Career aspirations: PhD in psychology

[TheMercySeat]

Hi all!

I wanted to consult the masses, re: professorship.

I was recently at a PhD program interview weekend and, whenever I asked students about career aspirations, they'd anxiously make vague notion of "maybe a professor position at a partner university."

During formal interviews, I got mixed reactions when I said I'm interested in doing a combination of a research job + adjuncting "because tenure track positions aren't as common as they used to be"... From agreement to absolute denial ("what?! No! I never heard of that.")

Seeking out perspective from recent PhDs and current students.. What is your read on this? I am deeply concerned about being trained for positions (full time professor positions, let alone ones with tenure) that potentially don't exist.

Please help!

This is baffling.

I know there's a stigma against alt-AC in most programs, and I have no idea what to do. I don't want to be shot out of all of my upcoming interviews because I have thought critically about these issues

Edited January 31, 2015 by TheMercySeat

[TheMercySeat]

No responses?

I think I sense a trend.

[spunky]

well.. you posted during the SUPER BOWL WEEKEND... what did you expect?!

 

kiddin'... why don't you consider moving this thread to the Psychology sub-forum? we have conversations like this almost every month or so (and February just started so you could kickstart the next one! ). i feel you'd probably benefit more from people who are in the same situation like yours in a program similar to yours

[TheMercySeat]

well.. you posted during the SUPER BOWL WEEKEND... what did you expect?!

 

kiddin'... why don't you consider moving this thread to the Psychology sub-forum? we have conversations like this almost every month or so (and February just started so you could kickstart the next one! ). i feel you'd probably benefit more from people who are in the same situation like yours in a program similar to yours

 

 

Ha!

 

Thanks. It seems like everybody there is engrossed with apps, though (I don't blame them). I just asked a similar question on that forum, though.. I am having a very hard time engaging people on this topic at interviews, which exception to the recent PhDs I work with (which we all know is not a representative sample). There's so much silence and uncertainty regarding job prospects, with exception to the angry/depressed PhDs who are unemployed

[Munashi]

Can I ask what subfield of psychology we're talking about?  I vomit lots of things at you about I/O psych career prospects, but I'm willing to bet that isn't what we're talking about here.

[TheMercySeat]

Can I ask what subfield of psychology we're talking about? I vomit lots of things at you about I/O psych career prospects, but I'm willing to bet that isn't what we're talking about here.

I work at the intersection of I/O and quant, hence why my colleagues are recent PhDs with jobs

I am interviewing for psychology and law, social, and community programs. Social folks made me nervous on "the talk"

[Munashi]

I see, that might help explain current students' reactions.

 

If we were talking I/O, some programs do have a strictly academic focus (Texas A&M comes to mind as an example) and generally only send students into academic positions.  Other programs are "scientist/practitioner balanced" and will prep you for either career type (Colorado State and Penn State spring to mind).  Some will have website info showing percentages of alumni entering academia versus industry and where those people ended up, others won't be that detailed.  We're a lucky sub-area in that regard - there are options.

 

Other areas of psych (excluding Clinical) tend to be more strictly academic focused.  There are always exceptions, but social psych folks tend to hang out in academia (either in psychology or possibly business departments) and you see less of them in industry compared to I/O.  They're out there, though.  If you are interviewing at/talking to current Social students, that may explain the attitude of "probably an academic position".  People are concerned about job prospects for a reason - it's highly competitive.  I know much less about psych/law and community psych.

 

Although frankly, I've never heard of anyone adjuncting and working in industry (sounds like you're talking about applied research?) at the same time.  The adjunct-type positions tend to be grossly underpaid and you'd be better off just focusing on your industry job.  If teaching is really a passion of yours, why not aim for an academic position at a teaching-oriented institution, like a liberal arts school?  Just something to think about.

 

The reality is though, in a lot of programs, "industry" or anything outside of tenure-track academia is a dirty word.  If your ambitions fall outside of there, you may want to consider that when making your decision about where to accept and attend.  Personally, I would not want to go to a place where I had to hide my real ambitions or constantly be told they're less-than-noble.

[TheMercySeat]

I see, that might help explain current students' reactions.

Although frankly, I've never heard of anyone adjuncting and working in industry (sounds like you're talking about applied research?) at the same time. The adjunct-type positions tend to be grossly underpaid and you'd be better off just focusing on your industry job. If teaching is really a passion of yours, why not aim for an academic position at a teaching-oriented institution, like a liberal arts school? Just something to think about.

The reality is though, in a lot of programs, "industry" or anything outside of tenure-track academia is a dirty word. If your ambitions fall outside of there, you may want to consider that when making your decision about where to accept and attend. Personally, I would not want to go to a place where I had to hide my real ambitions or constantly be told they're less-than-noble.

