International Doctoral Science and Engineering Students

Abstract

As more international doctoral students flow into science and engineering departments in American research universities, a marked shift on the demographic composition of doctoral student bodies has been witnessed. Using a dataset combining a survey of science and engineering department chairs with the latest department evaluation information, this study reveals that international students are overrepresented in least prestigious departments and underrepresented in top programs. Research findings suggest doctoral cohorts’ career prospects are stratified by the representation of international students, department prestige and academic fields. The doctoral cohorts with more international students are more likely to head for less research-oriented faculty appointments and less likely to take postdoctoral positions. The cohorts minted out of prestigious departments demonstrate a greater success in landing research-oriented faculty positions. Relative to the cohorts in life science, the cohorts in engineering and physical sciences are presented with different job opportunities. The study concludes with a discussion of research findings and policy implications.

Keywords

career prospects international students postdoc appointment

International doctoral students have been an integral part of science and engineering (S&E) departments¹ in American research universities (National Science Board, 2006, 2008, 2010). While not without controversies, a belief prevails that recruiting the brightest S&E doctoral students from abroad is essential to the United States and helps to maintain its comparative advantage on research excellence and global leadership (National Research Council, 2005b). In such a strategic light, the past few decades have seen a rapid increase in the number of S&E doctorates awarded to international students (National Science Board, 2006, 2008, 2010). In 2007, international students earned approximately 13,700 S&E doctorates, up from 8,700 in 1995. In fields such as engineering and physical sciences, international students account for half or more of doctorates awarded annually.

Extant literature puts much emphasis on the enrollment patterns of international doctoral students (National Research Council, 2005b; National Science Board, 2006, 2008, 2010) and their contribution to research excellence (Black & Stephan, 2007; Libaers, 2007; No & Walsh, 2010; Stephan & Levin, 2001), with little light shed upon one important topic: career prospects. Studies point out that career opportunities are one of main forces attracting international students to pursue an S&E doctoral degree in the United States (National Research Council, 2005b; Shen & Herr, 2004). To what extent do international doctoral students share the same career prospects as domestic counterparts? How does the shift of the composition of doctoral student bodies change career prospects of all enrolled students? Arguably, the lack of good career prospects reduces international students’ interest to pursue an S&E doctoral degree, which may compromise the vitality of national workforce. These questions are of significant importance and remain unanswered. The present study seeks to find answers by investigating the impact of international doctoral students on their cohorts’ career prospects.

Despite of a few national surveys targeting S&E graduate students,² these surveys are more focused on the inventory of national S&E talents, with little attention paid to evaluation and trend analysis. This study uses a dataset combining a survey of a representative sample of S&E department chairs with the latest available evaluation information on research-doctorate departments in the United States (National Research Council, 2011). Department chairs are at the frontiers interacting with students and arguably among the most knowledgeable persons to reveal potential career options that their doctoral students are likely to have. The program evaluation information provides objective measures, upon which departmental chairs’ opinion can be well anchored. The combined dataset therefore provides a state-of-art method to evaluate the impact of international doctoral students on their cohorts’ career prospects.

International Versus Domestic Doctoral Students

The implicit assumption that S&E doctoral students are valuable assets, of which the invisible hand can take well care, has been increasingly subject to critical scrutiny. Numerous reports have called for specific actions to facilitate S&E doctoral students’ career transitions (National Research Council, 1998, 2005a, 2005b; National Science Board, 2006, 2008, 2010). While the topic of career prospects of S&E doctoral students has started to receive attention (see, Fox & Stephan, 2001; Mangematin, 2000; National Research Council, 1998, 2005a), little has been revealed on how international students shape their cohorts’ career prospects. One policy recommendation indicates that doctoral students should be provided with accurate and up-to-date information on career patterns and outcomes (Garrison & Gerbi, 1998; Garrison, Gerbi, & Kincade, 2003; National Research Council, 1998). The lack of such information not only blinds students to make wise decisions, but possibly distorts the distribution of valuable S&E talents (see, Zumeta, 1984).

