Maple1eaf

Everything is a tradeoff in the capitalist hellscape we're in. There's some good advice in this thread.

Although I'm absolutely in the "she's a skeeze" camp, both the video and Ramus' posts speak to conditions that seem accurate to me, and echo what I've heard from other late stage grad students or post-academics. It is very worth taking to heart. I know universities are pushing to do alt-ac better, but they're not good enough to be truly helpful yet.

I will also say that what Sigada says about the private sector is true. In this, I can put on my own wearied veteran hat, and add:
The work is typically mind-numbingly mundane. The corporate world is, largely, a very stupid and vacuous place. Prepare yourself for things like content mill writer jobs that prioritize mediocrity, vacuity and speed over quality, having to speak corporate-ese, working for horrible impersonal corporations that try to mask their cutthroat capitalism with nauseating veneers of humanity, and being subjected to backhanded gossip, token diversity statements, and all the social toxicities people complain about with academia - except with even less genuine effort at ethical behavior. Have you ever spoken to a really terrible business major? It's like that at least 40 hours a week.  You may or may not have the time and means for vacation and hobbies; if you do have the time and means, it may or may not be scarce. I have friends who have, largely, pretty engaging and well-paying jobs who regularly have to work 60+ hours for deadlines, have 10 vacation days a year, and the like. And again: the work tends to be mildly offputting at best.  The tradeoff is generally more job security, but you still don't necessarily have a whole lot of that. I have learned to never treat a job as secure. What I can be secure about, I guess, is that I can typically find another job if the present one doesn't work out.  Ramus, I hope your tech job continues to work out for you, but I have to warn you that after a couple more years you may feel as I did: as though your brain is melting out of your ears. I had a reasonable job that I was good at, too - flexible schedule, a modicum of creativity to keep things a bit interesting sometimes. Still absolutely mind-numbing at the end of the day. I would gently suggest that lionizing the middle-class white collar life based on your experience at a single job is a bit tone deaf. A lot of people, even among the middle class - who are so much luckier than those in the lower-class or gig economies - are struggling mightily.
There are jobs with more meaningful work to be found in the nonprofit, publishing, high school teaching, or public sectors. They can be great, and they can also be unbelievably overworked and underpaid. It's up to the individual to decide if you think going for that is a good idea, or if you think you can get one of the better positions. 
For my part, I am ecstatic to have 5-6 years out from the workforce, and if I don't get a TT job I will go back to what I was doing. I know that even if retirement takes a bit longer as a result, I will be happy I made this choice. 
Regardless, the best piece of advice here is that you need to be proactive. Start working on your alt-ac contingency plan now, and the most important thing is to get job experience. Do internships, basically. My university has an internship program especially for humanities PhDs that funds internships that would otherwise be unfunded. Take advantage of things like this - or, just take advantage of your summer stipends to get internships. Entry-level jobs require experience and you need to get it before you graduate. Discuss with career counselors and just look at job descriptions on Indeed or what have you. Take a look at the requirements and the skills section. Decide on what you think you can tolerate, and work at gaining those requirements and skills. Don't rely on your professors and don't postpone this. Basically, dedicate a couple of summers to internships, and cultivate skills and your network throughout.
I'll add one final thing: this entire discussion dodges the systemic and political dimension to all of this. Academia needs reform: the tuition problem, working conditions, societal devaluation of the humanities and obscene "professionalization" and corporatization of everything are all huge problems that need our activism, whether or not we get TT jobs. The answer to academia's problems, in this broader scheme, is not "encourage the people who want to get PhDs to join the white collar workforce," even if that makes sense to some degree from the personal angle.  
However we hack it, the key is to try to wrangle a livable working life out of an economic system that is not designed in our favor. Best of luck to all of us with that.

