). Jobs created in these three sectors alone accounted for more than half of the employment gains in the U.S.

The unemployment rate climbed to 4%, the first time it has reached that level since January 2022.

Additionally, the Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey published last week by BLS revealed that U.S. job openings declined more than anticipated in April, with the number of available roles per job seeker at its lowest in nearly three years. Job openings, which are a benchmark of labor demand, fell 296,000 to 8.059 million , the lowest level since February 2021.

When Your Job Search Isn’t Working, Do This

While the hiring environment may be working against you, there are things you can do in your job search to change course and better position yourself to acquire a new job. If you are not having success in your job hunt, it may be time to engage in self-reflection.

Take time to evaluate your job search approach. You don’t want to keep doing the same things and expecting different results. Continually analyze your failures objectively and identify mistakes, knowledge gaps, lapses in judgment and areas you can improve upon for the future.

Reflecting honestly can help you learn and grow. Recognize failures as feedback and opportunities for growth—not signals to give up. Setbacks prepare you for later wins, if you can learn from them.

Your Action Plan

Once you gain a better sense of self and where you can personally develop, write out your career goals and define a daily game plan to achieve them. This will help in holding yourself accountable.

Identify and compile a list of potential target employers that align with your goals. Tap into your professional network, attend industry events and connect with people who work in your desired sector. Seek advice from mentors, coaches, sponsors and truth-tellers who will offer feedback, constructive criticism, advice and guidance. Reach out to recruiters who specialize in placing people in your sector.

Ensure that when you are applying for jobs that your résumé clearly addresses the needs and wants of the job descriptions, so that the candidate fit is obvious. You should be tailoring this document for each role you apply for. Instead of just listing your responsibilities, your résumé should demonstrate your value and how you were impactful in your previous roles. It should outline a clear progression in your career and tell a story.

During an employment gap, you must always work on developing your skills and qualifications. You can go back to school, take online courses, attend workshops or volunteer to gain relevant experience.

Before a job interview, do your homework. You must familiarize yourself with the company’s products, services, business models, achievements and mission statement. Craft your elevator pitch and prepare by practicing answering frequently asked questions aloud. If you can, do a mock interview with an individual you trust and ask for feedback.

One of the biggest problems that job seekers have is that they carry around the baggage of their past failures and rejections. When people feel resentment and bitterness toward their current situation, it’s painfully obvious to others. The professionals involved in the interview process sense the hostility and get turned off by it. The hiring personnel will then pass on your candidacy and move on to other applicants.

Before continuing on in your job hunt, you need to check in on your mental health and ensure that you have a positive mindset. Do the necessary work to put any bad feelings behind you and not let your past rejections define you. Stop carrying this burden around like a weight on your shoulders. You want to exude positivity, confidence, drive, enthusiasm and motivation throughout the interview process.

Keep meticulous track of each and every victory, no matter how small it may seem. Celebrate every gain you make in your job search. With all the small wins, your confidence will grow and people will notice it.

If you are still having no luck in your job search, you may want to consider a career reinvention or pivot.

• Editorial Standards
• Reprints & Permissions

Join The Conversation

One Community. Many Voices. Create a free account to share your thoughts. 

Forbes Community Guidelines

Our community is about connecting people through open and thoughtful conversations. We want our readers to share their views and exchange ideas and facts in a safe space.

In order to do so, please follow the posting rules in our site's  Terms of Service.   We've summarized some of those key rules below. Simply put, keep it civil.

Your post will be rejected if we notice that it seems to contain:

• False or intentionally out-of-context or misleading information
• Insults, profanity, incoherent, obscene or inflammatory language or threats of any kind
• Attacks on the identity of other commenters or the article's author
• Content that otherwise violates our site's  terms.

User accounts will be blocked if we notice or believe that users are engaged in:

• Continuous attempts to re-post comments that have been previously moderated/rejected
• Racist, sexist, homophobic or other discriminatory comments
• Attempts or tactics that put the site security at risk
• Actions that otherwise violate our site's  terms.

So, how can you be a power user?

