Should I believe doomsayers?

[sethbwa]

Having poked around this forum and grad student blogs, I've encountered a fair deal of doomsaying. They say not to attend a PhD program (in Poli Sci, at least) unless you can attend one of the top 10-20 programs in the country. (Ex: https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/04/16/the-cult-of-the-phd/?utm_term=.1b7ae4a36329)

Now, I've read other opinions on the matter (not least of which, Chris Blattman's expansive article), but nobody has offered a direct refutation of the doomsayers. It's enough to make a prospective student worried.

My academics are solid (3.74 at a top liberal arts college, and 169/166 on the GRE), but I've spent some time "finding my way" and earning cash in the few years since. While I'm confident I can put together a good application, I know the top several programs are out of reach.

That really seems okay, though. Looking at mid- and lower-ranked programs, I have trouble pinpointing the hysteria. Everyone seems fine out of Penn State (USNWR #33), most earning tenure-track, with a few post-docs at reputable schools. Further down the ladder, SUNY Binghamton (#51) grads are gainfully employed, with a few at two-year colleges, and Temple (#65) lists a couple adjuncts, but just as many have rather enviable positions, and the majority seem to do just fine.

Can someone tell me if there's a fire, and where? I know the money is bad (even profs are hardly rolling in it), that you ought to be geographically flexible, and that failing to earn tenure has the potential to be devastating. What else? Is the attrition rate or five-year grad rate worse than I'm envisioning?

Luckily, I have time to explore my interests more. I'm currently on a full-ride to an MBA program at a top-50 university. I'll make the most of the experience, and do something cool (or lucrative) directly afterward. But I know I eventually want to collaborate on research and be in the college classroom. I've always thought it would be in Poli Sci, but if the discipline is just too tough, I'm smart and curious enough to study something else. 

Edited November 14, 2017 by sethbwa

[encyclopediabrown]

The short answer is that, yes, you should absolutely believe the doomsayers. The lower ranked the PhD program on the perceived (totally arbitrary and unfair!) status hierarchy, the lower your chances for academic employment.

The longer answer is that its complicated and probabilistic, not deterministic. The people attending programs below the supposed top 20 are bright and capable. Many of them go on to rewarding careers in a mix of places. Some go on to teach at universities and colleges, others into the private sector, NGOs, or government. However, as a matter of probability, your chances of landing a job as a tenure-track assistant professor gets lower and lower the further you travel down the perceived (again, totally arbitrary and unfair!) status hierarchy. This is understandably frustrating for some, especially because a PhD is a huge investment of time. And in fact, even if you are a first year student at a so-called top ten school your chances of finishing are closer to 50 percent than 100 percent, and your unconditional odds of landing a tenure-track gig are closer to 25 percent than 50 percent! So go in with your eyes open! 

[sethbwa]

"25 cents per day, plus expenses - No case too small."

Thanks for the reply. If what you're saying is true -- I don't doubt you! -- it sounds like I have been overestimating the graduation rate a bit. But again, I look at the placement pages for mid-tier programs, and fail to see the doom-and-gloom. (I included Temple and Binghamton because they have more comprehensive listings, but have checked out several sites.)

In any event, I fully see your point about keeping your options open. Subconsciously, that's probably why I've taken so long. Even if it harms my admission chances, I want to be comfortable in the corporate and research worlds. A PhD isn't the "efficient" path to a non-academic career, but it certainly adds some interesting options. (I'll seriously have to weigh my preference for Poli Sci against the marketability of Econ or Business, though.)

[guest56436]

Placement pages are notoriously inaccurate. They often do not include the scores of people who dropped out, took a VAP/post-doc and never got on the TT, or conflates things.

Yes, you should trust the doom and gloomers. I would personally not attend a program outside of the top 20 (and preferably a top 10 program or CHYMPS). Everyone has their own parameters for risk acceptance though. 

In fact, if I really cared about job prospects and earning money, I wouldn't be doing a Ph.D. It simply isn't worth it if you are driven by 'career' goals. 

[sethbwa]

Comparativist, would your assessment significantly differ from EncyclopediaBrown's? I want to make sure we're not saying the same thing in different tones.

Attrition rate is the piece I was most ignorant about. You're both right: it's not a pretty picture. What exists online corroborates your points. Informal sharing puts it around 50%, and some old data  puts the ten-year (!) grad rate at only 44%, and seemingly half of that in the standard five.

