Comment PhDs, incorporated (Score 1) 667
As many have noted, the problem here is not a lack of PhD students, or even a lack of smart PhDs: it's a lack of sufficient opportunities for said PhDs to direct their passion for science towards useful ends. So let me offer a novel proposal: establish a governmental venture capital fund to distribute start up funds - via a juried contest - to newly minted PhDs with an interest in starting new companies. The U.S. graduates about 25,000 science and engineering PhDs each year; if 10% of these were granted $150,000 each, the cost of the program would be $375 million - a "minimal cost" according to the article. Moreover, this would be an investment; the granting program would receive 25%-50% ownership of the startup, so even if only 1/25 to 1/50 of the new companies succeeded at growing to a capitalization of $15 million (and the rest all failed completely) the program would break even, costing taxpayers nothing. Moreover, it would create jobs (via the growth of successful companies) while spurring innovation and increasing competition.
(Full disclosure: I'm finishing up a PhD at Harvard this year, and I'd love to have this kind of funding for myself. But consider this: of 15 PhD graduates in my department last year, 7 took professorships immediately, and 8 took postdocs; zero went to industry. Harvard prides itself on this sort of thing - and in fact there's a real stigma attached to leaving acadmia and "selling out" by going to industry - but if we're a nation of free-market ideals, shouldn't we encourage more of our best & brightest (present company excluded for the sake of modesty) to compete & innovate in the private sector, rather than spending careers as de facto government employees, working off federal grant money?)
(Full disclosure: I'm finishing up a PhD at Harvard this year, and I'd love to have this kind of funding for myself. But consider this: of 15 PhD graduates in my department last year, 7 took professorships immediately, and 8 took postdocs; zero went to industry. Harvard prides itself on this sort of thing - and in fact there's a real stigma attached to leaving acadmia and "selling out" by going to industry - but if we're a nation of free-market ideals, shouldn't we encourage more of our best & brightest (present company excluded for the sake of modesty) to compete & innovate in the private sector, rather than spending careers as de facto government employees, working off federal grant money?)
