Hey look! It's another 'Don't go to grad school' article!

[wtncffts]

So, here's another one for you:

 

http://www.slate.com/articles/life/culturebox/2013/04/there_are_no_academic_jobs_and_getting_a_ph_d_will_make_you_into_a_horrible.html

 

Thoughts? Although my initial instinct is always to be annoyed at such articles, I do think they're valuable. You really do have to know what you're getting into, or at least what the potential (and very possible) downsides are. Though I'm always irked by the generalizations that are made (e.g., "you won't have any friends outside academia", "you'll be an emotional trainwreck"): these seem to me to be highly individually idiosyncratic. 

[zabius]

Wow, that article was just dripping with bitterness. The author makes some good points (the academic job market *is* horrendous at the moment), but the way that she presented her arguments made it hard for me to take them seriously. Throwing around untrue generalizations ("You will no longer have any friends outside academia," "You will believe, incomprehensibly, that not having a tenure-track job makes you worthless," etc.) and hyperbole is not an effective way to make an argument for a rational audience. Seriously, this whole paragraph reads like it was written by the world's most bitter drama queen:

 

When this happens to you—after you have mailed, at your own expense, the required 60-page dossiers to satellite campuses of Midwestern or Southern universities of which you have never heard; after you endure a deafening silence from most of these institutions but then receive hope in the form of a paltry few conference interviews; after you fork out $1,000 to spend your Christmas amid thousands of your competitors at the Modern Language Association convention; after said convention, where you endure tribunal-style interviews in hotel suites where you are often made to perch in your ill-fitting suit on the edge of a bed; after, perhaps, being invited to a callback interview at a remote Midwestern or Southern campus where your entire person will be judged on the basis of two meals and one presentation; after, at the end of all this, they give the job to an inside candidate they were planning to hire all along—when this happens, and it will, it will feel as if the entirety of your human self has been rejected because you are no good at whatever branch of literature-ruining you have chosen.

 

I'm not going to argue that the job market isn't bad, because it is. And I agree that the life of an untenured academic is probably frustrating and crappy at times, and that landing a good job often boils down to having the right inside connections. But really... to me, at least, that quote above was the least persuasive way to make that argument.

 

Also, it sounds like a lot of the author's arguments are relatively specific to the humanities. I think that the situation in the sciences (my general field) is a little different. Tenure-track jobs are still rare in the sciences, but a good majority of the PhD students that I know who have graduated went on to postdocs or careers (industry, government, museum work) that they found very fulfilling. Not everyone ends up being a tenured professor at a huge R1 institution, but that's not what everyone wants anyway... at least in my field. Many people start out thinking that they want that, but then change their minds several years into the program. Others stick with the original plan and work hard towards a career in academia because that's what they're passionate about (they don't do it to have the summers off or "only work 5 hours per week" as the author of this article suggested). But regardless of career plans, most science graduates of the schools that I've attended end up doing something that they enjoy. It may not be the professor job that they envisioned at the beginning... it may even be a position that they could have gotten with just an MS. And it may take a little time post-graduation to actually find that job. But I have yet to hear one verifiable account of someone from these science programs getting a PhD and then living paycheck-to-paycheck as a Walmart cashier, McDonald's fry cook, etc. Maybe that's more common at really low-ranked universities, but I doubt it's the "norm" for PhD graduates anywhere.

 

However, my sense is that there's less that one can do with an advanced degree in the humanities, so maybe the author's concerns are more valid. But it sounds like she's overplaying everything for some kind of dramatic effect that I don't quite understand. Maybe she just wanted to rant because she's unhappy with the way her own career turned out?

 

That said, it *is* important to go into grad school with realistic expectations of academia and a good knowledge of how the job market works. People who don't do that should read an article like this one, though perhaps they'd be better served by one that's a little less heavy on generalizations and exaggerations. But for everyone else who already knows what they're getting into, this article's not very useful at all.

 

EDIT: I see that the author is actually an assistant professor of German at Ohio State. That kind of invalidates this sentence from the article: "After four years of trying, I’ve finally gotten it through my thick head that I will not get a job—and if you go to graduate school, neither will you."

Edited April 6, 2013 by zabius

[Eigen]

If you notice, the author is a VAP- not a full time prof. And hasn't been able to find any other work, even with that. Which is why they're looking at having to leave academia. 