The issue is that what you're saying is absolutely obvious to everyone here, yet you insist on using this insufferably condescending middle-class savior tone. No one thinks they're "any different from the folks five years ago." They know they're in the same situation, accepting the same risks, resigned to the likelihood that a PhD will not be profitable because they've heard the warnings already. And they'll still do it despite the risk because, like young people for centuries, they have an ideal and inner drive they want to play out in all of its drama instead of taking the practically-optimized route. (And yes, before you say it, they know--I know--that it will probably end in disappointment and burden them with some regrets, but that's life.) The reason I and others roll our eyes--not scoff, which is a self-congratulatory way to imagine the negative reactions to your post--is because you have not figured out something unique, you have reenacted the most predictable plot in the world. Most people who have advice stemming from an extremely common experience simply give that advice in brief and move on instead of, yes, proselytizing and being dramatic when they are not immediately met with applause and effusive thanks for their effort. So, here is my own patronizing advice to you: try being more like those people who say their piece and then move on instead of the whole performance you're doing here.

I’ve enjoyed reading the comments on here in as far as it gives light to all the different opinions there are in this given topic. For one, it is telling that those within current programs are not even cautioning us but rather persuading us not to apply. This just highlights how out of touch institutions are to the world. It is sad that future scholars are advising current applicants not to apply. This kind of sentiment is not unique to academia. Lawyers have the highest rate of alcoholism in any profession, yet there are still many people going down that track even knowing the amount of stress and unstable financial return. This probably ties into what the poster above mentioned. We all do certain things for our own reason. Every profession has its exploitative side as well. Does that stop people from doing it? No. There are social workers who are severely underpaid and overworked, yet they still find a reason to help others. Should they get paid more? Yes, without a question. 
Academia is unique in that it is held up by powerful institutional pillars. And in the past 20 years or so, we've only really seen this institution open up and accept scholars from non-traditional backgrounds. By its design, academia is supposed to uplift a heteronormative, homogenous white space. Because of this, most scholars within undergrad/grad environments don't see beyond these walls. And really, I am talking about the elite of the elite schools. Most people getting into the top schools have been pipelined into getting there, whether it be coming from a top prep school/boarding school, going to a top 30 undergrad, and then getting a place to a top grad school. This is no mistake. Does it erase the amount of work the person experienced to get there? No. But it does put into context when you start having applicants from low-income backgrounds who have faced more adversity on their way to getting to one of these top schools. Many of these new scholars have already realize that though they have achieved a great feat, this degree is still not a means to an end for them. Simply getting a degree from harvard or yale will not make things easier if you are a black or brown phd holder applying to further white institutions. 
 
So in this context, it does still feel as though certain ideas echoed here are gatekeeping those same very underrepresented scholars who by design as well have had to overcome many obstacles and jump through similar gatekeepers just to get a similar spot where you stand. I really do believe these underrepresented scholars are the ones who are paving the way in creating a new reimagined institution. 
 
With Covid having destroyed nearly every field, it's hard to even gatekeep something we all know is going to majorly change in the coming years if not sooner. Gatekeepers telling certain applicants not to apply because they are being foolish of their career prospects may seem harmless and just "advice", but there are many who do not look at this from that perspective.
 
And we all see how exploitative this profession is even before we get there. From the application process to being a grad student to entering the field. It never ends. But does that mean we accept this cynicism that one should stop trying?
 
These kinds of conversations touch on certain aspects of our current society. And who is facing the discomfort right now? In short, the very same homogenous white space that for the first time ever is feeling the same pressure and discomfort that certain minorities have been feeling for quite a long time now... 

I had a similar conversation with my undergrad advisor back when I was in my second year. I am currently in a master's program for some perspective. I never brought up my interest early on  in eventually applying to phd programs, but my prof could tell i was very intellectually interested in film studies. So when I did eventually tell him, he wasnt surprised though he did give the caveat that he would never advocate for anyone to get a PhD in this academic climate. That said, he has been encouraging and was one of my letter rec writers when i was applying to master's programs. 
 
