Changing Dissertation Advising: CHE article

[apl68]

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.

Well, there've been a number of well-publicized--in the academic world, anyway--complaints about and by "freeway flyer" adjuncts who have had a very bad return on their graduate education.  Hopefully they aren't as numerous as the attention they've gotten makes them seem. 

[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.

Well, there've been a number of well-publicized--in the academic world, anyway--complaints about and by "freeway flyer" adjuncts who have had a very bad return on their graduate education.  Hopefully they aren't as numerous as the attention they've gotten makes them seem.

They are not. But this is really my point. I feel like I'm cast as a champion of graduate education in the humanities in these discussions, which I'm really not interested in being. The actual picture is pretty grim, but it gets distorted in these ways that are just wildly out of touch with reality. This distortion is a weird joint production between people who want to gut the humanities and people who want to highlight the injustices of university employment practices

Both groups seem to find it simpler to believe that most humanities graduates live in their cars while teaching at five institutions, and are one canceled class away from starvation. It isn't true. Relatively small minorities of humanities graduates adjunct long term. Even among those who do, the picture is often more complicated. I only know a few people who adjuncted as the primary source of income for themselves or their family, and most of those people decided that was unsustainable and found other jobs. The last time I pointed this out, however, this became part of a rather bizarre personal attack...

[marshwiggle]

Well, there've been a number of well-publicized--in the academic world, anyway--complaints about and by "freeway flyer" adjuncts who have had a very bad return on their graduate education.  Hopefully they aren't as numerous as the attention they've gotten makes them seem.

They are not. But this is really my point. I feel like I'm cast as a champion of graduate education in the humanities in these discussions, which I'm really not interested in being. The actual picture is pretty grim, but it gets distorted in these ways that are just wildly out of touch with reality. This distortion is a weird joint production between people who want to gut the humanities and people who want to highlight the injustices of university employment practices

Both groups seem to find it simpler to believe that most humanities graduates live in their cars while teaching at five institutions, and are one canceled class away from starvation. It isn't true. Relatively small minorities of humanities graduates adjunct long term. Even among those who do, the picture is often more complicated. I only know a few people who adjuncted as the primary source of income for themselves or their family, and most of those people decided that was unsustainable and found other jobs. The last time I pointed this out, however, this became part of a rather bizarre personal attack...

This is the problem with trying to use emotion, rather than reason, to discuss problems. The freeway fliers are the poster children for discussions about problems in academic employment because they generate an emotional response. Instead of discussing the economic challenges facing higher education, and how hiring practices reflect that, it's much easier to just say "LOOK AT THESE POOR PEOPLE!!! THIS IS SO UNFAAAAAIR!!!!!"

If the people trying to help improve the situation would stop trying so hard to sensationalize it, they could get more support from people who have more of a grasp of the reality of the situation.

[Durchlässigkeitsbeiwert]

Both groups seem to find it simpler to believe that most humanities graduates live in their cars while teaching at five institutions, and are one canceled class away from starvation. It isn't true. Relatively small minorities of humanities graduates adjunct long term. Even among those who do, the picture is often more complicated. I only know a few people who adjuncted as the primary source of income for themselves or their family, and most of those people decided that was unsustainable and found other jobs. The last time I pointed this out, however, this became part of a rather bizarre personal attack...

These statements highlight the problem of finding suitable metric for the problem.
As living on adjunct wages is not sustainable in most places, it makes adjuncting a transient state for most.
Hence, proportion of graduates doing it at any given time (metric captured by the outcome studies) is expected to be much lower than proportion of graduates who worked as adjunct at any point after their graduation. While the difference may appear to be minor in a grand scheme of things, it is very important for individuals. Compare the following messages for prospective students:

• majority of our graduates have middle-class wages 10 years after the graduation
• our typical graduate spends 3 years adjuncting on poverty-level wages before abandoning hopes of academic career and starting climbing a [corporate?] career ladder. The skills they got in our program allow them to reach middle-class wages  within few years - merely 10+ years later than a comparable student with bachelor degree only. Also, thanks to our guaranteed 4-year funding, our students incur relatively little debt to pay for the privilege.   

Both messages can be true at the same time, but the first one hardly allows for an informed choice.

[spork]

In the non-industry-corresponding academic fields I am familiar with, tenured faculty who run graduate programs, current graduate students, and prospective graduate students NEVER include opportunity cost into definitions of "fully funded." And I've never met a doctoral student in one of those fields whose plan is "I'm getting a PhD because it will get me a career as something other than a professor."

