PhD Humanities - Just Don't Do It!

[Eigen]

Greenlee:

I think it's just as relevant to write, as a complement to the article, that those who have chosen to study the humanities could benefit from expanding their education into the STEM fields.

It seems that he holds up the humanities as the end goal, when it's really the fact that he can approach things with an interdisciplinary background that makes what he does valuable.

Many of the comments hit on that, encouraging double bachelors degrees in the humanities and sciences- being able to have the background in science/technology that helps to create solutions coupled with a humanities education that helps you to see both the implications of the solutions you create, as well as brings a better understanding of the problems that exist, is quite useful to a more successful, better rounded approach.

It's one of the failings of our modern "liberal arts" education, in my opinion. The traditional liberal arts education required equal grounding in the humanities, math and the natural sciences, while a modern liberal arts education focuses on the humanities, without requiring in depth study of mathematics or the natural sciences.

The point I think important reminds me of Einsteins quote:

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind"... The same could be applied to the authors argument of a humanist vs. technologist perspective- "Humanism without technology is lame, technology without humanism is blind" as I might put it. Humanism acts to guide technological development (or rather, scientific development), while scientific development gives us the tools to advance as a humanistic perspective would have it. Deciding the right way for society to grow and interact without any insight into how to put it into practice is the flip side of random scientific development without any guiding insight.

Edited July 18, 2011 by Eigen

[greenlee]

Greenlee:

I think it's just as relevant to write, as a complement to the article, that those who have chosen to study the humanities could benefit from expanding their education into the STEM fields.

It seems that he holds up the humanities as the end goal, when it's really the fact that he can approach things with an interdisciplinary background that makes what he does valuable.

Many of the comments hit on that, encouraging double bachelors degrees in the humanities and sciences- being able to have the background in science/technology that helps to create solutions coupled with a humanities education that helps you to see both the implications of the solutions you create, as well as brings a better understanding of the problems that exist, is quite useful to a more successful, better rounded approach.

It's one of the failings of our modern "liberal arts" education, in my opinion. The traditional liberal arts education required equal grounding in the humanities, math and the natural sciences, while a modern liberal arts education focuses on the humanities, without requiring in depth study of mathematics or the natural sciences.

The point I think important reminds me of Einsteins quote:

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind"... The same could be applied to the authors argument of a humanist vs. technologist perspective- "Humanism without technology is lame, technology without humanism is blind" as I might put it. Humanism acts to guide technological development (or rather, scientific development), while scientific development gives us the tools to advance as a humanistic perspective would have it. Deciding the right way for society to grow and interact without any insight into how to put it into practice is the flip side of random scientific development without any guiding insight.

Couldn't agree more! The Einstein quote you mentioned really emphasizes the biggest point: that moral systems explored by humanism are most relevant when applied to systems of technological development. Humanism and technology (and by extension, natural and physical science) are not only not opposed, they seem intended to coexist in a symbiotic relationship. The author of the article, Damon Horowitz, gave a talk at a TED conference a while ago on this subject, and his main thesis was that culturally (in the West), technology and knowledge of tech is privileged over the humanities, since tech can produce tangible development, often increasing at an exponential rate (for example, the "boom" in IT, with smartphones, etc), whereas study of the humanities is more nebulous and intangible. Therefore, the more privileged system garners more respect, in the economic sense at least. It seems to echo to classic "theory vs. practice" argument. Humanities can provide explosive "theories" on how to be human, and tech can provide the "practices" that will hopefully enable better humans.

And Horowitz proposes that since technologists are more culturally privileged at the moment, it's beholden to them to become familiar with humanist inquiry, since the amount of power you have doesn't necessarily entail how well you wield it. That's one of the reasons, I think, why Horowitz does not explore the option of humanists becoming better acquainted with STEM (although I agree with you, they should!): he's trying to underline the fact that since people in STEM fields often wield more cultural power, they wouldn't normally be chastised for disregarding humanist inquiry, whereas many people pursuing degrees in the humanities are admonished (most often by people in their own field!) about their decision. The scolding usually goes: "It's a waste of time, a waste of money, what's the worth of what you're doing?" Both in and outside academe, the humanities are often discussed snidely and with no small amount of derision.

