The Graduate School Ponzi Scheme

[BooksCoffeeBeards]

I liken this thread to a doomsayer waving around a "The End is Nigh" sign. The end may, in fact, BE nigh, but it doesn't make the doomsayer any less annoying.

 

If ANYTHING, it might just be the end of academia as it is now, but not the end of academia/academics/graduate study altogether. Which, for me, is where my annoyance comes from regarding the apocalyptic tone and rhetoric. If things change but graduate study in English is kept around, albeit in a different manner, I don't really see the need for this rhetoric, especially if graduate studies start to prepare students for academic and non-academic career tracks. From the friends I do know who have non-academic jobs (and finished their PhD's between 2010-now), their advisors were more than willing to discuss and assist with non-academic career tracks. So, there isn't a lot of gloom-and-doom from what others have shared personally outside of this forum.

So, yeah, I definitely get the message, but man, it is pretty worn out now.

[GeoDUDE!]

I think the end is Goku

[__________________________]

http://chronicle.com/article/Enrollment-in-Humanities-PhD/233175/

Thoughts?

[spunky]

or this!!

Social sciences and humanities faculties to close in Japan after ministerial decree

this is the end folks!!! THE END!!!! the signs are all around us! repent! repent!

(sorry, i just wanted to add fuel to teh firez!)

[EmmaJava]

...by not providing unsolicited advice...

I agree with just about everything TakeruK has said, and it is very well put, and I appreciate its spirit. And here's the big "but":

BUT, but:

Isn't VM "providing unsolicited advice," too? Or if not, is that not one of the valid interpretations of what is going on? Or if not, is that not a part of what VM is doing, if not the whole enchilada? Or if not, is that not what some posters appear to be taking issue with? Or if not, is there not the sort of embedded possibility that the perception that VM's unsolicited advice - if that's maybe what it is - engrained in VM's approach that if we follow  a similar approach that we'll run a circle and come back to commentary regarding "not providing unsolicited advice"? In other words, I agree that VM can and should post whatever he or she wants, but if we are affording this to VM, then shouldn't we afford the exact same (and by most accounts, abrasive) approach to the responders?

Playing by the same rules is a tough deal, and I do not mean that sarcastically. I mean that in the most sincere, dire fashion. If we all follow zero-sum, self-interested logic, for example, we will all react to fear and mistrust with fear and mistrust, and the cycle will never be broken. But that doesn't mean that we can tell people not to put locks on their doors, or that sovereign nations cannot preemptively defend themselves by having a standing military, or that these nations cannot point nasty explosive things in suggestive directions, or whatever. This is the current logic of our world. TakeruK has defended it in favor of VM, it seems to me, without extending that same defense to VM's responders. 

Or maybe just much more bluntly: sure VM can be a provocateur - or a jerk. But then so can those who reply. Right? If we all act like each other we should expect that this will not be a pleasant conversation. And that's what we have, and maybe that's the point.

[__________________________]

Edit: you know what, nevermind.  Not going to engage.

Edited September 17, 2015 by mollifiedmolloy

[TakeruK]

I agree with just about everything TakeruK has said, and it is very well put, and I appreciate its spirit. And here's the big "but":

BUT, but:

Isn't VM "providing unsolicited advice," too? Or if not, is that not one of the valid interpretations of what is going on? Or if not, is that not a part of what VM is doing, if not the whole enchilada? Or if not, is that not what some posters appear to be taking issue with? Or if not, is there not the sort of embedded possibility that the perception that VM's unsolicited advice - if that's maybe what it is - engrained in VM's approach that if we follow  a similar approach that we'll run a circle and come back to commentary regarding "not providing unsolicited advice"? In other words, I agree that VM can and should post whatever he or she wants, but if we are affording this to VM, then shouldn't we afford the exact same (and by most accounts, abrasive) approach to the responders?

Playing by the same rules is a tough deal, and I do not mean that sarcastically. I mean that in the most sincere, dire fashion. If we all follow zero-sum, self-interested logic, for example, we will all react to fear and mistrust with fear and mistrust, and the cycle will never be broken. But that doesn't mean that we can tell people not to put locks on their doors, or that sovereign nations cannot preemptively defend themselves by having a standing military, or that these nations cannot point nasty explosive things in suggestive directions, or whatever. This is the current logic of our world. TakeruK has defended it in favor of VM, it seems to me, without extending that same defense to VM's responders. 

