Tips for (humanities?) grad students: IHE article

[Caracal]

For the sciences, this might be translated as a long, extended "Journal club," if translation is helpful.

M.

But in how many places is "journal club" very organized and methodical? We had to find papaers, present and discuss them, but there was never any expert advice on finding or identifying well-written articles.

To put in in the language of the "10000 hours" rule for become proficient at something, journal club is not remotely long enough to develop skill at classifying quality of academic writing. If a student had to analyze several papers each week, they might, but I doubt anyone comes close to that.

Ummm....Even when it was just classes, I was probably reading 3-4 books a week. When I was studying for comps I probably had at least two hundred books on my field lists.

[marshwiggle]

For the sciences, this might be translated as a long, extended "Journal club," if translation is helpful.

M.

But in how many places is "journal club" very organized and methodical? We had to find papaers, present and discuss them, but there was never any expert advice on finding or identifying well-written articles.

To put in in the language of the "10000 hours" rule for become proficient at something, journal club is not remotely long enough to develop skill at classifying quality of academic writing. If a student had to analyze several papers each week, they might, but I doubt anyone comes close to that.

Ummm....Even when it was just classes, I was probably reading 3-4 books a week. When I was studying for comps I probably had at least two hundred books on my field lists.

In science, you're putting in most of your hours in the week working in the lab; reading is a much smaller percentage of your time.

[apl68]

Brennan's always saying the same things.

I'm surprised he requires his TAs to attend class, however. Seems like a waste of the TA's allocated hours, at least most of the time.

If by "allocated hours" you mean the hours for which the TA is paid, there are schools where the TAs aren't paid for the hours spent attending the lectures, but it's understood that they're supposed to be there anyway.

[polly_mer]

I'm still bemused about the idea of grad school being about teaching at all instead being an apprenticeship in research.  Being a TA beyond the required semester or two, which was clearly for the benefit of the department, indicated that no one wanted you every program I've been and usually indicates someone who will not complete the doctorate.


Of course, my fields are generally preparing researchers, not faculty members.  People do become professors, but that's definitely not the expected outcome.

[mleok]

I'm still bemused about the idea of grad school being about teaching at all instead being an apprenticeship in research.  Being a TA beyond the required semester or two, which was clearly for the benefit of the department, indicated that no one wanted you every program I've been and usually indicates someone who will not complete the doctorate.

Of course, my fields are generally preparing researchers, not faculty members.  People do become professors, but that's definitely not the expected outcome.

To put things into context, as he mentions in his book, while most of the philosophy PhD students from Georgetown get a tenure-track job, only one out of thirty-two in the last decade got one at a R1, so the advice is primarily geared towards the vast majority of graduate students who will not be getting a tenure-track position at a R1.

[Caracal]

I'm still bemused about the idea of grad school being about teaching at all instead being an apprenticeship in research.  Being a TA beyond the required semester or two, which was clearly for the benefit of the department, indicated that no one wanted you every program I've been and usually indicates someone who will not complete the doctorate.

Of course, my fields are generally preparing researchers, not faculty members.  People do become professors, but that's definitely not the expected outcome.

To put things into context, as he mentions in his book, while most of the philosophy PhD students from Georgetown get a tenure-track job, only one out of thirty-two in the last decade got one at a R1, so the advice is primarily geared towards the vast majority of graduate students who will not be getting a tenure-track position at a R1.

I assume that's the first job? I'd expect that number to get a little higher eventually.

[marshwiggle]

I'm still bemused about the idea of grad school being about teaching at all instead being an apprenticeship in research.  Being a TA beyond the required semester or two, which was clearly for the benefit of the department, indicated that no one wanted you every program I've been and usually indicates someone who will not complete the doctorate.

Of course, my fields are generally preparing researchers, not faculty members.  People do become professors, but that's definitely not the expected outcome.

