The National Science Foundation (NSF) in the United States collects two surveys of doctorate recipients that seek to better illuminate and understand Ph.D. career pathways.

• The Survey of Earned Doctorates (SED) is an annual census conducted since 1957 of all individuals receiving a research doctorate from an accredited U.S. institution in a given academic year. The 2021 SED data was released in October 2022 and is currently the most up-to-date data available. Data from the 2022 SED will be released in October 2023.
• The Survey of Doctorate Recipients (SDR) provides demographic, education, and career history information from individuals with a U.S. research doctoral degree in a science, engineering, or health field. It seeks to capture a snapshot of the doctoral workforce by surveying PhD holders across a range of ages and is administered every two years. The 2021 SDR data was released in January 2023. New SDR data will be collected in 2023 and reported in 2025 most likely. 
  

Given the popularity of my previous blog posts examining the 2019 SDR and 2019 SED data, I thought revisiting these surveys and sharing the most up-to-date insights from them would be helpful to graduate students, postdocs, and those who support them. The data give us a good snapshot of the scientific workforce, hiring trends, and salary data for recent Ph.D.s and more experienced individuals holding a doctoral degree. 

The SED asks recent doctorate recipients each year if they have "post-graduation commitments", which could include employment being secured or a postdoctoral position arranged. We can look at this data by the field of doctorate and over time to observe trends in post-graduation commitments. I pulled data from the past 25 years of the SED (from the 1997 to 2021 data) and plotted the trends in post-graduation commitments by field, below.

These data reveal some interesting patterns. First, and perhaps not surprisingly, the humanities and arts fields have lower post-graduation or postdoc commitments than engineering, science, or the education fields. Math and computer sciences have historically seen the highest level of post-graduation commitments. The average percentage of PhD recipients with post-graduation commitments in 2021 was 70%, unchanged from 2020 data. The yearly low point for this percentage across the 25 years analyzed was in 2014 when across all fields the post-graduation commitment rate was 61.4%. 
​
If we zoom into the past 5 years of SED data we see that for many fields, the percentage of recent Ph.D.s with post-graduation or postdoc commitments has increased from 2017 to 2020 and continued to do so from 2020 to 2021, specifically in the life sciences and physical & earth sciences.

In fact, from 2020 to 2021, the percentage of life science doctorates with definite post-graduation commitments increased by 4.8% while the percentage increase was 2.0% year-over-year for the physical and earth sciences. Other fields showed modest decreases of -1% or -2% in post-graduation commitments from 2020 to 2021. 
​
What I find interesting in these data is there is virtually no sign of the COVID-19 pandemic (that began in Spring 2020 and lasted well into 2021) impacting these numbers. It will be interesting to see the 2022 SED data when it is released in October to see if the pattern of stable or growing post-graduation commitments over the past few years persists. 

The NSF SED also breaks down its data by the survey participants' demographics, including whether they are international students holding temporary visas or United States Citizens or permanent residents (PR).

While historically temporary visa holders have had lower post-graduation commitments than US Citizens or permanent residents (PR), recently, the two groups show similar percentages. The SED data from 2018, 2019, and 2020 showed virtually identical percentages across the two groups with temporary visa holders actually having higher percentages of post-graduation commitments in 2020 (70.1% to 69.8%).  In 2021, temporary visa holders showed a modest drop in percentage of post-graduation commitments to 69.4% vs US Citizens and permanent residents at 70.3%.

What can we take from these data?
​The "gap" in post-graduation commitments between temporary visa holders and US Citizens or permanent residents has narrowed over the past few years. It is important to mention here that the question about post-graduation commitments focuses on commitment within the US. So, it is possible that the closing of a gap between temporary visa holders and US Citizens and permanent residents is due to more temporary visa holders choosing not to remain in the US for employment or postdoctoral training after they complete their Ph.D.

The SED data does not fully support this hypothesis, though, as the percentage of temporary visa holders who reported an intention to stay in the US after their doctorate was 71.3% in 2021, 73% in 2020, 71.2% in 2019, and 72% in 2018. Looking at the two largest groups of international students pursuing their doctorate in the US, those from India have percentage rates intending to stay in the US ranging from 87.1% in 2018 to 86.1% in 2021 with a four year average rate from 2018 to 2021 of 86.8%. Doctoral students from China have seen a decrease in intent to stay from 2020 (80.1%) to 2021 (74.4%) specifically, declining by 7.1% year-over-year. The 2021 rate for Chinese students intending to stay in the US is also below the average of the precious 6 years of SED data (2015 to 2020) of 80.7% while the rate for Indian students has remained relatively stable (average of 86.9% from 2015 to 2020 vs 86.1% in 2021). Geopolitical tensions with China may explain these differences and it will be interesting to see how the data evolves in the years to come. 

Across the US Citizens and permanent residents in the SED data, we can examine trends in post-graduation commitments by race and ethnicity. 

Looking at the 25 year SED data trend by the race or ethnicity of the US Citizens and permanent residents, we observe white (non-Hispanic) doctorate recipients historically have higher levels of post-graduation commitments and that Hispanic, Asian, and Black doctorate recipients showed a steeper decrease in commitments from 2005 to 2015. The dip in all groups from 2005 to approximately 2015 probably reflects the impact of 2008's global financial crisis that affected employment prospects and business investment. 

Zooming in on the past five years of SED data, we can see steady increases in post-grad commitments with relatively sharp rises in those identifying as Black (8.9% increase from 2017 to 2021), Asian (8.2% increase over same period), and Hispanic or Latino (5.9% increase from 2019 to 2021). These rates compare to 4.9% increases in post-grad commitments from 2017 to 2021 and 1.9% from 2019 to 2021 across all US Citizen and permanent residents. These data seem to suggest post-graduation prospects are improving across groups and that the gap between groups has narrowed over the past five years of SED data. 

As the data shared above reports post-graduation commitments plus postdocs, SED also looks at the data by doctorate recipients pursuing postdoctoral positions specifically.

The first insight from the percentage of doctorate recipients pursuing a postdoc is that the postdoc path is much more common in certain fields. Across all fields, the percentage of doctorate recipients pursuing a postdoc in 2021 was 41.3%. In the life sciences, the percent of Ph.D. recipients pursuing postdocs has hovered around 60% to 70% over the past 25 years. Pursuing a postdoc is also quite a common post-Ph.D. path for the physical and earth sciences (~60% historically). In contrast, the percentage of engineering doctorates pursuing a postdoc was 38.5% in 2021 vs 57.9% in the life sciences and 62.2% in the physical and earth sciences. ​

The drop in postdoc commitments in the life sciences could be pandemic related as demand for those with biological/life science expertise may have risen in the for-profit sector. Indeed, the proportion of recent life science Ph.D. recipients employed in the for-profit sector (ie, industry) continues to grow and has overtaken academia as the largest sector of employment (since 2019). The divergence in employment sectors from 2019 to 2021 is particularly striking as growth in employment of recent life science Ph.D.s in industry grew by 15.3% over the three year time period while it declined by 15.3% in the academic sector. The fact that the changes across this time horizon (and visible in the graph below) are near mirror images of one another (increasing and declining at equivalent rates) suggests the possibility that industry is replacing academia as a destination for employment of newly-minted life science Ph.D.s in recent years. 

