Do research advisors favour students who pursue academic careers?

Amanda Ali 

University of Toronto

With Bachelor of Science degree in hand, graduate school is the next logical step for many students. Graduate studies provide a unique opportunity to deepen scientific understanding, broaden research skills, and develop personal strengths. Traditionally, a Master’s degree led to a PhD degree and then a postdoctoral fellowship (post-doc) before applying for a faculty position at a research institution. In our evolving research environment, this trajectory has changed, and several post-docs may now be required before that illusive faculty position is secured. This has resulted in a cohort of highly educated PhD graduates seeking careers outside of academia, but not without repercussions; it appears that research advisors (principal investigators) favour students who pursue academic careers. 

A survey of PhD students at tier-one institutions in the United States examined the career trends of scientists-in-training in the field of biology (life sciences), physics, and chemistry (Sauermann and Roach 2012). When given a 5-point scale to indicate the degree to which PhD students are encouraged or discouraged to pursue various careers, more than 70% reported they were “encouraged,” or “strongly encouraged,” to become research faculty. Looking specifically at biology and the life sciences, 53% of PhD students rated “faculty research career” as the most attractive path to pursue, but the influence of their advisors’ “strong encouragement” on their opinion was not addressed. An informal poll of graduate students at the University of Toronto mirrors these sentiments, with many trainees observing first-hand the favour – in the form of time, approval, and support – that is bestowed upon those who intend to pursue academic careers. 

Academia-bound graduate students may attract their advisors’ attention with their dedicated interest in research (which frequently manifests as increased productivity). Because the success of a principal investigator is reflected by their contribution to science, it is natural for them to favour hard-working pre-scientists who will magnify their scientific contribution by going forth and prospering. When a PhD graduate chooses to pursue a postdoctoral fellowship, it is an outward sign to the field that the advisor has nurtured and developed that student’s passion for science. For the student to go on to their second and third post-doc, and then vanish into an abyss of jobless academics, is a near impossibility in the mind of the beaming advisor. 

We teach what we know, principal investigators included. They share with their academia-bound students a common passion for science, and this is a tie that binds. Having made the choice to pursue academia themselves, advisors can share personal experiences and offer insight into the trajectory of that particular career path. Understandably, it is within the advisor’s domain of expertise to discuss strategies for a successful post-doc interview, but outside of their expertise to discuss potential careers in government, industry, or business. With this in mind, it seems sensible for advisors to favour those who are interested in pursuing the academic route to ensure that young scientists go on to become senior scientists. 

So what’s the problem? 

Very few advisors are willing to admit that these biases exist; perhaps they are subconscious like many other biases. Much like a parent refusing to choose a favourite child, it is taboo for an advisor to openly admit to preferring students who pursue academia; but the students feel it, and they want their advisor’s support. This desire for approval and the weight of an advisor’s “expert” opinion may be enough to push a confused and jaded graduate student down a career path that isn’t right for them. Choosing to pursue a post-doc may only be delaying the inevitable career-path decision, wasting time that could be spent cultivating other skills. Basic economics offers the most compelling argument: the supply of life science PhDs interested in academic positions exceeds the number of available positions (Sauermann and Roach 2012). When advisors push half-interested and less-than-capable graduates into academic careers, they saturate the field and steal opportunities from the truly gifted. 

As many disciplines and professional schools offer their trainees guidance and a bridge into the working world, so too should advisors offer graduate students the same support and “encouragement” to pursue careers outside of academia. Our view of graduate studies should not be limited to the pursuit of academia, but should be reconfigured to accommodate the variety of careers at which PhDs can succeed. Research advisors should strive to mitigate preferences and relieve pressures to pursue academia, and instead should help graduate students identify their true talents and find the path that is right for them. 

Sauermann, H. and M. Roach (2012). "Science PhD career preferences: levels, changes, and advisor encouragement." PLoS One7(5): e36307.