zlacker

>>karako+(OP)
The people I know who work in life sciences R&D (basically anything bio) have had their funding absolutely annihilated. PhDs with 20 years of experience working second jobs as substitute high school teachers, lab workers taking up tech support positions paying a fraction of what was already terrible pay.

What's worse is that in most of these fields, you don't really even start working until after your PhD.

4 years is going to be a long time to underfund what's basically 4 entire classes of researchers coming out of Doctorate programs. It might take decades to recover our research programs.

>>bane+ye
Actually a PhD is a con, not a bonus if you want normal jobs.

If a private lab needs a chemist or biologist for say, quality assurance, one of the most common jobs in the field, then privates prefer fresh graduates:

- they cost much less

- even if the PhD would be fine with the pay, he/she will still be skipped over a fresh graduate because the person is over qualified and will jump to something more related to his/her field as soon as possible.

Thus these people's CV are genuinely worse for anything unrelated to their skill set.

>>epolan+8s
You picked an example to support your conclusion in mentioning QA jobs which typically don't require a PhD. There still very much are other jobs that do require a PhD so I don't see what the point is there.

More fundamentally this mentality of looking at education only through the lens of financial return is just so disappointing. Of course your country is self-sabotaging its science system if it's full of people who think that way.

I can pretty safely say that me and most people around me, when we got our PhDs, what job we'd later get really wasn't the primary concern.

We wanted to work on interesting problems at the frontier of what's known (and maybe also get a job doing that later).