Crafter

Reducing the PhD slots to "secure TT jobs" sound to me like a rather outdated thinking.
 
At least in my field, a PhD is somewhat standard requirement when applying to higher salary jobs, either at academia, industry or policy.
 
While I was looking for a position, right after finishing my MS, I found myself in a bad situation where many jobs required either a PhD or an MS plus X years of experience. I was in neither of such categories.
 
So, as someone mentioned before, the ultimate goal to pursue a PhD varies from individuals, and to me, it looks like the PhD students wishing to get a TT position is not as common as it could have been in the past (just my impression, though). When I told a friend of mine about my idea of going back to school for a PhD, he said something like "there are way too many PhDs looking for a job right now. Do you really think it may help you?". Well, I think it will. Anyway, what else a recent PhD graduate will do after their program completion if not looking for a job??
 
Thinking in such a way would imply that everybody with a PhD, working as Staff Scientist at some biotech firm, Senior Program Officer at some nonprofit or governmental organization, Research Associate, etc are there because they didn't make it into Academia. I don't believe that is true.
 
There is also another thing to consider: international applicants.
It is hard to get into a PhD program as it is now (mostly due to funding issues, if you do not come with your own money or a scholarship from your country). Reducing the number of PhD admissions will severely hurt most international applicant's chances.
 
The above issue may seem irrelevant to many, but it goes beyond Diversity. It will hurt global Science Advancement. In many cases, PhD programs are not offered in our home countries and that's why we need to study abroad. But upon returning home, the ones with the degree and research experience in other countries (the US, in this particular case) are responsible for technology transfer, training staff and getting some science done. In my field, biomedical sciences, it is very common that the topics of high research and funding in the US are causes of death in here and an local ongoing production of scientific data in the subject is paramount.

My field is history, and there is lots of talk about the dearth of jobs for those who complete the PhD. I think the most important thing is having the conversation about the job market before anyone enters a PhD, and at that point applicants go in with their eyes open.

I WANT a TT job, but I won't die if I don't get it at the end. I knew about the exigencies of the job market long before I applied, and I want the intellectual fulfillment of completing a PhD anyway. Does this mean I won't work my ass off, produce my best work and try to get my dream job at the end? No, of course not. But I feel that my expectations are reasonable, because I was well aware that getting a job in academia is extremely difficult.

I've worked many crappy, low-paying jobs in my life. At the end of the day, the PhD gives me 5-7 years of steady employment--yes, it's a job. Perhaps unlike most, but working as a TA and even getting paid via fellowship to do research and coursework is a job. I signed a contract stipulating I not seek outside employment because students in my program are meant to treat the PhD as their main job. The difference between this and my waitressing gigs is I'm going to develop valuable skills that I may or may not use in my field, but I WILL use them in some capacity. I have never had a job that guaranteed me employment for half a decade or more, upfront, as long as I fulfill my end of the bargain, which is making good progress to degree. Yes, if I chose a different field I could be establishing myself in a career, but in the PhD I get to do what I love for several years while getting paid and gaining skills--no other field would give me that.

The question of whether programs should cut the number of admits is interesting. Many programs are doing this--mine has over the last few years. Academia has a responsibility to graduate students to some extent, but applying to PhD programs and completing the degree is a choice made by individuals for many different reasons, and I don't think the only focus when it comes to program sizes should be the job market. People DO get PhDs for other reasons--even if the main one is the hope for an academic job. It isn't academia's place to regulate that. I do, however, think programs that do not should seriously consider only admitting students they can fund, which is a more serious problem in my opinion. It's one thing to do a PhD knowing you might not get an academic job and being okay with that, and another completely to finish a PhD with an inordinate amount of debt.

I've been thinking about this problem a lot too. In my side of STEM, this is a topic that comes up fairly often.
 
In my opinion, the worst part of a career in academia is that you are expected to give up a lot and delay a lot of things in life (stability) in order for a chance at a permanent job. This is stressful and does turn people away from academia and as a result, we lose diversity of thought.
 
