News:

Welcome to the new (and now only) Fora!

Main Menu

Changing Dissertation Advising: CHE article

Started by Durchlässigkeitsbeiwert, January 11, 2021, 12:09:46 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

marshwiggle

Quote from: Caracal on January 27, 2021, 05:20:17 AM
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...

In all of the adjunct porn articles, the major point being made is how underpaid they are, to the point where they can't afford groceries, live in their cars, etc. That gets much more attention than uncertain schedules, etc.

As long as the people unhappy with the consequences of their decisions raise the issues, it's fair game for people questioning those choices to address the same issues.


It takes so little to be above average.

Caracal

Quote from: marshwiggle on January 27, 2021, 05:28:22 AM
Quote from: Caracal on January 27, 2021, 05:20:17 AM
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...

In all of the adjunct porn articles, the major point being made is how underpaid they are, to the point where they can't afford groceries, live in their cars, etc. That gets much more attention than uncertain schedules, etc.

As long as the people unhappy with the consequences of their decisions raise the issues, it's fair game for people questioning those choices to address the same issues.

Adjuncts = people who go to grad school in the humanities

Adjuncts who write articles = the larger pool of people who adjunct

None of which means that the system is a good one.

marshwiggle

Quote from: Caracal on January 27, 2021, 06:26:26 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 27, 2021, 05:28:22 AM
Quote from: Caracal on January 27, 2021, 05:20:17 AM
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...

In all of the adjunct porn articles, the major point being made is how underpaid they are, to the point where they can't afford groceries, live in their cars, etc. That gets much more attention than uncertain schedules, etc.

As long as the people unhappy with the consequences of their decisions raise the issues, it's fair game for people questioning those choices to address the same issues.

Adjuncts = people who go to grad school in the humanities

Adjuncts who write articles = the larger pool of people who adjunct

None of which means that the system is a good one.

The point is that the issue is framed by the adjuncts who write articles. (And it's intentional by the people arguing for change, because their arguments would sound much less urgent if they admitted that it affects only a small fraction of people who go to grad school in the humanities. It would emphasize the fact that peoples' choices have a big part to play in their outcomes.)
It takes so little to be above average.

Durchlässigkeitsbeiwert

Quote from: Caracal on January 27, 2021, 05:20:17 AM
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...
Quote from: Caracal on January 22, 2021, 07:15:20 AM
...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...

1) My personal issue with such statements is that they are often used as a justification of the status quo by individual faculty members and departments unwilling to change their practices. Moreover, elements of it are plain deceitful. One thing is if prospective students are told that they are not going to be "making ton of money", and another thing to tell them that half of them will not graduate at all and other half is likely to face an uphill struggle to achieve the same level of financial stability as their undergrad peers for years after graduation.

2) Since humanities overall actually achieved gender parity in the awarded doctorates, statements like "they are actually are not interested in money that much" are reminiscent of certain unwelcome practices, particularly, when contrasted with attitude towards still male-dominated engineering.

Caracal

Quote from: Durchlässigkeitsbeiwert on January 27, 2021, 10:06:08 AM
Quote from: Caracal on January 27, 2021, 05:20:17 AM
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...
Quote from: Caracal on January 22, 2021, 07:15:20 AM
...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...

1) My personal issue with such statements is that they are often used as a justification of the status quo by individual faculty members and departments unwilling to change their practices. Moreover, elements of it are plain deceitful. One thing is if prospective students are told that they are not going to be "making ton of money", and another thing to tell them that half of them will not graduate at all and other half is likely to face an uphill struggle to achieve the same level of financial stability as their undergrad peers for years after graduation.


I can't see how accurately understanding the problems without all the hyperbole is going to get in the way of fixing it. In fact, many of the false narratives based on crummy data or no data are used to justify bad hiring practices and complacency.

marshwiggle

Quote from: Caracal on January 27, 2021, 01:08:03 PM
Quote from: Durchlässigkeitsbeiwert on January 27, 2021, 10:06:08 AM


1) My personal issue with such statements is that they are often used as a justification of the status quo by individual faculty members and departments unwilling to change their practices. Moreover, elements of it are plain deceitful. One thing is if prospective students are told that they are not going to be "making ton of money", and another thing to tell them that half of them will not graduate at all and other half is likely to face an uphill struggle to achieve the same level of financial stability as their undergrad peers for years after graduation.


I can't see how accurately understanding the problems without all the hyperbole is going to get in the way of fixing it. In fact, many of the false narratives based on crummy data or no data are used to justify bad hiring practices and complacency.

I think that was the point; that students are NOT given an accurate picture. If half drop out, then it's not hyperbole to point that out. It's being honest, and making sure students have an accurate understanding of the situation.

It takes so little to be above average.