[Caracal]

In the non-industry-corresponding academic fields I am familiar with, tenured faculty who run graduate programs, current graduate students, and prospective graduate students NEVER include opportunity cost into definitions of "fully funded." And I've never met a doctoral student in one of those fields whose plan is "I'm getting a PhD because it will get me a career as something other than a professor."

That's an odd and rather non-sensical complaint. You'd like humanities programs to adopt a weird definition of fully funded that includes opportunity costs?

No, not many, but it doesn't mean that if they do it means that their life has been ruined by the experience. Lots of people's lives don't go according to the plan they have.

[Durchlässigkeitsbeiwert]

That's an odd and rather non-sensical complaint. You'd like humanities programs to adopt a weird definition of fully funded that includes opportunity costs?

Merely, to be honest and proactive in communicating expected outcomes and what may happen along the way in the specific program. These include but not limited to:
- completion rates within 4/5/6 years
- average time spent in the program by drop-outs
- typical sources and amount of funding once guaranteed 4 years expire
- job titles of graduates few years after the graduation (not a cherry-picked selection)

Compiling such data may also help faculty to avoid too much survival bias in their judgement.
BTW, this problem is not unique to humanities, it is just more acute due to several confounding factors.

[Caracal]

That's an odd and rather non-sensical complaint. You'd like humanities programs to adopt a weird definition of fully funded that includes opportunity costs?

Merely, to be honest and proactive in communicating expected outcomes and what may happen along the way in the specific program. These include but not limited to:
- completion rates within 4/5/6 years
- average time spent in the program by drop-outs
- typical sources and amount of funding once guaranteed 4 years expire
- job titles of graduates few years after the graduation (not a cherry-picked selection)

Compiling such data may also help faculty to avoid too much survival bias in their judgement.
BTW, this problem is not unique to humanities, it is just more acute due to several confounding factors.

No disagreement there. That kind of information would be great.

The issue I have with these discussions of opportunity costs is that it often assumed that people who go to grad school are just a randomly selected subset of the population. If that was true, you could understand opportunity costs by just figuring out what an average college graduate would make in those years and how that job experience might impact their future income. However, it obviously doesn't work that way. Certainly some prospective grad students don't know enough about the job market and salaries, but you don't become a phd student in a English program if making a ton of money is a major life goal. If it was possible to have some sort of natural experiment involving people who considered going to grad school in the humanities, you'd probably find that most of the people who didn't attend grad school took circuitous career paths, often working in fields that didn't result in great financial rewards. I know a lot of people who didn't settle into a career path until about the time I was finishing grad school. Again, none of this is a full throated argument for attending grad school or an attempt to pretend that there aren't real problems.

I'd also argue that this is a real problem in terms of the diversity of many humanities fields, but that's a somewhat different discussion...

[mleok]

No disagreement there. That kind of information would be great.

The issue I have with these discussions of opportunity costs is that it often assumed that people who go to grad school are just a randomly selected subset of the population. If that was true, you could understand opportunity costs by just figuring out what an average college graduate would make in those years and how that job experience might impact their future income. However, it obviously doesn't work that way. Certainly some prospective grad students don't know enough about the job market and salaries, but you don't become a phd student in a English program if making a ton of money is a major life goal. If it was possible to have some sort of natural experiment involving people who considered going to grad school in the humanities, you'd probably find that most of the people who didn't attend grad school took circuitous career paths, often working in fields that didn't result in great financial rewards. I know a lot of people who didn't settle into a career path until about the time I was finishing grad school. Again, none of this is a full throated argument for attending grad school or an attempt to pretend that there aren't real problems.

I'd also argue that this is a real problem in terms of the diversity of many humanities fields, but that's a somewhat different discussion...

Are you basically saying the opportunity cost of getting a PhD in the humanities isn't actually as high as one would imagine, since a person even considering a PhD in the humanities is unlikely to make a significant amount of money in the real world anyway? Maybe we should be eliminating undergraduate programs in the humanities too?

[Caracal]

No disagreement there. That kind of information would be great.

The issue I have with these discussions of opportunity costs is that it often assumed that people who go to grad school are just a randomly selected subset of the population. If that was true, you could understand opportunity costs by just figuring out what an average college graduate would make in those years and how that job experience might impact their future income. However, it obviously doesn't work that way. Certainly some prospective grad students don't know enough about the job market and salaries, but you don't become a phd student in a English program if making a ton of money is a major life goal. If it was possible to have some sort of natural experiment involving people who considered going to grad school in the humanities, you'd probably find that most of the people who didn't attend grad school took circuitous career paths, often working in fields that didn't result in great financial rewards. I know a lot of people who didn't settle into a career path until about the time I was finishing grad school. Again, none of this is a full throated argument for attending grad school or an attempt to pretend that there aren't real problems.

