The Graduate School Ponzi Scheme

[ComeBackZinc]

The zombie gif is an apt one... we all think, on some level, that WE are the ones who will be able to get one of those "good jobs" in academia that are supposedly so (increasingly) few and far between, just as we all think we'd be one of the survivors adventuring our way through the aftermath of a zombie apocalypse. Every overweight person thinks they're going to be the one to lose all the weight one day. Every poor capitalism-loving Republican thinks they're the one who's going to one day strike it rich.

 

The bottom line is that there are more people in grad school than there are substantive jobs in academia. Academics don't retire, and new hires are overwhelmingly being brought on part-time. This is not a system that can sustain itself. To my mind, any institution that avoids hiring tenure-track faculty, while admitting grad students on anything other than a fully (and generously) funded basis, is ethically suspect. In fact I'd go so far as to say that they shouldn't admit any more non-funded grad students than they'd be willing to hire on a full-time basis themselves.

 

Now, of course, there will always be those who will STILL go to grad school, just as there will always be folks who pursue useless liberal arts degrees when they'd be better off getting an HVAC certification (or something), from an employability perspective. But that doesn't mean "the system" is thereby obligated to give these people enough rope to hang themselves. It also does no good to put the problem down to nebulous concerns of economic and political philosophy -- capitalism vs. socialism, etc. -- or to excuse the policies of school administrators based on the flimsy notion that "all organizations in a capitalist economy inevitably exploit their workers," however true that might be.

 

Again: this is a very self-satisfied post that says things that literally no one in this thread disagrees with. Capitalism and socialism aren't nebulous; they are in fact the most concrete things in our lives. Literally no one excuses school administrators in this thread, so I don't know why you would bring this up. If you think the system should change, I agree, but you're lecturing people who are not part of the system and not in control of it, which is weird. And despite constant evidence-free assertion otherwise, the skilled trades are not in good employment shape, as they are hugely susceptible to the housing market, so your HVAC guy may very well be just as precarious as an unemployed PhD student. All in all, this is yet another comment that condescendingly explains to people things that they all already admit to being true.

 

And I am one of the lucky few to get a good job in academia. No scare quotes needed: it's a good job by any account. So I'll keep shuffling my zombie ass towards graduation, thanks.

Edited April 15, 2015 by ComeBackZinc

[Dr. Old Bill]

Maybe off-topic, but just chiming in to say...

 

My father is an HVAC guy. He has been since he was in his early 20s (he is now 64). He owned his own business for awhile, then bounced around a few different companies in the 90s and 00s, making good money. He's not a particularly smart man, but he never complained about work too often, even when he tried (and failed) to teach the trade for a semester at a trade school, or tried (and failed) to be a service manager, instead of "on the tools." He could always afford his toys -- always had a sports car, or a motorcycle, or (for the last several years) a hydroplane that he races on weekends. A few years ago, during a family vacation to the summer cabin, he revealed that he has always hated his career. That he is full of unrequited wishes to have been something else...a pilot, perhaps, or something more. In retrospect, this should have been obvious, and yet as a family we had never questioned that he was content, perhaps even happy to be fixing air conditioners, heat pumps, and walk-in coolers every day. He concedes that it earned him a decent living, and put "three square meals" on his family's table...but was he ever happy? No, I doubt it. All the joy he extracted from life was from his avocations. I suppose the same can be said for most people, but it's particularly worth remembering for people like us who are going down this path. We all want to succeed at what we are doing, but even if we fall short, most of us should be able to find alt-ac careers that give us some modicum of happiness. I'm not sure the same can be said for someone who is tethered to a trade.

 

I once wrote a poem on this topic. I might as well share:

 

 

SUCCESS

 

You've made it! All around agree

You're where you are supposed to be:

A stable job, a loving spouse,

A fancy car, you own a house;

 

You have three kids, adore them all--

Each one is talented and tall;

You're part of several clubs, have friends,

Are first to join the latest trends;

 

You've holidayed in many lands

And sunk your feet in foreign sands,

You're middle-aged and in good health

With shrinking debts and growing wealth.

 

You're proud and confident and smart,

You follow sports and relish art,

You are the envy of your peers

And have been now for many years.

 

So here you are -- you've found success

But can you, in your heart confess

That you are happy?

Truly -- are you happy?

[ProfLorax]

WT: you had me until the end, when you seem to make a distinction between academics and HVAC: academics experience some happiness in their work, as opposed to those who are "tethered to a trade."

