CHE article: Your Doctorate Does Not Prepare You

[quasihumanist]

No evidence, but...

I expect that, if a humanities PhD had any interest in consulting, they would have tried it after undergrad and before grad school.

Getting an entry level consulting gig is easier and more financially lucrative than getting into a top-level humanities grad program - wouldn't it make more sense to try that first if you thought you might be interested?

(I did tech consulting before grad school.  Would sooner starve to death than do it again.)

[Conjugate]

As a comment on adjunctification, I'd like to point out that the increasing numbers of PhDs being produced is highly suggestive to me of a serious problem.

It seems to me that lots of colleges are closing due to financial pressures, and birthrates continue to decline. (As a side note, I think sometime in 2018 the best estimates showed that the number of grandparents in the world exceeded the number of grandchildren for the first time in forever.) If we continue to produce large numbers of PhDs chasing after diminishing TT positions, there will be little incentive to hire full-time TT faculty when there will be large numbers of increasingly desperate PhDs wrangling for any paying job at all.

Essentially, supply (of PhD-holding potential faculty) will (continue to) exceed demand, and as a result, competent instructors will be a dime a dozen.


With regard to another point made earlier, I must disagree with my respected colleague, Dr. Mer.

Well, perhaps the adjunct problem is much more of the required general education courses being covered by part-time faculty for a pittance instead of either cutting back on general education that doesn't really benefit people forced marched through it or one of the solutions related to having more full-time faculty covering general education requirements.

Speaking as someone who greatly benefited from, and enjoyed, many of the "required general education courses," I see the problem as being less of students not benefiting from them, and more of The System failing to show students where the benefit lies.  For myself, I think students should somehow be brought to really appreciate The Epic of Gilgamesh, the Bhagavad-Gita, Vasari's Lives of the Artists, a good overview of Islam and Buddhism, a basic course in Business, musical notation (if not actually proficiency at an instrument), a basic course in psychology, a fair amount of modern (i.e., 20th century or later) literature, ...

Sorry.  Started getting carried away there.  The point is, students can (should) benefit from any or all of these. The question is, how do we get students to appreciate these things and make them want more? Maybe more full-time faculty are part of the answer, but I don't know. I feel somehow there is something in our society that keeps us from appreciating these ideas as they should be appreciated.

[marshwiggle]

Speaking as someone who greatly benefited from, and enjoyed, many of the "required general education courses," I see the problem as being less of students not benefiting from them, and more of The System failing to show students where the benefit lies.  For myself, I think students should somehow be brought to really appreciate The Epic of Gilgamesh, the Bhagavad-Gita, Vasari's Lives of the Artists, a good overview of Islam and Buddhism, a basic course in Business, musical notation (if not actually proficiency at an instrument), a basic course in psychology, a fair amount of modern (i.e., 20th century or later) literature, ...

Sorry.  Started getting carried away there.  The point is, students can (should) benefit from any or all of these. The question is, how do we get students to appreciate these things and make them want more? Maybe more full-time faculty are part of the answer, but I don't know. I feel somehow there is something in our society that keeps us from appreciating these ideas as they should be appreciated.

You could say the same for physics, statistics, criminology, art history, and so on ad nauseum. (Is there anything for which students wouldn't benefit from an introductory course?) That's a hole with no bottom.

[polly_mer]

The point is, students can (should) benefit from any or all of these.

1) One standalone class is hardly enough to be useful in anything, especially if the class is filled with other people who don't/won't/can't care.

2) Being force marched through some of the most human of the humanities doesn't help people who don't have enough life experience to see the forest for the trees.  Reading classics in my forties is a very, very different experience than when I read them in my teens and twenties because they were on a list of what educated people should read.

3) Being force marched through much of anything is to no benefit for anyone unless merely going through the motions counts.  Thus, physical exercise is likely to benefit even reluctant participants in ways that trying to force thought will not.  The act of being force marched through anything tends to lead us to the situation where people are sure they hate the humanities and the humanities are worthless based on direct personal, unpleasant experience.  More people might discover the value of the humanities if they weren't being force fed them.