Or maybe just much more bluntly: sure VM can be a provocateur - or a jerk. But then so can those who reply. Right? If we all act like each other we should expect that this will not be a pleasant conversation. And that's what we have, and maybe that's the point.

This is a good point and I did think about it when I wrote my post. I was thinking "in some ways, what I am writing is "policing" the critics of VM while criticizing the critics of VM for policing VM's message!"

I should clarify that I don't mean that there should be no criticizing of VM's message. What I felt was strange/weird was that people are not just criticizing VM's message, but also criticizing VM for having that opinion or presenting their message in their own way itself! And even some people obliquely suggesting that VM not post anymore (even though VM has every right to continue posting). I agree that if a poster writes a strong opinion in an abrasive (or whatever) style, as it is their right to express themselves, then responders should certainly feel free to respond in kind. 

So, to clarify, I mean to defend every poster that have had another poster tell them to not say something a certain way. I am defending the posters who have had other posters tell them not to write about a topic. I am responding to recent posts that have told VM to do both of these things (however, while I have read every single post as they appeared in the past many months, I admit I do not recall every point and counterpoint and certainly was not keeping score). I am not defending VM by saying only VM can post strongly worded opinions about the topic matter. When VM writes something you do not agree with, I think that by all means you should write a counterpoint. But don't write a post saying that VM should not be posting X or that VM should write in style Y etc. 

[Appppplication]

]

Edited September 18, 2015 by Appppplication

[VirtualMessage]

Fascinating that the number I put forward has vanished among all this navel-gazing--the current number of tenure-track jobs available within the entire discipline of English. That number is disgraceful. That number represents economic and emotional pain. That number is a number that the entire discipline should be talking about, and by "talk about" I don't mean the nonsense and totally unhelpful response by the MLA that English PhDs become "connected" (quietly bow out of the profession and figure out some other way to put bread on the table after years of teaching, research, labor). But hardly anyone is talking about it because we prefer to obfuscate the labor realities of what is happening within the University. It is simply too uncomfortable, too devastating, and too problematic to acknowledge the exploitation of graduate students/adjuncts and the feckless complicity of the tenured faculty. No, I am not making an effort here to be tactful or even intentionally persuasive. I am being unabashedly candid because I am not going to watch a bunch of young, capable, and ambitious students fresh out of college express their anxieties about GRE scores, writing samples, and "POIs" on this forum without warning them--repeatedly--that the floor has fallen out from underneath the venerable institution that they hope to join. If you find my posts aggravating, then don't read them. I find it hard to believe that aspiring scholars can't manage to navigate away from a topic that they find so irksome. Of course, the outraged and indignant defenders of-- ? -- are so taken aback by my posts because they cannot actually dispute their substance. Instead, they attempt to  dismiss the raw, frustrated concerns, feelings, and experiences that I've described. I have no solution for the problems that afflict us. I sincerely wish that I did. But if you cannot find a common cause with the problems that outrage me, you're not paying attention to what's happening within our profession. It makes perfect sense though, doesn't it? How we got into this mess? Looking the other way, saying nothing, doing less, and keeping up the confidence that we need not stoop to consider the consequences of our labor and the future of our inaction. For all the interest in environmental humanities, you'd think we could see how we've effectively denied that anything has fundamentally changed in our ecosystem. Go ahead, repent. It'll take a while, but the last judgment was never going to be swift. 

Edited September 18, 2015 by VirtualMessage

[ExponentialDecay]

So, uh, VM, I've always wanted to ask - what are you doing now? Work-wise?

[ProfLorax]

But don't write a post saying that VM should not be posting X or that VM should write in style Y etc. 

You realize you're in the literature and rhetoric forum, right? Like, this is what we do! As any rhetorician will tell you, style and invention (the argument itself) are not separate components to any argument. VM has committed several rhetorical fallacies since coming to this board, including ad hominem (he attacks specific users, the gradcafe community, and all of rhet/comp). In fact, because ad hominem has been the basis of VM's argument since Day 1, their argument has increasingly been less about the state of academia and more about what they perceive as the morality and intelligence of the individuals in academia. In other words, VM has never been interested in critiquing the state of the academy but calling those of us who aspire to work within its halls unethical fools. So yeah, that's gonna rub people the wrong way. 

