In most of european countries only fools will expect to do a PHD and get money out of it. it is common knowledge that you will gt a PHD, some prestige around it, some students will go private with luck if they work on some employable field such as a PHD thesis on machine learning for instance but most of the other PHDs will end up teachers which isnt the best pay ever in europe. and this is true for the real scientific PHDs. I am not talking about "PHDs" on gender studies, sociology or psychology which is a synonym for "please do not employ me my degree is useless". at the end it is really the subject of your PHD that will decide how much you will make. Even more than the outcome of your thesis...

The suggestion that a psychology, sociology or even gender studies PhD is useless reeks of ignorance. A serious body of academic work, no matter what It's field, is important for the advancement of our society, no matter how gradual.

The maxim that no one goes into a PhD to get rich is true, but at the same time, no one goes into a PhD to be unemployed or to become a teacher. Theres no reason to invest a decade doing primary research when an undergraduate with a masters in teaching will suffice.

I meant "employability" of the PHD is useless. and I do not agree with any body of academic work being 'important for the advancement of our society'. looking decades back and now i can guarantee you that a lot of bodies of academic work contributed to make our society regress rather than advance. Computer science is even one example of this, where litterally some guys spend two years of PHD to look where to put a "next button" on a UI.

I know many people that did a PHD on the sole basis to become a teacher as this was the best they could aim for in terms of pay/benefits.

I'd be interested in seeing a citation for that "next button" work, too. In general HCI is a serious (and useful) field.

And while I agree that there's high variability in quality of work, both between and within disciplines, I would argue that there have been mountains of really fundamentally useful things that have come out of CS academia (and EE / computer engineering academia to support it), both historically and recently. Everything from programming language theory and optimizing compilers, to modern computer architecture, to all of the fundamental algorithms and data structures, to the basis for modern machine learning and distributed systems and ... I could go on. Industry applies and polishes it, but (in my experience at least) there's simply no way that most of industry would tolerate the multi-year risky projects that lead to useful breakthroughs.

Do you have the thesis or publications of their findings. I'd be interested to see what they discovered after two years.

Are you seriously suggesting that psychology is not a pseudoscience, or that "gender studies" is something at all?

I think that you could do some perfectly good science in both fields.

Now, as to whether good science is being done in those fields, I'm not qualified to say.

Yeah, there's not many jobs in biology, and funding is pretty bad in the public sector. Biotech is a rocket ship in the early phase of blastoff, though. Jobs are still ultra-competitive to get, but there's plenty of cash to go around for the actual projects(since employees are plentiful and disposable).

Plenty of people in the biotech industry just have a bachelors. There's still some holdovers from academia who insist that PhDs have to be the ones making the science decisions, but it's still not as ossified as academia.

"making the science decisions"

If you want your tech (in biotech) to be novel, then yes you need people with experience who can imagine solutions to problems.

Is that really new ? The Biology teachers when I was at school were much better than those for other science subjects, the Biology ones had all done research but had gone into teaching as there were few other jobs available.