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

[CageFree]

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.

 

 

You said 30 credits "on top of whatever graduate degree." That's simply not the case. You also generalized about "most states," when that's also not the case. Finally, some credential programs combine the credential with a M.Ed., but that doesn't make the path shorter... it's really more about practicality. A M.Ed. does not replace a credential.

 

I am a former teacher, have a valid credential from my state (California), and looked into credentialing requirements in various states when considering a move a few years ago. I do not have a Master's degree. I knew very few teachers who had them prior to hiring, though I knew some who got Master's of Ed degrees online. My partner is a credentialed math and physics teacher. His degree is in Physics.

 

According to NCLB legislation, secondary teachers MUST have a degree in the subject they are teaching (or something closely related) or pass a comprehensive subject-matter exam. A B.Ed. is not enough to meet NCLB "Highly qualified" regulations. If you could manage to pass a subject matter exam such as the CSET or Praxis without having a Physics degree, you would be able to get around the regulations, but that would be very difficult to do unless you had considerable coursework in the field. Getting a math credential when your degree is in Physics is not difficult, but you cannot teach calculus with a liberal arts degree, which is what a B.Ed. generally is.

 

Some schools offer B.Ed. that are focused on a specific subject, but that's definitely not the case in "most states." You still have to do coursework equivalent to a major in the subject because of NCLB requirements.

 

On a personal note, I have worked in 3 large secondary schools and knew a number of other teachers. I never met someone whose degree was in "education" and was teaching at the high school level. They all had degrees in what they were teaching or a related field (example: Communications majors teaching English). Even my friend who is an Earth Science teacher has a degree in Geology.

 

 

http://www2.ed.gov/nclb/methods/teachers/hqtflexibility.html

Edited April 13, 2013 by CageFree

[Seeking]

Sorry to break into this conversation, but I agree that at least a B.Ed would be required to teach in school.

 

But that's not the point. The point is that if all these Graduate students wanted to teach in school as their first career choice, they would go the B.Ed/M.Ed route. They chose to go to Grad School instead because this was not their first career choice. Now, if they get a B.Ed and go to teach in school, it's not exactly a success, when seen from the point of where they started.

 

The writer of this article seems to be quite a capable researcher - it's not easy to get a PhD on Kafka. She also seems to be developing her publication profile quite well. Here is her short profile -

 

http://germanic.osu.edu/people/schuman

 

I doubt that many "Yale-Harvard category" students have better callibre than her. I have seen quite a few from the Ivies who don't even match her callibre.

 

But she seems to have faced the injustice of a system that ignores the academic potential of a candidate and only looks at the brand name on their degrees.

 

It's true that Humanities PhDs get a raw deal from this unfair system and this should not be happening in a country like the US.

 

Or else, if this is a country so obsessed with the brand names on the degrees, then they should shut down the PhD programs at the schools that stand below the so-called "Top 20" level.

 

At least, don't delude the Humanities students into thinking that a PhD on Kafka from UC-Irvine followed by further research and publication record can get you in the same standing with an average, non-descript PhD on a recycled topic from the so-called "Top-20" school, with little or no publication record. 

 

Perhaps the Grad funding available at these so-called "below top-20" should be diverted to the "Top-20" schools, so that they can have more PhD candidates, rather than running PhD programs at schools whose brand names don't sell in a brand-obsessed country.

 

PS - The faculty at the University of Nebraska also come from the so-called "Top-20." So, I don't see how their teaching quality is lower than that at the "Top-20."

Edited April 14, 2013 by Seeking

[dazedandbemused]

Seeking, I really hope you were being purposefully melodramatic with your post, because I can't think of any other explanation for half of it.

 

I doubt that many "Yale-Harvard category" students have better callibre than her. I have seen quite a few from the Ivies who don't even match her callibre.

 

No one has said that a brand name is the only one that will get you a job. In fact, I think it was made clear that you should aim for schools with great placement, and neither Harvard or Yale are in that group for English. I know a number of respected senior scholars who think the departments at HYP have long outlived their usefulness because they've refused to adjust to the realities of the profession and the market. There are schools whose names people never even think of (West Virginia comes to mind) with far better placement than many in the top-20.

 

 

Or else, if this is a country so obsessed with the brand names on the degrees, then they should shut down the PhD programs at the schools that stand below the so-called "Top 20" level.

 

At least, don't delude the Humanities students into thinking that a PhD on Kafka from UC-Irvine followed by further research and publication record can get you in the same standing with an average, non-descript PhD on a recycled topic from the so-called "Top-20" school, with little or no publication record.

