Is There a Doctorate in the House?

It is a great cover. Just have a laugh and move on.

I read this cover as a disturbing omen for what my own fate as a new PhD could be. Rather than being smug, like the boy in the picture and like I am taught to by the academics who are training me, I would be pretty depressed to be back at home with no spouse or family of my own with me regardless of what paper I got to mount on my wall. Your article totally misses the sad reality of why so many young students end up in PhD programs rather than working first and why so many put families and other things on hold, only to wind up with very little opportunity on the other side of graduation.

I think there are issues with the cover…yes, getting a Ph.D. usually isn’t for the type of person who was just some average, 3rd place student growing up. The recepient usually isn’t so young with such young parents. But I’m not offended by the main part of this illustration–he is at home, presumably unemployed. That’s the reality of it! The cartoon wouldn’t have worked with a medical degree, and that’s the whole point! (It might have worked with a law degree from certain schools, though.) I think they should have made the guy and his parents older. It would have been even scarier of a cartoon but more apt.

Persons with the Ph.D. are often and perhaps increasingly unemployed. Is that the main point? Learning is not the same as having a degree or award or anything else certifying such presumed learning. Is that another point? An excessive preoccupation with credentials is common and perhaps a bit infantile. Is that yet another point? Some persons are motivated only by extrinsic incentives, and do not pursue scholarly inquiry because of its intrinsic worth. Is that likewise a point? Some persons wear their new degrees on their sleeves? Is that [sigh] yet another point? All of these points are arguably true, but which point(s) is/are the cartoonist trying to make?What is the point? I console myself with the fact that, until the 1990s, the New Yorker was a serious magazine, but, even after it was not, many of us read it in search of the wonderful cartoons that it used to have. It has not been a serious magazine in some time, and most of us now do not even bother to check out its cartoons any more.I wonder why.

Appear to be some overeducated idiots both writing for and reading the Chronicle.

The cover questions both the functional value of this degree in our economy and a recent trend of confusing the awards of encouraged self esteem with those of education. Uncomfortable, yes. Bottom line is it upends the convention that so many here identify with and as such, to not be amused seems normal. But to belittle it in a schoolyard way after dignifying it by devoting an article to it… doesn’t make sense.

Whether the cartoon is meant to be humorous or not seems irrelevant. The expression of the Ph.D-er is the same regardless of intent: smug pride over the degree and no sense of shame over moving back home to make ends meet. If the cartoon is meant to be funny, then the butt of the joke is the haughty and immature (and apparently mediocre) graduate student. If it’s meant to be some sort of reflection of reality, then there seems to be some implication that the “boomerang generation” is somehow responsible and deserving of their own economic hardships, at least when it comes to graduate students. But I suppose this rather condescending and unsympathetic attitude should come as no surprise, seeing as how it is reflected in a wide number of comments as well. As a recent Ph.D-er who has struggled on the job market, who takes little satisfaction in having earned a degree that may not result in financial stability, and who has no parental haven to which to return, the cartoon presupposes a certain type of graduate student that is far from my reality.

What is most annoying here is that the self-satisified Wasp-wannabe twits at the New Yorker, when not pouring over their most recent Lands End catalogue of precious Life-Saver colored candy-summer outfits (that they’ll wear at the “vineyard”) are being criticized by equally self-absorbed, deluded twits from the completely out-of-touch academy who apparently got bored reading their own Pottery Barn catalogs filled with almost-authentic looking plastic floral arrangements and 100% organic cotton slipcovers.Here’s a clue…MOST Americans do not get PhDs and the reasons are myriad; not that ANY of you would ever devote a nano-second to consider the why’s of this inconvenient truth. But here you are in a national forum hissy-fitting each other and risking a chip on those just-manicured nails.The cover IS funny! Laugh, cry, mumble or do whatever it is that you do when reality brushes up against your tofu-greased looking glass. The only sad part is that the cartoon was ONLY on the cover of the New Yorker and not on the front page of every newspaper. Oh yeah and I almost forgot, allegedly we are now the “education” generation.Silly, silly, silly. And to think that our post-boomerang generation have pedestrians like you in the academy to look to for inspiration and guidance.

What in the world makes you think that PhD’s were always excellent students? Getting a PhD certainly requires dedication, hard work, and (I hope) a love of the subject matter. However, I know PLENTY of PhD’s who by their own admission were indifferent students in high school and even as undergraduates before a mentor encouraged them to a love of learning. The cartoon of a young man who never quite grows up is thought-provoking, but there is nothing out-of-line or derogatory about someone who progresses from third-place ribbons to an advanced degree.

