DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**SnareeWer** · 06-15-2008, 05:47 PM

Exactly... Someone who worked to get a PhD in biochemistry and then gets the same starting salary as someone who just has a BS isn't right, and it has pretty much EVERYTHING to do with the employer, and their excuses to not start at a higher salary.

You're both over generalising my comment, but I guess I could have been more specific.

If, using your example, someone with a PhD in biochemistry wants to enter a field where their study is applicable, then they should be able to command a higher starting salary and in this case, the employers would be at fault.

The problem arises, particularly in the UK, when there is a drive to ensure more and more people go to university. The only way to do this is to offer more degrees in less academic subjects at lower grade universities. The people who graduate from these courses have a propensity to believe that they belong on par in a graduate community with the likes of people qualified in the areas of science, languages and law. The same graduates then expect, since they have a degree, that they can walk into jobs with graduate training contracts and expect competitive salaries. It just doesn't happen. There aren't proportionally more jobs, so they have to take lower paid work, which is mostly where the over-qualified statements come in to play.

If we were to look in areas such as finance and engineering, having more academic backing (masters degrees and doctorates) that will put you in a stronger stead for your professional qualifications, then although starting salaries may not be that much higher, promotional scales will be and within 2-3 years the marginal increase will be much more noticable.

06-15-2008, 05:47 PM	#13
SnareeWer Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 402 Senior Member	Exactly... Someone who worked to get a PhD in biochemistry and then gets the same starting salary as someone who just has a BS isn't right, and it has pretty much EVERYTHING to do with the employer, and their excuses to not start at a higher salary. You're both over generalising my comment, but I guess I could have been more specific. If, using your example, someone with a PhD in biochemistry wants to enter a field where their study is applicable, then they should be able to command a higher starting salary and in this case, the employers would be at fault. The problem arises, particularly in the UK, when there is a drive to ensure more and more people go to university. The only way to do this is to offer more degrees in less academic subjects at lower grade universities. The people who graduate from these courses have a propensity to believe that they belong on par in a graduate community with the likes of people qualified in the areas of science, languages and law. The same graduates then expect, since they have a degree, that they can walk into jobs with graduate training contracts and expect competitive salaries. It just doesn't happen. There aren't proportionally more jobs, so they have to take lower paid work, which is mostly where the over-qualified statements come in to play. If we were to look in areas such as finance and engineering, having more academic backing (masters degrees and doctorates) that will put you in a stronger stead for your professional qualifications, then although starting salaries may not be that much higher, promotional scales will be and within 2-3 years the marginal increase will be much more noticable.
	Quote