I'm so torn at the moment. I'm afraid that I will be locked out of PhD programs if I state that I want to be a research scientist, but I really don't want to be prepared for jobs that don't really exist anymore (tenure track professorship)

Also, I have an industry job and some of the scientists here adjunct on the side.

Edited February 2, 2015 by TheMercySeat

[juilletmercredi]

I've heard of lots of people who work in industry and adjunct a class or two on the side.

 

My thing is...why are you engaging people on these conversations during your interviews?  In my experience, professors aren't terribly happy with applicants announcing their intentions to not go into academia.  Not that you can't have those aspirations - I did - but you don't need to broadcast it to the people interviewing you.  It's not terribly relevant to your admissions.  Moreover, the majority of the professors with whom you are interacting know zero about industry possibilities after graduation. They themselves mostly likely went from undergrad to grad school to a faculty position - maybe with a few years of research experience post college and a postdoc post-grad school.  But very few of them (in social and community) will have any outside work experience.  So they can't really speak to your opportunities in that world.  And the grad students who are there are just as uncertain as you are, and talking about it might make them anxious as well.

 

When I was a grad student, if a prospective had asked me what I personally planned to do after grad school I would've answered them happily with whatever I had planned that particular semester.  But if he/she wanted to engage in a conversation about the job market in our field/in academia, that would've made me anxious and it isn't something I would've wanted to discuss.

 

My read?  I finished my PhD in social psychology (and public health) 6 months ago, so I have colleagues who are recent grads.  I have a lot of colleagues from my program who went into industry positions - a lot of consulting, marketing, data science, user experience research kind of stuff.  The unemployment rate for PhD finishers is very, very low - so if you want to work after you finish your PhD, you'll get a job.

 

Also, FWIW, I was like 95% sure when I started my own PhD program that I wanted to do the same thing - government or industry research, plus maybe adjuncting on the side.  Six years of grad school and six months of a postdoc later, and I am fairly certain that I actually do want to be a professor - and in the fall, I plan to focus on academic jobs, although I will be applying to a wide range of positions.  You'll grow and change a lot and your opinions and desires will change, too.

[green_chair]

One thing I ran into is that people in any career path love it and believe it is the only oppropriate career path for you. So if you are asking professors for career advice, it will be hard to have that discussion as you've found out. Most graduate students don't seem to realize how their skills translate into jobs, so I have also gotten the boring responses you've gotten. What I found help was speaking to people outside of academia and to a career counselor (probably the only person who didn't have a stake in where I end up). Perspective is important here.

[TheMercySeat]

I've heard of lots of people who work in industry and adjunct a class or two on the side.

My thing is...why are you engaging people on these conversations during your interviews? In my experience, professors aren't terribly happy with applicants announcing their intentions to not go into academia. Not that you can't have those aspirations - I did - but you don't need to broadcast it to the people interviewing you. It's not terribly relevant to your admissions. Moreover, the majority of the professors with whom you are interacting know zero about industry possibilities after graduation. They themselves mostly likely went from undergrad to grad school to a faculty position - maybe with a few years of research experience post college and a postdoc post-grad school. But very few of them (in social and community) will have any outside work experience. So they can't really speak to your opportunities in that world. And the grad students who are there are just as uncertain as you are, and talking about it might make them anxious as well.

When I was a grad student, if a prospective had asked me what I personally planned to do after grad school I would've answered them happily with whatever I had planned that particular semester. But if he/she wanted to engage in a conversation about the job market in our field/in academia, that would've made me anxious and it isn't something I would've wanted to discuss.

My read? I finished my PhD in social psychology (and public health) 6 months ago, so I have colleagues who are recent grads. I have a lot of colleagues from my program who went into industry positions - a lot of consulting, marketing, data science, user experience research kind of stuff. The unemployment rate for PhD finishers is very, very low - so if you want to work after you finish your PhD, you'll get a job.

Also, FWIW, I was like 95% sure when I started my own PhD program that I wanted to do the same thing - government or industry research, plus maybe adjuncting on the side. Six years of grad school and six months of a postdoc later, and I am fairly certain that I actually do want to be a professor - and in the fall, I plan to focus on academic jobs, although I will be applying to a wide range of positions. You'll grow and change a lot and your opinions and desires will change, too.

"What do you want to do after you graduate?" was the first thing out of the mouth of every professor I met with, hence why I spoke of my career aspirations.

Moreover, upon graduating with my BA and MA (terminal program-- full scholarship), I had an awful time trying to get a decent job. Awful.