 

It's really interesting that the parallel discussion thread on the CHE forums, mostly faculty in this area, are really supportive of the message as a whole. And very happy that it's getting out to a wider audience via slate, even through it's been written about in CHE for quite some time. And that they keep trying to tell their undergraduates, but just get told "Stop crushing our dreams! We're different!" when they try to caution them against grad school. 

[zabius]

Oops, my eyes must have glanced over the "visiting" aspect of her job description. My bad; I take back my little edit up there. But I still think that the article is ineffective.

I do think that her main take-home point is a good message to get out there-- don't go to grad school thinking that you'll automatically come out with a tenure-track job. And don't assume that it will somehow be easier for you because you think that you're special. Those are valid points, and a lot of people need to hear them. But in my opinion, the way those points were covered in the article was just awful. All of the reasonable aspects of her argument were overshadowed by a ton of exaggerations and gross generalizations, as well as that generally bitter tone. Her language leaves the reader with the impression that she's overreacting, even if she's not because a lot of the problems that she is encountering are very real. At least, that was the first impression that was left on this reader. I'm already well aware of the situation that I'm getting myself into; I knew that long before I applied to grad programs. But if I weren't, I think that I'd respond a lot better to an article that focused on an objective overview of statistics and "case studies" (with plenty of citations!), instead of one person's personal rant. That's just me, though.

 

Basically, I think that the ideas are good (well, some of them… you can have friends outside of academia, and you don't have to tie your self-worth to your career), but they weren't expressed very well.

 

Also, stepping back a bit, I generally think that professors shouldn't caution students against graduate school. They should tell their students the truth about doctoral research and academia (the job prospects, the less-desirable aspects of an academic career... everything) and let the students decide for themselves. I think that a lot of students enter PhD programs just not knowing what academia is like at all. If a well-informed student decides to disregard that information, then whatever happens next is purely on him/her.

I also still think that much of her argument applies more to her own field (and other fields within the humanities) than it does to other disciplines. A lot of the general messages carry over, but it sounds like job market for academics in the humanities is especially difficult. Maybe the fact that I am not in the humanities is affecting my perception of the whole thing.

Edited April 6, 2013 by zabius

[Eigen]

Oh yeah, it's pretty much only applicable to the humanities. 

 

Social sciences are much different, and sciences very much so. 

 

And otherwise, I agree with the overall hyperbolic tone of the post. The points would probably go over a lot better without it. 

 

The average Humanities PhD, currently, takes 9.5 years, results in an average of ~60k in debt, and has about a 5-15% chance at an academic job. And, those academic jobs don't pay all that well. And the non-academic market is almost non-existent. 

 

Those aren't stats to be taken lightly, at all. 

 

Sciences, on the other hand, even with the doom and gloom about the job market- PhDs are employable. Maybe in academia, and maybe elsewhere, but definitely employable. And while there's an opportunity cost vs. a full time job, it's not usually a complete financial black hole like a humanities PhD frequently is. 

 

As to the other points... There was a post about someone contemplating suicide just prior to graduate due to lack of job options in the humanities on the CHE forums a few days ago. 

[ZacharyObama]

As to the other points... There was a post about someone contemplating suicide just prior to graduate due to lack of job options in the humanities on the CHE forums a few days ago.

 

See that's why I stopped reading the CHE forums...people set up this you must become a tenure-track prof at an R1 in the US or otherwise you're a complete failure and will always be. It's just not true. I think there are other perfectly fine well-paying jobs in the US that are not R1 universities. I had several teachers in high school who had PhDs (in English, Chemistry, and Biology respectively) and had at some point discovered that they really actually enjoyed teaching high school students.

 

They were admittedly in their 40's-50's but I don't see why one couldn't fall back on that as an option. I would imagine that most state's still have credentialing programs for people like that and then if you're in the regular public schools you can eventually get tenured, be unionized, have decent pay and a good retirement package. The same is also somewhat true for community college positions. At this point, you might say, wait wait wait you're telling people who put 5-7 years into a PhD for the most part to go do something which does not require a PhD how dare you! To that I say, is the point here the prestige of being an R1 research prof or is the point to be a financially stable person who is contributing to society.

 

I also think that there are currently and will be even more options for people to teach overseas. The world is hungry for people who can work in a global environment. I have an old friend who is currently a tenured professor at a university in Western Africa - admittedly her field is social sciences she has always been interested in Africa, but it's naive to think that there are not places all over the world where someone with a fine American higher education can't go to share that knowledge. I mean really - what's the difference between teaching Kafka in North Dakota and teaching Kafka in Siberia other than the language?