To me, that's the scariest part, though. You're right that the job market is bad compared to other industries. (I see that only one-third get TT directly out of grad school.)

But again,  if you look at Temple and Binghamton's lists --  just as examples -- they include both their TT and non-TT grads. Most seem to be TT. Maybe these programs punch above their weight in terms of placement. Also, many of the placements are at teaching colleges, which I know some see as sub-optimal. (I'd be fine with it.) 

I wonder if the anxiety around getting TT paints a worse picture about employment than actually exists.

Ultimately, as you said, it'll be a matter of personal assessment. I'm quite confident I could get into / succeed at a strong program. When the time comes, I'll evaluate my options professionally. Some people identify as "servants of knowledge and the academy." There must be an upside to feeling so intimate, but I see the professoriat simply as an interesting and noble occupation (like law or public service). How much meaning will I get out of teaching and researching? What will I put up with to do it? Is there sufficient optionality if it doesn't work out?

Edited November 14, 2017 by sethbwa

[dagnabbit]

@sethbwa - I went to one of the schools that you're talking about for undergrad, and I can tell you that:

1. The placement list is not comprehensive. It isn't intentionally deceptive, but you certainly should not take away the idea that most grads get TT jobs.

2. Attrition rates were very high, due in part to lack of funding/resources and higher than average TA/teaching loads.

3. ...and, for the reasons mentioned in #2, the grad students who stuck around were pretty uniformly unhappy and overworked. Of course these are conditions common to all graduate programs, but it's much worse when you have no guaranteed funding/are made to TA for multiple courses per semester/have little access to departmental resources for conferences or otherwise.

My point is that attending a top program not only increases your chances of getting a fancy research job, it increases your chance of getting any job at all (including small teaching schools) and means that you'll likely have a less stressful/financially ruinous time in grad school.

[sethbwa]

6 hours ago, dagnabbit said:

My point is that attending a top program not only increases your chances of getting a fancy research job, it increases your chance of getting any job at all (including small teaching schools) and means that you'll likely have a less stressful/financially ruinous time in grad school.

Thanks, @dagnabbit. That's the piece of insight I was missing. I could take or leave R1 cachet, but I certainly want to minimize the odds of entering my thirties unemployed and stir-crazy.

[puddle]

If the tax bill passes the senate then you've got even more to worry about. I'm ABD but if I was facing 6 years of 7k+ in taxes on a 30k stipend (and that's at a top school), I think I would take a long, hard look at my decision to go to grad school at all. Then thrown in the loss of the student loan interest waiver and you're looking at serious debt through grad school and then a strong chance that you won't end up in academia anyways once you leave. Scary shit.

[CarefreeWritingsontheWall]

In part, I agree with the doomsayers. As everyone has mentioned, the financial situation is a clear issue. Stipends beyond top 20 programs are hardly livable. If you pair completing your PhD with full time work, then you're looking at taking significantly longer to complete your degree and the added stress of trying to make ends meet. The tax bill obviously adds to that burden - and whether even top 10 programs will step in to top up stipends to compensate for the 10-15k loss in income that could arise is yet to be seen (and highly unlike when one thinks that even at Harvard, Princeton or Yale, that would look something like 10k extra for at least 2500 students - of which more would still go to taxes. Sigh). Obviously the financial and reputation based arguments side with the doomsayers. At the same time, you will have an uphill battle on the academic job market coming out of a smaller, less renowned institutions. The people you'll network with may not be as influential as others in the field. You'll undoubtedly have greater restrictions on funding and grant opportunities as well. This all sets up the potential to be at a significant disadvantage when you're on the market. 

That said, fit is everything. Attending a department where advisors actually seek to mentor and teach is crucial - and you won't always find that at some of the top programs. Personally, if I had accepted an offer at a program that looked less prestigious on paper (in terms of rankings and name value), I think I would be happier because my advisors would have an open door policy and be more accessible. Would my work be better? It's hard to say but I think I would feel more in control of what I'm doing than where I am (top-3). I was incredibly torn about my decision because I felt a much better connection with prospective advisors at two alternative programs. Now that I picked a program based on reputation instead of connections, it's up to me to break the barrier, or at least do the work I can to build relationships with some pretty inaccessible PIs. Mentorship in this field is everything and when you don't have it your work can become pretty miserable (and even then, the powerful influential people may not even have your back on the job market). 

