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. 

Last week was National Postdoc Appreciation Week, an annual event organized by the National Postdoctoral Association (NPA) to raise awareness for the work postdocs do and encourage the institutions they work at to show their appreciation. 

As someone who was a postdoctoral scholar and now works as an administrator to support postdocs, I know the value they provide to their institutions. However, many people - including those working at our institutions - either don't understand what a postdoc is or the impact they make through their research, mentorship, and teaching efforts.

The NPA has launched a whole campaign to try to better articulate that while postdocs perform important research and scholarship, they are also human beings like anyone else - mothers, fathers, leaders, volunteers, immigrants, and innovators. If you are a postdoc, I encourage you to share your story as part of the What's a Postdoc? initiative. 

The definition of a postdoctoral scholar (postdoc) by the NPA reads:
"An individual who has received a doctoral degree (or equivalent) and is engaged in a temporary and defined period of mentored advanced training to enhance professional skills and research independence needed to pursue his or her chosen career path."

The major task associated with postdoctoral scholars is helping lead and drive forward research and scholarly work at their institutions. And these institutions can range from universities and academic medical centers to national or government labs and corporations. My experience lies in supporting postdocs at universities which is what I will touch on in the rest of this piece. However, there is important emerging research that pursuing postdocs outside academic institutions does not necessarily preclude one from pursuing a faculty career. Perhaps a topic for a future post.  

​I ran climate surveys on our postdoctoral population at North Carolina State University in 2020 and 2021 as well as at Virginia Tech in 2022. In these surveys we asked how postdocs spend their time and the distribution of their work devoted to the tasks below were remarkably consistent across survey years and institutions.  

As you can see in the figure above, postdocs spend a nearly equivalent amount of their time performing research or scholarship related to their personal interests/goals and those of their supervisor(s) and that these efforts take up ~60% of their total work hours each week. It is great to see postdocs are working on their "own" research/scholarship efforts as a key point of the postdoctoral position is to develop as an independent researcher and scholar.

​Writing takes up another large portion of postdocs' time (~16%) with manuscript writing being the largest area of focus outside research/scholarship. Finally, mentoring junior colleagues (7%) and teaching (6%) were tasks most postdocs reported doing as part of their roles, although there was large variation in the distribution of effort on these tasks based on the disciplinary background of the postdoc. 

Clearly, then, postdocs do report focusing largely on research/scholarship but are also doing work beyond that, including mentoring others. There is data to emphasize that postdocs play a critical role in the development of research skills in Ph.D. students working in their groups. The authors of the PNAS study that investigated postdoc mentoring of graduate students discussed a "cascading mentorship model" where faculty supervisors' mentoring of postdocs allows for postdocs to then mentor their more junior colleagues. So, postdocs are both mentoring and are being mentored. 

Given many postdocs also seek to move into future careers where they will need to mentor others, increasing the development of effective mentoring skills in this population is critical. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine's report and online guide on the Science of Effective Mentoring in STEMM is a great place to start. 

Many readers may wonder what is the purpose of a postdoc? How is it different from graduate school? These are good questions. Traditionally, a postdoctoral position was seen as a type of apprenticeship where aspiring faculty members (especially in the sciences and engineering fields) would be mentored by a more senior faculty member as they worked to develop the various skills (experimental design, analysis, manuscript and grant writing, people and project management, etc...) needed to become an "independent researcher". To achieve a faculty position at many research-intensive institutions a postdoctoral position is becoming essential. And data demonstrate that completing a postdoc improves scholarly productivity and positively contributes to securing a tenure-track faculty appointment. However, one can have too much postdoctoral training and experience diminishing returns from extended postdoc positions. 

Many postdocs do not ultimately land faculty positions and move on to a variety of careers, post-postdoc. Additionally, while postdocs are at their institutions, they contribute importantly in a variety of ways from mentoring students (as discussed previously) to teaching and assisting in the management of their research groups. Perhaps their most important contribution to their institutions, however, is driving research and innovation forward. 

Innovative programs that promote start-up company creation led by postdocs are gaining steam including those at Cornell University's main campus and Cornell Tech in New York City; University of Memphis; University of Washington in Seattle; Carnegie Mellon University; Duke University's Department of Biomedical Engineering; and now Virginia Tech. Postdocs are uniquely situated to help lead the commercialization efforts of new technologies emerging out of university research groups. It will be exciting to see in the years to come how these programs perform in allowing postdocs to spearhead the creation of start-up companies from universities' intellectual property. ​

While many anecdotes and assumptions exist suggesting postdocs are critical drivers of research and innovation at their institutions, I have found surprisingly little analysis of this topic. 

So, I set out to do a crude analysis myself. 

