qwer_asdf

FWIW, statements like this are like the definition of gatekeeping.

one last response to this thread: adjunctifier never claimed to be an "authority" or even to be offering advice -- adjunctifier noted very clearly that their post was based on their own experience in higher ed as an adjunct professor & administrator with an MFA, and provided some insight into their own current thinking about applying to get a phd in art history. Moreover, one's idea of "financial ruin" may be someone else's idea of financial stability, especially right now (ie. having access to university health insurance and student health centers (and mental health counseling), an institutional affiliation for the next 5-7 years, and a living stipend for part/most/all of that time). and: in my decade+ in art-history higher-ed spaces, i've seen peers and colleagues go on to do lots of things from starting and leading nonprofits, to working in government and tech, to ending up in top law and business school programs. This in addition to writing and publishing in art history.

just want to amplify adjunctifier's sense that people have different goals and different reasons for attending graduate school.

For those who are thinking about applying: I want to offer a response to wt2020's post, from the perspective of someone similarly situated (recent PhD recipient from a top program, also had the rug yanked out from under me this job cycle). I agree with a lot of the content of the post, particularly that one's university should "pay you living wages, ensure full health insurance, provide ample time to complete the program (5-7 years), protect your rights as a laborer in the department" (though I note that graduate student workers at UCLA are indeed unionized - https://uaw2865.org/about-our-union/). However I find the tone to be too flippant and very gate-keepy -- I'm wary of recent PhD's whose impulse is to slam the door behind them, and warn everyone else away on anonymous forums. To the many soon-to-be PhD students who are queer, and/or poor, and/or disabled, and/or for whatever reasons don't have a normative relationship to the expectation of long-lasting stability: the idea that getting a PhD is a choice to suffer and fall behind one's "non-academic friends" who are "establishing careers, getting raises, maybe even starting families or buying houses" may ring hollow... and that's okay. For many, having access to university health insurance and student health centers (and mental health counseling), an institutional affiliation for the next 5-7 years, and a stipend for at least part of that time (even at public research universities) can open a lot of doors and may offer so much more stability than the alternatives. Particularly in this moment, as the restaurant industry is collapsing and public-facing, service industry jobs aren't safe (especially for the immunocompromised). And since we don't know how long Covid-19 will pose acute danger, for many going to graduate school in this moment may actually be a good idea. Having said that: no one should pursue a PhD in Art History with the expectation that there is a tenure-track job waiting at the other end -- but I also think prospective students have already been disabused of that idea. Yes, it's very much a good idea apply to top, well-funded programs. And/or if you do choose to pursue a PhD at a public research university, do it with eyes wide open, and a full understanding of what your funding package looks like, what opportunities are guaranteed, which one's you'll have to apply for, etc. And given that many programs are suspending and reducing admissions this cycle, it may indeed be prudent to wait out this cycle, particularly if you have a viable alternative thing to do (if a funded MA is an option, do it!). But -- you may also have very good reasons for applying to PhD programs this cycle, and accepting an offer from a public research university... trust that.