I often see PhDs filling roles that really do not require a PhD. Does that mean that the PhD was a waste? No, not necessarily, but was it the best allocation of resources?
When I look at a resume and I see that someone has a PhD and has published a few papers I am much more comfortable hiring them. They almost definitely know how to approach a large writing project and break it up into smaller pieces. They've had training in how to work on large writing projects and they have atleast 1 experience of doing so and finishing it. Of course I've encountered PhDs that are terrible writers, but they're an anomaly.
I doubt this transfers well into other fields or positions where writing matters less. Most programming positions don't require strong writing skills, for example. All other things being equal, when I am hiring I prefer PhDs over non-PhDs, because in my experience they're better writers.
The other half of this is many people put PHD’s at the bottom of the pile as a sign of poor judgement, or just anti intellectual bias. Which plays into why employing PHD’s is so affordable.
Fortunately, not too many of those folks are being graduated. http://statista.com/statistics/185353/number-of-doctoral-deg... Although still probably 10x+ the number that the economy can actually support in relevant roles.
This is true of any degree.
Now I moved to AI and PhD research, learning, teaching and communication skills still help
Would these positions have existed as experienced Bachelor's positions before? would companies have directly trained industrial researchers?
This diagram neatly sums it up. http://matt.might.net/articles/phd-school-in-pictures
It's the equivalent of learning to code, learning a modern library or framework and its best practices, and then adding a bug fix or new feature.
Why do they have so many more PhDs now? Because PhDs are a now a dime a dozen, not because a PhD itself is valuable. The opportunity cost of a PhD is four years of lost income during prime employment age, plus extra student loan debt.
Even with a higher salary (and higher tax burden), it's not clear that you come out on top during your lifetime. If you don't come out on top, it's a waste, unless maybe these years you spent doing your PhD were the best years of your life (probably not).
In engineering possibly not. Often tuition is paid for plus a stipend.
>If you don't come out on top, it's a waste,
I don't know. I didn't get a PhD but I did spend a couple of years getting a Masters. I didn't really use what I specifically researched but, who knows, may have helped me get a couple jobs and I enjoyed the time well enough. Of course, engineering salaries tended to be a lot lower then relative to what many CS people today consider normal so I don't think losing out on a couple years salary was a big deal.
Because these jobs are researcher jobs, and research is a distinct skill-set than what is learned in the typical undergrad and masters program. Could we train researchers in another, more efficient way? Maybe, but PhD program are the current means of training specialized researchers.
> plus extra student loan debt
For researcher jobs, this will almost never be true. The vast majority of STEM PhD students are fully-funded and given a stipend (although usually small). The dynamics of course change if the student has to support other dependents.
> Even with a higher salary (and higher tax burden), it's not clear that you come out on top during your lifetime
For fields like Computer Science, there are many viable and high-salaried career for non-PhDs, so a PhD will likely lose lifetime money. For other fields like biomedical research, then they will probably profit over a full career. But really, people don't do PhDs for the money, people like their fields, they like the university environment, they like being around other researchers, or they like the independence—all of these things can be valuable beyond lifetime salary.