• Stay on topic and share your insights
• Feel free to be clear and thoughtful to get your point across
• ‘Like’ or ‘Dislike’ to show your point of view.
• Protect your community.
• Use the report tool to alert us when someone breaks the rules.

Thanks for reading our community guidelines. Please read the full list of posting rules found in our site's  Terms of Service.

By clicking Allow All , you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and help our marketing efforts.

Student Loans

Internationals

Refinancing & Consolidation

Juno In Our Words

Juno in Your Words

Talk to Juno

Student Loan Guides

Calculators & Scholarships

Financial Literacy Hub

Other Resources

Our 2024 student loan deals are live now! See your rates without affecting credit here.

Have existing federal student loans? Calculate potential forgiveness here.

Best 5 PHD Reddit Posts Everyone Should Read

Getting a PHD is a big decision. This article lists the top Reddit posts regarding getting a PHD.

Sep 10, 2021

As a current or prospective PhD student, Reddit can be an excellent place to share your experience and learn from the experience of others. It's also a good way to get advice if you're not sure whether a PhD program is right for you. 

The good news is that there are already plenty of PhD Reddit posts that provide a wealth of information about the process and what to consider before you pull the trigger on a doctorate program.

Here are five of those posts and how they can help you make the best decision about your education.

1. There's no guarantee that a PhD will improve your career path

Many people pursue a PhD program in order to increase their chances of getting a good job or earn more money. According to data gathered by  Michigan State University , the expected lifetime earnings for someone with a PhD is $3.3 million, compared to $2.7 million for Master's degree holders and $2.3 million for graduates with a bachelor's degree.

But just because the averages work in favor of getting a PhD — some career paths offer more potential than others — that doesn't mean it's going to work for you.

In one  post , user AltAcAcct shared their regret of going through a PhD program. Despite attending a prestigious "public ivy" school and having many other impressive experiences, AltAcAcct was in their second year of trying to find a job with no luck.

They implored readers to reconsider why they want to obtain a PhD and think about the potential downsides. While they had more pointed advice leaning toward not pursuing a PhD at all, it's important to decide for yourself if it's worth it to you.

The important thing is that you take the time to research your options — including ways to excel in your field without a PhD — and determine whether the potential risk of not getting a return on your investment of time and money is worth it to you.

2. Have a plan B

Going along with the idea that a PhD program doesn't guarantee future success, user acapncuster shared a tip in response to a  PhD Reddit post  asking for advice: "Have a plan B."

Some other commenters agreed, with one going so far as to say: "Have a plan B, then make that your plan A." Another user recommended having a plan C as well, just to be safe.

The idea that you should expect your first plan to fall through — and possibly even your second — may be enough to turn some off to a PhD program completely. 

But that's not to say you should ditch the idea. After all, many PhD graduates find success in their field, so it can pay off. The worst thing that can happen, though, is if you go through the program and spend the time and money earning your PhD, only to not have a backup plan when you don't accomplish your original goal.

Take some time to consider alternate plans before you commit to a PhD program. Think about asking others who have pursued your particular field of study and learn some potential options that you can pursue in the event that your plan A doesn't work out.

3. Understand the importance of time management

A PhD program can be time-consuming, with one Redditor saying they spend roughly 50 to 60 hours a week keeping up with coursework and doing additional research. But user SnowblindAlbino, who is now a professor, mentions in their  comment  that a lot of that time is unstructured.

In other words, time management is crucial to a successful PhD experience, not only in how much time you spend but how you separate that time into different activities.

Another commenter on that post, user cosmospring, wrote that their time spent on their program varied wildly depending on whether or not they had a deadline:

"Not really average days/weeks. More like 'average days when staring down the barrel of a deadline' and 'average days when not staring down a deadline.' The former: 10-12h at the keyboard. The latter: 6-8h at the keyboard and 2-4h doing something else academic (teaching, reading, navigating bureaucracy...). Once or twice/week cut those by 50-75% (the days off) and do laundry/something fun, unless there's a looming deadline."

Every program is different, so it's important that you approach your time management based on what works best for you and your program.

