MS, PhD: Overqualified or Not Enough Experience 3

[CRG]

I have read and heard the expression, “over qualified,” as a viable reason for having problems finding employment. Is this an excuse for poor career management? When someone becomes highly educated outside the normal work force (AKA academia), why do they presume that the education will be an asset for finding a job? Is this the sales pitch that is given at universities?

I believe that higher education is a great thing for personal achievement; however it is not a guarantee for easy money. There are many government jobs that base pay scale on education and experience. For the rest of the workforce, I would expect that experience, quality of work, and productivity are more important than a MS or PhD.

 

[Maui]

The following posts are mine from thread Thread731-105240

"The PhD can prove useful in industrial research jobs and tenure-track academic positions. If your goal is to obtain an industrial engineering position, then the PhD will close more doors for you than it will open. You will hear the phrase, "You're overqualified" more often than not. The pay that you recieve will not be substantially greater than the pay earned by someone with an MS degree in the same discipline. And you may unknowingly inspire a sense of jealousy in your less secure co-workers who do not have an advanced degree. If your goal is simply to work in an industrial engineering position that does not involve research, then obtaining the PhD will serve no useful purpose, and will likely make your job search and work life much more difficult. The MS degree will benefit you much more."

"... what I find that surprises many people about having that degree (a PhD) in your arsenal is that employers are reluctant to hire you unless they absolutely need someone with your particular skill set. There are several downsides that a potential employer sees in hiring a PhD when they could just as easily hire a BS or MS candidate. For example, they are afraid that you will become bored and seek employment elsewhere as soon as a better job comes along. Then they will have to go through the hiring process all over again. Why should they put themselves through that when they can simply pay someone who is not overqualified less money to do the same job? And the lesser qualified candidate will probably be less likely to jump ship as quickly. There is a general perception that PhDs are over-educated individuals who lack practical hands-on experience and common skill sets. This perception is, at least in my particular case and those of my fellow PhDs, untrue.

Other factors also come into play when they do in fact need to hire a PhD. Affirmative action criteria must be applied at all levels in a company, and that includes research positions that are usually filled by PhDs. I myself have been denied the opportunity to interview at more than one company/academic institution because I am not a minority. I know this is a fact because a friend of mine at one major production company told me precisely that when he explained to me why I would not be interviewed for the job that he originally encouraged me to apply for. The odd part is that many of the foreign-born students who win fellowships to come here to study for their PhD (which you and I pay for with our tax dollars) are typically hired much more quickly by US companies than US citizens provided they have the paperwork to remain here. It's a good deal for them, and can leave a bad taste in the mouth of Americans like myself. Most people who have not been through this may find it difficult to comprehend. Our own system discourages Americans from earning a PhD. If you look at any engineering PhD program in the US, the vast majority of the students in that program are probably not Americans. It should not be this way, but I see no motivation for this to change anytime in the near future."

I stand behind these statements.

Maui

 

[APH]

I think it is true that getting a higher degree makes your thinking more critical...


APH

 

[MikeyP]

CRG,
Corus did not say that a doing a PhD makes you more intelligent. If you have a PhD you are probably more intelligent in the first place. It is not a cause and effect issue.

General comments:

PhD graduates need to understand that, to an employer, their factual specialist knowlege is not likely to be that important. They need to be able to get across to the employer that it is their transferable skills which give them the edge.

A PhD graduate is (by definition) a scientist. They will (generally) have excellent critical and analytical skills. They will be good problem solvers. They know how to learn. They should have (after writing and defending a thesis and other scientific papers) excellent verbal and oral communication skills. During a PhD a good student will have effectively managed a 3 year research programme, usually on a very tight budget. They will probably be highly proficient in a number of specialist (eg FE, CAD, programming languages) and general (eg Word, Powerpoint, Access) software packages.

Likewise, employers have to learn what a PhD graduate can do for them. A "professional researcher" does not equal "someone who only does theory and knows nothing of the real world". This is quite often simply untrue.

Of course, some PhD graduates are more suited to jobs than others. I sure everone recognises the guy/gal whos idea of being extrovert is staring at someone else's shoes rather than their own, or the person who can talk to their peers but can't get their message across to the tech in the workshop, but to tar every one with the same brush is just plain ignorant.

