Doctoral programs and mature students?

[niwon88]

To begin, let me state that I was a mature doctoral student. I was the oldest person in my doctoral program at 35 years of age and managed to get my first TT at an RI by age 40. I was open-minded and had back up plans in case academia didn't work out. At some European universities, the admissions page openly states that applicants must be 35 or under.

At my university, we admit doctoral students of various ages, which is wonderful for diversity. My issue is that older doctoral students (late 40s to 50s) enter the program with the intention of securing a TT position and many are having a very hard time in the job market once they graduate.  They are often stuck in adjunct positions. In contrast, a 28 year old doctoral grad recently fielded three TT offers before choosing one back in June of this year.

I feel really awful seeing our older graduates struggle in the job market year after year post graduation. I have been offering support to about four of them who feel disillusioned and said they wished someone would have warned them.

As a doctoral supervisor, I wonder if it should be appropriate to advise them to consider alternative careers but some of my colleagues say that would be perpetuating ageism. Our department Chair thinks we should encourage all doctoral students to pursue academic careers.

In your opinion, what should we advise mature (45+) doctoral students who are expecting to secure tenure-track positions at research intensive institutions?

[ergative]

I'm surprised to hear about the 28-year-old student with three TT offers. I thought that didn't happen any more.

In my opinion, all students should be extensively coached about non-academic career opportunities. TT offers are such unicorns that it's irresponsible to your students not to prepare them for the fact that they probably won't get one. You shouldn't emphasize that its more important for mature students, though. I agree with your colleagues; that does perpetuate ageism. And what's more, it also perpetuates the myth that TT job offers are the goal and the pinnacle, which makes any student--including younger ones--who don't get one feel like failures. In reality, non-academic career paths afford more career flexibility, often more pay, and for many people would be preferable to TT jobs. They should not be presented as plan B. They should be presented as one of the career paths that students may choose to follow.

[apl68]

I wonder whether some of those older doctoral students are people who've burned out (or been unsuccessful) with earlier careers and, knowing little about academia, imagine that being a prof would be a genteel alternative career with a mild workload?  I've heard posters here talking about meeting such people.  You encounter people now and then who imagine the same thing about library work.  Although librarianship can indeed be a viable mid-career shift.

[jerseyjay]

I think this is field specific, but also person-specific.

Here are three examples that I know:

(a) a veteran reporter for a major American newspaper gets laid off thirty years ago when the journalism field was in crisis. Got a tenure-track job teaching journalism at a local teachers' college, only to be told after being hired that he would need a doctorate (in any field) to get tenure. Goes and gets a PhD (not in journalism but something he found interesting) and gets tenure, in his late 40s. I am not sure I would want to be a PhD student, working a full-time job, and having a family, but he did it. [As an aside, a decade ago the journalism field was in such crisis, the school eliminated the journalism program altogether, but since he had tenure and a PhD in another subject, he transferred to the other department and kept teaching.]

(b) a successful lawyer who had decided on law school instead of graduate school 25 years earlier, decides to return to graduate school and gets a job at a local community college teaching poli sci and running the pre-law program.

(c) a mature student (30s) returns to grad school in English literature, has various life and school related stuff happen, and 10 years later still has not finished the PhD and is adjuncting at 3 different schools and barely making ends meet.

(d) a university graduate decides to go to grad school in history and earns his PhD before he is 30. Spends the next 15 years adjuncting, being a visiting professor and working various nonacademic jobs, while continuing to publish. In his mid-40s finally gets a tenure track job, when many of his college classmates have made partners in their law firms, gotten tenure as public school teachers, etc. (For what it is worth, this is me.)

Thus, there are times when being older doesn't hurt, and times when being young will not help you get a job. It is possible that to get a tenure track research-heavy position at age 45 you would have to be a star (or know somebody on the hiring committee)--but this is also true for people 20 years younger.

In your opinion, what should we advise mature (45+) doctoral students who are expecting to secure tenure-track positions at research intensive institutions?

I note that you are not asking what you should advise mature students about entering into a PhD program, you are advising people who are going to already have the PhD.

My answer to your questions is, you should advise all students how the academic market works. This includes, at least in my field (history) the fact that most PhD holders will NOT get tenure track positions at research intensive institutions. Thus you should advise everybody, no matter age, race, religion, sex, immigration status, or subfield, to  have a plan B (non-tenure-track jobs) and plan C (non-research jobs) and plan D (non-academic jobs). Of course all the variables in the list above will have an effect, but even if everybody were the same age, sex, etc., there are just too many PhDs for too few jobs.

[rota1234]

Were there other differences in these candidates and their CVs? Did one have more publications? Is one in a "hotter" field or have a star advisor?
Is this field specific?

The students in my humanities PhD program were of diverse age-ranges, and I would say most were in their 30's with some older and some younger. The newer PhD's I know (in my department and in other universities/departments) who had more pubs and more teaching experience did well on the market (there are other specifics here too like language skills, etc.). I would say, generally and in my experience, that the older candidates were stronger, more focused, and had a better work ethic, and hence were more prepared for opportunities and to hit the ground running.