4. Seek balance

A PhD program can be grueling, so it's crucial that you find balance, according to user Theblackswapper1. On one  post  where another Redditor asked for advice, Theblackswapper1 commented that students owe it to themselves to have a workout routine and to take breaks when needed — though not as an avoidance activity.

More importantly, don't neglect your mental health and get help if you need it, they wrote: "Most colleges and universities have free counseling services for students. Now everyone's path is unique, and everyone's story is different, but I know that I regret not reaching out for help earlier."

5. Consider the opportunity cost

While there's no guarantee that a PhD program will improve your career path, you can still use average figures to try to find out what the return on investment of a doctoral degree can be. 

As part of that formula, user buspsych comments on one  post , recommending that you consider the opportunity cost of pursuing a PhD. Even if you get free tuition, you're missing out on income you could be earning with a full-time job. Depending on how much the degree increases your salary, divide that by the opportunity cost to find out how long it'll take to make the degree worth it.

You'll also want to consider how pursuing a PhD program may delay your retirement savings and other important financial goals.

Ultimately, there's no right or wrong answer to whether a PhD program is worth pursuing, so it's crucial that you run the numbers for your situation to decide if it's right for you.

Join Juno today to find out more about your options for affordable private student loans to help fund your degree. 

Ben Luthi is a personal finance and travel writer based in Salt Lake City, UT. He loves helping people better understand their finances. When he's not traveling, Ben enjoys spending time with his kids, hiking, and watching films. His work has been featured in U.S. News & World Report, The New York Times, MarketWatch, Fox Business, and many other publications.

Related Articles

All categories:.

Start saving smart

• No minimums
• Exclusive cash back
• FDIC insured
• 5% or better

That means you could get paid $500 for each $10,000 in your bank account.

Get the Reddit app

Community of Pinoy programmers to share ideas, projects, job vacancies and socialize with fellow programmers.

Technical Recruiter here! I came for fun and to contribute

Hi, I am a Technical Recruiter living in Manila. Came here to answer questions related to my career/job. I will be straight to point and precise as I can!

To give a brief background I did a lot screening sal AppDev,DevOps, Cloud, Cybersecurity, Data Engineer/ Scientist, Machine Learning, Project Manager, BA, Tech Lead at iba iba pa. I will be answering questions na:

1.Related sa recruiting

2.Applicant questions about Recruitment process

3.About my career path

4. Do's and Dont's

5.KAHIT ANO.

I usually answer pag di ako busy but expect na walang matitira sa mga tanong nyo pag may time ako...

I've been with the industry long enough to know a lot of things, but I am still expanding my knowledge. I will make sure to give some insights how the process works, I will answer all of your questions but pls be patient with me.

• Election 2024
• Entertainment
• Newsletters
• Photography
• Personal Finance
• AP Investigations
• AP Buyline Personal Finance
• AP Buyline Shopping
• Press Releases
• Israel-Hamas War
• Russia-Ukraine War
• Global elections
• Asia Pacific
• Latin America
• Middle East
• Election Results
• Delegate Tracker
• AP & Elections
• Auto Racing
• 2024 Paris Olympic Games
• Movie reviews
• Book reviews
• Personal finance
• Financial Markets
• Business Highlights
• Financial wellness
• Artificial Intelligence
• Social Media

A scientist, a leftist and a former Mexico City mayor. Who is Claudia Sheinbaum?

Who is Claudia Sheinbaum, Mexico’s future first female president?

