Here's somethings that are well established:

  1. being a PhD student is a (albeit, temporary) career-path with the poorest education-level/income ratio. It has been estimated that Post-Doc salary is comparable to junior librarian, and PhD salary is comparable to a waiter.

Note: average Waiter salary Entry level positions start at $21,158 per year while most experienced workers make up to $39,585 per year. A junior library makes less than $50,000/yr.

  1. the opportunity cost is also stark compared to people who are similarly educated in STEM but left for industry early, with a popular estimate of around 1 million USD by the end of the PhD (5-6 years) (which might not include time-value of money, investments, and retirement savings).

  2. Despite academia as a whole being a multi-billion/trillion dollar industry, the administration refuses to raise the stipend for PhD student, leading it to stagnate on average 25,000-30,000 USD/yr for the last three decades if not more.

It is pretty clear to me that most (but not all) PhD programs are path to an enlightened poverty, with STEM PhD faring better than Humanities PhD, and industry-demanded STEM PhD faring better than say biology or pure math.

However, I wonder if this opportunity cost has gotten even even worse over the past few decades due to some factors such as,

  1. rising competitive (on the global scale),
  2. job/housing insecurity,
  3. a sizable aging but not retiring faculty,
  4. skill-based labor market heavily favored over degree-based,
  5. rising cost of living in almost every part of the globe.

Take a current example, due to Covid19 many industry stocks (say airline) are at their lowest point, however, most PhD students do not have the money to invest hence will not likely to reap the benefit. Another example is in software engineering: it is pretty well established salary was good about a decade ago but now the supply is high enough for the wage to fall, most PhD students also miss this "golden" period. Almost all major tech companies (such as Stackexchange, minus IBM, Microsoft, Apple) are founded/launched by people around 2000s, we can firmly say that period is over. Yet another is encroachment of industrial research on academic topics. Google, Twitter, Facebook and various other large tech conglomerates dominates all major AI references in 2020, which makes research on a PhD stipend look pointless

I sometimes take a look at these so-called industry-academia collaboration and wonder out-loud if this isn't just some scheme that seeks to exploit underpaid and highly motivated graduate students.

Objectively speaking, has the opportunity cost gotten higher over the years? If (or not) so why?


The opportunity cost could be calculated only ex-post. So if you take a 1000 PhD students and determine their total earnings 5 years after their education vis-a-vis the alternatives, says a software engineer. And do a statistical analysis, only then, could you come to a conclusion. Perhaps you can look for such data and do the analysis if you want to be rigorous.

But that might not really be highly useful because there will be outliers and most of the choices we make in life, assuming we are motivated to be successful, is to become an outlier. We make decisions to pursue higher degrees like PhD with varying goals.

Most of the PhD aspirants wish to find a career in education -universities and colleges - requiring to fulfil the eligibility criteria. In their case, there is no value in calculating the opportunity cost as that is the career path which suits them.

Another group of aspirants pursue a PhD with the hope of building something which can bootstrap their career in innovation and entrepreneurship. You build a very good idea in academia and launch it as a product. Google is one such example. Silicon Valley is filled with such instances. If successful, the opportunity cost is not high. If you fail in this goal and then get back to the industry there is a high opportunity cost-- with a good chance that your boss was your junior in high school.

There is another notable group of PhD aspirants who pursue a degree in the hope of migrating to a newly developed country with better living standards. The host country either runs the universities, more as a business, raking in billions of dollars in tuition fees and then letting these PhD students work in the industry -- where they do not really mind doing even jobs which have got little to do with what they did in their PhD. Again, in this case the opportunity cost is very low -- considering their objective.

Going deeper into your question, or rather now addressing your actual question, has the opportunity cost changed over time. The opportunity cost has, with time, reduced, imo. I have known students who extend their Master's thesis into PhD and finish the whole work in less than 4 years after their Bachelors. In Europe, the average PhD duration is increasingly tending to three years though it is still 7-8 years in the US. Naturally, the opportunity cost in the US is high but so are the opportunities.

You can see that the opportunity cost is not just a function of time but also the region of the world and the ability/goal of the PhD aspirant.


In general one should not try to get PhD if they are not interested in an academic career. There are national differences but with globalizing practises, increasingly being a doctor is no longer what it used to be. A hundred years ago in Europe is relevant because the transition has been long. Not long time ago there were no Post Docs. And there used to be even Licentiate degrees between the Master and Doctor.

PhD used to be more about creating a master piece to showcase ones vast knowledge accumulated in tens of years of experience as a researcher. Nowadays it is just an extension to education. Now there has been about a generation of people for whom the latter is true. Comparing free education with salary against someone actually working makes no sense. Before getting into a tenure track you cannot compare the industry and academia one to one. Once one is in a tenure track is there a similar job agreement with administrative responsibilities.

But overall no one should compare relatively free academic pursuit of knowledge with resource constrained for-profit pursuit of corporate side. In academia you are meant to only explore and in the business world exploit and minimize the exploration. A novel idea is not valued if you cannot turn it into a product. Industry-academia collaboration is about common goals. The work they do is different so you cannot compare the opportunities. In business world you learn production skills. They are better for production. In academia you learn about the theory. Which allows you to build more theory. In academia you are more free to pursue what you are interested. In the industry you are given the task you need to do. Some people give value to that freedom. It is not all about salary.

  • Licentiate as a degree still exists in Finland, though mostly for medical doctors or as a failed PhD in other fields. – Tommi Aug 13 '20 at 13:09
  • @Tommi Indeed, in Denmark the PhD replaced licentiate and there are these real doctors that are more like what they used to be. The globalized PhD system has been adopted differently between nations. – user3644640 Aug 13 '20 at 13:14
  • Jeg vidste ikke at det var i brug i Danmark også. – Tommi Aug 13 '20 at 14:21
  • On Academia SE I often read Statements as " a phd teaches you skills that are seeked after in industry".. – user111388 Aug 13 '20 at 14:44
  • Either and academic or academic-like (national lab, corporate R&D) - the national lab I work at has lots and lots of PhDs (~2000). – Jon Custer Aug 14 '20 at 14:17

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.