My wife is an organic chemist by education and for every R&D job she applied to, there were tens to hundreds of applicants with PhDs. Having "only" a Master's degree, she had no chance. Pretty much all her college friends went to do a PhD, just so they could get a job.

She's a happy software tester now :-)

Is there something wrong in this? Better qualified candidates were preferred for a research job. Of course, if you argue that the job didn't actually require PhD-level knowledge/experience, then the problem is in oversaturated job market of the field, not in the PhD system.

I've worked at a software company that received significant local government funding predicated on certain goals. One of those was hire X number of PhD graduates from the two local universities at a (relatively large) minimum salary. This then means the universities could say that a PhD from their various disciplines practically guarantees you a well paid job.

Unfortunately there was a huge gap in what was expected of these people and what they could actually do. Save but a few they were pretty awful employees for the job. Not necessarily their fault, but it's one example of the gamification of the system.

In chemistry "then", and I assume still "now", a MS is viewed as a "failed to complete the PhD" degree unless it comes from a smaller school lacking a PhD program. Or, "wanted to go to Med or Law school and didn't get in". When hiring, BS/MS chemists are seen as a pair-of-hands/technicians. There's a noticeable rank difference in how they enter Pharma - BS/MS with several promotions end up where PhD's walk in the door. Is this right or fair? Probably not, but PhD's are seen as somebody who can work (more) independently than a technician. Ironically, a significant fraction of the lab work is done by the BS/MS as PhD's graduate out of the lab if they learn medchem properly. So the best lab hands have the lowest status to outsiders.

It might be different in Process Chemistry, which is where the best lab work is work. Perhaps those who have the magic in scaling up a reaction into production are like those who can debug anything? I've never worked with those groups or with the Analytical chemists in Development.

Disclaimer: I have a PhD, but never wished to go into academia due to the politics. And yeah, it's a union card.

> In chemistry "then", and I assume still "now", a MS is viewed as a "failed to complete the PhD" degree unless it comes from a smaller school lacking a PhD program.

I don't know which country GGP (or his wife) is from, and you might well be correct about your assessment, but there are some countries where master's degrees are viewed differently than in the U.S.

Where I live and did my degree (Northern Europe), it's commonplace to do a master's rather than just a bachelor's degree. In fact, in many fields the master's used to be considered the basic "undergrad" degree here. A bachelor's degree existed, but in many fields you'd have been considered to have dropped out of completing a master's if you only had bachelor's. That might be slowly changing, with a higher emphasis given to bachelor's level degrees, but the sentiment probably still remains.

You asked "Isn't it well-known that PhD makes only sense for people who want career in research?" and I answered with a counterexample. There are many places where a PhD makes sense for a career in industry.

And if you think an oversaturated job market pushing people into doing PhD's they don't need for the actual job isn't a problem for "the PhD system" then I call you short sighted.

It depends on your field. In some (biotech for example) it's a prerequisite for an industry career.

Having one in CS myself U can assure you are right for the IT field. Getting this PhD was about personal aspiration rather than career success.

You don't always get to work on what you want. Especially if it's outside what's expected in your field.

This is just life in general. Some people get funding/support for their own ideas and some people do not. I don't think it is specific to academia.

Correct. The complete quote:

> (waste years and years of their lives) sort of pretending to do research for which they’re not at all well-suited

Suggesting that incentives to do research that follows academic tradition do not aligign with the best possible outcomes of independent investigation.

Which is what we both point out.