Ruling party presidential candidate Claudia Sheinbaum greets supporters after the National Electoral Institute announced she held an irreversible lead in the election in Mexico City, early Monday, June 3, 2024. (AP Photo/Eduardo Verdugo)

• Copy Link copied

Presidential candidate Claudia Sheinbaum arrives at her closing campaign rally at the Zocalo in Mexico City, Wednesday, May 29, 2024. (AP Photo/Eduardo Verdugo)

A supporter of presidential candidate Claudia Sheinbaum takes a selfie with a campaign poster during Sheinbaum’s closing campaign rally at the Zocalo in Mexico City, Wednesday, May 29, 2024. (AP Photo/Matias Delacroix)

Ruling party presidential candidate Claudia Sheinbaum leaves the polling station where she voted during general elections in Mexico City, Sunday, June 2, 2024. (AP Photo/Eduardo Verdugo)

Ruling party presidential candidate Claudia Sheinbaum shows her ID as she leaves a polling station where she voted during general elections in Mexico City, Sunday, June 2, 2024. (AP Photo/Marco Ugarte)

MEXICO CITY (AP) — Claudia Sheinbaum, who will be Mexico’s first woman leader in the nation’s more than 200 years of independence, captured the presidency by promising continuity.

The 61-year-old former Mexico City mayor and lifelong leftist ran a disciplined campaign capitalizing on her predecessor’s popularity before emerging victorious in Sunday’s vote, according to an official quick count. But with her victory now in hand, Mexicans will look to see how Sheinbaum, a very different personality from mentor and current President Andrés Manuel López Obrador , will assert herself.

While she hewed close to López Obrador politically and shares many of his ideas about the government’s role in addressing inequality, she is viewed as less combative and more data driven.

Sheinbaum’s background is in science. She has a Ph.D. in energy engineering. Her brother is a physicist. In a 2023 interview with The Associated Press, Sheinbaum said, “I believe in science.”

Observers say that grounding showed itself in Sheinbaum’s actions as mayor during the COVID-19 pandemic, when her city of some 9 million people took a different approach from what López Obrador espoused at the national level.

While the federal government was downplaying the importance of coronavirus testing, Mexico City expanded its testing regimen. Sheinbaum set limits on businesses’ hours and capacity when the virus was rapidly spreading, even though López Obrador wanted to avoid any measures that would hurt the economy. And she publicly wore protective masks and urged social distancing while the president was still lunging into crowds.

Over 50 countries go to the polls in 2024

• The year will test even the most robust democracies. Read more on what’s to come here .
• Take a look at the 25 places where a change in leadership could resonate around the world.
• Keep track of the latest AP elections coverage from around the world here.

Mexico’s persistently high levels of violence will be one of her most immediate challenges after she takes office Oct. 1. On the campaign trail she said little more than that she would expand the quasi-military National Guard created by López Obrador and continue his strategy of targeting social ills that make so many young Mexicans easy targets for cartel recruitment.

“Let it be clear, it doesn’t mean an iron fist, wars or authoritarianism,” Sheinbaum said of her approach to tackling criminal gangs, during her final campaign event. “We will promote a strategy of addressing the causes and continue moving toward zero impunity.”

Sheinbaum has praised López Obrador profusely and said little that the president hasn’t said himself. She blamed neoliberal economic policies for condemning millions to poverty, promised a strong welfare state and praised Mexico’s large state-owned oil company, Pemex, while also promising to emphasize clean energy.

“For me, being from the left has to do with that, with guaranteeing the minimum rights to all residents,” Sheinbaum told the AP last year.

In contrast to López Obrador, who seemed to relish his highly public battles with other branches of the government and also the news media, Sheinbaum is expected by many observers to be less combative or at least more selective in picking her fights.

“It appears she’s going to go in a different direction,” said Ivonne Acuña Murillo, a political scientist at Iberoamerican University. “I don’t know how much.”

Sheinbaum will also be the first person from a Jewish background to lead the overwhelmingly Catholic country.

Follow the AP’s coverage of global elections at: https://apnews.com/hub/global-elections/

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

Movie Reviews

In 'brats,' '80s stars grapple with a label that defined their early careers.

Eric Deggans

St. Elmo's Fire cast members Rob Lowe, Ally Sheedy, Demi Moore, Emilio Estevez, Mare Winningham, Judd Nelson and Andrew McCarthy. Silver Screen Collection/Getty Images hide caption

How you feel about Andrew McCarthy’s searching, earnest, frequently self-important and occasionally clueless documentary about Hollywood’s so-called “brat pack” of actors — titled, somewhat self-consciously, Brats – may depend on what you think about the whole phenomenon in the first place.