I think after seeing my full intellectual growth, he seems more supportive and encouraging  in my interest in applying to PhD programs. I have other friends who are currently in PhD programs and/or just recently graduated, and they've all been pretty honest about the harsh realities of attending. Mind you, they are in top ivy league/ivy league level programs and even then, they seem to paint a very drastic picture of what it means to actually attend. My friend who just graduated from MIT a year ago is currently doing his post-doc in Europe, and he has had trouble getting any job interviews. 
 
Like most humanities programs, film studies is very interdisciplinary meaning anyone hypothetically could apply to a PhD program in film studies. One of the professors in my undergrad film department did her undergrad and masters in a STEM related field but ultimately moved to film. This was probably uncommon during her time but not quite so these days. Because of this growing trend of interdisciplinary work in the humanities, we're seeing an influx of applications in nearly every films studies program. And mind you, this is already competitive when the top programs are accepting 3-5 students per cycle. 
 
At this point, it really is a big responsibility of the applicant to be as informed as possible of the pros/cons of attending given that a doctorate/graduating from the best program does not equate to receiving a job in academia. But I do think this needs to be stressed. I have not seen this specifically in film studies, but in other forums online, there are always a couple stories of students being in denial of being unable to attain a job in the months after they receive their doctorate. I do question whether these kinds of students were responsible enough to really do their hw and see the harsh reality of academic life... 

I had a similar conversation with my undergrad advisor back when I was in my second year. I am currently in a master's program for some perspective. I never brought up my interest early on  in eventually applying to phd programs, but my prof could tell i was very intellectually interested in film studies. So when I did eventually tell him, he wasnt surprised though he did give the caveat that he would never advocate for anyone to get a PhD in this academic climate. That said, he has been encouraging and was one of my letter rec writers when i was applying to master's programs. 
 
I think after seeing my full intellectual growth, he seems more supportive and encouraging  in my interest in applying to PhD programs. I have other friends who are currently in PhD programs and/or just recently graduated, and they've all been pretty honest about the harsh realities of attending. Mind you, they are in top ivy league/ivy league level programs and even then, they seem to paint a very drastic picture of what it means to actually attend. My friend who just graduated from MIT a year ago is currently doing his post-doc in Europe, and he has had trouble getting any job interviews. 
 
Like most humanities programs, film studies is very interdisciplinary meaning anyone hypothetically could apply to a PhD program in film studies. One of the professors in my undergrad film department did her undergrad and masters in a STEM related field but ultimately moved to film. This was probably uncommon during her time but not quite so these days. Because of this growing trend of interdisciplinary work in the humanities, we're seeing an influx of applications in nearly every films studies program. And mind you, this is already competitive when the top programs are accepting 3-5 students per cycle. 
 
At this point, it really is a big responsibility of the applicant to be as informed as possible of the pros/cons of attending given that a doctorate/graduating from the best program does not equate to receiving a job in academia. But I do think this needs to be stressed. I have not seen this specifically in film studies, but in other forums online, there are always a couple stories of students being in denial of being unable to attain a job in the months after they receive their doctorate. I do question whether these kinds of students were responsible enough to really do their hw and see the harsh reality of academic life... 

Hope Columbia admits are paying attention to the strike rn!

Venting about ethics of this: I actually find it so concerning that schools are comfortable taking prospective students for a ride, neglecting the labor, cost, and time of applying to their specific program, all in the name of this final-hour decision to support current students. Many, many schools made the decision to suspend admissions in the Fall, and NYU, I am sure, was more than aware of this discourse and demands of their students. And yet somehow they are only now, mid-March, communicating this decision to us. Rather than provide current students and us with the clarity we both needed, they decided to keep everyone in the dark until now (assuming current students didn't know about their funding extensions until last/this month). This is the type of stuff that perpetuates access issues in academia.