I think the best way to address this is to purposely set up a limit somewhere so that you know if you didn't make it through that limit, you won't get a job in academia and you can move on to other interests / career paths. However, it is tricky where to place the limit because wherever you place the limit, you run the problem of someone getting cut that 1) has not yet reached their peak, or 2) the system has not yet allowed them to prove themselves. And losing these people also loses diversity of thought. If you place it too early, you lose people but if you place it too late, it has no effect.
 
I think that graduate school admission is too early. I don't think it is possible to evaluate a senior undergrad (or a recent graduate) and know for sure that "this person will make a great academic" or "this person is not cut out for academia". At this stage, we are not anywhere being close to experts in our field! We have just begun. In addition, I agree with the other posters that academic jobs should not be the only desired outcome of a PhD and in fact, a PhD should be job training for a variety of careers.
 
I think the long grind of postdocs, one after another, constantly moving, with no stability and maybe even no benefits, is what drives people out of academia. Personally, I am only going to do postdocs if I think there is a good chance it will lead to a permeant position (either TT or staff scientist). So, I think this is where the bottleneck/limit should exist.
 
That is, I think (at least in my field), the problem is not that there are too many PhD graduates and not enough permanent academic positions, but that there are too many postdocs and not enough permanent jobs. I think we should drastically decrease the number of postdocs available so that you only get a postdoc if people believe that you have a good chance at a permanent job. And I think the best way to make this happen is to enforce minimum standards on postdoc salaries and benefits. If we make postdocs cost more, they will no longer be the "cheap workhorse labour" and every school will need to be a lot more picky on who they hire, and this will remove all of the PhD holders that are good enough for postdocs but not good enough for permanent jobs. Maybe this is not true for everyone, but if I am not competitive enough for a TT position and even if a TT position is my dream, I would rather have my dreams be "crushed" at rejections from all postdocs rather than go through 3-4 postdocs and finally realizing that it will never happen. 
 
In my field, I think the "eternal postdoc" is what we fear, more so than adjunct positions. But I think for fields where there are a lot more adjuncts, the same principle could apply. That is, the University tends to treat postdocs and adjuncts as people they don't deem good enough to hire permanently, but hey, they still need to get the research and teaching done! I think these positions are being exploited by many Universities.
 
Okay, so how do we enforce minimum standards on salaries and benefits? I'm going to say what some people think are dirty words: collective bargaining. I'm thinking, for each field, a nationwide organization that collectively bargains on behalf of all the postdocs and adjuncts in that field. It won't be as complex as the detailed collective bargaining agreements that local unions have with their employers, but just standard minimum salaries and benefits packages (like a "minimum wage" law). We already have powerful organizations in place: things like the American Astronomical Society (AAS) for my field. The AAS runs all of the major American journals and conferences in my field. With support of the AAS and the major Universities, I think this can happen. Of course, the major Universities are the same Universities that have the most to lose from such an arrangement, so this will be tricky to handle. But if the AAS enforces minimums by doing things like "If you don't pay your postdocs this much, we won't publish any of your articles" and if the top 10 universities support the AAS in this endeavour (so that the AAS journals remains the highest impact journals), then I think it can happen. But this is just a dream for now. If I ever get in a position where I can push this agenda, I will!

Coming from the STEM side of things, I don't believe that academic jobs are the only path that students (or young scholars) should be pursuing. In fact, I've never really considered a TT job, the end goal - mostly due to seeing the struggles that my father had to endure when I was growing up (he was in academia but eventually left for industry). I've even read that due to the academic market landscape, a majority of young PhD holders are seeking alternative paths (for example tech, industry, law, policy, etc.) - making the TT path the new "alternative" career line.
 
The suggestion of letting in less students is interesting to me: how would these programs limit the entrance of students? At this point a lot of the top programs in just about every field have a staggering amount of not just good but excellent applicants that are extremely hard to distinguish from one another. What if the next Einstein, scored a bit too low on his GRE? Or didn't articulate himself well enough in his SOP? Or wasn't able to secure a summer research position? I do not envy the profs sitting on Adcomms.
 