Two streams of research pertain more or less to the present study, one focused on comparing the quality differences between domestic and international S&E doctoral students (Espenshade, 1997; Freeman, Jin, & Shen, 2007; National Research Council, 2005b; National Science Board, 2010; Salzman & Lowell, 2007; Trice, 2003) and the other examining the impact of international S&E doctoral students on high-skill labor markets (Borjas, 2006; Waldinger, Bozorgmehr, Lim, & Finkel, 1998). In recognition of the declining interest among domestic students in pursuing S&E graduate degrees, scholars wonder whether the influx of international students prove to be quality substitutes (National Research Council, 2005b; National Science Board, 2010; Salzman & Lowell, 2007). One rudimentary method to spot quality differences between domestic and international S&E graduate students is to examine their representation over time across different tiers of academic departments. Hypothetically, if domestic students are of higher quality than their international peers, the reduced enrollment of domestic students will gradually lead them to be more concentrated in top programs and less so in low rung ones. Over time, the representation gaps across different tiers of departments will rise. Focused on the percentage of enrolled domestic students within S&E academic departments, one study finds that between 1992 and 2002, the declining representation of domestic students occurred evenly across all departments, suggesting little quality difference between domestic and international graduate students (National Research Council, 2005b). However, if further breaking down the student body by gender, studies (Freeman et al., 2007) provide evidence that between 1970 and 2000, male domestic students have been more concentrated in top programs and the unchanged representation across all departments is largely due to the increase of female domestic students in less prestigious programs. Although the representation of foreign-born students among S&E student bodies remain relatively stable, it is hard to infer their quality differences without specifying a reference group. The past decade has seen a rapid increase in the number of international S&E doctoral students, raising a question whether the pattern still holds.

Another perspective to approach quality differences among students is to examine their recruitment and training outcomes. Two competing dynamics are at work: Selection effects and initial disadvantages. International students often have to pass through a stricter selection process to compete for available student slots in academic departments than American peers (see, Stephan & Levin, 2001). Given the cost and personal sacrifice involved in this selection process, international S&E graduate students are more likely to be highly motivated (National Research Council, 2005b). Meanwhile, their enrollment is accompanied with initial disadvantages, mainly, language and culture problems (Trice, 2003), which often set back their academic progress. Studies point out that international students are more concentrated in less prestigious departments (Trice, 2003). However, once they are enrolled, international students outperform their U.S. counterparts in that the former are more likely to complete the PhD training and do so with less time (Espenshade, 1997). The findings are mixed, questioning the presence (or lack) of quality differences between international and domestic students.

The second stream examines the impact of international S&E doctoral students on numerous aspects of high-skill labor markets. Studies point out that the influx of international doctoral students produces repercussions on high-skill labor markets, which include lowering the earnings of competing doctorates and reduced employment opportunities for domestic students (Borjas, 2006; Waldinger et al., 1998). Using data from the Survey of Earned Doctorates and the Survey of Doctorate Recipients, Borjas (2006) found that a 10% increase in the supply of international doctorates is associated with a 3 to 4% decrease in their cohorts’ earnings. Coupled with stressed job markets, domestic students have been more likely to pursue different career paths and those remaining in S&E doctoral programs may arguably opt for different career placement than their international counterparts (Levin, Black, Winkler, & Stephan, 2004). As such, the influx of international doctoral students affects their cohorts’ career prospects, largely in a negative fashion.

Well recognized is that career placement among S&E doctoral students is neither a result of purely individual endeavors, nor of a whole labor market, but subject to the impact of institutional factors such as department prestige and cohort size (see, Berger, 1985; Burris, 2004; Long, 1978; Long, Allison, & McGinnis, 1979; Welch, 1979). Studies point out that career prospects of S&E doctoral students are largely shaped by department prestige and those trained in prestigious departments are more likely to land academic positions than their counterparts in less prestigious programs (Long et al., 1979; Mangematin, 2000). As a form of social capital that is often well tapped in placing students (Burris, 2004; Weeber, 2006), department prestige signals the quality of training and research environment at a particular institution, regardless of the percentage of international students. Cohort size proves influential on the earnings of doctorates who earn degrees in the same fields at roughly the same time, with larger cohorts subject to earnings penalty (Berger, 1985; Borjas, 2006; Welch, 1979). Numerous studies further point out that cohorts in different fields are presented with differential job opportunities, as is the case that engineering fields seemingly offer more industrial jobs than life science (see, Fox & Stephan, 2001; Garrison et al., 2003; Garrison & Gerbi, 1998).