I actually know of a Ph.D who graduated in the bottom quarter of his high school class.

Good grief! So much ink wasted by a self-righteous indignation.(May be the cartoonist read some articles in by Thomas Benton?)By the way, did anybody actually open the magazine? There is a short humorous piece on dealing with a college graduate moving back with the parents. Gina Barreca would surely find some more food for moralizing there.

Concurr with 23, 21, and in large part with 15 and 16 I do. I think it’s funny. And the parents certainly have a second car the preppy boy (khakis, sweater) can use. Maybe part of the strength of the cartoon is that it leaves “the point” to the viewer, not even telling us what his Ph D is in.

May I point out that New Yorker covers are not intended to be like the cartoons inside the magazine?

It’s amazing how so many educated, enlightened people lose their sense of humor when they become the butt of the joke. Ditto “have a laugh and move on.”

Get over yourself, and get over the cartoon. It’s a cartoon, get it? And there’s a lot of truth to it – many people with graduate degrees are looking for work. There’s nothing worth over-analyzing here; just look at it, chuckle, and move on.

Yes, the cartoon oversimplifies–it’s a cartoon. And the oversimplification is certainly no more offensive than Gina Barreca’s exploitation of her Italian background. (Why does she not poke fun at the Puerto Rican font of her genes?)The comments–presumably over-representing the PhDs–are themselves a sad comment on the significance of the PhD. Note the misuse of “issue” for “problem”; of “pouring” for “poring.”Let’s face it: we have been producing far too many PhDs, and the quality of scholarship the degree supposedly signifies has been tending steadily downward as graduate departments recruit customers in order to justify their own jobs. Shall we organize a pool for the date of the first dissertation on “The Jersey Shore”?Is hanging the PhD degree on the wall beside the trophies and certificates a slam? Probably. And deservedly so. Academe prizes its titles and accolades instead of intelligence and knowledge. Sixteen or seventeen years ago, I refused an endowed chair as meaningless. The administrators, used to academics who would kill for such empty honors, were stupefied.

Yeah, Gina, you are being oversensitive. Lighten the f*** up.

This cartoon brought to my mind the many, many talented people who earn doctorates in the humanities and other disciplines in which everyone knows there will be no jobs. Where else is there for them to go, one might ask, but back home? Perhaps we should we should all be worrying about what responsibility the academy has for them rather than whether the cover of the New Yorker is “funny.”

With colleges and universities–of whatever stature or reputation–hawking their wares with the latest statistics about how much more a college graduate will (probably) earn compared to a non-grad, it’s understandable that the customer, er, student may have certain expectations. There’s a statistical correlation; that’s not causation, and there are no guarantees. But there are and have been plenty of implied albeit false promises. A cynic might see this as the capstone of the victim’s education. Students and parents who really should know better get sold on the notion that it’s financially “worth it” to go into hock up to the neck. Meanwhile the real point of education, as distinguished from training, is lost. I’ve met recent college grads, not all from mills, who can’t name a book they’re read, except of course the Bible, and most of them are lying about that. And most people believe prostitution is illegal in this country.

I subscribe. My take: cover is gallows humor with intent of sympathy for student/parents and criticism of culture that has created a bad situation. Like many other New Yorker covers, it succeeds as a Rorschach test. Brilliant because ambiguous, relevant, pointed. Some anger in this thread testifies to its success.

What’s really strange is that we don’t say, “Well, Jimmy climbed Mt. Everest. I can’t understand why he can’t find a job.” Just because something is difficult and commands a certain level of respect doesn’t mean it will bring in money. And, really, every jab at Ph.D.’s seems to cause this kind of soreness. Would you rather be a lawyer? I hear nobody jokes about them…

I found the cover lightly amusing, though I don’t think the magazine and artist were trying to make anyone giggle. It does, I suppose, comment that there are many, too many, bright and capable people who believe that simply attaining the Ph.D. will itself open to them the world of satisfaction, glory, and well-being. For most folks, uneducated and superbly educated alike, the rewards don’t simply come like that. So much writing in the Chronicle and the ensuing commentary comes from people whose hopes for glory were dashed upon graduation, crushed that the whole world does not now suddenly revolve around them and their ideas. It’s a darn shame that all that intellect gets wasted in such grumbling. Rather than say, “Behold my lustrous academic credentials which signify and prove my own greatness,” learn to say, “See what I have contributed or am contributing of real value to society.” It’s more than just the achievement of the degree.