Brats does a great job reminding us why we should care about the subject at all. It notes that the success of teen-focused films in the 1980s — specifically John Hughes films like The Breakfast Club and Pretty in Pink , along with Joel Schumacher’s St. Elmo’s Fire – represented a turning point where the film industry began to feature coming-of-age movies, often with the same group of young actors.

McCarthy, who was in both Pretty in Pink and St. Elmo’s Fire , joined a group of burgeoning talents who would become major stars, including Emilio Estevez, Judd Nelson, Demi Moore, Ally Sheedy, Molly Ringwald and Rob Lowe. The films they starred in — often featuring high school-age kids in various circumstances struggling to find love or acceptance — channeled the struggles of youth across the globe, turning them into Beatles–level stars in the process.

“Hollywood discovered the box office potential of a young audience,” McCarthy says in somber narration over clips from films as disparate as Risky Business, Dirty Dancing, Back to the Future, Footloose and Weird Science . “It seemed that every weekend, there was another movie and another movie and another movie about and starring young people. In the history of Hollywood, it had never been like this.”

Ally Sheedy, Demi Moore, Jon Cryer, Andrew McCarthy, and David Blum at the Tribeca Film Festival. Michael J. Le Brecht II/ABC hide caption

Defining the Brat Pack

But then journalist David Blum wrote a story in 1985 for New York magazine titled “Hollywood’s Brat Pack,” centered on time spent partying with Estevez, Lowe and Nelson, that cast shade on the group — lumping them together as unprofessional and over-privileged, while sticking them with a moniker which would follow them all around for decades. (One line described them as “a roving band of famous young stars on the prowl for parties, women, and a good time,” shortly before noting none of them had graduated from college.)

McCarthy, who admits he aspired to be a particularly serious actor back then, really bristled at the term, refusing to talk about it publicly very much. In another delicious irony the film fails to explore, Blum’s original article refers to McCarthy in a way that implies the author may not have even seen him as a bona fide member of the Brat Pack back then — despite the actor’s insistence that the term affected how he was perceived in Hollywood.

Author Interviews

Andrew mccarthy recalls his brat pack years in a new memoir.

Which why it is surprising to see footage of him at the start of Brats , calling up actors he was never very close to but has been professionally linked with for nearly 40 years — suggesting they get together in front of cameras for a documentary he is directing and will star in — to actually talk about this Brat Pack thing.

Estevez, who the article called “the unofficial president of the Brat Pack,” seems wary even in talking for the documentary, while eager to get some things off his chest. Relatively quickly, he apologizes for refusing to star in a movie with McCarthy shortly after the article was published, for fear of feeding the narrative.

“It was naïve of me to think this journalist would be my friend,” Estevez admits, while noting he had never participated in a major magazine profile before Blum’s story. “I had already seen a different path for myself. And I felt derailed.”

Jon Cryer, Molly Ringwald and Andrew McCarthy on the set of Pretty In Pink in 1986. Molly Ringwald was not involved in the Brats documentary. Paramount/Getty Images hide caption

A movie with two messages

Scenes like this allow Brats to work on a few different levels at once. Through McCarthy’s own words and his catch ups with other Brat Packers like Estevez, Sheedy, Moore and Lowe, we get a sense of the people at the heart of a massive pop culture phenomenon.

This is a burgeoning genre in the documentary world: films and docuseries looking back at gigantic pop culture moments from decades ago, to reveal the unexplored cost for those at the center of things (think recent documentaries on Britney Spears and child stars on Nickelodeon). And there is value in hearing these performers, held up as legends for so long, grappling with the very understandable feeling they were stereotyped just as their careers were taking off.

“Why did we take [the term Brat Pack] as an offense?” Moore tells McCarthy earnestly in one moment. “I felt a sense of it being unjust. I just felt like it didn’t represent us…But I don’t know if I took it as personal over time as you did.”

