Get AI summaries of any video or article — Sign up free
Is PhD still worth it in 2022 || & Tips to Make it worth it (Dr Jarek Kriukow) thumbnail

Is PhD still worth it in 2022 || & Tips to Make it worth it (Dr Jarek Kriukow)

5 min read

Based on Qualitative Researcher Dr Kriukow's video on YouTube. If you like this content, support the original creators by watching, liking and subscribing to their content.

TL;DR

Academic hiring is portrayed as far smaller than doctoral production, creating a bottleneck for long-term professorship careers.

Briefing

PhD completion rates are low and the payoff is uncertain—yet a PhD can still be worth it in 2022 if candidates choose the right motivations and actively prepare for careers beyond the degree. The case against is built on two linked realities: too many PhD graduates chase too few academic jobs, and employers outside academia often complain that doctoral training doesn’t translate cleanly into industry needs.

In academia, the bottleneck is stark. Universities produce far more doctorates than they hire into professorship roles. In the US, between 2005 and 2009, more than 100,000 doctoral degrees were awarded while only about 16,000 new professorships were created in Canada during the same period; the imbalance is echoed in smaller figures too, such as 4,800 doctorate degrees in 2007 compared with 2,616 professors hired. The underlying mechanism is also described: universities rely on PhD students as a “cheap, motivated, disposable” workforce, with much teaching and a large share of research carried out by doctoral candidates and postdocs rather than full-time staff. That structure can limit stable academic career openings and leaves many early-career researchers stuck in precarious roles.

Outside academia, the mismatch is framed as skills and incentives. Industry employers reportedly complain about the “low” or “irrelevant” skill set of PhD graduates, arguing that doctoral work—writing chapters, delivering academic presentations, and conducting long literature reviews—doesn’t match the speed and communication style required to absorb technical knowledge and present it clearly to broad audiences. Career services are also criticized for not adequately preparing graduates for non-university paths.

The financial and employment outcomes reinforce the concern. One set of statistics cited places many PhDs on temporary contracts years after graduation—over 60% in Slovakia and over 45% in Belgium, the Czech Republic, Germany, and Spain five years after receiving degrees. Germany is singled out with a claim that 133% of PhD grades end up in lowly occupation, and another thread argues that PhDs earn only slightly more than master’s graduates—about 1–2 percentage points higher—despite years of additional time and cost. The implication is that a shorter master’s or course may deliver similar earnings with less risk.

Still, the conclusion isn’t “don’t do it.” The verdict hinges on two factors: why someone pursues a PhD and how they prepare once enrolled. A PhD is discouraged if the goal is merely the title, quick employment, or money as the only driver—especially when funding and job prospects are uncertain. But wanting to earn good money is not treated as shameful; the argument is that if money is the sole motivation, better alternatives may exist. The practical counterweight is preparation: candidates should build multiple career “doors” by gaining transferable experience such as presentations, organizing workshops or study groups, and other activities that can be translated into job-ready evidence for employers. In short, the degree’s value depends less on the credential itself and more on whether candidates use the PhD period to shape a future that extends beyond academia.

Cornell Notes

Low completion rates and a shaky labor-market match make the PhD look like a risky investment: academia has far fewer professorship openings than doctorates produced, and industry employers often say doctoral training doesn’t translate well into practical, fast-moving roles. Employment and pay outcomes cited in the discussion suggest many PhDs land on temporary contracts and earn only marginally more than master’s graduates. The counterpoint is conditional: a PhD can still be worth it if candidates have clear motivations beyond chasing a title and if they prepare deliberately for multiple career paths while enrolled. The emphasis shifts from “the credential” to “the strategy”—building transferable experience that can be presented to employers later.

Why does the academic job market look structurally unfavorable for new PhDs?

The imbalance comes from production versus hiring. The discussion cites that in the US (2005–2009) more than 100,000 doctoral degrees were produced while Canada had only about 16,000 new professorships in the same period. It also gives a smaller example: 4,800 doctorate degrees in 2007 versus 2,616 professors hired. The explanation offered is that universities rely heavily on PhD students for teaching and on postdocs for research, reducing the number of full-time positions available for long-term academic careers.

What skills mismatch is described between doctoral training and industry needs?

Industry employers are said to complain that PhDs don’t develop the kind of skills industry rewards. Doctoral work emphasizes writing reports and chapters, presenting academic material, and conducting long literature reviews. The argument is that these activities don’t align well with industry expectations: quickly assimilating technical knowledge and communicating it simply to a wide audience. Career services are also criticized for not preparing graduates effectively for non-academic roles.

What employment-pattern statistics are used to illustrate the risk after graduation?

The transcript cites a study showing that five years after receiving degrees, more than 60% of PhDs in Slovakia and more than 45% in Belgium, the Czech Republic, Germany, and Spain were still on temporary contracts. It also claims that in Germany, 133% of PhD grades end up in lowly occupation—presented as evidence that outcomes often fall short of expectations.

How is the pay argument framed relative to master’s degrees?

Pay is described as only slightly better for PhDs—about 1–2 percentage points higher than master’s graduates—despite the longer time investment (often 3–10 years) and the money spent. The conclusion drawn from those numbers is that completing a shorter master’s or course may lead to similar earnings with less cost and risk.

What conditions make the speaker’s “verdict” more optimistic?

The optimistic stance is conditional: a PhD is worth it only if candidates make it worth it. Two criteria are emphasized—(1) motivations (not chasing the title, not using unemployment as the main reason, and not treating money as the only driver) and (2) preparation during the PhD to keep multiple career options open. The transcript stresses that many regrets after graduation come from staying in a “bubble” and not preparing for jobs while still enrolled.

What concrete preparation activities are recommended to improve career options?

Preparation is framed as building transferable experience. Examples include giving presentations, organizing workshops or study groups, and other small activities that can later be translated into compelling evidence for employers. Volunteering is mentioned as valuable, though not required; the key is creating experiences that can be showcased in job applications and interviews.

Review Questions

  1. What specific labor-market bottlenecks are cited for academia, and how do they connect to the reliance on PhD students and postdocs?
  2. Which parts of doctoral training are described as less useful for industry, and what industry skill needs are contrasted against them?
  3. According to the discussion, what two conditions determine whether a PhD is “worth it,” and how do the recommended preparation steps support those conditions?

Key Points

  1. 1

    Academic hiring is portrayed as far smaller than doctoral production, creating a bottleneck for long-term professorship careers.

  2. 2

    Industry employers are described as often viewing PhD training as insufficiently aligned with practical, fast communication and applied technical work.

  3. 3

    Employment outcomes cited include high rates of temporary contracts years after graduation in multiple European countries.

  4. 4

    Pay is argued to be only marginally higher than master’s-level earnings despite longer time and higher cost.

  5. 5

    A PhD is framed as worthwhile only when candidates have appropriate motivations and treat the program as a period for career preparation.

  6. 6

    Transferable experience—presentations, workshops, study groups, and similar activities—can help convert doctoral work into job-ready evidence for non-academic roles.

Highlights

The academic pipeline is described as producing far more doctorates than the number of professorship openings available.
A recurring theme is a skills mismatch: doctoral work emphasizes academic outputs, while industry rewards fast assimilation and clear communication to broad audiences.
The “worth it” conclusion is conditional—success depends on motivations and deliberate preparation to keep multiple career paths open.

Topics

Mentioned

  • Jarek Kriukow