In the academic year of 2020/21, about 194,059 students were awarded their doctoral degrees in the United States. This figure is expected to increase until the academic year of 2031/32, when it is forecasted that 229,601 people will earn a doctoral degree.

In 2021, a total 5,892 doctorates were awarded in California, a significantly higher number than in any other U.S. state. Texas, New York, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania rounded out the top five states for doctorate recipients in that year.

In the academic year of 2020/2021 in the United States, 85,581 doctoral degrees were earned in health professions and related programs - the most out of any field of study. A further 35,976 doctoral degrees were earned in legal professions and studies.

The number of science and engineering doctorate recipients in the United States has increased over time. In 2021, the number of science and engineering doctorate recipients totaled about ******, a decrease from the previous year.

Graph and download economic data for Unemployment Rate - College Graduates - Doctoral Degree, 25 years and over (CGDD25O) from Jan 2000 to Jul 2025 about doctoral degree, 25 years +, tertiary schooling, education, unemployment, rate, and USA.

In 2024, about 18,714 graduates in South Korea earned a doctorate, showing an increase from the previous year. The total number of doctoral degrees awarded in the country has risen in recent years.

The Survey of Doctorate Recipients is a longitudinal biennial survey conducted since 1973 that provides demographic and career history information about individuals with a research doctoral degree in a science, engineering, or health (SEH) field from a U.S. academic institution. The survey follows a sample of individuals with SEH doctorates throughout their careers from the year of their degree award until age 76.

The Survey of Doctorate Recipients (SDR) provides demographic, education, and career history information from individuals with a U.S. research doctoral degree in a science, engineering, or health (SEH) field. The SDR is sponsored by the National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics and by the National Institutes of Health. Conducted since 1973, the SDR is a unique source of information about the educational and occupational achievements and career movement of U.S.-trained doctoral scientists and engineers in the United States and abroad. This dataset includes SDR assets for 2021.

In 2021 in the United States, **** percent of doctorate recipients fell within the age bracket of 26 to 30 years old. A further **** percent of doctorate recipients were between the ages of 31 and 35 years old.

IntroductionThe National Institutes of Health (NIH) is the primary federal agency in the United States (US) that supports biomedical research, training, and clinical trials. NIH funding creates patents and jobs and thus helps the regional and national economy grow. Therefore, NIH funding would be expected to flow equitably to all 50 US states. However, there is a significant geographic disparity in the level of NIH funding received by various states. To that end, in 1993, authorized by Congress, NIH initiated a funding program called the Institutional Development Award (IDeA) to support states, called IDeA states, which received low levels of NIH funding. However, whether this approach has helped reduce the geographic disparity in NIH funding is unclear.MethodsIn the current study, we analyzed data on various NIH funding mechanisms awarded to 23 IDeA states vs. 27 non-IDeA states, as identified by NIH. We compared these data to the population size, federal taxes paid, and the number of PhDs and Post-doctoral Fellows(PDFs) trained in IDeA vs. non-IDeA states.ResultsThe non-IDeA states received 93.6% of the total NIH funding, whereas IDeA states received only 6.4%. On average, one Institutional Training Grant was received for every 24 PhDs trained in non-IDeA states, while IDeA states received one such grant for every 46 PhDs trained. The non-IDeA states comprised 84.3% of the US population, whereas IDeA states comprised 15.7%. Thus, on a per capita basis, non-IDeA states received $120 from NIH, whereas IDeA states received $45 per person. For every million dollars contributed by the non-IDeA states toward federal taxes, they received $7,903 in NIH funding, while the IDeA States received only $4,617. For FY 2022, the NIH funding created an economic activity of $90.6 Billion in non-IDeA states and only $6.3 billion in IDeA states. When total NIH funding to the states was analyzed for the years 1992, 2002, 2012, and 2022, IDeA states received 4.7% of the total NIH funding in 1992, which increased to 7.2% in 2002 but dropped to 6.8% in 2012 and 6.5% in 2022. This demonstrated that IDeA states’ share of NIH funding remained relatively unchanged for the past 20 years.DiscussionEliminating the geographic disparity in NIH funding is crucial for achieving equitable health outcomes across the US, and for the IDeA states to successfully train future generations of physicians and scientists, as well as grow the regional economy. Although the NIH IDeA programs have helped enhance the research capacity in IDeA states, the funding currently constitutes less than 1% of the total NIH budget. Thus, it is critical to increase NIH funding to IDeA states to improve health outcomes for all Americans.

