Is PhD still worth it in 2022 || & Tips to Make it worth it (Dr Jarek Kriukow)
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.
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?
What skills mismatch is described between doctoral training and industry needs?
What employment-pattern statistics are used to illustrate the risk after graduation?
How is the pay argument framed relative to master’s degrees?
What conditions make the speaker’s “verdict” more optimistic?
What concrete preparation activities are recommended to improve career options?
Review Questions
- What specific labor-market bottlenecks are cited for academia, and how do they connect to the reliance on PhD students and postdocs?
- Which parts of doctoral training are described as less useful for industry, and what industry skill needs are contrasted against them?
- 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
Academic hiring is portrayed as far smaller than doctoral production, creating a bottleneck for long-term professorship careers.
- 2
Industry employers are described as often viewing PhD training as insufficiently aligned with practical, fast communication and applied technical work.
- 3
Employment outcomes cited include high rates of temporary contracts years after graduation in multiple European countries.
- 4
Pay is argued to be only marginally higher than master’s-level earnings despite longer time and higher cost.
- 5
A PhD is framed as worthwhile only when candidates have appropriate motivations and treat the program as a period for career preparation.
- 6
Transferable experience—presentations, workshops, study groups, and similar activities—can help convert doctoral work into job-ready evidence for non-academic roles.