 

The name on your degree might get you higher in the pile when applying, but it certainly won't get you a job. In my recent visits and conversations, I heard quite a few anecdotes from people on hiring committees who said that they'd interviewed quite a few people from Ivies who were unimpressive and under-prepared. People from Irvine, actually, tend to do well. Your comparison is between two straw-men; you can't possibly think that a "non-descript PhD" from a top-20 would ever beat a dynamic and successful researcher from a lower ranked school. If the person from the top 20 gets the job, it's because they're excellent.

 

Perhaps the Grad funding available at these so-called "below top-20" should be diverted to the "Top-20" schools, so that they can have more PhD candidates, rather than running PhD programs at schools whose brand names don't sell in a brand-obsessed country.

 

This is just patently ridiculous. We're not a socialist state, for chrissake. Reputation has a bearing on success, there's no denying that. Often, it probably shouldn't. But the above is not a solution to that problem.

 

 

PS - The faculty at the University of Nebraska also come from the so-called "Top-20." So, I don't see how their teaching quality is lower than that at the "Top-20."

 

Yeah, the faculty at Nebraska probably went to the top 20. But who said anything about a difference in teaching quality? We're talking about a difference in resources, networking opportunites, travel funding, etc. Smart people are everywhere, but being smart doesn't get you a job in this market. It's far more important to be in a program where you can make the connections that will increase your hireability.

[CageFree]

Sorry to break into this conversation, but I agree that at least a B.Ed would be required to teach in school.

 

NCLB says otherwise.

[misskira]

I'm a public school teacher in Oregon, so I have some insight on this.  To teach public school here, you need to be highly qualified per No Child Left Behind.  Highly qualified means you have mastery of your content area.  For elementary, thats usually a bachelor in some kind of educational studies program.  In secondary, it's a bachelor in your content area or a large number of classes.  That's the first requirement for a teaching license, and the second part is training in how to teach.  That usually comes from a masters program at this point, that requires some student teaching and pedagogy classes.  You also have to pass some kind of standardized test.  This varies from state to state of course, but the highly qualified status is there for all states.  A simple BA or BS in content generally isn't enough to get you a teacher job these days.  Even substitute teaching here requires a teaching license, although they don't limit you to specific subject.

 

Public school teaching is a very saturated field in most of the country.  Especially in social sciences, English, and elementary.  Science and math teachers are harder to find.  It's not a good backup plan, that's for sure.  Particularly for people who don't actually have an interest in teaching.

Edited April 14, 2013 by misskira

[Swagato]

The thing is, dazedandbemused, HYP continue to have fairly strong placement. Yes, I have heard the allegations that the departments (in general) have a conservative flavour. But everything I've seen over the past four years or so suggest that a certain group of schools--University of Chicago, Yale, Harvard, Princeton, Stanford, NYU, Johns Hopkins, Berkeley, Duke--continue to place a sizable number of their PhD graduates (each year) to TT or postdoc positions at some very prestigious departments. I include both the upper end of SLACs and the upper end of public/private universities here. Just look at the recent data from Chicago, Princeton, Harvard, Berkeley. For Yale, roughly 75% of English graduates end up in TT positions within 5 years of graduation. 

 

My points are two: One, I think the "five years after graduating" metric is a much more realistic measure of placement. Two, I've yet to see actual evidence that the traditional "upper end" departments are no longer placing their graduates accordingly. 

 

My caveat is this: I'm driven toward the traditional tenure-track R1 faculty position, and everything I say or do is with that goal in mind, and thus tuned toward that. So, for me, that's the kind of placement that carries the most weight. 

[juilletmercredi]

I keep seeing folks saying that the top programs in their fields have "great" placement rates with most people getting tenure-track jobs.  Where are these placement records?

 

Also, I agree that 5-year placement records are probably better metrics, but that's a problem in and of itself.  That means that humanities PhDs have to hop around the country in VAP roles, or adjunct for low pay and no benefits, for 3-5 years before they can get on the tenure track.  If they start grad school around 25 and take 7 years to finish - around age 32 - and then don't get a tenure-track job until age 35-37, when they're probably making around $58,000 on average (average salary of assistant professors - and that's the average for all fields, so it's probably lower for these humanities professors) then they're already far behind their peers when it comes to retirement savings.  Not to mention that they have to deal with uncertainty and economic struggle during the 3-5 year period it takes them to find employment.

[Swagato]

I don't think that's a problem at all, actually. Postdoctorals and VAP positions have become increasingly common and are actually rather a good thing. Think of it as further vetting, and in fact opportunities for the candidate to experience the waters of actual, professional, academic life on the other side before moving to the tenure-track. Plus, postdocs and VAP positions offer great opportunities for polishing up your PhD work, cranking out further work, and basically fortifying yourself for the TT slog.

