The Graduate School Ponzi Scheme

[kurayamino]

But there is deception at work in higher education. Why do you think most departments are less than forthcoming about their graduate placement? Why do you think advisors keep saying "there are always jobs for good people"?

I've never had that experience. My advisors at my current undergraduate institution and my prospective graduate institutions are forthright in their message that there is absolutely no guarantee that at the end of this there will be a job. My grad institutions put their placement figures on the website and had frank conversations about the difference between the placements and the re-placements, and what that meant as an incoming scholar. I don't feel duped or like I'm being led into some selfish money-making Ponzi scheme, but that I'm forced to have my eyes wide open with every conversation that includes both reservations about the future of the field and potential personal solutions to the crisis.

[unræd]

But there is deception at work in higher education. Why do you think most departments are less than forthcoming about their graduate placement? Why do you think advisors keep saying "there are always jobs for good people"?

 

This has not been my experience, at all, as someone deciding between programs this year. Of the programs I seriously considered (which ranged in rankings from top 5 schools to top 25), all were very transparent about their graduate placement (including about people who hadn't yet gotten jobs), and while getting attrition numbers was more difficult, senior graduate students certainly knew those figures. As far as advisors, that also was not the case. I'm in a small specialty--there were roughly 25 medieval TT jobs last year--and all of the faculty were very upfront about the way the discipline has changed, how the ways medievalists need to market themselves have radically changed, and how even given that, placement is not a sure thing--all of which accorded with what I've heard from friends of mine on or just off the job market currently, and who certainly don't have any reason to paint me a rosy picture.

[TakeruK]

I know that you all must already know this, but individual cases of not experiencing deception does not mean that it doesn't exist. 

 

I have seen places that slightly fudge their numbers. For example, many schools cite numbers like "Because everyone gets 2 chances at quals, only 2% of students do not pass!", or "98% of students that pass quals finish their PhD!". These are misleading numbers. When pressed further, they clarified that the first statistic only includes people who failed quals on both attempts, however, many people choose to not even retake quals and leave graduate school--these people are not included at all. 

 

Also, there is deception in how the school/department defines success. Sure, a school could say that the job market is lousy for academia and give real stats. However, this is not helpful to the student at all if their graduate program is still centered around training PhDs to become TT professors. That is, a school that says "All of you will get TT jobs" is not that much worse than a school that says "We recognize and inform you that only 10% of you will get TT jobs, however, we will still structure our program requirements to train you in skills that are only useful in a TT job". 

 

I think if schools are truly serious about the condition of the job market, they will do more than just inform students. It is irresponsible to train 10 PhDs a year for TT jobs knowing that only one of them will make it. I know my field is doing better in this regard and they are reducing "traditional" PhD requirements that are only useful if you end up on the TT job market. For example, some schools used to require a lot of extra "scholarly" training (i.e. learning things for the sake of breadth/knowledge) and are now dropping these requirements in favour of training their graduates to have more marketable and transferable skills. 

[__________________________]

But there is deception at work in higher education. Why do you think most departments are less than forthcoming about their graduate placement? Why do you think advisors keep saying "there are always jobs for good people"?

Nobody has ever told me this, at least not about academia.  The closest thing to a rosy picture I've heard is that 1) PhD students tend to be creative people and figure out interesting career paths even if they don't end up in academia or 2) well, you can always go back to teaching high school.  The school I ended up deciding on told me up front that the job market sucks, it's hard to calculate statistics that will give a good picture, but their grads are often competitive when there are jobs to be had.  They also told me that there's something to be said for simply giving yourself a few years to really study something you love.  Overly optimistic?  Maybe.  Deception?  Not that I gather.  At least in the sort of fields I have (even limited) experience with, I don't think a name alone will buy you anything.  My UG college hired an OSU grad over a UCLA (I think it was UCLA, or some "more prestigious" program like that) grad for TT position partially because everyone thought the guy meshed with the department's offbeat personality.  It's ridiculous how much of this shit is just being able to fit in with the knitting circle (to borrow perhaps one of the best analogies I've ever heard about getting a job in libraries, another shrinking and hyper competitive job industry). 

