Spinning off the thread about Ph.D.'s turning one into an emotional train wreck, I’m hoping to kick around this kind of uncomfortable topic. I’ve seen a number of threads discussing employment in academia after the doctorate. The assumption sometimes seems to be “if I get a PhD, then I will get a full-time academic position.” I think it’s rather more complex, something like: “if I have the PhD, then my publications will be looked at, and if I have major peer-reviewed publications, then I will be a viable contender for an academic position.” I don’t think data exists to validate or invalidate my opinion, but here it is. I think either a university or say a leading biotech firm is going to care mostly about the kind of research you’ve proven yourself capable of beyond your PhD. A resume sporting a Harvard degree without peer-reviewed articles at least accepted for publication is likely to be canned in the climate that has developed in the last 5-10 years. This also leads to discussion of what are accepted as credible peer-reviewed journals. The Chronicle of Higher Education has a great thread going on predatory publishers that siphon off people’s research, charge fees, and have no credibility. It’s worth reading for anyone interested in going this route. Beall's List of Predatory Publishers Other experiences? Has anyone been hired in a tenure-track academic position recently and care to comment? (Adjuncting, incidentally, is fine and honorable employment, but not what I’m addressing here.) At the very least, I hope this stimulates people to check out the top journals in their field and see what is expected. This, by the way, strikes me as the one way for a graduate from a new university or one with no reputation to make it. I know one scholar who made himself a giant in his field with a tiny doctoral alma mater no one has heard of, but he kept publishing top-notch research.