Data and Model Specifications

The dataset for this study was constructed with two main sources: A survey targeting a representative sample of S&E department chairs working at research extensive universities, and a data-based assessment of research-doctorate programs in the United States (National Research Council, 2011). This study limits its attention to engineering, physical and life sciences.³ Of the 150 research extensive universities, 149 S&E doctoral degree-granting institutions were included, from which a list of department chairs was developed with the assistance of online search engines. The survey was designed and administered in ways specified by the tailored design method (Dillman, Smyth, & Christian, 2009), which included a prenotice letter, survey instrument, thank you/reminder postcard, and a final survey packet. Overall, 43% of targeted respondents participated. There was no significant difference in response rates between male and female department chairs.

The survey intended to advance the understanding of S&E academic departments regarding their strategies, personnel policies, and doctoral education. It also solicited information with respect to department chairs’ working activities and their opinions on career prospects of trained cohorts. For all surveyed departments, assessment information was extracted from the National Research Council report (2011) and merged with the survey data. The National Research Council report (2011) provided rich information ranging from departmental rankings, average achievements of affiliated faculty, to composition of faculty and student bodies. Arguably, it represents the most comprehensive snapshot information collected on research-doctorate programs in the United States.

To capture real time trends on cohorts’ career prospects, this study is focused on doctoral students enrolled in S&E departments in Fall/September, 2005, for which the National Research Council report (2011) provided detailed information. The survey was conducted in early 2011. Given that the normal length of PhD training within surveyed departments is 5.17 years, the survey indeed approached career prospects of the 2005 cohort in a timely manner. Department chairs were asked the question “when you consider the kinds of positions your department’s doctoral students typically obtain, which position is a graduating doctoral student most likely to obtain: postdoctoral position; faculty position at a research university; faculty position in other university or college; or employed outside of academe”? Upon this question, four dummy variables were constructed to reflect career prospects of the graduating cohorts: postdoctoral positions, research-oriented faculty positions, less research-oriented faculty positions, and nonacademic positions.

The percentage of international students was calculated by taking the number of doctoral students with temporary visas and dividing it by the number of the 2005 cohort with known citizenship status. The National Research Council report (2011) ranked academic departments along many dimensions, among which rankings on research excellence pertains particularly to the present study. Departmental prestige, measured by research excellence, reflects how well an academic department performs its research tasks, often manifested by research articles, books, patents, rewards and grants. Two methods were used to rank academic departments and they proved highly correlated (National Research Council, 2011). This study incorporated one method into regression models and used the other for robust analyses. Studies point out that departmental ranking is of high consistency, especially during a short period of time such as a 5 year gap in this study (Keith, 1999; Keith & Babchuk, 1998).

The study used life science as a reference group, with engineering and physical sciences as the control. Based on the number of enrolled doctoral students in Fall/September, 2005, program size was classified with a quartile system, with 4 representing the largest programs within specific academic fields. The average GRE score of the 2005 cohort was included as a control variable for quality differences. To account for cognitive differences among department chairs, their tenure of being chairs was included, so was their gender.

Naturally, cohorts’ career prospects are shaped by factors beyond departmental level. Cohorts trained in the same universities may have common features than their peers in different universities. Department chairs’ opinion may be more alike if they work in the same universities. Universities may also be a rudimentary proxy for factors relevant to job markets. For instance, universities in metropolitan areas may expose their students to more job opportunities than those in remote areas. A multilevel random effect model is used to explore the impact of international doctoral students on their cohorts’ career projects, taking into account that cohorts are clustered by universities.

Research Findings

Figure 1 presents the number of doctorates awarded between 1998 and 2008, stratified by international students. As one can see, the patterns vary substantially across fields. International doctorates in engineering fields outnumbered domestic peers since 2000 and the gap has widened over time. It was until 2008 that the increase of international doctorates slowed down. For domestic doctorates, their reduced interest in engineering fields had been well manifested in reduced enrollment over years and the number of doctorates they earned in 2008 barely reached the level of 1998 when a peak of domestic engineer doctorates was documented. In life science, more doctorates were awarded to domestic students than international peers; nevertheless, the increases for both groups had been gradual and parallel. In physical science, although domestic doctorates outnumbered their international peers, the gap had been shrinking lately.

Figure 1.

Annual number of doctorates awarded in selected fields between 1998 and 2008.

In contrast to a general picture of doctorates awarded across fields, Figure 2 is focused on academic departments and maps the percentage of international students among the 2005 doctoral cohort. Overall, international students accounted for more than half of doctoral students in engineering fields, roughly over 45% in physical science and over a third in life science. From a snapshot perspective, Figure 2 echoes the distribution patterns revealed in Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Percentage of international students enrolled in Fall/September, 2005 by disciplines.

