graduatingPhD

The most important question, I think, you should be asking yourself in this season of acceptances is if you should go to grad school at all.  If you are in the humanities or certain fields of the social sciences, the job market is very bleak.  It may well be better when you graduate, but it may well not be.  There are troubling trends like MOOCs that, many people think, will  restructure much of education in a way that will reduce the number of tenure track hires.
 
How bad is the job market currently?  According to Harvard, as of the fall of 2012, only 52% of those who got a Harvard PhD in the humanities from 2006-2011 had an academic job.  (And it looks like, based on some other data they report elsewhere, that about 1/3 of those are in non-tenure-track positions.)  23% were "unemployed and searching."  And due to self selection bias in reporting, this data probably underestimates the number of unployed.  http://history.fas.harvard.edu/programs/graduate/program/documents/five-year-cumulative-all-fields-2006-2011.pdf. 
 
Because the job market, many people in the humanities, for instance, spend several years after graduating twisting in the wind with low-paid, time-consuming, and short-term lectureships and visiting assistant professorsips before either get a tt job or quitting academia.  If you are really committed to an academic career, you may well be signing up for a PhD + several years of uncertainty and scrapping by after that.
 
Of course not all fields and subfields are made the same.  Some of your fields will have excellent job prospects; others, terrible.  It behooves you to research the matter and think about the kind of bet your are making.  You are giving up 5-8 years of pay, and more importantly, 5-8 years in which you could be launching a different career.  When you graduate at age 30 with a PhD, you will have opened a few doors (for instance, you are an attractive hire for a private high school), but shut many more.
 
I am not saying you should not go.  That is a decision to make yourself.  Personally, I have found getting a PhD immensley rewarding.  But it has also come at a great cost. 

This is a modified version of a post I made under the forum "decisions, decisions." 
 
The most important question, I think, you should be asking yourself in this season of acceptances is not which program you should go to, but if you should go to grad school at all.  The history job market is very bleak.  It may well be better when you graduate, but it may well not be.  There are troubling trends like MOOCs that, many people think, will  restructure much of education in a way that will reduce the number of tenure track hires.
 
How bad is the job market currently?  According to Harvard, as of the fall of 2012, only 52% of Harvard PhDs who got their PhD in the humanities from 2006-2011 had an academic job.  (And it looks like, based on some other data they report elsewhere, that about 1/3 of those are in non-tenure-track positions.)  23% were "unemployed and searching."  (Due to self selection bias in reporting, this data probably underestimates the number of unemployed.) [1] And those numbers are those of one of the most prestigious grad schools in the nation.  Here is what Chicago history's numbers look like: https://history.uchicago.edu/sites/history.uchicago.edu/files/uploads/Placement%20Statistics%202002-2011.pdf
 
Many people in history from elite programs, for instance, spend several years after graduating twisting in the wind with low-paid, time-consuming, and short-term lectureships and visiting assistant professorsips before either get a tt job or quitting academia.  If you are really committed to an academic career, you may well be signing up for a PhD + several years of uncertainty and scrapping by after that.  While it is hard to get accurate numbers,  it looks like only 33% of Yale's history cohort of 2012-2013 got a tt-job.
 
Of course not all subfields within history are made the same.  Some of your fields have excellent job prospects; others, terrible.  20C US and Europe after 1789 appear to be the worst.
 
It behooves you to research the matter and think about the kind of bet your are making.  You are giving up 5-8 years of pay, and more importantly, 5-8 years in which you could be launching a different career.  When you graduate at age 30 with a PhD, you will have opened a few doors (for instance, you are an attractive hire for a private high school), but shut many more.
 
I am not saying you should not go.  Personally, I have found getting a PhD immensley rewarding.  But it has also come at a great cost.
 
[1]http://history.fas.h...s-2006-2011.pdf.

The most important question, I think, you should be asking yourself in this season of acceptances is if you should go to grad school at all.  If you are in the humanities or certain fields of the social sciences, the job market is very bleak.  It may well be better when you graduate, but it may well not be.  There are troubling trends like MOOCs that, many people think, will  restructure much of education in a way that will reduce the number of tenure track hires.
 