This sounds like you're trying to excuse a clearly systemic short-coming of both academia broadly and graduate education specifically. The soft skills you outlined (juggling teaching and research responsibilities, being able to synthesize information, etc.) are not developed in the dynamic way you imply they can you used for.
The bottom line is that it should not be the responsibility of grad students to find external "side" gigs that will enable them to be employable at the end of the PhD, but that is the reality today. And this reality is what leads @remenis and others to underscore the PhD's immense financial and time cost. The vast majority of programs still insist on running programs geared towards developing students for TT jobs. With TT jobs now being virtually nonexistent, the PhD itself becomes the side gig (or labor of love, or vanity project, or however one wants to frame it based on their level of cynicism). 
Your framing seems to miss the scale of the problem at multiple levels-- the viability of the careers of individual graduate students that the discipline continues to churn out, *and* the viability of the discipline/"profession" itself. Excusing the deeply problematic ethics of individual faculty, specific programs, or of academia broadly that maintain the current system because it provides grads with life lessons/opportunities to fail/succeed seems misguided and borderline cruel to me. 

Your post inspires questions. The scale of the problem for whom? Would those of you who have earned  your doctorates had gotten TT jobs would you have the same concerns? (I can ask counterfactual questions -- I work at a consultancy. ? [And we're addressing similar questions.])
Are academic historians -- a group in which I include undergraduate history majors as well aspiring and current graduate students--paying an appropriate amount of focus to the question "What do we owe each other?" In my view, the fact that so many need to come to the Gradcafe to get information from strangers rather than being able to rely on the bespoke guidance of graduate students and professors during office hours, speaks poorly for the craft overall.
What are the ethical responsibilities of tenured professors to tell historians in training that getting a TT job is exceedingly unlikely? Where would we be if trailblazers like Du Bois and Woodson and Lerner and Kerber and Foner the Younger had been deterred by the obstacles they encountered and the sand bagging they endured? (At my department, I was one of a handful of graduate students being advised by a professor with a well earned reputation for never finishing (and placing) anyone. Were others supposed to pull me aside? I sometimes wish they had and I also understand why they could not. It was my responsibility to figure it out and my fuck up that I didn't do so in a timely manner.)
To borrow a question that some professional service firms have been addressing for decades--how does the historical profession increase the demand for its work while also commanding fees (in this case TT jobs) commensurate to the services it provides without sacrificing standards of practice and care?

Being honest has been there but PhD programs, like @NoirFemmepointed out, haven't been designed to help PhD students develop credible skills.  Working as a grader barely does anything than being assigned as a Graduate Administrative Assistant planning for a big conference at the end of the semester or managing an academic journal.  The anxiety that graduate students have is with the Powers to Be being unwilling to share their graduate labor with the community that would gladly take smart, capable people as interns. My program has decided to circumvent that by simply offering a 3-credit "course" to allow grad students have time to do that instead of taking another readings course. 
I have had many conversations with a particular colleague whose program did not train her to be more cutting-edge like transnational or global history and she's been struggling.  She went directly to PhD from undergrad and has been working to build up administrative skills -- on the side (and her advisers aren't too happy, from what she says). Should she have had to pick up extra jobs to make up for what her top-15 graduate program did not deliver?  Nope.
However, what this pandemic HAS done is make absolutely clear that PhD programs will not be able to place their PhD students at the same rate as they did before.  There are jobs but the crash is real and the lines available are being driven by economics and social demands.  For example, East Asian and Middle Eastern history positions have been relatively plentiful -- until this year.  The new "hot" commodity is African-American/African/Black diaspora history and these fields now combine to about 30 positions or so.  Every other field-- Modern Europe, Latin America, etc. have been relatively flat though they plummeted this year. South Asia and History of STEM are rising. The US History field is, what I have seen, largely defined by current student demands and race and ethnicity have been emphasized. Therefore, graduate students choosing fields need to understand that the market will change and be prepared to accept the market for what it is when they're ready to apply. 
I do agree with @NoirFemme's final point about those who are 100% committed to being professor should be the last ones to apply because what are those people doing to do if they don't get jobs as a professor upon graduating from a PhD program? They are not being open-minded enough and being flexible with the reality.  At the same time, @Sigabais right about commitment to the historian's craft. To be successful academically -- and I mean with a solid CV -- one does need to be committed to research and writing an excellent dissertation that can be converted to a publishable book without significant distractions to slow down the progress (and costing the university/department more $).  Unless you're an amazing multi-tasker and at time management to be able to take up side activities to build up your resume, do work for a few years before entering the PhD so you can, perhaps, easily transition back to the "working world" with those skills and more.