My dad is also an HVAC guy. He never finished tenth grade, but there's a lot of intellectualism that goes into his work. He enjoys analyzing problems and figuring out solutions. He was just visiting me last week, and it really struck me on how we are similar: we are obsessed with our line of work, completely immersed in these unfamiliar languages, and ecstatic at the opportunity to unpack whatever challenge is starring at us.

I took your post to mean that there's more esteem to our work because we find value in it; whereas, there's less to blue collar work because how could someone find value in that? Please let me know if I misinterpreted your post!

Also, ComeBackZinc, I don't know if I have officially said this yet, but congrats on your job!

[Dr. Old Bill]

I took your post to mean that there's more esteem to our work because we find value in it; whereas, there's less to blue collar work because how could someone find value in that? Please let me know if I misinterpreted your post!

 

Ack! No. Sorry -- my "tethered to a trade" comment was still with my father in mind, not more general. I'm proud of my blue-collar roots. It's not the kind of work that appeals to me (I tried to like it -- I really did!), but it's far more respectable than I think it's given credit for. The reason I posted was because of TonyB's invocation about people being "better off" getting an HVAC certification. What I'm trying to get at is that "success" and being "better off" etc. are amorphous concepts. Sure, my father was "successful" in his career and in a lot of respects, I'll likely never match up to what he has obtained over the last thirty years or so: house, cabin, sports cars, sport boat, motorcycle, money in the bank... But for me, I'm definitely okay with that. It's a trade off, and I don't mind accepting what I'm receiving in trade over what I'm giving up. When the chips are down, the same might be true of my father as well...though it's an open question, and I'll probably never really know.

 

I definitely don't knock trades etc. though. On the contrary, I legitimately wish that I was oriented in such a way that I could have enjoyed that path...but even when I was on the fringes of blue-collardom for much of my twenties, relegating my passions to avocations, I always knew it wasn't right for me. I could be an inside sales rep for a tools and hardware distributor, or do administrative work for an industrial sales and service agency while publishing poetry and writing music on the side...but as the past few years have shown me, I don't feel completed until I'm more immersed in what I enjoy. I wish it were otherwise. Truly.

[TakeruK]

My personal opinion is that while it would be "nice" to have job/career satisfaction, I don't need it to be personally happy. My family have always been "blue collar" workers (I'm the only academic) and so we always grew up with the idea that work is something you have to do in order to have fun later. The idea that work can also be fun/interesting was a little foreign to me. I worked in some blue collar jobs to pay for college and while I can't say that I liked it as much as I like what I'm doing now, it was something I know I can do in the future. Of course, my goal would be to find work that I find personally stimulating and satisfying that also pays well enough for me to have a happy life outside of work. But if I had to make sacrifices in one way or another, I would gladly choose work that I don't find interesting in exchange for happiness in the other 128 hours per week. However, the whole point of pursuing a PhD (for me) is so that I can find work that would be somewhat interesting to me!

[TonyB]

Again: this is a very self-satisfied post that says things that literally no one in this thread disagrees with. Capitalism and socialism aren't nebulous; they are in fact the most concrete things in our lives. Literally no one excuses school administrators in this thread, so I don't know why you would bring this up. If you think the system should change, I agree, but you're lecturing people who are not part of the system and not in control of it, which is weird.

 

I'm not "lecturing" anyone. You're the one who insists on adopting an overly hectoring and, frankly, insulting and dismissive tone toward anyone who more or less agrees with the OP's central thesis.

 

How does restating the argument "Yeah, yeah, academia sucks but so does the rest of the world, so let's all throw our lives away anyway" over and over again solve anything, or even contribute anything to the discussion?

 

What I'm trying to get at is that "success" and being "better off" etc. are amorphous concepts.

 

Not really. Success means being able to support yourself (and your family, if need be) by the fruits of your labors. Too many people adopt an all or nothing mentality... you have the blue collar folks saying it's all about being able to get a job and put food on the table, but you also have academics who are a little too complacent about the possibility of consigning themselves to a lifetime of poorly paid, part-time academic work. It's great to be able to "do what you love," but it's also pretty important to be able to do so while not ALSO having to live in your stereotypical grandma's basement.

Edited April 17, 2015 by TonyB

[ComeBackZinc]

I'm not "lecturing" anyone. You're the one who insists on adopting an overly hectoring and, frankly, insulting and dismissive tone toward anyone who more or less agrees with the OP's central thesis.

 

How does restating the argument "Yeah, yeah, academia sucks but so does the rest of the world, so let's all throw our lives away anyway" over and over again solve anything, or even contribute anything to the discussion?

