Discouraged with job prospects for PhD in Psych: is the future this dismal?

[AAdAAm]

Ok. I feel like I need to have “the talk” (never fun) about what people go on to do with their lives after a PhD in Social/Personality Psych (which is the area I’m leaning towards). So far, the research I’ve done about employment prospects (especially in academia) is somewhere between “dismal” and “desperate”. I watched that documentary “Ivory Tower” about the state of affairs as far as education goes in the U.S. (and I would dare to extend that to Canada) and I’m starting to get scared. It seems to me that since universities are jumping into the “for-profit” model, it’s against their best interest to hire tenure-track faculty, favouring either temporary contracts or expanding their pervasive use of adjuncts (eeek!).

 

That “Ivory Tower” documentary prompted me to do some serious soul-search and actually look into what real opportunities look like. I checked out the survey of doctorate recipients from the National Science Foundation and sort of cross-referenced it with popular job sites for Psychology graduates (like the wiki page of psychjobs and the official APA jobs’ site, psyccareers) for the past 5 years (since the crisis of 2008 started) and there’re just too many PhDs in this area and not enough jobs. I was able to contact some (relatively) new graduated PhDs from the schools I’m planning to apply (who graduated from 2010 onwards) about what their job prospects are looking like and I don’t think I’ve ever felt more discouraged. Most people I’ve found seem to have gone straight into a post-doc because, in their experience, no one is really interested in the PhD anymore. You need a few years as a post-doc before you can even consider an academic job. One had been so frustrated with her job search (landing apparently quite a few interviews but 0 job offers) that she’s considering going to teach English in Asia after her post-doc because of how difficult the job market is right now (and because her student loans are eating her alive). The only two people I was able to get ahold who are meaningfully employed said that they were employed because (a) they looked for research jobs in the private sector (like marketing or consulting) and ( that what really got them their job was their data-analytic skills and research design knowledge, nothing directly related to psychology. One even was candid enough to say something like “I worked too hard and studied too much to be a 30-year-old PhD working at Starbucks, like some of my colleagues are doing”.

 

I’m starting to freak out right now. I’ve always dreamed of an academic job but it seems like the time to get those is long gone and that most new PhDs in Social/Personality Psych are faced with the choice of either leave academia all together or be willing to suffer extreme financial hardship before they can even consider a career (and that is *IF* you happen to be selected among the hundreds upon hundreds of qualified applicants). I know nobody goes into Psychology to get rich… but… is it too much to ask for a small (but decent) home? A salary where you can support a family? Just some basic middle-class dreams without having to owe everything to the bank?

 

Is a PhD in Psychology a “bad investment” now?

[nugget]

What is your area of interest in social psychology? Social psych can overlap into other fields like marketing/advertising, politics, etc. This can have significant implications on your ability to find employment and may not necessarily be a good predictor of the job prospects of the people you've been talking to.

 

Have you considered living and working abroad, at least temporarily for a few years, after completing your studies? If you'd be willing to consider europe and other continents (and not necessarily limit yourself to English speaking countries; I'm pretty sure Germany and Sweden, for instance, offer university programs in English) then I'd consider the job market on a global level as well when making a decision. I'm not in your field, but in social work, I've come cross job postings for social workers in China for English speaking foreigners, so you may be surprised at what you find overseas. Also keep in mind that the economy will change in 7 or 8 years and no one can say with absolute certainty what the job market will look like then. 

 

Will the people in this field who are currently unemployed still be trying to enter the field 7 or 8 years later causing the applicant pool multiply every year, or will they move onto something else and not be willing to change careers again when the job prospects improve?? That's the big question. Are these changes in the job market temporary or part of a larger, long-term trend?

 

I think that if you can find a feasible, appealing plan B (or even plan C) career option that you could get into with the same educational background then the risk isn't so great anymore. If this is the only kind of work you could ever imagine yourself doing and you would be miserable doing other work, then you owe it to yourself to give it a shot.

