My final thoughts about alternative careers for English Ph.D.’s are obviously the most radical, and I’ve expressed them before in an article in The Chronicle about graduate admissions. I begin with a brief post from the Web site of the Department of English, University of Wisconsin at Stevens Point that neatly distills information readily available from a variety of MLA sources:
“The MLA (Modern Language Association) carefully tracks statistics pertaining to degree achievement, job offerings and job placement in U.S. English departments. You can access their reports online at www.mla.org.
According to the MLA’s “Midyear Report on the 2009-10 Job Information List,” about 1,000 people have earned a Ph.D. in English each year since 1995. Meanwhile, about 400 tenure-track jobs in English have been available each year (plus or minus 50 to 100). The discrepancy between these two numbers means that the market for tenure-track academic jobs in English is very competitive, and has been for some time. On the other hand, the vast majority of English Ph.D.’s find jobs of some kind. The MLA’s most recent survey of Ph.D. placement indicates that of those who earned a Ph.D. in 2004:
49.4 percent found tenure-track jobs
20.5 percent found full-time non-tenure-track teaching positions
8.7 percent found other types of academic jobs (i.e., administration)
6.7 percent found jobs outside higher education
6.1 percent found part-time non-tenure-track teaching positions
5.2 percent were awarded postgraduate fellowships to continue their research
3.3 percent were unemployed
While no one can reliably predict the future of the job market in this or any other field, shrinking budgets for education (especially in the public sector) suggest that this situation is not likely to improve right away. While there are things you can do to strengthen your prospects of landing a tenure-track job, there is nothing you can do to guarantee that outcome. Numerous brilliant, talented English Ph.D.’s fail to get hired into the kinds of positions for which they have qualified themselves. Also, because jobs are scarce, few Ph.D.s can pick and choose among locations, and must be flexible about where they will live.
Many aspects of graduate school are fun and rewarding in and for themselves, but others are not. Students sometimes become embittered when they feel they have sacrificed years of their lives for an uncertain outcome. It’s only fair that you get these facts now.”
Breaking down these numbers is certainly discouraging. The facts that jump out at me are that fewer than half of all Ph.D.’s find tenure-track jobs. This is simply an issue of supply and demand. If English departments across the country consistently produce more than twice the number of Ph.D.’s as there are tenure-track jobs, we should hardly be surprised at the 49.4-percent placement rate. That leaves more than 26 percent of Ph.D.’s in non-tenure-track teaching positions, a goal to which no one getting an English Ph.D. aspires. After investing an average of 9.5 years earning the terminal degree, English graduate students want careers (appointments culminating in tenure), not makeshift jobs. Thanks to the efforts of people such as Paula Chambers, and her organization TheVersaitlePh.D., the number of English Ph.D.s thriving in non-academic jobs may well increase, but for the past 15 years they have been quite dismal.
In my article, I floated the idea that we (that is we English departments) simply stop admitting Ph.D.’s until the supply and demand ratios even out. I’ve since come to my senses and would like to close by qualifying that recommendation with a few speculative questions.
Since the MLA is not a regulatory organization, individual departments, or in some cases state governments (it happened in Ohio) would have to make these radical decisions. So how likely is it that Harvard or Stanford would suspend Ph.D. admissions? By the same token, why would an aspiring university curtail its advancement up the academic food chain by doing the same? Indeed, the trend seems to be moving in the opposite direction. While most academics still refer to the Carnegie Commissions top rank as “Research I” universities, it’s worth noting that in 2000, the Commission itself changed that Category to “Doctoral/Research Universities—extensive,” only tightening the connection between a university’s prestige and the number of its Ph.D. programs.
A corollary question: Can an institution fairly represent itself as a research university if it temporarily suspends its English Ph.D. program? Finally, and most alarmingly, what if English departments voluntarily suspend their Ph.D. programs only to discover, perhaps several years from now, that their home universities won’t let them have those programs back? So I’m now willing to concede that there are no easy solutions. I will say, though, that the problem is not a crisis, but rather the norm in our profession. As such, we have to find some long-term way to deal with it.

