Canadian Report on the Labour Market Transition of PhD Graduates

[Caracal]

This is all true, and a good reason that financial literacy should be a much bigger focus in high school education so that people can make more informed decisions.  Many people see professor salaries and think it looks really good, maybe even think they are over paid, but if you actually look at life time earnings the math looks a little different.  This is especially true when you factor in purchasing a house at a younger age etc.

I got a nice look at this in high school, in a class called "Family Life Education." The teacher did the math for us on fixing and flipping or renting houses rather than going to college. This was a school where the students were choosing among college, and where houses increased in price briskly. Becoming a landlord at 19 and thereby starting a real-estate empire built both equity and cash flow faster that college, and college never caught up. That was eye-opening, but not persuasive to those college bound for other reasons.

Until the bubble burst and you went bankrupt anyway.

[Caracal]

Do you advertise this to incoming students?
"By the end of our program most of you will not be much worse off than a 24 year old without a college degree"

When you put it like that....

Actually a PhD without a job in academia is still in better shape with regard to career prospects than most 24-year-olds without a college degree, IF the PhD has not racked up a great deal of debt in the process (As Marsh notes below).  That admittedly seems like cold consolation when you realize that you're going to have to start looking for a Plan B career.

My point wasn't about who gets its better (though, as others have mentioned, in addition to immediate earning potential one need to consider 7-year opportunity cost).
Something is very wrong if the starting point for comparison is a "24-year-old without a college degree" given that the actual starting point for PhD is more like "24-year-old with a college degree"

It dosnt really matter what the starting point is.  The decision is whether or not you should spend the next X years on something with low pay that will likely not lead to a better job (but there is a chance).  Spending 4 years when you are 20 vs 4 years when you are 24 is still 4 years.

There's a hidden ideology in so much of this and its connected to what seems to me to be an unrealistic and outdated view of how jobs work. I'm not a cheerleader for going to grad school in the humanities, nor am I a starry eyed idealist about scholarship and learning who believes money and financial security shouldn't factor into decisions. However, the basic assumptions many seem to make in these conversations go something like:

1. The primary goal in life should be to maximize income
2. All decisions that don't accomplish that goal are foolish
3. People who choose to do things that may not put them on a path to financial security are obviously hurting society in some way and should be discouraged at every turn.
4. There is some normal 1950s style job path where most people begin careers upon graduating college that put them on some clear path to income maximization.

Ironically enough, since this is an forum for academics, these ideas are being promoted by people who clearly themselves don't actually believe these things in practice. I don't know enough about the academic and non academic job market for STEM fields and I'm sure there's lots of variation (true for humanities too) However, I suspect that getting a PHD is often not a path to income maximization in most fields. In a lot of cases, you probably would do much better to get some sort of masters or professional degree.

[marshwiggle]

It dosnt really matter what the starting point is.  The decision is whether or not you should spend the next X years on something with low pay that will likely not lead to a better job (but there is a chance).  Spending 4 years when you are 20 vs 4 years when you are 24 is still 4 years.

There's a hidden ideology in so much of this and its connected to what seems to me to be an unrealistic and outdated view of how jobs work. I'm not a cheerleader for going to grad school in the humanities, nor am I a starry eyed idealist about scholarship and learning who believes money and financial security shouldn't factor into decisions. However, the basic assumptions many seem to make in these conversations go something like:

1. The primary goal in life should be to maximize income
2. All decisions that don't accomplish that goal are foolish
3. People who choose to do things that may not put them on a path to financial security are obviously hurting society in some way and should be discouraged at every turn.
4. There is some normal 1950s style job path where most people begin careers upon graduating college that put them on some clear path to income maximization.

No-one has hinted at any of those. First of all, non-one has argued that employment is about income maximization; it's about making an income that you are content with.

Ironically enough, since this is an forum for academics, these ideas are being promoted by people who clearly themselves don't actually believe these things in practice. I don't know enough about the academic and non academic job market for STEM fields and I'm sure there's lots of variation (true for humanities too) However, I suspect that getting a PHD is often not a path to income maximization in most fields. In a lot of cases, you probably would do much better to get some sort of masters or professional degree.

The reason this comes up at all is because there are a lot of articles, blogs, etc. about people who are frustrated with their own income and/or career prospects, and they are disproportionately from fields that supposedly claim that they are not doing "job training".

