Over the past decade, developing countries led by China have witnessed an unprecedented expansion in higher education, with annual double‑digit growth in doctoral enrollments. Yet this surge has not been matched by a corresponding increase in faculty positions and research posts, leaving more and more PhD graduates stranded in the so‑called “post‑doc corridor,” perpetually waiting for permanent appointments. This mismatch between supply and demand not only breeds widespread anxiety among the doctoral cohort but also distorts the research ecosystem and societal expectations.
When we examine the roots of this imbalance, we find that many local governments and universities favor short‑term projects and paper counts in their funding allocations, neglecting the structural need for long‑term staffing and talent development. Consequently, PhD candidates and post‑doctoral researchers are often treated as “cheap labor,” shouldering teaching and experimental duties without any assurance of stable career prospects. At the same time, industry channels for absorbing high‑level talent remain underdeveloped—especially in emerging interdisciplinary fields and applied research—where domestic enterprises tend to prefer overseas‑trained or foreign experts, further intensifying the secondary migration of talent from academia to training institutions, consulting firms, or careers unrelated to their expertise.
In this context, the role of doctoral education has been seriously misconstrued: many families and society at large equate a PhD with an “iron rice bowl,” ignoring the reality that innovative talent requires a diverse skill set. Incoming students are rarely informed of career paths beyond academia or the competencies they must develop, leading to a post‑graduation dilemma of “degree devaluation” and “wasted specialization.” Meanwhile, an academic evaluation system centered on quantitative metrics forces supervisors and candidates into a race for short‑term grants and high‑impact journals, sidelining truly deep and original research.
To address these challenges, we must return to the essence of doctoral training: it should not merely supply future professors but serve as a multifaceted talent development platform aligned with national strategies and societal needs. In China and other developing nations, this entails introducing a “career blueprint” at the outset of doctoral programs, where students, alongside academic and industry mentors, co‑design research plans with clear application scenarios and pathways for technology transfer. Only by anchoring doctoral training in real‑world challenges can we bridge the gap between education and employment.
Simultaneously, universities and research institutes need to establish dynamic “supply‑demand feedback” mechanisms. Every two to three years, doctoral quotas should be reviewed against national and regional industrial plans, sectoral skill shortages, and global scientific trends. These quotas, jointly approved by education authorities and employer representatives, will prevent indiscriminate expansion and ensure that doctoral outputs have viable application channels. Moreover, governments should earmark special funds within research budgets to support early‑career scholars—those three to five years post‑PhD—in securing assistant professorships or key R&D roles in industry, thus smoothing the transition from “research assistant” to permanent appointment.
Equally critical is a profound reform of evaluation criteria. We must shift from single‑factor measures such as paper counts and grant amounts toward multidimensional assessments—including publication quality, patent commercialization, teamwork, and public service—to incentivize long‑term, original research. Project reviews should prioritize collaborations with local governments, enterprises, and social organizations, fostering deep industry‑academic integration and enabling doctoral research to address real‑world problems.
On the individual level, doctoral candidates need to proactively cultivate soft skills beyond their disciplinary expertise—project management, cross‑cultural communication, market analysis, and entrepreneurial practice. Institutions can support this by embedding “cross‑sector internships” in doctoral curricula, allowing students to spend time in companies, NGOs, or startups, thereby blending theory with practice and identifying personal career trajectories early on.
Finally, we must leverage regional and international cooperation. By building specialized innovation clusters in strategic national zones—such as the Guangdong‑Hong Kong‑Macao Greater Bay Area and the Yangtze River Delta Integration Region—we can offer diverse employment opportunities for PhD talent. At the same time, strengthening research partnerships and scholar exchanges with Belt and Road countries not only alleviates domestic supply pressures but also bolsters technological capacity across developing nations, achieving a true “best use of every talent.”
Doctoral education is a cornerstone of national innovation systems, yet when training volumes far outpace job creation, the “more monks than porridge” dilemma undermines individuals, academia, and social equity. Facing this reality, we must enact precise, deep adjustments in macro policy and institutional frameworks, while also enhancing training models and personal development pathways. Only then can every PhD graduate find the stage best suited to their talents and collectively fuel sustained innovation and social progress.