 

And welcome back, unraed.

 

ETA: I like TakeruK's point.  I think percentages can be really deceptive.  Some schools, like Notre Dame's Medieval Studies program, say on their website that "virtually all" of their graduates get jobs -- wtf does that even mean?  It would be nice if there were more transparency about what percentage of incoming students will have jobs, but it's also hard to predict.  I think, though, that a lot of programs make a point to only take on one or two students in a given field though with this in mind.  

Edited March 27, 2015 by mollifiedmolloy

[kurayamino]

I know that you all must already know this, but individual cases of not experiencing deception does not mean that it doesn't exist. 

 

I have seen places that slightly fudge their numbers. For example, many schools cite numbers like "Because everyone gets 2 chances at quals, only 2% of students do not pass!", or "98% of students that pass quals finish their PhD!". These are misleading numbers. When pressed further, they clarified that the first statistic only includes people who failed quals on both attempts, however, many people choose to not even retake quals and leave graduate school--these people are not included at all. 

 

Also, there is deception in how the school/department defines success. Sure, a school could say that the job market is lousy for academia and give real stats. However, this is not helpful to the student at all if their graduate program is still centered around training PhDs to become TT professors. That is, a school that says "All of you will get TT jobs" is not that much worse than a school that says "We recognize and inform you that only 10% of you will get TT jobs, however, we will still structure our program requirements to train you in skills that are only useful in a TT job". 

 

I think if schools are truly serious about the condition of the job market, they will do more than just inform students. It is irresponsible to train 10 PhDs a year for TT jobs knowing that only one of them will make it. I know my field is doing better in this regard and they are reducing "traditional" PhD requirements that are only useful if you end up on the TT job market. For example, some schools used to require a lot of extra "scholarly" training (i.e. learning things for the sake of breadth/knowledge) and are now dropping these requirements in favour of training their graduates to have more marketable and transferable skills. 

 

Of course, but providing information that not all schools are like what chateaulafitte suggested is just as important as saying there are schools that are like that.

 

I think your last paragraph is really important though because I'm sure there are schools out there who are just doing it the way it has always been done because that's the way they've done it. However, I think there are a good number of schools who recognize the problem exists and provide alternative training for those who want it. Which, in my prospective institutions, has been the case across the board. I'm sure I didn't just get lucky enough to get into the only schools that have changed their curriculum and are broadening their training for other career paths.

[unræd]

I know that you all must already know this, but individual cases of not experiencing deception does not mean that it doesn't exist. 

 

I have seen places that slightly fudge their numbers. For example, many schools cite numbers like "Because everyone gets 2 chances at quals, only 2% of students do not pass!", or "98% of students that pass quals finish their PhD!". These are misleading numbers. When pressed further, they clarified that the first statistic only includes people who failed quals on both attempts, however, many people choose to not even retake quals and leave graduate school--these people are not included at all. 

 

Also, there is deception in how the school/department defines success. Sure, a school could say that the job market is lousy for academia and give real stats. However, this is not helpful to the student at all if their graduate program is still centered around training PhDs to become TT professors. That is, a school that says "All of you will get TT jobs" is not that much worse than a school that says "We recognize and inform you that only 10% of you will get TT jobs, however, we will still structure our program requirements to train you in skills that are only useful in a TT job". 

 

I think if schools are truly serious about the condition of the job market, they will do more than just inform students. It is irresponsible to train 10 PhDs a year for TT jobs knowing that only one of them will make it. I know my field is doing better in this regard and they are reducing "traditional" PhD requirements that are only useful if you end up on the TT job market. For example, some schools used to require a lot of extra "scholarly" training (i.e. learning things for the sake of breadth/knowledge) and are now dropping these requirements in favour of training their graduates to have more marketable and transferable skills. 

 

I agree completely, but the question wasn't really whether or not deception exists in graduate admissions in English. (Of course it does--as it exists any time two or more people are gathered together.) The question is whether or not it's endemic, and whether it's a structuring force--the "Ponzi Scheme" of the thread's title. I sure as hell buy that it was in the past; now, given the widespread publicization of the job market in the past few years, I'm not so sure how it could be, and that most of the deception involved in the process isn't self-deception. ("Ah, I'll be different! I'll be one of the lucky ones to make it!")

