Advising students on grad school?

[Sun_Worshiper]

A few BA and MA students come to me every year about doing a phd in the social sciences.  I always tell them the state of the job market and that they need to think really hard about what their professional goals are and whether grad school will help them to accomplish these goals.  Mostly they don't follow through in the end, but the ones that are very determined, and I support them.  In the end, these are adults and I feel comfortable letting them make their own decisions, at least so long as they have been warned about the state of things. 

[pigou]

Ultimately, it's their life. Outcomes differ for someone who gets their PhD from Harvard with a stipend for 6 years vs. noname school and no financial support. Figure out what the student wants to get out of it, and advise them on how they can best get what they want from it.

If they come to you for advice, the question usually isn't "should I do this." But rather, "how do I best do this?" Make sure they understand that it's not a job that involves 4 hours of work a week and 3 months of vacation per year, and that their PhD program (and many universities) simply will not care about their teaching, but place a lot of demands on their research. If they know this and want to go for it, good luck. But they might realize that the job itself is not what they imagined it would be.

[polly_mer]

Remember that Caracal is an adjunct who thinks that faculty are upper-middle class folks.

Please stop the weird ad hominem attacks. Seriously, it is really off putting and unpleasant. I believe you've been previously warned about this by moderators.

Why does it bother you to have someone point out the fact that you are an adjunct?  That seems very relevant for the discussion on academic careers, especially when coupled with your track record on posting factually incorrect assertions regarding the current state of higher ed.

Are you going to make me dig up the post where you asserted that upper-middle class people are hard to strong arm during the discussion of fall teaching?

Yeah, you don't like to be criticized and called out for being wrong by relying on personal experience instead of actually knowing the research, even through CHE or IHE.

You want me to stop pointing out problems, then start being informed.

[Caracal]

Remember that Caracal is an adjunct who thinks that faculty are upper-middle class folks.

Please stop the weird ad hominem attacks. Seriously, it is really off putting and unpleasant. I believe you've been previously warned about this by moderators.

Why does it bother you to have someone point out the fact that you are an adjunct?  That seems very relevant for the discussion on academic careers, especially when coupled with your track record on posting factually incorrect assertions regarding the current state of higher ed.

Are you going to make me dig up the post where you asserted that upper-middle class people are hard to strong arm during the discussion of fall teaching?

Yeah, you don't like to be criticized and called out for being wrong by relying on personal experience instead of actually knowing the research, even through CHE or IHE.

You want me to stop pointing out problems, then start being informed.

Great, I think we've answered JFlanders original question about the thing Poly thinks I wrote two months ago.

[writingprof]

Maybe also ask them what they think professors mostly spend their time doing, and see whether that matches reality.

I tried this once.  The student answered that faculty spend most of their time answering emails that ought never to have been sent, going to meetings whose outcomes have already been decided by others, and pretending to be woker than they are to avoid the wrath of nineteen-year-olds.

So off to grad school she went, with my blessing.

[downer]

Maybe also ask them what they think professors mostly spend their time doing, and see whether that matches reality.

I tried this once.  The student answered that faculty spend most of their time answering emails that ought never to have been sent, going to meetings whose outcomes have already been decided by others, and pretending to be woker than they are to avoid the wrath of nineteen-year-olds.

So off to grad school she went, with my blessing.

Love it. This could be the inspiration for a McSweeney's piece.

[Vkw10]

Thirty plus years ago, I took my favorite professor to lunch (meal plan included two guest meals a semester) to discuss grad school as preparation for faculty career. He told me that he had no doubt I could succeed in grad school and in a faculty career, but wasn't sure I'd enjoy either one. He described some of the trade offs he'd made to complete his Ph.D. without debt, with teaching experience, with a cognate that increased his ability to find a job. He talked a bit about the job market and pointed out that very few people start faculty careers before age 30. He suggested that the real question wasn't whether I could go to grad school, but whether I'd be happier earning a living at something else and saving my favorite subject for pleasure. It was a sobering, but not negative discussion.

I've followed his example with many students, telling them that they have the ability but encouraging them to think about trade-offs. My goal is not to discourage them from pursuing a career that I find rewarding, but to encourage them to think about options before continuing in a familiar-seeming path.

[fizzycist]

My usual strategy:
-find out what they think a professor does.
-tell them about all the different types of faculty positions ranging from adjunct, to community college, SLAC, R1, etc.
-if they think professor = write famous books at Harvard then I think it is ok to give them a strong reality check on their probability.
-same if you can already can tell they have little-too chance in any area of the academic field (e.g. they got weak grades in your classes within their stated specialty).

