next »

[daniel_von_flanagan]

That would be a good start, but I still think professional societies should make it clear to departments that they will not be allowed to accept more PhD candidates, however funded, than the number of annual PhDs, averaged over a period of say five years, from said dept., that have managed to land tt jobs. 

Even if it were possible, this is a spectacularly bad idea, for many reasons.  Here are four:
(1) In many fields, the number of students who make it to the PhD is far smaller than the number admitted, and it is difficult to impossible to predict at admission which applicants will be the successful ones.
(2) How do you measure the number who have landed tt jobs?  I am a success by any measure (full prof at R1 in desirable location), but before coming here I spent over 7 years in a mixture of postdocs, desirable temporary appointments, and undesirable temporary appointments;
(3) Young programs will not be able to grow, old established programs will stagnate;
(4) If a student wants to do advanced study a subject - whether or not it will lead to a job -  and she is qualified to do so, then it is Stalinist to leave the decision of whether she is permitted to do so in the hands of a central beaurocracy.  The American university system is built on increasing opportunity for study, not limiting it. - DvF

[kaysixteen]

I see your argument about the 'anti-American' nature of limiting student slots-- why doesn't this wash with American med and law schools, then?

It is true that rigid quotas based on past success might actually end up leaving some fields below the number of *new* PhDs in any given year, as opposed to newly available tt jobs, but there will likely be for years plenty of existing PhDs in those fields who could be hired, and, when needed, the quotas could be tweaked.

[scheherazade]

I see your argument about the 'anti-American' nature of limiting student slots-- why doesn't this wash with American med and law schools, then?

It is true that rigid quotas based on past success might actually end up leaving some fields below the number of *new* PhDs in any given year, as opposed to newly available tt jobs, but there will likely be for years plenty of existing PhDs in those fields who could be hired, and, when needed, the quotas could be tweaked.

U.S. med and law schools do not tailor their slots to the number of available jobs.  They take a certain number of people - generally the same number - every year.  It does not fluctuate based on job prospects, but rather on the resources of the school.

[case_insensitive]

I see your argument about the 'anti-American' nature of limiting student slots-- why doesn't this wash with American med and law schools, then?

It is true that rigid quotas based on past success might actually end up leaving some fields below the number of *new* PhDs in any given year, as opposed to newly available tt jobs, but there will likely be for years plenty of existing PhDs in those fields who could be hired, and, when needed, the quotas could be tweaked.

U.S. med and law schools do not tailor their slots to the number of available jobs.  They take a certain number of people - generally the same number - every year.  It does not fluctuate based on job prospects, but rather on the resources of the school.

scheherazade is correct. law schools graduate many more lawyers than we actually need. medical schools train a lot of docs but still we end up with shortages in some specialties and in some geographic areas.  it's not driven (at least not in total) by supply and demand - at the school's level.

[namazu]

Another reason med schools haven't made a concerted effort to limit spots is because the forecasts project increased need for doctors.  (Of course, many of these will be needed in regions and specialties that are currently less popular among med school graduates - rural areas, old poor people, etc., as Case noted.)

Here's the AAMC's workforce position paper.
They propose increasing enrollment by 30% from 2002-2012, and if the predictions don't come to pass, then they suggest reducing the number of foreign medical graduates admitted and holding off on expansion programs.

How this has actually played out at the individual school level, I'm not sure.  But I suspect that the AAMC, which administers the MCAT, and also does the residency "Match" every year, has a decent sense of the trends in hiring and labor needs.  Medical doctors (allopathic and osteopathic), with their less-variable curricula/time-to-degree, residency, and licensure requirements, are easier to track than PhDs, and their pathways to employment are usually more clear-cut.  Similarly, the demographics of the country mean that certain health-related trends resulting in need for doctors are pretty safe bets.   

I don't think the AAUP or any of the other college/university organizations has comparable data on the need for professors, nor comparable influence over the recruitment/enrollment of PhDs.

[spork]

Medicine and law operate as guilds -- entry into these professions is limited by the individuals already engaged in them.

[case_insensitive]

I don't think the AAUP or any of the other college/university organizations has comparable data on the need for professors, nor comparable influence over the recruitment/enrollment of PhDs.