How bad is the job market currently?  According to Harvard, as of the fall of 2012, only 52% of those who got a Harvard PhD in the humanities from 2006-2011 had an academic job.  (And it looks like, based on some other data they report elsewhere, that about 1/3 of those are in non-tenure-track positions.)  23% were "unemployed and searching."  And due to self selection bias in reporting, this data probably underestimates the number of unployed.  http://history.fas.harvard.edu/programs/graduate/program/documents/five-year-cumulative-all-fields-2006-2011.pdf. 
 
Because the job market, many people in the humanities, for instance, spend several years after graduating twisting in the wind with low-paid, time-consuming, and short-term lectureships and visiting assistant professorsips before either get a tt job or quitting academia.  If you are really committed to an academic career, you may well be signing up for a PhD + several years of uncertainty and scrapping by after that.
 
Of course not all fields and subfields are made the same.  Some of your fields will have excellent job prospects; others, terrible.  It behooves you to research the matter and think about the kind of bet your are making.  You are giving up 5-8 years of pay, and more importantly, 5-8 years in which you could be launching a different career.  When you graduate at age 30 with a PhD, you will have opened a few doors (for instance, you are an attractive hire for a private high school), but shut many more.
 
I am not saying you should not go.  That is a decision to make yourself.  Personally, I have found getting a PhD immensley rewarding.  But it has also come at a great cost. 

The most important question, I think, you should be asking yourself in this season of acceptances is if you should go to grad school at all.  If you are in the humanities or certain fields of the social sciences, the job market is very bleak.  It may well be better when you graduate, but it may well not be.  There are troubling trends like MOOCs that, many people think, will  restructure much of education in a way that will reduce the number of tenure track hires.
 
How bad is the job market currently?  According to Harvard, as of the fall of 2012, only 52% of those who got a Harvard PhD in the humanities from 2006-2011 had an academic job.  (And it looks like, based on some other data they report elsewhere, that about 1/3 of those are in non-tenure-track positions.)  23% were "unemployed and searching."  And due to self selection bias in reporting, this data probably underestimates the number of unployed.  http://history.fas.harvard.edu/programs/graduate/program/documents/five-year-cumulative-all-fields-2006-2011.pdf. 
 
Because the job market, many people in the humanities, for instance, spend several years after graduating twisting in the wind with low-paid, time-consuming, and short-term lectureships and visiting assistant professorsips before either get a tt job or quitting academia.  If you are really committed to an academic career, you may well be signing up for a PhD + several years of uncertainty and scrapping by after that.
 
Of course not all fields and subfields are made the same.  Some of your fields will have excellent job prospects; others, terrible.  It behooves you to research the matter and think about the kind of bet your are making.  You are giving up 5-8 years of pay, and more importantly, 5-8 years in which you could be launching a different career.  When you graduate at age 30 with a PhD, you will have opened a few doors (for instance, you are an attractive hire for a private high school), but shut many more.
 
I am not saying you should not go.  That is a decision to make yourself.  Personally, I have found getting a PhD immensley rewarding.  But it has also come at a great cost. 

Applying to a PhD program is not making a decision to go.  I know several people who have gotten into programs and have decided not to go into them. 
 
The suggestion that I should have either warned people in Novemember or not at all is, I think, a bizarre one.  Yes, it would be excellent to warn people then rather than now.  But that doesn't mean it is wrong to warn people now--which is when, after all, the idea occurred to me.  Furthermore, some people are going to be better informed than others -- someone who has 459 posts on here, for instance, hopefully already knows what they are getting into.  More casual readers, or those brought here just for acceptance season may not.  (Look at how few people comment vs those who click on a post.)
 
I certainly don't intend to give anyone a knife in the stomach.  I can't account for whether some people's co-workers and family are hounding him about his choice. When I was applying, I got none of that from my coworkers or my friends.
 
I do intend to give them helpful information--and protecting those who might feel anxious and angry doesn't outweigh the benefit to those for whom actual data about the job market might be helpful.  The notion that it isn't my "place" to spread useful info in a public forum doesn't resonate with me.

Kamisha - I'm close with several students choosing between PhD programs at this very moment and in talking with them have gotten the sense that applicants do not have a fully realistic picture of what the job market is like--nor do many admitting programs provide that data for them.  I'm also an interested observer of the job market as I prepare to go on it in the fall.  Also, I have a lot of friends who have gone through the job market--some of whom have been spectacularly successful, some who are fighting to get by.  Many of them felt that they had little knowledge about the job market when they started (though it was certainly better than) and many of them feel they would have made different decisions had they known.
 