 

I think this takes me to my final point about all these arguments - the article OP writes:

 

 

So you won’t get a tenure-track job. Why should that stop you? You can cradle your new knowledge close, and just go do something else. Great—are you ready to withstand the open scorn of everyone you know? During graduate school, you will be broken down and reconfigured in the image of the academy. By the time you finish—if you even do—your academic self will be the culmination of your entire self, and thus you will believe, incomprehensibly, that not having a tenure-track job makes you worthless. You will believe this so strongly that when you do not land a job, it will destroy you, and nobody outside of academia will understand why. (Bright side: You will no longer have any friends outside academia.)

 

This person to me strikes me as someone who has been far too interested for far too long in totalizing their entire life into that of what one might call a wanker. Instead of doing something new and innovative this person has taken the approach that they should be the mirror image of their advisers work. I mean seriously, did they think that a recapitulation of what likely has been done many times before and not worked was going to be a successful approach? If you're going to go to graduate school your goal should be to do something marketable and new - this person is a Visiting Assistant Professor of German - I'm going to go ahead and presume that they are literate/speak German at some level. Germany has been one of the most successful countries in weathering the Great Recession, I would hazard since there is no mention of any attempt to find a work in Europe that they have not done so at all because they are too wrapped up in being tenure-track at high-level American institution.

 

So in conclusion, if you think you want to be an academic in life, don't let shitty articles like this hold you back, but go into it having a plan to make yourself highly marketable with teaching, language, and life skills beyond what the status quo says you should be doing. I feel sorry for the undergrads this person is presumably teaching and think they would have been better served to not put their name on this tripe. You Ms. Schuman, are no Professor Pannapacker and your echo is not so loud.

[Eigen]

A few comments:

 

You must not have paid very close attention to the CHE forums if you think people there think you need to go to an R1 university. The vast, vast majority are teaching focused faculty, everywhere from community colleges to SLACS and mid-tier state colleges.

 

In most states, you will need, at the very least, 30 credits or a M.Ed on top of whatever graduate degree you have to teach. The exception will be private schools, but even those are getting stricter. If you don't have a B.Ed, M.Ed or Ed.D, you will not be teaching at a public school, almost anywhere.

 

Again, I think it's a very striking contrast that almost everyone I see saying "Hey, it's not so bad out there, you just need to take the right path" are people who are early in grad school, or applying to grad school, while the opinions are much different from those at the end of grad school looking for jobs or people who are out on the market.

 

Also, to me, shutting off a GREAT resource like the CHE forums, which are probably some of the best regarded academic discussion forums around, just because you didn't like the message of some of the posters seems really foolhardy to me.

 

The majority of the people I've met when talking about the academic job market, etc. have all recommended regular reading of the CHE and forums as excellent preparation for academia, whether grad school or not.

[ZacharyObama]

Well I'm not going into a PhD program at this point and there's not much talk about my field at CHE, so I found this board to be a more useful resource (thank you for helping maintain it).

 

A few counterpoints:

 

1. I think you slightly misinterpreted my comment about the CHE forums - most of the professors etc. there are very nice people and they're not making that argument, but that so much energy is expended refuting it suggests that at least some people are making it at some point in time: in fact, the expectation that this is the goal of PhD programs is central to the argument: without it, there is no discussion of this topic (as the Slate piece amply demonstrates).

 

2. I know California did allow you to earn those credits while you were teaching. It's not as if it can't be done and teaching high school is always a better option than wallowing in the academic mud for eternity. Some credits might be transferable so you might not need to do a full load.

 

3. I went to a very-well regarded undergrad with one of the highest rates of PhD program placements in the country. In fact, I'm going to be rather the exception going to a professional school (well besides law or medicine) rather than an academic school. I'm not saying shut off CHE, but don't get swallowed up into it. Talking to your own professors and peers will give you a much better idea of how you might stack up than the CHE forums. CHE is not geared toward prospective graduate students at all, there's not even a dedicated forum for it there. It's not a very supportive or useful place IMHO to a prospective grad school applicant. I think it's probably more useful once you're well-into your PhD program and looking to make the transition and I think it's useful if you're already a prof.