I'd also argue that this is a real problem in terms of the diversity of many humanities fields, but that's a somewhat different discussion...

Are you basically saying the opportunity cost of getting a PhD in the humanities isn't actually as high as one would imagine, since a person even considering a PhD in the humanities is unlikely to make a significant amount of money in the real world anyway? Maybe we should be eliminating undergraduate programs in the humanities too?

Is this just meant to be insulting and provocative, or is that actually a conclusion you're trying to draw in good faith? If it is, you might want to work on those critical reasoning and thinking skills.Either way, it is...how should I put this...not an example of great reasoning and thinking?

[Hibush]

The issue I have with these discussions of opportunity costs is that it often assumed that people who go to grad school are just a randomly selected subset of the population. If that was true, you could understand opportunity costs by just figuring out what an average college graduate would make in those years and how that job experience might impact their future income. However, it obviously doesn't work that way.

This really describes the problem well. To get an idea of opportunity cost or program effectiveness, you have to assess what the "control" group did. I know of no graduate program that draws from the general population, or even an identifiable subset that has equivalent prior experience, talent and motivation, but chooses to do something else.

The lack of an appropriate comparison group means that people have to make one up. The most popular is to make up a comparison group that will reinforce the conclusion you want to draw based upon the outcomes the concluder wants (or fears). There are some techniques in the social sciences that can help you avoid the most obvious misuses.

One example of a hard to support assumption is that all students considering graduate study in the humanities are hopelessly naive dreamers who have no prospects of gainful employment. I think that view might be driven by selection bias, in that the small subset who fit that description end up writing a lot of complaining op eds for IHE and making it seem as if they are the norm.  There are social-science methods that could let one estimate how great that bias is and even make better estimates of the outcomes for similarly inclined college graduates who did something else.

We were discussing elsewhere results in the National Survey of Awarded Doctorates. That is a good example where missing the control group,  those who didn't start a doctoral program or who withdrew, limited a lot of conclusions. As did the nuance of whether employment plans were career-related or not; or career-related but on a side track.

[marshwiggle]

One example of a hard to support assumption is that all students considering graduate study in the humanities are hopelessly naive dreamers who have no prospects of gainful employment. I think that view might be driven by selection bias, in that the small subset who fit that description end up writing a lot of complaining op eds for IHE and making it seem as if they are the norm.  There are social-science methods that could let one estimate how great that bias is and even make better estimates of the outcomes for similarly inclined college graduates who did something else.

To be fair, do we ever see a story about someone who entered a humanities PhD with no thought of working in academia afterwards? I can't recall one. Even though, in theory, people can do an advanced degree purely for personal enrichment, are there ever profiles of those people published in defense of those degrees? (Specifically, people who received those degrees and moved on into other career paths without a complaint about having to do so?) Again, I can't think of a single one I've seen.

That particular control group is either vanishingly small or basically invisible.

[mleok]

Is this just meant to be insulting and provocative, or is that actually a conclusion you're trying to draw in good faith? If it is, you might want to work on those critical reasoning and thinking skills.Either way, it is...how should I put this...not an example of great reasoning and thinking?

It's intended to be provocative, and to point out how silly the rationalization you're presenting is. Think of it as a reductio ad absurdum attack on the fallacy in your argument.

[Caracal]

Is this just meant to be insulting and provocative, or is that actually a conclusion you're trying to draw in good faith? If it is, you might want to work on those critical reasoning and thinking skills.Either way, it is...how should I put this...not an example of great reasoning and thinking?

It's intended to be provocative, and to point out how silly the rationalization you're presenting is. Think of it as a reductio ad absurdum attack on the fallacy in your argument.

Except it has nothing to do with the point I was making...

[Caracal]

Is this just meant to be insulting and provocative, or is that actually a conclusion you're trying to draw in good faith? If it is, you might want to work on those critical reasoning and thinking skills.Either way, it is...how should I put this...not an example of great reasoning and thinking?

It's intended to be provocative, and to point out how silly the rationalization you're presenting is. Think of it as a reductio ad absurdum attack on the fallacy in your argument.

Except it has nothing to do with the point I was making...

The only way the two things have anything to do with each other is that people make the same mistake in group comparison. English majors aren't more likely to work as k-12 educators than business majors because they got out of college and couldn't get banking jobs with their degree.

I suppose there is also the same weird tendency to assume that the only thing worth measuring is wages. I find this rather odd because the people making these arguments are themselves college professors who usually haven't made all of their life choices with the goal of optimizing their earnings...