Tips for (humanities?) grad students: IHE article

[Durchlässigkeitsbeiwert]

From where I stood we worked a lot harder in graduate school than people in a great many other disciplines.

Is there a formula for a misery conversion?
I.e., does fieldwork at -40° (same in C and F) compensate for 150-page dissertation?

[kaysixteen]

There are clearly vast differences between the way humanities depts and specifically professors who serve as PhD advisors therein act.   Some do do a very good amount of work, but others, not so much (and mesuspects that whole depts have departmental cultures that more or less dictate how advisors operate).   Humanities PhD efforts can be more or less solo efforts on the part of the students, or something very much better than this.

It may well, further, be the case that top-tier programs, those who realistically have hopes that many if not most of their new PhDs will get offered TT positions, really do care about this, and actively assist their candidates in getting such work, but many of the lower-ranked programs often are diploma mills, in the sense that they continue to accept candidates, more or less for the self-interest of the department and individual faculty members, candidates who the departments know, or should have known, have little if any realistic chance of getting ft academic employment.

[Caracal]

It may well, further, be the case that top-tier programs, those who realistically have hopes that many if not most of their new PhDs will get offered TT positions, really do care about this, and actively assist their candidates in getting such work, but many of the lower-ranked programs often are diploma mills, in the sense that they continue to accept candidates, more or less for the self-interest of the department and individual faculty members, candidates who the departments know, or should have known, have little if any realistic chance of getting ft academic employment.

Possibly. There is a lot of variance in how much departments rely on grad students to teach. Many top tier grad programs in my field responded to the Great Recession by reducing their cohort sizes, but if you're relying on grad students to teach you can't do that.

Aren't there lots of stories about STEM advisors who use their grad students for grunt work, treat them poorly and provide no mentorship? I'm really not convinced this is some particular problem with the humanities.

[marshwiggle]

Aren't there lots of stories about STEM advisors who use their grad students for grunt work, treat them poorly and provide no mentorship? I'm really not convinced this is some particular problem with the humanities.

True, but many, if not most, STEM grad students realize that they are most likely going to be working outside academia when they're done, so getting "mentored" to the professoriate isn't really that important.

[Caracal]

Aren't there lots of stories about STEM advisors who use their grad students for grunt work, treat them poorly and provide no mentorship? I'm really not convinced this is some particular problem with the humanities.

True, but many, if not most, STEM grad students realize that they are most likely going to be working outside academia when they're done, so getting "mentored" to the professoriate isn't really that important.

I dunno, not something I know much about. But that's sort of the point. Certainly, there are bad advisors in my field. However, bad can mean various things and it isn't really something that I think of as a systematic humanities problem. Certainly, there are big names who have the reputation for not having much time for their grad students. On the other end of the spectrum, some advisors think of their grad students as little armies who are going to go conquer their particular niche of the field and don't give enough independence. Some advisors spend a lot of time on their favored grad students, but the people who don't make that list get ignored. And, of course, sometimes their are just bad matches between the advisor and the advisee.

Just not sure any of it is really a systematic problem with humanities.

[marshwiggle]

That the AHA did a fraudulent study? And your evidence is that it doesn't match your vague ideas about a field you don't know anything about?

Has never stopped him before.

So where are all of the adjuncts in that study of History PhDs? According to the study posted by Caracal, there are 4 people hired TT for every 1 hired non-TT, (including adjuncts). If most of the adjuncts are people with only Master's degrees, then it's not really a problem, since they wouldn't be eligible for FT positions. And if, as has been suggested, most of the PhD holders in the non-TT group adjunct for a year or two until they get a TT position, then that's pretty decent.

By that chart, there ought not to be a lot of history PhDs working as adjuncts. So, is that not a problem in History, or is the chart misleading?

(My though is that "inferring tenure status by job title" is suspect, but I'm not an expert so I leave it to people with more knowledge to weigh in on whether job titles are consistent enough for that to be a reliable methodology.)

[Wahoo Redux]

From where I stood we worked a lot harder in graduate school than people in a great many other disciplines.

Is there a formula for a misery conversion?
I.e., does fieldwork at -40° (same in C and F) compensate for 150-page dissertation?

The one and only reason I posted that was to make the point that it is ridiculous to evaluate the merit and work necessary in any discipline, particularly at the grad-school level, based on superficial observations.

We all work hard.  Some people simply have sticks up their wazoos and that's why this place has become so toxic.  Dunning-Kruger is not just for dumb people.

My dissertation was about a hundred pages longer than your hypothetical, BTW.  In fact, I didn't know anybody who wrote a "150-page dissertation"---most were between 250 and 400 pages.

[Caracal]

That the AHA did a fraudulent study? And your evidence is that it doesn't match your vague ideas about a field you don't know anything about?