The following passages are what I found especially controversial. 
IMO, when you attempt to take away a person's opportunity to fail, you also take away an opportunity to succeed. Also, the way I was trained as an educator, you do not mess around with or question others' motivation unless they specifically ask for guidance. Had @NoirFemme written that those who dream of being a history professor may find the path exceptionally challenging, or suggested that such individuals consider the benefits of broadening their constellation of motivational factors, I would have nodded in silent agreement.
But that's not what she wrote. Instead, she editorialized ("the height of conceit").
But also.. 
^The position that one's background alone bequeaths an understanding of how doctoral programs are designed, is debatable, especially given the absence of qualifiers. IME, it is the kind of generalization that historians are trained not to make -- autobiography is not history. One's background and experiences may provide additional insight, but do not, in and of themselves provide expertise.

Had @NoirFemme summarized her experiences as being consistent with what is being reported in this and other threads--with or without the disclosure of race, gender identity, and socio economic class, I would find her comments more memorable and less controversial.
You continue to conflate your individual experience as a graduate student in one history program as a global view of all doctoral programs as well as of thousands of higher education institutions. The latter is especially interesting as individual institutions are themselves trying to figure out if COVID-19 is the cause of their financial misfortunes or, as many administrators and consultancies are arguing, an accelerant. "Being honest" about one's experiences is crucial,  and, IMO, a conversation among historians is not well served by over generalizing and over simplifying cause effect relationships.

Positioning oneself in a role is not the same as fulfilling that role. You sought to establish an order by which people should consider applying to history graduate programs. For whose benefit did you offer the opinion? Certainly not for the benefit of "true believers" who might be able to submit application materials that resonate with like-minded professors who go on to do what history professors are known to do -- lean in and support graduate students who remind them of themselves. 

I wasn't aware that being honest about what is happening in doctoral programs in the middle of a global pandemic, which is turning higher ed upside down, is gatekeeping. I find it highly irresponsible for current graduate students to tell prospective students to apply without laying out what they will probably face in programs that are in difficult positions to offer proper mentorship, research support, financial resources, and general advice. I have mentored first years in different programs since I was in my second year, and I am honest and frank with the incoming first years right now about how little advice I can give because I did not begin my program in this context. Pretending that being a doctoral student is solely about a life of the mind, or a few years to explore a dream, is the sole province of the privileged. 
Also, I am not and will never be in the position to gatekeep academia, so throwing that accusation at me is astonishing. 