To put things into context, as he mentions in his book, while most of the philosophy PhD students from Georgetown get a tenure-track job, only one out of thirty-two in the last decade got one at a R1, so the advice is primarily geared towards the vast majority of graduate students who will not be getting a tenure-track position at a R1.

Someone needs to create some helpful infographics to show people considering PhD programs, including information like this. For instance, pie charts showing what the outcomes were for graduates from various institutional categories might help to paint a picture while being quick and easy to read.

[Caracal]

I'm still bemused about the idea of grad school being about teaching at all instead being an apprenticeship in research.  Being a TA beyond the required semester or two, which was clearly for the benefit of the department, indicated that no one wanted you every program I've been and usually indicates someone who will not complete the doctorate.

Of course, my fields are generally preparing researchers, not faculty members.  People do become professors, but that's definitely not the expected outcome.

To put things into context, as he mentions in his book, while most of the philosophy PhD students from Georgetown get a tenure-track job, only one out of thirty-two in the last decade got one at a R1, so the advice is primarily geared towards the vast majority of graduate students who will not be getting a tenure-track position at a R1.

Someone needs to create some helpful infographics to show people considering PhD programs, including information like this. For instance, pie charts showing what the outcomes were for graduates from various institutional categories might help to paint a picture while being quick and easy to read.

They have! I've linked to them before! Nobody is ever interested because while the picture isn't particularly rosy, it is also complicated.

https://www.historians.org/wherehistorianswork

[dr_codex]

I'm still bemused about the idea of grad school being about teaching at all instead being an apprenticeship in research.  Being a TA beyond the required semester or two, which was clearly for the benefit of the department, indicated that no one wanted you every program I've been and usually indicates someone who will not complete the doctorate.

Of course, my fields are generally preparing researchers, not faculty members.  People do become professors, but that's definitely not the expected outcome.

To put things into context, as he mentions in his book, while most of the philosophy PhD students from Georgetown get a tenure-track job, only one out of thirty-two in the last decade got one at a R1, so the advice is primarily geared towards the vast majority of graduate students who will not be getting a tenure-track position at a R1.

Someone needs to create some helpful infographics to show people considering PhD programs, including information like this. For instance, pie charts showing what the outcomes were for graduates from various institutional categories might help to paint a picture while being quick and easy to read.

You mean like this? https://www.mcgill.ca/english/graduate/placement and this https://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/policyflix/yachnin-yetter/

[Parasaurolophus]

To put things into context, as he mentions in his book, while most of the philosophy PhD students from Georgetown get a tenure-track job, only one out of thirty-two in the last decade got one at a R1, so the advice is primarily geared towards the vast majority of graduate students who will not be getting a tenure-track position at a R1.

I assume that's the first job? I'd expect that number to get a little higher eventually.

Georgetown's philosophy department ranks in the late-thirties in the US. That's well out of range for regularly placing into job in the T20, and it's not great for the rest of the PhD-granting field. A few years ago, I did some basic data entry to see where everyone in ~80 ranked PhD-granting departments got their PhDs. Georgetown had 0.

You can look at their placement record (1999-present) yourself. I see two tenured positions in philosophy at what I'd call R1s, although only one of them grants PhDs in philosophy (the other has a very fancy MA). One more if you count a teaching professorship.

It's worth noting, however, that although Brennan's a philosopher, his current appointments at Georgetown are in the school of business and the department of political economy.

[marshwiggle]

Someone needs to create some helpful infographics to show people considering PhD programs, including information like this. For instance, pie charts showing what the outcomes were for graduates from various institutional categories might help to paint a picture while being quick and easy to read.

They have! I've linked to them before! Nobody is ever interested because while the picture isn't particularly rosy, it is also complicated.

https://www.historians.org/wherehistorianswork

You mean like this? https://www.mcgill.ca/english/graduate/placement and this https://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/policyflix/yachnin-yetter/

The problem with these, as far as I can tell, is that they start from the wrong end; i.e. "where are the successful people now?", rather than looking at where ALL of the graduates for the last N years wound up.

