Canadian Report on the Labour Market Transition of PhD Graduates

[polly_mer]

The 1980s called: https://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2021/02/09/new-reality-humanities-phds-transformation-not-crisis-moment-opinion

[marshwiggle]

The 1980s called: https://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2021/02/09/new-reality-humanities-phds-transformation-not-crisis-moment-opinion

At least this part is honest:

To address the possible careers that follow from the completion of a doctoral degree, the academy and its fellow travelers must get away from the current view that noncampus jobs are fully desirable. To be sure, the recipients of advanced degrees in the humanities generally enjoy rewarding careers, whether on campus or off. But that's just a reflection of the fact that they are smart, adaptable and productive. To argue, as some higher education leaders have, that Ph.D. recipients in the humanities have always followed various career paths and therefore the noncampus jobs are OK, ignores the obvious reality: no one in the humanities pursues a doctoral degree, with years of coursework and more years of dissertation writing, in hopes of finding an off-campus career that doesn't involve advanced work in their chosen field.

[Caracal]

The 1980s called: https://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2021/02/09/new-reality-humanities-phds-transformation-not-crisis-moment-opinion

At least this part is honest:

To address the possible careers that follow from the completion of a doctoral degree, the academy and its fellow travelers must get away from the current view that noncampus jobs are fully desirable. To be sure, the recipients of advanced degrees in the humanities generally enjoy rewarding careers, whether on campus or off. But that's just a reflection of the fact that they are smart, adaptable and productive. To argue, as some higher education leaders have, that Ph.D. recipients in the humanities have always followed various career paths and therefore the noncampus jobs are OK, ignores the obvious reality: no one in the humanities pursues a doctoral degree, with years of coursework and more years of dissertation writing, in hopes of finding an off-campus career that doesn't involve advanced work in their chosen field.

Yes, that's what everyone here has said.

[marshwiggle]

The 1980s called: https://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2021/02/09/new-reality-humanities-phds-transformation-not-crisis-moment-opinion

At least this part is honest:

To address the possible careers that follow from the completion of a doctoral degree, the academy and its fellow travelers must get away from the current view that noncampus jobs are fully desirable. To be sure, the recipients of advanced degrees in the humanities generally enjoy rewarding careers, whether on campus or off. But that's just a reflection of the fact that they are smart, adaptable and productive. To argue, as some higher education leaders have, that Ph.D. recipients in the humanities have always followed various career paths and therefore the noncampus jobs are OK, ignores the obvious reality: no one in the humanities pursues a doctoral degree, with years of coursework and more years of dissertation writing, in hopes of finding an off-campus career that doesn't involve advanced work in their chosen field.

Yes, that's what everyone here has said.

But that's where the math doesn't work out. When faced with the math, people start talking about all of those "other" career options, rather than admitting the ramifications of changing the system so that all PhD graduates can have academic (i.e. full-time faculty) jobs. (Especially given that most places only want to hire graduates of high ranking places.)

[Hibush]

But that's where the math doesn't work out. When faced with the math, people start talking about all of those "other" career options, rather than admitting the ramifications of changing the system so that all PhD graduates can have academic (i.e. full-time faculty) jobs. (Especially given that most places only want to hire graduates of high ranking places.)

The main ramification would be that, for a steady-state where all the PhDs get FT TT faculty positions, each professor can only train one PhD in their entire career.

What do you see as a way to optimize that allocation so that it maximized personal fullfillment for the PhDs and economic stability for the schools.

One is to literally have each professor, regardless of the school, be limited to one PhD. That has lots of downsides, starting with nobody becoming a practiced mentor.

Another is to have a few designated schools train all the PhDs for everyone. Other schools have no doctoral programs in those fields. The first sentence is where momentum has us going, and pain will be felt by the other schools until second sentence is true.

A third option is that many schools have doctoral programs, but only one or two faculty train PhDs. To control the numbers, the might admit a new PhD candidate only in years when they hire a new TT faculty member.

Those three scenarios are variations that distribute pain and benefit in different ways, but would all solve the oversupply problem. Which seems a better direction to head?

