IHE: "PhD Job Crisis Built Into System"

[dr_codex]

Yes, and to me that means, as a minimum, publishing actual attrition rates and actual percentages of graduates of that specific program who become tenured faculty, percentage who earn a living wage, etc. Statistics like "X% of humanity graduates do Y" are important, but for prospective students they are so broad as to be irrelevant. But how many PhD programs do that? Maybe they don't know those numbers, but do they want to know?

We publish those statistics for our graduate program. We provide percentages for both first job (recent graduates) and current job (older cohort, representative of about 10-years out). For very recent graduates, we list the specific first job they accepted on a different page. We also list median time-to-degree (under 6 years) and completion rate (above 70%). Posting these numbers has been the norm in my field for at least the past twenty years, so students know to look for them when considering different graduate programs.

Every program that I know of publishes this kind of data. It's just like 6-year graduation rates for undergraduate programs, and all the numbers for average salary on graduation. Of course they want to know.

Very, very small programs -- the kind that graduates a student every year or so -- may not post numbers, since they are so obviously individually identified, and because they are statistically meaningless.

I'd love to know why some people think that PhD programs -- especially in the Humanities -- are some kind of long con.

[Mobius]

Now, we don't want to mess around with hopping off tall buildings at a single bound, but getting stuck in a low paid profession that one likes is not the fate worse than death.

Hell, if PhD students are victims, what about everybody else?

Again, there is no problem.

It's more like "three card monte" than a lottery; students are misled into thinking that their cleverness is likely to help them beat the odds, when in reality the game is pretty much rigged so that graduates of the elite institutions get the jobs and others need not apply.

It is complicated, but clever students at lower-ranked places can get an edge for certain types of FT teaching positions at certain schools. Included in that is doing whatever it takes to finish in 4-6 years rather than 7-10.

[spork]

Wages for English instructors are too high, wages for cybersecurity instructors are too low:

https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/confessions-community-college-dean/certain-help-wanted.

[marshwiggle]

I'd love to know why some people think that PhD programs -- especially in the Humanities -- are some kind of long con.

It's like why people think the police are racist; endless accounts gets published on one side of the narrative, while ones on the other side don't. For every published account of someone with a humanities PhD who's happy outside academia there are dozens about people struggling to make ends meet as adjuncts.

So, does the prevalence of reporting accurately describe the reality or not?

[ciao_yall]

Wages for English instructors are too high, wages for cybersecurity instructors are too low:

https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/confessions-community-college-dean/certain-help-wanted.

To consider - people get PhD's in English because they want to teach. People get degrees in nursing and cybersecurity to work in the field. They come into teaching later, if at all.

If you asked everyone with a nursing or cybersecurity degree to teach, you would be flooded with applicants. But not all of them want to teach.

[bio-nonymous]

I know the article was about political science, but this same deal can be translated into biomedical fields where there is a huge oversupply of PhDs and postdocs. If grant funding was not allowed to pay for grad students and postdocs, only training grants, the problem would be solved quickly, in my opinion. This would also create a job market for PhDs good at research but unlikely to make the leap to PI by opening up Research Scientist positions that could be funded by grants. Alas, the systemic structure would never allow for such a reform as the entire house of cards is a Ponzi Scheme of sorts relying on a never ending supply of the cheapest labor possible...

[Wahoo Redux]

I'd love to know why some people think that PhD programs -- especially in the Humanities -- are some kind of long con.

It's like why people think the police are racist; endless accounts gets published on one side of the narrative, while ones on the other side don't. For every published account of someone with a humanities PhD who's happy outside academia there are dozens about people struggling to make ends meet as adjuncts.

So, does the prevalence of reporting accurately describe the reality or not?

You know, Marshy, I think you have asked a version of this leading question (among several others) for several years now, and you never seem satisfied.

The adjunct army is a very complicated entity. 

Some are struggling and frustrated; some are perfectly contented with their lot and even enjoy it.  There are all sorts of factors at play there.

[Ruralguy]

We are getting more people leaving *tenure track* English positions at our college.
Maybe its high teaching load (though we have had the same load for 30 ish years now), maybe its COVID.  Part of it also seems to be generational. I think younger faculty seem to be communicating "look, I like teaching, research and service, but if I can't do it on my own terms, I'll just go do whatever.."  That doesn't mean that they are bad at those things. Most are quite good. I just don't think it defines their being as much as for earlier generations.

[marshwiggle]

I'd love to know why some people think that PhD programs -- especially in the Humanities -- are some kind of long con.

It's like why people think the police are racist; endless accounts gets published on one side of the narrative, while ones on the other side don't. For every published account of someone with a humanities PhD who's happy outside academia there are dozens about people struggling to make ends meet as adjuncts.

So, does the prevalence of reporting accurately describe the reality or not?

You know, Marshy, I think you have asked a version of this leading question (among several others) for several years now, and you never seem satisfied.

The adjunct army is a very complicated entity. 

Some are struggling and frustrated; some are perfectly contented with their lot and even enjoy it.  There are all sorts of factors at play there.

