Doctoral programs and mature students?

[kaysixteen]

K12 schools, esp fancy private ones, certainly would want a PhD scientist.   PhD humanists, otoh, are seen as overeducated and unable to relate to the students.   it is also true that they are likely to be substantially more educated than the headmaster/ principal, who mostly do not want to have such people under them.

[jerseyjay]

kaysixteen obviously has more experience in the private school world than I do. In the early 2000s, after I had earned my PhD in history but had despaired of ever finding a tenure track job, teaching history in a private high school was one of the career options I explored. (My metropolitan area is thick with private schools.)

I got several interviews, and even talked to a consultant who specialized in getting PhDs private school jobs. I am not sure whether I experienced any anti-PhD bias, but my impression was that, on the one hand, there was more competition for fewer humanities positions than STEM positions and just having a PhD was not seen as automatic qualification for a job. There were too many unemployed PhDs in history and English to make having a PhD that special, there were many PhDs who were just burnt out failed academics and not good teachers, and there were many very qualified teachers who did not have a PhD. So schools were looking for something besides a PhD--usually some experience teaching small classes, a background in a private school, etc. In other words, a PhD plus something else would be good, but just a PhD in itself was not seen as having that much value.

STEM PhDs, on the other hand, are rarer. Perhaps because for many PhDs in physics or maths, an alternative career meant going into finance and making oodles of money, so those who wanted to go into private school teaching really wanted to go into private school teaching and were not just failed academics.

For the public schools, the main problem was that a teaching license was necessary, and most PhDs did not have this. And for those who did, the starting salary was so high (something like $80,000) for somebody with a PhD, that most principals would not hire a new PhD. (The idea, I think, had been that already employed teachers would earn a PhD to augment their salary, not that PhDs would become public school teachers.)

[mamselle]

Part of the private-school teaching barricade is not your degrees but your economic status (they check your credit rating), your educational (H.S/prep school) pedigrees, and how able Carney-Sandoe are to fill that position from within their own pre-vetted ranks.

Also, who on the board in that school has a nephew or niece on hand to take the job.

I applied to a few, and spoke to someone at my church who was a headmaster at one. He explained the Realpolitik of the situation, and encouraged me to look to strong public high schools, instead.

M.

[Caracal]

K12 schools, esp fancy private ones, certainly would want a PhD scientist.   PhD humanists, otoh, are seen as overeducated and unable to relate to the students.   it is also true that they are likely to be substantially more educated than the headmaster/ principal, who mostly do not want to have such people under them.

Maybe, but I would assume the low number reflects the preferences of people who get Phds more than the biases of administrators. For people interested in going into a graduate program in the humanities, teaching is a pretty obvious potential alternative. Several of my close friends from undergrad who were humanities majors became teachers and it was something that was on my radar. I didn't do it because it didn't appeal.

It still doesn't. Compared to my current adjunct position, it would only be a marginal salary increase-one that would increase a bit over time, but not that much. In return for that, I would get more of what I don't like about my job now (more grading, more punishing teaching schedule, having to deal with disciplinary issues) and less of what I enjoy (schedule flexibility on non teaching days, autonomy in my classes)

I'm not knocking k-12 teaching, and I do know some people who got Phds and are now teachers, but I think the benefit/loss calculation is pretty similar for a lot of people.

[apl68]

kaysixteen obviously has more experience in the private school world than I do. In the early 2000s, after I had earned my PhD in history but had despaired of ever finding a tenure track job, teaching history in a private high school was one of the career options I explored. (My metropolitan area is thick with private schools.)

I got several interviews, and even talked to a consultant who specialized in getting PhDs private school jobs. I am not sure whether I experienced any anti-PhD bias, but my impression was that, on the one hand, there was more competition for fewer humanities positions than STEM positions and just having a PhD was not seen as automatic qualification for a job. There were too many unemployed PhDs in history and English to make having a PhD that special, there were many PhDs who were just burnt out failed academics and not good teachers, and there were many very qualified teachers who did not have a PhD. So schools were looking for something besides a PhD--usually some experience teaching small classes, a background in a private school, etc. In other words, a PhD plus something else would be good, but just a PhD in itself was not seen as having that much value.

STEM PhDs, on the other hand, are rarer. Perhaps because for many PhDs in physics or maths, an alternative career meant going into finance and making oodles of money, so those who wanted to go into private school teaching really wanted to go into private school teaching and were not just failed academics.

