1/3 making a mistake when entering grad school?

[liddy]

And a note:

 

SHRM, the Society for Human Resource Management, estimated that it costs $3,500.00 to replace one $8.00 per hour employee when all costs — recruiting, interviewing, hiring, training, reduced productivity, et cetera, were considered. SHRM’s estimate was the lowest of 17 nationally respected companies who calculate this cost.

 

True for business, but grad programs aren't businesses. The students are going to leave after 5-7 years no matter what, and the school will have to recruit and interview new students. And the entire idea of grad school is that it is training. Once a student is fully trained, an ethical advisor lets them graduate promptly, and doesn't ask them to hang around for years so they don't have to waste money retraining a new student. Is it also wasteful that some exceptionally productive students graduate on 4-5 year timelines?

[Loric]

Grad programs are very much businesses.

[St Andrews Lynx]

It sounds easy. Just weed out the "climbers", the "quitters", the non-"top applicants" and you'll get grad programs with 100% completion rates! 

 

...Except how to do you do that? 

 

From what has been said in this discussion already, the "top applicants" overlap with the "climbers". Isn't "professional ambition" and "wanting to better oneself" important/desirable traits in grad students? It wouldn't make much sense for a grad program to recruit mediocre deadwood if they want a strong teaching & research profile.

Then how to do you determine if somebody is a "quitter" or a "climber"? Was there anything in Loric's 1st MFA application that would have told the adcom that he was going to drop out? Should grad programs start psychometrically testing their potential applicants? 

 

Honestly, I think that adcom's are probably doing a good job of admitting candidates that they think are going to complete. 

[ajaxp91]

Loric, I agree that universities do have a firm-like aspect. But perhaps they are not firms whose revenue and costs are affected in standard ways. There are four key differences:

(1) They have annual interview and search committees regardless of whether a student drops out. This means that the concept of "onboarding" new students is already factored into standard procedure. The way this differs from a traditional firm is that a new individual will be taken in, in either case (e.g. whether someone does/does not drop out). Thus, the cost of posting, collecting, and reviewing applications is not tied to student completion rates.

(2) Another atypical situation would be tuition. We could say that this is a a direct cost to a fully funded program. But this overlooks labor that graduate students regularly provide in teaching, grading, and research assistance. This sort of labor should, in theory, be handled by professors who are already paid for the job. In the economics and business departments of top universities, the average tenure track professor will make six figures annually. The average student will bear a five figure annual tuition cost. To hire an additional professor, the university would have to be willing to bear the higher cost. However, admitting two graduate students to absorb the labor a new professor would provide is a huge boon in both cost and productivity. When you view a fully funded program, the dynamics most likely reflect this (e.g. your tuition is defrayed by TA or RA work and so the cost is transferred back upon you in a standard pay labor scheme). Even if a student departs after one year, the university will have benefited financially from performed labor.

(3) Another issue is that the programs may have spread the loss of potential exits into the larger tuition cost. Meaning that it in fact costs less to take on a graduate student, but tuition is increased to absorb this loss. Knowing the drop out rate, you could calculate how much additional tuition it would take to mitigate the cost, and then factor that in. For terminal master's degrees, which are commonly unfunded, students completing their program may end up covering for those who leave. For funded doctoral programs, increased research duties and teaching aid can provide benefits that cover the cost. I think this is the most likely scenario, especially if you assume that universities are creative and will ensure their preservation.

(4) I agree with liddy that universities are working on a short time frame. Students leave anywhere from 5-7 years after commencing studies. This is far too short of a time frame to imbue someone with job specific training and then simply let them leave. Why do universities do this? Forget the student who exits a program prematurely, why would this scenario of leaving after 5 to 7 yrs be okay? I think, in a larger sense, it mimics the human capital and long-term development aspects of a firm. Universities can make certain that the labor pool in their respective fields are excessively stocked with talent. This means that even after training and releasing many students, a program knows that it has increased the labor supply in size and talent. In the future, when replacing faculty, they have a larger applicant pool which provides the added benefit of lower wages due to heightened competition (something many people aren't happy about).

(Tangent) Why is it that students who do not complete a program have made a mistake? Considering that cost to the university is not as large of an issue as it may seem, I am uncomfortable saying they made a mistake. Considering that a student may exit a program to accept a higher salary or to enjoy other non-quantifiable returns, I am again uncomfortable saying they made a mistake. I feel like I am missing something...

[Loric]

Could they have gotten that job without the PhD program though, and just the MA?

 

If so, there was no reason to take up that slot, and no reason for all the extra stress and nonsense.