I don't know about influence, but we do have comparable data about recruitment/enrollment in PhD programs in my little field.  The numbers are small enough that they are pretty easy to track [between 100 and 200 grads a year].  Our professional association did a report on the problem (too many jobs, not enough grads) recently.

[namazu]

I don't know about influence, but we do have comparable data about recruitment/enrollment in PhD programs in my little field.  The numbers are small enough that they are pretty easy to track [between 100 and 200 grads a year].  Our professional association did a report on the problem (too many jobs, not enough grads) recently.

Yes, that's fair enough.  I made the mistake that you chided someone earlier about, of overgeneralizing to PhD programs as a whole, rather than breaking it down by field.  ;)

Still, in accounting, as in engineering, etc., there are licensure requirements for people who want certain types of jobs, in addition to standard graduate degrees, that make it easier to obtain data, and also generally more standard career paths (though less so, probably, than for medical doctors).  Anthropology PhDs, on the other hand, may look for a TT job (at a CC, a college, or a university) or other academic employment, or work for an international NGO, or go into CRM consulting, or work for a museum, or decide to become medical doctors or lawyers, or...  (Certainly people in professional schools also have options, but by and large they choose alternative paths less frequently, I'd assume - partly by necessity, due to student debt, which is often higher in those professional programs where students aren't funded.)

My point - I guess - is that in fields where the eventual employment outcomes are more diverse (i.e. non-"professional" fields), it is much harder to predict future "need".  At the same time, limiting enrollment in PhD programs based on the expected number of TT job openings is silly/risky for some of the reasons others (e.g. Dan_von_Flan) have mentioned. 

I agree that people ought not be misled about the prospects of landing a TT job, but it's not obvious to me that restricting opportunities for study would necessarily be a good thing.     

[copper]

Medicine and law operate as guilds -- entry into these professions is limited by the individuals already engaged in them.

Doesn't academia operate this way as well?

[case_insensitive]

I don't know about influence, but we do have comparable data about recruitment/enrollment in PhD programs in my little field.  The numbers are small enough that they are pretty easy to track [between 100 and 200 grads a year].  Our professional association did a report on the problem (too many jobs, not enough grads) recently.

Yes, that's fair enough.  I made the mistake that you chided someone earlier about, of overgeneralizing to PhD programs as a whole, rather than breaking it down by field.  ;)

Still, in accounting, as in engineering, etc., there are licensure requirements for people who want certain types of jobs, in addition to standard graduate degrees, that make it easier to obtain data, and also generally more standard career paths (though less so, probably, than for medical doctors).  Anthropology PhDs, on the other hand, may look for a TT job (at a CC, a college, or a university) or other academic employment, or work for an international NGO, or go into CRM consulting, or work for a museum, or decide to become medical doctors or lawyers, or...  (Certainly people in professional schools also have options, but by and large they choose alternative paths less frequently, I'd assume - partly by necessity, due to student debt, which is often higher in those professional programs where students aren't funded.)

My point - I guess - is that in fields where the eventual employment outcomes are more diverse (i.e. non-"professional" fields), it is much harder to predict future "need".  At the same time, limiting enrollment in PhD programs based on the expected number of TT job openings is silly/risky for some of the reasons others (e.g. Dan_von_Flan) have mentioned. 

I agree that people ought not be misled about the prospects of landing a TT job, but it's not obvious to me that restricting opportunities for study would necessarily be a good thing.     

Accounting is a profession (i wouldn't use the word guild, but...).  While the employment outcomes for the PhD program are not very diverse (and therefore fairly easy to predict) the employment outcomes for those with BS and MAc degrees are very diverse. Many study accounting but don't end up being traditional accountants - those accounting skills serve them well in other jobs (management, government, entrepreneurship, etc.). But, back to PhDs... However, the nature of accounting as a profession doesn't really impact the accounting PhD market since the professional certifications don't have a direct bearing on admission, progress or completion of the degree. The PhD degree, more or less, makes one unfit to work inthe profession. It's only a degree for being in academic (with very very few exceptions I can count on one hand).

I don't know if other fields are like this in their market for PhDs, but certainly many aren't, such as engineering and the sciences (some become academics, some research, etc) and anthropology, as you mention.  Though we really only have one real employment market (higher ed), we still have the problem of way too much demand and too little supply.