So, the unrealistic expectations about income aren't coming from the STEM and professional graduates, they're coming from the humanities graduates. The supposed "cure" from humanities faculty comes down to things like hiring more full time faculty, making more people take humanities courses, etc. - in other words, catering to the graduates' expectations rather than trying to make them more realistic from the start, (including making many potential grad students rethink the whole idea.)

As a STEM person, if heard the same degree of complaints from STEM graduates, I'd make the same criticisms of STEM programs and faculty.

[Caracal]

some sort of masters or professional degree.

The reason this comes up at all is because there are a lot of articles, blogs, etc. about people who are frustrated with their own income and/or career prospects, and they are disproportionately from fields that supposedly claim that they are not doing "job training".



[/quote]

Seems like somewhat thin anecdotal data to hang the whole discussion on. Look, I think there's a lot that could be changed, but if the starting point for all discussions has to be that sometimes humanities phds write annoying articles in Slate, these conversations aren't really going to go anywhere.

[Hibush]

  there's a lot that could be changed, but if the starting point for all discussions has to be that sometimes humanities phds write annoying articles in Slate, these conversations aren't really going to go anywhere.

Perhaps that can be an end point of a particular tangent, because we know where it is going.  SHPWAAS can be the acronym to signal that we agree that this is something that happens and our repeating the same discussion is unnecessary. 

[mamselle]

Wow.

That would clean up a whole buncha threads quickly.

What are the exact initials for, though? I'm having trouble parsing it...

M.

[Hibush]

Sometimes Humanities Phds Write Annoying Articles in Slate

There could be better alternatives, but that captures the feelng of it pretty well. You could say IHE, but Slate was a good choice.

[Durchlässigkeitsbeiwert]

Seems like somewhat thin anecdotal data to hang the whole discussion on. Look, I think there's a lot that could be changed, but if the starting point for all discussions has to be that sometimes humanities phds write annoying articles in Slate, these conversations aren't really going to go anywhere.

There is a link to the report in the first message.
There are separate threads discussing annoying articles.

[mamselle]

Seems like somewhat thin anecdotal data to hang the whole discussion on. Look, I think there's a lot that could be changed, but if the starting point for all discussions has to be that sometimes humanities phds write annoying articles in Slate, these conversations aren't really going to go anywhere.

There is a link to the report in the first message.
There are separate threads discussing annoying articles.

Yes, and thanks to the rectangular firing squad, all those threads end up looking all the same.

Shortcuts to the "knot-it-up, tie-it-off" point would be nice...

M.

[Stockmann]

I dunno. Is it really much better to be 24 without a college degree when you wash out of the minor leagues than it is to be 31 with a BA and a PHD without a job in academia?

Do you advertise this to incoming students?
"By the end of our program most of you will not be much worse off than a 24 year old without a college degree"

In a related vein, if a program were willing to explicitly state, in writing, on its official webpage, that that PhD doesn't prepare you for any particular job, and it were willing to forego any taxpayer subsidies, then for an "aristocratic" PhD you could say that it's a matter between students and the department and it's about adults making their own choices. But the number of PhD programs that do so is probably exactly zero.

This is all true, and a good reason that financial literacy should be a much bigger focus in high school education so that people can make more informed decisions.  Many people see professor salaries and think it looks really good, maybe even think they are over paid, but if you actually look at life time earnings the math looks a little different.  This is especially true when you factor in purchasing a house at a younger age etc.

I got a nice look at this in high school, in a class called "Family Life Education." The teacher did the math for us on fixing and flipping or renting houses rather than going to college. This was a school where the students were choosing among college, and where houses increased in price briskly. Becoming a landlord at 19 and thereby starting a real-estate empire built both equity and cash flow faster that college, and college never caught up. That was eye-opening, but not persuasive to those college bound for other reasons.

But surely once mortgage interest, taxes, closing costs and maintenance costs are factored in, investing in the US stock market yields more profit in the long run (rather than just in the middle of a housing boom) than investing in real estate. There is also an important hidden cost to buying a home - there is an extra cost to moving, because you must either rent or buy in a new location, unless 100% of your income is from real estate and thus there are no job issues that may cause you to move. This is the single biggest reason why I've not even tried to buy property - I'm not confident of staying put here for 10+ years. Renting while I worked for my previous employer proved wise as I could move away cheaply and easily. I agree schools should do more about financial education, but assuming a boom will last forever (it didn't) isn't a great way to do so. On the other hand, it's not a bad thing counteracting the narrative sometimes pushed by HE and profs that you'll die poor and lonely without a college degree. Weak students would probably better off using that college fund to buy stocks and/or learning a trade.

