Stuck in the Middle: Doctoral Education Ranking and Career Outcomes for Life Scientists Laurel Smith-Doerr Boston University AUTHOR’S NOTE: Research support for this project was provided by the Social and Behavioral Sciences Research Institute and the Department of Sociology at the University of Arizona, as well as National Science Foundation grant 97-10729 (W. Powell and K. Koput, co–principal investigators). I also thank Irenee Beattie, David Swartz, and Jason Owen-Smith for providing helpful comments. Any errors or omissions are my own. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Laurel Smith-Doerr, Boston University, Department of Sociology, 96 Cummington Street, Boston, MA 02215; e-mail: ldoerr@bu.edu. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society Vol. 26, No. 3, June 2006, 1-13 DOI: 10.1177/0270467606289304 Copyright © 2006 Sage Publications Why do some Ph.D.’s languish in positions with little authority, and what does educational back- ground have to do with it? Hypotheses predicted that life scientists with Ph.D.’s from elite programs would be the most likely, those from middle-ranked programs the next most likely, and those from lower ranked pro- grams the least likely to achieve supervisory posi- tions. A sample of 2,062 life scientists with doctorates from U.S. universities was collected from records archived from 1983 to 1995. In contrast to hypotheses, Ph.D.’s from elite and lower ranked schools did not have a significantly different chance of supervising. Within prestigious organizations, however, Ph.D.’s from top 10 programs did have a greater likelihood of leading. Ph.D.’s from middle-ranked programs were less likely to advance into supervisory positions. Qualitative interviews explored how, in a knowledge- expanding field such as the life sciences, being stuck on the bottom rung early on can adversely affect a scientist’s career. Keywords: science careers; educational stratification; life scientists; postdoctoral scientists; university prestige; sociology of science The number of Ph.D. recipients from American universities has been increasing over the past three decades. From 1970 to 1999, there was a 30% increase in the number of new Ph.D.’s with science and engi- neering degrees (including the social sciences). Not all specialties are equally popular, however. Doctoral degrees in the physical sciences granted in 1999 were down 8% from the number in 1970. During the same time period, Ph.D. recipients in the biological sciences increased by 37% (National Science Foundation, 2002, Appendix Table 2-24). The trend in degrees reflects the prominence of fields: Scientific advances in physics were heralded in the 20th century, but 21st-century headlines feature developments in the life sciences. Where do all these new Ph.D.’s go? As academics are well aware, the number of new tenure-track jobs has not kept pace with the number of new Ph.D.’s. Often, recent Ph.D.’s are “stuck” in low-paying jobs with little or no stability or autonomy, such as post- doctoral positions. The percentages of new science and engineering Ph.D.’s planning on academic posi- tions or on postdoctoral study reversed from 1975 to 1990. In 1975, 26% of doctoral graduates would become postdocs, and 39% counted on academic jobs; in 1990, 37% would be postdocs after gradua- tion and 26% academics (Smith & Tang, 1994). Hackett’s (2001, pp. 135-136) interpretation of the National Research Council’s (1998) study of life sci- entists notes that postdoctoral fellows experience a “crisis of expectations” in attempting to become full- fledged scientists, a crisis that sociologists might call alienation or anomie. Professionals, like postdocs, who live in indefinite transition periods may feel a separation of self from the work they are doing, until they can begin their “own” work.