ComeBackZinc regularly warned users of the perilous nature of the job market and urge folks to abandon ship if they had another job possibility. His argument was, while not always well received, at least tolerated because he never attacked the users on the board, our choices, or our fields of study. His argument remained focused on the state of the university itself, in both style and content, and thus he presented a much more persuasive argument. 

Edited September 18, 2015 by ProfLorax

[VirtualMessage]

You realize you're in the literature and rhetoric forum, right? Like, this is what we do! As any rhetorician will tell you, style and invention (the argument itself) are not separate components to any argument. VM has committed several rhetorical fallacies since coming to this board, including ad hominem (he attacks specific users, the gradcafe community, and all of rhet/comp). In fact, because ad hominem has been the basis of VM's argument since Day 1, their argument has increasingly been less about the state of academia and more about what they perceive as the morality and intelligence of the individuals in academia. In other words, VM has never been interested in critiquing the state of the academy but calling those of us who aspire to work within its halls unethical fools. So yeah, that's gonna rub people the wrong way. 

ComeBackZinc regularly warned users of the perilous nature of the job market and urge folks to abandon ship if they had another job possibility. His argument was, while not always well received, at least tolerated because he never attacked the users on the board, our choices, or our fields of study. His argument remained focused on the state of the university itself, in both style and content, and thus he presented a much more persuasive argument. 

While you're performing your trenchant rhetorical analysis, could you please stop gendering my comments? I know it's difficult to conceive of a female academic expressing her anger, but I would appreciate it if you stopped turning me into a man. Drop the gendered pronouns or get them right, especially if you want to start throwing around accusations of ad hominem attacks.  

[ProfLorax]

 

While you're performing your trenchant rhetorical analysis, could you please stop gendering my comments? I know it's difficult to conceive of a female academic expressing her anger, but I would appreciate it if you stopped turning me into a man. Drop the gendered pronouns or get them right, especially if you want to start throwing around accusations of ad hominem attacks.  

 

 

Fair point. I actually noticed what I was doing and utilized the gender neutral "they" as a singular pronoun, but one "he" slipped through. Thanks for pointing out my problematic assumptions! (Seriously. I appreciate it.) My apologies. 

[__________________________]

Fascinating that the number I put forward has vanished among all this navel-gazing--the current number of tenure-track jobs available within the entire discipline of English. That number is disgraceful. That number represents economic and emotional pain. That number is a number that the entire discipline should be talking about, and by "talk about" I don't mean the nonsense and totally unhelpful response by the MLA that English PhDs become "connected" (quietly bow out of the profession and figure out some other way to put bread on the table after years of teaching, research, labor). 

I actually completely agree with this -- I do wish we could have a conversation about the realities of the field in these terms instead of just pointing fingers and feeding histrionics with more histrionics and/or eye-rolling.

I'd still like to hear about what people think of the link I posted from the Chronicle.  That there's been a decrease in people entering Ph.D.s in the Arts and Humanities and that some programs have taken the approach of accepting smaller cohorts while others have taken the approach of expanding out of some inclination that they have a duty to preserve the arts and humanities.  What do people think of that?  Really, I'm asking y'all what your opinions are.

I truly don't understand why we have to get so emotional about all this and why we can't actually discuss what's going on without getting taking it so personally.  Personally, I think it makes the most sense to discuss facts without yelling at each other -- emotional appeals and kicking and screaming and critiquing the way we present ourselves on an anonymous forum so quickly reduces the conversation to the level of Youtube commentary.  Isn't it more useful just to talk about what's going on without trying to tell people what to do and feel?  Can we maybe consider doing that?

 

[TakeruK]

You realize you're in the literature and rhetoric forum, right? Like, this is what we do! As any rhetorician will tell you, style and invention (the argument itself) are not separate components to any argument. VM has committed several rhetorical fallacies since coming to this board, including ad hominem (he attacks specific users, the gradcafe community, and all of rhet/comp). In fact, because ad hominem has been the basis of VM's argument since Day 1, their argument has increasingly been less about the state of academia and more about what they perceive as the morality and intelligence of the individuals in academia. In other words, VM has never been interested in critiquing the state of the academy but calling those of us who aspire to work within its halls unethical fools. So yeah, that's gonna rub people the wrong way. 