I really agree with you that "liberal arts" should include as much STEM as the humanities, though. There's no real excuse for not requiring more of it.

[ZeeMore21]

Greenlee:

I think it's just as relevant to write, as a complement to the article, that those who have chosen to study the humanities could benefit from expanding their education into the STEM fields.

It seems that he holds up the humanities as the end goal, when it's really the fact that he can approach things with an interdisciplinary background that makes what he does valuable.

Many of the comments hit on that, encouraging double bachelors degrees in the humanities and sciences- being able to have the background in science/technology that helps to create solutions coupled with a humanities education that helps you to see both the implications of the solutions you create, as well as brings a better understanding of the problems that exist, is quite useful to a more successful, better rounded approach.

It's one of the failings of our modern "liberal arts" education, in my opinion. The traditional liberal arts education required equal grounding in the humanities, math and the natural sciences, while a modern liberal arts education focuses on the humanities, without requiring in depth study of mathematics or the natural sciences.

The point I think important reminds me of Einsteins quote:

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind"... The same could be applied to the authors argument of a humanist vs. technologist perspective- "Humanism without technology is lame, technology without humanism is blind" as I might put it. Humanism acts to guide technological development (or rather, scientific development), while scientific development gives us the tools to advance as a humanistic perspective would have it. Deciding the right way for society to grow and interact without any insight into how to put it into practice is the flip side of random scientific development without any guiding insight.

I wouldn't necessarily think that liberal arts school are at fault. I attended a liberal arts school, and taking a science was required by all students. However, people do have a choice to go in depth in their study of sciences...that is what a major is for. I don't think humanities students should be blamed for not doing as much study in the STEM fields...not all humanities students need to be fluent in the sciences for their career, especially considering those who want to teach humanities courses. I'd also say that not all students who go into the sciences appreciate the value of the humanities or take that many courses in the field...tech-driven schools like Carnegie Mellon would be an example, and I did my masters degree in English here. So I think your argument cuts both ways. I think a better solution to this humanities crisis is for people to realize that the humanities is just as valuable as the sciences....once this field is valued in the market, humanities students should have an easier time finding a career...humanities students shouldn't be forced to have to take science courses if their talents don't lie in that field.

[Eigen]

I wouldn't necessarily think that liberal arts school are at fault. I attended a liberal arts school, and taking a science was required by all students. However, people do have a choice to go in depth in their study of sciences...that is what a major is for. I don't think humanities students should be blamed for not doing as much study in the STEM fields...not all humanities students need to be fluent in the sciences for their career, especially considering those who want to teach humanities courses. I'd also say that not all students who go into the sciences appreciate the value of the humanities or take that many courses in the field...tech-driven schools like Carnegie Mellon would be an example, and I did my masters degree in English here. So I think your argument cuts both ways. I think a better solution to this humanities crisis is for people to realize that the humanities is just as valuable as the sciences....once this field is valued in the market, humanities students should have an easier time finding a career...humanities students shouldn't be forced to have to take science courses if their talents don't lie in that field.

My point was that if you look at what a "liberal arts" education was meant to include, time and emphasis was equally placed between the science based fields and the humanities. Over the years, "liberal arts" has become synonymous with "humanities" and thus the equal emphasis that set a true liberal arts education apart has lost much of its meaning.

At most schools, there are far greater humanities requirements than sciences- usually balanced between several courses in socio-behavioral sciences, English and literature, history, communication courses, and language courses- at least at my school, 4 semesters of English, 1 each of history and communications courses, and 3 classes in socio-behavioral sciences were required. The corresponding background required in the sciences is usually about half of that- one two semester course (usually intro biology or astronomy for most students), one second standalone science course, and the equivalent of college algebra. Of course, you can go past these to a major- but I'm speaking to the "core classes" required of any student at the university.