 

I'd much rather do a solid postdoc or VAP before hitting the TT (unless, that is, I am lucky enough to land a fantastic TT opportunity right out the door). 

 

Bear in mind that 7 years is a bit long. Six years should be the goal. Also, retirement...well, there's the fun of tenure. 

 

As for your question about where the placement records are--I pulled most from the department's or institution's website. For Yale I dug around a bit and other information came via personal talks. 

[Two Espressos]

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. 

I keep seeing folks saying that the top programs in their fields have "great" placement rates with most people getting tenure-track jobs.  Where are these placement records?

 

I'm glad you asked!  Here are placement rates from a few programs, more or less detailed depending on the particular school:

 

http://www.english.upenn.edu/Grad/job_placement_record

 

http://english.uchicago.edu/node/109

 

http://english.wvu.edu/gr/job-placement

 

http://englishcomplit.unc.edu/english/job-placement-record

 

WVU isn't a "top program" by anyone's metric, and over 70% of its graduates are getting TT jobs.  UPenn, UChicago, and UNC-Chapel Hill are all top-20 programs.

 

I can provide more placement stats if you'd like (really, they're only a google search away), but I'm short on time at present.  I stand by my earlier statement: attending a top program in one's field is not a death knell by any means if you're fully funded.  One may not find a TT job at the end (indeed, this is increasingly likely!), but there are much worse things to do with one's life than reading, researching, and writing about a field you love for 5-6 years.

Edited April 17, 2013 by Two Espressos

[Swagato]

Damn, I didn't realise UNC placed so heavily in the South.

[dazedandbemused]

Here's another link for you

http://www.utexas.edu/cola/depts/english/graduate/placement/graduates-phd.php

And I'd like to add that no one has to adjunct for low pay and no benefits. People choose to do that to remain in the profession, which to me is far more idealistic than my hopes for success. I intend to keep my career options open so that if this whole TT thing doesn't work out, I'm not going to spend my 30's on food stamps. Texas is invested in helping its grads do things outside of the traditional professorship if that's what they want to do.

[ghostbod]

From the first line, "Who wouldn’t want a job where you only have to work five hours a week, you get summers off..." I can already tell this article is going to be bullshit.

[ghostbod]

From the first line, "Who wouldn’t want a job where you only have to work five hours a week, you get summers off..." I can already tell this article is going to be bullshit.

oh wait nvm, i kept reading. /premature evaluation

[Two Espressos]

Damn, I didn't realise UNC placed so heavily in the South.

 

Yeah, many of their placements--TT or otherwise-- are in southern states.  I wonder if that has anything to do with UNC's reputation in the South as compared with the country as a whole?

 

Texas is invested in helping its grads do things outside of the traditional professorship if that's what they want to do.

 

Yeah, UNC mentioned something similar during my visit weekend as well!  Given the state of the academic job market, I think it's important for programs to provide this sort of assistance.

[Shelley Burian]

One of the biggest issues I have with this discussion (in a general sense, not specific to this article or forum) is that this problem of devoting years of your life and in some cases significant financial resources to train for a career and then have trouble finding permanent employment is not unique to PhDs but is much more widespread. So is the advice problem, who to encourage and who to discourage and how do we make those calls when we are asked to give advice. I keep waiting for someone to compare success in a traditional academic environment to success as a professional ballerina or any other aspect of the fine or performing arts because I think that this comparison might actually help people unfamiliar with the academy understand the dynamics of success (everyone knows how many good singers get rejected from American Idol.)Having talent for research doesn't guarantee you success, and being a good college student and liking the academic environment doesn't mean that you will enjoy being a professional academic in the same way that not everyone who has talent for music and enjoys performing it becomes a profitable professional musician. So many fields are over-saturated with candidates that I think it might be more useful to focus on preparing fall-back plans and thinking beyond finding the dream job (something everyone should do,not just graduate students) than bemoaning the fact that our career field is over-saturated.

[juilletmercredi]

As far as postdocs being good, it depends on the field.  Postdoctoral appointments can be very good in the sciences and social sciences; I myself am taking a postdoc for the 2 years after I graduate.  I'm looking forward to the dedicated time to research and write, as I'll have papers I want to edit from my dissertation, new areas I want to go into, and I've found a supportive place that sponsors the postdoc in order to train new scientists in my field.  I think most new scientists in the sciences and social sciences should do a postdoc if a research career (at an institute, R1, think tank, etc.) is their goal.