 

4. I pay close attention to everything! I had dreams once of being a Professor of History ferchristsakes

[RubyBright]

Well, she makes it very clear in the first couple of paragraphs that she's primarily talking about a literature PhD. In my field, a graduate degree is pretty much required to work in industry. I've even heard a professor bemoan how few of the graduates stay in academia because of all the great industry jobs luring them away... I can only hope I'm so lucky to be successfully "lured away" in a few years.

[jmu]

In most states, you will need, at the very least, 30 credits or a M.Ed on top of whatever graduate degree you have to teach. The exception will be private schools, but even those are getting stricter. If you don't have a B.Ed, M.Ed or Ed.D, you will not be teaching at a public school, almost anywhere.

 

Having a number of friends who are middle and high school teachers I can't think of any who have education degrees. (I do have one friend who is under contract with an M.Ed. but is not currently teaching.) Most states have a short certification process that you have to go through that may involve a few college level courses but do not require degrees in education. In Florida you have 2 years that you are allowed to teach while you work on that certification.

[Eigen]

My current state is ~ 2 years before you can start teaching, from a graduate degree.

We had a few college prof's with very good teaching reviews and portfolio's try to transfer to high school teaching, and they were told that they'd need to go back and do an M.Ed before they'd even be considered.

I can think of a few states offhand that are much more encouraging, but from all my friends that have tried... It's not a smooth process. 

 

Your friends, are they teaching in public schools? Or private/charter schools?

Also, in response to listening to your professors and peers:

That only works to a point. Temporally, things have changed a *lot* since 2008 or so in terms of the job market as a whole. Talking to faculty who've been tenured for quite some time isn't the best place to get a since of the job market, unless they've been actively trying to place grad students in the past few years.

I'll also add that it seems that this discussion keeps growing well outside the bounds of the piece, which was discussing literature PhDs, and a bit more broadly, humanities PhDs. Most of the comments we have are from people in the sciences, and a professional program. I'm not saying the points aren't valid, but picking apart a very specific article when you're not very familiar with the field discussed isn't as useful.

[dazedandbemused]

As an aspiring Lit PhD myself (though in English, not German) I can say that I found this piece ridiculous for a variety of reasons. For one thing, it does nothing useful; it doesn't begin a conversation about the issues of the Lit job market nor does it advice the hopeful Lit PhD student about the problems that will inevitably arise for them. It just reads like a bitter screed wherein the writer proclaims to have known what she was getting into, yet still feels justified in being angry at her failure. She also makes the mistake that a lot of these articles do in that they make it sound as though all Lit PhDs are created equal and thus are all bound to fail. I'm sorry, but I refuse to believe that a person with a PhD in English from University of Nebraska and a PhD in English from Columbia University are remotely equal in terms of future prospects. Yes, there are great students everywhere, but the student in Nebraska probably has far fewer opportunities to meet influential people than the one at Columbia; that's just reality. If we seriously want jobs, we have to learn to stack the deck in our favor, and part of that means only going to a program that will do the best it can to get you in one side and out the other with no debt and, hopefully, a job. She also completely glosses over the ways that many forward-thinking departments have begun to make a conscious effort to help their students find jobs outside of academia when they're done; the idea that non-academic jobs are frowned upon is no longer alive or relevant at some schools, and I think it will become much more widespread as the market continues to stagnate. I agree with the earlier posters that it is extremely important for people to be aware of their chances for success, but her methods make it very difficult to take her seriously. I disagree with ZacharyObama's belief that you would be better served talking to your professors because many of them have no idea what the job market looks like now and as a result, they are counseling countless students across the country to enter PhD programs that pay very little, require far too much work, and have nothing to offer them once they've reached the other end of the tunnel, but they believe that being in the profession is all that matters. That kind of idealism needs to die, but I don't think this article is doing the job very well.

[jmu]

Your friends, are they teaching in public schools? Or private/charter schools?

 

Public across the board, including the one with the M.Ed. They are in Florida, Georgia, and Tennessee and one of them can also teach in Massachusetts and New Jersey.

[Eigen]

Texas has a similar 2-3 years probationary program, but Louisiana definitely doesn't, and I don't think Mississippi or Alabama do either. Nor does Cali, from what I recall. 

[Swagato]

I won't comment further on the many fallacies/misrepresentations present in the original article, However, Eigen, where on earth are these stats from:

 

 

 

The average Humanities PhD, currently, takes 9.5 years, results in an average of ~60k in debt, and has about a 5-15% chance at an academic job. And, those academic jobs don't pay all that well. And the non-academic market is almost non-existent. 

