IHE: "PhD Job Crisis Built Into System"

[dismalist]

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?

That says people are stupid. No. In 2008 lots of stuff was left unexplained, possibly illegally. But many of the eventual losers were just gambling, and they knew it. The garbage that created 2008 came relatively quickly, whereas the humanities PhD job market has evolved this way over years.

Best to be very frugal with sympathy in such [different] situations.

Edited to add: I said good financial advice. Even today, I doubt many advisers suggest one look deep within oneself to find out how much risk one is willing to bear.

[Mobius]

Doesn't say much for grad students if we're comparing them to those with poor credit scores and/or low incomes who took on risky mortgages and car loans.

[dismalist]

Doesn't say much for grad students if we're comparing them to those with poor credit scores and/or low incomes who took on risky mortgages and car loans.

No. There are hardly any surprises in the job market for humanities PhD students. Thus the risk they take on is their informed decision.

[Wahoo Redux]

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].

Reading and writing History at low wages would sure as hell beat working at a [Big Name Corporate Soul-Sucking Black Hole] for high wages [another thing I am good at].

[Parasaurolophus]

I can only speak for the humanities.

The kids are indeed aware of the job market.  They are not clueless as so many seem to think (I suspect it is convenient to believe so).

They want to roll the dice anyway.  There is a kernel of truth to Marshy's post----these neophytes idealize the professor lifestyle----but they are also genuinely motivated by a zeal for their discipline.  I don't know that this is necessarily true for the kids who leave high school and take on a skill or service career.  Most people just want a job they can be successful at, not pursue a passion. 

Our MA program actually brings in money and provides TAs and eventually adjuncts for our classes.

I think it is entirely appropriate for schools to accept and train PhD students who "are genuinely motivated by a zeal for their discipline." independent of the job prospects. If those prospects are bad, the school should accurately  represent the situation. The student should finish their degree without thinking the school made any promises about a subsequent job.

That may be happening most of the time, and those folks pursue something they find interesting. And that we end up getting these repeat IHE columns just  from the ones who didn't get the memo. Maybe they are also the students who never read a syllabus and are surprised at the requirements?

Or are there a lot of Departments of Three Card Monte?

If that's the case, then it should be easy to find all kinds of people who got PhDs, didn't get academic jobs, and are totally fine with it. Anyone have examples of those?

There are loads, including from my own PhD program (whom I won't out here). But if you want a prominent example (with bonus CanCon), there Peter Watts, who has a PhD in marine biology but is now a full-time author (though he did return to academia briefly to complete a postdoc which he hated).

Cathy O'Neill, too (she's a columnist for some Bloomberg publication now, but she left the TT in mathematics at Columbia for finance, and has done a bunch of other stuff since).

[Hibush]

I can only speak for the humanities.

The kids are indeed aware of the job market.  They are not clueless as so many seem to think (I suspect it is convenient to believe so).

They want to roll the dice anyway.  There is a kernel of truth to Marshy's post----these neophytes idealize the professor lifestyle----but they are also genuinely motivated by a zeal for their discipline.  I don't know that this is necessarily true for the kids who leave high school and take on a skill or service career.  Most people just want a job they can be successful at, not pursue a passion. 

Our MA program actually brings in money and provides TAs and eventually adjuncts for our classes.

I think it is entirely appropriate for schools to accept and train PhD students who "are genuinely motivated by a zeal for their discipline." independent of the job prospects. If those prospects are bad, the school should accurately  represent the situation. The student should finish their degree without thinking the school made any promises about a subsequent job.

That may be happening most of the time, and those folks pursue something they find interesting. And that we end up getting these repeat IHE columns just  from the ones who didn't get the memo. Maybe they are also the students who never read a syllabus and are surprised at the requirements?

Or are there a lot of Departments of Three Card Monte?

If that's the case, then it should be easy to find all kinds of people who got PhDs, didn't get academic jobs, and are totally fine with it. Anyone have examples of those?

In my particular program about two thirds of the PhDs don't go for academic jobs because the opportunities in industry are so strong. The program is also proud of the great academic positions the other third end up in. Thus, my direct experience is so different, that I has this question out of genuine desire to understand more.

We do get the occasional student who does not develop a career plan but just enjoys the discovery that is part of PhD work. They may get a degree and have trouble finding related employment. In that case I think it is crucial to dispel any magical thinking about the job prospect so they don't feel misled. Since our PhDs are fully funded, we try to minimize admitting this kind of student, so it is not a common situation.

[Stockmann]

there are many academics and students who aren't dumb, indeed are sometimes very smart, but are irrational. PhDs are mostly an irrational choice, esp. when considering opportunity costs, so most people choosing them are being irrational, even though they might be very intelligent.

Best to be very careful bandying about the word "irrational". If descriptively correct, 'twould mean that PhD students need therapy.

I'm not sure how you define "need therapy" precisely, but given that doing a PhD is in many cases (not limited to the Humanities) financially irrational, it's not much of a stretch to say that many who make that choice are acting irrationally, or based on incomplete or misleading info.
Having too many PhDs in a field is also surely the leading cause of things like the watering down of tenure or faculty involvement in governance - we may not like it, but supply and demand does apply to the academic labor market.

[dismalist]

I'm not sure how you define "need therapy" precisely, but given that doing a PhD is in many cases (not limited to the Humanities) financially irrational, it's not much of a stretch to say that many who make that choice are acting irrationally, or based on incomplete or misleading info.

But they're all allowed to vote.

[mahagonny]

there are many academics and students who aren't dumb, indeed are sometimes very smart, but are irrational. PhDs are mostly an irrational choice, esp. when considering opportunity costs, so most people choosing them are being irrational, even though they might be very intelligent.

Best to be very careful bandying about the word "irrational". If descriptively correct, 'twould mean that PhD students need therapy.

I'm not sure how you define "need therapy" precisely, but given that doing a PhD is in many cases (not limited to the Humanities) financially irrational, it's not much of a stretch to say that many who make that choice are acting irrationally, or based on incomplete or misleading info.
Having too many PhDs in a field is also surely the leading cause of things like the watering down of tenure or faculty involvement in governance - we may not like it, but supply and demand does apply to the academic labor market.

who cares what happens to tenure? not us. any amount of time spent getting a formal education, from minimum, to maximum, is considered the wrong choice.