https://www.chronicle.com/article/Amid-Rumors-of-Shift-to/247199
Quote
The University at Buffalo is barring most departments in its College of Arts and Sciences from recruiting funded Ph.D. students next year, unless they qualify for certain scholarships.
Well, ah, good old UB. I did my PhD in classics there finishing 20 years ago. I was unfunded. The dept did have some funding lines, but university policy forbade more than a max of 4 funded years, and many funded students didn't get to keep theirs for the whole 4. One can not help guessing that graduate student attrition was high, with a vast number of ABDs falling into a black hole. And of course eben then, certainly now, most newly minted classics PhDs are also unlikely to get a tt job. So I get the complaints some of the current grad students are lodging wrt this extreme policy change, but I am ambivalent nonetheless, and this very action on the uni's part also makes one call into question the overall funding and prospects of the school as well.
SUNY Buffalo's grad rankings are solid if not exceptional, so it can't be program quality.
This is probably a harbinger of things to come. Programs will be trimmed from the academic tree, and maybe it is time.
A pause in admissions to fund an increase to current stipends seems fine to me.
But they shouldn't be accepting unfunded students period.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on September 21, 2019, 08:58:52 AM
A pause in admissions to fund an increase to current stipends seems fine to me.
But they shouldn't be accepting unfunded students period.
Indeed. And unfunded students shouldn't be accepting their "offer." Don't these kids have undergraduate professors to talk some sense into them?
Quote from: writingprof on September 21, 2019, 03:03:52 PM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on September 21, 2019, 08:58:52 AM
A pause in admissions to fund an increase to current stipends seems fine to me.
But they shouldn't be accepting unfunded students period.
Indeed. And unfunded students shouldn't be accepting their "offer." Don't these kids have undergraduate professors to talk some sense into them?
Some of us have tried. My experience has been that the idea of graduate school and the ideological lure of being a professor (whatever that means to them) is simply too strong for some folks.
Quote from: writingprof on September 21, 2019, 03:03:52 PM
Indeed. And unfunded students shouldn't be accepting their "offer." Don't these kids have undergraduate professors to talk some sense into them?
I think that some disciplines are a lot better about this than others. And I expect that loads of professors (especially if they're not at R1s) are just not plugged in well enough any more to know, or can't be bothered to care enough to inform themselves. Perhaps they see it as part of the research world they've largely left behind.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on September 21, 2019, 04:47:59 PM
Quote from: writingprof on September 21, 2019, 03:03:52 PM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on September 21, 2019, 08:58:52 AM
A pause in admissions to fund an increase to current stipends seems fine to me.
But they shouldn't be accepting unfunded students period.
Indeed. And unfunded students shouldn't be accepting their "offer." Don't these kids have undergraduate professors to talk some sense into them?
Some of us have tried. My experience has been that the idea of graduate school and the ideological lure of being a professor (whatever that means to them) is simply too strong for some folks.
Sadly, this can persist indefinitely after graduation as well, regardless of peoples' actual experience of the academic job market.
While I support idea to admit less students to fund admitted ones better, I envision some [unintended?] side effects due to unfunded admissions going on. It appears to be quite possible that some Profs/Depatments will encourage students to go unfunded for a year while hinting that money will be available for subsequent years.
U Chicago implementing enrollment caps for graduate programs:
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2019/10/09/university-chicago-will-guarantee-full-funding-all-humanities-and-social-sciences (https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2019/10/09/university-chicago-will-guarantee-full-funding-all-humanities-and-social-sciences).
Quote from: spork on October 09, 2019, 01:43:38 AM
U Chicago implementing enrollment caps for graduate programs:
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2019/10/09/university-chicago-will-guarantee-full-funding-all-humanities-and-social-sciences (https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2019/10/09/university-chicago-will-guarantee-full-funding-all-humanities-and-social-sciences).
The problem U Chicago says it is addressing is that PhD students in certain humanities fields are not able to finish within the currently guaranteed six years of funding. They are still there after nine years, but are not getting money and often fail to complete. Their solution is to keep funding the stragglers.