In his fit of immaturity, TDazzle suggested that these statistics are known to all.  In actually, getting numbers on the situation is rather hard.  There are aggregate level numbers like those reported by the MLA, etc, but those don't really tell us what it looks like on the ground.  Few schools actually report reliable numbers too.  The Harvard numbers I posted are the best quality and timespan I've see for what it looks like to get a PhD from a top department.
 
No, as I said at the end of my post, I am not at all inclined to steer people away from choosing a PhD program.  In fact, all things considered, I would very likely choose to do it again.
 
My point is not to dictate peoples' choices--each of us have to decide for ourselves, obviously, and what you value may not be what I value--but since a tt job is the endgoal of many pursuing PhD programs, data that helps people on the verge of committing to a career figure out how likely that is may be very useful to some.  Unfortunately, as TDazzle's snark makes clear, such information is, for many, also anxiety provoking. 

p.s. if you want to get a sense of what the job market is today, here is where most US jobs get posted:
 
http://academicjobs.wikia.com/wiki/English_Literature_2013-14
 
Keep in mind that some subfields will have much bigger applicant pools than others.

The most important question, I think, you should be asking yourself in this season of acceptances is if you should go to grad school at all.  If you are in the humanities or certain fields of the social sciences, the job market is very bleak.  It may well be better when you graduate, but it may well not be.  There are troubling trends like MOOCs that, many people think, will  restructure much of education in a way that will reduce the number of tenure track hires.
 
How bad is the job market currently?  According to Harvard, as of the fall of 2012, only 52% of those who got a Harvard PhD in the humanities from 2006-2011 had an academic job.  (And it looks like, based on some other data they report elsewhere, that about 1/3 of those are in non-tenure-track positions.)  23% were "unemployed and searching."  And due to self selection bias in reporting, this data probably underestimates the number of unployed.  http://history.fas.h...s-2006-2011.pdf. 
 
Because of the job market, many people from elite programs in the humanities, for instance, spend several years after graduating twisting in the wind with low-paid, time-consuming, and short-term lectureships and visiting assistant professorsips before either get a tt job or quitting academia.  If you are really committed to an academic career, you may well be signing up for a PhD + several years of uncertainty and scrapping by after that.
 
Of course not all fields and subfields are made the same.  Some of your fields will have excellent job prospects; others, terrible.  It behooves you to research the matter and think about the kind of bet your are making.  You are giving up 5-8 years of pay, and more importantly, 5-8 years in which you could be launching a different career.  When you graduate at age 30 with a PhD, you will have opened a few doors (for instance, you are an attractive hire for a private high school), but shut many more.
 
I am not saying you should not go.  Personally, I have found getting a PhD immensley rewarding.  But it has also come at a great cost.

This is a modified version of a post I made under the forum "decisions, decisions." 
 
The most important question, I think, you should be asking yourself in this season of acceptances is not which program you should go to, but if you should go to grad school at all.  The history job market is very bleak.  It may well be better when you graduate, but it may well not be.  There are troubling trends like MOOCs that, many people think, will  restructure much of education in a way that will reduce the number of tenure track hires.
 
How bad is the job market currently?  According to Harvard, as of the fall of 2012, only 52% of Harvard PhDs who got their PhD in the humanities from 2006-2011 had an academic job.  (And it looks like, based on some other data they report elsewhere, that about 1/3 of those are in non-tenure-track positions.)  23% were "unemployed and searching."  (Due to self selection bias in reporting, this data probably underestimates the number of unemployed.) [1] And those numbers are those of one of the most prestigious grad schools in the nation.  Here is what Chicago history's numbers look like: https://history.uchicago.edu/sites/history.uchicago.edu/files/uploads/Placement%20Statistics%202002-2011.pdf
 
Many people in history from elite programs, for instance, spend several years after graduating twisting in the wind with low-paid, time-consuming, and short-term lectureships and visiting assistant professorsips before either get a tt job or quitting academia.  If you are really committed to an academic career, you may well be signing up for a PhD + several years of uncertainty and scrapping by after that.  While it is hard to get accurate numbers,  it looks like only 33% of Yale's history cohort of 2012-2013 got a tt-job.
 
Of course not all subfields within history are made the same.  Some of your fields have excellent job prospects; others, terrible.  20C US and Europe after 1789 appear to be the worst.
 