For the public schools, the main problem was that a teaching license was necessary, and most PhDs did not have this. And for those who did, the starting salary was so high (something like $80,000) for somebody with a PhD, that most principals would not hire a new PhD. (The idea, I think, had been that already employed teachers would earn a PhD to augment their salary, not that PhDs would become public school teachers.)

Not surprising to hear that K-12 schools sometimes see down-on-their-luck failed academics who regard the job they're applying to as a devastating come-down from what they had hoped for.  That lack of enthusiasm would certainly come through to those making the hiring decisions, who would treat it as a major red flag.  STEM PhDs can always find something else.  So can humanities PhDs, but they may have to find a way to start thinking outside the box of teaching.

I didn't know that there were districts or states that paid a premium for PhDs at the K-12 level.  I knew that this could be the case for MAs.  My mother spent several summers earning an MA in English back when she taught K-12.  It never did her any good there, but when she moved to teaching at the college level the fact that she had proven MA-level skills meant that they were ready to hire her on condition that she spend additional summers getting a second MA in Spanish. 

Unless a public school district had more money to burn than any district I've ever seen, I can't imagine why they'd pay a serious premium to hire a teacher who had a PhD, even if it was somebody who had worked up from within.  I guess it's because some of them have some rule that you have to have your Ed degree to be a senior administrator.  In which case any rules about paying PhDs a premium would be an obvious deterrent to hiring a PhD off the street who was looking at K-12 as an alternative career and wasn't administrative material.

[Puget]

Random questions:

1) does anyone know roughly how many American MDs of working age who are not currently practicing some form of medicine?  JDs?

I think that depends on how broadly you define "practicing some form of"-- there are plenty of MDs who don't treat patients, but rather work in research, health policy, hospital administration, etc. There are plenty of JDs who are not practicing lawyers and may never have intended to be, but rather got the degree because it was useful for business, public policy, or political positions (e.g., some large percentage of higher-level political staffers probably have JDs-- sort of important to know the laws if you are helping to make the laws).

[Ruralguy]

I have a close relative with MD who hasn't seen a patient in 20 years, but has been managing research for various drug companies. I would call that related. if he now switches into managing a hedge fund, then no.

[Caracal]

Random questions:

1) does anyone know roughly how many American MDs of working age who are not currently practicing some form of medicine?  JDs?

I think that depends on how broadly you define "practicing some form of"-- there are plenty of MDs who don't treat patients, but rather work in research, health policy, hospital administration, etc. There are plenty of JDs who are not practicing lawyers and may never have intended to be, but rather got the degree because it was useful for business, public policy, or political positions (e.g., some large percentage of higher-level political staffers probably have JDs-- sort of important to know the laws if you are helping to make the laws).

I think its also fairly common for people who do practice law to move to related careers they have acquired expertise in. Someone who gets hired as an in house counsel for a company can end up moving into a management role at the company, for example. I know people who practiced business law and ended up going into real estate development.

[kaysixteen]

Following up:

1) Many k12 admins, esp outside the realm of the elite prep school world, do not realize how competitive getting any sort of tt or even steady non-tt academic work is, esp in humanities.   Thus, it would be easy enough to see such a PhD applying for a k12 post at their school as a 'failed academic', even though, most people who are actually able to get a PhD are substantially more advanced in their field studies/ knowledge, than the average BA, and would likely be as good a teacher, at minimum, as such BAs.   Except

2) Many admins would perceive the PhD as 'too academic', 'too intense', too _____________'  for the hs kids, and/or their parents.  I have actually been told this by several such admins over the years, who interviewed me and rejected me, and, since most admins will not give any feedback, I suspect that the few who have told me this are but a small percentage of those who felt like this, and I cannot do much about it.

3) Mamselle's contact is absolutely right about the old-boy network in prepschool land, and a corresponding type of old-boy network also exists in many small town ps districts.  There is little that could be done about this, if one is not in the network.

[mleok]

K12 schools, esp fancy private ones, certainly would want a PhD scientist.   PhD humanists, otoh, are seen as overeducated and unable to relate to the students.   it is also true that they are likely to be substantially more educated than the headmaster/ principal, who mostly do not want to have such people under them.

It's also a question of supply and demand, very few STEM PhDs would seek out employment in K-12, as there are so many other alternative career options available to them.

[Wahoo Redux]

K12 schools, esp fancy private ones, certainly would want a PhD scientist.   PhD humanists, otoh, are seen as overeducated and unable to relate to the students.   it is also true that they are likely to be substantially more educated than the headmaster/ principal, who mostly do not want to have such people under them.