I didn't start this; it was motivated by these:

People learn about risk when they experience risk repeatedly or are warned about it. Word gets around.

Now, we don't want to mess around with hopping off tall buildings at a single bound, but getting stuck in a low paid profession that one likes is not the fate worse than death.

Hell, if PhD students are victims, what about everybody else?

Again, there is no problem.

The number of people graduating from humanities PhD programs is hardly declining https://www.amacad.org/humanities-indicators/higher-education/advanced-degrees-humanities#31621. Maybe, whoever they are, they just like it.

So, if adequate information is available to potential PhD candidates for them to make an informed decision, and yet we hear many stories of graduates who felt misled, then there are two possibilities:

• The "adjunct porn" (i.e. dissatisfied) stories are over-reported; i.e. they represent a smaller number of graduates than it appears.
• The people writing those accounts are mostly made up of people who didn't do the research about career outcomes, or did it but refused to believe it applied to them.

In either case, there should be lots of people who did the research, knew that academic positions were rare, did the PhD anyway, and were happy in their non-academic jobs afterwards.

Where are those stories?

[Mobius]

It's anecdotal, but I've seen two M.A. students from one particular program tweet about trying to find Ph.D. programs in the U.K. They'd still be based in the U.S.

From what I've read, the two seem to be struggling financially and these programs wouldn't be funded. I don't understand the motivation to get an unfunded humanities Ph.D. except for the ego boost to be able to put Dr. in your Twitter handle.

[dr_codex]

In either case, there should be lots of people who did the research, knew that academic positions were rare, did the PhD anyway, and were happy in their non-academic jobs afterwards.

Where are those stories?

They are out there. Google "successful alt-ac" (not in quotes) and you'll get hits like this: https://humwork.uchri.org/blog/2016/04/interviews-career-success-from-uc-davis-part-i/, and a few in lists like this: https://www.bc.edu/bc-web/schools/mcas/departments/history/graduate/resources/alternatives-to-academic-employment.html.

[Durchlässigkeitsbeiwert]

It's anecdotal, but I've seen two M.A. students from one particular program tweet about trying to find Ph.D. programs in the U.K. They'd still be based in the U.S.

From what I've read, the two seem to be struggling financially and these programs wouldn't be funded. I don't understand the motivation to get an unfunded humanities Ph.D. except for the ego boost to be able to put Dr. in your Twitter handle.

I vaguely recall a thread on the previous forum, where poster was asking advice which [unfunded] program to select and didn't appreciate advice by multiple people to look for another career path (or at least to re-apply until fully-funded offer is received).
Personally, I think it has less to do with vanity and more with a tendency by some people to double down on the bad choices instead of admitting mistake and cutting losses.

[apl68]

It's anecdotal, but I've seen two M.A. students from one particular program tweet about trying to find Ph.D. programs in the U.K. They'd still be based in the U.S.

From what I've read, the two seem to be struggling financially and these programs wouldn't be funded. I don't understand the motivation to get an unfunded humanities Ph.D. except for the ego boost to be able to put Dr. in your Twitter handle.

I vaguely recall a thread on the previous forum, where poster was asking advice which [unfunded] program to select and didn't appreciate advice by multiple people to look for another career path (or at least to re-apply until fully-funded offer is received).
Personally, I think it has less to do with vanity and more with a tendency by some people to double down on the bad choices instead of admitting mistake and cutting losses.

Or maybe an extreme extension of the sort of magical thinking by undergrads that is so often reported on the "Head/Desk" thread.

[dismalist]

Given that most PhD students are informed about their prospects, it is not useful to attribute their decision to weird tastes. Even borrowing money to earn a PhD is not necessarily a bad decision.

What I gather from many comments here is that this is a fairly risk averse bunch. There is nothing inherently wrong with that. Just not everybody is the same way. For example, I could contemplate borrowing $30,000 to earn a PhD in Literature or History [I loved most of it in college], but not $100,000. There is also the consumption aspect of the study and the exercise of the subject in any professional setting. Reading and writing History at low wages would sure as hell beat working at a 7/11 for low wages [another thing I am good at].

Thus, one's advice to prospective PhD students in these fields should include information about the risk and the possible consumption returns, and the encouragement to introspect in search of one's own degree of risk aversion. Not much different from offering good financial advice, though reading history is more fun than watching the financial returns [for me]!

People differ.

[marshwiggle]

Thus, one's advice to prospective PhD students in these fields should include information about the risk and the possible consumption returns, and the encouragement to introspect in search of one's own degree of risk aversion. Not much different from offering good financial advice, though reading history is more fun than watching the financial returns [for me]!

People differ.

This is somewhat like the situation in 2008, after people lost homes due to sub-prime mortgages. No doubt they all had it explained to them how their payments would have to rise, especially if their initial payments were below what was required for interest only. However, they still felt ripped off, and there was a lot of sympathy for them even though, in principle, they "understood" what they were getting into.

Do they deserve sympathy or not? And should it have been legal for them to have been offered those loans in the first place?