Employment rates for STEM Ph.D.s are down or stagnant across the board

I am equating those things under this context, if the majority of PhD grads are not becoming professors, I would like it if they "released" more of them sooner with something like your 3yr degree.

I think I can somewhat quantify prestige if you look at where some CS professors got their PhD[1]. I do think science is meritocratic but that doesn't mean all scientists are or statistics like these mean that all scientists won't experience self doubt or even get in to pissing contests with others about credentials. That sort of attitude really detracts from the altruistic community effort I imagine.

Can I ask where you are studying? I have genuine curiosity about the Euro grad schools.

[1]http://cs.brown.edu/people/alexpap/faculty_dataset.html

edit: I should add that in no way am I saying these results prove prestige has influence or that things aren't meritocratic. But can you envision how someone might look at this and interpret it so it reinforces stereotypes or misconceptions? Spots for grad students shouldn't be zero-sum.

full disclaimer: I went to a university with a top 5 program in my field and I don't think there is a very large difference in research from these universities over time.

edit2: Another clarification, it shouldn't be that someone says "oh I didn't get in to XYZ U, I am a failure" nor should it be "oh I got in to XYZ U, I am superior". It should be, simply, "I got in to grad school, now I will study and perform research." The former attitudes are things I have encountered and find it distasteful.

Don't look down on those "just want a job" people. When you don't have an income, the need to get one consumes you. Working "for passion" is a luxury of trust-fund kids and people who pulled off their exits before the Valley became a scam.

The idea that it's dishonorable to work for money is classism. Most people have no other choice.

But more and more research will happen outside of the Academy, because research is useful.

Sadly, we see the opposite trend. Research inside and outside of academia is melting down. Companies use the results of R&D (open-source software is an R&D effort) and buy "innovation" out of a rigged R&D-ish system (the VC-funded Valley) but no one is paying for it, which means that very little of quality is being built at scale.

Something will bring it back, but it will probably start outside of the US. It will probably involve competition at an international level. I'd love to see it take a friendly form: an all-information-shared (the objective being prestige, not dominance over others) 21st-century moon-shot race between North America, Europe, and Asia on curing cancer. Sadly, history shows that it's just as likely to involve war, because humans are perilously stupid.

Until that happens, I feel like technical excellence is such a nonpriority in this country that it shouldn't surprise anyone that Stanford threw its weight behind Clinkle and Snapchat.

The prestige competition between universities may have had that effect at one time, but now they compete on stupid shit like pampering rich douchebags, overpaying top administrators, and funding idiotic startups like Clinkle as a way of selling "the experience" (your kid might be made founder of the next Snapchat!)

Yes, it does increase over time, to about 2x salary. It also plateaus there quickly.

My question to you: assuming you are in this "certain subset of people," do you think that a string of postdocs is healthy for your career path? Of the dozen or so hiring managers and recruiters I've chatted with over the last year, any more than 2 podstdocs is a serious red flag.

Nobody will care about what you do if this is your goal. On the other hand, if you can tell people "I want to make your life easier by: filling a market gap, changing an industry for the better, making X easier to use, making Y more affordable" then people will care. Thinking more about others than yourself is also probably a good way to actually find a good business!