 

I'm not questioning your sources, but I have to say the first two assertions are majorly surprising to me. First, I only know two people past their eighth year, and that's covering four hum. fields across at least a dozen institutions. Second, I don't know anyone who has, or can expect to have, a penny of debt after completing their PhD. And that really covers a fairly large sample...think the top twenty programs or so across 6-7 fields. 

 

My caveat for the above is that I'm focusing on conditions at the top 20 (at most) programs. The fields I've covered are: English, CompLit, Philosophy, History, Anthropology, Film Studies, History of Art. 

[Eigen]

I can say History and English are pushing 10 years at my school.

I got those particular stats from a history prof on the CHE. Debt was counted mostly still accrued from undergrad, but most stipends not being enough to pay it off til post PhD.. But I know a guy that just made full prof (humanities) and still has significant student loans.

[dazedandbemused]

I think those long completion numbers often occur at schools where students are basically abandoned after they begin writing their dissertation. There are also a lot of programs that require so much work from their students for barely a pittance that I'm not surprised there are people being forced to take out loans. I, for one, have no intention of doing so and I don't think any student should take an offer that would require them to do so. That might go a long way to cutting down the number of un- or underemployed PhDs.

[juilletmercredi]

I find it interesting that it's mostly current applicants or early career grad students that are disputing this author's claims and/or finding her tone bitter.  I do detect bitterness, but well-deserved bitterness towards a contracting market.  Come on - we're in an environment where a single job posting in English literature or history can receive 200-300 applicants.  It's not peaches and roses.

 

Sure, she uses satirical/humorous exaggeration in places.  But most of what she says isn't that far off the mark.  Your dossier is probably not 60 pages long.  But it may be close, when you include a 3-page cover letter, a 5-page CV, three 3-page recommendation letters, a 20-page writing sample and reprints.  Her paragraph about interviewing at MLA actually sounds very much like what friends the humanities have described interviewing at MLA and campus visits as being (lurking on CHE will actually confirm that).  And yes, maybe she is a bit bitter - but who cares?  What does bitterness have to do with whether or not her words are true?

 

 

 

in fact, the expectation that this is the goal of PhD programs is central to the argument: without it, there is no discussion of this topic (as the Slate piece amply demonstrates).

 

But it IS the goal of most PhD programs.  When you're in one, you can easily see this.  Most professors in PhD programs are professors at R1 institutions, maybe top R2s, because that's where PhDs are made.  They've usually spent the vast majority of not all of their careers in R1 and top R2s, so to them, being a professor means mostly research and maybe teaching 2 classes a semester.  They encourage you to look at positions at research-focused institutions and not much else.  They're not really preparing you to go to SLACs or regional public universities or community colleges.  They encourage you to focus on research and minimize your time in the classroom.  They certainly don't encourage you to build skills to succeed in the non-academic market; the places that do that are actually uncommon.  My program is in a field where there are LOTS of people doing work outside of academia, because it's a very applied field.  Still, almost all of the speakers we bring to campus are faculty members at other universities and all of the jobs circulated through the listserv are academic jobs.

 

Some of the assumptions people are making are also silly...why would you assume that she's not doing anything new or innovative or that she hasn't tried to find employment outside of the United States just because she didn't mention it in a 2-page article in Slate?  That is exactly the point of her article, in fact - that great humanities students, even those who are doing innovative things to make themselves marketable - sometimes with years of teaching experience and book contracts already in hand - are STILL not getting tenure-track jobs...because there are hundreds of them applying to each open and available job in their field.

 

(Also, note that in the EU it is very difficult to get work if you are not an EU citizen.  The company has to prove that there was no EU citizen that could do the job that this person is being hired to fill.  Why would Germany want a non-native speaker to teach German language and literature to German students?  I'm sure they have no shortage of native-speaking Germans and Austrians and Swiss who can fill that job.)

 

I post on the CHE forums and I disagree that they are unhelpful to aspiring graduate students.  I think that CHE is a very useful place for a prospective grad school applicant.  But that's because I think that sometimes, it is very useful to sit and listen and learn than it is to ask your own questions.  As an early grad student I read the CHE forums without commenting much because I had less to contribute, but through reading, I read about the struggles of more advanced grads, postdocs, and those on the tenure-track.  That kind of reading (and others) helped me realize that I needed to acquire other marketable skills, skills that would make me attractive to positions outside of the tenure-track academic route - especially if I wanted some geographic mobility.

