Accepting applicants who don't want to teach?

[Primrose]

Hi, I'm Primrose. I am a recent lurker and a first-time poster.

I am wondering if admissions committees to doctoral programs would generally look down on applicants who do not want to teach or who are pretty sure that they don't want to.

It makes sense to me that adcoms would reject anyone who didn't want to teach, but I just wanted to get everyone's/anyone's opinion on that.

I would like to get the Ph.D. in English lit because I would like to research a lot and have my work taken seriously.

I would love, love, love the intellectual camaraderie and stimulation that comes with membership on a faculty. However, I do not think that I was cut out to teach. I tried to teach high school for three years, and was a disaster at it. I understand that high school teaching is not university teaching, but I still don't think that I'd be good at it. I'd love to be good at teaching, but I am not, nor do I think that I could really develop the skills. I still really want the doctorate, though.

Any thoughts are welcome.

[Kitkat]

I think that knowing that you don't want to teach a good thing really. It means that you have thought about it and know what you do and do not know what to do with it. That and I think that at this point in time, it would be really hard to get a teaching job in English at the college level. Not that I don't think that it's important, more people need it really, but there are only so many positions available and with a bad economy and all.....

I am curious as to what you do want to do with it. Getting a Ph.D. in English can't be cheap to get. And as a note, being in an English doctorate program, you still might be asked to teach classes, to help you pay your way through (Although I might be wrong, English PhDs help me out here). So that might be something to look into, if you're really not that into teaching.

This is not to discourage you from doing it. But I don't think that they would necessarily keep you out because you don't want to teach once you get it.

[Primrose]

I think that knowing that you don't want to teach a good thing really. It means that you have thought about it and know what you do and do not know what to do with it. That and I think that at this point in time, it would be really hard to get a teaching job in English at the college level. Not that I don't think that it's important, more people need it really, but there are only so many positions available and with a bad economy and all.....

I am curious as to what you do want to do with it. Getting a Ph.D. in English can't be cheap to get. And as a note, being in an English doctorate program, you still might be asked to teach classes, to help you pay your way through (Although I might be wrong, English PhDs help me out here). So that might be something to look into, if you're really not that into teaching.

This is not to discourage you from doing it. But I don't think that they would necessarily keep you out because you don't want to teach once you get it.

Thanks for your reply, KitKat.

I've wanted to get my doctorate ever since I graduated from undergrad. My grades were not stellar (2.9 overall, 3.6 within the major). It was my intention, at that time, to go straight through and get the M.A. and Ph.D. I was rejected from the master's program at my undergrad, however, and I majorly lost my way. I was discouraged, ashamed, and decided that English must obviously not be my field. I got an MBA instead, frankly for the lack of other plans, and I ended up getting a teaching license/master's in education a few years after that (I thought that I would teach high school and save money for doctorate work). It was always my intention to teach college with a Ph.D., until I taught high school and did so poorly at it. But I just love academia and want to be part of it. It's the only place I feel really comfortable or at home. A few weeks ago, I got back from a conference at my alma mater held by two profs, and I just felt so energized about life and happy to be alive because I'd had interaction with people who think, open-minded people, people who choose to be intelligent.

I guess that I am the reverse from many professors in that I would love the research and publishing, but would not like the teaching (the formal purpose for being at a university!!).

I am just thinking that competition for many programs is so competitive, that committees would not wish to waste a spot to anyone who does not want to formally utilize the Ph.D. in the traditional forum. I also worry that not wanting to teach would make me look like an aimless wanderer, a dilettante, to adcoms.

That is why I haven't really pursued doctorate level work yet - I know that it is a huge time and money investment (it isn't until gradcafe that I realized that you can try for funding), and it seems irresponsible to make such an investment when I don't want to teach, and would probably be unable to secure work anyway. And I know that most programs have you teach as part of the program, which is also a deterrent. I worry that the undergrads would eat me alive, as did my high school juniors.

[ZeeMore21]

I think that knowing that you don't want to teach a good thing really. It means that you have thought about it and know what you do and do not know what to do with it. That and I think that at this point in time, it would be really hard to get a teaching job in English at the college level. Not that I don't think that it's important, more people need it really, but there are only so many positions available and with a bad economy and all.....