It behooves you to research the matter and think about the kind of bet your are making.  You are giving up 5-8 years of pay, and more importantly, 5-8 years in which you could be launching a different career.  When you graduate at age 30 with a PhD, you will have opened a few doors (for instance, you are an attractive hire for a private high school), but shut many more.
 
I am not saying you should not go.  Personally, I have found getting a PhD immensley rewarding.  But it has also come at a great cost.
 
[1]http://history.fas.h...s-2006-2011.pdf.

This is a modified version of a post I made under the forum "decisions, decisions." 
 
The most important question, I think, you should be asking yourself in this season of acceptances is not which program you should go to, but if you should go to grad school at all.  The history job market is very bleak.  It may well be better when you graduate, but it may well not be.  There are troubling trends like MOOCs that, many people think, will  restructure much of education in a way that will reduce the number of tenure track hires.
 
How bad is the job market currently?  According to Harvard, as of the fall of 2012, only 52% of Harvard PhDs who got their PhD in the humanities from 2006-2011 had an academic job.  (And it looks like, based on some other data they report elsewhere, that about 1/3 of those are in non-tenure-track positions.)  23% were "unemployed and searching."  (Due to self selection bias in reporting, this data probably underestimates the number of unemployed.) [1] And those numbers are those of one of the most prestigious grad schools in the nation.  Here is what Chicago history's numbers look like: https://history.uchicago.edu/sites/history.uchicago.edu/files/uploads/Placement%20Statistics%202002-2011.pdf
 
Many people in history from elite programs, for instance, spend several years after graduating twisting in the wind with low-paid, time-consuming, and short-term lectureships and visiting assistant professorsips before either get a tt job or quitting academia.  If you are really committed to an academic career, you may well be signing up for a PhD + several years of uncertainty and scrapping by after that.  While it is hard to get accurate numbers,  it looks like only 33% of Yale's history cohort of 2012-2013 got a tt-job.
 
Of course not all subfields within history are made the same.  Some of your fields have excellent job prospects; others, terrible.  20C US and Europe after 1789 appear to be the worst.
 
It behooves you to research the matter and think about the kind of bet your are making.  You are giving up 5-8 years of pay, and more importantly, 5-8 years in which you could be launching a different career.  When you graduate at age 30 with a PhD, you will have opened a few doors (for instance, you are an attractive hire for a private high school), but shut many more.
 
I am not saying you should not go.  Personally, I have found getting a PhD immensley rewarding.  But it has also come at a great cost.
 
[1]http://history.fas.h...s-2006-2011.pdf.

p.s. if you want to get a sense of what the job market is today, here is where most US jobs get posted:
 
http://academicjobs.wikia.com/wiki/English_Literature_2013-14
 
Keep in mind that some subfields will have much bigger applicant pools than others.

The most important question, I think, you should be asking yourself in this season of acceptances is if you should go to grad school at all.  If you are in the humanities or certain fields of the social sciences, the job market is very bleak.  It may well be better when you graduate, but it may well not be.  There are troubling trends like MOOCs that, many people think, will  restructure much of education in a way that will reduce the number of tenure track hires.
 
How bad is the job market currently?  According to Harvard, as of the fall of 2012, only 52% of those who got a Harvard PhD in the humanities from 2006-2011 had an academic job.  (And it looks like, based on some other data they report elsewhere, that about 1/3 of those are in non-tenure-track positions.)  23% were "unemployed and searching."  And due to self selection bias in reporting, this data probably underestimates the number of unployed.  http://history.fas.h...s-2006-2011.pdf. 
 
Because of the job market, many people from elite programs in the humanities, for instance, spend several years after graduating twisting in the wind with low-paid, time-consuming, and short-term lectureships and visiting assistant professorsips before either get a tt job or quitting academia.  If you are really committed to an academic career, you may well be signing up for a PhD + several years of uncertainty and scrapping by after that.
 
Of course not all fields and subfields are made the same.  Some of your fields will have excellent job prospects; others, terrible.  It behooves you to research the matter and think about the kind of bet your are making.  You are giving up 5-8 years of pay, and more importantly, 5-8 years in which you could be launching a different career.  When you graduate at age 30 with a PhD, you will have opened a few doors (for instance, you are an attractive hire for a private high school), but shut many more.
 