Personally, I would think a more rigorous use of minors would be the best track, requiring students to take a minor that was outside of their college- STEM fields having a minor in the humanities, humanities fields requiring a minor in one of the STEM fields.

It's not about what's necessary for a "job" teaching down the road, but what should be required to make someone a well educated member of society- and frankly, the amount of science and math (and the critical logic skills that often come with them) is quite lacking compared to the amount of humanities.

[ZeeMore21]

My point was that if you look at what a "liberal arts" education was meant to include, time and emphasis was equally placed between the science based fields and the humanities. Over the years, "liberal arts" has become synonymous with "humanities" and thus the equal emphasis that set a true liberal arts education apart has lost much of its meaning.

At most schools, there are far greater humanities requirements than sciences- usually balanced between several courses in socio-behavioral sciences, English and literature, history, communication courses, and language courses- at least at my school, 4 semesters of English, 1 each of history and communications courses, and 3 classes in socio-behavioral sciences were required. The corresponding background required in the sciences is usually about half of that- one two semester course (usually intro biology or astronomy for most students), one second standalone science course, and the equivalent of college algebra. Of course, you can go past these to a major- but I'm speaking to the "core classes" required of any student at the university.

Personally, I would think a more rigorous use of minors would be the best track, requiring students to take a minor that was outside of their college- STEM fields having a minor in the humanities, humanities fields requiring a minor in one of the STEM fields.

It's not about what's necessary for a "job" teaching down the road, but what should be required to make someone a well educated member of society- and frankly, the amount of science and math (and the critical logic skills that often come with them) is quite lacking compared to the amount of humanities.

I see what you are saying here, but I'm just wondering if a required minor in a STEM course or Humanities course is feasible or even desired. Obviously it is great to be a well-rounded individual, but I am not quite sure that making students minor in a field that they may not be gifted in is the way to go about it.

[ZeeMore21]

I'd also argue that perhaps liberal arts schools' encouragement of the humanities is meant to counteract what I think is the devaluing of the humanities field in society. These types of schools are built on the notion that there are multiple intelligences, and unfortunately, this notion is not held in public schools....children are geared more toward the STEM courses, and those who may not be gifted in this arena are often penalized.

Not everyone attends a liberal arts school...I think those that do attend these schools expect fields such as the Humanities to be celebrated and acknowledged. Looking at the state of public universities right now--where STEM fields and Humanities fields ought to be balanced--many humanities programs are being cut down significantly and are not receiving the funding they need, while others have simply disappeared. These program cuts are a reflection of what society believes is important--namely STEM related fields-- and funding is geared toward this field than toward humanities.

This is all to say that though I do understand where you are coming from Eigen, and maybe liberal arts schools do need to include a bit more STEM fields as core courses (just not sure about this), I do respect the fact that liberal arts schools serve the role as supporters of the humanities, in a country where this field is being ridiculed as non-productive and inferior.

Edited July 19, 2011 by ZeeMore21

[ktel]

I'm coming from an engineering education, but we had next to no humanities requirements. We were required to take one semester of English, which was waived for me due to obtaining IB credit in high school. We also took an Information, Technology and Society (ITS) elective that was usually sociology or philosophy. The English class, if you wished, could be a special "English for engineers" class that supposedly focused more on technical writing. The ITS electives also had specific sections reserved only for engineers. I honestly felt like they were trying to keep us away from the rest of the undergrad population.

My boyfriend took a variety of non-engineering courses (mostly business related), however did so at the expense of another year of university and a few extra thousand dollars. As much as I enjoyed my high school English and History courses, I just can't justify taking the time and spending the money to study those fields at this time, especially when the field I am pursuing is likely much more lucrative. Reading books will have to suffice.