Across all recent Ph.D. recipients, industry (for-profit companies) is the largest sector of employment of those with definite post-graduation commitments and dominates employment for those in engineering, math & computer sciences, and the physical & earth sciences. Academia is still the largest employment sector for recent Ph.D.s in the psychology & social sciences, education, and humanities & arts. Furthermore, non-profit sector work is more common in the humanities & arts, psychology & social sciences, and life sciences while government employment is more common for those with Ph.D.s in psychology & social sciences, life sciences, and the physical & earth sciences than those with Ph.D.s in other fields.   

We can also observe some interesting historical trends in the employment fields of doctorate recipients over the past 5, 10, and 25 years. From 2017 to 2021, across all fields, the percentage of doctorate recipients with commitments for employment in academia decreased by 22.6%. This trend was -28.9% from 2012 to 2021 and -21.6% from 1997 to 2021. Employment in government over the same time period ranged from 5.5% to 6.9% growth. Growth in for-profit (industry) sector employment of recent doctorate recipients grew by 24.5% from 2017 to 2021, 48.5% from 2012 to 2021, and 61.8% from 1997 to 2021 across all fields and was even higher for those from the life sciences (116.4% growth from 1997 to 2021). Clearly, academia as a destination for recent doctorates is declining with industry as an increasing sector of newly-awarded Ph.D. employment. 

​The data on doctorate recipients pursuing postdocs by citizenship status clearly indicates this path is more commonly pursued by temporary visa holders, undoubtedly due to the fact that working at a nonprofit, academic institution provides a variety of visa pathways available versus the for-profit sector (from those pursuing OPT on their student F1 visas to J1 scholar visa options and H-1B visas that are "uncapped" vs those available in the for-profit sector).

The sharp increase in postdoc pursuit in both US Citizens/PRs and temporary visa holders after 2008 suggests a pivot during and after the great financial crisis of that year which slowed the economy and limited career opportunities in the for-profit and government sectors. Postdoctoral positions were potentially "safe places" to ride out the rough economy. And while the percentage pursuing postdocs dropped relatively steeply for temporary visa holders after 2010, the rates remained elevated for US Citizens and permanent residents from 2011 to 2021 (37.5% pursuing postdocs) and rates during this eleven-year time span were 30% higher than that seen from 1997 to 2007 (28.8% pursuing postdocs).

We also see a bit of sign of the COVID-19 pandemic's impact in the data from 2020 to 2021 where the percentage of US Citizens or permanent residents pursuing postdocs increased by 6.25% year-over-year while the increase was 9.9% for temporary visa holders. It will be interesting to see if the 2022 SED data shows that COVID's impact on this metric subsided or persisted.

There are vast differences in the percentage of US Citizens and permanent resident doctorate recipients pursuing a postdoc by their race/ethnicity. Rates have historically been highest in those identifying as Asian and the rates have climbed steadily for White, Non-Hispanic individuals and those identifying as Hispanic. For Black survey respondents, the percentage of doctorate recipients pursuing postdocs in 2021 stood at 25.4%. This compared to a rate of 39.9% in White, Non-Hispanic; 41.5% in Asian; and 41.4% in Hispanic respondents. 

I will turn to 2021 Survey of Doctorate Recipients (SDR) data to further explore postdoctoral demographics as well as compare the demographics of recent Ph.D. recipients (data from the SED) to those in postdoctoral positions (data from the SDR). 

In raw numbers, nearly 5,000 of the 27,150 postdocs surveyed across all fields in the 2021 SDR were in their postdoc more than 5 years after receiving their doctorate degree. It is notable that nearly a quarter of those postdocs with doctorates in the life sciences were in postdocs 6 or more years from receiving their degree, a rate (24.5%) nearly twice that seen in the physical sciences (12.6%) and engineering (12.7%). 

Across all individuals 5 or fewer years from their Ph.D., 15.7% (22,200 of 141,750) were employed as postdocs and this percentage rose to 28.5% for the biological, agricultural, and environmental life sciences and 22% for the physical sciences. For those who earned an engineering doctorate within the last 5 years, only 10.5% were employed as postdocs. Across all science doctorates surveyed in the 2021 SDR, 19.7% of postdocs were 5+ years from their Ph.D. and this percentage rose to 24.1% in the biological, agricultural, and environmental life sciences. 

Across all those reporting they were in postdoctoral positions in the 2021 SDR survey (n=27,150), 53.2% were US Citizens while 46.8% were non-Citizens. Of engineering doctorate holders in postdocs surveyed, 70.9% were non-US Citizens. Mathematics and statistics (64.7%) and physical sciences (54.1%) postdocs were also majority comprised of non-US Citizens. In the biological, agricultural, and environmental life sciences 60.8% of postdocs surveyed were US Citizens. The percentage of postdocs who were US Citizens was also high in the social sciences (66.7%), computer and information sciences (66.7%), and psychology (82.4%).  

Across all fields, postdocs are 58.6% male. In engineering, nearly 3/4 of postdocs are male (74.7%) while the ratio is 2/3 for the physical sciences (66.7% male). Over 3/4 of mathematics and statistics doctorates in postdoctoral positions are male (76.5%). Those with doctorates in the biological, agricultural, and environmental life sciences working in postdocs are 53.9% male. ​

Ethnicity of US Postdocs vs Doctorate Recipients
The SED reports on the race and ethnicity of those earning doctorates in the US each year. Looking at the SED from 2001 and 2021, we observe growth in the share of Ph.D.s awarded to those identifying as Asian, Black, and Hispanic or Latino with doubling of Ph.D.s awarded in the later group from 2001 to 2021.

In the SDR data from 2021, 6.3% of those in US postdocs identified as Hispanic/Latino, 3.1% as Black, 41.3% as Asian, and 47.2% as White. ​

If we compare 2021 SED to SDR data we see that while 9% of doctorate recipients were Hispanic/Latino, 6.3% of postdocs identified as such, resulting in a ratio of postdoc/PhD recipients identifying as this ethnic group of 0.7 (the postdoc composition of this group is 30% less than its composition in the PhD recipient group). Calculating a similar metric for other races/ethnicities, we get ratios ranging from 0.4 for Black to 4.3 for Asian (and 0.7 for White). Given the SDR data on postdocs does not breakdown race/ethnicity by US Citizenship status, we can't perfectly map it to the SED data. 

Looking at the SED data more closely, it reports Ph.D. recipient data by race/ethnicity and US citizenship status, showing that in 2021 of those identifying as Asian, 20.7% were also US Citizens or permanent residents and in total 27.9% of all Ph.D. recipients from US universities identified as Asian in 2021. If we use the 27.9% of all doctorate recipients in our ratio of postdoc/PhD recipients for Asians, we get a ratio of 1.5 or nearly double that of While recipients.    ​

What is also obvious in this rather crude analysis of postdoc/PhD recipient population proportion is that Black doctorate recipients are not in postdoctoral appointments at the same rates as White, Hispanic/Latino, or Asian individuals and that Asians appear over-represented in postdoctoral positions relative to other ethnic groups.  ​

The 2021 SED data reports median salaries for doctorate recipients (ie, newly-awarded Ph.D.s) by employment sector and field of degree. Collapsed across all fields, the median salary for a doctorate recipient in 2021 was $90,000 and ranged from $68,000 in academia to $115,000 for industry careers. There was also large divergence by Ph.D. field with computer and information sciences doctorates earning a median of $145,000 across all employment sectors in 2021 vs $55,000 in the humanities. 