The National Science Foundation (NSF) publishes a wealth of information on research expenditures and snapshots of the graduate student and postdoctoral scholar population at institutions across the United States. Specifically for this analysis, I leveraged data from the Fall 2020 NSF Survey of Graduate Students and Postdoctorates in Science and Engineering (most recent data available) and NSF Higher Education Research and Development (HERD) Survey data from fiscal year 2020 (released in December 2021 and the most recent data available). So, we will be comparing research expenditures from the HERD Survey (both overall and federally-funded) to postdoctorate and graduate student population size in 2020. 

Caveats: NSF data on population counts are self-reported and institutions are left to determine the best process for counting their graduate student and postdoc population. Postdoc population counts can be quite variable (see this blog post from Gary McDowell for more on that). 
In addition, I removed three institutional data points as they vastly skewed the postdoc data in particular: Johns Hopkins (1,723 postdocs in 2020), Harvard (5,787 postdocs), and Stanford (2,446 postdocs) all had postdoc populations >2.5 standard deviations of the mean postdoc count of all reporting institutions in 2020 (mean postdoc count: 260, Std Dev: 520). In addition, Johns Hopkins research expenditures are nearly double that of the next largest institution (University of Michigan), making its data an outlier on both metrics - postdoc counts and research expenditures. With those outliers removed we are left with 200 institutions who reported postdoc counts in 2020. 

Let's look at the correlation between the number of postdocs at an institution and its overall research expenditures in 2020.

An R-squared value of 0.81 demonstrates a very strong correlation between the number of postdocs at an institution and its overall research expenditures in a given year. The R-squared value between postdoc counts and federally-funded research expenditures was 0.75. As a reminder correlation does not equal causation but clearly there is a strong association between research expenditures and number of postdocs at an institution. 

Plotting the same 200 institution's fulltime Ph.D. student populations against research expenditures we see a strong but weaker correlation. 

The R-squared value between number of Ph.D. students and federally-funded research expenditures was 0.59.
​
The trendline equations for the relationships plotted above can be used to "measure" how research expenditures associate with either the number of postdocs or Ph.D. students.
​REMINDER: This is an overly simplistic interpretation of the data as there are many factors we aren't looking at here but for sake of argument, let's run the math.

For the postdoc vs research expenditure trendline: y=1038.4x + 81898
Where x=postdoc number & y=research expenditure (in $1000).
If x=1; y=82,936.4
So, based on these overly simplified (and not to be taken literally) data, 1 postdoc equates to $82,936,400 in research expenditures & 1,000 postdocs to $1,120,298,000 or $1.12 billion in research expenditures. 

If we do the same math for Ph.D. students, 1 Ph.D. student equates to $48,629,790 in research expenditures & 1,000 Ph.D. students to $331,137,000 or $330 million in research expenditures. 

So, while this is a very crude analysis, hopefully it emphasizes the very strong relationship between postdocs and research "output" (ie, expenditures of funds on research) at institutions AND that this relationship is stronger than for Ph.D. students who also lead research will making progress towards their degree. 

While research expenditures are perhaps not the best metrics of "output" from postdocs or Ph.D. students, it is available data we have. Long term, we must do a better job of understanding the impact of graduate students and postdocs on not only research/scholarship and innovation but the teaching and outreach mission of many of institutions.

​I discussed the need to better measure the impact of postdocs in a prior blog post from 2020 and there is still much to do in that regard. 

Postdoctoral scholars do a lot. Clearly they play a large role in research output at their institutions but are also critical mentors for many working in research groups and universities and other academically-focused research organizations.

While it is difficult to fully capture the impact postdocs make, those of us who work in this space know it is large and often underappreciated. We must do better to measure and report on postdoc impact moving forward. Why? Because if institutions don't find a better way to understand postdoc impact, they will not invest in supporting them. This in turn, will make the postdoc path less desirable. In fact, that is already happening, with many faculty reporting difficulties in recruiting postdocs. Granted, some institutions - St. Jude Children's Research Hospital and the Van Andel Institute in particular - are working hard to increase compensation for their postdocs but systemic barriers (grant budgets, organizational classification of postdocs as non-employees, etc...) make it challenging for compensation and benefits to be increased for many postdocs. Add these challenges to the opportunity cost in pursuing a postdoc and one should not be surprised to see Ph.D.s pursuing different paths post-degree.

It is my belief that we must think of creative ways to reimagine the postdoc experience to make it a more holistic training experience that sets those who pursue it up for success. The innovation postdoc fellowship programs I mentioned earlier are one example but I think a variety of creative solutions could be proposed. To begin with, though, we must all do better in collecting and reporting on data that allows us to advocate for postdocs and the critical roles they play at our institutions and beyond.