[ZeeMore21]

I'm coming from an engineering education, but we had next to no humanities requirements. We were required to take one semester of English, which was waived for me due to obtaining IB credit in high school. We also took an Information, Technology and Society (ITS) elective that was usually sociology or philosophy. The English class, if you wished, could be a special "English for engineers" class that supposedly focused more on technical writing. The ITS electives also had specific sections reserved only for engineers. I honestly felt like they were trying to keep us away from the rest of the undergrad population.

My boyfriend took a variety of non-engineering courses (mostly business related), however did so at the expense of another year of university and a few extra thousand dollars. As much as I enjoyed my high school English and History courses, I just can't justify taking the time and spending the money to study those fields at this time, especially when the field I am pursuing is likely much more lucrative. Reading books will have to suffice.

I understand your decision ktel, but there are also people who don't want to go into a lucrative field, but rather go into a field that they are genuinely interested in and would thrive in as well.

Edited July 19, 2011 by ZeeMore21

[Eigen]

Personally, I ended up taking a 5th year so I could round out my courses... I think I had something like 190ish credits (semester system) when I graduated, and I spread them quite wide so I could get at least some background in most areas. I think it served me quite well during applications, actually.

My boss was a Chemistry major with an Anthropology minor, and one of the other PIs I work with a lot had a double major in Chemistry and History, and actually did a masters in archeological chemistry overseas before he came back to do his PhD. Our department at least values the broad background, they feel like it centers you on the importance of your work and especially helps you a lot when it comes to writing and general communication skills.

::edits:: Gah! iPad autocorrects!

Edited July 19, 2011 by Eigen

[ZeeMore21]

Personally, I ended up taking a 5th year so I could round out my courses... I think I had something like 190ish credits (semester system) when I graduated, and I spread them quite wide so I could get at least some background in most areas. I think it served me quite well during applications, actually.

My boss was a Chemistry major with an Anthropology minor, and one of the other PIs I work with a lot had a double major in Chemistry and History, and actually did a masters in archeological chemistry overseas before he came back to do his PhD. Our department at least values the broad background, they feel like it centers you on the importance of your work and especially helps you a lot when it comes to writing and general communication skills.

::edits:: Gah! iPad autocorrects!

Commend you on that Eigen, of course.

[ktel]

I understand your decision ktel, but there are also people who don't want to go into a lucrative field, but rather go into a field that they are genuinely interested in and would thrive in as well.

You imply that I am not genuinely interested in my field, which couldn't be farther from the truth. It just happens to be more lucrative than many humanities fields.

[ZeeMore21]

You imply that I am not genuinely interested in my field, which couldn't be farther from the truth. It just happens to be more lucrative than many humanities fields.

Hey ktel, didn't meant to imply that. I was speaking to your argument that you weren't able to justify going into humanities because it is not as lucrative as the sciences. I was simply trying to argue that most people that go into humanities aren't looking to make money.

[ktel]

The way many programs are structured it seems to be a choice of one or the other (humanities vs STEM) for the student, unless they personally choose to add time and expense to their degree. I think engineering is particularly difficult to integrate humanities courses into, simply because the degree is already crammed full of courses. The only way to implement this would be to make it a 5 year degree, which might cause a bit of an uproar among students.

[Grunty DaGnome]

LOL! This professor is in Holland, Michigan! Where swearing is illegal! While I agree that not everyone who gets a PhD gets to be a professor, I have to ask him this; what the f*ck! No one in Holland has a good job! Believe it or not, I know someone who went to a math summer research insititute at Hope College and they said it was the biggest mistake they ever made in life. They still have acid-like Hope College flashbacks about the nurse Ratchety professors there!

[filmluv]

I just don't understand what the alternative is.

Yes so it's competitive.

Everything is.

So are MBAs and Law school degrees.

Everyone has everything. It's competitive everywhere.

