The Reality of Grad School

[testingtesting]

This is identical to my reasoning as well.

And I am convinced that most of those seeking a PhD for other purposes really don't get that even if you learn applied statistics or can write well, (1) the opportunity cost of a PhD makes it a poor choice for gaining that training (2) socialization in the discipline will make you feel like a failure if you do not want to enter academia (and often faculty will dedicate less time to you), and (3) the research you do in academia is completely different from outside of academia. For some reason people are downplaying this, but just open up the APSR then look at just about any other publication. It is NOT THE SAME, despite the perceptions of some undergraduates on here - e.g. you will not develop formal theories ANYWHERE else.

[BigTenPoliSci]

The people in our program who found careers outside academia related to their work here did so because they already worked in those areas before starting graduate school. If you don't know anyone in the non-academic part of your field (i.e. you came to grad school straight from undergrad and have no real work experience) it will be extremely difficult to get hired. 

 

Non-academic careers are much more plausible outcomes for some than for others.

[fakeusername]

And I am convinced that most of those seeking a PhD for other purposes really don't get that even if you learn applied statistics or can write well, (1) the opportunity cost of a PhD makes it a poor choice for gaining that training (2) socialization in the discipline will make you feel like a failure if you do not want to enter academia (and often faculty will dedicate less time to you), and (3) the research you do in academia is completely different from outside of academia. For some reason people are downplaying this, but just open up the APSR then look at just about any other publication. It is NOT THE SAME, despite the perceptions of some undergraduates on here - e.g. you will not develop formal theories ANYWHERE else.

Even if that's all undeniably true, PhDs seem to do just fine in non-academic research positions.  I've worked in several such environments, and PhDs were more desirable for research positions than MAs, MPAs, and at least as desirable as JDs (who paid significant money for their degrees).  Searching the public salaries of my state, workers with PhDs are paid handsomely.  Maybe these employers, and others like think tanks and private firms, have been unaware that PhDs are ill-prepared for research outside academia and need you to explain to them how they could significantly cut costs by hiring other candidates.

[.letmeinplz//]

And I am convinced that most of those seeking a PhD for other purposes really don't get that even if you learn applied statistics or can write well, (1) the opportunity cost of a PhD makes it a poor choice for gaining that training (2) socialization in the discipline will make you feel like a failure if you do not want to enter academia (and often faculty will dedicate less time to you), and (3) the research you do in academia is completely different from outside of academia. For some reason people are downplaying this, but just open up the APSR then look at just about any other publication. It is NOT THE SAME, despite the perceptions of some undergraduates on here - e.g. you will not develop formal theories ANYWHERE else.

I'm sure, I will tell Google that you said their "for PhDs only" research position listings are dumb because the reasons you listed here. I am sure they will take your advice.

[victorydance]

The people in our program who found careers outside academia related to their work here did so because they already worked in those areas before starting graduate school. If you don't know anyone in the non-academic part of your field (i.e. you came to grad school straight from undergrad and have no real work experience) it will be extremely difficult to get hired. 

 

Non-academic careers are much more plausible outcomes for some than for others.

 

My country's federal government actively recruits masters and Ph.D. students without formal work experience for policy analyst positions. If you have a Ph.D. from a top 25 university in the US there would be no trouble getting an entry level (approx. 60K salary) policy analyst job in my country. 

 

 

And I am convinced that most of those seeking a PhD for other purposes really don't get that even if you learn applied statistics or can write well, (1) the opportunity cost of a PhD makes it a poor choice for gaining that training (2) socialization in the discipline will make you feel like a failure if you do not want to enter academia (and often faculty will dedicate less time to you), and (3) the research you do in academia is completely different from outside of academia. For some reason people are downplaying this, but just open up the APSR then look at just about any other publication. It is NOT THE SAME, despite the perceptions of some undergraduates on here - e.g. you will not develop formal theories ANYWHERE else.

 

1) Look to my other post in this thread, when people say opportunity cost I don't really understand what that means. Depends what you are foregoing rather than some broad generalization of opportunity cost. The average person isn't really foregoing anything that meaningful by getting a Ph.D. 

 

2) Firstly, you are making the assumption that I (or the other person) doesn't want to go to academia, we never said that. Secondly, do you honestly think I really care if people think I am a 'failure?'

 

3) This is condescending. I probably have just as much of an idea of what political science research is and isn't as you do. I know for a fact that my research is incredibly applicable to policy. So what if part of my research is theoretical? The meat and potatoes and underlying research of what I do is incredibly applicable to a number of more professional settings. 

Edited February 11, 2015 by victorydance

[Eigen]

Last calculations I saw on opportunity cost, assuming a 5-6 year PhD, you'd be better off with a fairly low wage retail job and investing that money, rather than the PhD. 

