Canadian Report on the Labour Market Transition of PhD Graduates

[marshwiggle]

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.

Vanity degrees? Amateur* degrees? Enrichment degrees?

(*From the original meaning "for the love of")

[Kron3007]

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.

Vanity degrees? Amateur* degrees? Enrichment degrees?

(*From the original meaning "for the love of")

It's not that there are no jobs in these fields, just not many.  So it isn't that they don't train you for a career in any way, that is just not the main focus and the prospects are not great.  So, I dont know that I would call them any of these things but also wouldn't consider them a wise choice based on economic outcomes.  I fully respect people's choice to weigh non-monetary factors into their choices, so all we can do is make sure they go into it with their eyes wide open.   

[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.

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

I meant degrees suitable for people who don't need a career,  at least not financially. "Degrees for retirees and the independently wealthy" is too long but more along the lines of what I meant.

I fully respect people's choice to weigh non-monetary factors into their choices, so all we can do is make sure they go into it with their eyes wide open.   

I agree, but part of the problem is too many Professor (and Department) Sparkle Ponys and Bowen Reports and so on painting a grossly misleading picture of the academic job market (the mythical huge wave of retirements just around the corner, for example) and/or grossly overstating the value of the degree in non-academic careers.

[marshwiggle]

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.

I meant degrees suitable for people who don't need a career,  at least not financially. "Degrees for retirees and the independently wealthy" is too long but more along the lines of what I meant.

I fully respect people's choice to weigh non-monetary factors into their choices, so all we can do is make sure they go into it with their eyes wide open.   

I agree, but part of the problem is too many Professor (and Department) Sparkle Ponys and Bowen Reports and so on painting a grossly misleading picture of the academic job market (the mythical huge wave of retirements just around the corner, for example) and/or grossly overstating the value of the degree in non-academic careers.

And there's basically no-one who has a vested interest in opposing that misleading picture. So the voice of reality is only from individuals with no official platform to make them heard.

[Kron3007]

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.

I meant degrees suitable for people who don't need a career,  at least not financially. "Degrees for retirees and the independently wealthy" is too long but more along the lines of what I meant.

I fully respect people's choice to weigh non-monetary factors into their choices, so all we can do is make sure they go into it with their eyes wide open.   

I agree, but part of the problem is too many Professor (and Department) Sparkle Ponys and Bowen Reports and so on painting a grossly misleading picture of the academic job market (the mythical huge wave of retirements just around the corner, for example) and/or grossly overstating the value of the degree in non-academic careers.

And there's basically no-one who has a vested interest in opposing that misleading picture. So the voice of reality is only from individuals with no official platform to make them heard.

Yes, this is all true.  The information is out there for anyone to find, so I guess I have a hard time accepting that it is any sort of surprise to anyone.  That being said, I suppose people who deeply want it to be a wise choice will be easily convinced that it is despite all of the evidence to the contrary.

Regardless, I just don't think top down regulation on numbers of PhDs produced by various universities is the way to address the problem.

[marshwiggle]

I fully respect people's choice to weigh non-monetary factors into their choices, so all we can do is make sure they go into it with their eyes wide open.   

I agree, but part of the problem is too many Professor (and Department) Sparkle Ponys and Bowen Reports and so on painting a grossly misleading picture of the academic job market (the mythical huge wave of retirements just around the corner, for example) and/or grossly overstating the value of the degree in non-academic careers.

And there's basically no-one who has a vested interest in opposing that misleading picture. So the voice of reality is only from individuals with no official platform to make them heard.

Yes, this is all true.  The information is out there for anyone to find, so I guess I have a hard time accepting that it is any sort of surprise to anyone.  That being said, I suppose people who deeply want it to be a wise choice will be easily convinced that it is despite all of the evidence to the contrary.

But if students have one of their respected professors encouraging them to do it, that's going to carry far more weight than any other source of information. Prof. Sparklepony will NOT be deterred by reality.

Regardless, I just don't think top down regulation on numbers of PhDs produced by various universities is the way to address the problem.

Just like no-one has a vested interest in speaking the truth, institutions, departments, and faculty have no real interest in self-limiting, since they get "prestige" from having PhD students, but there is very little direct connection (and therefore no cost) to the post-graduation success (or lack thereof) of those students. When it actually gets brought up with them, they can just resort to blaming "lack of government funding for PSE" without having to justify their unwillingness to adapt.

[Kron3007]

I fully respect people's choice to weigh non-monetary factors into their choices, so all we can do is make sure they go into it with their eyes wide open.   