What's he advocating? No education? What? We're all supposed to abandon our

love of books and learning and go to Vo-tech school? yeah, there's the ticket to fulfillment.

It's tough and what he says is true but what of it?

Does he not know that companies are horrible and constantly lay people off?

Or get acquired and lay people off?

It seems like there may be some good points in there mired under a heavy dose of disdain and condescension.

Maybe he hates Michigan and I can't say I blame him!

Edited December 21, 2011 by filmluv

[ktel]

I just don't understand what the alternative is.

Yes so it's competitive.

Everything is.

So are MBAs and Law school degrees.

Everyone has everything. It's competitive everywhere.

What's he advocating? No education? What? We're all supposed to abandon our

love of books and learning and go to Vo-tech school? yeah, there's the ticket to fulfillment.

It's tough and what he says is true but what of it?

Does he not know that companies are horrible and constantly lay people off?

Or get acquired and lay people off?

It seems like there may be some good points in there mired under a heavy dose of disdain and condescension.

Maybe he hates Michigan and I can't say I blame him!

Not that I necessarily agree with this whole thing, but playing devil's advocate here, why does your job have to be the only thing that fulfills you? Can you not love books and learning in your spare time? Loving something shouldn't be the only reason why you do something. I love playing rugby but I'm not about to give up school and a viable career when there's almost zero way I could make a living playing.

[filmluv]

That's true & I understand that but that is not the same argument. You are talking about pursuing athletics professionally which everyone knows -- has to be done from a very young age to be successful.

That's like saying "I want t to become a ballerina or an astronaut at 34." Um, no you're not. But his argument in the article is not about being basically crazy -- it's about his condescending view towards undergrad students.

How can a professor in good conscience try to quash a young person's love of learning and reading? It's despicable. He shouldn't have a column.

This gets down to values. Being in the arts my entire life -- I've heard this argument lobbed at me repeatedly. It always irritated me. Do you think that college should be a time to explore yourself, your interests, your values? To learn to think critically and learn what it means to think, to become educated? Or do you think it's just about following a track to get a job?

I think it's a big mistake -- I don't know how this guy has a column -- to try to tell students that they should all become doctors and lawyers. Or what? I really don't understand what he's advocating. And anyway, he's not even talking about the arts -- he's talking about academia. Which, to me, is even more bizarre.

Has he looked around at the world?

It's very difficult in the workforce. Corporate America isn't the answer to a fulfilling life, imho.

Again: what's the alternative? We should all go get our MBAs? There is no guarantee in that either.

We are moving as a society where it's the haves and have-nots.

There are the elites and the non-elites. It used to be apparent in the arts -- now I guess it's apparent in academia.

Now college is basically unaffordable.

So many things I took for granted growing up are broken and need fixing.

What's next?

So this guy gets a column to shake his head, tsk tsk tsk and wave his finger at students he looks down upon for what?

Wanting to go to college, loving learning, and wanting to read books?

What's the world coming to?

Edited December 31, 2011 by filmluv

[natsteel]

That's true & I understand that but that is not the same argument. You are talking about pursuing athletics professionally which everyone knows -- has to be done from a very young age to be successful.

That's like saying "I want t to become a ballerina or an astronaut at 34." Um, no you're not. But his argument in the article is not about being basically crazy -- it's about his condescending view towards undergrad students.

How can a professor in good conscience try to quash a young person's love of learning and reading? It's despicable. He shouldn't have a column.

This gets down to values. Being in the arts my entire life -- I've heard this argument lobbed at me repeatedly. It always irritated me. Do you think that college should be a time to explore yourself, your interests, your values? To learn to think critically and learn what it means to think, to become educated? Or do you think it's just about following a track to get a job?

I think it's a big mistake -- I don't know how this guy has a column -- to try to tell students that they should all become doctors and lawyers. Or what? I really don't understand what he's advocating. And anyway, he's not even talking about the arts -- he's talking about academia. Which, to me, is even more bizarre.