It's also a question of supply and demand, very few STEM PhDs would seek out employment in K-12, as there are so many other alternative career options available to them.

Must be nice.

[mleok]

K12 schools, esp fancy private ones, certainly would want a PhD scientist.   PhD humanists, otoh, are seen as overeducated and unable to relate to the students.   it is also true that they are likely to be substantially more educated than the headmaster/ principal, who mostly do not want to have such people under them.

It's also a question of supply and demand, very few STEM PhDs would seek out employment in K-12, as there are so many other alternative career options available to them.

Must be nice.

My most recent PhD student had a $250K/year job offer in the Bay area to work on autonomous vehicles. That's more than what I make, even with maxed out summer salary.

[spork]

K12 schools, esp fancy private ones, certainly would want a PhD scientist.   PhD humanists, otoh, are seen as overeducated and unable to relate to the students.   it is also true that they are likely to be substantially more educated than the headmaster/ principal, who mostly do not want to have such people under them.

It's also a question of supply and demand, very few STEM PhDs would seek out employment in K-12, as there are so many other alternative career options available to them.

The teachers at the elite private K-12 schools in my area have bachelor's degrees from elite colleges and M.A.T.s from wherever. Any consultant or disciplinary association that pitches K-12 teaching as an alt-ac career path for PhDs is willfully ignorant about the opportunity cost of a PhD.   

[jerseyjay]

Any consultant or disciplinary association that pitches K-12 teaching as an alt-ac career path for PhDs is willfully ignorant about the opportunity cost of a PhD.   

This is my problem with the concept of "alt-ac" careers. People who earn PhDs in history (say) should be encouraged to think about  non-standard careers, broadly defined (k12 teaching, consulting, library jobs, flower arrangement) because most PhDs in history are not going to get tenure-track jobs. Mentoring your program's graduates (of any age) to only look for traditional tenure-track positions at research universities is negligent. So history departments and disciplinary associations should provide resources to look for "alt-ac" jobs.

However, there are very few jobs that getting a PhD in history is a necessity, besides being an academic (broadly defined). At one point I had one of the few examples (in a distant corner of the publishing industry). So even if a program can place 80 per cent of its PhDs in good alt-ac jobs, it is hard to make the case that getting a PhD in history was a good career path. In most cases, the PhD was a diversion on the career path.

I tell my BA students that history is a good degree because history students go on to get many different types of jobs in business, government, non-profits, etc. But this is an undergraduate degree. Treating a PhD like it is a BA--"it teaches you how to think critically, how to write, how to make arguments"--ignores the fact that getting a PhD is not necessary to obtain these skills.

"Alt-ac" makes sense to help those students who have already earned PhDs, but if used as an excuse to take in more PhD students, it is just as negligent as pretending they are going to get tenure-track jobs.

it would be easy enough to see such a PhD applying for a k12 post at their school as a 'failed academic', even though, most people who are actually able to get a PhD are substantially more advanced in their field studies/ knowledge, than the average BA, and would likely be as good a teacher, at minimum, as such BAs.

If the goal of a PhD in history is to become a professor, and most PhDs cannot get jobs as professors, then PhDs who are unable to get such academic jobs are failed academics. Of course, there should be a place for people who, en route to getting a PhD, decide they don't want to become a professor. But most history PhDs I know who look for other jobs are doing so because they cannot get a job as a history professor or have decided they don't want to try to get a job as a professor given the job market.

People who get a PhD in history are obviously very knowledgable about history. Many, however, are poor university teachers, much less high school teachers. For most history PhDs, teaching is something that is secondary to research. I would not rule out a PhD being a good classroom teacher out of hand, but I don't think that being a PhD makes one a good teacher. One reason that some schools might not be enthusiastic about PhDs is that some have a tendency to see teaching as a field that requires its own skills beyond just knowing the subject material.

[research_prof]

K12 schools, esp fancy private ones, certainly would want a PhD scientist.   PhD humanists, otoh, are seen as overeducated and unable to relate to the students.   it is also true that they are likely to be substantially more educated than the headmaster/ principal, who mostly do not want to have such people under them.

It's also a question of supply and demand, very few STEM PhDs would seek out employment in K-12, as there are so many other alternative career options available to them.

Must be nice.

My most recent PhD student had a $250K/year job offer in the Bay area to work on autonomous vehicles. That's more than what I make, even with maxed out summer salary.

That's a typical salary for fresh PhD graduates in my field too. Some of them can make $300K+ depending on how well they do with their interviews.