 

As to Google requiring PhDs... Yes, but they're even harder to land a job with than most Universities. 

[victorydance]

Last calculations I saw on opportunity cost, assuming a 5-6 year PhD, you'd be better off with a fairly low wage retail job and investing that money, rather than the PhD. 

 

See this is the problem. Opportunity cost is more tied to the extrinsic value of what you forgo than the intrinsic value. Do you really think that someone who is interested in research would prefer to spend 5 or 6 years working in retail over doing a doctorate? Or similarly, do you think that a marginal level of increased monetary value is going to make you more happy?

 

Speaking from personal experience, this has no relevance to my situation. I already have a passive income + savings worth 2-3 years of salary in an average job. I already live abroad without working at the moment and could continue to do so if I wanted. So what am I foregoing exactly by doing a Ph.D.? Theoretically if all the stars aligned, I could follow my passion of political science research + earn a salary (internal + external funding + passive income + accrued savings) that makes more than the average salary of someone in the US. 

Edited February 11, 2015 by victorydance

[Eigen]

You're right, opportunity cost does not measure intrinsic value, nor is it intended to. Opportunity cost is purely a financial discussion. And that's been mentioned already in this thread. 

 

But that also wasn't what this thread was aimed at, nor are you (obviously) the target audience.

 

As I mentioned on the last page, if you know what the opportunity cost is, and the intrinsic value is worth it to you, then this reality check isn't something you need to hear. Similarly, if you have career experience, or know you'll be able to get a non-academic job (and are OK with that), then this reality check isn't really something you need. 

 

But that doesn't mean that there aren't a large majority of prospective and beginning graduate students who have no idea what the job prospects in their field are, have no backup plan, and have no savings to fall back on. Many of them are already in debt, and a large portion of them are considering/have taken out loans for graduate school, thinking that they'll be able to pay it off easily once they slide into a good TT job that pays a huge salary. And that's just magical thinking all around. 

[esotericish]

 

But that doesn't mean that there aren't a large majority of prospective and beginning graduate students who have no idea what the job prospects in their field are, have no backup plan, and have no savings to fall back on. Many of them are already in debt, and a large portion of them are considering/have taken out loans for graduate school, thinking that they'll be able to pay it off easily once they slide into a good TT job that pays a huge salary. And that's just magical thinking all around. 

 

 

yes, I think we can all agree these people need a bit of a wake up call.

[victorydance]

But that doesn't mean that there aren't a large majority of prospective and beginning graduate students who have no idea what the job prospects in their field are, have no backup plan, and have no savings to fall back on. Many of them are already in debt, and a large portion of them are considering/have taken out loans for graduate school, thinking that they'll be able to pay it off easily once they slide into a good TT job that pays a huge salary. And that's just magical thinking all around. 

 

I think this is fair and I agree. 

[TakeruK]

See this is the problem. Opportunity cost is more tied to the extrinsic value of what you forgo than the intrinsic value. Do you really think that someone who is interested in research would prefer to spend 5 or 6 years working in retail over doing a doctorate? Or similarly, do you think that a marginal level of increased monetary value is going to make you more happy?

 

Speaking from personal experience, this has no relevance to my situation. I already have a passive income + savings worth 2-3 years of salary in an average job. I already live abroad without working at the moment and could continue to do so if I wanted. So what am I foregoing exactly by doing a Ph.D.? Theoretically if all the stars aligned, I could follow my passion of political science research + earn a salary (internal + external funding + passive income + accrued savings) that makes more than the average salary of someone in the US. 

 

I do think that people with a Bachelors degree can get better jobs than retail positions. That is, someone who is capable of getting into a doctorate program can certainly find a better than minimum wage job (perhaps you'll start there for the first 2-3 years, but you do move up).

 

And just like you say that marginal level of increased money might not make you more happy, all of the added stress of graduate school does not necessarily make you more happy either. My personal example: I'm at one of the best programs in my field and I love my research here. I can't ask for a better research fit. And although I picked the school in the best possible location out of my options, it's not my ideal place. I would prefer to be living in my home country, being close to my and my SO's family, having the feeling of settling down instead of wondering what's next, being able to start a family, and having time to think about non-work things outside of work hours without feeling guilty. These are all non-monetary factors that would also decrease my happiness while in grad school. Of course, for now, the gain in happiness is worth it for us, but I can understand that different people can have different priorities. 

 

Finally, it does sound like for your case, victorydance, the PhD is the right choice for you. I also think it's the right choice for me. I don't think anyone here (other than the "doomsaying" posts) is really saying that graduate school is bad for everyone. My earlier post really was to point out that graduate school should be a conscious choice for each student, not just a "natural extension of schooling". And I would say that the majority of new graduate students are not in the same situation as you (passive income, having savings instead of debt etc.). 