Caracal

Quote from: marshwiggle on January 27, 2021, 01:16:31 PM
Quote from: Caracal on January 27, 2021, 01:08:03 PM
Quote from: Durchlässigkeitsbeiwert on January 27, 2021, 10:06:08 AM


1) My personal issue with such statements is that they are often used as a justification of the status quo by individual faculty members and departments unwilling to change their practices. Moreover, elements of it are plain deceitful. One thing is if prospective students are told that they are not going to be "making ton of money", and another thing to tell them that half of them will not graduate at all and other half is likely to face an uphill struggle to achieve the same level of financial stability as their undergrad peers for years after graduation.


I can't see how accurately understanding the problems without all the hyperbole is going to get in the way of fixing it. In fact, many of the false narratives based on crummy data or no data are used to justify bad hiring practices and complacency.

I think that was the point; that students are NOT given an accurate picture. If half drop out, then it's not hyperbole to point that out. It's being honest, and making sure students have an accurate understanding of the situation.

Sure, sounds good. Completion rates vary a lot by department and it would certainly be a good thing if that information was available.

Durchlässigkeitsbeiwert

Quote from: marshwiggle on January 27, 2021, 01:16:31 PM
I think that was the point; that students are NOT given an accurate picture. If half drop out, then it's not hyperbole to point that out. It's being honest, and making sure students have an accurate understanding of the situation.
Exactly

Quote from: Caracal on January 27, 2021, 01:42:41 PM
Sure, sounds good. Completion rates vary a lot by department and it would certainly be a good thing if that information was available.
It is not only about this information to be available for the students.
Faculty (who by definition have access to information needed to calculate metrics like drop out rate) need to be conscious of it.
This involves 
a) informing students in starkest terms possible (to counter default optimism) about current department-specific outcomes and outcome trends
b) making efforts to change bad policies* at the departmental level (or, at least, stopping supporting them personally)

* - e.g. spreading funding too thin by overenrolling grad students; reliance on the external competitive grants for research expenses (particularly if one has to spend >1 year in grad school before decision is made); unstructured supervision etc

marshwiggle

Quote from: Durchlässigkeitsbeiwert on January 27, 2021, 02:44:39 PM

It is not only about this information to be available for the students.
Faculty (who by definition have access to information needed to calculate metrics like drop out rate) need to be conscious of it.
This involves 
a) informing students in starkest terms possible (to counter default optimism) about current department-specific outcomes and outcome trends
b) making efforts to change bad policies* at the departmental level (or, at least, stopping supporting them personally)

This reminds me of a statistic of one university that the average completion time for a PhD was longer than the maximum that the university intended. Their oblivious response was to try and figure out how to get students to hurry up. (Instead of wondering if maybe there were expectations placed on the students that made them take longer than intended.......)
It takes so little to be above average.

Durchlässigkeitsbeiwert

CHE has two new articles on the topic:
How to Save the Humanities Ph.D.? Kill the Doctoral Seminar
Are Graduate Programs Pressing Pause — or Pulling the Plug?

First article provides some clues why humanities PhDs are taking so long:
- "Most doctoral programs require two to three years of coursework. " with PhD students expected to take multiple semesters of "Doctoral Seminars" (apparently a distinct thing from masters-level offerings).
- the article suggests to "Offer two years of well-designed, coherent, master's level coursework, and then give students three years to do research and produce an original dissertation project." to improve situation.

From my perspective even two years of pure course-taking are hardly justified. I know people who finished their course requirements within a semester of starting. While I personally opted for a more leisurely pace, I finished within two semesters (I also took one-off courses way later  to diversify my skillset). All people I know from grad school started their phd research within one semester of enrolling.

Second article acknowledges bad market for graduates and resource limitations, but still complains about need "to cut off the chance for a new generation to enter graduate studies in English, comparative literature, foreign languages and literatures, anthropology, sociology". I.e. author knowingly wants to steer their students towards likely underfunded path with great opportunity costs.

Hibush

Quote from: Durchlässigkeitsbeiwert on February 02, 2021, 01:45:10 PM
CHE has two new articles on the topic:
How to Save the Humanities Ph.D.? Kill the Doctoral Seminar
Are Graduate Programs Pressing Pause — or Pulling the Plug?

First article provides some clues why humanities PhDs are taking so long:
- "Most doctoral programs require two to three years of coursework. " with PhD students expected to take multiple semesters of "Doctoral Seminars" (apparently a distinct thing from masters-level offerings).
- the article suggests to "Offer two years of well-designed, coherent, master's level coursework, and then give students three years to do research and produce an original dissertation project." to improve situation.

From my perspective even two years of pure course-taking are hardly justified. I know people who finished their course requirements within a semester of starting. While I personally opted for a more leisurely pace, I finished within two semesters (I also took one-off courses way later  to diversify my skillset). All people I know from grad school started their phd research within one semester of enrolling.

Second article acknowledges bad market for graduates and resource limitations, but still complains about need "to cut off the chance for a new generation to enter graduate studies in English, comparative literature, foreign languages and literatures, anthropology, sociology". I.e. author knowingly wants to steer their students towards likely underfunded path with great opportunity costs.