[kaysixteen]

It's not necessarily that what polly said is worthless, but several things come to mind.  First, working for no pay is really often just not feasible.  Second, many employers would shy away from hiring a PhD for an entry level slot simply because they'd think he would not accept, or not accept for long, the low wages such a job offers.  Heck, i had a phone interview myself three months ago for a position at a classical Christian school, ajob for which I do have extensive experience, where the guy admitted he almost didn't bother to interview me assuming i would not accept the salary.  It was really low but I would have considered it, largely because I am fairly desperate, but of course i never heard back from the guy.  Indeed, for polly's advice to have any prospect of rational validity, the new PhD probably had better be pretty darn young, more or less for the reasons I articulated above.

[Hibush]

CHE has an article today about Columbia University's English department thinking about the job readiness of their PhD's.

The lousy job market is even affecting the very elite training grounds that have had some insulation. The story makes is sound as if they graduate faculty is taking some productive steps in communication with the grad students.

I was amused by the quote they chose to use from a graduate student. Does this soon-to-finish scholar sound well prepared for the job market?
"I'm not particularly worried about my future place in the academy as I have never expected the university offer any kind of refuge or even knowledge. Sure I hope I get some kind of a job, but I say that with the opinion that all work under capitalism sucks."

I bet that quote gets circulated widely among the anti-intellectuals.

[Kron3007]

I'm in a STEM field with many options outside academia, yet many of the graduate students in my department I have spoken to decide to stop at the MSc.  They feel that the MSc opens as many, or more, doors than a PhD.  I see this reflected in job ads too, where more list an MSc as a requirement and fewer list the PhD.  I have even spoken with one of my industry research partners that said he would never hire a PhD again, providing one example of a door closing for people with a PhD.

I guess the point is that the PhD by nature trains you for very specific jobs.  While there are transferrable skills, these are secondary and would not be a good reason to do a PhD.  You would likely get further ahead by doing other things.  One should really only do a PhD if they are aiming for one of the few jobs that require it, otherwise there are much better ways to prepare.

[polly_mer]

It's not necessarily that what polly said is worthless, but several things come to mind.  First, working for no pay is really often just not feasible.  Second, many employers would shy away from hiring a PhD for an entry level slot simply because they'd think he would not accept, or not accept for long, the low wages such a job offers.  Heck, i had a phone interview myself three months ago for a position at a classical Christian school, ajob for which I do have extensive experience, where the guy admitted he almost didn't bother to interview me assuming i would not accept the salary.  It was really low but I would have considered it, largely because I am fairly desperate, but of course i never heard back from the guy.  Indeed, for polly's advice to have any prospect of rational validity, the new PhD probably had better be pretty darn young, more or less for the reasons I articulated above.

My question then is what do people do for years (decades?) after the PhD if they don't take a bill-paying job somewhere?  Do they starve in the streets?

Realistically, people are doing something.  The question is whether that something builds to a good enough future or whether that something just continues at not quite starving in the streets.  Yes, the earlier one takes a building position instead of a not starving position, the easier that transition will be.

But, people death-marching as adjuncts are already working hard for practically no pay.  Most entry-level positions that require a college degree will be less work for more pay.

[downer]

If many academics read this, he'll be burned at the stake.

As if most academics regularly practice critical thinking in the first place.

I'm becoming less convinced that you can actually teach someone how to think. The spark has to come from within. You can only provide examples and hope they get it. Many academics eat confirmation bias for breakfast, lunch, and dinner.

I teach critical thinking. I think these courses best serve as filters. Those who can think critically learn to give labels to different patterns and issues and they hone their talents. Those who have little initial ability to think critically don't learn much.

I also think it is a bit like learning a new language. You can't do it in a semester. It takes a lot of practice.