Postdoc salary has become a hot topic in recent months and the 2021 SED data also reports median postdoc salaries by Ph.D. field. 

The median salary of a recent computer and information sciences doctorate working not as a postdoc is 123% more than the median postdoc salary for someone from this field. The gap is narrower in other fields but across all fields a position outside a postdoc has a median salary 68% higher than a postdoc median salary.   

The SDR data from 2021 allows us to get a better glimpse at median annual salaries across a range of fields and by seniority of respondents (years since doctorate). 

Across all fields, you can see a clear upward trend in the median annual salaries of doctorate recipients as they become more senior (are further out from receiving their degree). Those with engineering doctorates consistently out-earn most of the other sciences while the computer and information science doctorates (dashed gray line, above), show more volatility in the upward trend of earnings as they move further from receiving their degree. Math and statistics also shows a small dip in earnings trajectory for the 16-20 years from degree group. Given these data are from the 2021 SDR, the time period in which that group earned their degrees was most likely 2001-2005 and could reflect the remnants of the "dot-com bust" of the early 2000s where the NASDAQ-100 (an index of mostly US technology stocks) bottomed in October 2002.

The 2021 SDR also reports median salaries for faculty positions of respondents by field of doctorate and faculty rank (assistant, associate, or full professor).

The SDR data asks respondents to report on their primary work activity across several categories including research & development (R&D); teaching; professional services; & management, sales, or administration. Many recent Ph.D. recipients think that the primary activity they will perform is R&D or teaching but the SDR data show that the percentage of individuals reporting those two activities as their primary work activity has remained flat or declined over the past few years. 

The dotted lines in the graph above reflect the percentage of SDR respondents in 2017, 2019, and 2021 (three most recent surveys as the SDR is collected every two years) who indicated a role other than R&D and teaching as their primary work activity. You can see across three broad Ph.D. fields (life sciences, physical/earth sciences, and engineering) the percentage reporting "other" work as their primary activity has increased. In fact, this percentage of those reporting "other work" is equivalent to those reporting R&D as their primary work activity in engineering and physical/earth sciences and approaching equivalency in the life sciences. In other words, more Ph.D.s are working in roles where their primary activity is something other than research/development and/or teaching. 

What are some of these other primary work activities? 
The 2021 SDR data found 21.3% of life science Ph.D.s's primary work activity is in management, sales, or administration with another 11.2% reporting professional services. Physical/earth sciences Ph.D.s reported a similar level of primary work in management, sales, or administration (21.2%). This percentage was 20.3% for those with engineering Ph.D.s. So, roughly 1 in 5 Ph.D.s in science and engineering work primarily in management, sales, or administration. This finding suggests the importance of Ph.D.s thinking about how they can build transferrable skills like communication, leadership, and project management to help set themselves up for success in these areas. 

While a lot of data were shared in this piece, I have only scratched the surface on the wealth of information available through NSF. You can explore some of their reports on the 2021 SED as well as COVID impacts when comparing 2019 to 2021 SDR data to learn more about trends in the Ph.D. workforce. 

Some key insights (and my thoughts/comments) from the data in this piece include:

• ​Little apparent effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on Ph.D. "post-graduation" commitments suggesting Ph.D. talent is often in demand (though postdoc pursuit may have spiked a bit in some fields as a result of the pandemic). 
• Relative growth in the percentage of recent Ph.D.s with definite post-graduation or postdoc commitments over the last few years (2017 - 2021) - Perhaps institutions are doing a better job connecting grad students with resources and the knowledge to navigate the job market proactively?
• The gap between temporary visa holders and US Citizens and permanent residents with definite post-graduation commitments has narrowed over the past few years (since 2018), this could be the result of more openness from employers to sponsor work visas or more international students not wanting to stay in the US for employment (w/ some early signs of this from Chinese graduate students).
• Gaps in US Citizens or permanent residents with post-graduation commitments from different ethnic and racial groups narrowing over the past few years, which may suggest better access and dissemination of information on the job search process that might have been more implicit in the past (ie, uncovering the hidden curriculum). 
• A decline in the number of individuals pursuing postdoctoral positions in the life sciences and physical & earth sciences over the years but an increase in the percentages of engineering, psychology & social sciences, and education doctorates pursuing postdocs.
  • "Peak postdoc" may have been reached in the life sciences and physical & earth sciences around 2010.
  • Potentially, higher scholarly productivity expectations has resulted in a postdoctoral position becoming more common in other academic fields. 
• Relatively low levels of Black Ph.D. recipients pursuing postdoctoral training.
  • Is the way we hire postdocs (mostly via networking) hurting certain under-represented groups and/or is the academic career path of less interest to these individuals? 
• A sizeable number of individuals are in postdoctoral positions 6+ years after receiving their Ph.D., especially in the life sciences. 
  • While a postdoc is supposed to be a relatively short-term, temporary training position, the data suggest some individuals can be in them many years after their Ph.D. was awarded.  
• The for-profit sector (industry) as the main employment sector of most recent Ph.D.s.
  • Better pay and less perceived job stress may be pushing Ph.D.s to pursue careers outside higher education/academia. 
• Differences in median salaries for Ph.D. recipients working in different sectors of employment. 
  • Data on median salaries across employment sectors as well as for postdoctoral and faculty positions by field of doctorate can be instructive as individuals make decisions on what fields to pursue in graduate school and/or which career path(s) to pursue, post-Ph.D..
• The rise of primary work activities beyond teaching and research & development since 2019, signaling a need for Ph.D.s to develop transferable skills like leadership, project management, & communication.

I thank the NSF for collecting and sharing these data. Leveraging this information and examining longitudinal trends helps empower both prospective and current graduate students, postdoctoral scholars, faculty, and administrators with knowledge of the state of the Ph.D. labor market and evolving scientific workforce. Only through knowing where we are currently at in terms of the demographics of the scientific workforce and the possibilities of what is out there for areas of Ph.D. employment can we chart a path to where we want to go both individually and as a society. 

The United State's National Science Foundation (NSF) collects a wealth of data on individuals who received their doctorate degrees from US universities. Back in April, they released their most recent batch of data from their 2019 Survey of Doctorate Recipients (SDR). The SDR provides demographic, education, and career history information from all individuals with a research doctoral degree in a science, engineering, or health (SEH) field from a university in the United States. As the SDR seeks to capture the full scope of US SEH Ph.D. employment, it surveys anyone with a Ph.D. in SEH fields from a US university regardless of year of graduation: some SDR respondents received their Ph.D.s a few years ago and some 20+  years ago. This is different from the Survey of Earned Doctorates (SED) which surveys new US Ph.D. recipients and whose data I shared in an earlier blog post. Here, I will delve into some of the trends observed in the 2019 SDR data to give those with a Ph.D. in a SEH field more insights into employment possibilities after they receive their degree.  