 

I more or less agree with the OP's central thesis. I don't agree with him constantly trying to force everyone else into his psychodrama. Again: you and him constantly show up and yell at the rest of us for not believing what you believe, and yet I sincerely cannot find anyone disagreeing with most of your points. What do you want? Is it literally that everyone on this board abandon graduate school? I'm afraid that's not going to happen. But everyone here seems to think that there's a labor problem in the academy and that the labor situation is immoral and exploitative. The question of whether or not individuals should continue to pursue graduate school is a different question than the structural point you're making.

 

Like it has been for me. I tell people not to go to graduate school all the time; going to graduate school was the best decision I ever made. Including from the standpoint of my own economic and professional interests. There's no contradiction here, as long as you permit individuals to be individuals and to make up their own minds about what is best for their own lives.

[hypervodka]

Can I say, as one of those newly entering graduate students this thread is nominally directed at guiding, that nothing about this thread has actually been at all helpful?

[echo449]

Perhaps we could start a more useful thread on professionalization and that sort of thing? In other words, a proactive move rather than a reactive one? (I don't really know enough myself to open that discussion, however.)

[circlewave]

Can I say, as one of those newly entering graduate students this thread is nominally directed at guiding, that nothing about this thread has actually been at all helpful?

[1Q84]

But let's all remember that not everyone on TGC is a super-keener like many of us are in this thread. Sure, we all spend a lot of time obsessing over questions posed in here but if any random lurker or newbie comes and reads through the thread, I still think some benefit is to be had for them--even if that's just knowing that this contentious issue is even being discussed.

 

I really think if this topic bugs people so much, they should just stay away. It's pretty simple. All the people coming in and trying to clamp down on conversation (even if it seems circular)  aren't doing much to help the situation much either.

 

Perhaps we could start a more useful thread on professionalization and that sort of thing? In other words, a proactive move rather than a reactive one? (I don't really know enough myself to open that discussion, however.)

 

Let's do this.

Edited April 17, 2015 by 1Q84

[hypervodka]

Even if all participants perform perfectly within a capitalist system, some of those participants will absolutely always be unsuccessful in a free market. Professionalization MAY help, but only individually--and VirtualMessage played the game, had the publications, had the networking, had the Top 6 degree, and still did not succeed in this market. Professionalization, even if it helps you individually, will do nothing to change the fact that three-quarters of the hopefuls scrambling through grad school right now will definitively not get the job that they have been training for nearly a decade in order to do, whether they are thoroughly professionalized or not. What do you DO when you wind up in VM's position, jobless or virtually jobless, 30 to 40 years old with no savings and a **Liam Neeson voice ** very particular set of skills? What do we do then? It's the question that seems to be driving VM's posts, and it's one that no one has moved to answer very well.

http://theprofessorisin.com/2012/03/20/the-be-yourself-myth-performing-the-academic-self-on-the-job-market/

http://theprofessorisin.com/2011/11/29/the-facepalm-fails-of-the-academic-interview/

http://theprofessorisin.com/2012/02/21/be-professorial/for tips on professionalization

http://www.selloutyoursoul.com/for when the system does not work with you in it.

[ComeBackZinc]

Even if all participants perform perfectly within a capitalist system, some of those participants will absolutely always be unsuccessful in a free market. Professionalization MAY help, but only individually--and VirtualMessage played the game, had the publications, had the networking, had the Top 6 degree, and still did not succeed in this market. Professionalization, even if it helps you individually, will do nothing to change the fact that three-quarters of the hopefuls scrambling through grad school right now will definitively not get the job that they have been training for nearly a decade in order to do, whether they are thoroughly professionalized or not. What do you DO when you wind up in VM's position, jobless or virtually jobless, 30 to 40 years old with no savings and a **Liam Neeson voice ** very particular set of skills? What do we do then? It's the question that seems to be driving VM's posts, and it's one that no one has moved to answer very well.

 

Indeed. I agree with this. But another question presents itself: what does VirtualMessage want? What do you want? Because as I keep saying, there's this running-repeatedly-into-a-wall aspect here. I can't find anyone who disagrees with VirtualMessage about any of the particulars. When I asked "what do you want people to do?," that wasn't a rhetorical question. What is the purpose of this intervention? No one can accuse me of preventing people from telling the truth about the job market; usually, I am the guy telling people about the job market, often in a way that gets people mad. I've been trying to make the case that you are making for years here. But VirtualMessage seems to want something more, and I can't comprehend what it is. What would satisfy you? It seems like the answer is "have everyone here pledge not to go to grad school." Given that this is a message board all about getting into grad school, that seems remarkably unrealistic. So what's the point here? 

