Cutting back Philosophy PhD enrollments

[Javslavin]

I was going through Leiter Reports and noticed this post: http://leiterreports...nrollments.html

I was wondering what current applicants thought about this possibility? Please feel free to vote and to post your thoughts on the matter.

I, for one, can see both sides of the issue: on the numbers-front, there are too many job-applicants for the number of positions available. However, I am concerned that a reduction of spaces will only support the already strong trends of selection bias at work (i.e., institutional, gender, minority biases), and will ultimately lead to a less dynamic and diverse group of philosophers and ideas.

Thoughts?

Edited March 25, 2012 by Javslavin

[v3p011]

I would say that reducing PhD enrollment rates is a terrible idea. Here's why:

From a practical point of view, it don't see any potential benefit of cutting enrollment, perhaps you can enlighten me. The only possible "benefit" is to save some students from themselves by not allowing them to even get near the job market. However, operating under the assumption that people getting their PhDs are adults and know the risks, I don't see what the problem is.

More importantly, however, this move would in no way reduce competition (if that was even a good thing to begin with), it would simply shift the competition to entering PhD students. Thus, instead of having your undergraduate deggree + your PhD to establish your philosophical ability and readiness for the job market, you are more likely to be prevented from pursuing a career in philosophy before you even begin a PhD. This is especially true for those students who discover philosophy in the course of their undergraduate degree, and especially since M.A. programs are increasingly going the way of the dinosaur. Of course, some would argue that it's better to fail having never even tried, but I don't subscribe to that view.

Finally, why should an education in philosophy be solely determined by the supply/demand economics of the job market? Maybe I'm old fashioned to believe that one of the purposes of pursuing a graduate degree is to get an education--the pursuit of knowledge and all that junk--but if people are so concerned about getting jobs maybe they should pursue a career in law or finance.

[Two Espressos]

I study literature rather than philosophy (and wish to pursue a PhD in literature rather than philosophy), but I visit Dr. Leiter's blog frequently and voted in the poll. I voted "yes," though I can see both sides. Cutting student enrollment would provide more funding, at least in theory, right? That's the biggest concern for me.

[UnbearableNausea]

I would say that reducing PhD enrollment rates is a terrible idea. Here's why:

From a practical point of view, it don't see any potential benefit of cutting enrollment, perhaps you can enlighten me. The only possible "benefit" is to save some students from themselves by not allowing them to even get near the job market. However, operating under the assumption that people getting their PhDs are adults and know the risks, I don't see what the problem is.

More importantly, however, this move would in no way reduce competition (if that was even a good thing to begin with), it would simply shift the competition to entering PhD students. Thus, instead of having your undergraduate deggree + your PhD to establish your philosophical ability and readiness for the job market, you are more likely to be prevented from pursuing a career in philosophy before you even begin a PhD. This is especially true for those students who discover philosophy in the course of their undergraduate degree, and especially since M.A. programs are increasingly going the way of the dinosaur. Of course, some would argue that it's better to fail having never even tried, but I don't subscribe to that view.

Finally, why should an education in philosophy be solely determined by the supply/demand economics of the job market? Maybe I'm old fashioned to believe that one of the purposes of pursuing a graduate degree is to get an education--the pursuit of knowledge and all that junk--but if people are so concerned about getting jobs maybe they should pursue a career in law or finance.

I think many of your arguments hold true for a BA more than they do graduate studies in philosophy, and I actually think you are quite wrong about future role of MAs. This will especially be the case if/when most PGR ranked programs cut the number of funded PhD spots.

One thing to consider is the attrition rate paired with the somewhat severe lack of jobs. Many programs lose a substantial percentage of their graduate students before they complete their degree, and even still, the relative few who enter the job market face not just stiff competition but an actual lack of employment opportunities. While it may seem authoritarian or fascist for a school or a cadre of schools to purposefully cut their enrollment to compensate for the terrible job market, the alternative is to continue to perpetuate a system that results in a glut of applicants in the market and a corresponding glut of unemployed and overeducated individuals. Is this the responsibility of the schools? No. But it is refreshing to see that they are aware of the issue and are actively trying to resolve it.

You say that as long as they are adults and know the risks then things should remain as they are. But grade inflation and the general tone of pseudo-grooming that goes on leads many, many students to believe that they are the brightest star in the sky, when they are but one among many. Some are not even told about the job shortage that awaits them - and this has been the case for almost 20 years. I should like to live in a world where students are encouraged to seek out graduate programs without a thought for potential hardship that awaits them in getting a job, but that is surely not the world in which we live. I agree that education should be as much about enrichment as it is about pursuing a career, which is why I see MA programs playing a larger role in the coming decades. As MA degrees become more and more expected across the board, philosophy-specific MA programs will serve as a proving grounds that a candidate has ( a ) the chops to complete PhD level course work and ( b ) is sufficiently exposed to the atmosphere in professional philosophy departments so as to weigh whether this is the life he or she would like to lead.

