CHE article

[Two Espressos]

I'm curious as to what everyone on here thinks about this:

http://chronicle.com/article/From-Graduate-School-to/131795/

It's certainly not a fun read, but I think it's an important one. Thoughts?

[Dal PhDer]

*cue my mental meltdown*

...that is scary...honestly, I am doing my PhD because the job market is so poor and I want more opportunities...you hardly think that those opportunities still won't come to you after you are done. Scary....thanks for showing us this- I think! >.<

[ANDS!]

These articles always look at the same people: those with majors where unemployment is highest and job placement is lowest. And thus they create this false sense that "Hey PhD's are worthless."

What these articles need to start digging into is the job search/pre-major prep a lot of those being interviewed did. The woman says she always wanted to teach - well did she gauge the market in her area for a PhD History professor? Not likely. From the moment one steps on campus to the moment they leave, you should be on a constant evaluation of your long term job prospects, as well as what is needed to achieve the most success. Graduating with an expensive PhD in Medieval History and realizing that no one in AZ (something tells me she is locked into the state) will hire you tells me this woman didn't do that.

I'm all for someone doing what they love, but there has to come the realization that not everyone is going to get PAID to do that.

[Dal PhDer]

I think on a bigger level this article taps into the fact that people with higher education are often not being compensated fairly for their skills. She's a parttime faculty and is making $900 a month? Seriously? that's outrageous.

I understand what you're saying ANDS!, it takes A LOT more than just a degree to get a a good stable, long-term and decent paying job...you need to set up a foundation of skills, networks, etc and be might have to relocate. But I think there are huge disparities between TT and other faculty positions. And I kind of question if there should be. I look at my department, and most of the teaching is outsourced to part-time faculty making marginal wages (slave labour considering the hour to pay ratio for some of them). It just seems that our own institutions seem to be devaluing our knowledge and skills...makes looking for non-academic position a bit more attractive.

[DeeLovely79]

No actually the point of this articles is having a PhD does not make you immune to a recession. Notice how the gentlemen and his wife in Florida tried a variety of service related jobs that all disappeared as the economy weakened. Everyone talks about unemployment rate being lower for those with bachelors and advanced degrees but what they don't mention is that people may not be employed in their field or are being adequately compensated for their education.

The take away message is don't just assume things will happen for you because you have a degree. You may need to pull out plans B, C, D, E and F as the economy will likely be just as bad when you graduate. Newsflash I graduated from college May 2001 and the economy has been crap since 9/11, things have taken serious nosedive since 2008 but this country will not return to the prosperity of the 1990's. Everyone needs to prepare for newer harsher reality where no job is guaranteed and no position is secure.

[Eigen]

I highly reccommend reading the CHE discussion (on the message boards) on this article. It's illuminating, especially the discussions about how the academic job market still isn't as bad in many fields as it was in the 1970s.

It's worth noting that there are still fewer than 1% of people with PhDs on welfare, something the article glosses over. It can happen, yes, but the chance of it happening does significantly go down with increased education opening up more job options.

It's also worth noting that in the case of the first person in the article, she hasn't even been graduated for a full year yet- average time on the market in similar fields is 2 or 3 years. She's also the only one in the article with the terminal degree in her field- the other adjuncts have masters, not PhDs, which does significantly restrict academic employment.

I'm not saying the market isn't bad, or that you shouldn't have plans B through F, but the article is more of a doom and gloom piece than the reality really is.

[Cici Beanz]

I am really, really hoping that my decision to go the MS route helps me out some in this regard...even if I decide to continue my education by pursuing a PhD. The economic climate out there is just scary, period. All I want is to be able to move into a field I love and be able to pay back my (not insubstantial) loans before I'm dead. :/

[TMP]

Yeah the article did scare me. But I have to remember two things:

1) PhDs have the lowest unemplyoment rate over all other education groups.

2) My subfield is largely driven by donations. As long as there is steady cash flow, I don't have much to worry about it.

3) I have a wonderful nework of professors who have actually gotten their students jobs.

I agree, something needs to be done for the adjuncts. I'd rather work for the government than to be an adjunct.

[ANDS!]

No actually the point of this articles is having a PhD does not make you immune to a recession.

And I would say if anyone believed it did has only their delusion to blame for their lot. No job is "[insert catastrophe] proof"; and no one who uses that phrase means it is 100% inoculation against bad tidings.

Articles like this generate hits, that is their goal. A great minority of people have doctorates, and a great minority of them are on government aid (a number that is significantly - statistically and literally - lower than the general population); hardly reason to run to the hills. Some people just chose wrong.

Edited May 9, 2012 by ANDS!

[Shelley Burian]

As someone entering a humanities Ph.D. program, this is a very tough article for me because there are two very good sides to this story, and I don't see that the one side should cancel out the sympathy and the call to action for change which the other raises. The reality in this area of academia (as it has been presented to me) is that you have to be ready and able to sacrifice pretty much everything else you might want in life to break in to the market and establish yourself. You cannot expect to raise a family, buy a home, choose where you want to live or work until you get a decent full time job, which can take one year or several. This SHOULD be unacceptable in our society, but it's not. The other hard truths are that you are competing in an international pool of applicants, prestige (of both institution and advisor) matter, and that brillant publications right out of school or even before you graduate are a virtual requirement for a good position. Do I think that the person at the heart of the article really wasn't prepared for what she was undertaking? Yes. Does that mean that her situation, and that of the permanent class of non-tenure track faculty is not a shame to our institutions? Absolutely not. People who spend much of their lives devoted to the improvement of others minds should be able to raise a family and have a decent life. Universities are equally responsible for continuing to accept as many graduate students as they do when they KNOW there are not positions or decent futures for them.

Edited June 10, 2012 by Shelley Burian

[Eigen]

Wait, why is it the universities responsibility to not accept students for which there is not a sufficient chance of a career? Isn't that the responsibility of the student?

It's not the universities responsibility to make sure at all undergrads are going into majors for which theres a good job market. Why should it be a responsibility at the graduate level, when students should be even more prepared to make the call on their own?

The university provides the education, it's up to the student to decide if that degree is worth their time and/or money. Similarly, it's up to the student what they choose to do when they graduate.

If there wasn't such a large supply of people willing to teach at such low wages rather than working at another job, than schools would be forced to stop relying on such labor.

Adjuncting was never meant to be a full time occupation, and shouldnt be used as such.

It's also worth noting that if schools stop using adjuncts, the job market is just going to get more competitive. Better jobs, he, but a lot fewer of them.

[ANDS!]

This SHOULD be unacceptable in our society. . .

Hardly. There is very little that is guaranteed in life. That one should be automatically given a life of happiness because they choose to study Topic X certainly isn't one of them. A programs job is to contribute to the body of knowledge of their field, not to make sure Dick and Jane has sweet jobs lined up at the end of the road.

I am personally an advocate of more intensive career services/workforce development at the undergraduate level, to help stave off people making unrealistic academic decisions. However at the graduate level, you are effectively an adult. At this point you should be aware of the risks/rewards inherent in going down Topic X's route. The program is there to make sure you're qualified should you enter the workforce, not to make sure there is a job.