[hypervodka]

Yes, VM wants people to pursue the PhD only under very specific financial circumstances, gaining a Masters at most to pursue something outside of academia. That's not something that I have or will take to heart, probably, until it's too late.

Hopefully, the last link I posted makes it obvious what I want people to do, what I want to do: when this system (statistically inevitably) fails the people working under it, I want everyone to know that you can and should leave it.

[ComeBackZinc]

Sure. Agree completely.

 

However, I insist on pointing out: as a class, people with PhDs-- even recent graduates-- enjoy better employment and income conditions than workers writ large, and vastly better than those with only high school diplomas. That doesn't mean it's necessarily a good idea to get a PhD; in fact, as I have argued again and again, it very frequently is not. But there's a constant slippage around here between discussing the academic job market and discussing the general plight of those with doctorates. Yes, there are many anecdotes of people who are working as adjuncts under precarious, low-paying conditions, and that's awful. They are terribly served by the academy and by specific institutions, and they need better living and working conditions. I think that there is finally some positive movement in that direction, for which I'm grateful. In particular, adjunct faculty need to be unionized. You can lament that, cast blame where appropriate, and work for change without misrepresenting the actual average living condition of the average PhD, even the average humanities PhD. 

 

I've written and engaged on academic labor issues and grad school for years, and I've fallen firmly in the pessimist camp telling people not to go to grad school. I agree with and accept the structural claims that are being made here. I tell people not to underestimate the emotional and practical devastation of emerging with a PhD and no job. I know that alt-ac stuff is harder than people think to get into. I know all of that. And yet there is a persistent sense in which this is not enough, and I'm just being honest when I say that frequently what people seem to want is for me to share a particular emotional/affective relationship to the academy that I just don't. I find that frustrating and not practically useful.

[staggerlee]

Perhaps we could start a more useful thread on professionalization and that sort of thing? In other words, a proactive move rather than a reactive one? (I don't really know enough myself to open that discussion, however.)

 

I, um, echo echo449.

 

This whole discussion, like all the million identical ones, is pretty much an anxious/doubtful/defensive feels-party. I understand the impulse towards it, and I don't ever slight people for involvement in it, but there's just no real point. If this--confusion over pursuing a terminal degree-- is the central problem you face, I hate to (be the 19th person to) break it to you, but you are not a member of the genuinely downtrodden in this world.

 

You sound seriously goofy when you seem to compare yourself to people who are stuck in inescapable cycles of economic oppression with no resources and no support. Everyone already knows there's an enormous problem with the American college educational system and enormous problems with job availability and security. As a result, "advice" bits that demonize academia always come off like excuses to vent embitterment. And the blogs and articles about it just make the authors look... sad and pouty and privileged.

 

Nobody on the application end needs to be informed of the job issue (or further convinced of it) "for his/her own good," because if he/she is seriously considering applying, he/she already knows. Or he/she will have someone closeby in the field tell him/her soon... because he/she is not actually getting admitted to a program without supportive letter writers... and a supportive letter writer would certainly offer that information. The grievance that I believe isn't real-- and yes, I mean I believe it's imagined and alleged-- is the part that suggests academia is an unstoppable machine of misinformation and systemized, intentional deception of students. In my own experience, nothing has been further from the truth. All professors and advisors have shot completely straight with me and helped me to work out my decisions in the context of clear facts. If some individual students were completely misled or kept in the dark about the job situation in academia by the professors and advisors that surrounded them in early college years, the bone they have to pick is with those professors (and I'd like to know where these wildly neglectful or cruel and twistedly motivated folks are. If the schools we're talking about are good, reputable schools, then which ones are they? They're not the ones I've attended or visited, and I can vouch for that. This kind of concrete clarification would be worlds more useful to a prospective applicant.) Those aggrieved should stop generalizing this bizarre deception to the entirety of college faculty and go confront whoever managed somehow to blindfold them from reality. Additionally, if a current/prospective applicant doesn't research enough to know the full state of the job market before he/she applies, or simply refuses to believe the job market is a real problem, then maybe it's an issue of not being too concerned, or having different job plans. If it's not a case of different plans, then frankly he/she deserves the surprise coming later. Life and making a living (in any field) is about educating yourself, making the best decisions possible, and then taking what comes.

