Changing Dissertation Advising: CHE article

[marshwiggle]

This leads me to a few obvious suggestions for prospective grad students.:

• If you had to go into debt for undergrad, (i.e. you didn't get scholarships), don't go into a deeper hole for grad studies. (There will be lots of other graduates better than you that you'll have to compete with.)
• If TAs are going to be your primary source of funding for grad school, reconsider. (There will be lots of other graduates better than you that you'll have to compete with.)

These two rules alone would reduce much of the glut in PhD's, while being easily identifiable criteria.

There is an intermediate step that could make a fair difference and don't depend on the students to know and the tacit rule nor think it applies to them.

What would happen if graduate schools had a policy of requiring full funding for every admitted PhD student? That policy exists in some fields and universally at some schools.

It would automatically reduce the enrollment by no admitting those who would be accumulating debt in order to attend. That would drop PhD production by 30% or more based on the 2016 stats Polly cited. It would also reduce PhD admission because the ones who did not complete for financial reasons and are not part of that figure.

That would be the best solution, by far. It would implicitly reduce admissions to those who had a decent chance of academic jobs at the end.

[Caracal]

I It would seem that the real change in doctoral advising needs to take place BEFORE somebody enters a doctoral program rather than WHILE he or she is studying.

That's a very good point and it dovetails with a lot of the rest of this discussion. When I told my undergrad advisor I was interested in applying for PHD programs, the first thing he told me was that the market was bad and there was no reason to think it would get better and I should think really hard about whether it was a path I wanted to go down. When I decided I was going to apply, he told me that under no circumstances should I take an offer that didn't come with at least four years of guaranteed funding. I got several offers that came with funding that was dependent on getting TAships or other competitive fellowships. Without my advisors advice, I think I would have assumed that was fine and I might have taken one of those offers. I'm very glad I went to a school that guaranteed funding for five years for everyone they admitted. I didn't end up with a tenure track job but I also didn't finish grad school with any debt.

[mamselle]

But what about those who really do see academic growth as the goal, and not a job?

Some of us do weird interdisciplinary things that don't really exist as a defined program; we put the elements together that get at the area of work we're trying to do.

Would we just never, never, never be allowed access to higher levels of education simply because we don't fit in one of the "little boxes" that have funding set aside for them?

I can still make contributions and teach and do research and write, whether or not my paying daily work fits my preparation. It's harder but I (and others I know) have done/can do it.

It gets very narrow and limiting if the criteria are money and jobs only.

Just to put some balance into the picture.

M.

[marshwiggle]

But what about those who really do see academic growth as the goal, and not a job?

Some of us do weird interdisciplinary things that don't really exist as a defined program; we put the elements together that get at the area of work we're trying to do.

Would we just never, never, never be allowed access to higher levels of education simply because we don't fit in one of the "little boxes" that have funding set aside for them?

If you sign a notarized, publically available document that says you are completely happy with your career choice, employment, and income, and will be for the rest of your life, then you can go ahead.

Seriously, the only reason I care about anyone else's choices is when they want to blame "society", "the system", or whatever, for the consequences of their decisions, when all kinds of people would (and probably several DID) warn them about the likely outcomes but they wouldn't listen. (Don't blame me for your choices if I advise you to NOT make those choices.....)

Like the person who gets engaged to the unemployed person with a drinking problem  and is annoyed how friends and family aren't enthusiatic about the choice. Yes there is a tiny chance things will turn out alright, but there's a high probability that the unenthusiastic people are accurately predicting the future.

[ciao_yall]

Having changed careers and industries several times before ending up in higher ed, I will say that the goal for employability is not to choose your college major correctly - it is to be able to pivot and adapt when things change.

I have met...

• An MD who was a headhunter for the bio/med industries. He realized he didn't like working with patients.
• A PhD in something in the humanities who was a pharmaceuticals marketer. She said the fact she had a PhD, even if it wasn't in science, convinced the scientists she was probably smart enough to figure out what was going on.
• Another PhD, I think in humanities, who was an investor relations specialist.

[Durchlässigkeitsbeiwert]

But what about those who really do see academic growth as the goal, and not a job?

This is called having a hobby and there nothing wrong with it, as long as, it is a conscious decision made before the enrollment instead of post factum justification of the lost time. I personally know a reasonably well-off person, who went into grad school for self-fulfillment / status reasons and for whom even adjunct position is enough as long as there is "professor" in the title.
Though, personally I think that allowing only full-ride grad school positions is a very good solution for the variety of problems. E.g. it may actually narrow the gap between different schools by stopping relatively poor ones from spreading their resources too thin (and effectively setting many of their students for the failure in the process).

[Hibush]

But what about those who really do see academic growth as the goal, and not a job?

Excellent question!

If PhD programs were only full-ride, programs that want to nurture that kind of graduate student (job-agnostic?) would need to have revenue that covers the cost. I think it is possible, albeit in limited numbers.

As long as they offer popular undergraduate training, that might be done through teaching assistantships. Funding would have to be a limited time. Guaranteeing an incoming PhD student 10 semesters of TA, and a reasonable expectation of being finished in five years while TAing every semester would be a switch from the status quo. While the mental hindrances could be big, the technical hindrances are small.

A bigger switch would be to develop a relationship with a philanthropic foundation that would offer scholarships to complement the TA ships. While accepting such funds is rarely difficult, doing the entrepreneurial work to get in the foundation's good graces for a long-term relationship may be especially hard for a faculty that wants to create this particular academic environment.

I hope that all who seek a PhD requiring job also see academic growth as a goal both during their formal education and career.