I discovered that most things that I learned in college failed to translate into real world skills and that I did not know enough statistical programs + computer programming languages for even the most basic entry level research assistant jobs. I finally have a decent job, but I vowed to never let academia fail me again by failing to train me for jobs that exist. These are things that I never once considered once while enrolled in my BA or MA program... academia can be great, but all programs have a start date and an end date.

Also note that unemployment data typically counts part time jobs as gainfully employed, even if they're making $20,000 a year as an adjunct.

Thank you for these insights, though. I will avoid dropping references to the job market/future on interviews in the future... at the end of the day, I only really need the credential for the type of job that I have in mind.

Edited February 3, 2015 by TheMercySeat

[Munashi]

Apologies if I'm misinformed regarding adjunct & industry positions.  I've certainly observed the inverse - tenured profs doing industry work on the side.  But if people are open to that, I suppose the flip-side would be true also.

 

Juillet has some great points, though - especially about current students and their changing/evolving goals.  I'm only in my second semester, and I've already flip flopped once or twice about industry vs. academia.

 

Additionally, your point about "only needing the credential" for the positions you're interested in is likely valid.  A PhD program is going to train you to do research.  If you want to do that research in an academic setting or an industry one, the same basic principles will apply across the board.  I would not be too worried about it "failing to train [you] for jobs that exist".  That said, I have seen some people on this board run into the issue of "I want to take a summer internship to get work experience and my advisor won't support/allow it".  So just be aware that you may meet some resistance, depending on where you go and what you ultimately decide to do.

[juilletmercredi]

I discovered that most things that I learned in college failed to translate into real world skills and that I did not know enough statistical programs + computer programming languages for even the most basic entry level research assistant jobs. I finally have a decent job, but I vowed to never let academia fail me again by failing to train me for jobs that exist. These are things that I never once considered once while enrolled in my BA or MA program... academia can be great, but all programs have a start date and an end date. 

 

 

I understand your frustrations, and I am not - in any way - trying to minimize them.  I think that's a frustration that many recent college graduates have.  But I think this recent article in the Washington Post is relevant: What do employers really want? Workers they don't have to train.

 

A college education for a BA is not really supposed to train you for a specific kind of job, or even a specific set of jobs.  It's supposed to teach you how to learn, and how to absorb information; how to think critically; how to solve problems; how to read and analyze tons of information.  You are then supposed to use that information to learn the skills that you need in the work place.  In the old days, employers hired college graduates because a BA signaled that they were able to do those things; then they offered some kind of training to get people up to speed on what they were supposed to do.  Employers have gotten increasingly unwilling to spend money on training employees - they want employees who already know how to do everything right out of the gate.  Nobody knows several statistical packages and a programming language out of undergrad - even the stats majors learn one, maybe two, and the basics of a programming language when they graduate.  Certainly no social science major does.  With time, you can learn another one, but many employers are unwilling to give that time - unless they can get you to do it during an unpaid internship.

 

I'm saying that not to be argumentative but because it's relevant for a PhD program, too.  PhD programs don't really train in specific skills, not on purpose anyway.  You can acquire that information while you are in graduate school, but you have to make the personal effort to do it.  I always say that the end goal of a PhD is really to teach you how to learn things on your own, because that's essentially what scientists do - teach themselves things first and then teach others things.  Very few programs actually give you the practical skills to be a researcher or even a professor through the formal program, though.  You pick those up on the side, by doing.  As an example, I wanted to learn Stata, so I decided to do my dissertation data analysis in Stata instead of in SPSS or SAS (neither of which could do what I wanted to do anyway).  At this point I can teach myself to use any statistical package (and have done so with proprietary systems in internships, too).  Example two - most PhD programs do not teach you how to teach.  You learn by doing it.

 

I guess the tl;dr version of this is totally do non-academic internships and take little workshops on the side if you want to develop actual hard skills in graduate school.  It's great to win external funding so you can carve your own time out to do these things and don't have to get permission for them.

[TheMercySeat]

 

I understand your frustrations, and I am not - in any way - trying to minimize them.  I think that's a frustration that many recent college graduates have.  But I think this recent article in the Washington Post is relevant: What do employers really want? Workers they don't have to train.

 

A college education for a BA is not really supposed to train you for a specific kind of job, or even a specific set of jobs.  It's supposed to teach you how to learn, and how to absorb information; how to think critically; how to solve problems; how to read and analyze tons of information.  You are then supposed to use that information to learn the skills that you need in the work place.  In the old days, employers hired college graduates because a BA signaled that they were able to do those things; then they offered some kind of training to get people up to speed on what they were supposed to do.  Employers have gotten increasingly unwilling to spend money on training employees - they want employees who already know how to do everything right out of the gate.  Nobody knows several statistical packages and a programming language out of undergrad - even the stats majors learn one, maybe two, and the basics of a programming language when they graduate.  Certainly no social science major does.  With time, you can learn another one, but many employers are unwilling to give that time - unless they can get you to do it during an unpaid internship.