ComeBackZinc regularly warned users of the perilous nature of the job market and urge folks to abandon ship if they had another job possibility. His argument was, while not always well received, at least tolerated because he never attacked the users on the board, our choices, or our fields of study. His argument remained focused on the state of the university itself, in both style and content, and thus he presented a much more persuasive argument. 

I guess what I do not understand is that it seems that some users of the board are refusing to accept the fact that someone else may have a different opinion and may choose to present it in a way that does not agree with them. I do agree that the style and the content of an argument are not independent and that an argument is both what you say and how you say it. Again, I am not saying people should not disagree with VM (or any other user). Originally, I wrote about my confusion about people discussing the style but I think you have convinced me now that discussing the style is as much part of interpreting and responding to VM's argument as discussing the content.

But I am saying that people should stop writing things that tell VM to stop posting, or writing things that tell VM to write their argument in a different manner or with a different tone. Again, I think it's a valid part of the analysis of VM's argument to say that "I don't agree with this tone" but if VM is making bad rhetorical choices (in your opinion), it's not really any of our jobs to correct them. 

I see the act of saying "Your argument (style + content) is bad because of X, Y and Z" as different from the act of saying "You should not be expressing your argument because it is bad because of X, Y and Z". The former is okay and good for discussion, but the latter is not, in my opinion.

I'd still like to hear about what people think of the link I posted from the Chronicle.  That there's been a decrease in people entering Ph.D.s in the Arts and Humanities and that some programs have taken the approach of accepting smaller cohorts while others have taken the approach of expanding out of some inclination that they have a duty to preserve the arts and humanities.  What do people think of that?  Really, I'm asking y'all what your opinions are.

I know your post here is about the Arts & Humanities but in the sciences, we have had similar discussions too. I actually do not know if we are facing declining numbers, but certainly our budgets have been smaller or not growing. The question we think about is whether or not we should take fewer PhD students because we know there aren't enough spots for everyone, or if we should keep taking the same amount of PhD students and advocate for more spending on STEM. Some people argue for the former because they believe it is irresponsible for academia to train more PhDs when we know there aren't jobs for graduates. Others argue that we focus on the latter and create more funding to pay for more permanent PhD positions.

Personally, I would go for some hybrid that leaned more heavily on the latter. I am concerned that reducing the number of PhD students via smaller cohorts means that we are taking opportunities away from groups that have a harder time getting these opportunities in the first place. It reduces the diversity of thought as schools and programs are less likely to take risks and accepted non-traditional students if they have less money to take students. I think this applies in both STEM and the Arts & Humanities. 

I think what we should spend a lot more energy and resources on is to advocate for more money to be spent on our fields. I am also fond of a new acronym STEAM where the A is for Arts (and Humanities). I really don't think we should have a divide between STEM vs. Arts & Humanities because both of our fields benefit humanity equally. Unfortunately, as far as I know, I don't see a lot of collaboration between the major organizations of our two fields working together to lobby Congress for more money or to do more Outreach so that people don't think "Literature degrees are useless" or "What's the point of studying the stars when we have bigger problems on Earth" etc. 

So, to respond mollifiedmolloy's last sentence, I don't think expanding because of a sense of duty to preserve one's field is a good idea at all. Instead, we should expand (or at least remain steady) by working harder to 1) reinvent our fields and present ourselves to the general public as useful contributors to society (i.e. outreach! break down the ivory tower) and 2) to advocate and raise more money for our fields so that we can actually support the people we have in the field. For the second part, I think we should also be more creative and move beyond "traditional" sources of funding.

[Romanista]

My first thought on the Chronicle piece is that it's not that big of a deal since the decrease is so small. But, like one of the commenters on that page, I would really like to see how this breaks down in terms of arts vs humanities. My program offers MA, MAT and MFA. In terms of funding and teaching there's very little difference. However, the new cohort is predominantly MFAs. 

I feel like MFAs kind of complicate this job market situation because a lot of them are frank about how they don't want a PhD and are just in school for the time to write. I'm rather skeptical of the point of MFAs in creative writing, in fact I find the idea that one should have a graduate degree to be a writer to be elitist if not condescending toward so called "uneducated" writers. But that's a different rant, it's just that I don't have many places to vent, what with all the MFAs around.