[mamselle]

But what about those who really do see academic growth as the goal, and not a job?

This is called having a hobby and there nothing wrong with it, as long as, it is a conscious decision made before the enrollment instead of post factum justification of the lost time. I personally know a reasonably well-off person, who went into grad school for self-fulfillment / status reasons and for whom even adjunct position is enough as long as there is "professor" in the title.
Though, personally I think that allowing only full-ride grad school positions is a very good solution for the variety of problems. E.g. it may actually narrow the gap between different schools by stopping relatively poor ones from spreading their resources too thin (and effectively setting many of their students for the failure in the process).

My academic work is not a "hobby."

M.

[Caracal]

This is an old discussion, but a bunch of things can be true at the same time.

1. People should be able to choose to pursue a career path that isn't likely to lead to great financial rewards.

2. It is important that people who are pursuing that career path know about the potential pitfalls of doing so.

3. If they decide to do it anyway, they should get good advice on how to minimize the costs of doing so. (Don't accept offers without guaranteed funding)

4. Graduate programs shouldn't admit more students than they can guarantee funding to. It is a way of setting people up to fail and it just isn't responsible.

5. Most people who go to grad school in the humanities don't have their life ruined by the experience and thinking of everything in terms of potential earnings is a crummy way to think about people's lives and choices.

6. The ways schools find people to teach classes can still be screwed up and open to criticism. I don't think the world owes me a job because I have a PHD. Working as an adjunct is feasible financially for me so I don't need sympathy or pity. However, I'm in a good position to see that the whole set up is pretty flawed and has lots of hidden costs for everyone. If I make the point that it should be possible to create more stable jobs for humanities graduates and that this would benefit universities in the long run, a reasonable response is not to tell me that I shouldn't have gotten to grad school in the first place.

[marshwiggle]

This is an old discussion, but a bunch of things can be true at the same time.

1. People should be able to choose to pursue a career path that isn't likely to lead to great financial rewards.

2. It is important that people who are pursuing that career path know about the potential pitfalls of doing so.

3. If they decide to do it anyway, they should get good advice on how to minimize the costs of doing so. (Don't accept offers without guaranteed funding)

4. Graduate programs shouldn't admit more students than they can guarantee funding to. It is a way of setting people up to fail and it just isn't responsible.

5. Most people who go to grad school in the humanities don't have their life ruined by the experience and thinking of everything in terms of potential earnings is a crummy way to think about people's lives and choices.

All true.

6. The ways schools find people to teach classes can still be screwed up and open to criticism. I don't think the world owes me a job because I have a PHD. Working as an adjunct is feasible financially for me so I don't need sympathy or pity. However, I'm in a good position to see that the whole set up is pretty flawed and has lots of hidden costs for everyone. If I make the point that it should be possible to create more stable jobs for humanities graduates and that this would benefit universities in the long run, a reasonable response is not to tell me that I shouldn't have gotten to grad school in the first place.

True. However, if you claim that you have no reasonable career options unless and until you are able to get a stable, full-time job teaching in your discipline, then you are going to be rightly criticized for having an unwarranted sense of entitlement. No-one is guaranteed that, and in disciplines where those positions are particularly scarce, then you are also going to be rightly accused of not exercising those vaunted "critical thinking" skills to figure out the odds before making a big investment of time and money in anticipation of something extremely unlikely.

[apl68]

But what about those who really do see academic growth as the goal, and not a job?

Some of us do weird interdisciplinary things that don't really exist as a defined program; we put the elements together that get at the area of work we're trying to do.

Would we just never, never, never be allowed access to higher levels of education simply because we don't fit in one of the "little boxes" that have funding set aside for them?

I can still make contributions and teach and do research and write, whether or not my paying daily work fits my preparation. It's harder but I (and others I know) have done/can do it.

It gets very narrow and limiting if the criteria are money and jobs only.

Yes, it does get very constraining.  Every decision about education shouldn't have to be based on profit and loss calculations.  My concern is less about people being warned off of grad school for such reasons than with the phenomenon of undergrads fleeing humanities majors in the mistaken belief that such majors will ruin their chances of ever making a decent living.  It's just not true.  But if you believe it's true, then it's understandable why you would be afraid to try, or to pay to let your college-bound child try.  I wish there was some way of persuading bright, prepared students who would thrive in the non-vocational majors and their parents that it's okay for them to do so.

[mleok]

Very few people rack up much debt getting humanities grad degrees. Most programs are fully funded.

That is not the impression I get, given how many humanities PhD students become freeway fliers. In any case, even if the programs are "fully funded," there is still a huge opportunity cost to doing a humanities PhD.

[mleok]

Really, nobody should accept an admission offer to a PHD program without guaranteed funding for at least four years.

When was the last time you've seen a humanities PhD take only four years?

[Caracal]

Really, nobody should accept an admission offer to a PHD program without guaranteed funding for at least four years.

When was the last time you've seen a humanities PhD take only four years?

Well five years would be better. In practice, most people end up getting an extra year or two of funding through outside grants, teaching fellowships, etc. Even after that, usually you aren't actually paying anything close to full tuition if you run out of funding before you finish. Not likely to result in big amounts of debt.

[Caracal]

Very few people rack up much debt getting humanities grad degrees. Most programs are fully funded.

That is not the impression I get, given how many humanities PhD students become freeway fliers. In any case, even if the programs are "fully funded," there is still a huge opportunity cost to doing a humanities PhD.

Actually not that many do end up adjuncting at all, and obviously fewer end up teaching at multiple schools. Not sure I even see the connection. If you have huge amounts of debt, adjuncting isn't likely to be a good solution.