Else, you can tell them the probabilities to make sure they understand, but I say let people follow their dreams. I don't think accruing a little debt when you are young because you are pursuing a passion is such a bad thing. I have peers in their late 30s who did that, didn't quite work out, and now have financial challenges. But honestly they seem to lead very fulfilling lives nevertheless, have had great life/learning experiences, and don't regret their time in grad school.

[downer]

I don't think accruing a little debt when you are young because you are pursuing a passion is such a bad thing.

Nor do I.

What I do think is a bad thing is accruing 5 years of grad school debt, which you won't pay off until you are in your 60s.

[Hegemony]

I talk to them about the difficulty of getting a good academic job, and about the opportunity cost of going to grad school even when fully funded.

But I also tell them that the best grad students have taken some time out and worked in the real world, and that this makes the best career path more apparent and gives them experience that will help them in all sorts of ways.

Most of them follow this advice and decide to work for a few years. Most of those find a good career niche and just keep on working. Occasionally some of them do go back to grad school.  Despite my dire warnings, I have been surprised to see that most of those have ended up in good academic jobs. It may be that the ones who have enough perseverance and drive to take a few years out and then go back are the ones who rise to the top.

[jerseyjay]

Remember that Caracal is an adjunct who thinks that faculty are upper-middle class folks.

I have to admit that I am scratching my head over this. First, it seems that Caracal is actually less negative about going to grad school than polly_mer, which is the opposite of what you expect from an adjunct. Unless polly is implying that being an adjunct means that one sees halos around the heads of full-time professors and hence ignores the dire state of the job market. But an adjunct who thinks it is easy  to get a full-time job is, well, delusional.

And aren't full-time faculty upper-middle class? Of course "middle class" is a meaningless designation at bottom, but most full-time professors I know meat several of the following criteria:
--Socialize with, marry and are related to lawyers, accountants, doctors, and engineers;
--Believe in delayed gratification and have spent many years in higher education and believe others should as well;
--Earned close to six figures as an individual and certainly more if in a couple;
--Have retirement savings;
--Own their own house and (late model) car;
--Can afford emergency medical or car repair expenses without having to skip meals or not pay the rent;
--Have travelled internationally on holiday in the last five years to a country which is not their country of origin;
--Subscribe to a daily newspaper;
--Regularly go out to eat at a sit-down restaurant, often with a cuisine different then their own;
--Are more likely to run into their doctor or dentist socially than their electrician or plumber;
--Expect their children to go to university;
--Own at least five ties (if male);
--Regularly go to the dry cleaner;
--Speak another language beside their native language and English (if they are different);
--Own a passport.

Of course not everybody meets all of these criteria, and many workers and lower-middle-class people do, too. However, culturally I think it is undeniable that full-time professors are upper-middle class. Of course, not as wealthy as  many people who work in the financial industry, medicine, or law. But not of a different class, either. And, of course, academic labor has been subject to more and more pressure so that it is probably harder for a professor, alone, to keep up the lifestyle listed above.

Many adjuncts do not fall into the upper-middle class category (some do, but they tend to have money from family or elsewhere). It would seem that it would be important to let students, especially of they are not upper-middle-class, that going to graduate school is not a guaranteed entry into the upper-middle class. Not because the job has gotten worse (although it has in many ways) but because it has gotten harder and harder to get a full-time job.

[Hegemony]

If upper middle class people associate with doctors and lawyers, and working people associate with electricians and plumbers, who do regular middle class people associate with?  Insurance executives?  Managers?

As a tenured faculty member, I do fit most of the criteria on the list, except that I don't actually know any doctors or lawyers to socialize with. And I never use dry cleaners. But I think tenured faculty are upper middle class the way ministers are upper middle class. They have the social credentials to hang out with those folks, without actually having anything like the salary. I guess people in the Business School or the Law School have those salaries. The rest of us would require a high-earning spouse to make a family income of $100,000. Undoubtedly some folks do have a high-earning spouse. The tenured faculty I know mostly have spouses who are adjuncts. So I guess we get all of the glamour and prestige, right? To compensate for the not-upper-middle-class salaries.

[Caracal]

Remember that Caracal is an adjunct who thinks that faculty are upper-middle class folks.

I have to admit that I am scratching my head over this. First, it seems that Caracal is actually less negative about going to grad school than polly_mer, which is the opposite of what you expect from an adjunct. Unless polly is implying that being an adjunct means that one sees halos around the heads of full-time professors and hence ignores the dire state of the job market. But an adjunct who thinks it is easy  to get a full-time job is, well, delusional.