Years ago I frequented Gradcafe while applying for a PhD in history. Not all of the advice I received here was good, but much of it was. Partly as a result of that advice, I was admitted to a good PhD program where I had excellent mentors, made some dear friends, and learned a great deal about the craft of writing history. Everyone battles depression at some point while doing a PhD, but on the whole I remember my PhD with fondness. So hear I am with my PhD in hand, ready to pay it forward. This is the best advice I can give you: don't do a PhD in history. Don't do it.
I know that you have heard about how bad the job market is, but "bad" is misleading. It suggests that it is highly competitive, in a slump, leaving some good people behind, or something like that. The reality is that the historical profession is dying. There are no jobs and there won't be any for a long time. By that I don't mean that there are few jobs. I mean that there are none. My field is a large one. Every big history department in America has at least one scholar in my area. And this year there is not a single job that I'm eligible to apply for. If you complete a PhD, you need to realize that there is a good chance that you'll be in the same boat. And if there are two or three jobs when you finish, you'll be competing against hundreds of other scholars desperate for work. Many of your competitors will be 5-7 years out of their own PhDs, have books with good presses, and years of teaching experience. Even if you show enormous promise, why would risk-averse departments hire you instead of someone who has been doing the job well for years?
I attended a top-five PhD program (overall and in my field). I wrote an award-winning dissertation. I graduated with multiple good publications. I received excellent course evaluations for the courses I TA'ed and taught as instructor of record. My mentors wrote fulsome letters of recommendation. I produced polished job application materials. I did a postdoc at another top-five university. I am a friendly person who interviews well. None of those things altered the brute fact that there were no jobs. My profile isn't that of a superstar, but it is the profile of someone who did everything you're supposed to do. 
I'm not bitter about my experience. I have an academic adjacent job that is in some ways better than a tenure-track job. I don't really regret doing a PhD, but I am keenly aware that it came at an enormous cost. If you're on this board, you've heard the rule now that you should never pay for a graduate degree in history. That's true, but the real cost of doing a PhD is time. Everyone pays for their PhD. Even if you are among the vanishingly small number of prospective historians who get a tenure-track job, it will probably take seven years of a PhD work and then several years of struggling in temporary employment. That's probably a decade of your life receiving highly specialized training for a job that doesn't really exist anymore. You will pour most of your youth into a discipline that almost certainly won't have a place for you. 
What should you do? If you are thinking about applying for a PhD in history, don't. If you can't imagine doing something else, work on strengthening your imagination. There are lots of ways to engage in the life of the mind outside of the university. If you are in the first few years of a PhD program, I would recommend getting an M.A. and getting out. If you are close to the end of your program, it might make sense to hang on and finish. But you should write a good-enough dissertation and spend most of your time figuring out how to build a path toward a non-academic future.
Again, I'm not angry or bitter. I had a good experience in my PhD experience and will continue to publish some. But the historical profession is dying. History enrollments have fallen more than enrollments in any other discipline. Administrators are cutting lines or even eliminating departments. It probably won't get better for a generation, if ever. 

I’ve enjoyed reading the comments on here in as far as it gives light to all the different opinions there are in this given topic. For one, it is telling that those within current programs are not even cautioning us but rather persuading us not to apply. This just highlights how out of touch institutions are to the world. It is sad that future scholars are advising current applicants not to apply. This kind of sentiment is not unique to academia. Lawyers have the highest rate of alcoholism in any profession, yet there are still many people going down that track even knowing the amount of stress and unstable financial return. This probably ties into what the poster above mentioned. We all do certain things for our own reason. Every profession has its exploitative side as well. Does that stop people from doing it? No. There are social workers who are severely underpaid and overworked, yet they still find a reason to help others. Should they get paid more? Yes, without a question. 
Academia is unique in that it is held up by powerful institutional pillars. And in the past 20 years or so, we've only really seen this institution open up and accept scholars from non-traditional backgrounds. By its design, academia is supposed to uplift a heteronormative, homogenous white space. Because of this, most scholars within undergrad/grad environments don't see beyond these walls. And really, I am talking about the elite of the elite schools. Most people getting into the top schools have been pipelined into getting there, whether it be coming from a top prep school/boarding school, going to a top 30 undergrad, and then getting a place to a top grad school. This is no mistake. Does it erase the amount of work the person experienced to get there? No. But it does put into context when you start having applicants from low-income backgrounds who have faced more adversity on their way to getting to one of these top schools. Many of these new scholars have already realize that though they have achieved a great feat, this degree is still not a means to an end for them. Simply getting a degree from harvard or yale will not make things easier if you are a black or brown phd holder applying to further white institutions. 
 
So in this context, it does still feel as though certain ideas echoed here are gatekeeping those same very underrepresented scholars who by design as well have had to overcome many obstacles and jump through similar gatekeepers just to get a similar spot where you stand. I really do believe these underrepresented scholars are the ones who are paving the way in creating a new reimagined institution. 
 
With Covid having destroyed nearly every field, it's hard to even gatekeep something we all know is going to majorly change in the coming years if not sooner. Gatekeepers telling certain applicants not to apply because they are being foolish of their career prospects may seem harmless and just "advice", but there are many who do not look at this from that perspective.
 
And we all see how exploitative this profession is even before we get there. From the application process to being a grad student to entering the field. It never ends. But does that mean we accept this cynicism that one should stop trying?
 
