Why a PhD?

[frundelson2]

Hi all, I've been thinking lately about why you are either applying or going for your PhD. What are your main motivations? What do you hope to do with your PhD? Also, what is your thinking about the academic job market, low stipends, and the demanding work load? Is a PhD really worth it?

Edited August 9, 2013 by Jim84

[fuzzylogician]

You know, there have been many discussions of this topic; here are some posts from the past few months that I found from just skimming a couple paged back in The Lobby: 

 

Not that I'm not interested in more discussion, but this thread, like the previous one you started the other day, appears to be nothing more than advertisement for your blog. If you want to start a discussion here, you should write your opinions here, not send readers off to another site. 

[frundelson2]

Thanks a lot for the links. Fuzzylogician. I will be sure to take a close look at them. 

 

You are also perceptive but I am afraid off the mark in your second comment. Rather than self-promotion, I am seeking to promote a broad ranging discussion on multiple fronts in order to help empower and aid doctoral students and aspiring doctoral students to be as financially sound as possible. My blog is just one front in this broad quest upon which I am personally embarking. The blog seeks to advance the message, and it contains ideas I could not even begin to capture in a single post here.  I was hoping this forum could be a helpful tool as well. For instance, if you take a look at the one post I began, I responded to every comment I received, in order to promote discussion. 

Edited August 9, 2013 by Jim84

[fuzzylogician]

As is all too typical in academia, however, your comment conveyed snark and an uppity attitude. Thanks for making this forum just a part of the monster.

 

And your post wasn't "snarky" at all. You might want to familiarize yourself with the board along with and its participants and rules of conduct before passing moral judgment. 

 

You are sending people off to your blog instead of starting a discussion here. If that's not self-promotion, I don't know what is. 

[FestivusMiracle]

Jim, I think you should re-post the link to your blog.  Your blog is very relevant to thegradcafe, so I don't understand fuzzylogician's negative reaction to your posting of the link.  Don't let his/her unwarranted criticism affect your decisions.

[MightyDuck]

Just my two cents, but I agree with TM, Jim. I have found your blog to be helpful as I think about starting my graduate degree this fall.

[frundelson2]

Hi all, I've been thinking lately about why you are either applying or going for your PhD. What are your main motivations? What do you hope to do with your PhD? Also, what is your thinking about the academic job market, low stipends, and the demanding work load? Is a PhD really worth it? I have been thinking about this myself lately over at: http://makingcentsofaphd.blogspot.com/p/about_29.html  I'd love to hear your thoughts on these matters and begin a good discussion here about them.

 

Jim, I think you should re-post the link to your blog.  Your blog is very relevant to thegradcafe, so I don't understand fuzzylogician's negative reaction to your posting of the link.  Don't let his/her unwarranted criticism affect your decisions.

 

Just my two cents, but I agree with TM, Jim. I have found your blog to be helpful as I think about starting my graduate degree this fall.

 

Thanks all for chiming in and for your support. I appreciate the positive feedback and hope that the blog and the forum might be a point of pondering, conversation, and help as we all seek to pursue our degrees and our intellectual and personal passions while also seeking to be as financially sound as possible as we do so. 

 

Also, I apologize for any rude comments. There is no need to stoop to that level, and I certainly know that. 

 

If you are interested in the blog, it is: http://makingcentsofaphd.blogspot.com/

 

But by all means let's keep discussion here, if any develops, hah.

[Guest |||]

I have to agree with fuzzy

 

I'm happy to discuss with you any topic you desire, but if the title advertises a topic and the opening post links to a blog, it does come off as advertising and it would be incredibly irritating if this was a common thing.

 

 As for why a phd, I think more or less the topic is well covered with a search of the forums.

[mathnerd27]

It's just as easy to overlook the blog link though. Plus this blog actually is practical and relevant to the forum and grad students in general. It seems to me that gradcafe has such a solid community of support and advice, and folks are just trying to spread the little nuggets of wisdom and advice that they can give. Who is to argue with that?

 

Also, I'm just sayin, but almost all of the links Fuzzy cited started off by introducing a link to another site...that does not seem really different than linking to a blog and could easily be seen as a form of promotion for any of those sites. So long as it enriches the forum, I am down.