And aren't full-time faculty upper-middle class? Of course "middle class" is a meaningless designation at bottom, but most full-time professors I know meat several of the following criteria:
--Socialize with, marry and are related to lawyers, accountants, doctors, and engineers;
--Believe in delayed gratification and have spent many years in higher education and believe others should as well;
--Earned close to six figures as an individual and certainly more if in a couple;
--Have retirement savings;
--Own their own house and (late model) car;
--Can afford emergency medical or car repair expenses without having to skip meals or not pay the rent;
--Have travelled internationally on holiday in the last five years to a country which is not their country of origin;
--Subscribe to a daily newspaper;
--Regularly go out to eat at a sit-down restaurant, often with a cuisine different then their own;
--Are more likely to run into their doctor or dentist socially than their electrician or plumber;
--Expect their children to go to university;
--Own at least five ties (if male);
--Regularly go to the dry cleaner;
--Speak another language beside their native language and English (if they are different);
--Own a passport.

Of course not everybody meets all of these criteria, and many workers and lower-middle-class people do, too. However, culturally I think it is undeniable that full-time professors are upper-middle class. Of course, not as wealthy as  many people who work in the financial industry, medicine, or law. But not of a different class, either. And, of course, academic labor has been subject to more and more pressure so that it is probably harder for a professor, alone, to keep up the lifestyle listed above.

To be clear, I wouldn't say I'm particularly positive about going to grad school in the humanities.

And yes, when I said that  faculty members are mostly in the upper middle class, I meant it in that broadest possible sense and I wasn't implying that all faculty fall in that category, or saying that there aren't plenty of people, especially adjuncts, who don't make anywhere near upper middle class salaries.

[polly_mer]

Remember that Caracal is an adjunct who thinks that faculty are upper-middle class folks.

I have to admit that I am scratching my head over this. First, it seems that Caracal is actually less negative about going to grad school than polly_mer, which is the opposite of what you expect from an adjunct. Unless polly is implying that being an adjunct means that one sees halos around the heads of full-time professors and hence ignores the dire state of the job market. But an adjunct who thinks it is easy  to get a full-time job is, well, delusional.

My point in calling out Caracal is exactly that her world view is highly specialized and her posting history tends to ignores the parts of academia that aren't her lived reality and that don't align with her lived reality. 

My point is exactly that on this thread (as part of a general pattern), Caracal is not taking seriously the reasons why the standard party line is few people should be going to graduate school in the humanities, especially if the goal is full-time, TT employment at a name brand institution that includes research, teaching, and service.

Why is that?  Well, from her posts, I infer that Caracal has a reasonably good, stable part-time job at a good enough institution where she can focus on her teaching with minimal service and no research expectations.

That looks pretty good as an outcome from going to graduate school and then not getting the desired TT job.  She is still being employed in academia and at an institution that has many of the amenities that people often picture as part of an academic lifestyle.

However, while Caracal has a pretty good life, nothing in the standard higher ed outlets either as data or opinion indicates that's a probable outcome for most people who go to graduate school in the humanities, especially people starting now.

I routinely get frustrated with Caracal in particular for showing no situational awareness of:

* more qualified people all the time who want to be faculty (enough new graduates in the humanities at large to replace all the full-time folks every three years with no signs of slowing)

* institutions closing humanities programs (loss of full-time jobs that are sometimes replaced with much cheaper adjuncts who are currently nationally averaging $2700/three-credit course, but with rates at $1500 reported, and often strict limits on how many courses one can teach at any given institution to avoid paying benefits)

* institutions just flat out closing (something that Caracal has recently posted on a different thread as not believing is of concern because the rate hasn't yet risen enough to be worrisome, but is something now in the Covid times that is of huge concern to the financial folks who were already tracking many institutions in trouble)

* the large discrepancies between pay for all types of faculty at all types of institutions.  The places that rely the most on adjuncts also tend to pay the least.  I am acutely aware of the stream of articles in the past 5-10 years regarding faculty members who are on SNAP and other forms of assistance, even while tenured full faculty exist in the nation who earn six figures.

* the large discrepancies in cost of living across the US so that $80k in Super Dinky made one eligible to be reported on the 990 while $80k in some cities isn't enough to live as a middle-class family.

* students entering college with more general education requirements already met (lessening the demand that Wahoo frequently points out as a reason that more full-time faculty are needed)

* institutions revisiting what can be done during the pandemic and what to keep (bigger lectures broadcast to the masses with automated grading and some discussion boards is an accelerated trend, which again leads to fewer jobs for humanities folks teaching the general education courses)

* The continuing transformation of missions of institutions away from a general liberal arts education to targeted education that one can only get in a college classroom for an ever-increasing complex world that needs explicit instruction to have certain jobs.