 

I'm saying that not to be argumentative but because it's relevant for a PhD program, too.  PhD programs don't really train in specific skills, not on purpose anyway.  You can acquire that information while you are in graduate school, but you have to make the personal effort to do it.  I always say that the end goal of a PhD is really to teach you how to learn things on your own, because that's essentially what scientists do - teach themselves things first and then teach others things.  Very few programs actually give you the practical skills to be a researcher or even a professor through the formal program, though.  You pick those up on the side, by doing.  As an example, I wanted to learn Stata, so I decided to do my dissertation data analysis in Stata instead of in SPSS or SAS (neither of which could do what I wanted to do anyway).  At this point I can teach myself to use any statistical package (and have done so with proprietary systems in internships, too).  Example two - most PhD programs do not teach you how to teach.  You learn by doing it.

 

I guess the tl;dr version of this is totally do non-academic internships and take little workshops on the side if you want to develop actual hard skills in graduate school.  It's great to win external funding so you can carve your own time out to do these things and don't have to get permission for them.

 

 

I agree with some of this, but still... I would be in a better place if instead of being forced to take theology and the history of East Asia, I had the opportunity to take programming courses. I can read about theology and East Asia on my own, but I am in no position to drop several grand on SAS (http://www.execinfosys.com/productsold/pcbundle_2.pdf) so that I can teach myself the program. The dichotomy between academic v. nonacademic research seems contrived to me... both use the same processes, require the same skills, compete for grants from the same sources, and borrow each others' resources (interns, visiting scholars in industry positions, professors as consultants, scientists as adjuncts, etc) 

[juilletmercredi]

I guess at this point, I don't know what it is you're asking.

 

Let's say that you got into a PhD program, and you decided that you needed to know SAS. Most university campuses have some computers with SAS licenses, so you don't need to drop several thousand in order to learn it. I certainly didn't - I went to my university's library computers and taught myself how to use it with a book and some exercises. (I took a class that used SAS as the primary software, but the professor certainly wasn't teaching us how to use it, and honestly he didn't really care what software package we used as long as we did the work. Such is grad school.)

 

Stata is way cheaper, and R is free. At this point I would say that R is the more useful package to learn - moreso than SAS.

 

I actually somewhat disagree that you can learn theology and history on your own time but not SAS. Generally speaking, learning a statistical software package is far easier than learning the kind of critical thinking and analysis skills one learns in discussion-based classes in the liberal arts and sciences. I'd rather teach an undergrad or a first-year grad student how to run correlations in SAS than teach them how to think through the framework of a research paper (I've done both - trust me, the stats package is way easier to teach!) I think that's the point that I'm trying to get at - a PhD program won't be focused on teaching you hard skills, not formally anyway; any hard skills you pick up will be due to deliberate effort on your part to learn them.

 

The dichotomy between academic and non-academic research is somewhat contrived. They do require similar skills and processes; some of the skills and processes they require are quite different though.  One quick example - scholarly academic writing is long and cumbersome and theoretical; you have to establish a lot of background and discuss fine-grained details. Non-academic research writing is not at all like that in most fields - it's brief, to the point; the goal is really just to communicate the results and what value they bring to the company, not much else. (Of course there are always exceptions.) The way you interact with your colleagues and teammates also will differ, at least somewhat, between an industry research firm and an academic firm. I learned about these differences through a summer internship in a non-academic place, which is why I think it's valuable. Of course, the statistics were the same - the analytical skills, at their base, were the same. But I did use them in different ways.

[TenaciousBushLeaper]

You can definitely teach yourself R, or Python or just about any other programing language for free.(Provided you at least have a computer). Although it is far easier to learn (at least I think so) when you have a concrete goal your working towards when learning these languages such as creating a specific algorithm for a database structure, you know, just an obtainable goal as opposed to "i want to know and be proficient in X language". 

[TheMercySeat]

Just to elucidate this post, SAS is the gold standard in every job I've read about outside of academia, hence my interest in learning it. Neither my undergrad nor my current employer has it, and I can't afford a personal license. Teaching myself SAS right now isn't an option due to these access issues, and I want to make sure that wherever I attend will grant me access to it. I am looking at job postings with an intent of matching my skills to the respective postings. Valid point on R being free, but I don't think R is widely used in government jobs and in the private sector.