I agree, but part of the problem is too many Professor (and Department) Sparkle Ponys and Bowen Reports and so on painting a grossly misleading picture of the academic job market (the mythical huge wave of retirements just around the corner, for example) and/or grossly overstating the value of the degree in non-academic careers.

And there's basically no-one who has a vested interest in opposing that misleading picture. So the voice of reality is only from individuals with no official platform to make them heard.

Yes, this is all true.  The information is out there for anyone to find, so I guess I have a hard time accepting that it is any sort of surprise to anyone.  That being said, I suppose people who deeply want it to be a wise choice will be easily convinced that it is despite all of the evidence to the contrary.

But if students have one of their respected professors encouraging them to do it, that's going to carry far more weight than any other source of information. Prof. Sparklepony will NOT be deterred by reality.

Regardless, I just don't think top down regulation on numbers of PhDs produced by various universities is the way to address the problem.

Just like no-one has a vested interest in speaking the truth, institutions, departments, and faculty have no real interest in self-limiting, since they get "prestige" from having PhD students, but there is very little direct connection (and therefore no cost) to the post-graduation success (or lack thereof) of those students. When it actually gets brought up with them, they can just resort to blaming "lack of government funding for PSE" without having to justify their unwillingness to adapt.

I get what you mean, but if a company trying to hire me told me how great they are, I would take it with a grain of salt.  Likewise, if someone is telling you that you should spend the next 4 years as an impoverished graduate student because there is a pot of gold waiting for you, you should do some reading to confirm the situation.  One would think that people entertaining a PhD would have the capacity to do some basic research to make an informed decision. 

As for self-regulation or limiting the numbers that are trained, there are better approaches.  For example, perhaps establishing higher minimum standards (better stipends etc.) would make PhD students more expensive and result in fewer being trained while lessening the down side for the student.  I just dont like the idea of trying to directly regulate the numbers.

 

[Hibush]

As for self-regulation or limiting the numbers that are trained, there are better approaches.  For example, perhaps establishing higher minimum standards (better stipends etc.) would make PhD students more expensive and result in fewer being trained while lessening the down side for the student.  I just dont like the idea of trying to directly regulate the numbers.

And from a different thread,

Alas, people, what you see is the market working. Adjunct compensation is so low because ---- there are so many adjuncts relative to the demand for teaching!

One can of course point to a high rate of production of PhD's in whatever field to explain what's going on, but such people are getting their PhD's and becoming adjuncts voluntarily. And the choices are informed.

The market is working, locally anyway. Departments train as many PhD as they get and can fund. They are responding to demand and resources. Asking them not to is not a realistic expectation.

Pulling assistantships by administration is to make the market work at the department level. The number of grad students has to go down. (While that may seem like a command economy move, administration is probably responding to the market, and may have resisted doing so as a subsidy.)

[Kron3007]

As for self-regulation or limiting the numbers that are trained, there are better approaches.  For example, perhaps establishing higher minimum standards (better stipends etc.) would make PhD students more expensive and result in fewer being trained while lessening the down side for the student.  I just dont like the idea of trying to directly regulate the numbers.

And from a different thread,

Alas, people, what you see is the market working. Adjunct compensation is so low because ---- there are so many adjuncts relative to the demand for teaching!

One can of course point to a high rate of production of PhD's in whatever field to explain what's going on, but such people are getting their PhD's and becoming adjuncts voluntarily. And the choices are informed.

The market is working, locally anyway. Departments train as many PhD as they get and can fund. They are responding to demand and resources. Asking them not to is not a realistic expectation.

Pulling assistantships by administration is to make the market work at the department level. The number of grad students has to go down. (While that may seem like a command economy move, administration is probably responding to the market, and may have resisted doing so as a subsidy.)

As with other aspects of the economy and society as a whole, leaving everything to the market to resolve without regulation is a bad idea.  This is why government imposing standards such as minimum stipends/benefits for students, and wages/benefits for employees (ie adjuncts), is needed.  If you want to discourage overproduction of PhDs across the board, making them more expensive through such regulations and then letting the market respond seems logical.  Likewise for adjuncts.