 

If this isn't the case, then it's great that you're taking this decision so seriously and giving it so much thought. You could also consider enrolling in a PhD program to give it a try and get some more clarity about the field and downgrade to a Master's if you don't think it's worth the time and risk. A master's isn't a big risk as it's only a 2 year commitment and it could prepare you for a career in research, if anything, and sharpen your data analysis skills. 

Edited October 26, 2014 by jenste

[nugget]

I see you're in Canada. So in your case, you wouldn't enroll in a PhD program like in the US, but go for a masters (with the expectation you will go on to a PhD). If you have a change of heart, break it to your supervisor that you no longer wish to go for the PhD and will end after completing your Master's.

[juilletmercredi]

First, I want to say that going straight to a postdoc is not necessarily a bad thing.  I am in a postdoc right now and it's terrific.  You get 2-3 years to focus solely on your own research interests and making the transition from the frenzy of graduate school to being an independent scientist, with the guidance and interest of a mentor who really wants to help you develop.  The idea of going straight into an academic job was terrifying for me, but I feel like I will be ready after 2-3 years of this postdoc.

 

With that said...I don't know.  I think that everyone has to make their own career choices and risk assessments.  I went into my field not wanting to be an academic (I'm actually in social psychology + public health), although it's on the table now.  I really wanted a research career of some kind, using psychological methods to understand how people interact with each other, and that was my motivation for the PhD.  Given that, I've always been acutely aware of the many things a social psychologist can do.  There's market research, user experience research at tech firms, advertising, consulting, research associate positions at think tanks and nonprofits, government research and research support, etc.  Within the university, there's institutional research and other kinds of related positions (a friend is now a data librarian at a small college).  Personally I feel like my PhD has opened up options that were not available before I did it.

 

And yes, academia is competitive.  But I always say that's not necessarily a reason not to go - just need to keep your eyes wide open and have a plan B.

[AAdAAm]

I think that (indirectly), both of your responses help highlight the issue I am bringing… which is that you now need to jump into a PhD  with a Plan B I guess I was hoping that because of how difficult it is to get a PhD and all the hardship involved with it (application process, living off basically nothing while you’re a student, stress, etc.) you’d at least be rewarded after 6-7 years with a secure job in your area. But this doesn’t seem to be the case anymore. Even the APA acknowledging in an article last year that more and more PhD students are relying on foodstamps to get by (and that the situation doesn’t necessarily get any better after graduation).

 

I feel like if I wanted to work in the industry like juilletmercredi said, maybe choosing a major in marketing or PR would have been more useful. But I can’t get those 4 years of my life back, lol. I guess I just feel like life is so unfair. When people study something like engineering or medicine they go out and become an engineer or a doctor. But when you study Psychology you go out and become a marketing specialist or a publicist or a data analyst of some sort and maybe, just maaaybe if you get super lucky you’ll get to actually work as a Psychologist. 

[EliaEmmers]

I totally feel like this is true (not just in Psychology but in many other social sciences/humanities) and that has hit very close to home for me.

 

My sister began her BA in Psychology around the same time her best friend (we’re from a small town) started working as a bank teller. My sister thought she could work doing something related with children with disabilities but couldn't get into the program she needed to get certified. She still assumed she could do something else with her college degree in the area of mental health, but those positions are both horribly underpaid and very scarce. When the interest rate on her student loans almost crushed her, she went to ask her friend if they were hiring bank tellers. By that time her friend had become a manager, got married and had enough savings and (a reliable-enough income) that she was able to put the down payment for a home. All my sister has to show for her degree is student debt and underemployment, but at least she’s getting a paycheck now.

 

At the end of the day such is the nature of the beast and we do need to deal with the consequences of the decisions we make. And one such decision is exactly what the two other posters told you before: you need a Plan B. 