Among top quartile academic departments, international students accounted for 43% of doctoral student bodies, the shares increasing to 47%, 54% and 56% respectively as department ranks decline by quartiles [see Table 1]. If measured by absolute number, approximately one third of international doctoral students were in top quartile academic programs, and roughly one sixth in bottom quartile departments, with the rest scattered among those in-between programs. The discrepancy between relative and absolute measures can be attributable to size differences, as more prestigious departments tend to enroll significantly more students than less prestigious ones.

Table 1.

Representation of International Students Among the 2005 Doctoral Cohort.

Academic departments	Top quartile	2nd quartile	3rd quartile	4th quartile
Across the fields
Percentage of international students	.43	.47	.54	.56
Average number of international students	45	28	28	20
Representation of international students	.89	.98	1.13	1.16
Engineering fields
Percentage of international students	.47	.57	.58	.70
Average number of international students	63	30	21	21
Representation of international students	.88	1.07	1.10	1.26
Physical science
Percentage of international students	.42	.47	.46	.56
Average number of international students	53	44	26	24
Representation of international students	.92	1.02	.99	1.22
Life science
Percentage of international students	.33	.31	.30	.48
Average number of international students	9	9	11	11
Representation of international students	.97	.88	.87	1.39

Note: Representation of international students is calculated as the ratios of percentage of international students in a specific category of departments to the percentage of students enrolled in the designated category of department among the total S&E doctoral students, with one or above signaling international students being overrepresented and less than one underrepresented.

The representation of international doctoral students varies substantially across different ranks of academic departments. By calculating the ratios of percentage in group to percentage in total (e.g., percentage of international students in top quartile programs/percentage of students in top quartile programs), this study finds positive evidence that international students are overrepresented in low rung programs and underrepresented in top quartile ones. The pattern is well pronounced in engineering and physical sciences where international students are increasingly overrepresented as department prestige declines by quartiles. In life science, international students are particularly underrepresented in middle ranking departments and overrepresented in least prestigious ones. In comparison with previous studies (Freeman et al., 2007; National Research Council, 2005b) suggesting that international students are well represented across different tiers of academic S&E departments, the increase of international doctoral students over the past decade seemed to be accompanied with a fall in student quality.

The descriptive statistics of study variables is presented in Table 2. 44% of doctoral students were likely to have postdoctoral appointments and 38% of students likely to land positions outside of academe. Only 5% obtained research-oriented faculty positions and roughly 9% took faculty positions in less research-oriented institutions. Limited to leading research universities, one survey suggests that postdoctoral experience constitutes an almost de facto requirement for academic hiring and in fields such as biochemistry and physics, over 80% of departments would not even consider hiring new faculties without postdoctoral experience (Association of American Universities, 1998, 2005). This fuels the expansion of the postdoctoral enterprise and creates new armies of doctorates heading for postdoctoral positions, as is evidenced in the present study. Meanwhile, postdoctoral training being an imperative credential further squeezes new PhDs’ opportunities to land academic careers.

Table 2.

Descriptive Statistics of Study Variables.

Dependent variables	Mean	Standard deviation
Postdoc positions	.44	.50
Research-oriented faculty positions	.05	.23
Less-research-oriented faculty positions	.09	.28
Nonacademic positions	.38	.49
Independent variables
Percentage of international students	.50	.22
Department prestige in research excellence	71.82	43
Engineering	.44	.50
Physical science	.36	.48
Life science	.19	.39
Program size	2.53	1.13
Private university	.23	.42
Male	.90	.30
Chair tenure	6.94	7.33
GRE score	737.34	51.16

On average, international students accounted for half of the 2005 doctoral cohort, with some variation across fields. Departmental prestige proves widely dispersed, ranging in a descending order from 1 to 169. The sample included 44% of engineering departments, 36% of physical departments and 19% of life science programs. Based on the number of enrolled students in Fall/September, 2005, the average program size is medium. Twenty three percent of departments are affiliated with private universities. Ninety percent of department chairs were male, suggesting that such position is a male-dominant institution. The average tenure of department chair was roughly 7 years.