Did anybody actually read the article the cartoon complemented, or did everyone just look at the cover?The article is a cute little piece, “Your New College Graduate: A Parents’ Guide,” written in the style of “how to care for your new ferret” (or possibly for a new baby, but the tone was more like for a house pet). It basically addresses the common stereotypes – or truths, if you prefer – about parents dealing with a recent grad. who returns to the nest after commencement, which isn’t at all a recent or novel phenomenon. I also got the impression it was geared more toward parents of undergraduates, not PhDs, so there is a little disconnect between the cover art and the article itself in that way.I also did not at all see smugness or satisfaction in the young man’s face, I saw a sad smile and resignation. Art is all perception, though.I think it’s interesting the artist chose to give him a blank Ph.D., not an associate’s, BA/BS or even a Master’s, and to not indicate his subject area, the clear implication being that a doctorate in any subject is useless these days, and you’ll end up back with your parents. If it had said “Doctor of History” we might see less kicking and screaming, but now everyone with a Ph.D. in any subject jumps in to defend themselves. It’s not an MD or a law degree because doctor/lawyer jokes don’t make sense in this context. New MDs go onto residencies. New lawyers must take the bar exam, then often get clerk-like jobs that don’t usually pay well, but are jobs nonetheless. That’s not really public knowledge, however, so it’d go over the heads of readers.Finally, after I graduated from college (with a BA) I lived with my folks for 2 years, during which time I worked, saved up money, and came to truly appreciate the independence, responsibility and freedom I’d had in college, yet not realized until I was in a different situation. That period was uncomfortable, but it helped me grow and mature as a person, helped me bank up some money, and taught me the value of self-determination and making one’s own way and one’s own decisions in life. I’ve lived on my own now (with my girl) in a faraway state for some time, and I will say that, although I would never repeat the experience of moving back in with my parents, it was instructive and valuable.There are many, many students (some of my advisees included) who have literally spent their whole lives in school: elementary, high school, undergrad., master’s, Ph.D. They graduate with a doctorate at about age 28 and have NEVER been in the world outside the campus (I won’t say ‘the real world’ because everyone’s reality is different). That leads to them having quite a different life view than those of us who have been to college, then left and worked for awhile. I can’t imagine if I was 28-30 and had never been out of school; it would probably have scrambled my brains. The point being, the young man in the cartoon might just not know what to do with himself.

Like anthrogal, I find the cartoon a fairly spot-on depiction of my anxieties as I get closer to completing the PhD. With few jobs and tremendous competition among junior scholars in my social science field, I see the difficulty students in my top 10-ranked program have had in the last two years finding employment. Many are underemployed, barely making ends meet through adjunct gigs and contract work. I know of one highly motivated and decorated recent grad who applied to more than 40 academic and other research jobs and only got one interview. This person ended up in a university staff position making a little more than minimum wage doing a job that required only a BA. After finishing his degree, my partner and I felt like we had won the lottery when my partner was offered an adjunct position at our university. However, the pay is even less than the university minimum GA rate that my partner earned as a grad student teaching the same classes! While I try to keep my hopes high and focus on the positive response to my work thus far, interest does not necessarily lead to employment. With few academic positions being offered in my field, I find myself looking hopefully at government and non-profit positions similar to the one I left to pursue a graduate degree. I worry that the PhD will put me at a disadvantage for these positions now.With student loan debt and no savings to fall back on, my partner and I are like millions of Americans living paycheck to paycheck. If for some reason we had to go a month without income, we would likely end up in the same position as the PhD in this cartoon: unable to afford to live on our own. Our parents have already given us The Talk (“John and Jane’s son had to move back in with them… there’s no shame in it… and if you had to do that, we would understand….) The thought of falling back on my working class parents after they have supported and encouraged me through so many years of school — their hope for me, the first person in the family to graduate from college — fills me with guilt and dread. Talking with my fellow graduate students, I know I’m not alone.

#48 says:”The thought of falling back on my working class parents after they have supported and encouraged me through so many years of school — their hope for me, the first person in the family to graduate from college — fills me with guilt and dread.”This is what bothers me the most, people who really do not know about higher education and its perils (as well as benefits) being told stupid stuff by their advisers. I kind of don’t have sympathy for upper class people who get stuck after grad. school, but for first generation students, it’s often a betrayal of trust when some professor says ‘hey go get a Ph.D.’

I have to say that since earning my letters in December, the phone hasn’t exactly been ringing with offers. But at the rate that boomers with Ph.D.s will soon be leaving this earth – I’m sure I won’t have to wait much longer.