Thanks for bringing these two items here.
The second really represents the view from an ivory tower rather far removed from day-to-day worldly concerns. Who might reside in such a tower? Well, a professor emeritus at Yale might. Indeed, that is the authors position. While I'm sympathetic to the argument that someone who wants to pursue a particular course of study should be given the opportunity if they go in with realistic expectations and independent funding. The big unrealistic expectation was not by the prospective student, but the professor who felt that the university should be ponying up assistantships far in excess of what the undergrad enrollment (i.e. tuition revenue) could justify.

The first article was an eye opener. Apparently the faculty in that department don't have the slightest sense that student needs should influence the curriculum. They are driven by their desire to have someone to profess to. A captive audience for their individual scholarship. Not surprisingly, they find supply of teachers outstrips demand.

mleok

With regards to the second article, I am also curious as to whether students would willingly choose to enroll in classes in the humanities if universities did not have general education requirements.

marshwiggle

One interesting quote from the second article:
Quote
University administrations will tell you even vast increases in their endowments make little immediate difference, since they are constrained by spending rules that allow only a very limited expenditure from investments each year. The endowments are being protected for a "rainy day," and however critical the Covid-19 crisis is, it doesn't seem to qualify on the rain scale. I'd argue that universities have turned their endowments into fetish objects, to be admired, publicized, and petted rather than spent in the most useful ways.


This sounds like the kind of intentionally obtuse thinking I've heard before in the context of church trust funds. There are legal requirements preventing the capital being spent; it's not a "fetish". I would imagine endowments work the same way, and for good reason; to someone, "now" is always a rainy day. It's the very fact that the money coming into these funds is sporadic and unpredictable that spending the capital is a bad thing, because it may not be replaced for a long time, if ever. By only spending the interest, the available money is predictable which is useful for the long-term stability of the institution. It's the same reason governments require employees to pay into pension funds; otherwise many would opt for spending it all now, because there are needs now. Ignoring the potential needs down the road is precisely why we have the mess with climate change.
It takes so little to be above average.

apl68

Quote from: marshwiggle on February 04, 2021, 05:59:14 AM
One interesting quote from the second article:
Quote
University administrations will tell you even vast increases in their endowments make little immediate difference, since they are constrained by spending rules that allow only a very limited expenditure from investments each year. The endowments are being protected for a "rainy day," and however critical the Covid-19 crisis is, it doesn't seem to qualify on the rain scale. I'd argue that universities have turned their endowments into fetish objects, to be admired, publicized, and petted rather than spent in the most useful ways.


This sounds like the kind of intentionally obtuse thinking I've heard before in the context of church trust funds. There are legal requirements preventing the capital being spent; it's not a "fetish". I would imagine endowments work the same way, and for good reason; to someone, "now" is always a rainy day. It's the very fact that the money coming into these funds is sporadic and unpredictable that spending the capital is a bad thing, because it may not be replaced for a long time, if ever. By only spending the interest, the available money is predictable which is useful for the long-term stability of the institution.

That's all very true, and needs to be borne in mind when criticizing a reluctance to spend endowment funds for near-term crises.  However, it is also the case that donors and managers can take this thinking of putting back money for the long term too far.  Years ago our Friends of the Library had put away a remarkable amount of fundraising revenue for such a small-town group.  It was hard to get them to spend any of it for new equipment or other things the library needed and could make good use of here and now.  Their thinking was that they should put it all into certificates of deposit so that it could serve as a long-term endowment for the library. 

The thing is, the library isn't planning to retire!  We have to spend money right now to preserve and upgrade our services.  That's vital to preserving our long-term viability.  And anyway, certificates of deposit hardly earn anything.  It would take us a hundred years at the rate things are going to get the equivalent of that "endowment" back in interest!  Eventually we talked them into disgorging a big chunk of that nest egg for a much-needed computer network upgrade.
And you will cry out on that day because of the king you have chosen for yourselves, and the Lord will not hear you on that day.

Caracal

Quote from: Hibush on February 02, 2021, 02:13:48 PM


The first article was an eye opener. Apparently the faculty in that department don't have the slightest sense that student needs should influence the curriculum. They are driven by their desire to have someone to profess to. A captive audience for their individual scholarship. Not surprisingly, they find supply of teachers outstrips demand.

I found that article a little confusing. Part of the problem is that grad programs are dramatically different across humanities disciplines and departments, but everyone always thinks that their experience is the norm. The seminars I attended in grad school weren't narrowly focused, they were discussions of books throughout broad fields. My lectures for intro classes are filled with stuff from books I was introduced to in those seminars.

The seminars were also invaluable in learning how to critique and understand other people's work. That's really fundamental to humanities disciplines. I think there's a better case to be made for eliminating coursework, rather than seminars. I went to a program where we only did seminars and it worked well.