Regression outcomes are presented in Table 3.⁴ Aside from Model 3, all models prove a better fit than logit models with clustering effects controlled. Model 1 is focused on postdoctoral positions. Cohorts with a higher percentage of international students are less likely to take postdoc appointments. Departmental prestige fails to have any significant impact, implying that cohorts trained in all tiers of departments are equally likely to take postdoc positions. Relative to students in life science where postdoc training constitutes a salient career event, engineering cohorts are less likely to take postdoc training, so are students in physical science.

Table 3.

Modeling the Impact of International Students on Cohorts’ Career Prospects.

Models	1: Postdoctoral position	2: Research-oriented faculty	3: Less research-oriented faculty	4: Nonacademic
Fixed effects
Percentage of international students	−3.39 (1.72)**	.62 (1.47)	8.62 (3.80)**	−5.19 (5.80)
Department prestige in research excellence	.00 (.01)	−.02 (.01)**	.03 (.02)	.01 (.01)
Percentage of international students—department prestige	.01 (.01)	.01 (.01)	−.04 (.03)	.00 (.02)
Engineering	.06 (.84)	−.75 (.71)	2.14 (2.11)	1.62 (1.72)
Physical science	−1.12 (.74)	.44 (.70)	3.29 (2.00)	−.77 (1.83)
Percentage of international students—engineering	−2.73 (1.89)	1.66 (1.47)	−7.25 (3.57)**	4.10 (5.80)
Percentage of international students—physical science	2.10 (1.72)	−.78 (1.55)	−11.83 (4.17)**	6.67 (5.94)
Program size	−.18 (.13)	−.08 (.11)	−.16 (.31)	.28 (.17)
Private university	−.53 (.31)	.16 (.26)	1.11 (.91)	.08 (.35)
Male	−.16 (.45)	−.07 (.35)	16.90 (1135.38)	.48 (.57)
Chair tenure	−.02 (.02)	.01 (.01)	−.02 (.03)	−.02 (.03)
GRE score	−.00 (.00)	.00 (.00)	.01 (.01)	−.00 (.00)
Random effects
Universities	1.78e-08 (.35)	.00 (.56)	1.05 (.74)	2.33e-06 (.67)
Log likelihood	−193.90	−271.37	−63.39	−155.95

Note: The number of academic departments included is 425.

p<.05.

Model 2 examines how international students shape their cohorts’ prospects of landing research-oriented faculty positions. The percentage of international students among doctoral student bodies has no significant impact. Instead, department prestige is essential in determining whether cohorts are able to secure research-oriented faculty positions. Students trained in prestigious departments are more likely to obtain research-oriented faculty positions. Competition for research-oriented faculty positions is fierce in all fields. No disciplinary differences are detected.

Model 3 focuses on less research-oriented faculty positions. Studies point out that the expansion of doctoral programs over the past few decades has largely occurred in smaller and less prestigious ones (Freeman et al., 2007), which create many academic job opportunities. Cohorts with more international students seem to have better chances in landing less research-oriented faculty positions than those with fewer international peers, with a one standard deviation increase in the percentage of international students leading up to a 5.25 times higher likelihood. The pattern is especially pronounced in Engineering and Physical Science where the increase of job openings in research universities has been limited (Tobias, Chubin, & Aylesworth, 1995).

Model 4 investigates the impact of international students on cohorts’ chances of landing careers outside of academia. The percentage of international students has no bearing on cohorts’ chances of obtaining nonacademic jobs. Studies point out that engineering students are often presented with more industrial and other job opportunities (see, Fox & Stephan, 2001). However, the present study fails to find any supportive evidence. The null finding does not necessarily counter against previous findings, but possibly points out that stressed job markets force cohorts to find jobs outside of academia regardless of their marketability.

Discussion

The influx of international students into S&E departments in American research universities has led a substantial change on demographic characteristics of doctoral student bodies. Preoccupied with their potential contribution to research excellence, extant literature pays little attention to one important topic: Career prospects. This study attempts to fill in the gap by surveying a representative sample of department chairs and anchoring their opinion on the latest program evaluation information (National Research Council, 2011). The study reveals the status of international students among S&E academic departments, suggesting that international students tend to be underrepresented in top programs and overrepresented in least prestigious ones. Coupled with previous studies, the concern seems justified that the quality of international students has fallen in the past decade, despite of a rapid increase in the number of enrolled international S&E students (National Research Council, 2005b).