Also, law is facing a similar glut of qualified workers without job prospects, though not to the degree that philosophy is.

Edited March 26, 2012 by UnbearableNausea

[Norman G]

I think many of your arguments hold true for a BA more than they do graduate studies in philosophy, and I actually think you are quite wrong about future role of MAs. This will especially be the case if/when most PGR ranked programs cut the number of funded PhD spots.

One thing to consider is the attrition rate paired with the somewhat severe lack of jobs. Many programs lose a substantial percentage of their graduate students before they complete their degree, and even still, the relative few who enter the job market face not just stiff competition but an actual lack of employment opportunities. While it may seem authoritarian or fascist for a school or a cadre of schools to purposefully cut their enrollment to compensate for the terrible job market, the alternative is to continue to perpetuate a system that results in a glut of applicants in the market and a corresponding glut of unemployed and overeducated individuals. Is this the responsibility of the schools? No. But it is refreshing to see that they are aware of the issue and are actively trying to resolve it.

You say that as long as they are adults and know the risks then things should remain as they are. But grade inflation and the general tone of pseudo-grooming that goes on leads many, many students to believe that they are the brightest star in the sky, when they are but one among many. Some are not even told about the job shortage that awaits them - and this has been the case for almost 20 years. I should like to live in a world where students are encouraged to seek out graduate programs without a thought for potential hardship that awaits them in getting a job, but that is surely not the world in which we live. I agree that education should be as much about enrichment as it is about pursuing a career, which is why I see MA programs playing a larger role in the coming decades. As MA degrees become more and more expected across the board, philosophy-specific MA programs will serve as a proving grounds that a candidate has ( a ) the chops to complete PhD level course work and ( b ) is sufficiently exposed to the atmosphere in professional philosophy departments so as to weigh whether this is the life he or she would like to lead.

Also, law is facing a similar glut of qualified workers without job prospects, though not to the degree that philosophy is.

[v3p011]

Those are very interesting points UN, but I can't say that I fully agree...

First, you mention that it's refreshing to see graduate programs trying to address the problem. But my question is, how do you define the problem? Is the problem too many job applicants or too few jobs? If it's the latter, it won't be solved by reducing graduate enrollment rates. If cutting enrollment is a viable solution, then the problem of general unemployment could be solved simply by discouraging people from even looking for a job.

Which brings me to another point: it seems to me that most philosophy programs silently accept that philosophy is not intrinsically worthwhile, and that the quasi-economic forces at work in the job market are God-given laws (or, if you prefer, natural laws), which must be respected. This is a highly uncritical position, especially since the job market is, in the first place, determined by a decision on the part of some administrators that philosophy is not as worthwhile as, say, engineering or the natural sciences, because it's not as profitable. To be blunt, they've blown their endowments by investing in risky mortgage schemes and now, despite the fact that there is an increased ecnomic demand for philosophy amongst undergraduates, they intend to cut costs by reducing graduate enrollment and the number of teaching jobs for an ever-increasing undergraduate (and unfunded M.A.) student body.

As far as M.A. degrees are concerned, I speak from a certain historical perspective. I am not sure how it used to work in the US, but in Canada, master's degrees used to be a formal requirement before pursuing a PhD in most disciplines. In recent years, however, this has been changing. Now, master's degrees are increasingly turning into extended undergraduate degrees, which allows administrators to extract obscene tuition fees from students. So, in a sense, I agree with you: as programs cut funded PhD spots, more students will have to pursue completely unfunded 6 year B.A./ M.A.programs. This is what I had in mind when I referenced the decline of the traditional, funded M.A. degree. Oh and the idea that after cutting PhD enollment, programs will increase funding for the remaining PhD students is as silly as workers who believe that they will get a raise when the company announces massive layoffs.

All in all, we really have to dispel the myth that this is an economic problem. Universities are not going to outsource their education plants to India or China if the public forces them to change their hiring practices. The problem is, the public will do no such thing because philosophy faculty and students really do believe that philosophy is useless to begin with.

/rant

[Hypatience]

I'm not sure if what you're saying about Canadian MAs is accurate. I applied to nine Canadian MA programs this year, all of which unequivocally offer all their incoming students enough funding to both cover tuition and live on. The unfunded philosophy MA seems to be a mostly American animal.