Certainly I've never heard of a new PhD in my field who had multiple TT offers right away. These days TT offers usually go to someone who has had a postdoc or at least one visiting professorship job. Within that time one can usually land some decent publications and get the required teaching experience to be successful in TT searches.

[Parasaurolophus]

In philosophy, the market is such a crapshoot that I wouldn't draw any conclusions from someone younger getting offers and someone older not. I also think the better measure of success, given the state of the market, is interviews.

That said, I wouldn't be surprised if the older candidate--someone visibly in their late forties or older--fared consistently worse at the interview stage. Ours is a 'genius'field, and geniuses can only be young. (Then again, they can only come out of one or two grad programs, so that rules out everyone from my doctoral program anyway).

On the alt-ac front, the handful of PhD students I've known who were in their fifties or older had already had their alt-ac careers, and been successful. They didn't need the alt-ac coaching, but would have been a fantastic resource for the other, younger, students.

[Katrina Gulliver]

Ageism is real, and it's an issue. Both in and out of academia.

Fair or not, some depts won't want to use a tenure line to hire someone who looks like they'll retire in <10 years.

And the other stepping stones to TT jobs, like postdocs, often carry terms like "junior" scholar which connotes youth in most people's minds. It's unfair but it's a reality, and you're doing your students a disservice if they're not aware of this.

(Ditto to whoever upthread suggested some older grad applicants being people who think being a prof is a cushy/easy gig for their retirement....).

[niwon88]

I'm surprised to hear about the 28-year-old student with three TT offers. I thought that didn't happen any more.

In my opinion, all students should be extensively coached about non-academic career opportunities. TT offers are such unicorns that it's irresponsible to your students not to prepare them for the fact that they probably won't get one. You shouldn't emphasize that its more important for mature students, though. I agree with your colleagues; that does perpetuate ageism. And what's more, it also perpetuates the myth that TT job offers are the goal and the pinnacle, which makes any student--including younger ones--who don't get one feel like failures. In reality, non-academic career paths afford more career flexibility, often more pay, and for many people would be preferable to TT jobs. They should not be presented as plan B. They should be presented as one of the career paths that students may choose to follow.

Yes, the 28-year old was lucky but had a CV with more publications than I have right now. This person was the product of solid mentoring with three superstar scholars on her dissertation committee who helped her find positions.

I agree that alt-ac careers should not be presented as a failure but an equally attractive and sometimes more lucrative option. More programs need to have workshops and events promoting these alternatives.  I will try to organize some webinars on this at my own institution. This would be beneficial for the non-traditional and traditional students.

[adel9216]

To begin, let me state that I was a mature doctoral student. I was the oldest person in my doctoral program at 35 years of age and managed to get my first TT at an RI by age 40. I was open-minded and had back up plans in case academia didn't work out. At some European universities, the admissions page openly states that applicants must be 35 or under.

At my university, we admit doctoral students of various ages, which is wonderful for diversity. My issue is that older doctoral students (late 40s to 50s) enter the program with the intention of securing a TT position and many are having a very hard time in the job market once they graduate.  They are often stuck in adjunct positions. In contrast, a 28 year old doctoral grad recently fielded three TT offers before choosing one back in June of this year.

I feel really awful seeing our older graduates struggle in the job market year after year post graduation. I have been offering support to about four of them who feel disillusioned and said they wished someone would have warned them.

As a doctoral supervisor, I wonder if it should be appropriate to advise them to consider alternative careers but some of my colleagues say that would be perpetuating ageism. Our department Chair thinks we should encourage all doctoral students to pursue academic careers.

In your opinion, what should we advise mature (45+) doctoral students who are expecting to secure tenure-track positions at research intensive institutions?

Why not promote alternative careers to all students to widen their options?

[Ruralguy]

For the most part, I wouldn't treat the search process for older Ph. D. grads any differently other than responding to their concerns, which could tend to be different. I wouldn't focus on prejudice in the search, since I really don't have that good of a hold on how much it exists now and whether its worse or better.

[niwon88]

My answer to your questions is, you should advise all students how the academic market works. This includes, at least in my field (history) the fact that most PhD holders will NOT get tenure track positions at research intensive institutions. Thus you should advise everybody, no matter age, race, religion, sex, immigration status, or subfield, to  have a plan B (non-tenure-track jobs) and plan C (non-research jobs) and plan D (non-academic jobs). Of course all the variables in the list above will have an effect, but even if everybody were the same age, sex, etc., there are just too many PhDs for too few jobs.

Thank you jerseyjay for sharing your own example. The key thing was that you kept publishing while adjuncting. That's difficult to do but critical if you aspire to TT jobs.  I attended a doctoral program where they held many graduate student oriented events to inform us about the job market. My present employer doesn't seem to do that, so I would like to see more programming geared to preparing for Plan B, C, and D. I did my research prior to entering academia (thanks Karen Kelsky and the original Chronicle fora).  I have found that very few doctoral students research the job market. I strongly suspect that the university has a vested interest in keeping them unaware so that they can maintain enrollment, don't you think? The market has been oversaturated with PhD grads for decades now and somebody is profiting from this.