To encourage domestic universities to encourage doctoral students to write theses in the field of overseas Chinese affairs, the association has been organizing the Overseas Chinese Affairs Research Master's and Doctoral Thesis Award since 2004. In 2021, in response to the transformation of academic research in overseas Chinese affairs, it has been integrated into the Overseas Chinese Affairs Academic Conference, and this data set is no longer updated.

Since the 1950s, the number of doctorate recipients has risen dramatically in the United States. In this paper, we investigate whether the longevity of doctorate recipients’ publication careers has changed. This is achieved by matching 1951–2010 doctorate recipients with rare names in astrophysics, chemistry, economics, genetics and psychology in the dissertation database ProQuest to their publications in the publication database Web of Science. Our study shows that pre-PhD publication careers have changed: the median year of first publication has shifted from after the PhD to several years before PhD in most of the studied fields. In contrast, post-PhD publication career spans have not changed much in most fields. The share of doctorate recipients who have published for more than twenty years has remained stable over time; the shares of doctorate recipients publishing for shorter periods also remained almost unchanged. Thus, though there have been changes in pre-PhD publication careers, post-PhD career spans remained quite stable.

The Survey of Doctorate Recipients (SDR) is a dataset created by the National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES) under the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF). It provides comprehensive data on individuals who earned research doctorates in science, engineering, or health (SEH) fields from U.S. academic institutions. The survey captures demographic information, educational background, career trajectories, employment status, and work experiences of doctorate holders, both within the U.S. and abroad. Its primary purpose is to inform policy and research on the SEH workforce, offering insights into career patterns, labor market dynamics, and the long-term impacts of doctoral education. Key features include its representative sampling of doctorate recipients (including those retired or seeking work), expanded coverage of specialized fields, and an online format to enhance data quality and participation. Unique aspects include integrated data on international and domestic recipients, enabling analysis of global career trends. The SDR is widely used by researchers, policymakers, and institutions to track workforce development, assess the return on investment in higher education, and shape STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) initiatives. Regular updates ensure relevance to evolving scientific and economic landscapes.

Since 2007, the total number of college graduates has increased year by year until 2022. The number of master's degree holders increased from ****** to ******* during this period.

This is a dataset used for the online stats training website (https://www.rensvandeschoot.com/tutorials/) and is based on the data used by Van de Schoot, Yerkes, Mouw and Sonneveld 2013

Among many other questions, the researchers asked the Ph.D. recipients how long it took them to finish their Ph.D. thesis (n=333). It appeared that Ph.D. recipients took an average of 59.8 months (five years and four months) to complete their Ph.D. trajectory. The variable B3_difference_extra measures the difference between planned and actual project time in months (mean=9.97, minimum=-31, maximum=91, sd=14.43). For the the exercises we are interested in the question whether age (M = 31.7, SD = 6.86) of the Ph.D. recipients is related to a delay in their project. The relation between completion time and age is expected to be non-linear. This might be due to that at a certain point in your life (i.e., mid thirties), family life takes up more of your time than when you are in your twenties or when you are older. So, in our model the gapgap (B3_difference_extra) is the dependent variable and ageage (E22_Age) and age2age2(E22_Age_Squared ) are the predictors.

For more information on the sample, instruments, methodology and research context we refer the interested reader to Van de Schoot, Yerkes, Mouw and Sonneveld 2013.

In the academic year of 2020/21, about 85,370 male and 108,690 female students earned a doctoral degree in the United States. By the academic year of 2031/32, these figures are expected to increase to about 88,110 and 141,500 respectively.