[Eigen]

Just to be clear, it hasn't been the case that a PhD in most fields would reward you with a stable, financially sound job for probably the last 30-40 years, likely even longer than that. This isn't anything new. 

 

In many fields, the chances of getting a TT job are more like winning the lottery, and even in the better fields, the chances of getting a TT job are probably around 10-20%, maybe a bit more if you include CC jobs, but a lot of people who wanted a PhD don't necessarily want the low salary and lack of research opportunities that come with teaching at a 4 year comprehensive, CC or SLAC. 

 

To be honest, there's never really been a time in the vast majority of fields that you shouldn't have a plan B (and C and D and probably E & F too) before getting any degree- BS, MS or PhD. All of the above degrees are costly ether in opportunity cost, deferred income, or time and stress. And none of them guarantee a job on graduation unless you're exceptionally competitive and have skills outside of the degree itself to offer. 

 

This isn't to argue that the degree(s) aren't worth it, they can be immensely valuable personally if you like what you're doing, and most graduate programs are fully funded, so while there's an opportunity cost in deferred earnings, you aren't actually losing money. 

 

They're just not usually worth it for actually getting a job. 

[psych face]

It seems to me that since universities are jumping into the “for-profit” model, it’s against their best interest to hire tenure-track faculty, favouring either temporary contracts or expanding their pervasive use of adjuncts (eeek!).

 

My university is already extremely guilty of this disgusting sin and everyone who works there knows it. It's repulsive and only dwarfed by their phenomenal advertising budget/campaign to make themselves look way more prestigious than their business practices actually make them. If they cut the crap and those useless departments they could afford to give some of those well-qualified adjuncts a livable wage. But I'm guessing this is happening a lot around the country, probably getting buried in a sea of P.R. crap, like it is here.

 

I know nobody goes into Psychology to get rich… but… is it too much to ask for a small (but decent) home? A salary where you can support a family? Just some basic middle-class dreams without having to owe everything to the bank?

 

Dreams are great but for most people that's all they are anymore. I think those days are gone for now. The transparency of the class divide, and the college debt bubble, is probably going to create a lot of problems for America in the next ten years. I'm really pessimistic about it. But I'm also good at living off of ramen noodles and potatoes, so no worries. If you don't know how to live off of ramen noodles and potatoes, you should put a little thought into it. These are survival skills. Also, can be mighty yummy.

[juilletmercredi]

I mean...on the one hand, yes, academic positions are very difficult to find.  But on the other hand, the vast majority of doctorally-educated people won't have to live on ramen noodles and potatoes.  The BLS reports that the median weekly salary for doctorally-educated people in the U.S. is $1,623 - which is over $81,000 assuming a 50-week work year (2 weeks' vacation).  The unemployment rate for the doctorally-educated is 2.2%.  The majority of people with PhDs are both employed and making a decent middle-class salary, so the stories of PhD graduates living on meager incomes or in their cars - although true - are a bit exaggerated.  The vast majority of PhDs will never have to do that.

 

Yes, income inequality is increasing and yes, it looks like (at least in the United States) there's largely becoming two distinct classes (upper and under) rather than a gradient.  But the truth of the matter is that those who earn a PhD are statistically FAR more likely to be in the upper class than the working/underclass, should things get that bad.

 

I also just want to say that I think a lot of people have misconceptions about the salaries offered by non-R1 institutions.  I pulled up the AAUP faculty salary survey and randomly searched what Virginia Commonwealth University (a doctoral institution) paid their faculty.  Assistant professors averaged $71,000; and that was in the 36th percentile for that level (meaning that 64% of doctoral universities had AP median salaries higher than that).  Kennesaw State - a public master's institution in Georgia - averages $57,000 for their assistant professors, and they are in the 25th percentile for master's universities.  Charleston Southern University, a random baccalaureate (so the four-year comprehensive) averages $51,900 and they are in the 19th percentile.  Sweet Briar is a middling SLAC in Virginia and they average $53,200, which is in the 37th percentile for similar institutions.  And Georgia Perimeter, a community college in Georgia, averages $44,000 - which is in the 10th percentile for two-year colleges.  (I deliberately picked a bunch of Southern schools because they tend to have lower salaries and I wanted to show how low we can get; the trade-off is that the cost of living in the South is also very low.  It's really cheap to live in Charleston or Atlanta compared to, say, New York or San Francisco or even suburban New Jersey or Northern California.)