More importantly, the inquiry unfolds particularistic patterns on doctoral cohorts’ career prospects, which are stratified by the presence of international students, department prestige and academic fields. A cohort with more international students is less likely to take postdoc positions and more likely to obtain less research-oriented faculty positions. Students trained in prestigious departments are more likely to secure research-oriented faculty position, regardless of the representation of international students. Cohorts in engineering and physical science are more likely to take less research-oriented faculty positions relative to their peers in life science.

With the proliferation of postdoc appointments comes a lament that such temporary apprenticeship hardly guarantees an aspiring position such as research faculty appointment (Association of American Universities, 1998, 2005; Garrison et al., 2003; McGinnis, Allison, & Long, 1982; National Research Council, 1969, 1974, 1981, 2005b) and that postdoc training has increasingly evolved into an employment holding pattern (McGinnis et al., 1982; National Research Council, 2005a, 2005b; Zumeta, 1984, 1985). Previous studies point out that international students are more likely to have postdoc employment (Stephan & Ma, 2005). This study finds opposite evidence suggesting that a cohort with more international students tends to avoid postdoc appointment. Possibly, as more information regarding postdoctoral scholars’ plight is disseminated (National Research Council, 2005a, 2005b), doctorates show less interest in taking postdoc training. Or, as research funding gets tightened, less postdoc positions are available, which presents a challenge for the graduating cohort (Davis, 2006). Given international students are overrepresented in less prestigious departments, a cohort with more international students in less prestigious departments may find limited opportunities to secure postdoc employment. Both scenarios are plausible and further studies are warranted to diagnosis possible dynamics.

The rapid expansion of higher education in U.S. has largely occurred in smaller, less prestigious programs (Freeman et al., 2007), which create a flow of less research oriented faculty openings. It seems reasonable that the cohorts with more international students are more likely to opt out of postdoc appointments and opt into less research-oriented positions. One might wonder why less research-oriented faculty positions are not particularly attractive to the cohorts with less international students, for which further detailed studies are warranted. One plausible reason is rooted in the U.S. immigration system (National Research Council, 2005b), within which faculty positions often allow international students to be less concerned with their foreign status than other career options, say jobs requiring citizenship. Alternatively, international doctoral science and engineering students may be more vulnerable to academic influences, which tend to glorify academic careers over others. Possibly, both dynamics are at work, coupled with constrained academic job markets.

The cohorts trained in prestigious departments are more likely to secure research-oriented faculty positions than their peers trained elsewhere. This resonates an argument that academia is like a caste system (Burris, 2004). Departments sitting on top of the prestige hierarchy are endowed with more resources and recognition, with which their students can be better placed (Burris, 2004). Such an advantage applies to the whole cohort regardless of the representation of international students.

Postdoc training constitutes an important requirement toward research-oriented academic employment (Association of American Universities, 1998, 2005; Davis, 2006; Garrison et al., 2003; Long et al., 1979; Marshall & Woods, 1980; McGinnis et al., 1982; National Research Council, 1969). Given that graduates from prestigious departments are more likely to pursue research-oriented faculty positions, it seems puzzling that cohorts trained in prestigious departments are no more likely to take postdoctoral positions than their peers in less prestigious departments. Arguably, the answer may rest on the dual functions of postdoc training: selection and job substitutes, with the former dedicated to facilitate young researchers toward research careers and the later providing opportunities to exchange professional work for remuneration (McGinnis et al., 1982; Reskin, 1976). In light of this theory, graduates from prestigious departments use postdoc training as a stepping stone to pursue research-oriented faculty positions, whereas graduates from less prestigious departments take postdoc appointments due to lack of other promising career options. Given that postdoc employment is a most likely scenario for students graduated from less prestigious departments and international students are overrepresented in this category of departments, it makes sense that the cohorts with more international students tend to opt out of such appointment.

Career prospects vary across disciplines. Relative to the cohorts in life science where postdoc training is almost unavoidable for subsequent employment, the physical and engineering cohorts are more likely to end up with less research-oriented faculty positions. Studies point out that the pace of expansion in higher education may slow down due to the latest economic recession (Williams, 2011), raising a concern whether less research-oriented faculty positions will remain open for future cohorts in both fields.