 

Producing more PhDs than can find gainful employment is a special kind of sin, but assuming they're not saying those students will get jobs, it's not deceptive--just a turd move.

[unræd]

And welcome back, unraed.

 

Glad to be back, although I returned to a thread that is severely lacking in cheery GIFs.

[SilasWegg]

I have worked all sorts of jobs over the course of my life, including food service. It's nasty work. But I have never experienced this kind of alienation. Like I said before, I have no language to describe it. It's true: the comparison between the adjunct and the Wendy's worker isn't very helpful for negotiating these feelings. It ignores the distinct forms of hypocrisy and deception at work in higher education. It looks past the distress and panic of being Ponzied--those mornings that will follow when you awake and realize that your dream is now a nightmare. Hyperbole? Reserve judgment and report back in 7-10 years. 

 

I agree that there is a distinct form of exploitation in the academic job market and that there can be a degree of deception in our training in the humanities. Also, I believe you put it well in describing this as "alienation." The shortfall between our expectations and the realities of the job market induces a particular kind of despair, yet I must maintain that these emotions are entirely distinct from the long-term social and economic impoverishment that attends the service industry labor market. This is exactly why this comparison fails to index the set of emotional turmoils that accompany our field, leading to a very unproductive (and I must reiterate classist) conversation regarding the problems in the academic job market.

 

Rather than co-opting the narratives of exploited labor in the service industry, we can surely develop a more precise vocabulary. There is a very distinct set of deceptive and exploitative practices in our field that delimit our careers. Let's talk about this deception and exploitation in terms that are grounded within our field. I believe this will generate a healthier and more productive conversation on this important issue.

 

Here, I'll start. I adjuncted for five years at an urban public university, teaching a 4/4 load and earning around 30k with no benefits. I was tapped for administrative duties and departmental service routinely and I was never compensated for my time. Because I believed undertaking these additional duties would protect my professional standing and lead to advancement in the department, I willingly committed my time and energy to these projects. No one ever told me that it wouldn't matter and that because I didn't have a PhD there was a pretty low ceiling on the possibilities for advancement. Instead, tenured faculty and handsomely compensated admins hoisted their duties onto me and seemed to imply that I was being "ramped up" for some kind of promotion. When the department announced they were bringing in five new faculty, I applied for one of these 12-month contracts fully believing that I was a competitive applicant. My job-talk was polished, the responses were glowing, my interviews extremely positive, etc. Then they brought in five people from outside the department and asked me to accept an even more exploitative contract: a pay-grade based on contact hours rather than credit hours. I quit on the spot. It was crushing.

 

In my many years of service industry work, this complex set of exploitation and deception finds no corollary. It would be really weird if I said "this was like when my boss at the restaurant bumped me off the dinner shift because he wanted to give it to his new girlfriend." My adjuncting experience is far more complicated and resulted in emotional upheavals of a very different sort. Again, let's not play fast and loose with these comparisons.

[__________________________]

Glad to be back, although I returned to a thread that is severely lacking in cheery GIFs.

 

 

I agree completely, but the question wasn't really whether or not deception exists in graduate admissions in English. (Of course it does--as it exists any time two or more people are gathered together.) The question is whether or not it's endemic, and whether it's a structuring force--the "Ponzi Scheme" of the thread's title. I sure as hell buy that it was in the past; now, given the widespread publicization of the job market in the past few years, I'm not so sure how it could be, and that most of the deception involved in the process isn't self-deception. ("Ah, I'll be different! I'll be one of the lucky ones to make it!")

 

Producing more PhDs than can find gainful employment is a special kind of sin, but assuming they're not saying those students will get jobs, it's not deceptive--just a turd move.

Also, yeah.  I think with our cohort of college graduates in general, it's implied across the board that if you want a job you have to hustle and can't expect your program to do it for you.  My undergraduate department was absolutely useless for helping me prepare for the job market, but I also never expected them to go out of their way to help me with that: for the department, I was there to study literature; the community of the college provided resources that I could tap into if I went out of my way to seek them out.  A specialized department can only prepare you for so much.