Across all doctorate recipients surveyed in the 2019 SDR, the US states with the largest proportion of science, engineering, or health Ph.D.s employed in them included the District of Columbia (technically not a state but represented in the state-level data; ~2.5% of the population are SEH Ph.D.s), Massachusetts (0.8%), and Maryland (0.6%). The median percent of any state's population consisting of employed SEH Ph.D.s was 0.2%. While DC, Massachusetts, and Maryland remained the top states employing biological, agricultural, and environmental life science Ph.D.s, others with high proportions of bio science Ph.D. employment included Vermont, Montana, Connecticut, North Carolina, Nebraska, California, & Washington state. Note that as these are calculated as proportion of a state's 2019 population, states with relatively low population counts (Vermont, Montana, & Nebraska) have many less Ph.D. scientists employed in them than larger states. For example, according to the 2019 SDR, there are 32,900 biological, agricultural, and environmental life science Ph.D.s employed in California (with a population of 39.5 million in 2019) while Vermont has 600 (among a population of ~600,000). 

Top 10 states for employing computer science Ph.D.s: DC, Washington, Massachusetts, California, Maryland, New York, Utah, Virginia, Oregon, New Jersey

Top 10 states for employing physical science Ph.D.s: DC, Delaware, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Mexico, Colorado, Oregon, Connecticut, California, New Jersey 
And many of these states are also top employers of engineering Ph.D.s.

Given these data you may have more luck pursuing Ph.D.-level employment in certain areas of the country over others. 

Across all SEH Ph.D.s surveyed in 2019, ~3.3% of those employed worked as a postdoc. However, the percent of employment represented by postdocs varied by field of doctorate with ~6.1% of biological, agricultural, and environmental life science Ph.D.s employed as postdocs while ~1% of computer science Ph.D.s were employed as postdocs. The percentage of engineering Ph.D.s employed as postdocs was ~2%.

Given a postdoctoral position is by definition temporary, one would expect the percent of all employed SEH Ph.D.s in a postdoc would be rather low. While the general proportion of Ph.D.s employed in postdocs is relatively low, some of the trends in postdoctoral employment are concerning. 

​Unfortunately, many postdocs have been in their positions longer than the 5 year post-Ph.D. guidance outlined by The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine's The Postdoctoral Experience Revisited report released in 2014 (see press release). According to the 2019 SDR data, 19% of all science postdocs were >5 years from the date of their Ph.D. being awarded and this percentage was slightly higher (21.3%) for biological, agricultural, and environmental life sciences postdocs. So, as many as 1 in 5 postdocs employed in the US are 5+ years past receiving their terminal degree.

In addition, over the past 10 years a larger proportion of the US postdoctoral population is being filled by those 5+ years post-Ph.D. In the 2010 SDR data, only 13.1% of all science postdocs and 14.9% of bio, ag, and environ life science postdocs were >5 years from their Ph.D. being awarded. And while the 2019 data is off the peak of >25% of postdocs >5 years from their Ph.D. seen in 2015, the proportion of Ph.D.s employed as postdocs >5 years from their terminal degree is still ~45% higher in 2019 than 2010. 

So, while improvements have been made around limiting long postdoctoral training periods, more needs to be done to assist these individuals in transitioning into more permanent positions either within or outside academia. 

Across all science ("all science" refers to all SEH fields surveyed except engineering and health) Ph.D.s surveyed in the 2019 SDR, ~48% work for and educational institution while ~30% are employed by a for-profit company and ~8% work for either the federal or state government. The distribution of sectors employing Ph.D.s in 2019 differed markedly by the field of the individual's doctorate degree with employment by educational institutions quite high for the social sciences (~67% of employed Ph.D.s) and for-profit companies being the largest sectors employing computer & information science (~54%) and engineering Ph.D.s (~58%).

While educational institutions are the top employers of social science Ph.D.s, they employ ~47% of those with Ph.D.s in the biological, agricultural, and environmental sciences. The proportion of engineering and chemistry Ph.D.s employed by educational institutions is even less with for-profit companies employing 50%+ of Ph.D.s from these fields. 

These data suggest certain sectors of employment may be more available to particular Ph.D. fields than others. It is difficult, however, to disentangle whether engineering and chemistry Ph.D. skills, for example, are more valued by for-profit companies than those in the social sciences or whether there is a greater openness to pursuing non-academic careers in these areas. It is possible there are things to learn from specific departments and programs who place Ph.D.s into diverse career areas that could be modeled by others. Certainly, providing diverse career pathways for Ph.D.s is critical as the "traditional" path of obtaining faculty positions becomes less available in many fields. 

Among the ~108,000 respondents to the NSF SDR 2019 survey who reported being employed at educational institutions in the US, 44.5% were tenured or on the tenure track <10 years since receiving their doctorate degree. This percentage jumped to 69.1% in those 10+ years from degree award. However, there were noticeable differences by degree field in the percentage of Ph.D.s employed at educational institutions who were tenured faculty or on the tenure-track <10 years from their Ph.D. with ~25% in this category among the biological, agricultural, and environmental life sciences to 60%+ for computer and information sciences and social sciences Ph.D.s. 

One might speculate that looking at these data for those <10 years from their Ph.D. points to a potential bottleneck to obtaining faculty positions among certain fields. Also, the length of postdoctoral positions and/or use of more contingent positions (lecturer, research associate) in educational institutions could be higher in some fields than others. The SDR data can offer some insights as the proportion of postdocs who are 5+ years from obtaining their Ph.D. is higher in the life sciences fields which also had the lowest proportion of Ph.D.s employed at educational institutions in tenured or tenure-track faculty positions (plotted in green in the graph below and above, respectively). 

While certainly the life sciences have the highest percentage of Ph.D.s employed as postdocs 5+ years from their Ph.D. and the lowest percentage of those <10 years from Ph.D. in tenure-track or tenured faculty roles, there is not perfect correspondence between lengthy postdocs and percentage of early-career Ph.D.s employed as tenured or tenure-track faculty. This could be for a myriad of reasons as the SDR data is not perfect. Remember, it only surveys individuals who earned their Ph.D.s in the United States. Thus, fields where a high percentage of workers obtain their Ph.D. outside the US are going to have less respondent representation in this survey.

For instance, we know that many postdoctoral scholars in the United States are international, who either obtained their Ph.D. in the US and continued in postdoctoral training via various visa types or who received their Ph.D. outside the US before doing a postdoc in the US. The 2019 SDR shows that ~54% of US Ph.D.s employed as postdocs are US citizens and other data from NSF shows ~49% of postdocs in the US were born oversees. In some fields including computer science and engineering, NSF estimates 55-60% of Ph.D.s working in those areas in the United States are foreign-born. Thus, the various employment trends shared so far can be affected by various limitations to employment for those individuals requiring visa sponsorship by their employer, the frequency of which may differ by Ph.D. field and the proportion of international students and scholars working in that area in the United States. I discussed some of the challenges around being an international scholar in the US (including visa restrictions) in an earlier series of blog posts.    

​Regardless of how international scholar dynamics may affect these data, it is clear from the 2019 SDR data that there are vast differences in the proportion of "early career" Ph.D.s in tenure-track or tenured faculty positions based on their degree field. ​

Much has been made of the decline in faculty positions available to Ph.D.s over recent years. The SDR data allows us to partially look at this trend by asking how the percentage of Ph.D. recipients employed at 4-year educational institutions has changed over the years. Here, I decided to look at the SDR data from 2010 and compare it to 2019.

Over the past 9 years the percentage of tenured faculty who are less than 10 years from the Ph.D. in most science fields has declined by 25-30%. The decline is less steep for tenure-track faculty in the life and physical/earth sciences. Furthermore, the proportion of engineering Ph.D.s <10 years from degree employed at educational institutions in tenure-track positions has actually increased from 2010 to 2019 based on the SDR data. Even in the engineering group, though, securing tenure by 10 years post degree has become less common, presumably as the need and/or length of postdoctoral positions have increased.  