 

With the exception of the community college (which again, I have to point out is in the 10th percentile, meaning the vast majority of community college professors earn more than that) all of these are above the median household income in the United States.  Working at a public four-year comprehensive probably won't ever make you rich, but it's not slavery wages that some professors insinuate is the case.  And actually most professors who work at better-paying four-year comprehensives, most master's and the vast majority of doctoral universities will make middle- to upper-middle-class wages.  It's not i-banker money, but you knew that already, right?

[TheMercySeat]

I want to jump in on this because I made a similar point here:

 

Further, I commend you for bringing up this point. 

 

Some disclosure: I received my master's from a university with a track record of sending graduate students to PhD programs at R1 institutions. I sought out research experience before applying to PhD programs mainly because I wanted to take some time to improve my GRE scores and strengthen my portfolio. Most RA gigs for entry level and beyond required a BA/BS psych +... programming experience, MRI training, a phlebotomy certificate, etc. Most of my UG and master's curriculum failed to translate into real world experience. Ironically, I eventually got a RA gig conducting research on workplace and academic readiness and success, in which must of the research agenda is guided by how universities fail to prepare students for the workforce. I can honestly say that learned more in how to conduct research at my job than I ever did in the classroom.

 

Anyway, back on track, while a professorship is the universal holy grail, I am apparently rather alone (as far as academia goes) in believing that one can conduct noble, intellectual stimulating, and socially relevant research in the nonprofit or government sector. In fact, one of the most brilliant, accomplished people I have ever met left academia to become an independent medical sociologist. He travels the world (literally) to share the policy implications of his disability research, has delegates from other countries in his office on a regular basis, and frequently wins competitive federal grants. I personally cringe at the idea that academia considers non-academics such as my friend to be second class citizens and I wish that creativity wasn't such a faux pas. 

Edited November 7, 2014 by TheMercySeat

[psych face]

I want to jump in on this because I made a similar point here:

 

Further, I commend you for bringing up this point. 

 

Some disclosure: I received my master's from a university with a track record of sending graduate students to PhD programs at R1 institutions. I sought out research experience before applying to PhD programs mainly because I wanted to take some time to improve my GRE scores and strengthen my portfolio. Most RA gigs for entry level and beyond required a BA/BS psych +... programming experience, MRI training, a phlebotomy certificate, etc. Most of my UG and master's curriculum failed to translate into real world experience. Ironically, I eventually got a RA gig conducting research on workplace and academic readiness and success, in which must of the research agenda is guided by how universities fail to prepare students for the workforce. I can honestly say that learned more in how to conduct research at my job than I ever did in the classroom.

 

Anyway, back on track, while a professorship is the universal holy grail, I am apparently rather alone (as far as academia goes) in believing that one can conduct noble, intellectual stimulating, and socially relevant research in the nonprofit or government sector. In fact, one of the most brilliant, accomplished people I have ever met left academia to become an independent medical sociologist. He travels the world (literally) to share the policy implications of his disability research, has delegates from other countries in his office on a regular basis, and frequently wins competitive federal grants. I personally cringe at the idea that academia considers non-academics such as my friend to be second class citizens and I wish that creativity wasn't such a faux pas. 

 

I am referring to your last statement there (underlined/bolded) - most people in academia would argue vehemently against that part of your assumption.