I am not saying you should not go.  Personally, I have found getting a PhD immensley rewarding.  But it has also come at a great cost.

1.  I think people should stop lampooning the guy for presenting advice that is broadly accurate and useful.  Everyone should seriously consider, if this is what they want to do.  For those of us deep into graduate programs, how many people do you know who should have seriously asked themselves this question.  I know for me, it is more than one at multiple schools.  This post is not inherently an attack on you if you are applying or in grad school, so no need to act like it is.
 
2.  Being at the dissertation phase, I am very happy with my choice and have never liked what I am doing more, but I am not sure I would feel the same way at any program.  In my opinion, one of the most important things is not ranking but funding schemes.  By scheme, I don't mean just a number, but what service are you required to provide?  Do you have to TA most of the time, do you have to work while doing dissertation research and writing?  More than any single advantage, most elite programs allow you to actually work on a dissertation.  My opinion is based on the fact that myself and other people in my cohort have gotten very prestigious grants in spite of not being from elite programs.
 
3.  Why? Tulane is not an "elite" program, but it has elite funding.  For the last 10 months I have been doing research in various locations (8 different cities, 3 months alone in philly), on mostly my tulane fellowship and a few small grants.  I have also had enought time to apply for big grants and fellowships on the side, not having to TA or anything.  This extra time has allowed me to get (hasn't started yet) a 15K research grant, and line up a dissertation writing fellowship for next year.  When I write my dissertation it will be based on 14 months of ~40 hrs. a week in the archive, and since getting an additional year of fellowship, after finishing research, I have two years (I am a fourth year, so I still have another year of Tulane funding), where all I have to do is write, no service required.
 
4.  Knowing people (really smart people) at programs with huge service requirements, the questions has to be asked, how can your 2-3 months of research compare with someone's year to year and a half of research?  How much time will you have to devote to fellowship apps, etc. if you are working 20-30 on TAing and writing a dissertation?  I met one person who had traveled approx. 6 weeks for his dissertation, the rest of his research had to be done at or near his home institution due to teaching requirements.
 
These are probably the second most important questions.  Will this program actually fund me to be a good, high functioning academic or are they looking for cheep labor?  Can I write a good dissertation at this program, and do I have enough time to work on things like articles and big grants, that will separate my application from others? 
 
Also, it is true that most people have to post doc/visiting prof/adjunct for a year or two at least in order to get a job, it's the nature of the profession right now, although, while I wouldn't hold my breath, the baby boomer are supposedly, actually, finally retiring.  Also, unless it's the only way you will be happy in academia, don't do 20th century U.S.

I've followed this person's career on Twitter and elsewhere. Many people have remarked that he could probably find a job outside the US much more easily. Of course it'd be difficult for him to move his family at this point (and he was basing all his plans on assumptions that were reasonable prior to the recession), but it's not necessarily hopeless for him. The lesson is that PhD applicants in coming cycles should be prepared for the eventuality of needing to live virtually anywhere in the world to get a job and should plan having a family accordingly. 
 
It's also worth noting that reality became more grim for many professions after 2008. I went through a cycle of job interviews that year and was lucky to receive one job offer in my field when people in previous positions in previous years had their hands full of them. 

I do greatly appreciate the insight! But, for those of us in the humanities, there really are not a whole lot of options. Either way, if we stop now, we are going to be working retail (if we are lucky to get a job at all over minimum wage) with our degree(s) in English, German, Religion, Philosophy, and so on. Again, for many of us, there is no pay cut. In fact, a PhD stipend is more money than I have ever made (I'm in my early 30's!). At the end of the day, if I end up spending the next 5-8 years of my life working my ass off at something I love and I can't even get a job teaching High School when it's all said and done, oh well. Again, given our options, and if we secure decent funding at a good program, why the hell not? If I'm going to be working at Taco Bell end game, I might as well get paid while I am earning a PhD before my career making burritos begins. Coming from someone who has spent time making burritos, working totally awful bottom of the barrel jobs, I can absolutely say IT IS WORTH IT. If you're paying for your PhD that is another story, of course. But for most of us, even that meager 15k stipend is pretty goddamn okay. 
 
cheers

This is a modified version of a post I made under the forum "decisions, decisions." 
 