I am curious as to what you do want to do with it. Getting a Ph.D. in English can't be cheap to get. And as a note, being in an English doctorate program, you still might be asked to teach classes, to help you pay your way through (Although I might be wrong, English PhDs help me out here). So that might be something to look into, if you're really not that into teaching.

This is not to discourage you from doing it. But I don't think that they would necessarily keep you out because you don't want to teach once you get it.

Well, I am in an English doctoral program, and will not pay for absolutely anything...my tuition is paid for and I receive a generous stipend. I'm not really sure where you are getting your information from, but for the most part, English doctoral programs come with free tuition and a stipend for the entirety of the program. In my case, I don't have to teach my first year, but I do have to teach year 2, 3, and 4, and my stipend for these years are dependent on me teaching. However, I also don't teach my last year to work on the dissertation.

But anyway, to the OP, if you know you don't want to teach, then going into an English doctoral program may not be for you. People going into an English doctoral program usually do want to teach at the college level. You can't be a college professor only doing research...you most certainly will have to teach...and teach well if you want to have a tenure track position. Also to maintain your stipend as a doctoral student, you would have to receive good teaching reviews as an Instructor....you could potentially lose your funding with mediocre teaching ability.

Edited August 3, 2011 by ZeeMore21

[bdon19]

Primrose, I'm not an expert on English PhD admissions and so won't pretend to be. However, as I am currently looking very seriously into PhD programs in English lit, I think I have enough expertise to, at the very least, guide you.

I'll start out with the big question. What do you think you're going to do with your PhD if not teach? It's all very well to say that you don't like teaching but love "researching," but how practical is that? Let's look at the facts. I don't think I've seen a single PhD program that doesn't have some sort of stipulation as to how many classes you're expected to teach as part of your fellowship. Some schools only offer funding in the form of teaching assistantships. Right there, you're facing two options: either teach (however begrudgingly) or pay your way through the PhD.

Furthermore, once you get that degree, have you ever heard of an institution hiring someone who never teaches and just does research? I surely haven't. Maybe if you're Harold Bloom (and don't get me started on Harold Bloom). It just doesn't seem practical.

Here's my suggestion (and obviously I know little about you, so take it with a grain of salt): Don't go straight for your PhD. Maybe consider doing an MA program that will help you solidify your interests and confirm the extent to which research is really something you love as opposed to something you're used to. An MA is going to be a lot more practical a degree in the long run than a PhD. Suppose you go through a PhD program doing the minimum amounts of teaching you possibly can, get through the program, realize you don't really love research all that much or teaching, and find yourself with a hardly marketable degree. It's hard enough to find jobs in the real world lately. Add a PhD in English to that? Bad news bears.

Have you looked into other areas of study/occupation that might work better for you? Think about what you truly love. The "life of the mind" and "intellectual camaraderie and stimulation" are fabulous things, but if you're not TRULY enthused by the prospect of the life that the PhD in English lit offers you, then you should probably reconsider.

Those are my two cents. Harsh words, but (to the best of my knowledge) true.

[Primrose]

Don't worry, I did not expect a university to hire me for any other reason than for teaching.

[runonsentence]

This isn't a "what to do" post so much as a "things to chew on" post.

1. You will need to make a convincing case in your SoP as to what kind of career you envision that does not require teaching. (Virtually the only researchers who do not teach at all are the ridiculously famous ones in cushy endowed professorships at the Ivies, but I'm sure that even they need to teach from time to time.) Since your SoP needs to address what you envision doing with your PhD, you will need to tell them what kinds of viable career options your forsee pursuing with your degree that don't involve teaching.

2. Do you intend to only pursue faculty positions at R1s/research-extensive institutions (where, I might add, competition is keen)? Know that this will make your job market search incredibly difficult, nigh unto impossible. The market is bad enough as it is, without cutting out teaching-intensive institutions like liberal arts colleges and community colleges.

3. Are you interested in administration? Those who help direct programs or become dean, etc. receive teaching releases—but note that many/most still teach.

4. Are you finding many programs that fit your research interests and offer research assistantships and fellowships, instead of teaching assistantships (which are by far the most common source of funding)?

5. If you apply to programs where it is likely you would receive your funding in the form of a teaching assistantship, how will you convince the adcom that you will be an engaged, committed TA in your SoP?

