Last straw - quit grad school, change research?

[SixandCounting]

Hi all, I am new here and am entering at a rather poor stage in my grad career. I was just rejected for a third time for the Fulbright IIE. My work is overseas. Without a grant, I am stuck. There's one more grant out there, but the results are usually similar.

 

I am in my 6th year and due to a variety of departmental (most of my committee left the university in the past 2 years) and personal issues, am just now getting to comprehensive exams. I love school, love the people, love my new committee, love the idea of grad school, love the jobs I am working on, love the projects I'm involved with, love the organizations I run, etc. 

 

However, I am just gosh awful at the stuff I should have as my priority. I no longer so much care about the project I developed 3 years ago, especially after three grant seasons. I have the hardest time focusing on comprehensive exam work. I would rather do work with my community, and make a difference directly among my people. I do not care about teaching. I do not care about publishing (Writing does not make much of a difference in the real world). I came into grad school to change the world, in some small part, and it is becoming increasingly apparent that I am not on the right path. I thought having a PhD after my name would cause people to listen. I doubt the people I want to reach would ever read my published works, nor care about my title.

 

But how can I leave after 6 years? I am completely entangled in so many projects, so many positive things. I don't want to leave that...I just want to change my project to be local, and useful, and practical. Everyone thinks I'm doing so well - colleagues, professors, family, friends, etc. 

This is going to be one of the hardest decisions I'll ever make. 

 

 

[fuzzylogician]

Can you just change your project? If you're not past the comprehensive exam stage and you're not funded to do the other project, maybe you can redefine a new project based on the local work you're doing? Something that excites you now?

 

I think you should also seriously think about the time investment vs. potential benefits of staying. I'm not sure it's worth it, based on what you describe. Certainly I think that staying to do a project you don't care about anymore for an additional 2-3 years with no funding, and in the end not even earning the education or credentials that would allow you to do what you want to do with your life after your PhD is a bad decision. I understand the emotional investment (which I think is even greater than the time investment for many of us) and how hard it is to let go. There's a sense of accomplishment and success in just graduating, especially after being in the program for so long. If you can make the local project you want to do fit with your PhD plan, it may be worth sticking it out and making it work. Otherwise, maybe it's time for some serious thought about quitting. It may be hard to explain to family and friends, but if it's no longer the path you want to be on then you should find out what will get you where you want to go and get yourself on that path. I'm sure you'll be happier and more satisfied if you're on a successful career path, and that's more important than whether or not you have the title 'PhD' after your name. I hope your family and friends will see this and support you in doing what makes you happy.

[OctaviaButlerfan]

I do not care about teaching. I do not care about publishing (Writing does not make much of a difference in the real world). I came into grad school to change the world, in some small part, and it is becoming increasingly apparent that I am not on the right path. I thought having a PhD after my name would cause people to listen. I doubt the people I want to reach would ever read my published works, nor care about my title.

 

But how can I leave after 6 years? I am completely entangled in so many projects, so many positive things. I don't want to leave that...I just want to change my project to be local, and useful, and practical. Everyone thinks I'm doing so well - colleagues, professors, family, friends, etc. 

Wow. I don't have any experience in a PhD program, but I do empathize with the idea that you want to make a difference, and you feel that you cannot do that by teaching or writing. Yet you don't want to leave the program because you have so much invested in it, and you enjoy so much of it. So why not investigate the possibility of doing a project that WOULD allow you to reach the people you want to reach? If that's not an option, I would recommend finishing your program and then getting a job that merges your interests in working with people and your experience in teaching and research. Consider public policy groups or groups involved in social activism. Alternatively, teaching at a small college that focuses on teaching rather than research may actually allow you to reach people. For instance, the college that I currently attend is highlighting the work of many professors, including some who are working in the community. For what it's worth, I think that you could probably make your PhD work out.

[fuzzylogician]

For what it's worth, I think that you could probably make your PhD work out.

 

No offense, but for someone who professes to have no experience in a PhD program, what is this advice based on? The OP is  more than 5 years in and not past the comprehensive exam yet, talks about not enjoying any of the major components of a PhD program (research, writing/publishing, teaching) and doesn't like their PhD project, which they also can't get funded. This calls for a major evaluation of the OP's career path, and only if they decide that a PhD is needed to get them where they want to go - or at the very least, that it doesn't interfere with the plans or hold them back - does it make sense to continue. Staying just because you could make it work out is not good enough. We're talking about another 2-3 years out of this person's life, and they shouldn't be spent doing something the OP doesn't enjoy now, nor need for their future. A PhD is not something you do just because you can stick it out; it's a difficult time-consuming endeavor even under the best of circumstances, and the circumstances the OP describes are less than ideal.