The most important question, I think, you should be asking yourself in this season of acceptances is not which program you should go to, but if you should go to grad school at all.  The history job market is very bleak.  It may well be better when you graduate, but it may well not be.  There are troubling trends like MOOCs that, many people think, will  restructure much of education in a way that will reduce the number of tenure track hires.
 
How bad is the job market currently?  According to Harvard, as of the fall of 2012, only 52% of Harvard PhDs who got their PhD in the humanities from 2006-2011 had an academic job.  (And it looks like, based on some other data they report elsewhere, that about 1/3 of those are in non-tenure-track positions.)  23% were "unemployed and searching."  (Due to self selection bias in reporting, this data probably underestimates the number of unemployed.) [1] And those numbers are those of one of the most prestigious grad schools in the nation.  Here is what Chicago history's numbers look like: https://history.uchicago.edu/sites/history.uchicago.edu/files/uploads/Placement%20Statistics%202002-2011.pdf
 
Many people in history from elite programs, for instance, spend several years after graduating twisting in the wind with low-paid, time-consuming, and short-term lectureships and visiting assistant professorsips before either get a tt job or quitting academia.  If you are really committed to an academic career, you may well be signing up for a PhD + several years of uncertainty and scrapping by after that.  While it is hard to get accurate numbers,  it looks like only 33% of Yale's history cohort of 2012-2013 got a tt-job.
 
Of course not all subfields within history are made the same.  Some of your fields have excellent job prospects; others, terrible.  20C US and Europe after 1789 appear to be the worst.
 
It behooves you to research the matter and think about the kind of bet your are making.  You are giving up 5-8 years of pay, and more importantly, 5-8 years in which you could be launching a different career.  When you graduate at age 30 with a PhD, you will have opened a few doors (for instance, you are an attractive hire for a private high school), but shut many more.
 
I am not saying you should not go.  Personally, I have found getting a PhD immensley rewarding.  But it has also come at a great cost.
 
[1]http://history.fas.h...s-2006-2011.pdf.

A poignant reflection:
 
http://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2014/03/10/essay-about-inability-find-tenure-track-job-academe

The most important question, I think, you should be asking yourself in this season of acceptances is if you should go to grad school at all.  If you are in the humanities or certain fields of the social sciences, the job market is very bleak.  It may well be better when you graduate, but it may well not be.  There are troubling trends like MOOCs that, many people think, will  restructure much of education in a way that will reduce the number of tenure track hires.
 
How bad is the job market currently?  According to Harvard, as of the fall of 2012, only 52% of those who got a Harvard PhD in the humanities from 2006-2011 had an academic job.  (And it looks like, based on some other data they report elsewhere, that about 1/3 of those are in non-tenure-track positions.)  23% were "unemployed and searching."  And due to self selection bias in reporting, this data probably underestimates the number of unployed.  http://history.fas.harvard.edu/programs/graduate/program/documents/five-year-cumulative-all-fields-2006-2011.pdf. 
 
Because the job market, many people in the humanities, for instance, spend several years after graduating twisting in the wind with low-paid, time-consuming, and short-term lectureships and visiting assistant professorsips before either get a tt job or quitting academia.  If you are really committed to an academic career, you may well be signing up for a PhD + several years of uncertainty and scrapping by after that.
 
Of course not all fields and subfields are made the same.  Some of your fields will have excellent job prospects; others, terrible.  It behooves you to research the matter and think about the kind of bet your are making.  You are giving up 5-8 years of pay, and more importantly, 5-8 years in which you could be launching a different career.  When you graduate at age 30 with a PhD, you will have opened a few doors (for instance, you are an attractive hire for a private high school), but shut many more.
 
I am not saying you should not go.  That is a decision to make yourself.  Personally, I have found getting a PhD immensley rewarding.  But it has also come at a great cost. 

The most important question, I think, you should be asking yourself in this season of acceptances is if you should go to grad school at all.  If you are in the humanities or certain fields of the social sciences, the job market is very bleak.  It may well be better when you graduate, but it may well not be.  There are troubling trends like MOOCs that, many people think, will  restructure much of education in a way that will reduce the number of tenure track hires.
 
How bad is the job market currently?  According to Harvard, as of the fall of 2012, only 52% of those who got a Harvard PhD in the humanities from 2006-2011 had an academic job.  (And it looks like, based on some other data they report elsewhere, that about 1/3 of those are in non-tenure-track positions.)  23% were "unemployed and searching."  And due to self selection bias in reporting, this data probably underestimates the number of unployed.  http://history.fas.harvard.edu/programs/graduate/program/documents/five-year-cumulative-all-fields-2006-2011.pdf. 
 