[Parasaurolophus]

There's also the problem that concentrating PhD training in just a few hands can seriously pigeonhole research, often on weird topics. (Oxford, for example, is home to a number of philosophers specializing in things that nobody outside Oxford cares about. If Oxford had a near-monopoly on training, that would end up skewing the field pretty quickly. But so would concentrating graduate education in the hands of any small group of people.)

And, of course, there's the problem that you don't know in advance which research topics are going to be in demand, and will be very slow to respond to needs in those areas, or in entirely new areas--if you even can, since it takes an expert to train up an expert, and when a dabbler trains someone up, well, it's very hard for that person to get much past the dabbler stage themselves. I dunno how it works in computer science, but in the other fields I know about, experts are not widely interchangeable. Sure, I can probably teach most undergrad philosophy courses with some work if I have to, but the quality of my class on non-classical logics or philosophy of physics is going to be nowhere near as good as it would have been in an expert's hands. It might even be borderline incompetent. (I see this all the time with my area of specialization, by the way, since most departments offer a course in it but don't have a specialist. A lot of those syllabi are completely incompetent.)

The current system seems like a fairly efficient way of doing things, and a centralized PhD economy doesn't. That doesn't mean there aren't things we should do, including possibly on the supply side, but I'd be wary of introducing too many constraints.

[Stockmann]

There's also the problem that concentrating PhD training in just a few hands can seriously pigeonhole research, often on weird topics...

But we already have these problems - in many fields it's pretty much required to have a PhD from a top tier department to be competitive for a tt position.

The current system seems like a fairly efficient way of doing things...

Aside from the glut of PhDs, I think the ultra-competitive system in place creates risk-aversion, so that though the system gets research done cheaply in the short term, in the long term it creates big, expensive problems. It encourages risk aversion - you need research that will produce something  publishable fast and that can readily secure funding, not something that might take five years to bear fruit or that could be ground-breaking but could also just not work out. It encourages overhyping results, rushing research (because getting scooped can be career-ending) and salami publications (slicing up research into multiple articles rather than a single in-depth publication). It encourages research that won't be too controversial with referees or grant reviewers, who have their own biases, and not just regarding the content of the research. As tenure keeps getting eroded (in turn a consequence of the PhD glut), it's not just early career researchers who are subject to these pressures.
Extreme competitiveness is only better when there are clear, objective metrics to measure who is better (as in some sports, to some extent) but things like citations and impact factors are much too crude, unless they're taken as the actual goal of research instead of discovering important knowledge or applying knowledge in important ways.

[marshwiggle]

But that's where the math doesn't work out. When faced with the math, people start talking about all of those "other" career options, rather than admitting the ramifications of changing the system so that all PhD graduates can have academic (i.e. full-time faculty) jobs. (Especially given that most places only want to hire graduates of high ranking places.)

The main ramification would be that, for a steady-state where all the PhDs get FT TT faculty positions, each professor can only train one PhD in their entire career.

What do you see as a way to optimize that allocation so that it maximized personal fullfillment for the PhDs and economic stability for the schools.

How about doing that, and requiring universities to fund PhD candidates UNTIL THEY HIRE THEM to replace their retiring supervisors? So, when a prof is within a decade or so of retirement, s/he takes on a PhD student who will be their replacement. Since the institution will be on the hook for paying them until they become faculty, it's in their best interests to admit them according to how long it will take and when they will become faculty.

Notice that this also solves the snobbery hypocricy, where places will only hire people who got their PhDs at higher-ranked places.If you wouldn't hire your own graduates, why produce them in the first place?

Supervisors will then, by definiton, all be highly experienced, and if teaching duties of grad students are in the courses that they will be picking up after their supervisor's retirement, then they will be very relevant.

(Given the comments on another thread about how ambivalent humanities faculty seem to be about their own grad students, such as taking months to give feedback, it seems like for many of these this would make their lives easier.)

[dr_codex]

When I walked away from a (Canadian) job, my ex-Chair grouched that this kept happening with people who held Ph.D.'s and that they would stop hiring us.

(The fact that the system was set up to treat me like garbage seems not to have occurred to anyone; they were shocked -- shocked! -- that I would not hang out for 8 months waiting for another course assignment.)