For Further Reading
From the Blog

• ​Measuring Postdoc Impact​
• Reimagining the Postdoc Experience
• Factors That Affect Career Choice and Diversity in Science
• Ph.D. Recipients' Employment Trends: Insights from National Science Foundation (NSF) Data
• Ph.D. Employment Trends: Insights from NSF Survey of Doctorate Recipients 

Papers and Programs of Potential Interest
United States National Postdoc Survey results and the interaction of gender, career choice and mentor impact

Career choices of underrepresented and female postdocs in the biomedical sciences

Surveying the experience of postdocs in the United States before and during the COVID-19 pandemic

​A startup postdoc program as a channel for university technology transfer: the case of the Runway Startup Postdoc Program at the Jacobs Technion–Cornell Institute at Cornell Tech

​Postdocs to Innovators program (consortium of European universities and partners)

Virginia Tech Presidential Postdoctoral Fellowship Program

What is a postdoc? What is it for?

This question is a persistent one for many working within and outside academia. 
Working in this space, we often label postdoctoral scholars as trainees and employees, which is a tricky line to walk.

Freshly removed from their Ph.D. training, many postdocs struggle with defining themselves. Breaking out of the mindset of student to budding professional is not easy. As institutions, we should reflect on how the postdoctoral experience is value-add from graduate school training. How do we ensure postdocs are learning and growing and not simply "doing work" related to a faculty member's research? The answers to these questions are important as the higher education sector struggles with recruiting and retaining talent in a tight labor market. 

A recent piece in Science highlights that many faculty members have struggled recruiting postdoctoral researchers over the past year or so, which is most likely related to a strong job market and reconsideration of life priorities as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. It also may indicate that Ph.D. students are more carefully considering what role a postdoctoral position plays in their overall career trajectory. I think individuals more carefully considering whether a postdoctoral position is necessary for their career development and growth is a good thing. Also, institutions could do more to illuminate the value of postdoc training by reimagining what it can be.  

It is important to remember that  both graduate students and postdoctoral researchers contribute cutting edge knowledge and discoveries that drive innovation to improve our world. Furthermore, postdoctoral researchers are more able to devote time and effort to research and discovery given they no longer have course or degree requirements to meet. But are we allowing them to fully realize their potential in our current model?

It is my opinion that our institutions must ensure postdoctoral scholars not only have the tools and resources to do amazing research and scholarship at their institutions but are developed as full people and community members. We should work to assist postdocs in discovering how their skills, interests, and values can be put to use to serve their campuses and local communities and, ultimately, the world. 

Part of the reason postdocs are overlooked on their campus is that they are often isolated from the larger institutional community as they perform intensive research and scholarship. There was a time when devotion to the development of this deep expertise in a scholarly area was sufficient to ensure success in an academic career. Those times are over. Team science and scholarship are essential for academics to thrive in the 21st Century and postdocs who develop these skills will be more effective faculty researchers.

In addition, a singular devotion to research and scholastic productivity can lead to a situation where a postdoctoral researcher ties their worth to their work. This dynamic stresses the mental health and wellbeing of some of our most well educated and trained researchers and can lead them to abandoning promising careers. One way to improve this situation is to provide outlets for postdocs to contribute to causes beyond their research and scholarship. Volunteering in their local postdoctoral association, the National Postdoctoral Association, and local community provides a variety of benefits including:

• Allowing them to hone key transferable skills including communication, teamwork, project planning, and management 
• Facilitating social interactions and community building
• Allowing for postdocs to contribute meaningfully to something bigger than themselves

​Postdocs can (and do) provide value to their campus community beyond their research endeavors. We should work to aid institutions in better integrating postdocs into many of their teaching and innovation efforts including:

• Provide mentoring training to postdocs to allow them to more effectively mentor undergraduate and graduate students in their research groups
  • Mentoring training will also prepare postdocs to effectively lead and manage teams in their post-postdoc careers (faculty or otherwise)
• Encourage opportunities for postdocs to build and practice pedagogical and teaching skills
  • Provide access to teaching and pedagogical training to postdocs which could then allow them to contribute to campus needs in a variety of ways:
    • Postdocs could serve in a guest lecture pool that a university maintains to give them small teaching experiences
    • Encourage postdocs to lead workshops and trainings on techniques and tools they are experts in to their campus communities 
      • See NC State’s Peer Scholars Program as an example
      • Ideally, some form of financial compensation would be available for the above work
• Provide postdocs access to information and training in intellectual property, technology transfer and commercialization, and entrepreneurship to encourage and empower them to shepherd key innovative research taking place in our universities and research centers to ultimately produce products and services that can benefit society

While a traditional postdoctoral position had the goal of preparing Ph.D.s for faculty positions, they could also morph in the 21st Century to serve as a bridge between academic training and careers beyond faculty.

