Over the last months, I’ve given a number of presentations at Dutch institutes (universities, university medical centers, and independent research institutes) on career preparation for PhD students and postdocs. These moments are always particularly enjoyable, as I get to do what I love most: share my knowledge and empower the younger generations of scientists. But each time, I’m reminded of the same frustrating truth: institutions that train PhD students are still not preparing them well for what comes after their PhD.

Yes, many universities offer courses – sometimes even mandatory ones that count towards the number of ECs required to graduate – on professional development. But these are often narrowly focused on academic skills: grant writing, conference presentations, and scientific publishing. Useful? Absolutely. Sufficient? Far from it.

After one of these presentations, an attendee told me it was the first time since starting their PhD 3.5 years ago that they received concrete information about the range of possibilities available after their doctoral studies. Ironically, the host institution that invited me claims on its website to “help PhD students prepare for the next step of [their] career” – yet their graduate school program doesn’t offer a single course specifically dedicated to career preparation. This is not an isolated incident; it’s part of a broader, systemic gap in academia.

I’m convinced that universities can – and must – do better at all levels when it comes to preparing scientists for the realities of the job market. Some graduate schools do offer training in professional skills, but there are two main limitations.

First, the transferable skills that are taught are still heavily tailored to academic work. Courses like project management, time management, and leadership are certainly valuable, but they are often framed through an academic lens and not necessarily aligned with what the industry expects. Many employers look for recognized certifications (e.g., Lean Six Sigma, PMP, or Agile project management) that are valued across sectors. An internal workshop on project planning may help navigate a PhD timeline, but it may not hold sufficient weight in the job market. There’s still a gap between what academia considers ‘transferable skills’ and what employers recognize as such.

Second, when these professional development courses are not part of the mandatory curriculum, very few (PhD) students actually take them. I understand why. Supervisors are often focused on the present: what needs to be delivered now, not what comes after. Students, in turn, are overwhelmed with deadlines and experiments, leaving them little time to think about their future. The result? Most only begin career exploration towards the end of their PhD, when the pressure is high, and the options seem limited.

That’s why I’m advocating for a systemic shift at the institutional level. We need universities, university medical centers, and independent research institutes to dedicate budget, time, and energy toward preparing early-career scientists for their next steps. The majority of PhD graduates will work outside of academia. It’s time we acknowledge that and adjust the system accordingly. Supervisors should be more actively engaged in career preparation – not just research training.

Ultimately, it’s about impact. If our goal is to train scientists who make a difference in society, then equipping them for the job market is not optional; it’s essential. I’ll continue touring Dutch institutions and online platforms to guide PhD students, hoping these bottom-up steps will trigger impactful top-down decisions.

But real change requires more than just individual efforts; it needs collective action. Let’s push universities to rethink their approach, go beyond ticking boxes for credits, and genuinely prepare the next generation of scientists for the careers that await them. If we want to shape the future of science, we must first shape the future of scientists.