 

It's easy to get sucked into this spiral on a mental level, and it feels falsely productive to hash it out over and over. I had a professor intervene in one such spiral of my own and offer the only advice that's ever truly useful here, IMO... If the research and writing and learning is important enough to you-- if you're really, consistently passionate enough about it-- for that alone to truly justify the time and effort of pursuing the degree, and if you can live knowing that the professional outcome is uncertain and will simply be what it'll be, then do the Ph.D. If not, don't.

 

If you think you'd ultimately regret spending ~7 years reading and writing and studying were it not to get you a tenure-track job, don't do it. If you need a guarantee of a certain type of job to feel that those ~7 years would be truly worth it, don't do it. If (the likely outcome of) graduating from a program only to be shoved into a faceless teeming crowd of Ph.D.s fighting for drastically fewer jobs than there are people would make you feel bitter and taken advantage of, don't do it. If anxiety about future finances is a debilitating thing for you, don't do it, and for the sake of your mental health go into a field with more job certainty. If you have staked your sense of self-worth on a longterm academic position and would never feel successful as a human were that not to materialize, don't do it, reconsider the odds you're relying on, and choose a different goal accordingly. If the amount of teaching you'd be taking on as a graduate instructor in order to receive funding during your Ph.D. work would make you resent the system and feel that you were crushed beneath the heel of a soulless master, don't do it, and seek out a different offer. If a school you'd like to go to (for a Ph.D. or an MA) doesn't offer you funding throughout your degree work, don't do it -- go to a different school that offers full funding/a liveable stipend. ...Unless you can afford it through independent means and you've got your heart set on it and you're entirely sure it's worth it to you.

 

As hokey as it sounds, time spent at this level of education should justify itself as a means for personal development and enrichment. It's a commitment beyond simple financial terms-- it's a decision about a big fat chunk of your life-- and if the practical cons compromise it being a good self-actualization path for you, then it's up to you to know that for yourself. If you were to get the degree the day before all colleges suddenly ceased to exist, would you count it as a waste and wish you could have your ~7 years back? If so, don't do it. Personally, I'd be grateful that I'd had the distinctly first-world opportunity to spend ~7 adult years dwelling on the literature that I love and the ideas that fascinate me, and I'd put a bow on it and start searching for a different career. (I'll qualify that by saying I have no direct dependents and enough of a family safety net that I wouldn't be left immediately to starve if absolutely no jobs in any field presented themselves... and maybe that qualification is one to check for.) Having finished my master's, I feel that way about the 3 years I spent doing that regardless of where it goes from here...and if I have a change of heart about all this when faced with the pressure of the Ph.D. (which I highly doubt), then that's on me.

 

Many, many career fields are uncertain now in terms of job availability. The economy sucks. The government's handling/budgeting of education sucks and has for a good long while, but so do a lot of other things. All careers, especially those pertaining to the humanities, involve a lot of gross bureaucracy and competition and an abstract system that doesn't always regard you as an individual human. But it's your life, and if doing Ph.D. work and having a Ph.D. would make you happy, all possibilities considered, then do it. I want very much to be a professor-- that's my preference-- and I'd like to stay in academia, but I wouldn't do this unless I was okay with the chance that I'd have to look outside of tenure-track positions to make a living (and there are plenty of good and worthwhile non-academic jobs out there). And unless some harsh, larger set of circumstances dictated it, I definitely wouldn't adjunct and live under the poverty line for 5-10 years before I flew the coop and got a decent-paying job at a high school or think tank or non-profit or publication or community college or library or tutoring center or arts coalition. Some people just desperately need to drop the entitlement, see a counselor, accept that they've been in charge of their own decisions, and learn to cope better with life.

 

 

Pardon the essay, folks.   You're all smart people (as you already know) and I think we're all going to survive, one way or another.

[ComeBackZinc]

OK, and now I hop to the other foot, because this comment has many of the problems in the other direction.

 

First, this: "You sound seriously goofy when you seem to compare yourself to people who are stuck in inescapable cycles of economic oppression with no resources and no support." is profoundly unhelpful. The race to the bottom of saying that you can only complain if you are below a certain threshold of poverty or hardship is a conservative argument that wouldn't be out of place at the Republican National Convention. There is no question that PhD students are in a cycle of economic oppression with very limited resources and support. Are PhD students Sudanese Lost Boys or Cambodian refugees, on the very bottom? No. But there are tons of PhDs and grad students who are in terrible shape. Saying that anyone who complains about exploitative labor conditions, a lack of benefits or security, and terrible wages amounts to "privilege" is just doing the work of economic conservatives for them. Many adjuncts make less than $30K a year. That's not sufficient to achieve basic material security under any definition, and there's no need for anyone to argue otherwise in the urge to defend the academy.