 

Almost all graduate students have existential crises, and sometimes I feel like I should just quit everything, move back to my hometown with my spouse and we can just both find work. We might not be as happy in our career, but our non-work happiness could make up for it. But like you, we think that right now, the best choice is to continue this path because we can still "have it all". The moment that this is no longer true, we have a backup/exit plan to move back home and find happiness in other ways.

[testingtesting]

I'm sure, I will tell Google that you said their "for PhDs only" research position listings are dumb because the reasons you listed here. I am sure they will take your advice.

Are you insinuating that the Political Science PhDs from low-ranked universities are working (even on non political science research) at Google?

[.letmeinplz//]

Are you insinuating that the Political Science PhDs from low-ranked universities are working (even on non political science research) at Google?

The thread which you are currently replying went as so...

 

1) OP said if you aren't TT you aren't worth anything

2) I stated (generally a non-quoted reply is aimed at the OP) that it was ok, my reason for wanting a PhD is because I want to do research in my field, not because I want to be TT.

3) Someone agreed.

4) You got sassy and echoed OP's sentiment of "if you aren't tenured you are nothing". Also something about academics being the only ones able to make an impact on a field of study which is a little crazy but ok.

5) I replied that companies (like Google) do research and require PhDs.

6) You pull some random statement about low-ranked universities working at Google.

 

Not sure I have to elaborate more on that, but ok...

 

If someone wants a PhD because they love the field and want to do research in the field. What do you care if they end up tenured or not?

 

It is their life and they want to study/research what they love. That is great and has nothing to do with you. We could all head on over to the English subforum (just picking on you guys, much love) and tell them they are crazy for investing any amount of money in an english degree, but guess what? It is their decision. Whatever reason they had when they decided to go for their degree is their own. Your opinion on if it is a waste of time is just your opinion.

 

I'm thinking their own opinion matters more to them than yours does.

[sixfoxtrot]

This is a fascinating discussion to drop in on because I'm one of those few (?) crazies who's actively considering a PhD after half a decade in the private sector for love of a) my topic/field; research/writing. My hope is to combine research/fieldwork with practical training and move into a job outside of academia - e.g. international organizations, where PhDs can actually be quite valuable.

***As a tangent, I'm surprised no one's brought this up - maybe it's harder to see outside of, say, DC, and especially if you've never been outside of academia, but with sufficient quant training, a strong newly minted PhD would be a shoo-in at the World Bank, for example, especially if there's a facet of your research that fits well (development, IPE, trade, education, etc). If you're going "yeah, but how many of those jobs are there?", the answer is tons - don't forget that DC is flooded with MAs, but PhDs are a little harder to come by. If you're looking elsewhere, the OECD heavily recruits PhDs, including through their YP program - some YP positions require one. I know of a number of people who got into large NGOs after their poli sci PhDs and make $120+k 8-10 years out. $120k won't buy you a palace in DC, but it beats $40k in Nebraska for most people, I'm assuming. These people also know how to write project proposals, so when Google/Gates Foundation/Macarthur/etc come knocking, they can score big $$ for their orgs and everyone wins.

Regarding opportunity cost - hard financial calculations aside, opportunity cost can be measured in non-financial terms, and there can be an opportunity cost to not doing a PhD as well. Again, this goes for outside of academia: say you hit mid-career with a Master's and then realize that everyone at the next level up has a PhD or a JD. And you're 35 with a family, kids who may be going to college in the foreseeable future, a mortgage, etc. Then you're kind of screwed...

[bob123]

You guys are getting owned over at poliscirumors: http://www.poliscirumors.com/topic/overheard-on-gradcafe

Edited February 12, 2015 by bob123

[ajayghale]

You guys are getting owned over at poliscirumors: http://www.poliscirumors.com/topic/overheard-on-gradcafe

That whole site seems to be filled with bitter, angry husks of former humans. Quite draining just to read any one of the threads and I went through about ten the other day. I don't suggest anyone go there at any point.

Edited February 12, 2015 by ajayghale

[bob123]

That whole site seems to be filled with bitter, angry husks of former humans. Quite draining just to read any one of the threads and I went through about ten the other day. I don't suggest anyone go there at any point.

 

They're angry, bitter husks of former humans precisely because they are poli sci PhDs. Y'all, conversely, are not. Think about it.

[ajayghale]

They're angry, bitter husks of former humans precisely because they are poli sci PhDs. Y'all, conversely, are not. Think about it.