In my field, the solution to this familiar problem is rather the opposite. We try to identify those making unsatisfactory progress early (year three) and either get them mentorship that is a better match for successful completion or having them pass a masters exam and go off with our best wishes for success in a different endeavor. If they make it deep into year six without an immediate end game, there will be pressure from many directions to cut them off (with a consolation MS).
A biologist in a ninth year of PhD studies is going to be unemployable in academics or industry. Letting them carry on that long is unforgivable.
I suspect the end result at Chicago will be the same -- tightening of standards to admit only the applicants who appear most likely to complete the program, and lots of pressure to quit with a master's degree if satisfactory progress isn't made. Otherwise new students don't get admitted because the program has hit the enrollment cap.
But I can see the occasional person turning this into an infinitely-long GTA gig.
Quote from: Hibush on October 09, 2019, 04:58:21 AM
Quote from: spork on October 09, 2019, 01:43:38 AM
U Chicago implementing enrollment caps for graduate programs:
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2019/10/09/university-chicago-will-guarantee-full-funding-all-humanities-and-social-sciences (https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2019/10/09/university-chicago-will-guarantee-full-funding-all-humanities-and-social-sciences).
The problem U Chicago says it is addressing is that PhD students in certain humanities fields are not able to finish within the currently guaranteed six years of funding. They are still there after nine years, but are not getting money and often fail to complete. Their solution is to keep funding the stragglers.
In my field, the solution to this familiar problem is rather the opposite. We try to identify those making unsatisfactory progress early (year three) and either get them mentorship that is a better match for successful completion or having them pass a masters exam and go off with our best wishes for success in a different endeavor. If they make it deep into year six without an immediate end game, there will be pressure from many directions to cut them off (with a consolation MS).
A biologist in a ninth year of PhD studies is going to be unemployable in academics or industry. Letting them carry on that long is unforgivable.
Yes! I wish our department had taken that approach when I was in grad school. I quit in my sixth year, but they tried to encourage me to keep blundering along even longer. I seriously wondered at the time--and still do--whether the idea wasn't to keep around a pool of desperate cases ready to do shamefully underpaid grading work in an effort to stay in the game.
The announcements regarding Fall 2021 entry for grad school have been rolling in and many humanities and social science programs are skipping a new cohort: https://www.wsj.com/articles/pandemic-leads-dozens-of-universities-to-pause-ph-d-admissions-11609261200
Quote from: polly_mer on December 29, 2020, 10:06:47 AM
The announcements regarding Fall 2021 entry for grad school have been rolling in and many humanities and social science programs are skipping a new cohort: https://www.wsj.com/articles/pandemic-leads-dozens-of-universities-to-pause-ph-d-admissions-11609261200
One of their graphs shows the proportion of PhDs with definite job plans at graduation. The range is smaller than you'd think. The hot fields (eg computer science) at 76%, the stable (life science) at 67% and the ailing-so-bad-they-are-not admitting-students (Humanities) at 59%.
That a difference of 8% is the difference between normal and critical over/undersupply is surprising.
I'm in life science, and having sent off most of our students to some nice gigs, we are admitting a normal number of PhD students.
Quote from: Hibush on December 29, 2020, 04:14:54 PM
One of their graphs shows the proportion of PhDs with definite job plans at graduation. The range is smaller than you'd think. The hot fields (eg computer science) at 76%, the stable (life science) at 67% and the ailing-so-bad-they-are-not admitting-students (Humanities) at 59%.
That a difference of 8% is the difference between normal and critical over/undersupply is surprising.
I'm in life science, and having sent off most of our students to some nice gigs, we are admitting a normal number of PhD students.
I imagine those numbers for CompSci and Life Sciences represent a lot of students. On the humanities side, however, it may well be a much smaller number of graduates, and so more susceptible to swings in either direction. English departments usually have a lot of grads, and history has a fair few, but classics, philosophy, religious studies, etc. tend to have pretty small graduating cohorts.
(Pure speculation; I haven't got access to the whole article, which might well clarify things!)
Quote from: Hibush on December 29, 2020, 04:14:54 PM
One of their graphs shows the proportion of PhDs with definite job plans at graduation. The range is smaller than you'd think. The hot fields (eg computer science) at 76%, the stable (life science) at 67% and the ailing-so-bad-they-are-not admitting-students (Humanities) at 59%.