The 2021 SDR data collection is currently underway and I will be very curious to see how these data look post-COVID. Will the percentages of early career Ph.D.s able to enter the faculty ranks fall even further? Only time will tell. 

As mentioned earlier, the prevalence of Ph.D. labor in the US who are supported on temporary visas is quite high. Many international students come to the US for their graduate training and seek employment in the country after finishing their degrees. The SDR data reports out median salaries for Ph.D. holders by citizenship status, which is plotted below by doctoral degree field. 

It is clear from these data that median salaries are lower, in aggregate, for temporary visa (J1, H1-B) holders in virtually all Ph.D. fields except mathematics & statistics AND social sciences. US permanent residents' median salaries also tend to be lower but not in all fields. In fact, in computer & information sciences and mathematics & statistics permanent residents earn slightly more than US citizens. 

It is difficult to speculate too much on these data but one potential reason for lower median salaries for temporary visa holders in particular could be the result of many of these individuals working at US universities where the visiting scholar (J1) visa category is commonly used when an individual is working as a postdoctoral scholar or some other contingent, non-tenure track position (research associate). When a temporary visa holder is employed by a company, however, they require H-1B sponsorship which is subject to a "prevailing wage" which should prevent these individuals' salaries being below "market" rate, at least in theory. The largest sponsors of H-1Bs in the US are typically companies working in the computer & information sciences or data analytics where Ph.D.s in the areas of computer science, math, and statistics would be in high demand. So, the increased salaries for temporary visa holders in those fields could be driven by who is employing the doctorate recipients (technology companies paying high wages).  

Beyond who employs Ph.D.s what work they do can drastically affect their level of compensation. As seen in the graph below, Ph.D. recipients whose primary work activity is teaching have lower median salaries than those in research & development (R&D) roles or focused more on professional services, administration, management, or sales. Clearly these data are also colored by who is employing Ph.D.s as teaching roles are almost entirely within universities whereas R&D roles could be at companies, universities, government agencies, or other employers. 

Note, however, that SDR data show the percentage of Ph.D.s whose primary work activity is teaching is ~10-15% of science and engineering Ph.D. recipients (see table, below). And there has been relatively little change in the percentages of Ph.D. recipients reporting their primary work role as teaching over the past few years. The general distribution of primary work roles for science and engineering Ph.D.s from 2017 to 2019 has remained relatively stable. And, as has been discussed in a previous post, the fact that greater than a third of science and engineering Ph.D.s report their primary work role as falling in areas outside research and development or teaching emphasizes the fact that there are many positions in administration, communications, management, and more that fall outside of the main boxes of teaching and research available to Ph.D. holders. I will be interested to see whether these distributions of work roles shift post-pandemic in the 2021 SDR data. Will there be less teaching roles? More R&D, especially in the life sciences? Or will the "something else" category continue to grow as Ph.D.s pursue more diverse career pathways?

The previous two salary graphs plot median salaries for all US Ph.D. recipients who completed the 2019 SDR. So, there are individuals in those data who are 20+ years from receiving their Ph.D.s and those who graduated only a few years ago. NSF also reports data by Ph.D. field filtered by years since doctorate which shows that the median salaries 5 years or less from being the Ph.D. awarded tend to hover around the $80,000 level though it is higher in some fields (most notably computer & information sciences). Median salaries are less different across Ph.D. science and engineering fields the further from the doctorate one looks. 

This final graph nicely illustrates the value Ph.D.s provide to their employers. One could speculate that as individuals with Ph.D. skills including critical thinking, problem solving, and knowledge synthesis also gain work experience post-Ph.D. employers value them more. Fifteen years from receiving their doctorate the median salary for all science & engineering Ph.D.s is $100,000+ and many are making well over that amount. Ph.D. training provides a valuable skillset when coupled with practical experience and knowledge of how to apply those skills through working with diverse employers. Perhaps training programs can do a better job of providing some of the practical skills valued by a variety of employers during graduate school to help aid Ph.D.s' transitions to employment after their degree? 

The NSF SDR data is an essential tool to help science and engineering graduate students, postdocs, and those who support them understand how the landscape of employment continues to evolve over time. Information on employment sectors and median salary data can also be helpful as recent Ph.D. recipients plot out the next step in their careers and understand their worth. 

There are certainly glaring issues that are evident in the NSF data as well. The fact that many Ph.D. recipients <10 years from their degree employed at educational institutions are not in tenure-track faculty or tenured faculty roles speaks to the erosion of the faculty career path for many. 

Furthermore, the proliferation of postdoctoral positions and other contingent roles is a problem. And while the number of those who received their Ph.D.s from US institutions officially employed in extended postdoctoral positions (5+ years post-Ph.D.) may be diminishing, we have less data on how many of these individuals have been captured by other job titles (such as research associate) when they "age-out" of the postdoc which may similarly lack pathways to permanent, well-compensated employment.

Certainly there are many unanswered questions in understanding the evolution of the Ph.D. workforce but NSF data provides critical insights which, when collected over time, allows for us to begin to observe changes in various employment metrics.

​I encourage you to explore the data for yourself at the links below.

Marcus Lambert, Ph.D., Associate Vice President for Research Strategy and Operations at SUNY Downstate Medical Center, and his colleagues have been interested in understanding factors that affect whether biomedical postdoctoral scholars pursue career paths as faculty, particularly at research-intensive institutions. They have published two studies on the topic over the past few years:

• ​Career choices of underrepresented and female postdocs in the biomedical sciences
• Postdocs’ advice on pursuing a research career in academia: A qualitative analysis of free-text survey responses

​Below I summarize some of the insights from these studies as well as thoughts shared by Lambert when he visited NC State in Fall 2020 to discuss his work with our graduate students, postdocs, and faculty. 

The Problem
Training and mentorship often do not align with careers available for Ph.D.s and postdocs.

Academia has traditionally viewed graduate education and postdoctoral training as preparation for a faculty career. However, estimates of the number of PhDs who enter tenure-track faculty positions range from 8 percent for life science Ph.D.s within 5 years of graduation to 20 percent for biomedical postdocs. 

Thus, our training programs must reimagine the pipeline to address the needs of a changing scientific workforce, particularly as they relate to diversity.

Lack of Diversity in Faculty: A Leaky Pipeline
Perhaps one of the more striking datapoints Dr. Lambert presented during his talk is that while the percent of underrepresented minorities earning bachelors, Ph.D.s, and entering postdocs in the biological sciences has risen over the last 20 years, their representation in full professor roles has not increased since 2001. 

Data have shown that underrepresented groups including women and certain racial/ethnic groups are less interested in a faculty career at research-intensive institutions than well-represented male researchers. 

Surveying Postdocs to Understand Their Career Choices
Dr. Lambert presented data he and his colleagues collected from postdoctoral scholars regarding their motivations for academic research careers. This research group was specifically interested in understanding what factors motivate postdocs to persist in academia. In total over 1,200 postdocs from 50 universities were surveyed. 

What were the results?
Nearly 50% of respondents reported a faculty career at a research-intensive institution as their top choice.