This is hilarious! The article and the comments, I mean. The self-important doctorate-holders above seem to be suffering from narcissistic ego bruises. Sheesh. And dmaratto nailed it. I’m reminded of the old saying, “You buy them books, and buy them books…and all they do is look at the covers.”

I thought the cartoon was about kids never leaving home.

To me the cartoon is very incisive and quite funny. No matter how great your credentials are, you still have to figure out what to do with your life. The irony works precisely because the Ph.D still has meaning. But you still have figure out what to do with your life. The Ph.D alone is not enough. The point can be expanded to all of academic learning. The study and even the comprehension of the world and the human beings in it does not automatically translate to usefulness. Sigh. Would that it were so.

41. Well maybe not, it appears that font vs fount is not so clear- (excerpted from http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002018.html)On to fount/font. My story here is that these two nouns, both traceable back to Latin fons ‘spring, fountain’, also specialized, in different directions, with fount tending to be reserved for poetic and metaphorical uses (essentially, a “fancy” shortening of fountain in the extended senses ‘source, hoard’) and font largely reserved for baptismal fonts and similar pools of water. Dictionaries of quotations support this story: Bartlett’s Familiar Quotations (14th ed., 1968) has three cites for fount ‘fountain, source’ and one for font ‘pool’ (from Tennyson’s The Princess); the Oxford Dictionary of Quotations (3rd. ed., 1979) has one cite for fount ‘fountain, source’ and two for font (the Tennyson, plus one for a baptismal font); and the Chambers Dictionary of Quotations (1996) has one metaphorical fount (of pride) and the Tennyson “Nor winks the gold fin in the porphyry font”.Still, the cites in the larger dictionaries indicate that over the years there have been occasional metaphorical uses of font, which now seem to be overtaking fount at a great rate (from AHD4: “She was a font of wisdom and good sense”). This should not be entirely surprising, since fount is so strikingly “poetic” in tone, while font has concrete uses, with reference to baptismal fonts and, most important, to type fonts. The font of type font has a different history from the occurrences of font I’ve been talking about, but since the advent of computer typesetting and word processors, pretty much everybody has become (only too) familiar with the word. It’s familiar and frequent, and even though it doesn’t make perfect sense in expressions like font of wisdom, it has those other virtues; after all, fount doesn’t make a lot of sense, either. (To make all of this even more complex, apparently British usage favored type fount until fairly recently, when the American usage with font swamped it. This suggests that metaphorical uses of font originated mostly in the U.S.) It’s also possible that baptismal font, with its associations to beginnings, contributed to the spread of metaphorical font.In any case, we’ve now reached the state where lots of speakers, especially Americans and especially younger ones, use only font for the metaphorical senses and find fount bizarre (and fountain perhaps a bit too literal).Please, eschew grammatical obfuscation at all costs

This may or may not be relevant, but years ago, in an article about Harvard, Alfred Kazin wrote, “Anyone who doesn’t realize his education is inadequate is a goddamned fool.”

Your over analysis of the cover falls into the dreaded category of “inadvertent self-parody.”I don’t think this type of navel gazing is going to convince anyone that folks Ph.Ds are valuable and productive assets to society.

This cartoon made me think a little about my own life. Yep, I am one of those who came back home and finished my Ph.D while living with my mom (after I had not lived at home for over 15 years). I thought I was only home for a while until I quickly finished my degree and found a job. However, things changed and I realized that Mom was very sick. I found what jobs I could, finished my Ph.D, and spent time with her. It’s been a very tough time and it stings a bit to think about the extra time I spent on the degree and having a difficult time finding a job in my field coupled with my Mom losing her battle with cancer. But, I laughed when I saw the picture because my diploma sits rolled up in a tube at Mom’s house. I am sure she would have found this illustration hilarious! I had a great time with my Mom, despite the not so great effects on my career. I’m thankful for that!And the illustration and article did fulfill a purpose in getting people to talk! Very interesting perspectives.

I never saw the appeal of The New Yorker. I can’t believe people find anything within that magazine even remotely interesting. Every once in a while I’ll buy a copy and remember it’s crap.So really, we don’t need a moment of silence.

Wow! It’s amazing how a NYer’s cover about job prospects for the Class of 2010 could morph into this string of disquisitions. Folks, this cover is not about today’s ill-trained Ph.D.’s; it’s about today’s economy!

lulu…thank you

I think you are jealous that Dan Clowes gets to sit around and draw cartoons for a living, haha