Sheedy, Pretty in Pink co-star Jon Cryer and others talk about seeing the enthusiasm around these emerging stars suddenly curdle into insulting assumptions that dismissed their talents. And one of the elements which fueled their success — appearing together as a pack of friends in films — suddenly disappeared, as they all fled the stigma of the term.

But the other, perhaps unintentional effect of watching Brats , is revelation of how the sometimes clueless privilege these so-called Brat Packers enjoyed back then has stuck around, barely examined, decades later.

Balancing regret with gratitude

Making an impact in Hollywood is difficult. Starring in big movies, even more so. But starring in massive movies that are considered the voice of a generation? That is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.

But, instead of feeling gratitude for landing in the right place at the absolutely best time to land parts in films like Class, Less Than Zero, Weekend at Bernie ’s and other hits, McCarthy seems to have spent way too much time fretting over whether the Brat Pack label kept him from larger stardom or more serious work. And it doesn’t seem a coincidence that the most successful Brat Packers McCarthy could get on camera — Moore and Lowe — long ago made their peace with a term that has evolved into a more endearing label, softened by nostalgia and filled with respect.

McCarthy asks a lot of good questions, including one that should be simple but really isn’t: Who is in the Brat Pack? Is it just the people Blum cites in his story — including Tom Cruise and Matt Dillon — or should it also include performers who worked with them around the same time, like Jon Cryer? (In Brats , Cryer tells the camera emphatically, “I am not in the Brat Pack.” It’s tough to tell if he’s joking.)

This film also breezes past something that was always a big sticking point for me when it came to Brat Pack movies — the decided lack of racial and ethnic diversity.

McCarthy talks to several fans, critics and experts about the Brat Pack phenomenon. But there is just one Black person who speaks briefly and very soothingly about these films’ lack of diversity, before author Malcolm Gladwell — who is biracial — pops up to assure the director that it made perfect sense for Hughes to center so many of his hit movies on angsty white kids in suburban Chicago.

For fans of color like me, there was always a double edge to the success of Brat Pack-style films. Many themes were universal, but there was a nose-pressed-to-glass element of watching celebrated characters in an environment light years removed from my own experience.

Characters of color, when they did surface, could be the butt of jokes. It would take the rise of Black directors like Spike Lee, Matty Rich and John Singleton to bring the Brat Pack’s youth revolution to Black-centered stories in much smaller films.

Bottom line: actors considered part of the Brat Park were packaged together in big budget films by producers and directors looking to tell certain stories and reach certain audiences. As several people tell McCarthy in the film, even after the article was published, lots of people thought the Brat Pack were still the cool kids in Hollywood – and wanted to be part of that club.

Many other talented performers got left out of that process. And complaining about what you didn’t get — when you did receive massive fame, wealth and career opportunities at an early age — feels a little uncharitable, especially so many years later.

Quizzing the guy who started it all

But then McCarthy actually sits down with the author of the New York piece, David Blum. And your sympathy for the actor and all the other Brat Packers rises again.

That’s because Blum mostly refuses to admit that his article was intentionally negative or sought to take down stars like Estevez and Lowe. He takes pride in creating the phrase, noting that he perhaps should have gotten credit for building the wave of publicity which helped make movies like St. Elmo’s Fire a hit.

But Blum takes little responsibility for how the piece’s negative tone might have impacted his sources — or the implications of writing, without any real warning, a story that seemed quite different from the original feature he had told Estevez he was assembling.

Pop Culture

The 'brat pack' grows up, but doesn't grow old.

It’s obvious that the actors featured in Blum’s original piece have mostly done well for themselves, crafting careers that outpaced the label he gave them. But even as he’s ending the interview, McCarthy can’t help pushing for an apology — asking the writer, almost plaintively, “Do you think you could have been nicer?”

Nearly 40 years later, it still seems tough for McCarthy to admit that accepting the label and living well — both because of and in spite of it — is likely the best possible response. (He seems to handle it all much better in a recent guest essay for The New York Times .)

It’s also obvious that watching him inexorably led to that conclusion while making this film — a journey brimming with nostalgia, pop culture potency and a bittersweet look back at youthful times — makes for one seriously compelling documentary.