Edited August 3, 2011 by runonsentence

[runonsentence]

Furthermore, once you get that degree, have you ever heard of an institution hiring someone who never teaches and just does research? I surely haven't. Maybe if you're Harold Bloom (and don't get me started on Harold Bloom). It just doesn't seem practical..

bdon19, you have NO IDEA how close I came to writing this exact thing about Harold Bloom in my post as well.

[bdon19]

bdon19, you have NO IDEA how close I came to writing this exact thing about Harold Bloom in my post as well.

I'm sure most of you have seen this, but still.

"I want to go to Yale. They have Harold Bloom." It kills me every time.

[eco_env]

Furthermore, once you get that degree, have you ever heard of an institution hiring someone who never teaches and just does research? I surely haven't. Maybe if you're Harold Bloom (and don't get me started on Harold Bloom). It just doesn't seem practical.

Actually Harold Bloom teaches: Shakespeare and the Canon: Histories, Comedies, and Poems and Art of Reading a Poem.

http://english.yale.edu/faculty-staff/harold-bloom

[juilletmercredi]

I'm not even in English and I have heard stories about Harold Bloom. LOL.

In any case, I think it's field dependent. In my admissions essay, when asked what I wanted to do in the future, I said that I wanted to do government research and advocacy/policy work. And I flat out told my PhD advisor in my first year here that I did not want to be a professor. But I am in public health, a field where it is very common for doctoral degree holders to work in government and nonprofit institutions. He is very accepting of this and has been supportive of helping me network in non-academic arenas to work.

[qbtacoma]

Can I hear the gossip about Harold Bloom?

[bdon19]

Can I hear the gossip about Harold Bloom?

Well, there's this, for one:

http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/features/n_9932/

And this one:

http://www.viceland.com/int/v15n12/htdocs/harold-bloom-431.php

I just think he's an insufferable jerk, mainly. And I don't agree with him on many, many things, particularly w/r/t the canon.

[qbtacoma]

Well, there's this, for one:

http://nymag.com/nym...eatures/n_9932/

And this one:

http://www.viceland....d-bloom-431.php

I just think he's an insufferable jerk, mainly. And I don't agree with him on many, many things, particularly w/r/t the canon.

Wow. I've never heard good things about Yale regarding its attitude toward sexual assault. This is yet another piece of evidence against it.

[juilletmercredi]

I've just heard that he's awful and egotistical, and a lot of English scholars (particularly women) don't like and don't agree with him. I hadn't heard about his harassment of Naomi Wolf, but that article was horrible. And this:

Much of contemporary criticism takes a novel and holds it up to a series of incongruous and irrelevant sociological magnifying glasses—gender theory, feminism, Marxist analysis, and all sorts of postmodern muck. These critics, whom Bloom has memorably called the School of Resentment, have gained such strength that they have colored, even infected, writers whose careers have started since the Resentment began. So what we are seeing is criticism that changes literature for the worse and, as Bloom laments, contributes to the idiot-ization of the entire world. It’s a mess, and it may be irreversible.

From the second article - I had to laugh bitterly. I'm in sociology/psychology, and the description of feminism and Marxist analysis as "postmodern muck" is disconcerting. I know he didn't write it, but he endorses it, and for a distinguished professor of humanities to describe feminist analysis of work as an "infection" is...well, I think it says a lot about him.

[qbtacoma]

I've just heard that he's awful and egotistical, and a lot of English scholars (particularly women) don't like and don't agree with him. I hadn't heard about his harassment of Naomi Wolf, but that article was horrible. And this:

Much of contemporary criticism takes a novel and holds it up to a series of incongruous and irrelevant sociological magnifying glasses—gender theory, feminism, Marxist analysis, and all sorts of postmodern muck. These critics, whom Bloom has memorably called the School of Resentment, have gained such strength that they have colored, even infected, writers whose careers have started since the Resentment began. So what we are seeing is criticism that changes literature for the worse and, as Bloom laments, contributes to the idiot-ization of the entire world. It’s a mess, and it may be irreversible.

From the second article - I had to laugh bitterly. I'm in sociology/psychology, and the description of feminism and Marxist analysis as "postmodern muck" is disconcerting. I know he didn't write it, but he endorses it, and for a distinguished professor of humanities to describe feminist analysis of work as an "infection" is...well, I think it says a lot about him.

Yeah, when you have that attitude toward feminism it isn't much of a surprise when you turn out to feel entitled to touch your students, huh? What a loser he is.