The Costs of Early-career Disciplinary Pivots: Evidence from Ph.D. Admissions

TL;DR

This study examines the costs and challenges faced by early-career researchers who switch disciplines during PhD admissions, revealing significant admission and graduation penalties that hinder interdisciplinary innovation.

Contribution

It provides empirical evidence on the disciplinary pivot penalty at the start of research careers, highlighting its impact on admission likelihood and graduation outcomes.

Findings

Pivoters have lower GPAs and test scores.

Pivoters are 1.3% less likely to be admitted.

Pivoters are 12.9% less likely to graduate.

Abstract

Scientific innovation often comes from researchers who pivot across disciplines. However, prior work found that established researchers face productivity penalties when pivoting. Here, we investigate the consequences of pivoting at the beginning of a research career -- doctoral admissions -- when the benefits of importing new ideas might outweigh the switching costs. Using applications to all PhD programs at a large research-intensive university between 2013-2023, we find that pivoters (those applying to programs outside their prior disciplinary training) have lower GPAs and standardized test scores than non-pivoters. Yet even conditional on these predictors of admission, pivoters are 1.3 percentage points less likely to be admitted. Examining applicants who applied to multiple programs in the same admissions cycle provides suggestive evidence that the admissions pivot penalty is causal. This penalty is significantly smaller for applicants who secure a recommendation from someone within the target discipline. Among those admitted and enrolled, pivoters are 12.9 percentage points less likely to graduate and do not show superior publication performance on average or at the tail. Our results reveal the substantial costs of disciplinary pivoting even at the outset of research careers, which constrain the flow of new ideas into research communities.