[VirtualMessage]

The essence of lying is in the deception, not in the words. 

 

1) What is the actual average time to the degree? 

2) What are the placement numbers (not only re-placements that are listed as unique placements) but how many people sought placement, how many years it took them to find placement, and what they did to make a living? What are they doing now? (this tracking needs to account for the 2008 collapse) 

3) What happens when you run out of funding? 

4) How do outcomes for students change based on their individual funding situation? For example, how do multiple-year dissertation fellowships correlate with time to the degree and placement?

5) What is the truth about a given faculty member and his/her actual reputation within the department? What was the average time to the degree for his/her students who finished the degree? How many started but did not finish?

6) How many dissertation students have had to adjunct because they ran out of funding? How much does an adjunct make? 

7) What are the opportunities for funding if you're making good progress but have run out of time writing your dissertation?

8) What have been the experiences of advanced graduate students who are on the market? 

9) What were the experiences of students who left the program, and why did they leave it? How many students on average leave the program?

10) What is the average reimbursement for conference travel?

11) How do full-time faculty member salaries compare to adjuncts if broken down by the number of courses taught? 

12) How competitive are job candidates for postdocs? What has been the program's record with placing postdocs relative to "peer" programs?

13) What are the mechanisms in place for redressing problems with faculty members ? Is there an institutionalized system that holds faculty members accountable?

14) On average, how long does it take a given faculty member to return work, dissertation chapters, and respond to e-mails?

15) What has been implied but not promised about the support ? What could change that would dramatically affect a student's ability to complete the degree?

16) What are the teaching duties required for funding? Does this teaching allow the students to develop a pedagogy and curriculum or does it prescribe one (i.e. a writing program)?

 

These are some of the questions that I imagine most prospective students will not ask and that most programs will not volunteer to answer. 

Edited March 27, 2015 by VirtualMessage

[kurayamino]

The essence of lying is in the deception, not in the words. 

 

1) What is the actual average time to the degree? 

2) What are the placement numbers (not only re-placements that are listed as unique placements) but how many people sought placement, how many years it took them to find placement, and what they did to make a living? What are they doing now? (this tracking needs to account for the 2008 collapse) 

3) What happens when you run out of funding? 

4) How do outcomes for students change based on their individual funding situation? For example, how do multiple-year dissertation fellowships correlate with time to the degree and placement?

5) What is the truth about a given faculty member and his/her actual reputation within the department? What was the average time to the degree for his/her students who finished the degree? How many started but did not finish?

6) How many dissertation students have had to adjunct because they ran out of funding? How much does an adjunct make? 

7) What are the opportunities for funding if you're making good progress but have run out of time writing your dissertation?

8) What have been the experiences of advanced graduate students who are on the market? 

9) What were the experiences of students who left the program, and why did they leave it? How many students on average leave the program?

10) What is the average reimbursement for conference travel?

11) How do full-time faculty member salaries compare to adjuncts if broken down by the number of courses taught? 

12) How competitive are job candidates for postdocs? What has been the program's record with placing postdocs relative to "peer" programs?

13) What are the mechanisms in place for redressing problems with faculty members ? Is there an institutionalized system that holds faculty members accountable?

14) On average, how long does it take a given faculty member to return work, dissertation chapters, and respond to e-mails?

15) What has been implied but not promised about the support ? What could change that would dramatically affect a student's ability to complete the degree?

 

These are some of the questions that I imagine most prospective students will not ask and that most programs will not volunteer to answer. 

 

Well, imagination and reality are two different things. I asked almost all of those questions because of a helpful list posted here on GC as well as suggestions by my current advisors. I also heard students talking about these things at the open houses. I just don't find my reality to match up with your imagined possibilities and, quite frankly, I find it a little patronizing to suggest that we're all just naive students being led to our doom. But, perhaps you haven't been on GC long enough to know that these are things that we've discussed in multiple forums. I'm sorry if you didn't ask these questions or that you've interacted only with graduate students who didn't think to ask them because these are some of the most important questions to ask a graduate program because they reflect directly on your well being as a student and ability to finish. 