Has he looked around at the world?

It's very difficult in the workforce. Corporate America isn't the answer to a fulfilling life, imho.

Again: what's the alternative? We should all go get our MBAs? There is no guarantee in that either.

We are moving as a society where it's the haves and have-nots.

There are the elites and the non-elites. It used to be apparent in the arts -- now I guess it's apparent in academia.

Now college is basically unaffordable.

So many things I took for granted growing up are broken and need fixing.

What's next?

So this guy gets a column to shake his head, tsk tsk tsk and wave his finger at students he looks down upon for what?

Wanting to go to college, loving learning, and wanting to read books?

What's the world coming to?

The column is not about looking down on students for "wanting to go to college, loving learning, and wanting to read books" or trying to "quash [their] love of learning and reading." How would not pursuing a PhD in hopes of an academic career "quash" someone's "love of learning and reading?" Someone who loves learning and reading would presumably do that with or without going to grad school or a job in academia.

Pannapacker does go for shock value to some extent but that is for a very specific reason. Many undergraduate advisors do not tell their students who are considering graduate school about the realities of pursuing a job in academia. Many undergraduates who are advised about it do not take it seriously. That is why he uses such seemingly harsh language (though it often seems to appear harsh to those unfamiliar with what he's talking about). He is certainly not alone. Spend a week or two reading through the Chronicle of Higher Education forums and you will find that his views reflect the vast majority of faculty members there.

Unfortunately, academia has always been about the "elites and non-elites." You seem to imply that you thought academia was solely about merit or that it was at one time. If you look at the department websites in my field (History) of any regional public university, such as the one from which I got my BA, 90% of the faculty come from about 10 schools (some less). Yet, there are hundreds of programs producing PhDs in my field every year. There have never been so many PhDs. At the same time, university administrators continue to sacrifice full-time jobs for adjunct positions with minimal pay, no benefits, and no job security. So, while the number of PhDs grows, the number of jobs available decline.

I just saw a part of a job rejection letter someone posted on Twitter for a position in early American history which said the department had received 900 applications for one job. NINE HUNDRED!! Your odds of getting that job are 40x less than they are of getting into Yale's PhD program which received 450 applications for 20 positions. Even graduates from the top 10-15 programs in their field are having trouble getting jobs. The adjunct system will never go away or likely even lessen because there are so many PhDs willing to work for nothing just to have an academic job. I'm not saying that's wrong, but as long as there is a huge pool of unemployed PhDs willing to work for nothing that grows larger every year, administrators have no reason to change their way of doing things.

As young grad students or hopefuls we don't see what Pannapacker sees and is warning about. We are surrounded by faculty who got into great grad programs and got jobs, i.e., success stories. However, that is the exception not the rule. Too many students will take loans to go to schools whose degree will generally not be good enough to get a full-time job. They then end up with debt that must be repaid and the only thing they are qualified to do is to adjunct. By adding to that pool of exploitative laborers through advising, Pannapacker feels himself (and others) to be complicit in perpetuating the adjunct system which is killing academia both professionally and educationally. I would hardly call that "condescension." If anything, it's more like "tough love."

[filmluv]

If he wanted to write a column on how "Adjuncts are killing academia" he failed miserably. Critical writing 101: let's start with a thesis sentence shall we and bring that argument home.

So what? So there were 900 applicants, so what?

Again I ask: WHAT IS THE ALTERNATIVE?

You apply for a sh1tty job in a corporate world that has 1500 applicants?

At least in pursuing something you love -- you have the chance of getting employed in a position you love.

What his article fails to address is-- it is TOUGH ALL OVER. NO MATTER WHAT YOU DO.

EVERYTHING is the exception to the rule.

So what?

So what does he advocate?

Working crap jobs and dealing with corporate politics until your company gets acquired and entire departments are laid off?

I've seen it happen again and again.