 

When I'm talking about a "mistake" it's largely in terms of the grad school search, selection process, GRE, interviews, relocation, "poverty living" (often with food stamps, let's not forget that), and all the trouble.. for what?

 

Something they could have accomplished without all of those problems.

 

How is it not a mistake to buy into the idea of a program that you "HAVE" to do to advance your career when in reality there wasn't much reason for most of it? Just poke around the forums - how many people have even seriously considered not going to grad school for their careers? Most haven't. They didn't even consider an alternate route or anything. "PhD or bust!" is the mentality.

Edited January 5, 2014 by Loric

[Loric]

It's a predatory system that preys on people who can't be bothered to think for themselves. The drop-out-for-job folks finally woke up and the fail-outs shouldnt have been there in the first place.

[Seeking]

I have already said they couldn't have got the job without a few semesters worth of Grad School credits. Just the Undergrad degrees are not helpful in getting those jobs.

 

And if they get these jobs after a few semesters worth of Grad School credits, the Grad School has successfully achieved its aim. 

 

How many semesters' training they require before they land a job depends upon their own intrinsic abilities, the dynamics and the environment of the Program they are in.

 

In fact, this can be compared to the funded Humanities PhD Programs. Precisely because job opportunities for Humanities candidates are very low, Humanities candidates hang around for many years in their Grad Programs. And because their staying long in the Program is expensive for the University, the annual in-take of Humanities candidates in funded Programs is much lower than that in the STEM Programs.

 

You are a Humanities candidate, perhaps that's why you are thinking from the perspective of loyalty to the Program. Dynamics of STEM Programs are very different in nature.

 

As mentioned above, Grad Schools have an annual search for candidates anyway, whether students in previous cohorts leave or not. It's not like the Corporate Sector where if a candidate leaves they have to invest money in finding a new employee. This is part of the annual selection process of the Grad School, irrespective of whether students leave or stay.

 

It's not a loss for the candidate and it's not a loss for the Grad School.

[Loric]

Well, no, I disagree on the point of there not being a cost to replace someone..

 

There is still labor costs related to recruiting a slot at the 4 years mark instead of the intended 7 year mark.  Because you do a recruitment process doesn't mean it's the same cost if you recruit 5 people versus 6 people. The 6th one costs more money than just the 5. 

 

Or am I misunderstanding and the slots just remain empty until they are cycled-in again?

 

And any job has onboarding and training costs. The cost of running the little building that prints the photo ID, the campus police to issue keys, the payroll department to set up the account, etc.. They all have costs. Ignoring these costs when it's at the level of 1/3 of the pool is bad business.

[Loric]

Just think of how much money they'd save if they spent 1/3 less on those glittery welcome folios!

[Loric]

Ok, so if it's not weeding out the applicants, what about working harder to retain those that they have?

 

More competitive wages, better quality of life, etc..?

[Loric]

And back to weeding out the applicant pool one more time..

 

Race and gender aren't supposed to be admission criteria. Good, bad - they're not supposed to be involved or considered. Of course reality dictates that they are, in both directions, but in theory they're not supposed to be.

 

I was thinking more along the lines of personality profiles. Heck, we have to fill out all kinds of forms and submit data, why not a GRE of personality?

 

Many successful companies employ based on personality type rather than credentials.

[Loric]

I say this as a person who was randomly recruited by Apple shortly after leaving grad school.. not sure how they found me or for what job even really, still.. to this day..

 

And I know how brutal it can be because I was dropped after a few rounds. Still no idea what went wrong or where either, just that I didn't get the job.. though I'm not sure what the job was..

 

I didn't know it was Apple until the interview itself and I sorta got all "whaaaat?" and dazed because I didn't understand the who, how what, of what was going on.. Yeah, I really still don't know what job I was interviewing for.

[TakeruK]

And back to weeding out the applicant pool one more time..

 

Race and gender aren't supposed to be admission criteria. Good, bad - they're not supposed to be involved or considered. Of course reality dictates that they are, in both directions, but in theory they're not supposed to be.

 

I was thinking more along the lines of personality profiles. Heck, we have to fill out all kinds of forms and submit data, why not a GRE of personality?

 

Many successful companies employ based on personality type rather than credentials.

 

I don't agree that race and gender should not be admission criteria. I don't think the world should be an absolute meritocracy, where the only thing that matters is how much someone has achieved. I think the level of achievement should be tempered by the conditions in which these achievements were gained. The reason is that the job market, the world, academia, etc. is set up in a way so that certain groups have clear advantages over others. If we don't keep this in mind, it will be a runaway cycle. To me, it's more important to have a diversity of good ideas than just the very best ideas. 