Also, it's not true that nobody would pursue a Ph.D. without a career in that field in mind. There are lifelong learners, as well as people who need (or think they need) a terminal degree to advance in their profession. These candidates, and some of their programs, can be dismissed if you like, but they are out there.

[Durchlässigkeitsbeiwert]

What do you see as a way to optimize that allocation so that it maximized personal fullfillment for the PhDs and economic stability for the schools.
...
Those three scenarios are variations that distribute pain and benefit in different ways, but would all solve the oversupply problem. Which seems a better direction to head?

In the ideal world, desired reduction can be achieved by requiring much higher spending by the supervisor/institution on each PhD student. This would eliminate some adverse incentives to get more students without being particularly prescriptive.
Theoretically, it can be achieved even without formal requirements by providing incoming students with up-to-date department-specific information on outcomes with a hope that good students would be reluctant to commit to 5+year enterprise with 50% attrition rate and unclear job prospects when offered 3 years of meager funding.

Aside from the glut of PhDs, I think the ultra-competitive system in place creates risk-aversion, so that though the system gets research done cheaply in the short term, in the long term it creates big, expensive problems. It encourages risk aversion - you need research that will produce something  publishable fast and that can readily secure funding, not something that might take five years to bear fruit or that could be ground-breaking but could also just not work out...

I witnessed some very bad practices by a very established professor, who kept accumulating data over many years without particular plan. When data were dropped on a new grad student to interpret, it was found that there are multiple gaps making much of it useless (some important parameters not measured, systematic shifts between different measurement techniques etc).
The best result I have seen include professors who have multiple short-term projects and a couple of related  long-term projects (often getting some data from the short-term ones).

[Kron3007]

But that's where the math doesn't work out. When faced with the math, people start talking about all of those "other" career options, rather than admitting the ramifications of changing the system so that all PhD graduates can have academic (i.e. full-time faculty) jobs. (Especially given that most places only want to hire graduates of high ranking places.)

The main ramification would be that, for a steady-state where all the PhDs get FT TT faculty positions, each professor can only train one PhD in their entire career.

What do you see as a way to optimize that allocation so that it maximized personal fullfillment for the PhDs and economic stability for the schools.

How about doing that, and requiring universities to fund PhD candidates UNTIL THEY HIRE THEM to replace their retiring supervisors? So, when a prof is within a decade or so of retirement, s/he takes on a PhD student who will be their replacement. Since the institution will be on the hook for paying them until they become faculty, it's in their best interests to admit them according to how long it will take and when they will become faculty.

Notice that this also solves the snobbery hypocricy, where places will only hire people who got their PhDs at higher-ranked places.If you wouldn't hire your own graduates, why produce them in the first place?

Supervisors will then, by definiton, all be highly experienced, and if teaching duties of grad students are in the courses that they will be picking up after their supervisor's retirement, then they will be very relevant.

(Given the comments on another thread about how ambivalent humanities faculty seem to be about their own grad students, such as taking months to give feedback, it seems like for many of these this would make their lives easier.)

Some of this discussion implies that academia is homogeneous, when it varies dramatically among fields and even within disciplines.  In my field, there is plenty of PhD level work out there.  Any sort of draconian limit on PhD production would be crazy as we cannot predict how many PhDs the private sector will need.  On that note, most of our research is tied to companies, so in some senses they are already influencing how many students we can afford to train. 

The issue is that there are fields with almost no direct jobs for PhD graduates, others where there are lots, and everything in between.  So, I just dont see how you could regulate output in any reasonable way. 

The better approach is to educate people on their field and let them make an informed decision.  Many will make the wrong choice, but that is theirs to make.

[Caracal]

But that's where the math doesn't work out. When faced with the math, people start talking about all of those "other" career options, rather than admitting the ramifications of changing the system so that all PhD graduates can have academic (i.e. full-time faculty) jobs. (Especially given that most places only want to hire graduates of high ranking places.)

The main ramification would be that, for a steady-state where all the PhDs get FT TT faculty positions, each professor can only train one PhD in their entire career.

What do you see as a way to optimize that allocation so that it maximized personal fullfillment for the PhDs and economic stability for the schools.