I understand the logic of the proposal, but in order to push the bounds of human knowledge (which is what doctoral programs strive to achieve), programs need a good deal of creative thinkers/researchers. Since past research experience is not absolutely indicative of future success, programs have to play the numbers game and let in a decent amount of applicants in order to keep the program running (help PI's with their projects, TA undergrads, etc) and hope (for lack of better phrasing) that the applicants are able to discover some interesting or paradigm shifting phenomena to keep the program well funded and achieve the goal of the doctoral degree. I feel that with less students, these necessary expansions in human knowledge would come about slower or go undiscovered but hey that's just one opinion.
 
I have to disagree with the argument that a PhD is not job training. What is gained from almost every level of the post secondary educational experience, can serve as job training - if not directly, then through the transferable skills and life experience garnered by going through the process. While it would be nice to just spend a few years immersed in the experience, it would be naive to take on such an endeavor as a PhD just to "adopt a new way of thinking" for the sake of it. PhD students/candidates/holders are all humans and unfortunately time is not an endless commodity we're given - so if we have the opportunity to fine tune our scholastic and academic abilities, those new found skills should be put to use better the human experience to some degree through the career line we eventually choose (which is a very subjective notion, but hey). 
 
Overall, I think that academic jobs are not the be all and end all of the PhD degree. In some fields it may be a lot more difficult, but I believe that PhDs may serve a better role in "alternative" career paths. Therefore I do not believe that PhD programs should let in - the admission process is quite cutthroat as it is.
 
I'd be quite interested in hearing how others feel on this topic.

Sometimes people just grow up. I know I did.

Yes, in my experience with a previous J-1 visa and traveling with my J-2 dependent, we entered the US with one way plane tickets and it was OK. You are not expected to know when you are leaving exactly.
 
But this was my previous experience (a few years ago). If not sure, you may want to ask your School's  international office.
 
I was a Fulbright scholar and the program bought my ticket, it was one way. But now that I remember, my J-2 had a two way ticket, but it was because he needed to get back a few months after and stay home for a couple of weeks, regardless if I could travel with him or not.
 
But I don't really think it should be an issue at all. I mean, you are in for a long time in the US and the same that applies to you as a J-1 holder, applies to your dependent. But then again, if in doubt, ask your School.

Leaving home for the first time can be scary. It will probably feel weird and take time to get used to your new city -- but that's true for any big life change. There are a lot of big and small things to learn, including anything from what streets are safe at night to using the local transportation system to what brand of toilet paper is your favorite. You'll figure it out. It's just important to remember that it won't happen overnight, but within a few weeks or months things will look different. When you first arrive you'll want to take measures to stay safe, which might include reading up on the city before you arrive, talking to local foreigners about their experiences, getting involved in the expat community once you arrive, and generally erring on the side of caution until you are better acquainted with your surroundings. None of what I'm proposing here is specific to Russia, they are general things you should do any time you are in a new place.
 
I understand your mother's fear. Any mother would be worried the first time her child leaves home and goes to live far away, and I am sure this fear is compounded by the fact that the only things she knows about Russia are what she reads in the newspaper. I know nothing in particular about Russia, but one thing I do know is that the news likes to reports on bad things that make good headlines; no country I actually know anything about is anything like what you might imagine from just reading the news. So, as suggested above me, keep your mind and eyes open, and I am sure you will have a great experience.

Thanks for the info,  TakeruK. You are a God-sent member in this community

So sorry to hear that!
I also think it is unfair. I hope you get it next time you apply.
I hope I will not be facing a similar situation later.

My school's international student office sent us all an email today about this.
 
The reason is that the Department of State has temporarily suspended ALL visa issuance due to a technical problem that is currently being resolved. More info here: http://travel.state.gov/content/travel/english/news/technological-systems-issue.html. No estimation of when this will be resolved.
 