 

Second, you make this move that I see around here constantly.

 

First:  "Everyone already knows there's an enormous problem with the American college educational system and enormous problems with job availability and security."

 

And then: "Many, many career fields are uncertain now in terms of job availability. The economy sucks."

 

The second statement demonstrates the inaccuracy of the first. The economy has actually been getting better for years. The overall employment picture is vastly better today than it was five years ago. But the academic job market is significantly worse. People constantly do this thing here where they say "everyone knows the academic job market sucks," and then turn around and demonstrate that they themselves don't know that. The academic job market is vastly worse than the job market writ large. Saying that the economy is tough all over demonstrates a failure to grasp the intensity of the problem.

 

Finally, I will say again: I think a lot of people who have not yet been through their graduate education deeply underestimate the terrible, grinding debasement and emotional assault of the academic job market. I've been through a lot of shit in my life, and the academic job market ranks up there with the most unpleasant, unhappy experiences. And I've been quite successful compared to many! Similarly, leaving behind 5,6,7 years of work with nothing to show for it is a lot easier said than done. I will again say that adults are adults and that you all have the right to make your own choices, and if you make those choices as informed people, I wish you well. But please don't underestimate how much better leaving it all behind sounds now than it will when you are a half-decade older, poorer, and more ensconced in an academic lifestyle than ever.

[staggerlee]

OK, and now I hop to the other foot, because this comment has many of the problems in the other direction.

 

First, this: "You sound seriously goofy when you seem to compare yourself to people who are stuck in inescapable cycles of economic oppression with no resources and no support." is profoundly unhelpful. The race to the bottom of saying that you can only complain if you are below a certain threshold of poverty or hardship is a conservative argument that wouldn't be out of place at the Republican National Convention. There is no question that PhD students are in a cycle of economic oppression with very limited resources and support. Are PhD students Sudanese Lost Boys or Cambodian refugees, on the very bottom? No. But there are tons of PhDs and grad students who are in terrible shape. Saying that anyone who complains about exploitative labor conditions, a lack of benefits or security, and terrible wages amounts to "privilege" is just doing the work of economic conservatives for them. Many adjuncts make less than $30K a year. That's not sufficient to achieve basic material security under any definition, and there's no need for anyone to argue otherwise in the urge to defend the academy.

 

Second, you make this move that I see around here constantly.

 

First:  "Everyone already knows there's an enormous problem with the American college educational system and enormous problems with job availability and security."

 

And then: "Many, many career fields are uncertain now in terms of job availability. The economy sucks."

 

The second statement demonstrates the inaccuracy of the first. The economy has actually been getting better for years. The overall employment picture is vastly better today than it was five years ago. But the academic job market is significantly worse. People constantly do this thing here where they say "everyone knows the academic job market sucks," and then turn around and demonstrate that they themselves don't know that. The academic job market is vastly worse than the job market writ large. Saying that the economy is tough all over demonstrates a failure to grasp the intensity of the problem.

 

Finally, I will say again: I think a lot of people who have not yet been through their graduate education deeply underestimate the terrible, grinding debasement and emotional assault of the academic job market. I've been through a lot of shit in my life, and the academic job market ranks up there with the most unpleasant, unhappy experiences. And I've been quite successful compared to many! Similarly, leaving behind 5,6,7 years of work with nothing to show for it is a lot easier said than done. I will again say that adults are adults and that you all have the right to make your own choices, and if you make those choices as informed people, I wish you well. But please don't underestimate how much better leaving it all behind sounds now than it will when you are a half-decade older, poorer, and more ensconced in an academic lifestyle than ever.

 

"The race to the bottom of saying that you can only complain if you are below a certain threshold of poverty or hardship is a conservative argument that wouldn't be out of place at the Republican National Convention. There is no question that PhD students are in a cycle of economic oppression with very limited resources and support. Are PhD students Sudanese Lost Boys or Cambodian refugees, on the very bottom? No."

 

Yikes. 