• Interest in a faculty career wains around year 2-3 of the postdoc, representing a potentially critical time for mentorship and career support to be provided.
• Those reporting that self-worth and career mentorship were large determinants in their career choice were more likely to indicate an interest in a research-intensive faculty career.
• Conversely, those rating financial security as a key determinant of their career choice were more likely to pursue non-faculty careers.

The Importance of Outcome Expectations & Research Self-Efficacy in Determining Faculty Career Choice
Two key metrics, outcome expectations and research self-efficacy, were higher among those interested in pursuing a faculty career versus those who chose career paths outside academia. 

• Outcome expectations: expectancy (will my effort lead to high performance), instrumentality (will performance lead to desirable outcomes), & valence (do I find the outcomes desirable) lead to a motivational force to pursue an academic research career
• Research self-efficacy: belief in one's own ability to succeed at research-related tasks (publish, secure grants, mentor students, develop novel & successful research ideas)

Female postdocs rated themselves lower in research self-efficacy and had lower outcome expectations than male postdocs. Self-worth, the sense of one's own value or worth as a person, was also a strong factor in determining career choice. In fact, the strongest predictors of underrepresented minority postdocs indicating an interest in pursuing a research-intensive faculty career were positive self-worth and high research self-efficacy. Similarly, the best predictor for women indicating an intention of pursuing an academic research position was positive self-worth. 

Research self-efficacy is associated with higher rates of first author publications, particularly for female and underrepresented postdocs. Thus, programs that increase research self-efficacy could have positive impacts on supporting postdocs and their overall research productivity.

Underrepresented Postdocs Desire More Specialized Training
Underrepresented postdocs were more likely to indicate a desire for more specialized training to assist them in pursuing a faculty career including:

• A transitioning to research independence course
• A scientific teaching course
• Fellowships and grants to support investigators like them
• Training in the application of basic science principles to community-based settings

Qualitive Insights - Advice for Pursuing an Academic Research Career
These results, just released in PLOS One, focused on investigating advice postdocs would give others pursuing academic research careers.

Specifically, the authors investigated text responses to the question:
"What advice would you give someone thinking about an academic research career?”

Data from 994 postdocs were analyzed for common themes and sentiments among a diverse sample (56% US Citizens; 62% female; 13% underrepresented minorities). 

A theme that continued to emerge in the qualitative data was the role "passion" plays in pursuing an academic research career. In fact, the authors organized many of the postdocs' responses about academic research into the concept of it being a lifestyle where one's research work and life are often one in the same.

With that in mind, other common advice centered around the need for those considering an academic career to engage in self reflection to determine if an academic research lifestyle was congruent with their values, life priorities, and personal and professional needs. Are they willing to commit long hours and much effort into academic training with no guarantee they will land a faculty position that this training traditionally prepares them for?

Pros and Cons of Postdoctoral Work
Other concepts that emerged from the postdocs' responses were that while the challenges of working as a postdoc are many (low pay, demanding workload, unanticipated setbacks, & a competitive funding and research climate), the positives in a postdoc position are scientific creativity, academic freedom, the ability to travel, and building problem solving skills.   

Luck Plays a Part in "Success"
Many of the postdoc respondents mentioned that luck can play a significant role in the success of experiments, publications, funding, and job opportunities. Thus, ensuring your self-worth is not defined by "success" in your research work is essential to maintaining your mental health and wellbeing. You only have so much control of the various outcomes that are traditionally associated with academic success but you can control how central academic success is to your life.

On a side note, I routinely encourage graduate students and postdocs to get involved in things outside the lab/work as you need other outlets to feel accomplished and successful, which can help guard against allowing research or academic success to fully define you as a person. 

Need for More Postdoc Support & Resources
Several responses to the advice for prospective academic researchers prompt emphasized the importance of strong mentorship and support while conducting postdoctoral training. Many recommended those interested in pursuing an academic research career to be proactive in researching and choosing the best work environment to complete postdoctoral training. In addition, the importance of finding multiple mentors, beyond your primary faculty supervisor, building a community of support, and asking for help are critical to success in your postdoc and beyond.

Realizing there are multiple career paths available to those with Ph.D.s and postdoctoral training and being proactive in researching your post-postdoc career options can also bolster postdocs' confidence in their futures and lessen the feeling that they must "win" the faculty lottery to be considered a "success".

Take-Home Points from Dr. Lambert's Research

• Self-worth, career mentorship, and financial security were all strong predictors of intending to pursue an academic research career (or not)
• The likelihood of underrepresented postdocs persisting in academia increases most with self-worth
• Female postdocs are slightly discouraged by lifestyle when deciding whether to pursue an academic research career
• Those postdocs most comfortable with choosing an academic research career cited the following as important factors:
  • adequate support with family and childcare
    
  • financial stability
    
  • geographical flexibility
    

These findings offer ideas about how to best support postdocs wanting to pursue faculty careers. A critical component is ensuring adequate support in the form of compensation, mentoring, training, and other resources to allow postdocs to pursue these careers with great confidence in their own abilities. 

Advice to Current Postdocs
To make the most of your postdoc, Dr. Lambert recommends:

• Be strategic about your mentorship team
• Recognize that a career in academic research is a lifestyle which may or may not be suitable for you
  • Thus, reflect on you motivation to pursue a faculty career
• Prepare for multiple career paths
• Assess your readiness & preparedness at each stage
  • For two excellent resources around readiness for a faculty career, see:
    • The Academic Career Readiness Assessment (ACRA)
      • More about the ACRA's methodology, published in CBE Life Sciences Education
    • Survey-based analysis of the academic job market (paper in eLife)
• Strengthen your research & writing skills
• Network

For further reading...
Explore more posts related to the academic career search in the Academic Packways section of the NC State Graduate School's ImPACKful blog.

The National Postdoctoral Association (NPA) held its first ever virtual annual conference April 15 & 16. By all accounts, it was a huge success with 900+ attendees (>2 times the largest previous attendance mark for a NPA annual conference). 

The online format allowed for greater accessibility for postdocs as travel and lodging costs were removed. I also appreciated that the conference platform allowed for attendees to easily download copies of posters that were presented as well as resources and materials provided by presenters.

The conference agenda was packed with great content relevant for postdocs and those who support them. An effort was also made to promote engagement during breaks through trivia and bingo games. The platform used to host the event, Big Marker, performed well and had many great features to promote exchange of contact information and content.
​
Below, I share some of the publicly available resources and tools highlighted during the conference in the hopes they are valuable to my readers.

​This is only a subset of resources and opportunities shared at the NPA Annual Conference. Recordings of all talks/sessions will be available to those who attended via the meeting platform soon. 

Science Policy Career Paths
I moderated a panel, Policy Career Paths for Postdocs and the Things I Wish I Knew
​Resources shared: 
AAAS Science & Technology Policy Fellowships, Providing opportunities for outstanding scientists and engineers to learn first-hand about federal policymaking while using their knowledge and skills to address today’s most pressing societal challenges.

The List of SciPol Fellowships, a crowd-sourced list of science & technology policy opportunities through member societies, the federal government, state governments, foundations/non-profits, & more

Zintellect, Access hundreds of research internships, fellowships, and scholarships funded by the government and private sector organizations.
Powered by the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE) & Oak Ridge Associated Universities (ORAU)

Science Policy Fellowships for Non-US Citizens, a crowd-sourced list of science policy fellowships available to non-us citizens

Science Policy and Advocacy for STEM Scientists
An innovative program from the University of California, Irvine GPS-STEM in collaboration with the Journal of Science Policy & Governance, Union of Concerned Scientists, & Ridge 2 Reef Program.