Interesting. When I was in grad school, everyone I knew stalled on finishing the dissertation until we had definite job plans lined up. I would have guessed that these numbers would be closer to 100%.
Quote from: Hibush on December 29, 2020, 04:14:54 PM
Quote from: polly_mer on December 29, 2020, 10:06:47 AM
The announcements regarding Fall 2021 entry for grad school have been rolling in and many humanities and social science programs are skipping a new cohort: https://www.wsj.com/articles/pandemic-leads-dozens-of-universities-to-pause-ph-d-admissions-11609261200
One of their graphs shows the proportion of PhDs with definite job plans at graduation. The range is smaller than you'd think. The hot fields (eg computer science) at 76%, the stable (life science) at 67% and the ailing-so-bad-they-are-not admitting-students (Humanities) at 59%.
That a difference of 8% is the difference between normal and critical over/undersupply is surprising.
I'm in life science, and having sent off most of our students to some nice gigs, we are admitting a normal number of PhD students.
I guess it depends on what those definite job plans are, as well as what happens to the others without immediate plans.
Quote from: PScientist on December 29, 2020, 08:52:07 PM
Quote from: Hibush on December 29, 2020, 04:14:54 PM
One of their graphs shows the proportion of PhDs with definite job plans at graduation. The range is smaller than you'd think. The hot fields (eg computer science) at 76%, the stable (life science) at 67% and the ailing-so-bad-they-are-not admitting-students (Humanities) at 59%.
Interesting. When I was in grad school, everyone I knew stalled on finishing the dissertation until we had definite job plans lined up. I would have guessed that these numbers would be closer to 100%.
My program actively discouraged stalling. Tactics included annual satisfactory progress reviews, six years funding maximum, unsatisfactory progress after three years meant you were ineligible for GTA/GRA leaving only office assistant work, credits expired after ten years requiring you to retake coursework at full tuition. There were some postdoctoral positions for graduates who didn't have a job lined up, but priority went to people who completed within six years and the positions were limited to eighteen months.
Quote from: Kron3007 on December 30, 2020, 05:44:37 AM
Quote from: Hibush on December 29, 2020, 04:14:54 PM
Quote from: polly_mer on December 29, 2020, 10:06:47 AM
The announcements regarding Fall 2021 entry for grad school have been rolling in and many humanities and social science programs are skipping a new cohort: https://www.wsj.com/articles/pandemic-leads-dozens-of-universities-to-pause-ph-d-admissions-11609261200
One of their graphs shows the proportion of PhDs with definite job plans at graduation. The range is smaller than you'd think. The hot fields (eg computer science) at 76%, the stable (life science) at 67% and the ailing-so-bad-they-are-not admitting-students (Humanities) at 59%.
That a difference of 8% is the difference between normal and critical over/undersupply is surprising.
I'm in life science, and having sent off most of our students to some nice gigs, we are admitting a normal number of PhD students.
I guess it depends on what those definite job plans are, as well as what happens to the others without immediate plans.
What is the definition of "definite job plans"? Does this mean "I accepted an offer and signed a contract" or "I plan to have a job"?
Quote from: Vkw10 on December 30, 2020, 06:07:53 AM
Quote from: PScientist on December 29, 2020, 08:52:07 PM
Quote from: Hibush on December 29, 2020, 04:14:54 PM
One of their graphs shows the proportion of PhDs with definite job plans at graduation. The range is smaller than you'd think. The hot fields (eg computer science) at 76%, the stable (life science) at 67% and the ailing-so-bad-they-are-not admitting-students (Humanities) at 59%.
Interesting. When I was in grad school, everyone I knew stalled on finishing the dissertation until we had definite job plans lined up. I would have guessed that these numbers would be closer to 100%.
My program actively discouraged stalling. Tactics included annual satisfactory progress reviews, six years funding maximum, unsatisfactory progress after three years meant you were ineligible for GTA/GRA leaving only office assistant work, credits expired after ten years requiring you to retake coursework at full tuition. There were some postdoctoral positions for graduates who didn't have a job lined up, but priority went to people who completed within six years and the positions were limited to eighteen months.