One is to literally have each professor, regardless of the school, be limited to one PhD. That has lots of downsides, starting with nobody becoming a practiced mentor.

Another is to have a few designated schools train all the PhDs for everyone. Other schools have no doctoral programs in those fields. The first sentence is where momentum has us going, and pain will be felt by the other schools until second sentence is true.

A third option is that many schools have doctoral programs, but only one or two faculty train PhDs. To control the numbers, the might admit a new PhD candidate only in years when they hire a new TT faculty member.

Those three scenarios are variations that distribute pain and benefit in different ways, but would all solve the oversupply problem. Which seems a better direction to head?

The problem with option one is that a program couldn't be very functional with so few students. It would make for a bad experience, both socially and professionally.

There are schools without great programs overall, who do well in placing people in areas they specialize heavily in. I think you would need more than one or two faculty training phds, but it would make sense for those schools to concentrate in the areas they do well in and not admit students in other areas. I'd go for a combination of that and two if I was dictator. 

[Hibush]

The problem with option one is that a program couldn't be very functional with so few students. It would make for a bad experience, both socially and professionally.

There are schools without great programs overall, who do well in placing people in areas they specialize heavily in. I think you would need more than one or two faculty training phds, but it would make sense for those schools to concentrate in the areas they do well in and not admit students in other areas. I'd go for a combination of that and two if I was dictator.

Thanks for that reflection. I agree on #1. It would be awful and pretty much kill whatever discipline instituted. While the numbers might work, which is roughly Marshwiggle's argument, the intellectual exchange and ability pursue opportunity would wither.

I can see having a faculty where all are teaching, but a specialized subset is producing top PhDs in an area for which they are famous. That provides enough activity to be in the game, but a low overall reproduction rate. It has potential. How much would faculty feel like they had a two-tier system, one tier teaching undergraduates and some graduate students, but not training graduate students?

Socially that seems pretty good also, so many schools are recognized as training excellent PhDs, but in different subfields. There is not so much stratification among schools. Fewer comprehensive schools though. Would Toronto willingly give up epistemology training in order to spread the wealth?

[kaysixteen]

In this country, at least, most academic depts (at least in humanities) do not grant PhDs, many (maybe even most) do not grant MAs.   Therefore, the limited number of schools in disciplines like classics (a field I share with the Inside Higher Ed author Winter (albeit not in the same subfield)) that do grant PhDs, will have to supply all the classics professors for all depts going forward, so it would be silly to assume each grad professor could only have one PhD student per career.   That said, it is wholly reasonable for professional organizations to play hardball with PhD granting depts, restricting or ultimately removing accreditation from those depts that do not have a reasonable record of putting their new grads into tt jobs.

[Caracal]

The problem with option one is that a program couldn't be very functional with so few students. It would make for a bad experience, both socially and professionally.

There are schools without great programs overall, who do well in placing people in areas they specialize heavily in. I think you would need more than one or two faculty training phds, but it would make sense for those schools to concentrate in the areas they do well in and not admit students in other areas. I'd go for a combination of that and two if I was dictator.

Thanks for that reflection. I agree on #1. It would be awful and pretty much kill whatever discipline instituted. While the numbers might work, which is roughly Marshwiggle's argument, the intellectual exchange and ability pursue opportunity would wither.

I can see having a faculty where all are teaching, but a specialized subset is producing top PhDs in an area for which they are famous. That provides enough activity to be in the game, but a low overall reproduction rate. It has potential. How much would faculty feel like they had a two-tier system, one tier teaching undergraduates and some graduate students, but not training graduate students?

Socially that seems pretty good also, so many schools are recognized as training excellent PhDs, but in different subfields. There is not so much stratification among schools. Fewer comprehensive schools though. Would Toronto willingly give up epistemology training in order to spread the wealth?

I think realistically it would be that only the elite departments are producing PHDs across the field and everyone else is specializing. Sometimes you do see this happening informally in faculty hiring strategy. If a school replaces their retiring medievalist with someone who specializes in the Spanish Empire, that person might be able to cover all the same intro undergrad courses, but you are no longer going to have grad students in medieval history.