 

Seriously, I find it odd that there's so much disparaging of this young woman especially since she's not saying anything particularly new.  Whatever she's said has also been said many, many times by other job seekers in the humanities academic market.  And it's not dissuading new PhD students in droves, as evidenced by the fact that there are still many humanities students flocking to these programs in pursuit of being a professor.

[Swagato]

That is exactly the point of her article, in fact - that great humanities students, even those who are doing innovative things to make themselves marketable - sometimes with years of teaching experience and book contracts already in hand - are STILL not getting tenure-track jobs...because there are hundreds of them applying to each open and available job in their field.

 

 

Not the story being reflected via placement stats at the leading programs. (Not by rank, but rather programs that are both prestigious and successful at placing a sizable proportion of their graduates--eg., Austin, Chicago, UNC for English. Or Berkeley, Yale, Chicago for film studies. Etc.)

 

Other programs, bluntly, don't count. Don't go a middling program in your field and expect a tenure track job. Likewise, not every graduate from a top program can expect to land a TT position, obviously.

 

However, I've seen nothing to indicate that one cannot hedge one's bets by:

 

-- Making sure you earn your PhD at both a leading program and a leading program that has a good record of TT placement

-- Doing your due diligence to network, network, network. And publish, making use of those networks. And all the other things we're supposed to do.

-- Keeping one's senses about them. 

 

Now, you may be a very innovative scholar, but the brute reality is that if you earned your PhD at Flyover State, you're not likely to receive notice (barring an exceptional circumstance such as having a rockstar intervene personally on your behalf). Names matter. Equally or more than the work done. 

Edited April 12, 2013 by Swagato

[Two Espressos]

The article is hilariously melodramatic.  Here is terse and much better advice: only attend a well-regarded program with strong placement stats that fully funds you.

 

The average Humanities PhD, currently, takes 9.5 years, results in an average of ~60k in debt, and has about a 5-15% chance at an academic job. And, those academic jobs don't pay all that well. And the non-academic market is almost non-existent. 

 

Those aren't stats to be taken lightly, at all. 

 

I'm calling bullshit on those stats.  Can you provide a source?  The 9.5 years thing is true at some places, but mostly at those schools that abandon you, like dazedandbemused notes above.

 

The ~60k debt and 5-15% chance of an academic job stats are simply false.  Look at top programs' placements.  And it's not like "average" humanities Ph.D.s--even from middling institutions-- aren't getting jobs: the issue is that they're getting non-TT positions.  But the best programs still place their best students in TT jobs.

 

IS the goal of most PhD programs.  When you're in one, you can easily see this.  Most professors in PhD programs are professors at R1 institutions, maybe top R2s, because that's where PhDs are made.  They've usually spent the vast majority of not all of their careers in R1 and top R2s, so to them, being a professor means mostly research and maybe teaching 2 classes a semester.  They encourage you to look at positions at research-focused institutions and not much else.  They're not really preparing you to go to SLACs or regional public universities or community colleges.  They encourage you to focus on research and minimize your time in the classroom.

 

Again, completely false.  UNC, for example, places a major emphasis on teaching.  Many other programs are similar.

 

Not the story being reflected via placement stats at the leading programs. (Not by rank, but rather programs that are both prestigious and successful at placing a sizable proportion of their graduates--eg., Austin, Chicago, UNC for English.

 

 

I completely agree with Swagato's posts as well as dazedandbemused's: they're closest to reality.

Edited April 12, 2013 by Two Espressos

[Eigen]

Heh, I still think it's really funny that all the people starting grad school this Fall are the only ones so positive about their job chances. Things look a lot different once you actually start looking at applying for academic jobs. 

 

To quote from the CHE forums: 

 

I'm a little tired of hearing these counterarguments from people still in grad school. Talk to me after three years and hundreds of applications, sister.

 

And I also think it's amusing you're putting that much stock in the stated placement rates. I've seen behind the scenes how much manipulation can go into making them seem much better than they are. 

 

And I should clarify, I'm speaking to a 5-15% chance at a TT academic job, not an adjunct or year-to-year lecturer position. And I've seen lots and lots of stats that support just that. 

 

You are both very correct that if you don't go to a top school, your chances are really bad. But I think you're over-estimating your chances even from a top school. 

 

But please, if you think my statistics are bullshit, I'd very much appreciate actual statistics that say otherwise, because I haven't heard otherwise from any faculty here, or anyone on/approaching the job market. 