This kind of system ought to be mandatory for all PhD programs. One of my undergrad roommates was in a PhD program at Harvard. He saw guest speakers coming in who had started their PhD programs the same year he did, yet had finished before anyone in his cohort and were now in salaried positions. So he left for Stanford. At the other extreme, I see people in rip-off programs who will never get a full-time faculty position paying tuition for "dissertation credits" semester after semester.
Quote from: Vkw10 on December 30, 2020, 06:07:53 AM
Quote from: PScientist on December 29, 2020, 08:52:07 PM
Quote from: Hibush on December 29, 2020, 04:14:54 PM
One of their graphs shows the proportion of PhDs with definite job plans at graduation. The range is smaller than you'd think. The hot fields (eg computer science) at 76%, the stable (life science) at 67% and the ailing-so-bad-they-are-not admitting-students (Humanities) at 59%.
Interesting. When I was in grad school, everyone I knew stalled on finishing the dissertation until we had definite job plans lined up. I would have guessed that these numbers would be closer to 100%.
My program actively discouraged stalling. Tactics included annual satisfactory progress reviews, six years funding maximum, unsatisfactory progress after three years meant you were ineligible for GTA/GRA leaving only office assistant work, credits expired after ten years requiring you to retake coursework at full tuition. There were some postdoctoral positions for graduates who didn't have a job lined up, but priority went to people who completed within six years and the positions were limited to eighteen months.
That sounds better than my program, where you got four years of funding, but taking six years to get the degree was considered normal.
Quote from: Hibush on December 29, 2020, 04:14:54 PM
Quote from: polly_mer on December 29, 2020, 10:06:47 AM
The announcements regarding Fall 2021 entry for grad school have been rolling in and many humanities and social science programs are skipping a new cohort: https://www.wsj.com/articles/pandemic-leads-dozens-of-universities-to-pause-ph-d-admissions-11609261200
One of their graphs shows the proportion of PhDs with definite job plans at graduation. The range is smaller than you'd think. The hot fields (eg computer science) at 76%, the stable (life science) at 67% and the ailing-so-bad-they-are-not admitting-students (Humanities) at 59%.
That a difference of 8% is the difference between normal and critical over/undersupply is surprising.
I'm in life science, and having sent off most of our students to some nice gigs, we are admitting a normal number of PhD students.
The truth is that while bad, the numbers for most humanities grad programs aren't as bad as most people seem to think.
Here is a nifty little site from the AHA.
https://www.historians.org/wherehistorianswork
I think what has happened is that the rhetoric has gotten divorced from the reality. If you take all the preconceptions away, there's a lot in here that should make anyone considering grad school in the humanities think very carefully about the decision. Most people who go to grad school in the humanities hope to get a tenure track job, but only about half do. Of course, that's not the only avenue towards putting the training to work-some people in non profit or governmental sectors are doing things directly related to the field. However, lots of people spend a lot of time in grad school and end up doing something they didn't need the degree for.
However, the rhetoric around humanities grad school has gotten so out of control that these numbers look good by comparison. Getting a tenure track job is not like winning a lottery jackpot and most Phds don't spend their lives working as adjuncts.
Quote from: Hibush on December 29, 2020, 04:14:54 PM
Quote from: polly_mer on December 29, 2020, 10:06:47 AM
The announcements regarding Fall 2021 entry for grad school have been rolling in and many humanities and social science programs are skipping a new cohort: https://www.wsj.com/articles/pandemic-leads-dozens-of-universities-to-pause-ph-d-admissions-11609261200
One of their graphs shows the proportion of PhDs with definite job plans at graduation. The range is smaller than you'd think. The hot fields (eg computer science) at 76%, the stable (life science) at 67% and the ailing-so-bad-they-are-not admitting-students (Humanities) at 59%.
That a difference of 8% is the difference between normal and critical over/undersupply is surprising.
I'm in life science, and having sent off most of our students to some nice gigs, we are admitting a normal number of PhD students.
Having definite plans is not the same as having plans to use that newly acquired PhD. Staying as assistant manager at McDonald's restaurant or taking the pity teaching postdoc at the same program is a definite plan, but that's not the same caliber of plan as that CS PhD holder who took a new position that requires the graduate degree.