[Caracal]

In a related vein, if a program were willing to explicitly state, in writing, on its official webpage, that that PhD doesn't prepare you for any particular job, and it were willing to forego any taxpayer subsidies, then for an "aristocratic" PhD you could say that it's a matter between students and the department and it's about adults making their own choices. But the number of PhD programs that do so is probably exactly zero.

Not sure what you mean by taxpayer subsidies. You can't have grad programs in the humanities without covering tuition and giving stipends. There's no way a university, even a private one, can separate that out from some forms of state and federal aid. So, you are basically calling for the end of humanities grad programs.

Look, programs actually have reduced their admissions and PHDs awarded are declining in most humanities disciplines. I think there's a good case to be made that it would be good for those to decline further and for fewer places to have graduate programs. However, that's rather different from arguing that doctoral studies in humanities disciplines have no value to the larger world and should be limited only to the wealthy.

[Stockmann]

In a related vein, if a program were willing to explicitly state, in writing, on its official webpage, that that PhD doesn't prepare you for any particular job, and it were willing to forego any taxpayer subsidies, then for an "aristocratic" PhD you could say that it's a matter between students and the department and it's about adults making their own choices. But the number of PhD programs that do so is probably exactly zero.

Not sure what you mean by taxpayer subsidies. You can't have grad programs in the humanities without covering tuition and giving stipends. There's no way a university, even a private one, can separate that out from some forms of state and federal aid. So, you are basically calling for the end of humanities grad programs.

No, I posted specifically about "aristocratic" degrees, by which I mean ones that aren't in some way preparing people for a career, even if it's not the sole focus. So I'm not including PhD programs that have a good track record of their alumni getting decent jobs, including but not limited to tt jobs.

Look, programs actually have reduced their admissions and PHDs awarded are declining in most humanities disciplines. I think there's a good case to be made that it would be good for those to decline further and for fewer places to have graduate programs. However, that's rather different from arguing that doctoral studies in humanities disciplines have no value to the larger world and should be limited only to the wealthy.

My argument is that "aristocratic" programs (those with no career value) should be limited to the wealthy and those willing to go after being fully, explicitly warned that they have no career value. Humanities PhD programs with good placement track records are not in this category. On the other hand, STEM programs without a good record of their alumni getting decent jobs would count. I do not believe that PhD studies in the humanities have no value.

[Durchlässigkeitsbeiwert]

Somehow related new article in CHE
The Shrinking of the Scholarly Ranks. The pandemic may do lasting damage to the pipeline of academic researchers.
"any program that depends on institutional resources to support students is likely to have downward pressure on class size,"
- is pandemic helping to counter inertia in producing new PhDs?

[Hibush]

Somehow related new article in CHE
The Shrinking of the Scholarly Ranks. The pandemic may do lasting damage to the pipeline of academic researchers.
"any program that depends on institutional resources to support students is likely to have downward pressure on class size,"
- is pandemic helping to counter inertia in producing new PhDs?

Unsurprisingly, the degree to which institutional graduate assistantships were reduced is closely correlated with the degree to which graduate student recruiting was reduced. It is possible that central administration will shrink certain grad programs by reallocating assistantship funds, even if the faculty don't see the need. When revenue is down so much that faculty hiring stops and some are being laid off, faculty complain less when the department loses a few assistantships.

[Parasaurolophus]

In a related vein, if a program were willing to explicitly state, in writing, on its official webpage, that that PhD doesn't prepare you for any particular job, and it were willing to forego any taxpayer subsidies, then for an "aristocratic" PhD you could say that it's a matter between students and the department and it's about adults making their own choices. But the number of PhD programs that do so is probably exactly zero.

Not sure what you mean by taxpayer subsidies. You can't have grad programs in the humanities without covering tuition and giving stipends. There's no way a university, even a private one, can separate that out from some forms of state and federal aid. So, you are basically calling for the end of humanities grad programs.

No, I posted specifically about "aristocratic" degrees, by which I mean ones that aren't in some way preparing people for a career, even if it's not the sole focus. So I'm not including PhD programs that have a good track record of their alumni getting decent jobs, including but not limited to tt jobs.

That's an ill-fitting thing to call them, since usually those are not the degrees offered at elite ("aristocratic") institutions.