 

ETA: edited for clarity.

Edited January 19, 2013 by fuzzylogician

[CarlieE]

So not having gone as far as you, but being in the same field, I'll offer my 2 cents in the hopes that it might help you with your decision, and at least give you some comfort knowing that your predicament is not being ignored and is acknowledged as a real one. 

 

As fuzzylogician mentioned above, I agree that you have to ask yourself if a PhD is really what you want. However, there are ways you can still have your PhD without having to do the things (some of them) that you aren't interested in. Or you could exit with your MA and still do what you want. It boils down ultimately to what it is you want to DO with your life. 

 

With that said, here are my 2 cents: 

 

Are you focusing on Applied Anthropology? What sub-field are you in? If your track is applied then you don't have to teach, you don't have to publish. And you don't need to have your PhD. Has this been an option you and your advisor have explored? Not everyone in my program is on the academic track and that's OK with the faculty. Are you getting support in that way?

 

It seems as though there is some kind of external pressure telling you that a PhD is the way to go. You don't address it directly in your OP, but maybe you should. 

 

What dissertation grants have you applied for? I'm in cultural and my focus is on Southeast Asia which, of course, is overseas as yours is. I'm looking at Wenner Gren (of course), and Fullbright, but also NSF and a slew of regional fellowships. (Have you looked at these regional options?http://www.aaanet.org/profdev/fellowships/) I'm also toying with the possibility of being affiliated with a local university which can also provide some funding - also, depending on where you are, you can teach with an MA at a local uni and thereby earn money for your fieldwork as you work. I know you aren't interested in teaching, but I wasn't interested in waitressing either and that helped get me through college financially. If you want your PhD and you want your fieldwork done, there ARE other ways to fund it aside from the standard grant-tract routes. Since your goal is community oriented, have you thought of programs like Kickstarter? Or other grassroots level sources of funding? You might work for an NGO as part of your research and work into the deal that they don't "pay" you but provide meals/lodging etc. That might also open up new avenues for you to express and be more active in the community you want to help/study. 

 

One other student in our program - super, super smart - hasn't gotten funding for their fieldwork either and they are in their.... 5th year I think. But he/she is now in the field, having found private funding. Where there is a will, there is a way - even if the way is more painful. I'm not saying you're not committed; I'm saying you're in a state of depression about your situation and maybe that's hindering you from seeing other possibilities.

 

(On that note, what sort of grant writing workshops have you attended? What kind of feedback are you getting about your proposals? A lot of agencies will give you back feedback on your rejected proposal if you ask for it. Have you?)

 

 

In my program there are quite a few grads who are 6-8th year and still doing their fieldwork and one who is still trying to get funding. A lot of people took time off to do an Applied sort of addendum to their PhD. Usually a MA in public health or development studies... Is this an option for you while you consider the merits of finishing your PhD? 

 

Your OP is focused on the grant issue - you open with that statement - and the fact that you don't like your project now or the academic track stuff. 

About your project... 

 

No one expects us to stick with the same project we came into the program with. One grad I know in bio-anth COMPLETELY switched her project in the 3rd year right before Quals. AND is doing GREAT with the change. Her advisor was super supportive about it and so has the rest of the faculty. 

 

Similarly, everyone who has come back from the field has a whole new take on the project they started with. Very few in anthropology finish with they start with. A bit of advice my advisor recently gave me about field work and funding: "This anxiety you feel - have I done enough, am I doing the right thing, etc - none of that goes away. Some of it is part of life, some of it is part of the job - it's also the risky nature of working in the field, dealing with variables that change constantly. That's anthropology." 

 

Ultimately, you have to decide if a PhD is what you really want. I hope my post helps; my intent is not confuse, berate or belittle you. Your problem is a valid one and one that I'm sure many experience with good reason. 

[SixandCounting]

Thank you all so much for your replies - they have been phenomenally helpful. 