[namazu]

I don't know if other fields are like this in their market for PhDs, but certainly many aren't, such as engineering and the sciences (some become academics, some research, etc) and anthropology, as you mention.  Though we really only have one real employment market (higher ed), we still have the problem of way too much demand and too little supply.

But isn't that largely because people who study accounting as undergraduates or at the master's level go directly into the profession, leaving fewer people around to continue to the PhD (and perhaps only a small number who enter accounting studies later in order to become professors rather than for another specific professional reason), but still plenty of people to train?  I would think that this is true in some areas of engineering as well, where (at least for a while) a master's degree and professional certification were common exit-points, and the PhD was still relatively uncommon - though degree creep may mean that PhDs are the new master's degrees. 

[daniel_von_flanagan]

I see your argument about the 'anti-American' nature of limiting student slots-- why doesn't this wash with American med and law schools, then?

As others have pointed out, this is a matter of demand at the school level.  You are saying that departments which actually want to bring in students, have the resources to support them, and possibly even a need for them, should not.  The medical profession is accused on occasion of trying to limit the number of graduated doctors in order to keep the demand/supply ration artificially high, but even if these accusations are correct, it is not something one should emulate.

but there will likely be for years plenty of existing PhDs in those fields who could be hired, and, when needed, the quotas could be tweaked.

This assumes that PhDs are interchangable commodities.  The function of a faculty is the propogation, preservation, and generation of knowledge. While any PhD from a proper program should be able to do the propogation and preservation at some minimal level of sufficiency, some are capable of doing far better research than others.  Limits as you suggest almost guarantee that many of the very best people will never have the opportunity to contribute in this way.  Maybe you do not consider this is not important in your field, but I certainly do for miine. - DvF

[malcha]

Also, without regulation at the subfield level such a policy would be meaningless, but controlling not just how many History PhDs can be granted but how many of those can be European, Latin American, Middle Eastern, Ancient, 18th century, social history, intellectual history etc. would be totally impractical (how would you regulate people's interests and preparation at the application level?  and it is notoriously difficult to predict which subfields will be in demand six or seven years down the line), and would have a disastrous effect on the intellectual vitality of the field.

I come from a subfield in which any attempt to set official policies by market demand would quite simply mean the instant demise of the field.  Call me a stupid idealist, but I think that would be a Bad Thing.  By all means make sure that potential grad students are aware of the market forces that will shape and limit their options, but when it comes to market forces I favor a bleak and realistic defiance rather than an abject surrender.

[case_insensitive]

I don't know if other fields are like this in their market for PhDs, but certainly many aren't, such as engineering and the sciences (some become academics, some research, etc) and anthropology, as you mention.  Though we really only have one real employment market (higher ed), we still have the problem of way too much demand and too little supply.

But isn't that largely because people who study accounting as undergraduates or at the master's level go directly into the profession, leaving fewer people around to continue to the PhD (and perhaps only a small number who enter accounting studies later in order to become professors rather than for another specific professional reason), but still plenty of people to train?  I would think that this is true in some areas of engineering as well, where (at least for a while) a master's degree and professional certification were common exit-points, and the PhD was still relatively uncommon - though degree creep may mean that PhDs are the new master's degrees. 

I think many fields have the BS/BA or MS/MA as exit points (thus so many folks who don't go beyond the BA/BA.

However, what I think is driving the lack of supply in accounting PhDs is not that, but rather that many of those who get the BS or BA/MAc in accounting go out and end up with fabulously good paying jobs (on average and certainly for the smart/good performers) so why would they go back to (starve in) graduate school for 5 years to get a job that pays less than they make already with only a few years experience?  Few accountants, it seems, are idealists.

[case_insensitive]

For what it's worth, I don't think regulation is an answer here.

Eventually the market will fix itself. The only problem I see is making sure that folks who decide to pursue graduate study are able to get information that helps them make an informed decision about their future. They need to know what the employment situation is likely to be before making the decision to get the PhD.  Nothing wrong with getting the PhD anyway - everyone is free to have their own reasons, of course - but better to make that decision with full information.