I think what you mean to say, is something common to a lot of disciplines right now; creativity is what they want, but they don't want to see it in their prospective graduate students. What they want to see is someone who can knuckle down and finish a program with a strong work ethic. Creativity isn't being taught, nurtured, or respected. However, I think all the professors choosing graduate students would admit that they greatly admire, respect, and desire creativity in their students. This is somewhat contradictory. And for some of us, really f---ing annoying.

 

I think that's more like what you meant to say.

[lewin]

 

 

Creativity isn't being taught, nurtured, or respected.

 

This was not my experience. One can be both creative and hard working. I'm not saying this applies to you, but sometimes grad students think they're creative but really they're not. Maybe their ideas are bad, or maybe they're unlikely to be fruitful research areas. People are not good judges of their own creativity.

 

But it also sounds like the poster above was using the word "creative" to mean "non-traditional career path". I can understand why profs might discourage this; one needs to establish their bona fides first before doing something different. As Strunk and White said about writing: You need to first know the rules to break them.

[TheMercySeat]

This was not my experience. One can be both creative and hard working. I'm not saying this applies to you, but sometimes grad students think they're creative but really they're not. Maybe their ideas are bad, or maybe they're unlikely to be fruitful research areas. People are not good judges of their own creativity.

But it also sounds like the poster above was using the word "creative" to mean "non-traditional career path". I can understand why profs might discourage this; one needs to establish their bona fides first before doing something different. As Strunk and White said about writing: You need to first know the rules to break them.

Oops!

Yes!

I meant "getting creative" in terms of adventuring away from academia.

Clearly I see value in academia, or else I wouldn't be here, but in terms of practical considerations... Eh... I apologize for my doom and gloom, but nobody deserves this: http://www.post-gazette.com/opinion/Op-Ed/2013/09/18/Death-of-an-adjunct/stories/201309180224 :x

And this! Ouch. http://www.npr.org/2013/09/22/224946206/adjunct-professor-dies-destitute-then-sparks-debate

Of course a fresh PhD won't become an independent researcher upon graduation, but it would be nice if alt research gigs (I.e., government or nonprofit research) weren't taboo.

As far as creativity (in the more literal sense) goes, I had a former professor tell me that conformity is more valued. With this being said, I don't doubt plenty of profs think otherwise-- in fact, I hope they do.

Edited November 10, 2014 by TheMercySeat

[Eigen]

Oh god, not more adjunct disaster porn stories. The old tried and true ones, at that. 

 

Those stories frustrate me so much, because it's always someone who had plenty of other job options, but choose to keep working as an adjunct instead of pursuing them, and then wonders why a full career of part-time work didn't go well for them. 

 

Adjuncting is not meant to be full time. It shouldn't be. It's not a career path, it's something for people who need a few years of part-time work do, or to do on top of a full time career in the field. 

 

People trying to make adjunct work full time is the problem, not adjuncting itself. 

 

Also, how taboo private sector research is strongly depends on the school culture- it's highly encouraged at my university, even in the social sciences, as everyone knows how rare the TT job is. We have regular graduate school seminars on how to get out into non-academic or alternate academic careers, and between our graduate association, the graduate school and career services we keep an institutional subscription to Versatile PhD. 

[juilletmercredi]

I came here to make the same comment about the adjunct stories.  Vojtko’s story is missing a lot of information in it, so it’s unclear why she died alone and why she made so little.  She was also 83 years old, but apparently didn’t have Medicare because she “didn’t want charity” and felt that she was owed retirement and benefits - even though she was part-time and it’s usually made clear to adjuncts that they aren’t eligible for benefits.  Besides, the articles linked showed that Duquesne TRIED to reach out to her.  They referred her to protective services; she refused the help.

 

There’s nothing wrong with adjunct positions per se, if they are used as they were originally intended to be used - which is for working professionals to parlay their practical skills into teaching a class or two on the side.  For example, a lot of people at the CDC teach public health classes at nearby Emory and other colleges and universities in Atlanta.  An industrial-organizational psychologist might teach a business psychology class; a successful lawyer may adjunct teach at a law school, etc.