 

I have been considering the reasons behind wanting a PhD, and much of it has to do with the desire to be "officially" an expert in my field and to further the goals of my area of study.  My focus, whether pursued in an applied or a purely academic-orientated career is one of the smaller, new waves of research in social sciences. I care about it deeply and want to participate in furthering the aims and goals of the area. On the other hand, it is still rather new and interdisciplinary and this may be one of the key reasons for the lack of funding available. I am also extremely stubborn, and this may be a key reason as to why I will not give up the pursuit of the PhD.

 

I work very closely with the Fulbright Adviser on campus (we've actually become very close friends), and have taken a course dedicated exactly to grants. My advisers provide feedback - though they're pretty new to my areas of study and my project as they only recently joined my committee when my previous members left the university, so I often feel as though it is the blind leading the student.

 

Moreso, the interdisciplinary nature of my work has more or less cut me off from other anthropologists. It was great to know that there are others 5-8 years in and still working towards their goal. 

 

I am pretty sure that I truly only wish to be applied. However, every once in a while I'll lecture a course as a guest or run a workshop and realize how wonderful it feels to reach people so directly and for a week or so I'll want to be an academic. Nonetheless, I created an organization on my campus that has a motto of, "linking learning to life" and the results of running this organization and applying the coursework in real life, community settings has felt better than anything before. 

 

My department does not emphasize applied careers and seem to have a goal of preparing us all for a career in academia (even though stats show most wont end up there, grumble grumble). Departmental funding is based on how many publications we have, etc. My advisers want me to become the academic representative of my region (East Asia) for my area of study, as there is a near complete lack thus far. I've told them about my desires to work applied, but I'm not so sure they understand that it is completely applied - not applied within academia or some weird hybrid.

 

I will look into other options for funding - I have heard that it is possible to fund oneself in the field via teaching English or the like. I should have noted that I was awarded 6 months funding for my research through my department and my committee expects me to go this summer. However, they have confirmed that I absolutely must have 12 months research, which I agree with fully but nonetheless wish otherwise. Perhaps during my 6 mos (if I go) I can find a way to continue along....that was what the Fulbright was for, as well as another grant still out there.

I clearly still have a lot to consider. Considering not whether or not I want the PhD, but why it depresses me so much to be in the position I'm at now has helped. I am embarrassed it has taken this long, ashamed, and somewhat angry in the areas in which the university has failed me. Half the time I am fine with how long I've been in grad school - what's in a year? I've enjoyed myself very much these past few years. These have been the best years of my life, honestly. Why rush? I am one of the youngest in my program. I still might make my goal of a PhD before 30. It's the other half the time, when I am ashamed, that get to me.

My first 3 years I was basically lost, confused, and floundering about without a clue. The last 3 years, however, have been truly ideal. I found my niche, I found a support group, and everything has shined bright for me since.  I have considered, if the first 3 years were me pursing an MA at another college, would I be so upset about how long I've been in grad school? Is it the number of years that truly counts? So many of my colleagues spent 3 years in an MA program prior to joining the doctoral program, where I just jumped straight into it. I applied for my non-thesis MA my third year, and now I wish I could just shun those years off as my MA years. 

And yet, I am about to continue work on my comprehensives and I instantly go back to freak out mode. This is such an emotional roller coaster. 

Thanks again for the advice, it is much appreciated. 


 

Edited January 19, 2013 by SixandCounting

[rising_star]

Hmmm... I have mixed thoughts about this. First though, two things to consider.

1) Check out VersatilePhD. There have been a lot of posts there about deciding whether or not to quit and ways to think through the decision which you might find helpful/supportive/interesting. So, join and use the forum there. You'll find that you're not alone.

2) I realize this is common in anthro but, is there any particular reason why you need 12 months in the field and not 6 other than because that's how anthropologists have done things for a century? My understanding is that shorter periods of fieldwork are becoming more common...

2a) Could you do six months there and six months here and link the two projects in some way? I'm thinking her of Cindi Katz's book where she linked her fieldwork in Africa to subsequent fieldwork in NYC but, there's definitely a way to do this as part of a dissertation project if it's something you (and your committee) want to pursue.

 

More later, I've got to head off now. But, I have to say that there are differences between your initial post and your more recent one that suggest you really do need to think more carefully about whether to finish the degree, why you're purusing it, and the opportunity costs of finishing versus not finishing. So head over to VPhD (that's the twitter account), check out the various alt-ac (twitter hashtag too) things available across the web, and get in touch with your inner self, however that works for you. It will help.