 

A personality profile might be a good idea, but I doubt the ability for a metric to accurately quantify a personality. But even if it worked perfectly, do we really want to restrict grad school or any career to certain personality types only? 

[St Andrews Lynx]

A personality profile might be a good idea, but I doubt the ability for a metric to accurately quantify a personality. But even if it worked perfectly, do we really want to restrict grad school or any career to certain personality types only? 

If we're still thinking about the economic & business model of academia...

Narrowly restricting the types of grad students reduces the risk of attrition...but it would also reduce the creativity, cross-fertilisation of ideas and other such awesome things. Taking a chance on an applicant with an atypical profile - perhaps their bulk of research experience is in a different field, perhaps their stats are low, perhaps their educational background is non-traditional - means bringing in new perspectives and new strengths. It's a gamble because these students may not complete or bring in anything new; but the school could gain a lot if that gamble pays off. 

 

I agree with Loric that higher stipends, better working conditions and all that are good ways to reduce attrition in PhD programs. I've read reports about female STEM grad students and the leaky pipeline and that's are what those reports recommend. Some international data on attrition rates would be useful - from what I've heard about Scandinavian PhD programs, their salaries are a lot more generous than those in the States... 

Edited January 5, 2014 by St Andrews Lynx

[TakeruK]

Ok, so if it's not weeding out the applicants, what about working harder to retain those that they have?

 

More competitive wages, better quality of life, etc..?

 

I also agree that I think schools should work harder to retain their current students too. This is something I have been a part of at other campuses and I am starting to take more actions here to work with the administration (if possible, otherwise, it might be working against the administration) to increase the quality of life (includes wages, benefits, how we are treated) of graduate students. 

[KamishaJo]

As others have indicated, I think the answer to this question (if it can, indeed, be answered) varies depending on what field the student is pursuing. Because I study Literature, I can only speak for others whose programs are similar to mine. In this sub genre, I have strong opinions about what types of students “should” or “shouldn’t” be in the program. Here are my (likely unpopular) opinions: ​If you aren’t planning on completing a Ph.D, you are wasting your time and everyone else’s in pursuing an MA. If you are working toward your MA and suffer “burnout,” you are not up for the task of a Ph.D. If you are a Ph.D candidate and it’s taking you 10 years to finish your degree, you probably belong to the 95% of people who will not (and should not) get a tenure track position.

 

*Note: obviously exceptions can be made for those undergoing temporary emergencies or life shakeups. Long term, though, you need to be consistent and solid. Again, I’m only speaking for my field, where getting an MA and Ph.D. genuinely doesn’t help you unless you intend to join academe. 

 

In all of these instances, the students I’ve described are shortsighted. What is the end goal of graduate school in English if not academe? You don’t get “private sector training” in a Literature graduate program. Many private companies in the fields that like to hire English majors actually scoff at candidates with PhDs. If you need a PhD to learn how to write, they argue, then you don’t have any natural talent. That’s the prevailing mindset for many inside the academy, as well.

 

While these students are free to what they want, they should realize that they are taking departmental funding and opportunities away from the students who are committed to finishing their degrees (and doing so in a timely manner). 

 

The truth about graduate school in Literature is this: only about 10% of candidates are successful as applicants to Ph.D. programs (far less than that into schools with strong placement records). Of those admitted to Ph.D. programs, only about 10% of them will land tenure-track jobs. (You can check my stats, if you’d like. These are the numbers that float around MLA.) 

 

In a field as competitive as English, you better be committed and willing to do the work. If you’re not, I would argue, “Yes, you’re wasting your time.” 

 

I would also argue that you’re wasting everyone else’s. 

Edited January 17, 2014 by KamishaJo

[NatureGurl]

Hmmm. I think an assumption that's being made here is that programs should strive for a 100% completion rate, which I think is unrealistic. Of course, programs want to admit the "best" or "top" applicants because those students are likely to graduate and land tenure-track jobs and go on to have fantastic academic careers (which then boosts the reputation of the program, etc.). Programs also want to admit students whom they think will benefit most from what they have to offer. In the time that I've been in grad school, I've seen a colleague leave because her husband got a job elsewhere. An ABD student left for a completely different field.

 

I think professors probably feel disappointed when students leave, especially when they are ABD and the professor has spent a lot of time mentoring the student. But, I guess we all have to move on and do what's best for us. I think "mistakes" are learning opportunities. We all make them and, like every other social institution, universities are not perfect.