[fuzzylogician]

The board has a policy against advertisement. It's there precisely for the reasons that NicholasCage mentions. Just as an example, of the 5 reports currently open in my moderator panel, 4 have to do with ads or self-promotion (these reports originate from board members, not from us). We deal with these cases on an individual basis and in cases like the one in this thread, we normally let the poster keep their links provided that they actually participate in discussions on this board. The original post in this thread has been altered after I posted my reply so it's hard to discuss its exact content but what bothered me about it was that it was very simply an invitation to go read something off site and not a discussion here. As I said above, starting a discussion here that also links to the blog is different from forcing participants to visit the blog if they want to participate. I don't think it's the same as linking to a third-party article and discussing it here and besides, we're not talking about a regular poster who started a thread linking to some interesting article they would like to discuss, we're talking about a new poster who's started exactly two topics on the board so far, both simply linking to their own blog. A good outcome here is that the OP post a reply with some of their opinions about the question of "Why a Phd," and we can take it from there. I don't buy the reply that it's too long/complicated/whatever to discuss in a post here.

[mathnerd27]

But how else do you start a discussion? Through questions. You are assuming he didn't want to actually have a discussion when in fact it seems like he really does.

[fuzzylogician]

The questions weren't there in their current form when I wrote my reply. But as I said, if you want to start a discussion you should also provide some of your own opinions. I'd love for Jim84 to stick around and become a contributing board member, but participation solely in the form of "I wrote a new post in my blog, what do you think?" isn't exactly that.

[frundelson2]

Thanks FuzzyLogic for the invite. I'd love to stick around and get more involved. Just to clarify, the questions were always there in the original post. I edited the blog site out of my original post, but after the encouraging of others, decided to re-post it. To verify this, please refer to the quoted original post, timed at 2:07 PM, in my second comment. 

 

I feel that this discussion is really evolving into something that it shouldn't be, however, and I find that a shame. So I'll take you up on your offer to go ahead and answer some of my original questions in hopes jump-starting the conversation.

 

I find it troubling that pursuing a PhD often equates to living at or near the poverty line. I think this is a problem a lot of grad students see and wish they could change, but given how low stipends are and how institutional change takes a long time to occur, probably won't for a long time. 

 

There are a number of ways to respond to that fact. One is to complain about how bad grad students have it. Another is to realize you get a great chance to pursue your passion and to benefit others and you get paid to do it. I see this theme popping up a lot in other topics posted on this site, which is very encouraging. 

 

With that said, I've grown a bit weary with all of the news articles and advice out there saying you shouldn't pursue a PhD because its financial suicide. I think these words of warning are well-meaning and everyone needs to hear them before they start a PhD. But underneath it all, I think a PhD makes remarkable sense as a vehicle for personal, intellectual, and career development. I also think that while most stipends aren't crazy in their support, a doctoral or graduate student, with careful planning and smart consumption, can turn their stipend into a savings vehicle. There are so many ways to live frugally and to save money, whether that is living with friends, shaving off your energy usage, riding a bike to school, selling books online, etc. The list goes on. 

 

My hope is to help form a community of like-minded graduate students who encourage one another in their pursuit of their degrees and also share knowledge, resources, and practical tips on how to save money while being students. It would be amazing if more and more doctoral students can turn their stipends into a small pool of savings so that when they finish their degree, they are financially sound.

[jmu]

I'm not doing my PhD for any reason other than I am passionate about research. I think the financial question is legitimate but also limited. I did my undergrad living on an average of $12,000 a year. My $20,000 a year is a huge improvement in my living situation. I know others who feel the same.

As for ways to make it better, I think unions are a great tool to that end if properly run. Many GAUs are fighting for fee reductions and living wages.

On the other hand, unfunded offers are becoming more common. A major program in my field only made 4 funded offers and needed to fill 10 spots. Even my program only initially made three, although they were able to add more later on by working with other departments.

I don't think these issues are isolated to universities or doctoral students either. Thus, I don't think they can be looked at without also looking at the progressive neoliberalization of the public sector. As knowledge producers, we're low on the totem pole. Cuts will come to us before other sectors because, very often, we are not producers or reproducers that are viewed as beneficial to society. That makes me sad to type, but it is true and can be seen in the much higher stipends found in fields that can produce a tangible product.

Edited August 9, 2013 by jmu

[fuzzylogician]

Honestly, this topic has been discussed so many times I'm a little tired of it, but here's a shot at my opinion. 

 

I am doing a PhD because it is required training for the career that I would like to have, as a researcher and professor in linguistics. I am aware that this goal is not easily attained, so I've also been trying to make sure I learn skills that would be transferable to other occupations (experimentation, statistics, some modeling and coding). If I end up not getting a job in academia, that would really be too bad because I've invested a lot in making it work but, both when I started my PhD and now, I think it will not have been a waste. I'm having a great time, I'm learning invaluable skills, living and working in a supportive environment with wonderful people, and I have opportunities I would not otherwise have. I've been paid to travel around the world, I've met all kinds of interesting people, and more than anything -- I'm being paid to do what I love. I think this is a one-time opportunity in my life. 