[CarlieE]

2) I realize this is common in anthro but, is there any particular reason why you need 12 months in the field and not 6 other than because that's how anthropologists have done things for a century? My understanding is that shorter periods of fieldwork are becoming more common...

 

6 months is considered too little because you run the risk of being empirically thin. The idea is that you actually want 12 months as a starting point, a minimum - longer if you can. Most books end up having years of data from fieldwork, accumulated over several field visits and years. (Megan Sinnot's on Thailand took 8 years; Peter Little's on Africa was an accumulation of 20 - his whole career - for example.) The dissertation is considered to be the beginning of a career long commitment, generally. Not to say that some people don't switch regions or decide to spin off in other directions later; of course, you can and people do. But the academy is set up to have the dissertation be a starting point so 12 months is the minimum. 

 

Most post-docs return to their field sites if they can and again before you publish (The Book). Part of this is because fieldwork that is over a few years old is often considered "too old" to be valid any longer and its hard to publish a paper on fieldwork that is a few years old; so if you keep going back you can keep the data "fresh", contemporary, valid etc. (A prof of mine had fieldwork from 2008 - and 2012 was REALLY her last year to publish with it. And despite interest in the topic several journals rejected it with that very complaint.)

 

Also, it's not possible to become immersed in a new environment within a month or two realistically and then to begin the sensitive task of interviewing, participating etc. The idea is, after all, to become an expert in that culture or with that group/collective/society etc.  

 

While people HAVE published books on very little fieldwork, they do run the risk of getting very harsh criticism. Generally, advisors recommend avoiding this: you can't be criticized for having a MORE data (generally), but you can for having too little. Think of it as sample size, if you're in a quantitative field. (Also books with less empirical data tend to be theory heavy which is not recommended for grad students to attempt in dissertations since - and here is one BIG criticism I've heard - "How can one develop a theory without evidence from the ground? ie. data from fieldwork. That would be a foundational-less theory... or *gasp* an OPINION!)

 

The "tradition" of a year (minimum) has stuck because its necessary as a way to standardize the discipline; under the same principle that data from a sample size of 50 shouldn't be extrapolated to make generalizations about an entire population (generally speaking, unless the entire population of X is maybe 100 or something like that). 

 

Just my 2 cents... well, 4 now. 

[rising_star]

HeadCold, thanks for the explanation. But, what does having 12 months as a standard really mean? What does it tell us about the quality of a person's research or the accuracy of the conclusions and claims they present? It's not like we actually know what someone did for all twelve of thsoe months. For all we know, they hung out and toured around like a visitor, isolated themselves in their house, and occasionally emerged to do interviews or sit outside and conduct observations. There's no inherent rigor in being in a place for 12 months and no way for those of us that weren't there to say that someone did or did not do what they should have done, you know?

 

I come from a different place in the social sciences where we think the time in the field should match what the person wants to study. So, for example, a colleague of mine built on fieldwork that he began as an undergrad for his PhD. He spent maybe 3 summers in his field site before going there for 6 months to do dissertation research. He'd already built some connections during his prior stays so he was able to start doing interviews without waiting 2-3 months. Should his work be devalued because he didn't live there continuously for 12 months?

 

My last point is sort of an aside. I've read lots of published ethnographies, and not just those by anthropologists. As you say, most are based on return trips to the field. But, those trips are usually only 4-8 weeks long (based on what the authors themselves say). So, how much can you really learn about a new topic or new developments in that short time frame? And, if the answer is that you can learn plenty and that those experiences are incredibly valuable, why privilege the initial 12 months as being a necessary standard?

[CarlieE]

HeadCold, thanks for the explanation. But, what does having 12 months as a standard really mean? What does it tell us about the quality of a person's research or the accuracy of the conclusions and claims they present? It's not like we actually know what someone did for all twelve of thsoe months. For all we know, they hung out and toured around like a visitor, isolated themselves in their house, and occasionally emerged to do interviews or sit outside and conduct observations. There's no inherent rigor in being in a place for 12 months and no way for those of us that weren't there to say that someone did or did not do what they should have done, you know?

 

Doing 12 months doesn't mean that the research is necessarily good. You could do 24 months of worthless research too. But the proof comes in the pudding; if you don't have verifiable data, then you don't have an approvable dissertation. Your advisors will be able to tell if you have just messed around for the last X months. It's easy to tell when someone has faked their ethnographic work because, chances are, you're not the only one in that field. And the discipline being as it is, you can't get away with making a statement about a population without someone else checking it. After all, that IS what peer review is. 