In my field, this also extends to postdocs who are generally used as cheap skilled labour.  When I was a post doc, I clearly remember seeing job adds for line cooks at my university that were offering a higher salary and better benefits than what I got as a PhD level researcher.  The problem though, is that the whole research world is structured around cheap labour through grad students and postdocs.  Likewise, the teaching side has shifted to relying on cheap labour in the form of adjuncts and TAs.  As a PI, if I try to pay my grad students or postdocs higher salaries the granting agencies will flag this and I will not get the grant.  Likewise, if my department decided to significantly increase standards on our own, it would be hard to get grants approved.  The only way I see that this could change is from the top, with universities, granting agencies, and governments all buying in.  However, this is not free so research would slow or become much more expensive so it is unlikely. 

[Caracal]

As with other aspects of the economy and society as a whole, leaving everything to the market to resolve without regulation is a bad idea.  This is why government imposing standards such as minimum stipends/benefits for students, and wages/benefits for employees (ie adjuncts), is needed.  If you want to discourage overproduction of PhDs across the board, making them more expensive through such regulations and then letting the market respond seems logical.  Likewise for adjuncts.

This is well put. We are talking about institutions which are non-profits. Universities aren't supposed to be trying to maximize their revenue at all costs. Obviously, that doesn't mean they can ignore financial considerations, but they also shouldn't be able to get away with just shrugging their shoulders and saying "supply and demand" while using grad students as cheap labor or deciding to employ large percentages of faculty by course instead of in a permanent capacity.

And agree on regulation. If universities were forced to give benefits to people teaching, stop classifying people as part time who are clearly full time, and pay a more reasonable wage per course, you would incentivize schools to hire people on a full time contract basis, which would be much better for departments, schools and students-not just adjuncts.

[Hibush]

As with other aspects of the economy and society as a whole, leaving everything to the market to resolve without regulation is a bad idea.  This is why government imposing standards such as minimum stipends/benefits for students, and wages/benefits for employees (ie adjuncts), is needed.  If you want to discourage overproduction of PhDs across the board, making them more expensive through such regulations and then letting the market respond seems logical.  Likewise for adjuncts.

This is well put. We are talking about institutions which are non-profits. Universities aren't supposed to be trying to maximize their revenue at all costs. Obviously, that doesn't mean they can ignore financial considerations, but they also shouldn't be able to get away with just shrugging their shoulders and saying "supply and demand" while using grad students as cheap labor or deciding to employ large percentages of faculty by course instead of in a permanent capacity.

And agree on regulation. If universities were forced to give benefits to people teaching, stop classifying people as part time who are clearly full time, and pay a more reasonable wage per course, you would incentivize schools to hire people on a full time contract basis, which would be much better for departments, schools and students-not just adjuncts.

Kron brought up the big pool of low-paid postdocs who are not on a trajectory to get faculty positions. There are a lot of well-paid career jobs in biology and medicine for PhDs, both in industry and academe. Only a minority of those are TT faculty positions. The effectively contingent pool of research worker bees is driven in part by industry pushing schools and governments to produce more PhDs by overestimating their net hiring. They can hire the best of the pool, and the rest go to the permanent-postdoc pool or become techs in industry. The oversupply also keeps the overall wages lower that they'd be otherwise.

[Kron3007]

As with other aspects of the economy and society as a whole, leaving everything to the market to resolve without regulation is a bad idea.  This is why government imposing standards such as minimum stipends/benefits for students, and wages/benefits for employees (ie adjuncts), is needed.  If you want to discourage overproduction of PhDs across the board, making them more expensive through such regulations and then letting the market respond seems logical.  Likewise for adjuncts.

This is well put. We are talking about institutions which are non-profits. Universities aren't supposed to be trying to maximize their revenue at all costs. Obviously, that doesn't mean they can ignore financial considerations, but they also shouldn't be able to get away with just shrugging their shoulders and saying "supply and demand" while using grad students as cheap labor or deciding to employ large percentages of faculty by course instead of in a permanent capacity.

And agree on regulation. If universities were forced to give benefits to people teaching, stop classifying people as part time who are clearly full time, and pay a more reasonable wage per course, you would incentivize schools to hire people on a full time contract basis, which would be much better for departments, schools and students-not just adjuncts.

Kron brought up the big pool of low-paid postdocs who are not on a trajectory to get faculty positions. There are a lot of well-paid career jobs in biology and medicine for PhDs, both in industry and academe. Only a minority of those are TT faculty positions. The effectively contingent pool of research worker bees is driven in part by industry pushing schools and governments to produce more PhDs by overestimating their net hiring. They can hire the best of the pool, and the rest go to the permanent-postdoc pool or become techs in industry. The oversupply also keeps the overall wages lower that they'd be otherwise.