PhD recipients acquire discipline-specific knowledge and a range of relevant skills during their training in the life sciences, physical sciences, computational sciences, social sciences, and engineering. Empirically testing the applicability of these skills to various careers held by graduates will help assess the value of current training models. This report details results of an Internet survey of science PhDs (n = 8099) who provided ratings for fifteen transferrable skills. Indeed, analyses indicated that doctoral training develops these transferrable skills, crucial to success in a wide range of careers including research-intensive (RI) and non-research-intensive (NRI) careers. Notably, the vast majority of skills were transferrable across both RI and NRI careers, with the exception of three skills that favored RI careers (creativity/innovative thinking, career planning and awareness skills, and ability to work with people outside the organization) and three skills that favored NRI careers (time management, ability to learn quickly, ability to manage a project). High overall rankings suggested that graduate training imparted transferrable skills broadly. Nonetheless, we identified gaps between career skills needed and skills developed in PhD training that suggest potential areas for improvement in graduate training. Therefore, we suggest that a two-pronged approach is crucial to maximizing existing career opportunities for PhDs and developing a career-conscious training model: 1) encouraging trainees to recognize their existing individual skill sets, and 2) increasing resources and programmatic interventions at the institutional level to address skill gaps. Lastly, comparison of job satisfaction ratings between PhD-trained employees in both career categories indicated that those in NRI career paths were just as satisfied in their work as their RI counterparts. We conclude that PhD training prepares graduates for a broad range of satisfying careers, potentially more than trainees and program leaders currently appreciate.

The Survey of Earned Doctorates (SED) is an annual census of doctorate recipients in Canada that was conducted for the first time on a national basis during the 2003-2004 academic year. The basic purpose of this survey is to gather data about all doctoral graduates in Canada to inform government, associations, universities and other stakeholders on the characteristics and plans of these very highly qualified graduates as they leave their doctoral programs. The survey's key data objectives are to evaluate the impact of the various sources of institutional funding; to gather information on the retention of doctoral students in Canada; to gain a better understanding of postgraduate education financing and debt level; to allow labour market planners to assess the additions to the domestic stock of highly qualified human resources in various fields; and, to allow an examination of the path to receipt of doctoral degrees and the impact of foreign students. The survey collects data about the graduate's postsecondary academic path, funding sources, field of study and his/her immediate postgraduate plans. The data from the SED can be used by universities and governments to make policy decisions that affect graduate education throughout Canada, by federal agencies to inform parliament and to make decisions about financial commitments that affect graduate education throughout Canada; and, in the evaluation of graduate education programs, strategic planning at the provincial level, labour force projections, and affirmative action plans at all levels. For current SED data refer to Statistics Canada Access data here

Placement in prestigious research institutions for STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) PhD recipients is generally considered to be optimal. Yet some doctoral recipients are not interested in intensive research careers and instead seek alternative careers, outside but also within academe (for example teaching positions in Liberal Arts Schools). Recent attention to non-academic pathways has expanded our understanding of alternative PhD careers. However, career preferences and placements are also nuanced along the academic pathway. Existing research on academic careers (mostly research-centric) has found that certain factors have a significant impact on the prestige of both the institutional placement and the salary of PhD recipients. We understand less, however, about the functioning of career preferences and related placements outside of the top academic research institutions. Our work builds on prior studies of academic career placement to explore the impact that prestige of PhD-granting institution, advisor involvement, and cultural capital have on the extent to which STEM PhDs are placed in their preferred academic institution types. What determines whether an individual with a preference for research oriented institutions works at a Research Extensive university? Or whether an individual with a preference for teaching works at a Liberal Arts college? Using survey data from a nationally representative sample of faculty in biology, biochemistry, civil engineering and mathematics at four different Carnegie Classified institution types (Research Extensive, Research Intensive, Master’s I & II, and Liberal Arts Colleges), we examine the relative weight of different individual and institutional characteristics on institutional type placement. We find that doctoral institutional prestige plays a significant role in matching individuals with their preferred institutional type, but that advisor involvement only has an impact on those with a preference for research oriented institutions. Gender effects are also observed, particularly in the role of the advisor in affecting preferred career placement.

This research analyses the Ph.D. trajectories and employment outcomes of recent Dutch Ph.D. recipients at four universities in the Netherlands in 2008-2009: Delft University of Technology, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Utrecht University and Wageningen University and Research Centre.The research was conducted on behalf of the Netherlands Centre for Graduate and Research Schools in the Netherlands and the Institute of Education (IVLOS) at Utrecht University and was subsidized by the Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture and Science (Ministerie van Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschap, OC&W). This report is an important source of information on Ph.D. candidates in the Netherlands. The most recent comprehensive study of Ph.D. candidates conducted prior to this research is from 1996 (Hulshof et al., 1996). This study provides detailed information on the background of Ph.D. candidates, their Ph.D. trajectory, including supervision and the performance of Ph.D. candidates, as well as their initial employment after obtaining their Ph.D.