[dazedandbemused]

Honestly, I don't take issue with the content of the article. I agree, it sucks out there. The majority of humanities PhDs starting this fall will probably be adjuncts, and the ones who get TT jobs will be lucky. However, I hate the paternalistic tone that pretends to be giving advice, while just spewing bitterness. I get that it sucks, I really do. I just don't think someone who claims to have known what they're getting into has a right to be bitter. If I finish my PhD and can't get a TT job, I'll do my level best to move on to something else; I'm not going to moan and groan in adjunct hell because I know what I'm getting into and I'll work with the cards that I'm dealt.

 

As I said before, the constant screed against doing a Lit PhD just assumes that all Lit PhDs have the same shot at winning the lottery, which is patently untrue. You can stack the deck in your favor. You can attend a school that, like UT, places a heavy emphasis on good teaching. I've seen placement stats that are obviously fudged; but they make it pretty clear which students are getting TT jobs, and that number is consistently high.

 

A lot of people like to wink and pat those of us who are just starting out on the heads like we're so full of idealism and god, just wait until we get ripped a new one. I might not have the cynicism of someone who is three years into a job search, but I'm not ignorant, and I don't think anyone can be a successful applicant at this point in time if they are.

[wtncffts]

Honestly, I don't take issue with the content of the article. I agree, it sucks out there. The majority of humanities PhDs starting this fall will probably be adjuncts, and the ones who get TT jobs will be lucky. However, I hate the paternalistic tone that pretends to be giving advice, while just spewing bitterness. I get that it sucks, I really do. I just don't think someone who claims to have known what they're getting into has a right to be bitter. If I finish my PhD and can't get a TT job, I'll do my level best to move on to something else; I'm not going to moan and groan in adjunct hell because I know what I'm getting into and I'll work with the cards that I'm dealt.

 

As I said before, the constant screed against doing a Lit PhD just assumes that all Lit PhDs have the same shot at winning the lottery, which is patently untrue. You can stack the deck in your favor. You can attend a school that, like UT, places a heavy emphasis on good teaching. I've seen placement stats that are obviously fudged; but they make it pretty clear which students are getting TT jobs, and that number is consistently high.

 

A lot of people like to wink and pat those of us who are just starting out on the heads like we're so full of idealism and god, just wait until we get ripped a new one. I might not have the cynicism of someone who is three years into a job search, but I'm not ignorant, and I don't think anyone can be a successful applicant at this point in time if they are.

 

I'm all for giving honest advice, and in many ways I believe the whole graduate school/academia world needs more transparency and a lot of hard thinking about its foundations. But I do agree with the last sentiment expressed.

 

It can get tired to feel constantly put upon, and I know when you're at that stage, like many are here, when you've just gone through this frustrating and anxious application process and have just made a huge, exciting, life-changing decision that you don't want to hear that your choice was a wrong one, or that you're naive or stupid to be doing what you're doing (at least that's the underlying tone I get from most of these kinds of articles). I don't exactly know where to draw that line between giving constructive advice and being patronizing, but it's often trespassed, IMO.  

[CageFree]

A few comments:

 

In most states, you will need, at the very least, 30 credits or a M.Ed on top of whatever graduate degree you have to teach. The exception will be private schools, but even those are getting stricter. If you don't have a B.Ed, M.Ed or Ed.D, you will not be teaching at a public school, almost anywhere.

 

That is absolutely not true. States require you to have teaching credentials (which do not correspond to graduate degrees), and for single-subject teaching a degree in your own field is a must; a B.Ed. wouldn't allow you to teach Physics, for example. Most teachers who get M.Ed.s do it after they already have a job in order to go up the pay scale, and that's because they are easy to get through online and part-time programs. 

 

Also, Ed.D. are generally reserved for people interested in either policy or administration. 

 

A Ph.D. or Master's in your own field, however, can be a problem for a teacher without experience because it makes you an expensive hire. You would start at a higher place in the pay scale. The rule of thumb is to wait until you're tenured before you get a graduate degree because of this.

[Eigen]

I didn't say an M.Ed was required, I said 30 credits of education courses or an M.Ed.

And that is the case in all of the states I'm familiar with the certification process in.

Also, at least in my state, a B.Ed certainly certifies you to teach physics. No secondary degree is required. And in fact, as I've been told, the shortest route to go from a physics degree to certified for teaching is to get an M.Ed.