 

With that said, every discipline must have standards of some kind. Rules of thumb to measure by, not as the ONLY form of measurement but as a general starting point. 

 

In grad school, 12 months in the field is one of those rules of thumb. If a university were to start giving one student a "pass" to do only 6, then why not another? Unless you can justify that your research is going to be just as good with 6 months rather than 12, it's not a battle worth fighting. And if that's the case, then the whole point of field work - a key characteristic of anthropology - goes down the drain. 

 

And your comment about time in the field matching the person's study - we are actually coming from the same place. However, ethnography is not one of those methods in which you can just "jump in". It takes time to build organic relationships with people, to get them to trust you, to open up to you - and time for you to see beyond their performance and personal agenda (as everyone has when speaking with a (generally) foreign ethnographer). In some cases that never happens, in some it happens sooner than others; this is why 12 months is merely a standard. In the "real world" there is no such thing as 12 months or any other sort of standard; however, grad school is designed around rules and standards. That's what makes a PhD accredited. If there were no standards to live by, accreditation would not be possible and essentially, a PhD (in any field) would be worthless. 

 

A PhD or any degree has worth because we give it worth. 12 months as a standard for field work is a standard because the academy has given this number value. 

 

If the OP wants to fight for 6 months or less, that's up to them; but IMO that lowers the expectation and the credibility of a PhD in anthropology. 

Edited January 20, 2013 by HeadCold

[rising_star]

If the OP wants to fight for 6 months or less, that's up to them; but IMO that lowers the expectation and the credibility of a PhD in anthropology. 

 

Two things. One, don't recall saying that the OP should do that. I suggested that the discipline might need to rethink given the increasing numbers of PhD students seeking funding for international work and the fact that the number of available scholarships/fellowships to support that work is NOT growing. Consequently, continuing to require 12 months of time in the field will be increasingly problematic and lead to longer time to degree, which many universities are cracking down on. It's actually going to be a problem that sociocultural anthropologists *will* have to confront at some point, though now may not be the time.

 

Two, I actually suggested that the OP think about revising the project such that s/he can work with the same population in two locations (Mark Anderson and Cindi Katz have both been successful doing this) to maximize the value of those 6 months out of the US.

 

To the OP: I'm not sure where your fieldwork is but, it can be difficult to earn a living teaching English, working in a restaurant/bar, or in other ways, particularly if you aren't local. In my experience, it can be done if you have some savings and/or are willing to work 8+ hours/day every day. And, depending on the locale, you may find that some locals resent you for having taken a job/money away from them. And that's not to mention that working on a tourist visa is illegal in many places and you could get kicked out of the country if someone finds out or chooses to report you. All of this is something to consider while making your long-term plans.

 

Like I said, I'm not in anthro. But, about half of my cohort does/did their research outside the USA so I'm familiar with many of the issues. The cautionary information about trying to work and earn enough to live comes from them. Some were successfully able to adjunct at local universities (typically in that country's official language) or teach part-time at a local private school (more often in English) but, this is highly dependent on one's location and proximity to such resources. Many others have gone to rural places where these opportunities were unavailable. Moreover, for some of those people, even teaching English was problematic because it complicated their relationships in the community to be asking for/taking money from impoverished community members when Americans are seen as wealthy (or at least middle class). YMMV since all of this is specific to various field sites and kinds of research.

[juilletmercredi]

I think the 12 months in the field thing is kind of like p < .05 in our quant fields.  It was an arbitrary number selected by some dead white guy decades ago.  Most people don't understand why we use .05 - it's the probability that we found a difference in our samples just by chance instead of because there actually is one.  Well, what's really so different between a 5% chance of error and a 6% chance of error?  Is a new intervention for, let's say, improving executive functioning in children with autism or condom use amongst at-risk teenagers worthless if the big differences we found between control and treatment groups has a 6% chance of being wrong instead of 5% (or even a 10% chance)?  No, not really.  But still if you find a huge difference and your p = .06 or even .057, you're screwed.  You can't publish it, you can't implement it.
 

Anyway, for the OP, I think what you need to do is explore the reasons that you want a PhD and think about whether you need one to do what you want to do.  Remember that teaching and presenting happens in more than just academia - you can give presentations to workplaces, you can adjunct in the evenings while working full-time, you can teach classes for your own employees, etc.  You said you want to do applied work - the job is to look at people who are doing what you want to do or something like it, and determine: Do they have PhDs?  Do they think a PhD is necessary or useful in their work?  Versatile PhD will help a lot with that, I think.