Guess we should all rethink this whole thing. Pack it in and see if we can get a gig managing a Wendy's.

[testingtesting]

The thread which you are currently replying went as so...

 

1) OP said if you aren't TT you aren't worth anything

2) I stated (generally a non-quoted reply is aimed at the OP) that it was ok, my reason for wanting a PhD is because I want to do research in my field, not because I want to be TT.

3) Someone agreed.

4) You got sassy and echoed OP's sentiment of "if you aren't tenured you are nothing". Also something about academics being the only ones able to make an impact on a field of study which is a little crazy but ok.

5) I replied that companies (like Google) do research and require PhDs.

6) You pull some random statement about low-ranked universities working at Google.

 

Not sure I have to elaborate more on that, but ok...

 

If someone wants a PhD because they love the field and want to do research in the field. What do you care if they end up tenured or not?

 

It is their life and they want to study/research what they love. That is great and has nothing to do with you. We could all head on over to the English subforum (just picking on you guys, much love) and tell them they are crazy for investing any amount of money in an english degree, but guess what? It is their decision. Whatever reason they had when they decided to go for their degree is their own. Your opinion on if it is a waste of time is just your opinion.

 

I'm thinking their own opinion matters more to them than yours does.

 

I'm not sure you read my entire initial post - which was targetted at others in this thread.  In any case, this is not the computer science forum, which perhaps is your source of confusion. But I would also ask you to answer my question in the discipline of political science - can they work at Google as a back-up plan? How likely is this?

 

However, yes I would tell the English PhDs they are crazy and they would be free to ignore my comment. Their opinion matters more than mine.  But having a sober look at prospects is important and this is facilitated through understanding the prospects. It required a bit of craziness, however to pursue such a goal. After all, I'm doing it too. Yet the dropout rates in English PhDs are incredibly high - imagine if people could know in advance and forego the stress and anguish? This is for discussing precisely these things. But of course, apparently everyone is fully aware of the risks, everyone knows exactly what they want to do, etc......(right).

 

FYI, poliscijobrumors is a terrible place not worth visiting - not because they're all calloused but just because they're all trolls. There is a difference between the conversation happening on this forum and over there.

Edited February 12, 2015 by testingtesting

[bob123]

Guess we should all rethink this whole thing. Pack it in and see if we can get a gig managing a Wendy's.

 

You'd probably have a better quality of life...

[mb712]

That whole site seems to be filled with bitter, angry husks of former humans. Quite draining just to read any one of the threads and I went through about ten the other day. I don't suggest anyone go there at any point.

The blatant and wildly inappropriate racism in many threads is what always stands out to me. Pack of winners that hang out over there. You know how that saying goes, "if at first you don't succeed, hang out on a forum and talk shit about how everyone else in the field is obviously stupid & ruining your life." Wait...

[bob123]

The blatant and wildly inappropriate racism in many threads is what always stands out to me. Pack of winners that hang out over there. You know how that saying goes, "if at first you don't succeed, hang out on a forum and talk shit about how everyone else in the field is obviously stupid & ruining your life." Wait...

 

True though that may be, I'm just suggesting that maybe the big difference between gradcafe and psr is that everybody there is a poli sci PhD student and nobody here is a poli sci PhD student except for the one guy in this thread warning people not to do a poli sci PhD.

[mb712]

True though that may be, I'm just suggesting that maybe the big difference between gradcafe and psr is that everybody there is a poli sci PhD student and nobody here is a poli sci PhD student except for the one guy in this thread warning people not to do a poli sci PhD.

I'm willing to confidently guess that psr is a collection of disgruntled PhD students, whereas the happy ones have less of a reason to lurk around forums and even less of a reason to attempt to scare off/mock PhD student hopefuls.

[testingtesting]

I'm willing to confidently guess that psr is a collection of disgruntled PhD students, whereas the happy ones have less of a reason to lurk around forums and even less of a reason to attempt to scare off/mock PhD student hopefuls.

It is somewhat far-fetched to think this is true. The ultimate question is: what would be sufficient evidence to the contrary? If by virtue of saying things that are unpleasant to you they are then disgruntled students etc. then you've set criteria where non-disgruntled students never make fun of naivete of prospective students on that site. This is implausible to me.

Edited February 12, 2015 by testingtesting

[mb712]

It is somewhat far-fetched to think this is true. The ultimate question is: what would be sufficient evidence to the contrary? If by virtue of saying things that are unpleasant to you they are then disgruntled students etc. then you've set criteria where non-disgruntled students never make fun of naivete of prospective students on that site. This is implausible to me.

How they treat people online wasn't my criteria for labeling them as disgruntled. Their constant complaining about school, the field, and everyone around them was my main reason for calling them disgruntled.