These kinds of conversations touch on certain aspects of our current society. And who is facing the discomfort right now? In short, the very same homogenous white space that for the first time ever is feeling the same pressure and discomfort that certain minorities have been feeling for quite a long time now... 

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

I’ve enjoyed reading the comments on here in as far as it gives light to all the different opinions there are in this given topic. For one, it is telling that those within current programs are not even cautioning us but rather persuading us not to apply. This just highlights how out of touch institutions are to the world. It is sad that future scholars are advising current applicants not to apply. This kind of sentiment is not unique to academia. Lawyers have the highest rate of alcoholism in any profession, yet there are still many people going down that track even knowing the amount of stress and unstable financial return. This probably ties into what the poster above mentioned. We all do certain things for our own reason. Every profession has its exploitative side as well. Does that stop people from doing it? No. There are social workers who are severely underpaid and overworked, yet they still find a reason to help others. Should they get paid more? Yes, without a question. 
Academia is unique in that it is held up by powerful institutional pillars. And in the past 20 years or so, we've only really seen this institution open up and accept scholars from non-traditional backgrounds. By its design, academia is supposed to uplift a heteronormative, homogenous white space. Because of this, most scholars within undergrad/grad environments don't see beyond these walls. And really, I am talking about the elite of the elite schools. Most people getting into the top schools have been pipelined into getting there, whether it be coming from a top prep school/boarding school, going to a top 30 undergrad, and then getting a place to a top grad school. This is no mistake. Does it erase the amount of work the person experienced to get there? No. But it does put into context when you start having applicants from low-income backgrounds who have faced more adversity on their way to getting to one of these top schools. Many of these new scholars have already realize that though they have achieved a great feat, this degree is still not a means to an end for them. Simply getting a degree from harvard or yale will not make things easier if you are a black or brown phd holder applying to further white institutions. 
 
So in this context, it does still feel as though certain ideas echoed here are gatekeeping those same very underrepresented scholars who by design as well have had to overcome many obstacles and jump through similar gatekeepers just to get a similar spot where you stand. I really do believe these underrepresented scholars are the ones who are paving the way in creating a new reimagined institution. 
 
With Covid having destroyed nearly every field, it's hard to even gatekeep something we all know is going to majorly change in the coming years if not sooner. Gatekeepers telling certain applicants not to apply because they are being foolish of their career prospects may seem harmless and just "advice", but there are many who do not look at this from that perspective.
 
And we all see how exploitative this profession is even before we get there. From the application process to being a grad student to entering the field. It never ends. But does that mean we accept this cynicism that one should stop trying?
 
These kinds of conversations touch on certain aspects of our current society. And who is facing the discomfort right now? In short, the very same homogenous white space that for the first time ever is feeling the same pressure and discomfort that certain minorities have been feeling for quite a long time now... 

I’ve enjoyed reading the comments on here in as far as it gives light to all the different opinions there are in this given topic. For one, it is telling that those within current programs are not even cautioning us but rather persuading us not to apply. This just highlights how out of touch institutions are to the world. It is sad that future scholars are advising current applicants not to apply. This kind of sentiment is not unique to academia. Lawyers have the highest rate of alcoholism in any profession, yet there are still many people going down that track even knowing the amount of stress and unstable financial return. This probably ties into what the poster above mentioned. We all do certain things for our own reason. Every profession has its exploitative side as well. Does that stop people from doing it? No. There are social workers who are severely underpaid and overworked, yet they still find a reason to help others. Should they get paid more? Yes, without a question. 
Academia is unique in that it is held up by powerful institutional pillars. And in the past 20 years or so, we've only really seen this institution open up and accept scholars from non-traditional backgrounds. By its design, academia is supposed to uplift a heteronormative, homogenous white space. Because of this, most scholars within undergrad/grad environments don't see beyond these walls. And really, I am talking about the elite of the elite schools. Most people getting into the top schools have been pipelined into getting there, whether it be coming from a top prep school/boarding school, going to a top 30 undergrad, and then getting a place to a top grad school. This is no mistake. Does it erase the amount of work the person experienced to get there? No. But it does put into context when you start having applicants from low-income backgrounds who have faced more adversity on their way to getting to one of these top schools. Many of these new scholars have already realize that though they have achieved a great feat, this degree is still not a means to an end for them. Simply getting a degree from harvard or yale will not make things easier if you are a black or brown phd holder applying to further white institutions. 
 