Has never stopped him before.

So where are all of the adjuncts in that study of History PhDs? According to the study posted by Caracal, there are 4 people hired TT for every 1 hired non-TT, (including adjuncts). If most of the adjuncts are people with only Master's degrees, then it's not really a problem, since they wouldn't be eligible for FT positions. And if, as has been suggested, most of the PhD holders in the non-TT group adjunct for a year or two until they get a TT position, then that's pretty decent.

By that chart, there ought not to be a lot of history PhDs working as adjuncts. So, is that not a problem in History, or is the chart misleading?

(My though is that "inferring tenure status by job title" is suspect, but I'm not an expert so I leave it to people with more knowledge to weigh in on whether job titles are consistent enough for that to be a reliable methodology.)

I mean it's not particularly good. It takes 6+ years to finish a degree in history and the goal of almost everyone getting a history PHD is to get a tenure track job. The data also leaves out the people who never finish. It's just that the rhetoric has far outpaced the reality.

And yes, I actually think that the number of long term adjuncts is relatively small among people who get a PHD in history. In the department I teach in there were nine adjuncts teaching courses last Spring. Only four of those were people with a PHD. Or to take another anecdotal data point, of the people who were in my cohort and the cohort directly behind me, I believe I'm the only person who is adjuncting full time.

I can't see how job titles could be a problem. The tenure track/non tenure track distinction is pretty easy to see. If someone is listed as an assistant professor, associate professor, or professor, they are almost always tenure track in the US. The harder part would be trying to distinguish between different kinds of non tenure track positions based on title, which is probably why they didn't try.

[mleok]

Aren't there lots of stories about STEM advisors who use their grad students for grunt work, treat them poorly and provide no mentorship? I'm really not convinced this is some particular problem with the humanities.

True, but many, if not most, STEM grad students realize that they are most likely going to be working outside academia when they're done, so getting "mentored" to the professoriate isn't really that important.

I dunno, not something I know much about. But that's sort of the point. Certainly, there are bad advisors in my field. However, bad can mean various things and it isn't really something that I think of as a systematic humanities problem. Certainly, there are big names who have the reputation for not having much time for their grad students. On the other end of the spectrum, some advisors think of their grad students as little armies who are going to go conquer their particular niche of the field and don't give enough independence. Some advisors spend a lot of time on their favored grad students, but the people who don't make that list get ignored. And, of course, sometimes their are just bad matches between the advisor and the advisee.

Just not sure any of it is really a systematic problem with humanities.

Just from reading the forum, the impression one gets is that humanities PhDs take longer to complete their degrees, labor almost independently, with little support from their advisor and department, are often left to string together adjunct teaching gigs to survive, and of those that eventually graduate, the opportunities for secure academic employment are severely limited, and the alternative career paths rarely value their PhD.

[apl68]

From where I stood we worked a lot harder in graduate school than people in a great many other disciplines.

Is there a formula for a misery conversion?
I.e., does fieldwork at -40° (same in C and F) compensate for 150-page dissertation?

That would probably compensate for a 200-page dissertation!  Of course, 400-600-page dissertations aren't too unusual...  Maybe -40-degree field work with seriously dangerous wildlife nearby?

[apl68]

Aren't there lots of stories about STEM advisors who use their grad students for grunt work, treat them poorly and provide no mentorship? I'm really not convinced this is some particular problem with the humanities.

True, but many, if not most, STEM grad students realize that they are most likely going to be working outside academia when they're done, so getting "mentored" to the professoriate isn't really that important.

I dunno, not something I know much about. But that's sort of the point. Certainly, there are bad advisors in my field. However, bad can mean various things and it isn't really something that I think of as a systematic humanities problem. Certainly, there are big names who have the reputation for not having much time for their grad students. On the other end of the spectrum, some advisors think of their grad students as little armies who are going to go conquer their particular niche of the field and don't give enough independence. Some advisors spend a lot of time on their favored grad students, but the people who don't make that list get ignored. And, of course, sometimes their are just bad matches between the advisor and the advisee.

Just not sure any of it is really a systematic problem with humanities.

Just from reading the forum, the impression one gets is that humanities PhDs take longer to complete their degrees, labor almost independently, with little support from their advisor and department, are often left to string together adjunct teaching gigs to survive, and of those that eventually graduate, the opportunities for secure academic employment are severely limited, and the alternative career paths rarely value their PhD.

That fits what I observed during my grad school experience quite well.

[Caracal]

Aren't there lots of stories about STEM advisors who use their grad students for grunt work, treat them poorly and provide no mentorship? I'm really not convinced this is some particular problem with the humanities.