Conclusion

With more international doctoral students enrolled in academic departments in the United States, more deliberate analysis should be performed to identify their benefits for the nation as well as their impacts on the scientific workforce. This study explores one such impact: How international doctoral science and engineering students shape their cohorts’ career prospects. The findings suggest international students tend to be overrepresented in least prestigious departments and underrepresented in top programs, raising a concern about the quality of S&E doctoral students and the possible vitality of the scientific workforce in the United States. International doctoral students prove to exert a negative impact on their cohorts’ career prospects, leading them more toward less research-oriented positions. The findings are at odds with the universalism theory, suggesting that international S&E doctoral students are not presented with a level playing field as their domestic peers.

The policy implications of the research findings are not straightforward, but instructive. S&E doctoral students should be informed of up-to-date information regarding their career prospects. Studies point out that PhD graduates often have to choose career trajectories when their level of information is at lowest (Mangematin, 2000). The case is particularly true for international students, who generally have weaker networks relative to domestic peers and more often count on impersonal searches to hunt for jobs (see, Wei, Levin, & Sabik, 2012). This study supplies rich information on international students’ potential career options and urges them to be better prepared for their career trajectories.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 0710836 to Monica Gaughan, University of Georgia, Principal Investigator.

Notes

Author Biography

Xuhong Su is an assistant professor at University of South Carolina, Columbia in the United States. Her research focuses on workforce policy in higher education and the public sector.

References

Association of American Universities. (1998). Report and recommendations. Washington, DC: Association of American Universities, Committee on Postdoctoral Education.

Association of American Universities. (2005). Postdoctoral education survey summary of results. Washington, DC: Association of American Universities, Graduate and Postdoctoral Education Committee.

Berger

M. C.

(1985). The effect of cohort size on earnings growth: A reexamination of the evidence. Journal of Political Economy, 93, 561-573.

Black

Stephan

(2007). The importance of foreign PhDs to U.S. science. In Ehrenberg

Stephan

(Eds.), Science and the university. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.

Borjas

G. J.

(2006). Immigration in high-skill labor market: The impact of foreign students on the earnings of doctorates. NBER working papers. Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w12085

Burris

(2004). The academic caste system: Prestige hierarchies in PhD exchange networks. American Sociological Review, 69, 239-264. doi:10.1177/000312240406900205

Davis

(2006). Improving the postdoctoral experience: An empirical approach. Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/~sewp/Davis_SurveyAnalysis20060201.pdf

Dillman

D. A.

Smyth

J. D.

Christian

L. M.

(2009). Internet, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Espenshade

T. J. R. G.

(1997). Completing the PhD: Comparative performances of U.S. and foreign students. Social Science Quarterly (University of Texas Press), 78, 593-605.

10.

Fox

M. F.

Stephan

P. E.

(2001). Careers of young scientists. Social Studies of Science, 31(1), 109-122. doi:10.1177/030631201031001006

11.

Freeman

R. B.

Jin

Shen

C.-Y.

(2007). Where do new U.S.-trained science-engineering PhDs come from? In Ehrenberg

R. G.

Stephan

P. E.

(Eds.), Science and the university. Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press.

12.

Garrison

H. H.

Gerbi

S. A.

(1998). Education and employment patterns of U.S. Ph.D.’s in the biomedical sciences. FASEB Journal, 12(2), 139-148.

13.

Garrison

H. H.

Gerbi

S. A.

Kincade

P. W.

(2003). In an era of scientific opportunity, are there opportunities for biomedical scientists? FASEB Journal, 17, 2169-2173. doi:10.1096/fj.03-0836life

14.

Keith

(1999). The institutional context of departmental prestige in American higher education. American Educational Research Journal, 36, 409-445.

15.

Keith

Babchuk

(1998). The quest for institutional recognition: A longitudinal analysis of scholarly productivity and academic prestige among sociology departments. Social Forces, 76, 1495-1533.

16.

Levin

S. G.

Black

G. C.

Winkler

A. E.

Stephan

P. E.

(2004). Differential employment patterns for citizens and non-citizens in science and engineering in the United States: Minting and competitive effects. Growth and Change, 35, 456-475. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2257.2004.00257.x

17.

Libaers

D. P.

(2007). Role and contribution of foreign-born scientists and engineers to the public U.S. nanoscience and technology research enterprise. Ieee Transactions on Engineering Management, 54, 423-432. doi:10.1109/tem.2007.900789

18.

Long

J. S.

(1978). Productivity and academic position in the scientific career. American Sociological Review, 43, 889-908.

19.

Long

J. S.

Allison

P. D.

McGinnis

(1979). Entrance into the academic career. American Sociological Review, 44, 816-830.