* The continued budgetary problems in many states that are now exacerbated by Covid and higher education is one of the few areas that can be legally cut to help balance the budget.  Starting from underfunded and then making cuts is very unlikely to create more faculty jobs in the humanities.

So, yes, I call out Caracal individually a lot because I have all these things and more floating around my head as I read.  Other folks tend to have different values or want something specific done to fix certain parts of academia/funding/the world.  That's a legitimate difference of opinion, which is different from having one's own facts.

[Caracal]

Remember that Caracal is an adjunct who thinks that faculty are upper-middle class folks.

I have to admit that I am scratching my head over this. First, it seems that Caracal is actually less negative about going to grad school than polly_mer, which is the opposite of what you expect from an adjunct. Unless polly is implying that being an adjunct means that one sees halos around the heads of full-time professors and hence ignores the dire state of the job market. But an adjunct who thinks it is easy  to get a full-time job is, well, delusional.

My point in calling out Caracal is exactly that her world view is highly specialized and her posting history tends to ignores the parts of academia that aren't her lived reality and that don't align with her lived reality. 

My point is exactly that on this thread (as part of a general pattern), Caracal is not taking seriously the reasons why the standard party line is few people should be going to graduate school in the humanities, especially if the goal is full-time, TT employment at a name brand institution that includes research, teaching, and service.

Why is that?  Well, from her posts, I infer that Caracal has a reasonably good, stable part-time job at a good enough institution where she can focus on her teaching with minimal service and no research expectations.

That looks pretty good as an outcome from going to graduate school and then not getting the desired TT job.  She is still being employed in academia and at an institution that has many of the amenities that people often picture as part of an academic lifestyle.

However, while Caracal has a pretty good life, nothing in the standard higher ed outlets either as data or opinion indicates that's a probable outcome for most people who go to graduate school in the humanities, especially people starting now.

I routinely get frustrated with Caracal in particular for showing no situational awareness of:

* more qualified people all the time who want to be faculty (enough new graduates in the humanities at large to replace all the full-time folks every three years with no signs of slowing)

* institutions closing humanities programs (loss of full-time jobs that are sometimes replaced with much cheaper adjuncts who are currently nationally averaging $2700/three-credit course, but with rates at $1500 reported, and often strict limits on how many courses one can teach at any given institution to avoid paying benefits)

* institutions just flat out closing (something that Caracal has recently posted on a different thread as not believing is of concern because the rate hasn't yet risen enough to be worrisome, but is something now in the Covid times that is of huge concern to the financial folks who were already tracking many institutions in trouble)

* the large discrepancies between pay for all types of faculty at all types of institutions.  The places that rely the most on adjuncts also tend to pay the least.  I am acutely aware of the stream of articles in the past 5-10 years regarding faculty members who are on SNAP and other forms of assistance, even while tenured full faculty exist in the nation who earn six figures.

* the large discrepancies in cost of living across the US so that $80k in Super Dinky made one eligible to be reported on the 990 while $80k in some cities isn't enough to live as a middle-class family.

* students entering college with more general education requirements already met (lessening the demand that Wahoo frequently points out as a reason that more full-time faculty are needed)

* institutions revisiting what can be done during the pandemic and what to keep (bigger lectures broadcast to the masses with automated grading and some discussion boards is an accelerated trend, which again leads to fewer jobs for humanities folks teaching the general education courses)

* The continuing transformation of missions of institutions away from a general liberal arts education to targeted education that one can only get in a college classroom for an ever-increasing complex world that needs explicit instruction to have certain jobs.

* The continued budgetary problems in many states that are now exacerbated by Covid and higher education is one of the few areas that can be legally cut to help balance the budget.  Starting from underfunded and then making cuts is very unlikely to create more faculty jobs in the humanities.

So, yes, I call out Caracal individually a lot because I have all these things and more floating around my head as I read.  Other folks tend to have different values or want something specific done to fix certain parts of academia/funding/the world.  That's a legitimate difference of opinion, which is different from having one's own facts.

Poly, for the most part, I haven't written or said most of these things you think I have.  You've created an imaginary version of me. Most of this is just a total failure to think in nuanced terms. In fact, nuance and context seems to set you off and lead to these weird attacks. The last version of this you lost it when I pointed out that some humanities specialities had much better job prospects than others, which is completely true, and backed up by data. Ditto on the college closings. Someone asked about historical rates of college closures and I looked it up. Apparently, any data point that doesn't lend full support to your worldview needs to be "called out."