This group offers an online course in science policy and advocacy for STEM scientists (PhD students & postdocs) with a focus on learning basic skills and concepts, as well as identifying concrete ways to transition into careers in these areas.

They will be offering the program online, open to any interested trainee, starting July 15, 2021.
Enroll in the Science Policy & Advocacy for STEM Scientists Certificate Program 2021 by June 1st via this Google Form.  

Building Peer Networks to Enhance Postdoc Career & Professional Development
​
Stony Brook University PhD Career Ladder Program (PCLP)
A peer-led career mentoring program for grad students and postdocs pursuing any career pathway. 
PCLP helps participants set aside a few hours each week to develop a framework for their job search. Biweekly meetings guide participants “up the ladder” of career exploration from self-assessment to career research and skill identification, to informational interviewing, to resume crafting.
The creators of PCLP have developed a Toolkit to assist individuals seeking to start a PCLP Group at their institutions. 

Leadership & Management in Action Program (L-MAP) at Washington University in St. Louis
The L-MAP, Leadership and Management in Action Program, is a new active-learning training program for graduate students and postdocs in the biosciences to build a leadership, management, and inclusive teamwork skillset. Trainees work in teams on experiential case studies and activities in the L-MAP curriculum, led by a facilitator with expertise in leadership training.

The WashU team has made their L-MAP Curriculum publicly available via a creative commons license and will be hosting a virtual Train-the-Trainer workshop on May 10th, 10 AM - 12 PM Central, to assist individuals wanting to launch the program at their institutions. You can register to attend the workshop when downloading the curriculum at the link, below. 

Volunteer Opportunities Through the NPA
Volunteering with the NPA is a great way for postdocs to expand their leadership and teamwork skills and contribute to improving the postdoctoral experience. You can write about topics or experiences that impact the postdoctoral community through The POSTDOCket, help the NPA in its advocacy efforts on behalf of postdocs, assist in the development and dissemination of resources for postdocs and postdoc offices, and more. 
​
It is so important for postdocs to get involved in things beyond their lab/work. I know writing for The POSTDOCket and taking on leadership positions in my postdoctoral association was critical in helping me develop into who I am today as well as transition into my current role in postdoctoral affairs.  

2021 NPA Institutional Policy Report Released
​As a postdoctoral affairs professional, the data the NPA collects and reports on postdoc policies, benefits, demographics, and postdoc office resources every few years is critical advocating for increased institutional resources to support postdoc affairs. In the most recent report, the NPA Institutional Policy Survey Taskforce and Data Analysis Team show trends in various metrics collected in the survey over time (from 2013, 2016, & 2019). It is nice to see progress is being made on a variety of fronts to increase postdoc & postdoc office support. More work is still needed, though, especially around the fact that the mode size of a postdoc office remains one individual.

The United States' National Science Foundation (NSF) collects a large amount of data on individuals receiving their doctorate degrees from U.S. universities.

These data include:

• Survey of Earned Doctorates (SED)
• Survey of Doctorate Recipients (SDR)
• Science & Engineering Indicators, published by National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics

The SED focuses on recent Ph.D. graduates from a wide range of fields (lifes sciences, physical sciences, earth sciences, engineering, education, psychology, humanities) each year while the SDR captures employment information of individuals with Ph.D.s in science, engineering, or health fields, regardless of when they received their degree. 

I referenced some of these data a year ago in my blog post:
​Post-Ph.D. Career Plans: Consider the Possibilities 

A new batch of SED data was released in December 2020 containing data reported in 2019.
​So, while this data does not yet capture the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on new Ph.D. graduates, we can still look at trends in employment, earnings, and more across a wide range of disciplines. New SDR data (from 2019) will be released in April 2021. So, stay tuned for a deeper dive into insights from that survey in a future post.

How US Ph.D. Employment Has Shifted from 1999 to 2019
The SED contains much historical data, allowing us to look at trends in Ph.D. production, employment, and more. The survey's Post-Graduation Commitments data is reported from 1999 to 2019 and we'll delve more into it below. 

Ph.D.s with Post-Graduation Commitments: Employment vs. Postdoctoral Training
The data plotted below reflects the breakdown of doctorate recipients with either employment or postdoctoral training commitments post-graduation.

​Keep in mind, though, that many recent Ph.D. recipients do not report definite commitments post-graduation in the SED survey. In the data from 1999 to 2019, the average percentage of all Ph.D. recipients reporting definite post-graduation commitments is ~60%. ​

For the purposes of the data plotted above, postdoctoral training and employment are separate post-graduation commitments and the percentages in these two buckets plotted in the graphs above sum to 100% within each degree field. In these data, all post-graduation commitments are categorized as either employment or postdoctoral training. 

These historical post-graduation commitments data tell us a few things:
1) Pursuing postdoctoral training is far more common in the Life Sciences and Physical (Chemistry, Physics) & Earth Sciences
2) Data collapsed across all fields show a trend toward a lower percentage of Ph.D. recipients securing employment post graduation, with particular declines in the Humanities & Arts and Psychology & Social Sciences
3) More Humanities & Arts and Psychology & Social Science Ph.D.s with post-graduation commitments are pursuing postdoctoral training, especially over the last 10 years 
4) There are trends toward greater employment pursuit and lower engagement in postdoctoral training over the last 15 years in the Life Sciences and Physical & Earth Sciences (with a hint at a "peak postdoctoral training" level in the high 60% range in the year 2004)

Again, the data plotted above reflects only those Ph.D. recipients with definite post-graduation commitments. Let's examine the trends in the percentage of Ph.D. recipients reporting definite post-graduation commitments over the same 20-year time period, below. 

Takeaways from the graph above:
1) The "shock" of the financial crisis beginning in 2008 is evident slightly in the 2009 SED data and noticeably in the 2014 data of recent Ph.D. recipients with definite post-graduation commitments
2) While post-graduation commitment percentages recovered by 2019 in most fields, the Humanities & Arts were an exception with percentage of recent Ph.D. graduates with post-graduation commitments lower in 2019 than in 1999, 2004, or 2009
3) Mathematics & Computer Science Ph.D.s consistently experience the highest percentage of definite post-graduation commitments
​
It will be interesting to see what the SED show in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic's impact on post-graduation commitments in the coming years. 

Overall, there has been a 35.5% increase in the number of total US doctorates awarded from 1999 (41,100 Ph.D.s) to 2019 (55,703 Ph.D.s). Education doctorates (Ed.D.s; Ph.D.s) awarded decreased by 29.3% from 1999 to 2019 while the decline was 4.2% for the Humanities & Arts. The growth in Ph.D.s awarded in other fields over this twenty year time period was staggering: a doubling of degrees (118.7% increase) awarded in Mathematics & Computer Sciences and near doubling (93.3% increase) for Engineering Ph.D.s awarded. While less dramatic, the growth of Ph.D.s awarded in the Life Sciences (55.8%), Physical & Earth Sciences (53.7%), and Psychology & Social Sciences (22.8%) was still quite robust from 1999 to 2019.