So in this context, it does still feel as though certain ideas echoed here are gatekeeping those same very underrepresented scholars who by design as well have had to overcome many obstacles and jump through similar gatekeepers just to get a similar spot where you stand. I really do believe these underrepresented scholars are the ones who are paving the way in creating a new reimagined institution. 
 
With Covid having destroyed nearly every field, it's hard to even gatekeep something we all know is going to majorly change in the coming years if not sooner. Gatekeepers telling certain applicants not to apply because they are being foolish of their career prospects may seem harmless and just "advice", but there are many who do not look at this from that perspective.
 
And we all see how exploitative this profession is even before we get there. From the application process to being a grad student to entering the field. It never ends. But does that mean we accept this cynicism that one should stop trying?
 
These kinds of conversations touch on certain aspects of our current society. And who is facing the discomfort right now? In short, the very same homogenous white space that for the first time ever is feeling the same pressure and discomfort that certain minorities have been feeling for quite a long time now... 

I’ve enjoyed reading the comments on here in as far as it gives light to all the different opinions there are in this given topic. For one, it is telling that those within current programs are not even cautioning us but rather persuading us not to apply. This just highlights how out of touch institutions are to the world. It is sad that future scholars are advising current applicants not to apply. This kind of sentiment is not unique to academia. Lawyers have the highest rate of alcoholism in any profession, yet there are still many people going down that track even knowing the amount of stress and unstable financial return. This probably ties into what the poster above mentioned. We all do certain things for our own reason. Every profession has its exploitative side as well. Does that stop people from doing it? No. There are social workers who are severely underpaid and overworked, yet they still find a reason to help others. Should they get paid more? Yes, without a question. 
Academia is unique in that it is held up by powerful institutional pillars. And in the past 20 years or so, we've only really seen this institution open up and accept scholars from non-traditional backgrounds. By its design, academia is supposed to uplift a heteronormative, homogenous white space. Because of this, most scholars within undergrad/grad environments don't see beyond these walls. And really, I am talking about the elite of the elite schools. Most people getting into the top schools have been pipelined into getting there, whether it be coming from a top prep school/boarding school, going to a top 30 undergrad, and then getting a place to a top grad school. This is no mistake. Does it erase the amount of work the person experienced to get there? No. But it does put into context when you start having applicants from low-income backgrounds who have faced more adversity on their way to getting to one of these top schools. Many of these new scholars have already realize that though they have achieved a great feat, this degree is still not a means to an end for them. Simply getting a degree from harvard or yale will not make things easier if you are a black or brown phd holder applying to further white institutions. 
 
So in this context, it does still feel as though certain ideas echoed here are gatekeeping those same very underrepresented scholars who by design as well have had to overcome many obstacles and jump through similar gatekeepers just to get a similar spot where you stand. I really do believe these underrepresented scholars are the ones who are paving the way in creating a new reimagined institution. 
 
With Covid having destroyed nearly every field, it's hard to even gatekeep something we all know is going to majorly change in the coming years if not sooner. Gatekeepers telling certain applicants not to apply because they are being foolish of their career prospects may seem harmless and just "advice", but there are many who do not look at this from that perspective.
 
And we all see how exploitative this profession is even before we get there. From the application process to being a grad student to entering the field. It never ends. But does that mean we accept this cynicism that one should stop trying?
 
These kinds of conversations touch on certain aspects of our current society. And who is facing the discomfort right now? In short, the very same homogenous white space that for the first time ever is feeling the same pressure and discomfort that certain minorities have been feeling for quite a long time now...