I would never say that people can't complain about something--- people can (and should) complain about anything they want as much as they want. I just happen to think that framing this as systematic oppression undermines the point by seeming histrionic. And I acknowledge that it's important to talk about the exploitation of Ph.D.s for adjunct labor at unlivable wages. I think it's important for adjuncts to form a community and find a way to stand up for basic working rights. However, I also think that people make the choice to go to graduate school and then make the subsequent choice to stay in academia to fight for teaching jobs afterward. They make the first choice (if they take it upon themselves to be informed as they make decisions, and the information is easily available) knowing that the academic job market sucks. They make the second choice knowing that they could leave academia and pursue other jobs at any point (and it may not make direct use of their degrees, but that possibility should have been considered during choice 1).They could step out of academia and get one of the same jobs from which the majority of reasonably fortunate people end up choosing. That element of choice is what (for me) distinguishes this from the situations of people who are born into environments with no educational opportunities, no job choices, no chance for economic achievement, and no personal support. I don't think we have to agree, but I think it's significantly a matter of perspective.

 

I also don't think making that point insinuates that people must race toward a threshold of misfortune so as to be permitted frustration. I wouldn't have brought up Sudanese Lost Boys for contrast, and I suppose it may be a trite point, but I do still think that if you're worrying about educational decisions instead of raw survival, you're doing okay. If you have even just the resources necessary to participate and be invested in this discussion, there is an element of choice and volition in your professional life. It may not be the choice that you want, and from there it's up to you. That's why I definitely do acknowledge that pursuing a doctorate is a huge career gamble and many people shouldn't take it, for personal and emotional and family and health and age and other reasons. And if I seemed to suggest that the academic job market is no worse than other job markets, I hadn't intended to. I just think that these days people get into the embittered-post-grad position after having had all the information at their disposal during decision time.

 

Additionally, though this really doesn't matter--- I suspect the Republican National Convention might in fact be a perfect place to claim victimization from a position of relative privilege. 

 

I've been through a lot of shit myself, and I've been in an array of different economic and personal situations, some of them entirely desperate, and only one of which is several years of grad school with a measly stipend. I've spent a long time in a state that's at the most extreme end of the extremely bad academic budget problem, and I see the reality of it. I'm sure entering the college job market will be worse than I can imagine, though I've spent some time making sure I've imagined it. But I've considered all the possible outcomes, and if all else fails, the educational/developmental aspect of it, on a personal level, is worth it to me. All I encourage others to do is weigh that same question as they make their own decisions, and not get caught up in the neurosis. But we're all grown-ups here and it goes without saying that we'll do and feel as we like. I don't underestimate how much more difficult it is to consider leaving academia after a decade of entrenchment, but I also don't underestimate the power of striving to maintain a mindset of flexibility and reasonable expectations throughout grad work, or the benefit of making an informed decision and then owning that decision as a free agent rather than a victim of the system. 

[allplaideverything]

It's great to be able to "do what you love," but it's also pretty important to be able to do so while not ALSO having to live in your stereotypical grandma's basement.

 

You calling my grandma "stereotypical" now? Damn.

[VirtualMessage]

This is what our profession has become: https://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2015/05/11/essay-instructor-who-has-taught-adjunct-25-years

 

 

I know for some people on this thread it's the adjunct's own fault-- how dare they let themselves be exploited! And I know for many others that you believe a degree from Berkeley or Chicago or Princeton or Purdue R/C will deliver you to the coveted precincts of success even if you have to acknowledge you're still playing a game of chance (albeit with weighted die). But there is simply no way around the grim realities of higher education at the present time: it exploits an entire class of workers--the vast majority of its instructional, professional, highly-educated adjunct faculty. This happens at nearly every institution in the country, and it should be openly and frequently condemned by every member of our profession. There is no room for equivocations, qualifications, and excuses if you're interested in challenging what has become the status quo. Remonstrance should be integral to the rhetoric of professionalization graduate faculty preach, but for reasons discussed here, most remain silent and aloof. However, we are all in grave professional danger. In the words of Frederick Douglas, "Power concedes nothing without a demand." Start demanding that those with power use their tenure, their security, and their words to protest the untenable labor practices at our Universities that are destroying professional lives, crippling scholarly inquiry, and cheating students out of the education they pay dearly to receive. 

[ComeBackZinc]

I know for some people on this thread it's the adjunct's own fault-- how dare they let themselves be exploited!

 

Who? Based on what statement? Quotes, please.

[VirtualMessage]

I know for some people on this thread it's the adjunct's own fault-- how dare they let themselves be exploited!

 

Who? Based on what statement? Quotes, please.

 

Back around page 3, but at the risk of having this thread subject to TheGradeCafe's overzealous "moderation" I will politely suggest this article as an example of the kind of thinking and activism we should be seeing from established faculty: http://chronicle.com/article/To-Protest-Colleagues-Lack-of/230057/

 

Resigning isn't necessarily the best answer, but her actions demonstrate real sacrifice and concern about her colleagues and her profession. It would be nice to see more of it--a lot more of it. Honestly, ComeBackZinc, I think we ultimately want to see many of the same things change for the better. And it's my hope that in the course of our careers the situation will improve, although I fear that I have very little reason for optimism. 

