Are transferable skills truly transferable?

English only

At TU Delft, completing a PhD is about more than just performing experiments, writing papers, and teaching. PhD candidates must also earn 45 Graduate School credits across three categories – discipline-related skills, research skills, and transferable skills – to demonstrate well-rounded academic development. But how useful is this system in practice?

The first two categories are often easier to fulfil. PhD candidates can take courses to expand their field-specific knowledge or learn new tools for the discipline-related skills category. The research skills credits are the most straightforward – they include ‘learning-on-the-job’ activities like writing papers, presenting at conferences, teaching, and supervising students, hence, the core of a PhD.

And then the most controversial category: transferable skills – courses in project management, time management, negotiation, leadership, and more. Courses that aim to produce ‘T-shaped professionals’ – commendable! But does it really work?

As I near the end of my doctoral journey, I keep returning to the same question: What are these credits actually worth outside TU Delft?

In today’s job market, many employers aren’t looking for generic soft skill training. They’re looking for recognised certifications – Lean Six Sigma, PMP, PRINCE2, Scrum, Agile – especially in industries where project management, quality assurance, or interdisciplinary coordination matter. Completing an eight hour internal workshop on ‘Managing Your PhD Project’ might help me navigate my research timeline, but it’s not something I can put on a CV with any confidence.

The reality is that most PhDs will leave academia, whether by choice or necessity

You might ask: “Why care about the job market? You’ll be a Doctor! You can stay in academia.” To that, I invite anyone holding that belief to think twice. Think about the number of PhDs compared to the number of available academic positions. Just a couple of days ago, we were protesting the national budget cuts, while internal cutbacks (bezuinigingen) have been a topic of discussion since last year. The reality is that most PhDs will leave academia, whether by choice or necessity.

Time and money have been invested in training courses that seldom translate into value for future employers. In some cases, I wonder if they’d even be enough to impress TU Delft as an employer – in a managerial role, for instance – after completing the PhD. That’s not because the training is inherently bad, but because they’re not tied to recognisable, external standards.

There’s also the issue of flexibility. The Graduate School offers a range of options, but it still operates quite rigidly. You need a certain number of credits in each category. That structure is a valuable benchmark, but it doesn’t always align with real-world readiness. What if, instead of another workshop on time management, I could pursue an actual certification in Agile methodology? What if the Graduate School could help bridge the gap between our skills and the qualifications industry values?

TU Delft must critically evaluate what kinds of skills the preparation for careers beyond academia should include

The Graduate School system deserves credit for trying to prepare us for careers beyond academia. However, if TU Delft truly wants its doctoral graduates to stand out in a competitive market, it must critically evaluate and rethink what kinds of skills – and credentials – that preparation should include.

In the end, it’s not just about how many credits we’ve earned – it’s about whether anyone outside TU Delft understands what they’re worth and how valuable our broader skillset can be for society.

And that shouldn’t be an individual battle. It’s a collective challenge – a reflection of how academia is represented and presents itself to society today.

Katerina Isaakidou is a PhD candidate in Biomedical Engineering at TU Delft.