They also informed us that this weekend, the entire SEVIS system will be down for maintenance from June 26 to June 28. More info here: http://studyinthestates.dhs.gov/2015/06/be-prepared-for-the-june-26-sevis-outage
 
Sorry that I don't have good news. But I hope this information is helpful in explaining why it's not working.

There is a difference and while I think a lot of what shinigamiasuka says is true, I do not think this is the main reason why there is a different standard. For example, I was told the same thing and I'm from Canada, where our education system is pretty much identical to the United States.
 
The main reason for a different standard is because at most public US schools, the tuition rate for international students is about 3 or 4 times more expensive than the tuition rate for domestic students (although our stipends would be the same). This ultimately results in the total cost of an international student to be around 2 to 3 times more than a domestic student. The reason for the tuition rate difference is that public schools are funded by the government (taxes) and Americans pay taxes towards this while international people like us do not.
 
This means that public schools often have a low rate of international students. In most US schools, this is around 10% or lower. So, if a school is accepting 40 students, there would be only 4 international student spots. As an international applicant, this means we would have to be in the top 4 of the international pool to get in (but if we were American, we just have to be in the top 36). 
 
Then, on top of this, certain schools, especially the University of California schools, are very very popular with international students. I know one professor who worked there and he said that 75% of their applications are from international students!! But only 10% of their spots are awarded to international students. The entire world is very big, it's much harder to be the top 4 applicants in the entire world than the top 36 from the United States. 
 
When I applied to US grad schools, my mentors told me that while I should still try for the University of California schools, I should apply to more private schools because tuition there is the same for everyone and thus there is no difference in cost! And they were right--I got into some top private universities but rejected from all of the University of California schools (even ones that are supposedly less competitive than my current school). At my current private school, the international student population is around 45% !! Much larger than 10%.  
 
Therefore, my advice to international students with strong profiles is to focus mostly on the top private schools and/or apply to a very large number of schools because the chances of getting in is much lower for international people like us!

I would not pay for a graduate degree, especially one that involves a thesis. 

A couple things:
 
1) Everyone has the option not to pay. You just don't go to the program. This is usually the better option.
 
2) Funded MAs in the sciences are not exactly unicorns, even for someone changing fields. There are also degrees of funding, e.g. partial tuition, tuition, tuition and stipend.
 
3) You say the program is unranked. Is the institution ranked, and, if so, where?
 
4) Just because you don't like the advice doesn't mean it's not advice.

I'm sorry you feel that wasn't advice. There are other options besides going to graduate school and paying. Going into a program where you must research and take out loans is a type of stress you should not consider. You are destined to fail. Some people come through ok, but many don't. Research is a fickle thing, sometimes it works out, sometimes it doesn't. Do you really want to wrack up debt on something that variable?
 
I'll let you know that I also switched fields, got into a single funded masters program and used that to leverage myself into the PhD program of my choosing. you can do this too, I had terrible grades in undergrad. Luck plays a role, figure out a way to get lucky.

As a comment on parenting in grad school:

Let's say a woman does every thing traditionally, by the book, and gets lucky and into grad school, post doc, and tenure track position on schedule without delays.

18 when graduating high school.
22 when graduating college.
27 when finishing PhD
30 when completing post doc
36-37 when eligible for tenure.

So at what point in a biological time period should a woman have a child? If our own peers don't think we should have a family, not even factoring in everyone in positions above us, why does it not scream to people loud and clear why the difference in the amount of women completing a PhD vs holding a tenured position is staggering?

This isn't even regarding a stipend or subsidy. This is just referencing the people who feel grad school isn't the time to have kids.

And that age is just assuming you get in first try, only do one post doc, etc. There are those of us who serve in the military prior to college (and in my case also have spouses in the military which caused it to take six years and five colleges to get my bachelors). I'm in my thirties starting graduate school (well PhD, I have an MS)--I already have one child and my husband and I will have another while I'm in school.