Fortunately, there are engineering employers out there who do understand. It is interesting that many of them are those that began as university start-ups. Big multi-national financial corps are snapping up science and engineering PhDs as fast as the universities can turn them out because they have regognised the analytical and transferable skills. It's even starting to happen in some big engineering firms too.

Finally, I must add this caveat. My comments come from my experience of the European PhD system. US PhDs are a completely different kettle of fish.

M

--
Dr Michael F Platten

 

[weh3]

Could you elaborate on your very tantalizing last statement?

William

 

[MikeyP]

Only to say that I have no knowledge of US Doctoral degrees and I don't really know anyone who has been through the US PhD system so some of my comments may not apply. In the UK there are generally little or no lecture programmes during doctoral studies. They are pretty much 100% research. As I understand it this is not the case in the majority of US grad schools. Whether this is a good or bad thing for a prospective employer of a PhD graduate is not something I am qualified to comment on.

M

--
Dr Michael F Platten

 

[knji]

Mike,

All the stuff you mentioned above applies to PhD's across Canada and yes it is definitely a misconception that PhD's lack exposure to practical problems. The Engineering PhD program here comprises of 75% research and 15% course work which is good in terms of aligning theory to practicals.

The PhD students in our Advanced Control department for instance are engaged in the design, manufacture and control of some complicated robotic systems so they do have the practical experience in all aspects of that field. At the end of their studies, most become experts in SolidEdge, MATLAB/Simulink, C/C++ and VB just to name a few.
The PhD's in the Process Control department accrue other skills which I am sure correlate to those required for some departments at Suncor, AspenTech, ControSoft etc. I also know that in Germany, a PhD is also highly regarded. The top automakers such a BMW hire mostly Doctorates to design their engines, engine controls etc.

Having said that, if an Advanced Control PhD graduate finds themselves applying for a plant engineering position in the process control industries, one that does not require an advanced education, they may be overqualified. Such position s typically prefer years of experience rather than years of education which makes sense.

 

[tsurikov]

Hi everyone,

A fabulous thread - thanks, CRG, for starting it, and thanks to all who posted. This topic is very "close to home" for me. I have a B.S. and Ph.D. in aerospace engineering, pursuing the latter because I honestly believed that a more advanced degree would improve my chances at getting a good engineering job. After the five Ph.D. program years (in exactly the same environment as MikeyP describes) and three years as a research scientist, I am 100% certain I do not want to be pigeonholed into a research or university career... but am not sure I can break back into my first passion, engineering, because of my Ph.D. And I'd have a hard time hiding the degree on my resume (similar to corus's advice) - eight years of stuff is a big red flag.

I really feel that "overqualification" is wrong as a barrier to employment. Each person knows best what their job abilities and desires are, and if he or she is looking for a job that is stereotypically "below their qualifications", he or she has a damn good reason for doing so. (Why would anyone voluntarily seek a job "below them"?)
In my case, it's that I can't stand research and feel I would wither if I stayed in it. Am I, as a trained researcher, overqualified to be an engineer? I don't think so. If anything, I feel I'm underqualified, as I don't have official engineering experience (my research's required a damn lot of engineering, but I know no one will recognize it as such). And I, for one, would not expect any special perks from my Ph.D., because I know I'd actually need to catch up with my engineering colleagues.

It would be nice if employers would consider giving the people they deem "overqualified" an interview, to give them the chance to explain their motivation for seeking the position. Alas, that doesn't seem to happen too often.

Good luck to anyone in a similar situation,
--Michael

 

[HgTX]

I do know a number of PhD's working as engineers. They do the same stuff as everyone else, but every once in a while, something nifty comes up that they're particularly well qualified to handle.

Hg

Eng-Tips guidelines: faq731-376

 

[Rob45]

Interesting thread.
Reminds me of the time while at Ford I told my manager I'd received my MSME.
His response was, "Well I certainly hope you didn't think it would get you a raise!"

I began to understand why he'd been run out of Passenger Car by a revolt of his employees.

Now that I'm working in what is primarily a research and development position, my management is glad to point to my educational achievements.