It's like judging the value of lottery tickets by looking at the lifestyles of the winners. Yes, they're probably mostly doing well, but what's more important is knowing how many people got nothing.

[Parasaurolophus]

The problem with these, as far as I can tell, is that they start from the wrong end; i.e. "where are the successful people now?", rather than looking at where ALL of the graduates for the last N years wound up.

It's like judging the value of lottery tickets by looking at the lifestyles of the winners. Yes, they're probably mostly doing well, but what's more important is knowing how many people got nothing.

FWIW, most placement information in my field does do that now. You get the outcomes for all graduates, and increasingly you get attrition and cohort data, too.

[mamselle]

But in the humanities, co-authoring with your advisor comes across as co-optation.

There's no discrete dataset that's the result of a defined set of experiments with a specified methodology that can be pointed to as, "they did this, I did that."

And in fact, those circumstances in which the co-authoring happens that I know of have resulted in the advisor stealing the paper and publishing it under their own name.

There's no lab system with payments and task descriptions to tie the student to the tasks they did, so there's no recourse (past the little slips with questions that Byatt describes in "Possession") to prove active involvement in the project, and the student is ripped off.

Naming them is seen as a courtesy, if indulged in at all.

That can and has changed in some circumstances, of course, but there are large swaths of humanities work where it just can't be done the same way the sciences do it. (And I've lived and worked on both sides of that mountain).

M.

I'm just trying to understand what incentives, if any, exist for humanities professors to do an adequate job at mentoring their Ph.D. students, particularly if these students are unlikely to become tenure-track faculty at other research universities.

The incentives are intrinsic, not extrinsic.

That's the basis of a number of the misunderstood differences under discussion here.

M.

[Caracal]

Someone needs to create some helpful infographics to show people considering PhD programs, including information like this. For instance, pie charts showing what the outcomes were for graduates from various institutional categories might help to paint a picture while being quick and easy to read.

They have! I've linked to them before! Nobody is ever interested because while the picture isn't particularly rosy, it is also complicated.

https://www.historians.org/wherehistorianswork

You mean like this? https://www.mcgill.ca/english/graduate/placement and this https://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/policyflix/yachnin-yetter/

The problem with these, as far as I can tell, is that they start from the wrong end; i.e. "where are the successful people now?", rather than looking at where ALL of the graduates for the last N years wound up.

It's like judging the value of lottery tickets by looking at the lifestyles of the winners. Yes, they're probably mostly doing well, but what's more important is knowing how many people got nothing.

AGGGGGGGGG, read the link if you're going to comment on it! That database records information for all graduates, whether they are working in the field or not.

[marshwiggle]

Someone needs to create some helpful infographics to show people considering PhD programs, including information like this. For instance, pie charts showing what the outcomes were for graduates from various institutional categories might help to paint a picture while being quick and easy to read.

They have! I've linked to them before! Nobody is ever interested because while the picture isn't particularly rosy, it is also complicated.

https://www.historians.org/wherehistorianswork

You mean like this? https://www.mcgill.ca/english/graduate/placement and this https://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/policyflix/yachnin-yetter/

The problem with these, as far as I can tell, is that they start from the wrong end; i.e. "where are the successful people now?", rather than looking at where ALL of the graduates for the last N years wound up.

It's like judging the value of lottery tickets by looking at the lifestyles of the winners. Yes, they're probably mostly doing well, but what's more important is knowing how many people got nothing.

AGGGGGGGGG, read the link if you're going to comment on it! That database records information for all graduates, whether they are working in the field or not.

From the pie chart for "Broad Sectors of Employment", almost half (47%) show up under "4-year TT", which sounds great! Another 13% show up under "4-year non TT".

We inferred tenure status from the individual's job title.

The non-tenure-track designation includes all non-tenure-track faculty, including visiting professors, adjuncts, and lecturers with multi-year contracts.

According to that, for every adjunct there are almost 4 TT. Does that fit with the narrative on the adjunct "problem"?