[__________________________]

To respond to TakeruK,

Yeah it's an interesting debate and I'm not really sure how it breaks down in actual practice.  It seems the two approaches in the article I linked (and what your describing as occuring in STEM) amount to a difference in attempting to (and I'm talking about my perception of the intent here and nothing more) either react to an economic condition by decreasing cohorts or create a positive effect on the market.  Of course my first questions for either of those approaches would be: 1, statistically speaking, in order to actually make a response to the market that would be proportionate, wouldn't hundreds of PhD programs just have to stop taking new students altogether (which could effectively create even more academic unemployment)?  Secondly, what is being done by the programs attempting to expand to make sure they're not just sending out a bunch of people toward inevitable unemployment?

I think what we should spend a lot more energy and resources on is to advocate for more money to be spent on our fields. I am also fond of a new acronym STEAM where the A is for Arts (and Humanities). I really don't think we should have a divide between STEM vs. Arts & Humanities because both of our fields benefit humanity equally. Unfortunately, as far as I know, I don't see a lot of collaboration between the major organizations of our two fields working together to lobby Congress for more money or to do more Outreach so that people don't think "Literature degrees are useless" or "What's the point of studying the stars when we have bigger problems on Earth" etc. 

So, to respond mollifiedmolloy's last sentence, I don't think expanding because of a sense of duty to preserve one's field is a good idea at all. Instead, we should expand (or at least remain steady) by working harder to 1) reinvent our fields and present ourselves to the general public as useful contributors to society (i.e. outreach! break down the ivory tower) and 2) to advocate and raise more money for our fields so that we can actually support the people we have in the field. For the second part, I think we should also be more creative and move beyond "traditional" sources of funding.

I agree with this, but I think when we start thinking about how to actually do this a lot of anxieties come about.  In VM's previous posts we see an anxiety with the humanities being "sold out," with many traditional methodologies being replaced or "zinged up" by trendy practices aping IT (a common fear I've seen/heard with the field of Digital Humanities).  In primary education too, as an English teacher, I've seen schools moving toward emphases on technology or STEM or other more "practical" studies in really, really worrying ways -- not because of inherent problems with interdisciplinarity, but rather because of poor implementation and guiding principles.

That being said, I think really interesting conversations between the humanities and sciences are starting to open up, but it seems to me that these conversations are mostly (from what I've seen) one-sided in that they are dominated by humanists.  That's changing though, I think/hope.  IMO action begins with intellectual exchange.  I also firmly believe that a lot of this takes place outside of the range of university as it is today, though movements towards making higher ed less "ivory towerish" start with making it available to all, and equal access to education and educational reform needs to be perceived as something relevant to everyone involved in education -- which includes academics.

Romanista, I thought the same thing and would love it if someone knew of a study that broke down the statistics more.  My knowledge of stats is rusty too, so I'm not sure how significant the decrease is (though it seemed super tiny to me too)

Edited September 18, 2015 by mollifiedmolloy

[VirtualMessage]

From my perspective, dependence on adjunct labor is the problem at the root of what is undermining the profession. If you address that problem, you solve many of the others. My outrage is that Universities do not have to employ adjunct labor at these unforgivable rates (the national average is now close to 75% NTT), even if they try to excuse the practice as a matter of financial necessity. A generation of administrators & faculty (many occupying both roles) has let this happen because it benefits them. Unfortunately, I do not think efforts to placate Provosts and Deanlets by creating "labs" within humanities departments will address the enrollment problems or the labor problems. Nor do I think that halving the number of entering classes to elite doctoral programs will make a dent. Universities have already demonstrated that they don't really care much about credentials or CVs when it comes to hiring contingent labor, or if they do care, it's not for the reasons we would hope. They'll simply continue to expand intrusive curricular programs that "manage" the adjunct labor under the supervision of the few tenured faculty that remain.  Unless we find some way to restore tenured positions that have a legitimate stake in University governance and the necessary protections to maintain that position, the profession will continue to create precarious contingent positions where job security, fair & equal pay, academic freedom, and the opportunity for real and meaningful advancement are an afterthought, at best. 

[Romanista]

I have a hypothesis: what would happen if one school that did what pretty much all schools did in paying their adjuncts way too little with no benefits, etc, had a decrease in funding from alumni and a decrease in the number of applicants as a result of their profit driven actions?