[ToldAgain]

 

"I know for some people on this thread it's the adjunct's own fault-- how dare they let themselves be exploited!"

 

Yea, lifealive was making a claim that resembles this awhile back. I am sure that person would think this characterization of their thought is a strawman, though.

 

BUT, from the comments on the article that VM linked:

 

 

I just don't know why you have done this for 25 years! I want you to stop and all other exploited adjuncts. I agree with you that adjuncts are typically poorly treated and poorly paid yet critical to the current model of higher ed. So please stop doing it. Find another job even if it isn't your ideal. You are highly educated, clearly talented, and yet you keep letting people take advantage of you. Why? Because you want to teach college students? Because you are chasing a dream? Because you refuse to "settle" for something outside academe? Please stand up for yourself and face the reality.

 

Exactly this. 100%. If someone wrote an article about being a substitute K-12 teacher for 25 years would we rail against the system or tell that person to make better choices? If, after your PhD/terminal degree, you haven't obtained a TT gig within three years, choose a new career; there are plenty.

 

VM, what do you mean when you say allowing adjuncting to continue is "cheating students out of the education they pay dearly to receive"? Do you think adjuncts can't teach as well as TT profs for some reason (structural or otherwise)?

[VirtualMessage]

Yea, lifealive was making a claim that resembles this awhile back. I am sure that person would think this characterization of their thought is a strawman, though.

 

BUT, from the comments on the article that VM linked:

 

 

VM, what do you mean when you say allowing adjuncting to continue is "cheating students out of the education they pay dearly to receive"? Do you think adjuncts can't teach as well as TT profs for some reason (structural or otherwise)?

 

Yes, I think that teaching is negatively affected by the working conditions of contingent faculty. Even the best adjunct teachers--and there are many, many excellent adjunct instructors--are hampered by the lack of professional development, the lack of substantial time for research, the lack of a leadership role or any meaningful role in the community of the University, and the lack of proper facilities such as an office, etc. And, of course, aside from the base salary there are the psychological and emotional consequences of this work that manifest in teaching--namely exhaustion, hopelessness, despair--everything we see in the genre of adjunct complaints that populate the Chronicle and other forums. Also, if this continues for another generation, imagine the scholars and teachers who will never realize their talents when they turn away from a PhD because they want to avoid the fate outlined by the invisible adjunct. Meanwhile, students pay more and more and more. For what? Lazy Rivers, Deanlets, Rock Walls, Customer Service. 

 

We need to enforce a strict ratio of TT faculty to adjuncts. At the very least the current numbers should be inverted: 75% TT, 25% Adjunct. But honestly, I find the very idea of contingent labor at the University to be entirely perverse. I realize my idealism isn't necessarily practical, but it sure would be nice to start hearing some plan for meaningful reform from one of our professional associations and the leaders of our profession. Because the current mess is untenable. 

Edited May 11, 2015 by VirtualMessage

[rising_star]

Another recent Inside Higher Ed article highlights the perils of thinking one can adjunct or VAP their way into a better job. I posted the link elsewhere in the hopes of starting a discussion about being a VAP but it seems no one was interested. So, here's the link again: https://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2015/05/01/tales-long-stint-visiting-assistant-professor-essay

 

At a conference recently, I was on a panel that was discussing adjunct labor and the academy. And I got into an argument with a tenured faculty member who basically said that sometimes people have no choice but to adjunct. I think that both isn't true and also is part of the discourse that contributes to the devaluation of the humanities and viewing them as disconnected from the "real world" or practical work. In a nutshell, ze said that their only option while ABD was to adjunct because ze had to move to a new city to be with their child. I was arguing that ze probably could've found work doing something else but ze insisted that wasn't the case and that adjuncting was the only viable employment option. Yes, ze now has tenure at a prestigious state university but, I'm skeptical that those two semesters of adjuncting are what secured the position. To use myself as an example, there was a time about 50 weeks ago when I wasn't sure I'd have post-PhD employment. I was asked quite directly if I would consider adjuncting and told the department chair no after looking at the salary offered ($550 per credit hour taught; 9 hour maximum) and comparing it to working full-time at a local restaurant ($9.25/hour to start). Are those two jobs equivalent? Absolutely not. But, the restaurant offered far more flexibility and the ability to leave ASAP for a better job, unlike adjuncting.