 

But adjuncting was never meant to be strung together to try to create a living wage all on its own, and a lot of adjunct stories I see in outlets like Vitae are short on details.  But from what’s there, it’s usually clear that the person in question has made a choice to continue to teach as an adjunct and not find alternative employment - because they don’t want to leave academia, because they are unwilling to leave a small geographic area (a disproportionate number of these stories occur in very large desirable cities like New York), or because they like being called “professor,” or whatever other reason it is.  I have not yet seen a story where an adjunct says “I tried applying for everything, even non-academic positions, all over the country and nobody will hire me!”

 

Not all the blame falls on faculty, of course; universities are allowing this to happen rather than creating lecturer or teaching-oriented positions with full-time benefits and pay, because it’s cheaper.  But I think it does a disservice to the students; I think that both students and faculty would be much happier if more places created senior lecturer positions where faculty were expected to teach 6-8 classes a year, no research requirements (and therefore no expectation of sabbatical or research leave or time to write grants), with a decent full-time salary and benefits.  They’d get the benefit of dedicated teachers who have the time to plan out innovative classes, the space to meet with students, and the connection and loyalty to the institution.

 

Buuuuut I think as academics we need to stop seeing adjunct work (as in teaching 3-4 classes a semester and doing nothing else) as an alternative, and stop doing it.  If no one is willing to take these crap jobs the universities will have to create better positions in order to get people to teach the classes they need taught.

 

With all that said, I agree - my graduate university highly encouraged non-academics/corporate jobs.  In my department taking non-academic research positions with nonprofits, NGOs, and think tanks was very common and not frowned upon - whatever paid the bills and made you happy, although some individual professors would've preferred you to take academic positions.  And career services had two dedicated counselors for PhDs and focused on non-academic positions - we had PhD-holding alumni in consulting, marketing, and other corporate fields come back and speak about how to get non-academic jobs and my institution also subscribed to Versatile PhD.  Lots of our PhDs went into consulting at the big firms.

[AAdAAm]

Oh god, not more adjunct disaster porn stories. The old tried and true ones, at that. 

 

 

 

I came here to make the same comment about the adjunct stories.  Vojtko’s story is missing a lot of information in it, so it’s unclear why she died alone and why she made so little.  She was also 83 years old, but apparently didn’t have Medicare because she “didn’t want charity” and felt that she was owed retirement and benefits - even though she was part-time and it’s usually made clear to adjuncts that they aren’t eligible for benefits.  Besides, the articles linked showed that Duquesne TRIED to reach out to her.  They referred her to protective services; she refused the help.

 

There’s nothing wrong with adjunct positions per se, if they are used as they were originally intended to be used - which is for working professionals to parlay their practical skills into teaching a class or two on the side.  For example, a lot of people at the CDC teach public health classes at nearby Emory and other colleges and universities in Atlanta.  An industrial-organizational psychologist might teach a business psychology class; a successful lawyer may adjunct teach at a law school, etc.

 

But adjuncting was never meant to be strung together to try to create a living wage all on its own, and a lot of adjunct stories I see in outlets like Vitae are short on details.  But from what’s there, it’s usually clear that the person in question has made a choice to continue to teach as an adjunct and not find alternative employment - because they don’t want to leave academia, because they are unwilling to leave a small geographic area (a disproportionate number of these stories occur in very large desirable cities like New York), or because they like being called “professor,” or whatever other reason it is.  I have not yet seen a story where an adjunct says “I tried applying for everything, even non-academic positions, all over the country and nobody will hire me!”

