Do academicians routinely face discrimination in industry job searches?

Question

I spent sometime recently at a HR department of a government company (in the utilities) in the US.

I accidentally found a file that listed out interview outcomes for new applications for a technical position (spreadsheet jockey - nothing fancy)

Out of the 10 applications, 2 of which had a PhD, 1 with a masters degree and the others unknown.

One of the PhD (call him PhD A) had spent considerable time doing research at a university, the other (call him PhD B) just recently finished his PhD program.

The comments to the interview outcomes as follows:

PhD A:

• spent considerable time in university, have academic (not real world) experience

• might have difficulty adjusting to a new environment

• may contribute to discussions

• not likely to be followed up

PhD B:

• fresh out of university, have less experience than PhD A

• research is too narrow

What I found funny is that very few people who actually works at the organization have PhDs (or masters for the junior staff), you'd think they would get a staff rotation just to improve upon their overall knowledge level.

Do you also feel that people with higher degrees are not welcomed with open arm in the job market? Why do you think that is the case? Have you personally faced discrimination or prejudice when applying for a job that is not too academic in nature?

Answer 1

I think of a PhD as "vocational education for researchers", not as the "highest level of education". So if a company is looking for a researcher then a PhD should be an advantage, but if a company is looking for a "spreadsheet jockey" as in your example then there is a mismatch between the education and the job and a company should take that into account.

On top of that there are large cultural differences between companies and universities. Such differences can lead to frictions, and if you can hire someone without such frictions then that will be an argument.

Answer 2

It also depends on the type of job someone with a PhD is looking for outside of academia and how strong his or her preference is for "pure" research.

In academia, the focus is usually more on "pure" research where you just need to demonstrate that an idea is viable. You don't need to bring it all the way through to a finished product. In industry, the focus is usually more on development and/or "applied" research where ideas are converted into marketable products or services.

If you have a PhD and have a strong affinity for "pure" research and little experience / interest in applied research or development, and you are applying for a job in an organization that does very little pure research, then it will definitely be a disadvantage. However, if you're applying for a position at a research lab in a big or niche company, then this is probably an advantage.

For example, I work for a company that develops software. If during your PhD, all you did was hack together prototypes for your papers and are not very interested in the end application, then I'm not very interested in hiring you. If, on the other hand, you like the end application and like good software development practices, then having a PhD is a big plus.

Answer 3

Companies hire for different reasons, and some unspoken expectations are often attached to the open positions. They vary from reasonable to immoral to illegal. I've seen in a few countries:

Age informal rule to disqualify applicants over 35 for regular positions; only allow older applicants for very senior positions, like director of design.

Tenure expectation informal rule to weed out applicants who are unlikely to stay with the company for 3 years, so anyone with unstable background, unclear career plan, etc.

Salary expectation weed out anyone who may be overqualified, like the PhD A. First they may reject a lowball offer, and even if they accept a bad offer, they may leave for greener pastures in a year.

Seniority reject applicants whose resume screams senior when the position is internally mid-level, even if the position is advertised as senior. For example avoid new hire being "smarter" than their manager.

Avoid academics under various assumptions, from having little practical experience, to different concepts of deadlines or quality of deliverables.

Hire academics under various assumptions, from expectation that they have good interpersonal and inter-department skills, to wide experience, to being able to read and follow written documents.

Academics for research only hire them if the expectation for the position is research (competitors, markets, regulations, etc.) but never for the actual hands-on work.

Avoid fresh grads on the assumption that training is long, unlikely to get productive within 2 weeks.

Hire fresh grads on the assumption that they can be easily trained, and they have no choice but to accept the mediocre ways of the company.

In short, a lot depends on the oragnisation culture, and the internal expectations for the role, neither of which is stated in the OP. "¯\_(ツ)_/¯ "

Answer 4

1. Personally, I liked the university. They gave us money and facilities, we didn't have to produce anything! You've never been out of college! You don't know what it's like out there! I've worked in the private sector. They expect results. - Dr Ray Stantz, "Ghostbusters"

   Basically, the discrimination is not against someone being an academician. The discrimination is against someone having zero industry job experience - and that includes intangible but important things like different priorities, balances and tradeoffs in academia vs the for-profit workplace. You can do research but produce no results in academia. You can research pretty much anything you want. Doesn't work that way in real company.

   In other words, an academician who just got his PhD is treated exactly like a fresh BS graduate - nameley, like a guy with education but no industry exposure. _{(The difference being that BS analyst level fresh hire isn't paid a lot and doesn't have trust and responsibility in their first job that would have majors consequences because they are unused to "real world" and the needs of the business, so they pose a lot less risk)}.

   An easy way to falsify your theory is to compare the employability and level of interest in someone who has a PhD vs. someone who has a MS or PhD and after that worked in the industry for at least a year. Personally, when I do hiring recommendations, no-experience person has no chance by comparison, all other qualifications being equal.

2. In certain cases, having a PhD isn't of any help (doesn't hurt, but it isn't a research position, or even one requiring super-high-IQ).

   As such, a PhD would be a hindrance since PhD holder would expect to be compensated higher merely due to holding his degree (since on average, PhD does lend itself to higher pay if you look at labor market statistics). So, why would a company overpay someone for a useless skill/resume point?