 

[encyclopediabrown]

The point carefree makes about fit and good advisors is important and carefree’s posts here are always smart — but the post could also be slightly misleading. In my view you shouldn’t read that post and think “if I go to a low ranked program and have supportive advisors I’ll be fine.” Of course that’s not what carefree says but it could be misread that way. Sadly, supportive advisors and a good dissertation aren’t sufficient to get you a tenure track job. And unfair and arbitrary as it is, program prestige will help up your odds.

What do the odds look like? I entered a program in the top 5 in the usnwr 7-8 years ago. (I think I was admitted by mistake!) Among my cohort about 65 percent have graduated. 30 percent overall are in tenure track jobs, 20 percent have graduated and taken non-academic jobs, another 15 pct in post docs and VAPs, the rest dropped out or are still in school.

[sethbwa]

Thanks, @encyclopediabrown. I think I read carefree's post with the proportionality they intended. The odds of leaving a program or not working in academia aren't too concerning to me. Even though they aren't efficient life paths, none of those sub-optimal results would make me feel like a failure (more than temporarily! ). I'll be happy that I took a shot at something I wanted. Either I'll have learned it wasn't for me, or I won't have gotten a job, in which case research/consulting isn't a bad way to make a living.

This thread has definitely moved my sights up the USNWR rankings. Carefree's points about the professional effects are most persuasive.

On 11/17/2017 at 5:57 PM, CarefreeWritingsontheWall said:

Obviously the financial and reputation based arguments side with the doomsayers. At the same time, you will have an uphill battle on the academic job market coming out of a smaller, less renowned institutions. The people you'll network with may not be as influential as others in the field. You'll undoubtedly have greater restrictions on funding and grant opportunities as well. This all sets up the potential to be at a significant disadvantage when you're on the market. 

Relatedly, while I initially held up job placement out of Temple as a positive example, I'm beginning to see how working at a two-year or a teaching college isn't an ideal result. It's not that the work wouldn't be meaningful. (My role model is a community college prof.) It's simply that if I bust my ass on research for 5+ years, I'll want to be able to continue and use it in my job. Working at a two-year college would be a wonderful consolation prize, but it's not the goal. To me, at least, its value-added over teaching high school wouldn't be worth the extra investment.

Judging by what you know of my profile (in the first post), would you advise me to shoot for some top 10 programs? I have trouble believing I'd be competitive, because to this point, my life has not been oriented toward earning a Ph.D. But I can make a credible case for my earnestness, and my academics are certainly up to snuff.

 

[deutsch1997bw]

5 hours ago, sethbwa said:

Judging by what you know of my profile (in the first post), would you advise me to shoot for some top 10 programs? I have trouble believing I'd be competitive, because to this point, my life has not been oriented toward earning a Ph.D. But I can make a credible case for my earnestness, and my academics are certainly up to snuff.

 

I've not been a part of this conversation, but I think you should apply to some top 10 programs. Your GRE scores are really excellent. I know it isn't all about the GRE, but your scores are clearly within the range of those who tend to get accepted into top programs.

Edited November 19, 2017 by deutsch1997bw

[CarefreeWritingsontheWall]

8 hours ago, sethbwa said:

Thanks, @encyclopediabrown. I think I read carefree's post with the proportionality they intended. The odds of leaving a program or not working in academia aren't too concerning to me. Even though they aren't efficient life paths, none of those sub-optimal results would make me feel like a failure (more than temporarily! ). I'll be happy that I took a shot at something I wanted. Either I'll have learned it wasn't for me, or I won't have gotten a job, in which case research/consulting isn't a bad way to make a living.

This thread has definitely moved my sights up the USNWR rankings. Carefree's points about the professional effects are most persuasive.

Relatedly, while I initially held up job placement out of Temple as a positive example, I'm beginning to see how working at a two-year or a teaching college isn't an ideal result. It's not that the work wouldn't be meaningful. (My role model is a community college prof.) It's simply that if I bust my ass on research for 5+ years, I'll want to be able to continue and use it in my job. Working at a two-year college would be a wonderful consolation prize, but it's not the goal. To me, at least, its value-added over teaching high school wouldn't be worth the extra investment.

Judging by what you know of my profile (in the first post), would you advise me to shoot for some top 10 programs? I have trouble believing I'd be competitive, because to this point, my life has not been oriented toward earning a Ph.D. But I can make a credible case for my earnestness, and my academics are certainly up to snuff.

 

I think you have a solid shot - your GRE scores are higher than mine by multiple points and I got into a top 3. What matters is selling your desire to do research and pick up the skills top 10 institutions offer.