Thankfully, the school I'm attending has a large amount of parents and older students, and all of my rotation PIs are not only aware of my desire to have another after oral candidacy, are fully supportive of it. Hopefully if any of my peers feel the way as some of the posters here, they'll keep their mouths shut. Either way, it's no ones business but mine and my husband's when and if I have children.

Thanks for the credit union suggestion, I'll see with if there is one affiliated with my university.
 
 
 
It is expired, but according to the DMV website of the state I will live, I don't need to retake the test because it expired less than 2 years ago. But that depends on the state where you will get your new license.

Providing a perspective from the sciences on replication, we are also directly and indirectly discouraged from studies that are replication of other work. Grant proposals are always evaluated for novelty and groundbreaking research, never to confirm old work. This is unfortunate, because in many fields (including my own), decades of work have resulted from a result in an old study that was later proven to be wrong. 
 
It's a little weird because in intro science courses, we are trained to "be skeptical" and "question everything". However, in reality, this is not easily put into practice as everyone has the pressure to win more grants (for novel research) and journals don't publish replication. 
 
Fortunately, some of the work in my field have been replicated, but usually either accidentally (through multiple groups working on the same thing independently and finding the same result) and/or through work specifically pitched and marketed to the granting agency as novel improvements on existing work. I really think it's harmful to our field that our major granting agencies do not want to fund studies that are purely meant to replicate important results.

I think Northwestern's change is a little different than standard cost of living adjustments because:
 
1. It's a bigger increase than most cost of living adjustments! The minimum is going from ~$23k to ~$29k !!
 
2. This is an increase to the minimum stipend on campus, not everyone. So someone earning $31k/year might not see any difference. But a student earning $25k/year will see a difference! 
 
Overall, I think this is noteworthy because it is doing what I'd like more schools to do -- close up the gap between disciplines so that everyone can have a livable income

If your program director says appeal then appeal. I am not sure how much you disclosed about your issues, depending on that you can ask him/her about the wording of the appeal. ASAP start with your psychological services. At least you have proof that you receive treatment now. I would not put a whole lot of emphasis on how your professors did not accommodate you (frankly what would have been the proper accomodation, even if you disclose your condition to them? ),  but I would try to say I had an untreated issue that is treated now- proof : psychological services. Maybe you could even discuss something with your business class teacher- a retake (with a retroactive incomplete grade) or changing your grading status retroactively to pass no pass (given that you passed).

I agree that you should appeal, but I would be careful about how you word it. Your latest post here sounds like you're avoiding personal blame for the low GPA, and that won't win you any points on an appeal. 
 
Similarly, as Julliet mentioned, you have to actually have a disclosed and verified disability with disability services to receive accommodations. The way you word your post, it seems to me you didn't have a registered accommodation, which is on you not the school. 
 
Also, as mentioned, it's not the fact that you're 0.02 points below the GPA cutoff- it's that you're so close to the cutoff to begin with. It's also worth mentioning that some programs have both the GPA cutoff, and require no lower than certain standalone grades. Especially given that your average was 3.5 in the first semester, that would indicate some really low grades to pull you down to 2.98. At my school, and grade lower than a C+ is grounds for dismissal in addition to the overall GPA having to be above 3.0.
 
Also, you'll want to be careful about alcohol and the ADA requirements: Just to pull from one set of University FAQs:
 
 
You have to be undergoing treatment for alcoholism, and not currently be "abusing" alcohol. Also, reasonable accommodations for alcoholism are usually a leave of absence/counseling to get the problem under control, not extra test time or extended deadlines. It's worth noting the last line of the second paragraph: "An alcoholic student who does not meet the performance standards of the university is also not considered qualified."

There's really no reason not to appeal assuming you still want to continue the program.  If they turn you down, you're in the same situation you were before, and if they don't then you're golden.  Especially if the program director is on your side and you have out-of-class explanations for the spotty record you certainly stand a solid chance of succeeding in an appeal.

I LOVE this sentence!!!!!!!!
 