 

 

Well, Vojtko’s  story is by no means the sole example of the plight of adjunct professors. You can check the Adjunct’s Blog:

 

http://adjunct.chronicle.com/category/blog/

 

which contains a collection of stories about the abuse by university officials and the little power they have to control them. I see the adjunct crisis a little bit like the strikes from fast food employees in New York and other states. Fast food jobs were not created with the idea to propel people into long-lasting careers or pay a living wage. They were something people did on the side while waiting for something better to come along. The problem is that the tyranny of the capitalist economy has forced A LOT of people to rely on these jobs are their sole means to survive. Adjuncting is no different: the for-profit model that universities are adopting have forced countless of talented PhDs to sell their talents for cheap or face unemployment. So when I read on here that you consider the suffering of adjuncts as “disaster porn stories” I can’t help but think how entitled and self-serving you sound. Maybe you need to be unemployed for a few years without being able to care for your family or even pay the rent to learn how difficult life is for other people before you equate other people's misery with “disaster porn stories”. 

 

 

 

Oh god, not more adjunct disaster porn stories. The old tried and true ones, at that. 

 

Those stories frustrate me so much, because it's always someone who had plenty of other job options, but choose to keep working as an adjunct instead of pursuing them, and then wonders why a full career of part-time work didn't go well for them. 

 

Adjuncting is not meant to be full time. It shouldn't be. It's not a career path, it's something for people who need a few years of part-time work do, or to do on top of a full time career in the field. 

 

People trying to make adjunct work full time is the problem, not adjuncting itself. 

 

Also, how taboo private sector research is strongly depends on the school culture- it's highly encouraged at my university, even in the social sciences, as everyone knows how rare the TT job is. We have regular graduate school seminars on how to get out into non-academic or alternate academic careers, and between our graduate association, the graduate school and career services we keep an institutional subscription to Versatile PhD. 

 

 

 

 

With all that said, I agree - my graduate university highly encouraged non-academics/corporate jobs.  In my department taking non-academic research positions with nonprofits, NGOs, and think tanks was very common and not frowned upon - whatever paid the bills and made you happy, although some individual professors would've preferred you to take academic positions.  And career services had two dedicated counselors for PhDs and focused on non-academic positions - we had PhD-holding alumni in consulting, marketing, and other corporate fields come back and speak about how to get non-academic jobs and my institution also subscribed to Versatile PhD.  Lots of our PhDs went into consulting at the big firms.

 

I don’t think it is taboo to work for the private sector but mostly a gamble. When you work for a company your job is to make money for the company, not to pursue research. Academia does allow the flexibility to pursue worthwhile scholarly goals, whether they are in basic or applied research. But in the private sector money is king and your interests have to be tailored to what makes your boss money, not what you think it’s important. If your research interests happen to overlap with the board member’s quarterly budgets, then you’re set. But the moment your research interests do not overlap  you either need to leave or force to work on something you may not have the slightest interest in. I don’t see tenured professors heading projects that they hate. They choose something they love and make a career out of it. When you do research for a corporation there are a guidelines the corporation places on you and there is no escaping them unless you leave.    

[spunky]

OK… although I do think that maybe the way Eigen expressed that came out a little too harsh, the  point being made (along with juilletmercredi’s) is still very, very VERY valid. I remember sometime last year I was watching Shark Tank (yeah I do watch crappy TV. Sue me  ) and one of the ladies there (Barbara Corcoran) had this sob story (but with a GREAT message) about how one of the toughest lessons she learned in business was realizing when to let go. It was some sort of business venture she started and put a lot of effort and money into it but never quite panned out. And she kept trying and trying but realized that if she kept on pursuing it, she would end up broke. So she pulled the plug and killed the business. A career as an adjunct is like that. Heck, a lot of stuff in life is like that. Life is not fair, and people rarely end up doing what they love all the time. Sometimes you need compromise and tag along a job that you hate while you look for something better. Or maybe “pay your dues” eating instant ramen soup and pinching pennies to pay the rent during graduate school (and probably a good chunk of your post-PhD life) for the expectation of a better position down the line.

