Futile doctorate?

I just got around to reading the Economist's "The Disposable Academic" article from last month. I find it to be a rant from a former PhD student who was unlucky in their quest for a job in their field. Regardless, the points that they raise are interesting.

Their issue comes back to a question of whether working hard affords a person success or not. Clearly, completing a PhD demands dedication, hard work, and often years of one's life. The author considers doing a PhD "a waste of time" because

1. the number of PhDs is much greater than the number of academic jobs, and
2. obtaining a job outside of or within academia is not guaranteed by completing a PhD.

For the author, there is just too much chance in it. I do not see how this is much different from any other line of work. There are few jobs in academia and, consequently, those jobs either go to the most academically-productive or the luckiest PhDs (i.e., those who are in the right place at the right time), or maybe just to the PhDs who are both.

Just as going to law school does not guarantee that one will pass the bar or become a lawyer, or getting into medical school does not guarantee that one will become a doctor, going to graduate school does not guarantee one a position as a faculty member at a university. I would guess that the ratios of success/failure are at least comparable in those other fields. If so, then getting a PhD is no different than any other professional field. Or even better yet, how about a field like acting, where only a small fraction of those who attempt it (and maybe even fewer who actually study it for four years in college) become successful? That does not mean that trying to become an actor is a waste of time.

Only the PhD is a waste of time?
"Many of those who embark on a PhD are the smartest in their class and will have been the best at everything they have done. ... few will be willing to accept that the system they are entering could be designed for the benefit of others, that even hard work and brilliance may well not be enough to succeed, and that they would be better off doing something else." The assumption that one would be better off doing something else just because they did not obtain an academic job right out of their doctorate is only justified by the assumption that one SHOULD obtain a job right out of their doctorate given the amount of work they have completed. Accepting the reality that there are always those who are better than you at a given task/profession (as well as those who are not as good) is a part of the simple realization that there is more to success than working hard and there is more to happiness than extreme success. This is not something that is exclusive to the PhD.

By the numbers
In the United States in 2009 across all fields, 51.7% of graduating PhDs had "definite employment commitments" in academia, and 69.2% had definite commitments in something (source: National Science Foundation). That looks pretty good to me. The author cites statistics that say only 16% of new PhDs get tenure-track jobs (based on the estimate of 100,000 new PhDs and "only 16,000 new professorships"). That would be 31% of PhDs who go into academia! It is not so surprising to me that only the top tier would get a professorship straight out of their PhD. The others could fall into many categories: research academic positions (of which there are MANY; "professor" is not the only academic job), adjunct professorships, or postdocs. And out of the 48% who don't go into academia there are certainly those who didn't want an academic job in the first place! According to the National Research Council, on average only 35% (±16% SD) of graduate students have "definite plans" for an academic career. Those numbers make it look like nearly all of those who had definite plans got some sort of job in academia.