Like I said: IT'S TOUGH ALL OVER.

That's no excuse to do what he's doing: you call it "warning" I call it misleading with a condescending attitude. It reflects HIS values.

I was glad to see that I wasn't alone and, in fact, he received tons of e-mails lambasting him for that column.

If he sees something askew and/or amiss in academia -- stick to the facts but don't go around acting like all undergrads have "stars in their eyes" and need his "wisdom" to become disillusioned.

If his argument is that academia is just encouraging students to go into debt and they have no real chance of a job -- well what's his point? They're all liars?

Is he seriously advocating that you tell undergrad English majors: "Don't read. Don't study literature. Don't take out student loans to be here. It's irrelevant to the world. Go become a dentist."

???

I don't get it.

You have to pursue what you love in life, that's it. You may succeed, you may fail, but if you don't even try -- you're guaranteed one thing: failure. You have to try.

Look, if someone has an aptitude for science and a love of it -- by all means go make a living.

You said: "whose degree will not be good enough to get a full-time job."

Again: the idea that you go to college to get a job is not why you go to college -- that's why you go to Vo-tech school. It's important to have a college degree. There is no degree that guarantees jobs anyway.

I read an article about students coming out of law school -- unable to find jobs. That's the WORST of both worlds, imho: you pursue something just for security and then you can't even get a job!

I stand by my assessment of him: crabby and quashing people. If he wants to write an indictment on academia and offer up solutions -- he failed miserably.

[Swagato]

filmluv: Here's the thing. William Pannapacker is not exactly what academia at its best is. Look at where he teaches. What is useful about Pannapacker's often-polemical pieces is that it reflects the reality of the 'majority' of wannabe-scholars. The truth has always been that the best jobs, postdocs, etc. go to graduates of the top programs. This is definitely not a bad thing! Only the rare genius comes out of a middling state college/university and then stuns his or her field and is hired to a top-50 institution. Where I think Pannapacker has some use is when he points out that, more than likely, your Ph.D. from the University of Kansas will not result in you getting that R1 postdoc position, or that top-20 SLAC tenure-track position, and forget about that top-10 R1 university tenure-track offer. Unfortunately, (I believe) driven in part by the peculiarly American mantra of "if you try hard enough you will make it to the top" many fresh graduates think that "a Ph.D." will get them that dream job.

A popular notion of full-time professorship is that they work 9 months in the year, slack off over summer, work barely 20 hours or so a week, etc. I am not making this up. Even among Ph.D. students, there are many who simply do not have a fair vision of the unending work that goes into earning tenure and being a professor at a competitive institution. You have no hours, you have to take your work home with you, you must be engaged in work nearly all the time. And all this AFTER you actually get that tenure-track job. In order to even get there you need to work your butt off in a top Ph.D. program, network like hell, establish connections, publish, present, write...

Most undergraduates really do not recognise these realities, and at least in part this is the fault of faculty at many institutions. Part of it may even be due to the fact that most senior/otherwise-distinguished faculty today earned their jobs nearly 20-30 years ago. Things were very different back then. We're all familiar with the image of the absent-minded professor who doesn't know how to use e-mail. It exists for a reason. I believe the situation is improving, with successive generations of faculty being more and more intrinsically 'wired' and aware of non-traditional academic tracks, etc. Cultural norms evolve, too.

I think, ultimately, that while Pannapacker goes too far, he does begin from valid premises. You simply cannot tell a graduate from a bottom-50 SLAC to focus only on their Ph.D. because "God, you love it so much, so you must pursue it!" This would be suicidal. At the very least, be sure to lay down the facts for the student, and then allow them to make the decision. Provide your feedback to the student, because you, as a successful faculty member, are in a position to do so. That, I think, strikes a comfortable middle ground.

[Sigaba]

MOO, too many educators confuse paternalism for pedagogy.