 

Even through that, a PhD is primarily a research degree.  In your comments, I see you say you want to "further the goals" and "further the aims" and do applied work, but never once do you say that you love research and you want to work in creating new knowledge or answering the pressing questions in your field.  There are a lot of ways to 'further the goals' of a particular field without getting a PhD and working as a researcher.  I'm in a related field (public health - we have lots of anthropologists) and there are SUCH a variety of ways that I could further the goals of my field without being a researcher - I could be a doctor, a public health nurse, a dentist, a nurse practitioner or physicians assistant, a social worker, a health education teacher, a health promotion worker, the director of a college health center, an epidemiologist, a biostatistician, on and on and on.  If you want to do direct applied work with populations, there are many ways you can do that and even use your anthropology training in that work without being a research anthropologist.  Think about that.

 

Remember the sunk cost fallacy, too.  Those 6 years you have spent getting a PhD - you will never get them back.  Regardless of whether you choose to continue or quit, those are 6 years of your life that will stay the same.  If you are miserable and the misery comes truly from the PhD program and not periodic depression/setbacks, are you willing to spend another 3 years being miserable just because you've already spent 6 of them being miserable?  It's like if you were digging a 6-foot hole in a specific spot and you hit rock at 3 feet, would you continue to try to dig right there just because you've already started the hole, even though it will be nigh impossible for you to get through the rock anotehr 3 ft?  Or would you move somewhere else where there's no rock?  Stubborness can be good and bad - perseverance springs from it, but so does wasting time, unfortunately.

 

I've told them about my desires to work applied, but I'm not so sure they understand that it is completely applied - not applied within academia or some weird hybrid.

 

Maybe you need to be clearer and more direct about your plans and goals?  The word "applied" is nebulous, and to an academic, "applied" means you want to do applied work within academic research (like my entire field is technically "applied," but it's still very much academic).  Perhaps you should clarify the types of positions you are trying to prepare for.

 

I don't know if this would work, but since your project is in East Asia, can you apply to one of those "teach abroad" programs through like CIEE and still have time to do fieldwork?  I think most of them only expect about 20-30 hours a week of work.  Are you eligible for a Ford Foundation dissertation grant, or maybe the NSF's SBE dissertation grants?  You'd have to wait until next November to apply so you wouldn't be able to go until 2014-2015, but it may be worth it.

 

These have been the best years of my life, honestly. Why rush? I am one of the youngest in my program. I still might make my goal of a PhD before 30. It's the other half the time, when I am ashamed, that get to me.

 

I agree that you shouldn't rush, but a PhD is a means to an end.  You have to finish at some time.  Don't buy into these lines that professors often feed you: Why rush?  Quite frankly, they need students to teach their classes and help them with research, so of course they're not necessarily going to encourage you to get done.

[Compass]

Alright, i'm not a PHD student so I might not seem like the most relevant person to be giving advice, but I have had my fair share of trials and tribulations that i've had to sort out (volunteering in developing countries, living in rough conditions etc). I'd like to offer the advice of not quitting. 

 

Some of the other posters have said things akin to "it's OK to quit, cause it's hard," as if hard is bad.  No, quitting a PHD endeavor after 6 years is bad. No matter which way you spin it, you are going to WANT that PHD after the time and energy invested in it. You need that title for yourself, not your career. It could potentially be a huge blow to your psyche and sense of self.

 

Those of merit and moral fortitude do not exist for everything to be easy all the time. You can tough it out. There are people all over the world that have a will deal with tougher situations and life circumstances than you are dealing with now. 

 

Reorganize, re-evaulate, and gain a little perspective, but don't quit that program.

 

You need it. 

[Compass]

Oh and also, don't listen to people telling you you can't work and fund yourself. I literally laughed out loud, just came back from east Asia, and english teachers are waaaaay overpaid in China, Mongolia and Korea. I know several people that have taught english and had enough money to survive as well as afford airfare and travel to other locations (while working 4-5 hours a day). No big deal. The only exception might be Japan, I know the cost of living is much higher, but the previous three nations I mentioned, you're pretty good to go. Esp. Mongolia (I lived there for 2 years). 

Edited January 29, 2013 by Compass