Only people without kids think of kids as a hindrance or some sort of curse.
 
Part of my decision to go back to school, considering my already good CV and education is because of my child. I want to be a better mom for her (and, as in international student from a developing nation, she will definitely benefit from getting her first years of school education in the US, so my decision to go to school having a child is actually a GOOD LIFE DECISION, even when that means that I will have to be a student for a few years. Of course, I am lucky to have the support of my husband in every aspect of my life.
 
Having a family actually IS great. School or not.

Your story is fantastic. I have quite a few cohort members (in my professional degree) that choose to have a child the second or third year into the program, and they are quite successful. But, they also have fantastic support around them. Instead of a hindrance, it's a motivator. It's great that you have that, and the passion for giving your child the life you are aiming for will take you far.
 
For me, I could draw on the support of my significant other's family and him, but I wouldn't want to do that when he's ALSO working to establish himself in his career. I think it would be damage our relationship and the family we hope to have later on. In our case, I think the 6-7 year plan would give better support for everyone.  I've always said, I work as hard as I do for the family I want to have someday. Not for the life I have currently. 

Bsharpe: you are making so many assumptions. I didn't share my background because I understand that my own experiences are not universal. Do you honestly think you can speak for everyone who has faced adversity?

And all those programs you mention only prove that there's a problem. Let's put aside the fact that these social programs are heavily cut every year, minimizing their impact, the programs you name are just bandaids. No amount of free lunch at school is going to make dinner appear on the table (yes, I know that food stamps exist, but SNAP has also been significantly cut). No amount of free tutoring is going to tackle the school to prison pipeline. And as psychkita points out, no amount of GRE fee waivers will make up for inadequate public education in poor areas.

And with that, I will take a bow from this bizarre conversation and go spend time with the best bad life decision I ever made.

Giving kids money for tuition is less than the bare minimum for a successful anything. Great, they can persevere and get a degree, and maybe even take the GRE. However, they have no idea of testing strategies, or that they need to know about testing strategies. Their actual academic skills might be horrible, because they had to focus on other things throughout high school/college, and here we are saying "but the skills are easy." Instead of us, as a culture being proactive, they are supposed to "know what they don't know" and ask for help instead. Subsidies are not enough. They help provide a false hope, that comes crashing down without extra support. And even the few really good support programs are being stripped from most colleges, in my area at least, because of funding.


Before anyone asks about my own privilege, I grew up between the middle class/poverty line. It changed about every 5 years. my parents went through a bankruptcy my senior year of high school. Luckily, I had already been admitted at the only school I applied to (because it was the cheapest, and I knew my family couln't afford better. Nor could they afford the prep services to help me qualify for better). I went to college. Came out of undergraduate with barely needing to pay anything for my tuition. It's all loans.

I worked 20+ hours a week for the first two years for anything I needed. Talked to my parents about only doing summer jobs (in my field) the last two years for the same thing. I came out with a decent GPA (3.42), lots of involvement, research, all the things you're suppose to. Only thing I didn't have was a clue to my own skill level, a driver's license (since no one could teach me), or an idea of what I can change. Furthermore, I definitely didn't have any money to gamble away for grad school. And it is a gamble. I could work $10/hr for experience, or throw about $500+ chasing a pipe dream.

I consider myself overall privileged compared to other students. I at least danced the privilege mambo long enough to know what the questions were I needed to ask.

Money isn't all there is to the problem. we throw money, assuming the lower SES knows about these programs, knows how to ask for it in the academic way, knows how to succeeded academically, and we still judgement on the same merit pool for PhD. 'Holistic application selection' is a bit of joke, needing to dress in business attire, or shell out travel reimbursement money (as mentioned earlier) is also unreasonable.... it's a lot of things stacked on top of each other.

Funnily enough, with our bottom SES expanding, and our top SES only expanding their paychecks; things will have to change. The students we see will become more middle-lower classes. Now if only we'd be proactive in helping them succeed. That'd create more programs, more jobs, and possibly, more stability.