[jerseyjay]

Ageism is real, and it's an issue. Both in and out of academia.

Yes, ageism is real. As are sexism and racism. Anybody who is older, a woman, black, etc., going for an academic job (really, any job), should be aware of this. I mean "should" in both senses: it is something that would be important for them to know, and it is something that they probably already do know.

The problem is, there is a fine line between saying, as an advisor, "Academia is often ageist" and saying, "Because academia is often ageist, people over 40 shouldn't try to get a job." If you start advising older people (or women, or black people, etc.) to "consider alternative careers" but you do not tell this to younger, white, male, etc, students, you are in effect acting as a gatekeeper.

If you have particular knowledge (because you looked for a job when you were older) you may have  useful advice to offer. Or if you had student(s) who found a tenure track job after 40, you might put them in contact.

But other than that, without denying the reality of ageism, much of the advice would seem to be general: be flexible in looking for "alternative" (including non-research academic) jobs, publish as much as possible, etc.

[Wahoo Redux]

In your opinion, what should we advise mature (45+) doctoral students who are expecting to secure tenure-track positions at research intensive institutions?

Thus you should advise everybody, no matter age, race, religion, sex, immigration status, or subfield, to  have a plan B (non-tenure-track jobs) and plan C (non-research jobs) and plan D (non-academic jobs). Of course all the variables in the list above will have an effect, but even if everybody were the same age, sex, etc., there are just too many PhDs for too few jobs.

I was 32 when I started grad school.  I had done well enough in the corporate world to pay the rent and get a divorce.  I took a part-time job as editor and writer for my grad-university's PR department, which I used to get a PT PR job at my (new and much improved) wife's first tenure uni where I also taught PT.  They offered me a FT gig as a writer (they actually wanted a PhD on staff) but I turned them down to run the school's writing center.  I've often wondered if I made a mistake...

Point being, I accidently set myself up for a Plan B just because I had something that sounded like an interesting sidelight.  However, I can't think of anything else that would have been a Plan B or even a Plan C with English (except maybe public high school teaching---yech!) that was so convenient or doable.  The PhD took all my time and I probably would have been a much better student had I not done the PR thing.  Like being a rock'n'roller or a Hollywood actor, the doctorate is a FT job and I just don't see how anyone can do plans B, C, D or whatever unless you are in one of those fields with a corporate escape hatch.

I should note that when we got to our current (new and improved) uni I contacted the PR department and asked if I could do some writing for them, and they politely told me they had plenty on board.  I think my Plan B has probably already withered and died.

And, on second edit, while I have had a number of articles published in magazines and a local newspaper, journalism is like most professions and will employ one PT but FT gigs are hard to find.  These FT gigs generally go to professional journalists, not amateurs like me.  Again, Plan C is not really doable unless I quit being an academic and roll the dice in another, equally unlikely direction.

[quasihumanist]

Like being a rock'n'roller or a Hollywood actor, the doctorate is a FT job and I just don't see how anyone can do plans B, C, D or whatever unless you are in one of those fields with a corporate escape hatch.

I don't really see the point in advising students about Plan B, because if they wanted to do that and could, they'd be doing it already.

I just tell our students that doing a PhD (especially at our bottom-ranked department) is a bad career choice and they should expect to be unable to get a job that uses their degree.  I'm actually more comfortable with telling more mature students about this; usually they either had a previous career that is their Plan B, or they were so poor that a graduate student stipend is actually more stability than they've previously had.  (My last advisee was a serial CC adjunct with a MA before our program, so he was a bit of both.)  In either case, they're better equipped to handle reality than the folks fresh out of undergrad.

[jerseyjay]

Plan A: Get a tenure-track job at a research university, turn your dissertation into a few articles and a book, get tenure, write another book, and get promoted to full.

Plan B: Get a tenure-track position at a community college, a SLAC, or a non-research-oriented school. Teach a 4:4 load, publish some, do a lot of service, and get tenure.

Plan C: Get a job as a non-tenure-track lecturer teaching a bunch of classes, maybe publishing a bit. Repeat every 2 to 5 years.

All of the above are perfectly respectable academic jobs. Measured by the yardstick of plan A, plans B and C seem like failures. However, I would say that, at least in the humanities, the majority of PhDs who get academic jobs get B or C, not A.

Then there are the non-academic options:
Plan D. Get a job in publishing, or community service, or something that is somewhat related to academia but not academia.

Plan E: Get a job doing something that is totally unrelated to your graduate studies.

Note: this is the humanities edition. No doubt for the sciences the options are different.

I agree that going into a PhD program is a bad career move for most people. And I think anybody who goes into a humanities PhD program with the goal of getting some type of job other than academia is probably wasting time and resources.

However, even if a student would prefer a traditional research tenure-track position, it is important to recognize that there are other jobs that a PhD prepares one for. For example, if a history PhD is so fixated on a job at a R1, that they overlook SLAC, CC, and other types of schools, that would seem to be a mistake. Such people usually end up one of four ways: 1) a few get t-t research jobs; 2) some realize that there are other options; 3) some drop out of academia altogether; 4) some end up as adjuncts forever.