True, but many, if not most, STEM grad students realize that they are most likely going to be working outside academia when they're done, so getting "mentored" to the professoriate isn't really that important.

I dunno, not something I know much about. But that's sort of the point. Certainly, there are bad advisors in my field. However, bad can mean various things and it isn't really something that I think of as a systematic humanities problem. Certainly, there are big names who have the reputation for not having much time for their grad students. On the other end of the spectrum, some advisors think of their grad students as little armies who are going to go conquer their particular niche of the field and don't give enough independence. Some advisors spend a lot of time on their favored grad students, but the people who don't make that list get ignored. And, of course, sometimes their are just bad matches between the advisor and the advisee.

Just not sure any of it is really a systematic problem with humanities.

Just from reading the forum, the impression one gets is that humanities PhDs take longer to complete their degrees, labor almost independently, with little support from their advisor and department

Again, I think that you are seeing differences and assigning negative values to them. A lot of the work has to be independent because we don't work in labs. Research and writing is mostly solitary work. There are long periods in the process where you just need to be doing the work and there's not much need for input. Good advisors and good programs are aware of some of the drawbacks of this model and work to counteract it. My program had regular seminars where you could present work in progress and get feedback from faculty and other students. Most advisors keep in touch with students, are available to talk through issues and read drafts carefully and offer lots of feedback.

Can the model cause problems. Yes, absolutely. But, I see stories in the news about abusive situations in labs all the time and hear about them on here. That doesn't mean that these kinds of things are the norm.

[Wahoo Redux]

I see stories in the news about abusive situations in labs all the time and hear about them on here. That doesn't mean that these kinds of things are the norm.

https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2019/10/28/graduate-abuse

[mleok]

Aren't there lots of stories about STEM advisors who use their grad students for grunt work, treat them poorly and provide no mentorship? I'm really not convinced this is some particular problem with the humanities.

True, but many, if not most, STEM grad students realize that they are most likely going to be working outside academia when they're done, so getting "mentored" to the professoriate isn't really that important.

I dunno, not something I know much about. But that's sort of the point. Certainly, there are bad advisors in my field. However, bad can mean various things and it isn't really something that I think of as a systematic humanities problem. Certainly, there are big names who have the reputation for not having much time for their grad students. On the other end of the spectrum, some advisors think of their grad students as little armies who are going to go conquer their particular niche of the field and don't give enough independence. Some advisors spend a lot of time on their favored grad students, but the people who don't make that list get ignored. And, of course, sometimes their are just bad matches between the advisor and the advisee.

Just not sure any of it is really a systematic problem with humanities.

Just from reading the forum, the impression one gets is that humanities PhDs take longer to complete their degrees, labor almost independently, with little support from their advisor and department

Again, I think that you are seeing differences and assigning negative values to them. A lot of the work has to be independent because we don't work in labs. Research and writing is mostly solitary work. There are long periods in the process where you just need to be doing the work and there's not much need for input. Good advisors and good programs are aware of some of the drawbacks of this model and work to counteract it. My program had regular seminars where you could present work in progress and get feedback from faculty and other students. Most advisors keep in touch with students, are available to talk through issues and read drafts carefully and offer lots of feedback.

Can the model cause problems. Yes, absolutely. But, I see stories in the news about abusive situations in labs all the time and hear about them on here. That doesn't mean that these kinds of things are the norm.

I'm a mathematician, so I don't have a lab, and each of my students work on their distinct project, but I meet with each of them weekly, and I am deeply involved in guiding and shaping their research direction, and scaffolding the process so that their level of independence increases over time.

This is a substantial time commitment, and we coauthor papers, so the incentive system better aligns my professional interests with theirs, but as I said upthread, this is still a poorer research return on time investment compared to working with postdocs and more experienced collaborators. Sure, there is some professional value in placing your students into tenure-track positions at research universities, but this is a small fraction of the graduate student cohort, so that's at best a weak incentive.

I am simply saying it's possible to better align incentives, without necessarily resulting in the kind of intense micromanagement and exploitation that sometimes happens in large STEM labs. Another thing to keep in mind is that most of the STEM students in those labs are being paid on a RA position to conduct the research objectives of the grant they're being funded on, so it's not unreasonable to expect them to publish the results with their PI. In these cases, it's typical for the student or postdoc who wrote the initial draft to be the first author on the resulting publication, and it does not compromise their competitiveness for positions to coauthor these papers, so I find the idea that this is somehow exploitative to be strange.

[Wahoo Redux]

In these cases, it's typical for the student or postdoc who wrote the initial draft to be the first author on the resulting publication, and it does not compromise their competitiveness for positions to coauthor these papers, so I find the idea that this is somehow exploitative to be strange.

The entire problem with trying to evaluate another discipline based on your own pedagogy in your own discipline.