These are also self reports from people who responded to the survey. I don't know what the differences in response rates are, but were I in charge of doing survey analysis, I would be looking closely at differences in response rates between fields. People who are neutral to happy tend to respond in higher rates than people who are negative about the current outcome, unless the survey skews towards supporting negative responses. That was a "fun" part of running the outcomes survey at Super Dinky and talking with experts in survey design.
Spork also has a point that the exact wording of the question matters. "I have a contract for the postdoc" is different from "I will keep applying for postdocs until I get one" or even "I plan to apply for postdocs".
Quote from: Hibush on December 29, 2020, 04:14:54 PM
One of their graphs shows the proportion of PhDs with definite job plans at graduation. The range is smaller than you'd think. The hot fields (eg computer science) at 76%, the stable (life science) at 67% and the ailing-so-bad-they-are-not admitting-students (Humanities) at 59%.
I'm in life science, and having sent off most of our students to some nice gigs, we are admitting a normal number of PhD students.
This is a misunderstanding of what's going on. They aren't admitting new students because they are trying to give additional funding to current ones. In many humanities disciplines, students go off and do research away from campus for long periods of time after they finish their exams. Often, this research is funded through fellowships. Some of these are government funded, others are from institutions like libraries. Students can generally use this funding to extend their university funding into an extra year.
The problem is that all of this got messed up now. If you were a student doing research in another country, in March, you had to come back without finishing the research. If you were going to go in the fall, that didn't happen. For people doing work in the US, many probably couldn't do research, or didn't want to risk hanging out in archives. A lot would depend on where you were in the process and what sorts of research you were doing-but I'm sure there are plenty of people who basically have just lost a year.
Most of the overseas research libraries and archives, as well as those in the US, that a humanities scholar might have used in the past year have also simply been closed or severely curtailed since March.
I'm on six email lists for sites that have been very enterprising about detailing what they have available as digital resources, and encouraging their usual visitors to use those whenever possible, while making it very clear that their doors are closed.
So, just amplifying on the above to say, it's not just a matter of students not wanting to risk going, which is of course logical--but they couldn't have gotten in, nor found a place to stay in most of the towns those libraries and archives are in or near--even if they'd wanted to.
This time last year I was in the BnF, in fact...sigh.
M.
Quote from: polly_mer on December 30, 2020, 08:02:58 AM
Quote from: Hibush on December 29, 2020, 04:14:54 PM
Quote from: polly_mer on December 29, 2020, 10:06:47 AM
The announcements regarding Fall 2021 entry for grad school have been rolling in and many humanities and social science programs are skipping a new cohort: https://www.wsj.com/articles/pandemic-leads-dozens-of-universities-to-pause-ph-d-admissions-11609261200
One of their graphs shows the proportion of PhDs with definite job plans at graduation. The range is smaller than you'd think. The hot fields (eg computer science) at 76%, the stable (life science) at 67% and the ailing-so-bad-they-are-not admitting-students (Humanities) at 59%.
That a difference of 8% is the difference between normal and critical over/undersupply is surprising.
I'm in life science, and having sent off most of our students to some nice gigs, we are admitting a normal number of PhD students.
Having definite plans is not the same as having plans to use that newly acquired PhD. Staying as assistant manager at McDonald's restaurant or taking the pity teaching postdoc at the same program is a definite plan, but that's not the same caliber of plan as that CS PhD holder who took a new position that requires the graduate degree.
These are also self reports from people who responded to the survey. I don't know what the differences in response rates are, but were I in charge of doing survey analysis, I would be looking closely at differences in response rates between fields. People who are neutral to happy tend to respond in higher rates than people who are negative about the current outcome, unless the survey skews towards supporting negative responses. That was a "fun" part of running the outcomes survey at Super Dinky and talking with experts in survey design.
Spork also has a point that the exact wording of the question matters. "I have a contract for the postdoc" is different from "I will keep applying for postdocs until I get one" or even "I plan to apply for postdocs".
I was in a two-member committee for tracking alumni outcomes for my department's gradute programs. As we had no budget or admin support, we were in charge of everything, and therefore I was involved in everything, from sending out the survey to crunching numbers to looking for other data sources. Response rates were so low that the survey was of little use, but we found a lot more data googling names one by one. Regardless, very few of our former grad students were unemployed, but a lot of them were in precarious and/or part-time jobs, including adjuncting and postdocing, or had jobs which were not obviously related to their education, or which were related but for which they seemed overqualified. So "definite job plans" means sh*t - not having them could mean someone is undecided between multiple decent job offers, and having them could involve jobs not really worth doing a PhD for or for which it's not even much of an advantage.
