  We have examined the success rates of 19 American, Canadian, Australian, and
Dutch graduate programs in producing astronomers. A 20-year baseline was
considered (1975-1994), incorporating 897 PhD recipients. The major conclusion
from our study is that the fraction of PhD graduates still involved in
astronomical research is surprisingly insensitive to the institutional source
of one's PhD. With few exception, 55-75% of graduates, regardless of PhD
source, remain active in the astronomical research community. While it remains
true that graduates of so-called ``prestigious'' programs preferentially
populate the same, it is also clear that an abundance of opportunities exist at
smaller ``non-prestigious'' institutions, liberal arts colleges, government,
and industry. The latter, of course, generally carry enhanced administrative
and/or teaching duties, but, on the other hand, do not entirely preclude a role
in the research community. A Kepler-Meier survival analysis of two disparate
institutes demonstrates that ``success'' is a dynamical entity, and that blind
consideration of a 20-year baseline sample can mask important recent trends.
Within ten years of PhD receipt, an equilibrium is reached in which 45% of the
graduates are in identifiably permanent positions, 20% remain in soft-money
positions, and 35% have left research entirely. Graduates of American
universities are 2-3 times more likely to find permanent employment in the USA
than Canadian or Australian graduates are within their respective institute's
country. While the number of American, Canadian, and Dutch PhDs have grown 20%
during the past decade, the growth in Australia has been closer to 70%.