 

But whether or not the fact that they are increasing and are a prerequisite to jobs is a good thing is debatable.  Nowadays even professors who teach at small LACs have done postdocs first; I don't necessarily think that's a great thing, if a student really wants to teach.  Also the question is whether 2 years (or really, 1 additional year, since the person will be going through the process in their second year) really provides all that much additional vetting.  In addition, many postdocs are really assistants to professors; the professors need a specific set of tasks done, and so they hire a postdoc because they want that work done.  It's not necessarily seen as a period where they are going to develop their work.

 

At UNC, looks like since 2009 at least half of the placements have been in VAPs and postdocs.

 

WVU has a 72% placement rate over the past 15 years.  Their placement rate in the last 5 years has not been nearly so good (33% 2011, 50% 2010 - 1 out of 2, 25% 2009, 75% 2008 and 33% 2007.)  Most of their great placement was before 2007.

 

At Chicago, I count 8/16 assistant professors for 2011-2012, 4/14 t-t faculty for 2010-2011, 7/13 t-t faculty in 2009-2010 (including the deputy director of the MA program), and 4/8 for 2008-2009.  2007-2008 was a good year, with 9/11 getting t-t jobs somewhere, and good places too.  For the last 4 years it appears that Chicago - one of the top programs in English, I think - had around a 50% placement rate into tenure-track positions.

 

At UT, not counting the Fall 2012 graduates because that's too soon.  5/9 from summer 2012; 2/7 from spring 2012; 1/3 from Fall 2011, 0/4 from summer 2011, 4/8 from spring 2011, 1/4 from fall 2010, 5/6 from summer 2010, 5/10 from spring 2010; 2/4 from fall 2009…and then I got tired of going back, but here again it looks like the average is around 50%.

 

Of course, it stands to reason that some of these graduates from the last 5 years will soon move into tenure-track positions, after 1-5 years of adjuncting or doing a VAP or some other non-tenure track position.  So then the placement rate may look more like it does from the early 2000s and late 1990s, but I think the point is that even these top places don't look like they are placing 70% of their graduates directly into tenure-track positions.  It looks like *eventually* about 70% of their grads may find tenure-track positions, but the "immediately after graduation rate" may be closer to 30-50% depending on the program.

 

And I think from there, it's a person's own decision on whether or not that's appealing to them.  Some people are so passionate about scholarship and academia that they don't mind being a VAP or on a non-tt position for 3-5 years before settling into one, and I say - power to those folks!  We need them to be professors.  And then there are others (like myself) who think 2-3 years as a postdoc is plenty enough.  But then, I entered this enterprise not really wanting to be an academic in the first place.

Edited April 25, 2013 by juilletmercredi

[Swagato]

^ This post is illuminating in that it breaks down some of the details that are telegraphed by the simple numbers provided on various departmental pages regarding placement. However, it really just illustrates two things.

 

One, it is becoming increasingly common for research-oriented programs (UNC, Chicago, etc.) are producing people who first do good postdocs before going on to other positions.

 

Two, tenure-track placement from any department is quite unlikely to be over 50-60 percent at graduation, and (corollary) it is a much better practice to look at placement 3-5 years after graduation. 

 

I may be missing something or lacking historical knowledge here, but I'd be really impressed if there were ever a time when 70%+ of graduates from any program were going straight into tenure-track positions. Perhaps this may have been the case some 50 years ago, but even then I have my doubts.

 

I always (that is, ever since I realised I was heading for the academic track) assumed that even if I were to graduate from a top program with a solid body of work and all other "advantages" that a top program in the field provides, I would still likely do at least one postdoc/VAP before heading into a tenure track position. My assumption, in short, was that I should find myself in a TT position within 3 years of graduation, worst case 5 (if I have to do another postdoc, but I really hope not).

 

So from this perspective, I think TT placement rates of 50 percent are actually pretty damn good, when you consider how many PhDs graduate each year. For Film Studies, most of the top programs graduate maybe 4-6 people a year. Usually less. So you're talking about half the graduating class finding TT positions in this dismal market.

 

I simply can't see how that is not excellent news. 

Edited April 27, 2013 by Swagato

[jaspers]

I like to read these articles, but then I realize that the program for which I want to get into is often mentioned or required in most job descriptions. Example do you really think a doctor can "gain"experience w/o schooling or a judge? I take most articles with a grain of salt. But of course, its dependent on the graduate program or area of study, you wish to apply to.

[gr8pumpkin]

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.

 

 

I for one would never shut off a resource like the CHE "fora" because I don't like the message of some of the posters.  I would, however, shut off such a resource because it's a navel-gazing clique of the same twelve narcissistic posters tiredly one-offing each other like an eternal Algonquin round table.