 

Times are tough out there and we no longer have the privilege to sit around waiting for the magical tenure-track position to appear and propel us into academic stardom. Maybe you could do that in the past (I doubt it but I didn’t live in the past so who knows), but the point is this is the world we live in and these are the cards we have been dealt. Neither you, nor I nor anyone in this forum is going to be able to reverse the for-profit model of North American universities. It’s here to stay and lamenting it doesn’t help anybody. And if MOOCs become a viable alternative I could very well see even adjunct positions disappearing in favour of online-only classes. They key here is learning to adapt and look for a strategy of how you’re gonna make the best of your life, whether it’s inside academia or outside.

 

And now that I’ve stepped down of my soapbox… have I mentioned just how MAJORLY AWESOME Quantitative Psychology is and how much more likely to are to find an academic (or non-academic) job in that area?

[Eigen]

Well, Vojtko’s  story is by no means the sole example of the plight of adjunct professors. You can check the Adjunct’s Blog:

 

http://adjunct.chronicle.com/category/blog/

 

which contains a collection of stories about the abuse by university officials and the little power they have to control them. I see the adjunct crisis a little bit like the strikes from fast food employees in New York and other states. Fast food jobs were not created with the idea to propel people into long-lasting careers or pay a living wage. They were something people did on the side while waiting for something better to come along. The problem is that the tyranny of the capitalist economy has forced A LOT of people to rely on these jobs are their sole means to survive. Adjuncting is no different: the for-profit model that universities are adopting have forced countless of talented PhDs to sell their talents for cheap or face unemployment. So when I read on here that you consider the suffering of adjuncts as “disaster porn stories” I can’t help but think how entitled and self-serving you sound. Maybe you need to be unemployed for a few years without being able to care for your family or even pay the rent to learn how difficult life is for other people before you equate other people's misery with “disaster porn stories”. 

 

If you really kept up with the Chronicle, which you linked, and the past several years discussion on adjuncts, the crisis, etc. You'd realize why porn was used, and exactly where "adjunct disaster porn" as a title comes from. 

 

Adjuncting is not a career. It is not meant to be a career. It is not meant to pay a living wage, it is meant to supplement an existent full time job or career. When people choose to stay in a transparently part-time job instead of using their education and intelligence to move on and find another career, and then say it is the fault of the system, I have a problem with that. 

 

There are many, many available careers out there. Heck, food service will often pay better than adjunction will, as will construction work, roofing, welding, electrical work, plumbing.... Even moving down and teaching K-12 instead of adjunction in higher ed is an option that fits the skill set a graduate degree has developed you for. 

 

Staying in a job that is not intended, and never should be intended, to support someone full time, or someone with a family, is the worst of those options. 

 

It has been an obvious fact for anyone starting a PhD in the last 30-40 years that there is a slim chance of landing a tenure track job, especially in overcrowded fields. The difficulty in job prospects aren't a recent thing. 

 

Going into a career with slim job chances and not developing side skills or planning what you will do to support yourself and your family if the 1 in 100 chance of landing the full time job you want doesn't pan out? It's irresponsible.

 

I realize I may be coming across as overly harsh, but it doesn't seem like a large portion of the people who are thinking about going to grad school, who are in grad school, or who have recently graduated seem to take reality into account with their career plans. They expect that having a PhD should ensure them a good chance at finding employment- and not just employment, but the employment they want in a location they want. 

 

Lots of my friends who have been very happy have gone from a PhD to sales, to finance, and in one case, to working for a roofing company. They're all successful, happy, and are able to support themselves and families. None of them spent years trying to magically turn a part-time job into a full time job- when they didn't get the jobs they hoped for, they went to plan B and moved on. 

 

I'm in a field with solid job prospects, and I'm still keeping things as open as possible- sales, industry, government research, teaching positions, construction companies, offshore welding, mechanic work, alternate academic positions, machining. They all take the time developing skills, and it's worth looking into and keeping all your options open.