[filmluv]

Swagato: thank you thank you for your sincere reply. I think what you said makes sense. I am not an undergrad but am attempting to pursue my PhD. (I have an mfa, which is a whole other story!) I see now what you're saying and is a very valid point. Reading the boards and thinking about it helps me get my mind around everything as I'm going through a transition right now. I come from a top tier school for my MFA and have not found a job too so I know how hard it is (I have professional experience as well). You sound like you have a lot of experience in academia.

[Grunty DaGnome]

If he wanted to write a column on how "Adjuncts are killing academia" he failed miserably. Critical writing 101: let's start with a thesis sentence shall we and bring that argument home.

So what? So there were 900 applicants, so what?

Again I ask: WHAT IS THE ALTERNATIVE?

You apply for a sh1tty job in a corporate world that has 1500 applicants?

At least in pursuing something you love -- you have the chance of getting employed in a position you love.

What his article fails to address is-- it is TOUGH ALL OVER. NO MATTER WHAT YOU DO.

.......

There is no degree that guarantees jobs anyway.

I read an article about students coming out of law school -- unable to find jobs. That's the WORST of both worlds, imho: you pursue something just for security and then you can't even get a job!

I stand by my assessment of him: crabby and quashing people. If he wants to write an indictment on academia and offer up solutions -- he failed miserably.

Amen to all this! I'm leaving a fairly decent job in a profession I don't love. It feels like crap to excel at something that destroys you daily.

Edited January 13, 2012 by Grunty DaGnome

[objectivityofcontradiction]

Am I the only one who has stopped and questioned the idea that an associate professor of English at some liberal arts college has the nerve to publish articles under a pen name that strive to rid recent undergrads of their passion for a subject, of their goal to write, research and devout themselves to a area of humanities for the rest of their lives? Why should we listen to what this, Director of the Andrew W. Mellon foundation scholars foundation in arts and humanities has to say? I hope we are all sure enough of ourselves to take each word, each punctuation mark, with a massive heap of salt.

[Grunty DaGnome]

I agree that this adjuct unknown from no where should not be allowed to assume the mantle of authority regarding what's wrong with education. In many respects, he demonstrates that he is what's wrong with education. However, even if his own criticism is useless, I do believe it is important to be critical and to stay critical, even if things work out in your own academic career.

I recently went to a creative writing seminar at a great local organization. Very affordable, not affiliated with a University at all, loads of fun, nice folks. There was one person in the seminar who was a tenured Film Studies Prof. at one of the local universities. She was a complete parody of everything wrong with the University system. While everyone else in the circle was giving great feedback about what they liked about someone's writing exercise, what grabbed them, what worked for them, etc., this Prof. kept firing out generic theory critiques; everything from Lacanian analysis to Queer theory. It was hilarious, kind of, because she never made any sense at all. It was doubly hilarious because myself and one other person were there as fugitives from organized scholarship and said as much.

This person, much like the author of this anti-academy article, has a position teaching, offers very little value to their students and probably has a whole faculty of piers who know as much, but never put up any resistence or confront them about their own failings as an educator. Rather than turn out hundreds of students a year with some sort of useful skill or personal enrichment, they hog up a precious spot in scholarship and spew nothing but garbage in exchange. Perhaps the author of this critical article ought to ask himself why so many students, after taking his class and similar classes, don't feel prepared to go out into the world, or don't have any skills to do so?

Over the past few decades, as education used to be cheap and no one spent any time monitoring individual classrooms or comparing notes on higher education goals or curriculums, this kind of self-criticism without constructive alternatives became the norm for many academics. But in this day and age, here we all are on this board, getting more of a systemic overview than any Professor tenured in the 70s or 80s ever had. The next generation of scholars will be different in many ways. I only hope that those of you who get accepted, get jobs and become "The University: Next Generation" keep all of these posters and bloggers in mind when you craft your curiculums and work within your departments to build a better institution.

Edited June 18, 2012 by Grunty DaGnome