Would that cause a kind of ripple effect in which the same thing happened at other schools? Could we see a situation in which only some schools mistreat adjuncts, and as a result they suffer in terms of enrollment and funding, which may cause them to rethink their greed?

I'm skeptical because I feel like some students and parents and alumni know what's going on but they still don't really care. But you gotta hope.

Edited September 18, 2015 by Romanista

[dr. t]

From my perspective, dependence on adjunct labor is the problem at the root of what is undermining the profession.

Wait, you see adjunct labor as the disease at the heart of the neoliberal academy rather than another symptom? That doesn't make much sense.

 

 

...crap, I just got dragged in, too, didn't I?

[Dr. Old Bill]

Wait, you see adjunct labor as the disease at the heart of the neoliberal academy rather than another symptom? That doesn't make much sense.

 

 

...crap, I just got dragged in, too, didn't I?

 

[Guest]

I have a hypothesis: what would happen if one school that did what pretty much all schools did in paying their adjuncts way too little with no benefits, etc, had a decrease in funding from alumni and a decrease in the number of applicants as a result of their profit driven actions?

Would that cause a kind of ripple effect in which the same thing happened at other schools? Could we see a situation in which only some schools mistreat adjuncts, and as a result they suffer in terms of enrollment and funding, which may cause them to rethink their greed?

I'm skeptical because I feel like some students and parents and alumni know what's going on but they still don't really care. But you gotta hope.

I think it would go over about as well as telling people they should spend $400 (rather than $40) on a basic pair of jeans because they were made locally and the workers are members of the community who deserve a fair wage. I mean, we already have schools that don't employ adjuncts--usually they're small liberal arts colleges, and they cost $70k a year. (Whether they actually NEED to cost $70k a year is another matter altogether.)

I do believe that people want to do the right thing. But when doing the right thing is so much more expensive than doing the cheaper thing that yields you basically the same result--whether that's shopping at Walmart or going to a large state university where 75% of the classes are taught by adjuncts and grad students--you're going to do the cheaper thing. Unless you are extremely principled or wealthy to begin with. 

[dr. t]

 I mean, we already have schools that don't employ adjuncts--usually they're small liberal arts colleges, and they cost $70k a year.

Well BU is kind of the opposite of a SLC, and last I checked their tuition is around $65k a year, so those two things don't seem to be related (see this). Also, which SLCs don't use adjunct labor?

Edited September 18, 2015 by telkanuru

[TakeruK]

To respond to TakeruK,

Yeah it's an interesting debate and I'm not really sure how it breaks down in actual practice.  It seems the two approaches in the article I linked (and what your describing as occuring in STEM) amount to a difference in attempting to (and I'm talking about my perception of the intent here and nothing more) either react to an economic condition by decreasing cohorts or create a positive effect on the market.  Of course my first questions for either of those approaches would be: 1, statistically speaking, in order to actually make a response to the market that would be proportionate, wouldn't hundreds of PhD programs just have to stop taking new students altogether (which could effectively create even more academic unemployment)?  Secondly, what is being done by the programs attempting to expand to make sure they're not just sending out a bunch of people toward inevitable unemployment?

I agree with this, but I think when we start thinking about how to actually do this a lot of anxieties come about.  In VM's previous posts we see an anxiety with the humanities being "sold out," with many traditional methodologies being replaced or "zinged up" by trendy practices aping IT (a common fear I've seen/heard with the field of Digital Humanities).  In primary education too, as an English teacher, I've seen schools moving toward emphases on technology or STEM or other more "practical" studies in really, really worrying ways -- not because of inherent problems with interdisciplinarity, but rather because of poor implementation and guiding principles.

That being said, I think really interesting conversations between the humanities and sciences are starting to open up, but it seems to me that these conversations are mostly (from what I've seen) one-sided in that they are dominated by humanists.  That's changing though, I think/hope.  IMO action begins with intellectual exchange.  I also firmly believe that a lot of this takes place outside of the range of university as it is today, though movements towards making higher ed less "ivory towerish" start with making it available to all, and equal access to education and educational reform needs to be perceived as something relevant to everyone involved in education -- which includes academics.