[VirtualMessage]

Well, imagination and reality are two different things. I asked almost all of those questions because of a helpful list posted here on GC as well as suggestions by my current advisors. I also heard students talking about these things at the open houses. I just don't find my reality to match up with your imagined possibilities and, quite frankly, I find it a little patronizing to suggest that we're all just naive students being led to our doom. But, perhaps you haven't been on GC long enough to know that these are things that we've discussed in multiple forums. I'm sorry if you didn't ask these questions or that you've interacted only with graduate students who didn't think to ask them because these are some of the most important questions to ask a graduate program because they reflect directly on your well being as a student and ability to finish. 

 

Frankly, I don't understand the umbrage, but suit yourself. You might realize that I am intimately familiar with the realities you can only imagine. And no, you're not being led to your doom. You're being led into a "profession" that is predicated on mass exploitation, inequity, and total hypocrisy. Your "funding" is on the backs of others; you might want to know a little bit more about whose backs those are. I can safely tell you that they weren't well represented  at your campus visit's reception party. 

Edited March 27, 2015 by VirtualMessage

[SilasWegg]

Frankly, I don't understand the umbrage, but suit yourself. You might realize that I am intimately familiar with the realities you can only imagine. And no, you're not being led to your doom. You're being led into a "profession" that is predicated on mass exploitation, inequity, and total hypocrisy. Your "funding" is on the backs of others; you might want to know a little bit more about whose backs those are. I can safely tell you that they weren't well represented  at your campus visit's reception party. 

 

I am hard pressed to think of any profession that is not "predicated on mass exploitation, inequity, and total hypocrisy" in some way. I might be old-fashioned or naive in believing that careers in the humanities are less so than, I don't know, say, corporate law or commercial real estate. 

 

Now I'M the one running off the rails with odd comparisons... 

Edited March 27, 2015 by morristr

[VirtualMessage]

I am hard pressed to think of any profession that is not "predicated on mass exploitation, inequity, and total hypocrisy" in some way. I might be old-fashioned or naive in believing that careers in the humanities are less so than, I don't know, say, corporate law or commercial real estate. 

 

You will be hard-pressed to find a full-time faculty member who will admit that the exploitation happens within their institution, that they benefit from it (frequently manage it), and that the "profession" is in shambles because of it. This is not a discussion that people in academe want to have, even though the tenured are in a privileged position to have it. The conversation is often met with some of the same strange resistance that one finds on this thread where it is taken as a personal affront to point out the realities of higher education--realities documented in a growing number of monographs from *The Fall of the Faculty* to *How the University Works*. I think the faculty stills thinks they are doing god's --or the humanist's / post-humanist's-- work and that makes them unimpeachable. I find it less honest than the bottom line that informs the professions you deride. 

Edited March 27, 2015 by VirtualMessage

[SilasWegg]

 I think the faculty stills thinks they are doing god's --or the humanist's / post-humanist's-- work and that makes them unimpeachable. I find it less honest than the bottom line that informs the professions your deride. 

 

My derision of these professions is based upon the precise set of capitalistic ethics that underwrites the dismantling of altruism in the university. Most faculty I know have reasonable outlooks on these issues and are actively working to reform departmental practices of exploitation. I am aware of the set of academics you are referring to. Unfortunately, they often occupy positions of power and tend to kick down the ladders... there is a smug unimpeachable deception in this academic sect.

 

Still, I'm highly skeptical of the tautology in this statement. Academia is in a state of constant reform and there are many who risk their professional standing to implement more egalitarian practices. To suggest that such faculty don't exist, or even that their efforts are insignificant, implies a closed system of discourse in the academy which oversimplifies the situation.There's no debating the impact that nepotism and deception have upon thwarting our future careers. However (and I say this with no resistance to the bottom line of your comments) working collaboratively to change these practices offers rewarding possibilities to the future of the profession.