For the several who asked about the "definite job plan" in the survey, here is what they ask:
1 I accepted or began a postdoc, residency, or other training position
(A "postdoc" is a temporary position primarily for gaining additional education
and training in research, awarded in academe, industry, government, or a nonproft organization.)
2 I am returning to, or continuing in, predoctoral employment
3 I accepted or am employed in a position other than a postdoc or training position
4 I am negotiating an offer of employment with one or more specifc organizations
5 I am seeking a position but currently have no offer of employment
6 I am enrolling in a full-time degree program (e.g., PhD, MD, DDS, JD, MBA, etc.)
7 I do not plan to work or study (e.g., family commitments, etc.)
8 Other - Specify
If 1 GO TO POSTDOC OR OTHER TRAINING on PAGE 8
If 3, GO TO EMPLOYED OTHER THAN POSTDOC OR TRAINING on PAGE 9
If 4 GO TO NEGOTIATING OR SEEKING on PAGE 11
They then ask a lot about the current status
1 I am employed in a position related to my field of study
2 I am employed in a position not related to my field of study
3 I am not employed
They=NSF
Survey = Survey of Earned Doctorates (which is completed by almost all PhD recipients)
The report (https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf21308/data-tables) itself seems to use the phrase "have a definite commitment" rather than "plan" as in the article. The latter does end up being problematically ambiguous.
'Humanities ' covers a lot of territory. Saying x percent of Humanities phds get a tt job is almost meaningless, and no undergraduate should make a decision wrt grad school attendance based on such claims. Rather, one must look at the t t job acquisition rates within his field in order to make the decision, and further delineate it based on the grad department s he is applying to attend. Overall numbers vary enormously along these two axes.
Quote from: kaysixteen on December 30, 2020, 09:20:06 PM
'Humanities ' covers a lot of territory. Saying x percent of Humanities phds get a tt job is almost meaningless, and no undergraduate should make a decision wrt grad school attendance based on such claims. Rather, one must look at the t t job acquisition rates within his field in order to make the decision, and further delineate it based on the grad department s he is applying to attend. Overall numbers vary enormously along these two axes.
Yeah, exactly. That's why people who tell students "not to go to grad school" in the humanities lack credibility. Advice that isn't tailored to the person seeking it is useless.
Quote from: Hibush on December 30, 2020, 07:58:27 PM
For the several who asked about the "definite job plan" in the survey, here is what they ask...
Flipping burgers would qualify in 2-4. I'm not saying there are many PhDs flipping burgers, but I am saying that a "definite commitment" doesn't mean much without further info.
Quote from: Hibush on December 30, 2020, 07:58:27 PM
[. . .]
They=NSF
Survey = Survey of Earned Doctorates (which is completed by almost all PhD recipients)
The report (https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf21308/data-tables) itself seems to use the phrase "have a definite commitment" rather than "plan" as in the article. The latter does end up being problematically ambiguous.
Not directed at Hibush:
1. The survey suffers from survivorship bias. It does not account for people who started a doctoral program but didn't finish.
2. The survey probably also suffers from nonresponse bias, given that doctorate recipients without employment or plans are less likely to receive the survey or respond.
3. Table 44 shows that of the respondents who were humanities/arts doctorate recipients and who indicated commitment/plans, the percentage reporting "employment" as type of plan fell from 92.0 in 1999 to 79.2 in 2019. The percentage reporting "postdoctoral study" increased from 8.0 to 20.8.
4. "Employment" in Table 44 is not defined as full-time, part-time, in academia, not in academia.
5. Table 55 shows 33.5% of humanities/arts doctorate recipients who responded in 2019 "seeking employment/study." This is by far the highest percentage of any of the doctorate field categories.
6. Also in Table 55, of respondents indicating "definite employment," 73.1% of humanities/arts doctorate recipients indicated "academe." Again this is by far the highest percentage of any of the doctorate field categories.