In my field, I dont know that the issue is necessarily that we are producing too many PhDs locally (in fact, interest in PhDs is not that high as noted in this thread).  What I see more often is that these positions are filled with international postdocs who are using them for immigration purposes.  I have met many who gave up decent jobs in their own country to come here.  They likely hope they can land a TT track position (for many this is not going to happen), but even if they dont they are sacrificing for their children.  So, they get a visa and path to immigrate and the university gets cheap skilled labour, which drives down salaries and contributes to brain drain.

On a positive note, our university now only allows recent graduates to be classified as a postdoc.  If you are too far out of your PhD, you would now need to be hired as a research associate, which are paid better wages and benefits.  This is to prevent postdocs from being used as long term cheap labour, but the whole thing still stinks a bit. 

[Hibush]

....they get a visa and path to immigrate and the university gets cheap skilled labour, which drives down salaries and contributes to brain drain.

On a positive note, our university now only allows recent graduates to be classified as a postdoc.  If you are too far out of your PhD, you would now need to be hired as a research associate, which are paid better wages and benefits.  This is to prevent postdocs from being used as long term cheap labour, but the whole thing still stinks a bit.

It is good when universities don't stay complicit in this deal that is good for the bottom line but bad for the long term and for the profession. Limiting postdoctoral associateship to three years, or max five years post-PhD (to avoid sequential postdocs) is good. In the US, The National Institute of Health established a minimum salary (currently start at ~$54K for a new PhD), which is helpful for the many NIH postdocs. Universities can choose to set the same minimum as a policy. That's quite a bit better than $2,500 per course as an adjunct instructor.

Forcing a transition to Research Associate is also good. That usually provides more job security (ours are three-year terms), and a little (5-10%) more money. Justifying the position to HR is usually more work than for a single-year grant-funded postdoc. That reduces the temptation for lab heads to use the slot for cheap and disposable labor.

Overall these good moves reduce the number of working PhDs overall, but exploits fewer.

[Caracal]

....they get a visa and path to immigrate and the university gets cheap skilled labour, which drives down salaries and contributes to brain drain.

On a positive note, our university now only allows recent graduates to be classified as a postdoc.  If you are too far out of your PhD, you would now need to be hired as a research associate, which are paid better wages and benefits.  This is to prevent postdocs from being used as long term cheap labour, but the whole thing still stinks a bit.

It is good when universities don't stay complicit in this deal that is good for the bottom line but bad for the long term and for the profession. Limiting postdoctoral associateship to three years, or max five years post-PhD (to avoid sequential postdocs) is good. In the US, The National Institute of Health established a minimum salary (currently start at ~$54K for a new PhD), which is helpful for the many NIH postdocs. Universities can choose to set the same minimum as a policy. That's quite a bit better than $2,500 per course as an adjunct instructor.

Forcing a transition to Research Associate is also good. That usually provides more job security (ours are three-year terms), and a little (5-10%) more money. Justifying the position to HR is usually more work than for a single-year grant-funded postdoc. That reduces the temptation for lab heads to use the slot for cheap and disposable labor.

Overall these good moves reduce the number of working PhDs overall, but exploits fewer.

Obviously the dynamics are different in the humanities, but the basic issue is pretty similar. Colleges and Universities are supposed to be non profit institutions dedicated to promoting education and knowledge. You shouldn't be able to make those sorts of claims and then get away with pretending that you have no choice but to save as much money as possible on labor, even if that undermines the supposed mission of the institution. That applies to accepting too many grad students into a program, but also to choosing to hire lots of adjuncts rather than create full time positions.

I get frustrated with the way these discussions are so focused on the personal decisions of grad students or adjuncts. Yes, nobody has to work as an adjunct or go to grad school, but that doesn't mean that institutions should just get to save money from the oversupply without any consideration for the impact on students or the profession at large.

[marshwiggle]

I get frustrated with the way these discussions are so focused on the personal decisions of grad students or adjuncts. Yes, nobody has to work as an adjunct or go to grad school, but that doesn't mean that institutions should just get to save money from the oversupply without any consideration for the impact on students or the profession at large.

This is one of those sources of friction between liberals and conservatives. Liberals emphasize sympathizing with people being exploited, while conservatives emphasize helping people avoid becoming victims in the first place. Both have value, and neither one alone will provide the best solution. There should be regulations about how students, employees, etc. can be treated which are reasonable, and people need to be proactive about avoiding or leaving situations that do not meet their needs.