If PhD programs are, truly, going to prepare students for non-academic jobs, they should, at minimum, stop sending signals—overtly or covertly—that non-academic jobs are inferior.

And while we’re at it, if preparing students for non-academic jobs is what PhD programs are actually doing, they should, like, you know, tell prospective students that’s what they are doing.

And, heck, while we’re at it, if PhD programs are designed to prepare most students for non-academic jobs, these programs should be much more attentive than they currently are to what those jobs actually demand.

(e.g. what % of PhD programs offer/require #DataViz?)

Now I know I’m being really greedy here, but it’s Twitter so why the heck not.

If PhD programs are to be de-facto preparers of non-academic jobs, universities should probably hire, as tenure track faculty, folks who’ve actually had experience in the non-academic PhD market.

I hear this all the time re. the dismal academic market:

“yeah, but these folks can always go into industry.”

That’s a cop-out if we tell students industry jobs are inferior, don’t tell them to expect to go into industry, and fail to adequately prepare them for industry jobs.