Because the job market, many people in the humanities, for instance, spend several years after graduating twisting in the wind with low-paid, time-consuming, and short-term lectureships and visiting assistant professorsips before either get a tt job or quitting academia.  If you are really committed to an academic career, you may well be signing up for a PhD + several years of uncertainty and scrapping by after that.
 
Of course not all fields and subfields are made the same.  Some of your fields will have excellent job prospects; others, terrible.  It behooves you to research the matter and think about the kind of bet your are making.  You are giving up 5-8 years of pay, and more importantly, 5-8 years in which you could be launching a different career.  When you graduate at age 30 with a PhD, you will have opened a few doors (for instance, you are an attractive hire for a private high school), but shut many more.
 
I am not saying you should not go.  That is a decision to make yourself.  Personally, I have found getting a PhD immensley rewarding.  But it has also come at a great cost. 

A poignant reflection:
 
http://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2014/03/10/essay-about-inability-find-tenure-track-job-academe

He is a visiting lecturer, which means his position is temporary and non-renewable.

A poignant reflection:
 
http://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2014/03/10/essay-about-inability-find-tenure-track-job-academe

"I mean, I've lost the point of your argument."
 
1) the job market in the humanities is terrible - find specific data in your subfield and for your institution, 2) getting a tt-job often involves a PhD + several more years in a precarious position and even then may not lead to a job, 3) with concrete knowledge about your subfield and your options, consider the trade-offs that you are making.
 
In response to (3), many commentators, including yourself, suggested that the job prospects of a PhD aren't much different than the job prospects of the job market as a whole.  But such overly binaristic thinking (the market is good or bad!) is in fact not true.  Yes, the job market in many fields and industries is hurting.  Compared to many fields that potential PhDs students can go into, however, the job market in the humanities look especially bad.  If you are considering a very strong JD program, say, vs a equally ranking PhD (not so uncommon for humanities people), the humanities program is probably much less likely to give you a job in your intended field, and is more likely to require scraping by for several years after gettomg the degree.  For many people—especially people who can get into elite ones—PhD programs will be significantly more "high risk" than other careers that are likely--depending, yes, on their skill set, desires, alma mater, age, etc,--open to them.  (See Hashlinger's post where s/he introduced high-risk venture vs getting a corporate lawfirm.)  If that is a bet you are willing to make, great!
 
If you don't understand someone's point, try asking before mounting your soap box and unleashing ad hominems.

"I mean, I've lost the point of your argument."
 
1) the job market in the humanities is terrible - find specific data in your subfield and for your institution, 2) getting a tt-job often involves a PhD + several more years in a precarious position and even then may not lead to a job, 3) with concrete knowledge about your subfield and your options, consider the trade-offs that you are making.
 
In response to (3), many commentators, including yourself, suggested that the job prospects of a PhD aren't much different than the job prospects of the job market as a whole.  But such overly binaristic thinking (the market is good or bad!) is in fact not true.  Yes, the job market in many fields and industries is hurting.  Compared to many fields that potential PhDs students can go into, however, the job market in the humanities look especially bad.  If you are considering a very strong JD program, say, vs a equally ranking PhD (not so uncommon for humanities people), the humanities program is probably much less likely to give you a job in your intended field, and is more likely to require scraping by for several years after gettomg the degree.  For many people—especially people who can get into elite ones—PhD programs will be significantly more "high risk" than other careers that are likely--depending, yes, on their skill set, desires, alma mater, age, etc,--open to them.  (See Hashlinger's post where s/he introduced high-risk venture vs getting a corporate lawfirm.)  If that is a bet you are willing to make, great!
 
If you don't understand someone's point, try asking before mounting your soap box and unleashing ad hominems.

"I really do have to look askance at a person who throws his (or her) hands up at this whole thing. There are no jobs for PhDs. No jobs for people who don't go to Harvard. 30 is old. Five years is an unrecoverable loss. No one outside of academia will hire a PhD except for private boarding schools. If only I'd gone to law school."
 
You have a persistent problem exaggerating what I am saying so as to make my points absurd and give yourself a self-righteousness high.  I said none of those things.