Romanista, I thought the same thing and would love it if someone knew of a study that broke down the statistics more.  My knowledge of stats is rusty too, so I'm not sure how significant the decrease is (though it seemed super tiny to me too)

To the first paragraph, I think reducing the amount of admitted students over time would eventually lead to fewer graduates without jobs. Probably not going to remove it entirely but it's still better to make a difference. But also, for some fields, there are plenty of non-academic career paths, so you wouldn't have to stop taking students altogether? The stats that I am familiar with show that the majority of PhD graduates do end up with some form of employment after their degree, just not all academia.

The equivalent to the adjunct problem in my field is the eternal postdoc. Since postdocs are cheaper to hire than research faculty, some programs will just hire more and more postdocs, pay them poorly, offer no benefits etc. in order to keep that research output high. This results in some people working on 3, 4, or 5 postdocs before realising that they will never actually be considered for a faculty or permanent position. My suggested solution would be to treat postdocs as entry level position rather than yet another temporary training position. Drastically reduce the number of postdocs available--many people will graduate with a PhD without a postdoc, but I think I would rather just not do a postdoc (and go for a different career path) rather than find this out after 5-10 years of postdocing.

But I agree with my_muse that I would find it really hard to believe that schools will just choose the more principled and way more expensive path when there is a cheaper alternative right there. 

On regards to "selling out", I suppose this depends on what one means by this. When I say pursuing other sources of funding, I am meaning that scientists should supplement funding from government sources with "non-traditional" means. For example, one non-traditional source would be donations from wealthy individuals. Earlier this summer, a billionaire invested $100 million to fund a 10 year program to search for alien life: http://www.wired.com/2015/07/russian-tycoon-spending-100-million-hunt-aliens/ Compared to decades ago, there are way more educated people in the world. Compared to decades ago, there are way more very wealthy educated people! These people already have a passion for learning and I think it's important to talk to them and get them to patronize our work. Philanthropists are looking for ways to use their wealth to benefit humankind, and while there are certainly many things that can benefits human, the pursuit of knowledge is still a noble cause. Another non-traditional method would be to employ lobbyists and other people to influence policy makers to better fund our work. I'm not sure if the Arts and Humanities have people doing this type of work, but a growing subfield of scientific work is "Science Policy" where we have scientifically trained academics that then learn about how to influence policy in order to achieve our goals. Our large national organizations employ people whose job is to influence policy for our benefit. This means that some scientists will not be spending the majority of their time directly working on science, but this is a more effective division of labour than having every scientist being part-scientist and part-policy person.

And I definitely agree one of the big first steps is accessibility of higher education and also accessibility of the work we do and the knowledge we produce. Outreach is a really important aspect here. In the above example, we are not going to get philanthropists interested in our work if we are not able to communicate why our knowledge can benefit people. I'm not even talking about "practical" things like engineering, but even the benefit of knowledge for the sake of knowledge. I think all work and all knowledge benefit humankind but it's a challenge to do outreach and convince people of this. But I believe this is as much part of our job as it is to create new knowledge!

In my opinion, I believe that the work we have to do in order to secure funding, do outreach, educate the public, etc. is as much of our "job" as academics as the actual knowledge and research we produce. If some people consider this "selling out" because they only want their field to work on knowledge/research/subject matter itself, then I guess I don't really have anything to say to that. Of course, I want to clarify that I don't imagine one person doing all of these things. But instead, these are the actions and work we must be doing together as a community/field. Each person may do a little bit of each with one primary role. National-level organization is required so that we have some academics doing mostly new research, some academics doing policy, some academics doing education, some academics doing outreach etc. for their primary roles.

[Guest]

Well BU is kind of the opposite of a SLC, and last I checked their tuition is around $65k a year, so those two things don't seem to be related (see this). Also, which SLCs don't use adjunct labor?

Yeah, as soon as I posted that, I knew that someone would come around and nitpick. What I meant to say was that SLACs are *less reliant* on adjuncts and graduate student labor. And they are, on the whole. That doesn't mean they never hire an adjunct.

And also, as I said in the post, their tuition isn't necessarily proportionate to the cost of instruction anyway. But my point was that people technically do have a way of avoiding schools that heavily exploit adjuncts--and that is to go to a super expensive college where tenured faculty teach 90% of classes. For most people that just isn't feasible.