• Many companies require the highly technical skills that Ph.D.s have developed in their training
• However, acclimating Ph.D.s to the world of corporate work and the language and procedures of business is a challenge
• Why couldn’t the postdoc also serve as a way for companies to access Ph.D. talent without necessarily committing them to a permanent position?
  • Companies can test-drive candidates while giving them access to useful experiences that diversify their resumes through collaborative internship opportunities
• In addition, there may be a place for postdocs to serve as a nexus between academic research and commercialization opportunities
  • A large bottleneck in the commercialization of academic research is that the principal investigators responsible for leading research groups often do not have the time to devote to liaising with potential companies to explore licensing their technology
    • Postdocs could serve as a useful intermediary between academic research and companies to help ensure a greater number of innovative research developments can be translated into real-world solutions
    • In the process, postdocs gain a greater understanding of the language of the business world, intellectual property, and technology commercialization 

One big issue that would emerge from a reimagining of the postdoctoral experience is how to apportion postdocs’ time devoted to research and scholarly efforts, especially those supported on a faculty member’s research grant (as the majority of postdocs are), versus the additional activities describe above.

While the United States government’s Office of Management and Budget has issued guidance on the “dual role” of student and postdoctoral researchers emphasizing that graduate students and postdocs supported on federal grants are both trainees and employees and expected to be actively engaged in their training and career development, nowhere is an expected distribution of time devoted to training and career development versus research work and activities specified. There is still a sense from many faculty whose research grants support postdocs that they are paying postdocs to do the work and not engage in “extracurricular” activities and that those should occur outside “business hours”. International postdocs whose visas are tied to their research roles may be especially reluctant to allocate time to career and professional development activities if their faculty supervisor does not encourage their engagement in them. The concerns of faculty could be minimized if they aren’t paying a postdoc when they are engaging in activities outside their research and scholarly responsibilities.      

Thus, steps may need to be taken by institutions to effectively distribute resources and funds to support the proposed broader set of postdoc activities mentioned above. I think it is in our best interest to do so. Universities will need to think hard about investing in postdoc compensation, perhaps covering 20-25% of a postdoc’s costs with the rest coming from faculty member’s research grants and funds. It would also be reasonable to assume that if an institution is investing resources in supporting postdocs’ salaries to allow them to engage in a wider range of professional development activities that they would come to see postdocs as an asset to the institution. As a result, perhaps a greater effort would be made to provide a more comprehensive set of resources for postdocs who the university is now, literally, invested in. Institutions with skin in the game might also begin to reflect on the purpose of postdocs, resulting in a needed discussion on whether training is indeed occurring in some roles or whether they would be better classified as research staff.

​The concept of research staff tracks for Ph.D.s within universities is beyond the scope of this post but could be a means of retaining skilled talent who don’t necessarily want the responsibilities of a principal investigator or lab leader at a university. And while universities and other postdoctoral training institutions often balk at "investing" in a population who will ultimately leave (as the position is meant to be a temporary one), they could benefit from postdoctoral scholars more engaged in service to the university through teaching, outreach, and commercialization efforts. This setup could be a win-win for postdocs with a desire to learn new skills and obtain diverse work experiences and institutions experiencing staffing shortages.   

​In closing, it is my personal belief that the path forward is to ensure the postdoctoral period is a time of broad training for Ph.D. researchers. If we can equip them with both technical, scholarly, and transferable skills, they will be able to make an impact in the world. Furthermore, providing postdocs the opportunity to engage with their campus community through service will enrich their experience and lives. In addition, this model may provide needed personnel relief for universities that have struggled over the past few years retaining talent. While postdocs receive valuable experiences in teaching, technology commercialization, or project management, our universities benefit from their work in these areas. Pathways for skilled researchers to remain at universities in professionalized research (or staff) tracks may also be appropriate to retain talented postdocs with a desire to stay at an institution but not become tenure-track faculty. 

Only by being open to a new way of doing things in postdoctoral training and career development can we truly move institutions forward and, in the process, provide a means for them to leverage Ph.D. talent in ways that enhance their research, teaching, service, and outreach missions. 

I have written about weighing the value of pursuing a postdoc after completing your Ph.D. in a previous blog post. And while that post focuses on my own personal experience and opinion, I wanted to use this space to emphasize more practical advice on how to network your way to postdoc opportunities and consider the training environment in the lab/group/institution to make the most of your postdoctoral experience.

I am often asked by Ph.D. students how they should search for postdoc positions and make the most of them. Recently, I gave a presentation on the topic to a graduate class at North Carolina State University. I am sharing it here for those of you debating should you do a postdoc, how to find a good postdoc environment, and how to make the most of this training period.

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.