[wetheplants]

I've certainly never been on the job market, but being a couple of years in and fully dedicated to it, I do think that everyone here should have a plan for how much they're willing to give up in order to make their dreams a reality. There have been some major changes to the way my department operates just in the last six months (although, so far, they've all been for our benefit), and it has forced us all to really come face to face with the realities of the market. Incoming cohorts are shrinking to account for the future of the job market. We've now got an extra year of funding added to the end because they're realizing that nobody gets jobs ABD anymore. I've already made the decision that I'd only dedicate two years to the job market after I've finished, because I would never be willing to let adjuncting become my career. Others will feel differently, but as long as you can clearly articulate how much you're willing to give and what kind of jobs you'd be willing to take, you at least can begin forming your plan B for when the shit finally hits the fan.

I absolutely agree. I may be unusual in this aspect, but I have always been of the mind that there are many possible careers that I could find fulfilling and enjoyable, no matter what degree I have. I have lots of interest and experience in the creative writing world (although of course it's just has hard to get paid that was than as a professor!), and in many other related and creative fields. Also, a PhD from a good school can be a solid entrance ticket to private institutions at the high school level or other fields where academic knowledge is valued. And honestly, even if I were a homemaker who could stay at home and write all day, I would think that was still a pretty good life!

I think that anyone planning to pursue a career in academia should keep these things in mind as they go through this field, and keep themselves open mentally to many things. We should all plan to be sending out hundreds of applications and not be too distressed to see most of them ignored. It's just the reality! Perhaps spending time in the creative writing world has thickened my skin, but that's the truth of it. The people who are getting these jobs either worked their connections hard, or sent out one hundred more applications than the average person. It sucks, but that's the field. 

[wetheplants]

You will be hard-pressed to find a full-time faculty member who will admit that the exploitation happens within their institution, that they benefit from it (frequently manage it), and that the "profession" is in shambles because of it. This is not a discussion that people in academe want to have, even though the tenured are in a privileged position to have it. The conversation is often met with some of the same strange resistance that one finds on this thread where it is taken as a personal affront to point out the realities of higher education--realities documented in a growing number of monographs from *The Fall of the Faculty* to *How the University Works*. I think the faculty stills thinks they are doing god's --or the humanist's / post-humanist's-- work and that makes them unimpeachable. I find it less honest than the bottom line that informs the professions you deride. 

Hm, that hasn't really been my experience. Granted I am applying to Masters programs at the moment and not PhDs - but almost everyone I have talked to on my end (so not the reps from the schools I apply to, but my college profs and family friends in academia) have talked at length about how difficult it is to find a job. One woman from Dartmouth mentioned that I should pursue a PhD only if I think I am very interested in the subject and could potentially be happy not teaching in academia - which is true, for me at least. 

[VirtualMessage]

My derision of these professions is based upon the precise set of capitalistic ethics that underwrites the dismantling of altruism in the university. Most faculty I know have reasonable outlooks on these issues and are actively working to reform departmental practices of exploitation. I am aware of the set of academics you are referring to. Unfortunately, they often occupy positions of power and tend to kick down the ladders... there is a smug unimpeachable deception in this academic sect.

 

Still, I'm highly skeptical of the tautology in this statement. Academia is in a state of constant reform and there are many who risk their professional standing to implement more egalitarian practices. To suggest that such faculty don't exist, or even that their efforts are insignificant, implies a closed system of discourse in the academy which oversimplifies the situation.There's no debating the impact that nepotism and deception have upon thwarting our future careers. However (and I say this with no resistance to the bottom line of your comments) working collaboratively to change these practices offers rewarding possibilities to the future of the profession.

 

Actively working to reform departmental practices of exploitation? Could you provide some specific examples? Because paying lip service to the problem and then actively benefiting from it equates to doublespeak. And I'm sorry but the rhetoric of "collaboration" is pretty close to the corporatespeak that comes straight out of the University President's office. It's the same rhetoric that you'll find at those pesky capitalistic entities that have undermined altruism. Higher education is not in a state of constant reform; it is in a state of free fall. Ask the faculty at Sweet Briar how collaborative their reform has been (not adjuncts but an example of the fundamental changes happening--not for the better). Of course, there are a handful of professors out there agitating for real reform. But the silence on adjunct exploitation has been deafening. I'm not talking about signing a letter or lamenting the fact of it. I'm talking about action in words and deeds that range from job searches to voting on budget allocations. Most full-time faculty feel very deserving of what they have, and they are totally unwilling to sacrifice any of it for the sake of adjuncts. 