 

Could things be better? Yes. Especially in terms of finances. However, let's be clear that a PhD stipend is supposed to reasonably support a single student living a student-style, and normally it does. If it can't then I would say, don't go into debt unless you'll earn enough to repay it in a reasonable time (and there are tons of discussions of this point so I won't continue here). My stipend, which is clearly low when compared to salaries of actual full-time jobs I might be doing now instead of studying, is enough for me to live comfortably, travel some and also save. It's all a matter of priorities and where you are in life; as I become older my priorities change and the structure of my expenses does too, but I view this part of my life as training, not as a final destination, and I am ok with the lower income. So yeah, I'm also not a huge fan of all the "don't get a PhD" articles because they only look at one part of the problem, and that is just not a good way of examining any issue. 

[frundelson2]

I'm not doing my PhD for any reason other than I am passionate about research...

On the other hand, unfunded offers are becoming more common. A major program in my field only made 4 funded offers and needed to fill 10 spots. Even my program only initially made three, although they were able to add more later on by working with other departments.

 

 

Thanks for your thoughts JMU. I highlighted the above two points as passion / funding are something I have been personally thinking about. Is there a balance that needs to be struck between the two? For you personally how far does the passion extend if you didn't get a stipend? For me personally, I figured that it wouldn't be feasible to pursue a PhD without a stipend and to try and pursue my passion for education and teaching through a different venue. Do you have something similar in mind? 

 

Also it just seems grossly irresponsible of any program to admit students without guaranteed funding. 

 

I am curious to learn more about GAU unions as well. I have heard of such efforts among adjunct professors, but how does it extend to graduate students if they are still technically considered students and not full employees worthy of full benefits?

[jmu]

Thanks for your thoughts JMU. I highlighted the above two points as passion / funding are something I have been personally thinking about. Is there a balance that needs to be struck between the two? For you personally how far does the passion extend if you didn't get a stipend? For me personally, I figured that it wouldn't be feasible to pursue a PhD without a stipend and to try and pursue my passion for education and teaching through a different venue. Do you have something similar in mind? 

 

Also it just seems grossly irresponsible of any program to admit students without guaranteed funding. 

 

I am curious to learn more about GAU unions as well. I have heard of such efforts among adjunct professors, but how does it extend to graduate students if they are still technically considered students and not full employees worthy of full benefits?

 

I wouldn't attend an unfunded program and turned down an underfunded offer. I had a backup plan that would allow me to continue to do research and reapply the next year. I considered myself a strong candidate (summa cum laude, conference presentations, travel grants, all rare for my field) so I wasn't going to give up easily. At the same time, I wasn't interested in only attending a top program either so it wasn't really that bad. I applied to programs that would allow me to do the research that I wanted to do. I am in the program now that best allows me to do that. Based on my research, I put this program above many of the "top" ones.

 

I think its unfair to the departments to put the blame solely on them. Many departments have X amount of funding and need to spread that over as many students as possible. They also need to enroll a certain number of students each year to ensure that the graduate school does not drop required classes due to underenrollment. It's a tricky balance on their part and it can suck for departments as well as students. There is a lot of talk on here about how unfunded offers means they don't really want you or how they are a cash cow. I think this was true once, probably even recently, but I don't think it is true now. Especially among public research universities.

 

Many graduate students are funded through assistantships. These students exist in sort of three planes of existance for the university: as students, as faculty, and as commodities. The first is obvious. As an assistant, you are a member of the faculty. In my case, I'm now an employee of the state of Florida. I even had to swear an oath to uphold the constitution of the state and country, as uncomfortable as that made me feel as an anarchist. We are also commodities in that we produce research which the university and the university system use to bring in more funding and increase prestige. It is in these last two realms that GAUs can help. Non-worker students unions can help as well, but I think they need to be much larger since, in the US, they don't have legal representation. Ideally, I think a system such as the one for undergraduates in Canada needs to be the goal of student unions, both labor unions and not.

 

To extend on how the unions work a little bit more, in Florida, you are required to have 50%+1 of all assistants in any particular college or school sign cards before gaining official recognition. Who represents the GAUs varies, sometimes it is the adjunct union, sometimes AFSCME, sometimes the faculty union, and sometimes it is independent. Membership is fluid due to the fluid nature of assistantships but it can and does work. There are also cases where GAUs are able to fight for the rights of non-assistant students by, for example, changing fee requirements for candidates or students on other forms of stipend. These are typically not part of contracts but are a part of the power of an organized mass. 