​Take-home point from the Ph.D.s conferred data:
There are a lot of Ph.D.s being produced each year and while some fields may be producing recipients with good job prospects (Mathematics & Computer Sciences, 70.2% with post-graduation commitments in 2019) others continue to produce very high levels of Ph.D.s with moderate job prospects based on the SED data (Life Sciences, 62.3% with post-graduation commitments in 2019). The Humanities & Arts field showed a plateauing to slight decrease in Ph.D.s awarded over the past 20 years, suggesting this field is responding to lower "demand" for Ph.D.s (52.3% with post-graduation commitments in 2019), though some may argue not rapidly enough.

The sector employment data make clear employment in academe has declined over the past 20 years across all doctorate recipients, though more so in some fields of study. Across all doctorate recipients, there has been a 15.4% decline in the proportion of individuals employed in academe from 1999 to 2019 while the proportion employed by industry or business grew by 40% over the same time period. 

​The Ph.D. degree areas with the largest decline in the proportion of recipients working in academe from 1999 (48.1%) to 2019 (27.5%) was Mathematics & Computer Sciences at 42.8%, followed by a decline of 24.2% in the Life Sciences - from 47.5% of recipients in 1999 to 36% in 2019. In fact, as the graph above shows, the 2019 SED data indicates a larger proportion of Life Sciences Ph.D. recipients employed in industry or business than academe, a first since the data have been collected. Again, a reminder that postdoctoral training is NOT INCLUDED in these data. Rather, the graphs above display the breakdown of 2019 Ph.D. recipients with employment post-graduation commitments by sector.

Interestingly, employment in academe remained relatively stable in the fields of Psychology & Social Sciences (51.9% in 1999 and 51.7% in 2019), declined more modestly in Humanities & Arts (10.4% decline from 80.7% of 1999 Ph.D. recipients to 72.3% in 2019), and actually increased for the field of Education (20.3% increase from 47.2% of 1999 Ph.D./Ed.D. recipients to 56.8% in 2019).

Regardless, the data make clear that employment trends for recent Ph.D. recipients, especially in the Science, Technology, Engineering, & Math (STEM) fields, have changed markedly over the past 20 years.

​These data bring to light a question that continues to be asked more and more in graduate education: Are we preparing Ph.D. students for a 21st Century career landscape or one of the past? Clearly, employment prospects in academe are shrinking. 

It should be noted that there are vast differences in which sectors employ Ph.D. recipients based on their field of study, as indicated in the pie charts below. 

While not plotted above the breakdown for employment sectors for 2019 Mathematics & Computer Sciences Ph.D.s was: 64% Industry/Business, 28% Academe, 5% Government, 2% Nonprofit, & ~2% Other or Unknown. 
Clearly, being employed by industry or business sectors was the most common career path for recent Ph.D.s in STEM in 2019.
Conversely, academe is by far the largest sector employing recent Ph.D.s in Humanities & Arts, Psychology & Social Sciences, & Education.  

Clearly, in 2019, the sectors employing Ph.D.s varied WIDELY based on Ph.D. field. These facts raise the question, are we adequately preparing all Ph.D.s for their next career step given the diversity of paths they pursue?

Post-Ph.D. Plans: Pursue a Postdoc or Not?
While I have discussed my personal perspectives on the value of doing a postdoc, including using it for career exploration and self reflection, this is often a crucial decision point for many recent Ph.D. recipients. There are clearly financial considerations as postdoctoral salaries or stipends are relatively low compared to many Ph.D. holders' earning potential (discussed in more detail, below). However, the freedom and autonomy one can have in a postdoctoral position may not be matched for the rest of one's career and it can provide a nice period of scholarly and self exploration before making your next career move in academe, industry, or beyond. 

Postdoctoral training has also become necessary in many fields to be competitive for faculty positions as this additional training allows time for Ph.D. holders to build a larger collection of scholarly work, begin to demonstrate research independence, and develop crucial skills in lab management and grant writing, among other tasks required of faculty at research-intensive institutions. Teaching postdocs have also become more common for recent Ph.D.s seeking to build pedagogical and classroom management skills as they pursue teaching-focused faculty positions. 

As mentioned above in the breakdown of post-graduation commitments of recent Ph.D. recipients over the past 20 years, postdoctoral training is the majority commitment path for many fields: 59% of Life Science Ph.D. recipients in 2019 with post-graduation commitments pursued postdoctoral training while that percentage was ~56% in the Physical & Earth Sciences. The postdoctoral path is less common in other Ph.D. fields, though. 

The sheer numbers of 2019 Ph.D. recipients (collapsed across fields) pursing postdoctoral training (12,091), though, still dwarfs employment numbers in any other single employment sector (8,019 employed in academe; 7,476 employed in industry; 3,929 employment in other sectors).

​For many a postdoc is the default "next step" in their academic training and while it may fulfill this role for some, we should be empowering Ph.D. students with the information and space to decide if a postdoc makes sense for them (whether it fits into a career plan). 

Median Salaries of US Doctorate Recipients in 2019
While others have published about the financial impact of pursuing postdoctoral training versus employment post-Ph.D., the 2019 SED data allow us to look at how salaries differ between those pursuing postdoctoral training or employment by field of study (and by sex, though not discussed in this post). 

The percentage of median postdoctoral salaries to other employment salaries for new doctorate recipients demonstrate that the salary discount for pursuing postdoctoral training various greatly by field. In the Life Sciences, median postdoctoral salary ($50,000) is 61% of the median of other employment salary ($82,000). The percentage is as low as 49% in Engineering and as high as 94% in Humanities and Arts.

The median salary for recently employed doctorates also varies greatly by field. $53,000 was the median salary for Humanities and Arts doctorate recipients in 2019 while it was $68,000 in Psychology, $70,000 in Education, $85,000 in Biological and Biomedical Sciences, $95,000 in Chemistry, $102,500 in Engineering, and $120,000 in Mathematics and Computer Sciences. 

While these data are aggregated over many sub-fields and employment sectors and represent the median of a wide salary range, they hopefully allow Ph.D. holders to have a sense of the salaries they can obtain post-degree.

An interesting question these data cannot answer by themselves is whether there are more Ph.D.s interested in employment in certain sectors than there are positions, which affect their ability to secure employment. It is possible (and probable) that many individuals pursue a postdoc after their Ph.D. because they cannot secure other employment upon graduation. ​

More Data to Explore
There is a wealth of data in the SED and beyond. This post has just scratched the surface. 
Next​ month I hope to touch on some of the SED data comparing temporary visa holders and US citizens and permanent residents. In addition, 2019 SDR data should be published by NSF in April, which will allow for a deeper dive into employment trends for Ph.D.-holders in the US.

​If you are interested in exploring the data that made up this post, please visit the link below.
​You can also check out all the SED data on NSF's website.  

Conclusions
While the NSF SED data prompt several questions about the doctorate workforce and career pathways that remain to be interrogated, what is clear is that post-Ph.D. career pathways for doctorates issued in the United States are changing across a wide range of disciplines. Through data such as this, those of us interested in improving graduate student and postdoc career and professional development can hopefully share post-Ph.D. employment insights with a variety of stakeholders (students, postdocs, faculty, university administrators, & lawmakers) to influence the environment at our universities.

​We must be more intentional in considering what we are training Ph.D. students and postdocs for and how their employment prospects have changed. By doing so, we can hopefully build a responsive graduate-level training ecosystem at our universities that takes into account the future economic stability and prosperity of our Ph.D. students and postdocs.