20.

Mangematin

(2000, 2000/06). PhD job market: Professional trajectories and incentives during the PhD. Research Policy, 29, 741-756.

21.

Marshall

Woods

(1980). Relationship of research postdoctoral experience and attainment of tenure by neuroscientists. Experimental Neurology, 68, 403-408.

22.

McGinnis

Allison

P. D.

Long

J. S.

(1982). Postdoctoral training in bioscience: Allocation and outcomes. Social Forces, 60, 701-722.

23.

National Research Council. (1969). The invisible university: Postdoctoral education in the United States. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.

24.

National Research Council. (1974). Postdoctoral training in the biomedical sciences. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.

25.

National Research Council. (1981). Postdoctoral appointments and disappointments. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

26.

National Research Council. (1998). Trends in the early careers of life scientists. Washingdon, DC: National Academy Press.

27.

National Research Council. (2005a). Bridges to independence: Fostering the independence of new investiagtors in biomedical research. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

28.

National Research Council. (2005b). Policy implications of international graduate students and postdoctoral scholars in the United States. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

29.

National Research Council. (2011). A data-based assessment of research-doctorate programs in the United States. In Ostriker

J. P.

Kuh

C. V.

Voytuk

J. A.

(Eds.). Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK83404/

30.

National Science Board. (2006). Science and engineering indicators. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.

31.

National Science Board. (2008). Science and engineering indicators. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.

32.

National Science Board. (2010). Science and engineering indicators. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.

33.

Walsh

J. P.

(2010). The importance of foreign-born talent for US innovation. [10.1038/nbt0310-289]. Nat Biotech, 28, 289-291. Retrieved from http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v28/n3/abs/nbt0310-289.html#supplementary-information

34.

Reskin

B. F.

(1976). Sex differences in status attainment in science: The case of the postdoctoral fellowship. American Sociological Review, 41, 597-612.

35.

Salzman

Lowell

B. L.

(2007). Into the eye of the storm: Assessing the evidence on science and engineering education, quality, and workforce demand. SSRN eLibrary. Retrieved from http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/411562_salzman_Science.pdf

36.

Shen

Y.-J.

Herr

E. L.

(2004). Career placement concerns of international graduate students: A qualitative study. Journal of Career Development, 31(1), 15-29. doi:10.1023/B:JOCD.0000036703.83885.5d

37.

Stephan

P. E.

Levin

S. G.

(2001). Exceptional contributions to U.S. science by the foreign-born and foreign-educated. Population Research and Policy Review, 20(1), 59-79.

38.

Stephan

(2005). The increased frequency and duration of the postdoctorate career stage. Paper presented at the Papers and Proceedings of the One Hundred Seventeenth Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association, Philadelphia, PA.

39.

Tobias

Chubin

D. E.

Aylesworth

(1995). Rethinking science as a career: Perceptions and realities in the physical sciences: Research Corporation, Tucson, AZ.

40.

Trice

A. G.

(2003). Faculty perceptions of graduate international students: The benefits and challenges. Journal of Studies in International Education, 7, 379-403. doi:10.1177/1028315303257120

41.

Waldinger

Bozorgmehr

Lim

Finkel

(1998). In search of the glass ceiling: The career trajectories of immigrant and native-born engineers. The Lewis Center for Regional Policy Studies, [Working Paper No. 28], Los Angeles, CA.

42.

Weeber

(2006). Elite versus mass sociology: An elaboration on sociology’s academic caste system. American Sociologist, 37(4), 50-67. doi:10.1007/bf02915067

43.

Wei

T. E.

Levin

Sabik

L. M.

(2012). A referral is worth a thousand ads: Job search methods and scientist outcomes in the market for postdoctoral scholars. Science and Public Policy, 39(1), 60-73. doi:10.1093/scipol/scr006

44.

Welch

(1979). Effects of cohort size on earnings: The baby boom babies’ financial bust. Journal of Political Economy, 87(5), S65-S97.

45.

Williams

(2011). Will higher education be the next bubble to burst? Europa world of learning. Oxford, UK: Taylor & Francis

46.

Zumeta

(1984). Anatomy of the boom in postdoctoral appointments during the 1970s—Troubling implications for quality science. Science Technology & Human Values, 47, 23-37.

47.

Zumeta

(1985). Extending the educational ladder: The changing quality and value of postdoctoral study. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.