[spork]

Columbia University's English PhD program placed zero of its graduates in academic jobs, yet admitted nineteen more doctoral students:

https://www.chronicle.com/article/Columbia-Had-Little-Success/246989?key=HngGmpmDh1Ozp8Ik-2G6XHySqX_eIyntLHDsUToHiM4qbHR66OXJb53JuPx1X6zCRlYtODhZd1FrMnExY2lHb0NQYThWeDMyc1JmSmFhRUowNU5KVHhGMFRWNA

(Paywalled article, but free via Twitter for now.)

From the article:

"On the one hand, Kramnick said, it is vital for departments like Columbia and Yale to think about how the training that's specific to obtaining a Ph.D. in English might provide skills that lend themselves to jobs off the tenure-track, or outside university walls altogether. At the same time, he said, departments need to be honest about how many of those kinds of jobs exist. It might not be many, he said . . .

With that context in mind, Kramnick said, limiting enrollment is a difficult question, but one that Ph.D.-granting departments 'need to think seriously about.'"


Sorry to differ, but it's not that difficult. The academic jobs don't exist anymore. Either admit that the program's purpose is to generate revenue through tuition and the use of grad students as instructors, or close it.

[tuxthepenguin]

Sorry to differ, but it's not that difficult. The academic jobs don't exist anymore. Either admit that the program's purpose is to generate revenue through tuition and the use of grad students as instructors, or close it.

From the article, it looks like the incoming grad students are very much aware of their job prospects. If someone wants an Ivy League PhD, let them have one.

[spork]

Sorry to differ, but it's not that difficult. The academic jobs don't exist anymore. Either admit that the program's purpose is to generate revenue through tuition and the use of grad students as instructors, or close it.

From the article, it looks like the incoming grad students are very much aware of their job prospects. If someone wants an Ivy League PhD, let them have one.

Given the vacuous statements in that article, I doubt the program can offer the kind of training that will realistically improve the chances that its students will obtain non-academic jobs that require a PhD in English.

[pigou]

How many non-academic jobs require a PhD in English? Preparing people for an "alt-ac" career should consist solely of telling them not to get that PhD in the first place. Just not worth forgoing a real income for 6-10 years.

But also: people entering these programs are adults and can make their own decisions. I doubt they're actively being deceived about the chances of obtaining a tenure track position. Whatever reason they have for pursuing a PhD is on them. I suspect a sizable share of people in these programs have parental wealth to fall back on and are doing this as a leisure pursuit -- and why not? Probably a more productive use of privilege than traveling from one beach to another as an Instagram influencer.

[tuxthepenguin]

But also: people entering these programs are adults and can make their own decisions. I doubt they're actively being deceived about the chances of obtaining a tenure track position. Whatever reason they have for pursuing a PhD is on them. I suspect a sizable share of people in these programs have parental wealth to fall back on and are doing this as a leisure pursuit -- and why not? Probably a more productive use of privilege than traveling from one beach to another as an Instagram influencer.

That's my point. It's not just parental wealth (my son has an Ivy League PhD!), it's spousal wealth (there are a lot of rich people in NY, some of whom are married), or people that don't really care about what comes later (they're being funded to teach college classes at an Ivy for a few years, while living in NYC, and that's an experience unlike any they'll ever have again). There's no chance I'd ever go for it, but it doesn't sound like a bad idea for someone interested in that field.

[kaysixteen]

Of course a humanities PhD ought not just keep adjuncting in the likely fruitless expectation of landing a ft academic job, but my point is that such folks are not engineering doctorates who have loads of non academic options.  Really, they don't.  So adjuncting while working grunt survival type jobs, all the while while searching for some sort of permanent professional job is more or less going to be their lot.  It certainly has been for me, even though I also have an MLS and have extensive k12 teaching experience as well.  And every year that goes by gets me further and further from being a 32 year old newbie PhD, as well.