[Guest |||]

It's just as easy to overlook the blog link though. Plus this blog actually is practical and relevant to the forum and grad students in general. It seems to me that gradcafe has such a solid community of support and advice, and folks are just trying to spread the little nuggets of wisdom and advice that they can give. Who is to argue with that?

 

Also, I'm just sayin, but almost all of the links Fuzzy cited started off by introducing a link to another site...that does not seem really different than linking to a blog and could easily be seen as a form of promotion for any of those sites. So long as it enriches the forum, I am down.

 

The blog might be amazing

 

My point is simply, it would get annoying if such topics were common, hence it might be best to stave off the trend.

[Andean Pat]

Ok, let's divide the answer.

 

1) @Jim: I have read your two entries in the forum and agree with Fuzzy in terms that it appeared you were promoting your own writing elsewhere. I also think it was great what you did: providing a link in your signature. I visit many blogs this way, so thank you. However, be more careful when editing your posts because many answers were based on the original ones. I'm not saying do not edit, I'm just inviting to be more careful. The quote that Fuzzy quoted was very aggressive and I was surprised you did not stick to it. I must also clarify I often find Fuzzy's way is a little aggressive, I am not his/her fan, but when you read between the lines, you get the message loud and clear. Moreover, he/she is, though harsh, often right. 

 

2) Here and undergraduate degree is already a professional degree, that's why it takes you a minimum of 4-5 years to complete it. However, to be a researcher, you should do research and thus in the meantime you can get a degree. However, the research institutions here are supported mostly by a national fund, which distributes funds in an unpredictable manner. In the US, graduate pay is better and, besides, I got in. Here it is VERY hard due to, increasingly, political reasons. Why a PhD? my answer: Why not?

[mathnerd27]

This whole discussion is getting more and more ridiculous. Fuzzylogician called him out, he adjusted his response accordingly, apologized, and then on the urging of others posted his blog link. We all agree blatant out right promotion of one's self and one's blog is not the way to go. Let's all get back to our lives. 

[juilletmercredi]

PhD students don't usually live "at or near the poverty line."  The poverty line in the United States is ~$10,000 for one individual, or ~$14,000 for a family of two.  Most PhD stipends are at least around $20,000, which is about the poverty line for a family of four.  So if you are in a family of four, maybe.  My stipend was on the higher end but I also live in a high CoL city.  It's not fun to make it work on $20,000 (or $30,000 pre-taxes in NYC) but you won't starve, either.  And generally speaking, we're getting paid to get a degree.  I think as long as stipends keep pace with the CoL in a particular area, they're fine.  But I do cast aspersions on the programs that offer less than a $20,000 stipend or - worse - don't offer any stipend at all, and expect doctoral students to borrow money to survive.

 

The academic market sucks seriously.  Some fields are better than others.  But it's largely because of the changing face of academia.  Tenure-track positions are being phased out in favor of contingent labor - adjuncts who get paid $3,000 per class; graduate students forced to teach 2 sections of freshman comp a semester while writing the diss in return for an $18,000 stipend.  I would say that the only reason they can do it is because we are willing to do it for them, but it's hard to say that to someone trying to feed their family or complete their PhD while still eating.  I myself am trying to find another part-time job to supplement my fellowship (which is now $22,000 pre-tax, because my NSF ended.  Not enough in NYC!) but I can't teach anymore because I could make far more working part-time in a research position or even as an administrative assistant somewhere than I could TAing a section of stats.

 

I used to grouse about my workload, and then two things happened.  One, I finished my coursework and exams, and suddenly I only had to do work I actually wanted to do.  Working 60 hours a week isn't so bad when you are reading and writing on topics you're passionate about.  And two, I realized that any high-profile, high-prestige career I would have at this stage in my life would demand the same or more hours and studying.  I could be a third-year attorney in a firm racing to bill hours; or I could be a medical resident trying to catch a few hours in a cot at the hospital; or I could be a young consultant working 80 hours a week flying all over the country…basically, any other job I also considered doing besides a PhD would require the same amount of work as me.  Some of them might make me more money, but they wouldn't have the flexibility of a PhD program nor would they open the jobs I want to do (I don't really want to be a corporate lawyer or a physician).

 

So why a PhD?  Because I wanted to be a researcher, a consulted expert in my field.  I wanted to change the state of knowledge about my particular area (the application of social psychology to public health), and I want my research to be used to improve the health of millions.  And as I can see the light at the end of the tunnel, I am actually enjoying the later years of my PhD program and I am starting to believe that it is actually worth it.