[Sigaba]

Well, imagination and reality are two different things. I asked almost all of those questions because of a helpful list posted here on GC as well as suggestions by my current advisors. I also heard students talking about these things at the open houses. I just don't find my reality to match up with your imagined possibilities and, quite frankly, I find it a little patronizing to suggest that we're all just naive students being led to our doom. But, perhaps you haven't been on GC long enough to know that these are things that we've discussed in multiple forums. I'm sorry if you didn't ask these questions or that you've interacted only with graduate students who didn't think to ask them because these are some of the most important questions to ask a graduate program because they reflect directly on your well being as a student and ability to finish. 

 

@kurayamino -- Think about what you just posted. You have been here as a member since 01/15. There are members who have been here longer, who are also seasoned graduate students (some have earned their Ph.D.s)  who are agreeing with the OP, who has BTDT-- earned a Ph.D., has gotten works published, and has looked for a job. You are being afforded an opportunity to learn from the hard earned, bitterly won experience of others. Does sparring help you to learn what you can?

 

More generally, I think it is unwise to dog pile on the OP because he/she is presenting jarring information and some find the tone of the message distasteful. The members of this BB who are seasons graduate students, or have earned Ph.Ds, or are professors and administrators are all here to offer support/advice/criticism based upon either personal experiences or directly observed experiences. This is not to say that members of this cohort should get a pass for everything they say or that anyone should follow their guidance no questions asked.

 

This is to say that many of you need to think it through a couple of more times before attempting to shoot the messengers.

[SilasWegg]

Actively working to reform departmental practices of exploitation? Could you provide some specific examples?

 

I can address this issue only in terms of my own experiences and I'd prefer not to engage with a set of cherry-picked examples from slate.com or chronicle. For what its worth, these observations are anecdotal but I think they may substantiate the notion that collaborative efforts between and among university entities can lead to more egalitarian practices.

 

I interact with two distinct departments: an english department and what we can call a "rhet/comp" department. In the english department, most faculty teach a 2/2 load in addition to admin duties and new hires on TT lines do the same. Adjunct pay has been steadily increasing and is far above national averages. They work with a very select group of adjuncts who are paid to teach and only teach. I've spoken with multiple senior faculty who have passed up travel and research grants to preserve these opportunities for adjuncts and new hires. The rhet/comp department is a different story. There are not enough lines of tenure here and the vast majority of the faculty are on 12-month contracts that pay at a variety of scales which seem to be entirely arbitrary. These faculty routinely teach 3/4. Given the adjunctified nature of this department and the horrendous overburdening of administrative duties, it seems as though opportunities for advancement are highly competitive and are strictly policed by what could be seen as a kind of "in crowd." However, because this department is responsible for the reading/writing training of every student in the university, they are gaining more control of hiring practices and do indeed work "collaboratively" with a variety of university entities to these ends. In both departments, there has been a move to shift some teaching duties to grad students, opening up lines of support. These funding lines for students do not seem to drive down the pay-scales of adjuncts and grad student teaching is accompanied by intensive mentoring, which faculty often undertake in addition to their less-than-glamorous teaching loads and administrative responsibilities.

 

Basically, this system wouldn't work at all if everyone was just concerned with protecting their own professional interests. Again, I must agree that some faculty and administrators are very protective of their turf and will insulate their reputation with a set of underlings who legitimize their departmental clout. They hand-pick hires from a mysterious set of inner and extra departmental affiliations. Others bear impressive sounding titles but do very little to contribute. Admins inhabit well-appointed offices and it is unclear what they are doing in there to me. However, these examples don't indicate any kind of "ponzi scheme" to me, rather they bear out the inefficiencies and abuses of any bureaucratic entity. 

 

I should point out that this is NOT an R1 institution that grant a PhD in english. It is a large urban teaching college with a public endowment. My outlook might be influenced by the fact that I've never been caught up in the struggle for absolute power of the tenured elite at "top-tier" programs.

Edited March 27, 2015 by morristr

[1Q84]

Since the conversation seems to be heading into questioning whether certain individuals were duped or not duped by the system, I thought I'd point out a broader consideration of the discussion:

 

Clearly, we on TGC are very much in-the-know about the majority of horrors of an academic career. But, in discussing alt-ac options or revolutionary action within academia, we have to consider those folks that aren't on TGC and haven't thought about these issues at all. I know an astounding number of grad students and prospective grad students IRL who are unaware of even the most basic aspects of life after a Ph.D. and still manage to garner several acceptances. They certainly won't be asking the questions that OP listed nor the ones that kurayamino asked during her Open House experience. Our conversations here can prepare those of us that care to speak more knowledgeably about it in real life. Obviously from the passion in this thread, we have all thought about the issue deeply and care very much one way or another. There are a huge number of students who retain the now-dated mindset that Ph.D. holders all settle easily into middle-class, "life of the mind" luxury. Such outcomes were possible 10-20 years ago but certainly not anymore. Unlike us, those students are still blissfully unaware, and they may arrive at the same sad conclusion that OP has when they enter the job market.  

 

(Also, I hate to invoke the "go-back-to-Russia" argument, but if these threads about the job market really, reaaaaalllly bother you so much because they apparently have been discussed to death, you are free to ignore them. No one is forcing you to partake in this conversation. And I'm not sure where the idea came from that people in this thread are "scaring" people away from academia. Everyone here is free to make up their own mind after a careful consideration of the facts. Besides, this conversation is being well-contained within clearly marked threads. If you think you know all that has been said here, just back away and discuss other things elsewhere.)

Edited March 27, 2015 by 1Q84

[ComeBackZinc]

I don't like the term "duped" because it turns a structural problem into a personal morality play. And while there are plenty of faculty that bear some blame, the reality is that state legislatures and higher administrations are ultimately responsible for the collapse of the academic job market.

[SilasWegg]

. Besides, this conversation is being well-contained within clearly marked threads. If you think you know all that has been said here, just back away and discuss other things elsewhere.)

 

It's like a car wreck and I just can't look away!

[fuzzylogician]

This is important yet I fear very difficult to achieve or even know about oneself ahead of time: 

I will reiterate my major point before: if it's really true that you can get your PhD and leave academia behind afterwards without regret, then go for it. But it has to be really true, and you have to understand that people start out saying that and then end up just as bitter and angry as they always said they wouldn't be. So if you make this choice, be damn sure, and endeavor to keep the same perspective then as you have now. That's all. If you know that about yourself, then I celebrate it and wish you the best of luck!

 

Just to add my voice to the discussion as someone who's been on the job market a couple of times now: it sucks. It hurts. It's full of rejection. It's a full-time job you have to do at the same time as doing the actual job that you are being paid for (which, for most people, will involve a lot of teaching in some visiting capacity, post graduation). And if you are to remain competitive, you also have to maintain your research profile, in addition to teaching and applying. That means finding the time to do new post-graduation research, and travel to conferences to present it, as well as write it up, at the same time as prepping new classes, teaching and grading, and creating dozens of applications, and going on interviews (in the event that you are so lucky). You have to be ready for several difficult years and I think it is very important to think about back-up or alternative plans early in grad school so you can build your CV and profile to be competitive for those jobs as well. It's also important to sit down and think hard, alone or with loved ones, about when enough is enough. How many years are you prepared to be uncertain at any given point about where you'll be this time next year? Not having a guaranteed income, having to uproot yourself and your family, etc? The OP expresses this kind of raw emotion, my guess is probably right after the last rejection of the season or after a particularly painful one. That's an emotion you have to deal with, but it's worth weighing that against how you feel about your life and work on some better days. For me, it's still worth it, but I completely understand people who have decided that it's just not.

[Sigaba]

 

Clearly, we on TGC are very much in-the-know about the majority of horrors of an academic career. 

 

This statement is not accurate. Some are in the know, many others are not.

 

The OP successfully calls into question how much in the know many who think they are in the know actually are in the know. Many of the dissenting replies supply the answer.

Edited March 27, 2015 by Sigaba