next »

[panache]

What prompted that response?  If you are reacting to my post, I am sorry if you are having a bad day, but I do not think my comments warranted your condescending tone. We were just discussing an issue and I offered a possible suggestion for addressing it.  This is what happens on most of the threads in the fora.  I continue to take responsibility for my decision.  As to your reference to a "career failure,"  when I became aware of the situation, I did my homework, assessed my skills, adapted my plan and am now working at an academic job that I love, making twice as much as I would have as a beginning college professor.

I am relatively new to the fora and, until this thread, I have been treated with kindness and respect even during disagreements.  I will move to another thread and hope for the best.

[jonesey]

There are also people, like myself, who were older (early 30's) and went to grad school specifically to make a career change with the goal of teaching college.  I had a corporate job, turned down both law school and MBA programs because I wanted to teach.  I went to grad school, got my masters, and...stayed at the corporate job for another year after graduation because I had no idea about the higher ed job market.  I didn't have any advisors, no clue about any of these things, and thought, naively, that if I had a masters it would be easy to walk on to a CC and get a TT job (I thought it would be similary to, say, getting a high school job). 

Unfortunately, the higher ed job market is made for those (very rare) individuals who knew what they wanted to do at age, oh, 20, and went to the "right" undergrad, grad, and PhD programs straight through.  Higher education is not a place for career changers.  Yes, some of you have done it (as have I; I teach full time at a small college that no one's heard of, but I love it, and I was very lucky, and very poor for awhile). 

It's difficult to tell someone, in their, oh, sophmore year of a BA/BS program, that they need to know exactly what they want to do RIGHT NOW and apply accordingly.  Most people I know are in their upper 30s and are still trying to figure out what they want to do for the rest of their lives.  It's an outdated and insulting notion that academie is only for those savants who were fortunate enough to go to an Ivy or an R1.  Only those few are allowed to teach.  Something I've learned is that a great number of very smart professors form elite institutions can't teach their way out of a paper bag.  I don't envy the job of SC's; how they make the right choice for their institution can't be an easy task.

[epistephiliac]

It's difficult to tell someone, in their, oh, sophmore year of a BA/BS program, that they need to know exactly what they want to do RIGHT NOW and apply accordingly.  Most people I know are in their upper 30s and are still trying to figure out what they want to do for the rest of their lives.  It's an outdated and insulting notion that academie is only for those savants who were fortunate enough to go to an Ivy or an R1.  Only those few are allowed to teach. 

Well, then there are also those of us who had a career, decided in our late 30s to go into academia, are completing a PhD in the early 40s, and already have a t-t job in hand for after graduation.

So generalizing about what one has to know, and when, and the types of people who are "allowed" to have academic careers, is simply not accurate. Especially stating that "higher education is not for career changers" is pretty ridiculous.

[dr_dre]

I would hazard a guess that fields with ultra-tight markets are harder on career changers than other fields are. In History, some people do manage the change, especially into careers at teaching-oriented schools, but the model for jobs at research schools often remains quite narrow. At my grad university, the ideal applicant for a TT spot seems to be 32 or younger, Ivy degree, famous advisors, ABD about to defend, no teaching experience outside TA.

[jonesey]

It's difficult to tell someone, in their, oh, sophmore year of a BA/BS program, that they need to know exactly what they want to do RIGHT NOW and apply accordingly.  Most people I know are in their upper 30s and are still trying to figure out what they want to do for the rest of their lives.  It's an outdated and insulting notion that academie is only for those savants who were fortunate enough to go to an Ivy or an R1.  Only those few are allowed to teach. 

Well, then there are also those of us who had a career, decided in our late 30s to go into academia, are completing a PhD in the early 40s, and already have a t-t job in hand for after graduation.

So generalizing about what one has to know, and when, and the types of people who are "allowed" to have academic careers, is simply not accurate. Especially stating that "higher education is not for career changers" is pretty ridiculous.

Good for you (and I mean that sincerly). However, you must admit, after reading several threads on the CHE, that there is an obvious and overwhelming elitism in academics.  If you were able to quit your career and attend a PhD program full time, that's great.  Most people in their 30's, etc, probably have kids and a spouse/mortgage/etc and quitting work just isn't an option.  

My point is that people like you (and me) are the exception.  That's good that you have a TT job lined up, as it seems from these fora that one in a thousand PhDs ever get a TT job.

Honestly, the CHE should be required reading for grad students.  It'd whittle the numbers down in no time.  : )

[jonesey]

I would hazard a guess that fields with ultra-tight markets are harder on career changers than other fields are. In History, some people do manage the change, especially into careers at teaching-oriented schools, but the model for jobs at research schools often remains quite narrow. At my grad university, the ideal applicant for a TT spot seems to be 32 or younger, Ivy degree, famous advisors, ABD about to defend, no teaching experience outside TA.

I agree.

So, what happens to the 35 year old who returns to school to get his/her PhD in an MLA field from a State University? 

Exactly.

[epistephiliac]

Good for you (and I mean that sincerly). However, you must admit, after reading several threads on the CHE, that there is an obvious and overwhelming elitism in academics.  If you were able to quit your career and attend a PhD program full time, that's great.  Most people in their 30's, etc, probably have kids and a spouse/mortgage/etc and quitting work just isn't an option. 

Some people have some or all of those things and choose to give them up anyway. Some people manage to support themselves by continuing to work for pay outside their studies. Some choose to take on massive debt with the hope of paying it off once they get a job. Some do all of those things to varying degrees. People weigh the sacrifices they are willing to make for an academic career, just like for everything else in life.

Of course getting a PhD is only going to be an option for some people. Not everyone has the drive and desire to get through years of graduate school. Plenty choose not to attempt it, many start and decide it's not really for them, and some get all the way to the end and realize they can't get or don't want a tenure-track job. There are no more guarantees in the academy than in anywhere else.

My point is simply to take issue with the idea that people are necessarily excluded from an academic career because they make their choices later in life.   I'm not some shining star exception to an otherwise general rule, either, believe me. There are just too many variables involved to go around making blanket statements like that.

I think it must be terribly disappointing to find yourself with a PhD and unable to get a job. Seriously--I know how stressed out and anxious I was during the
job search process, and I could at least be fairly hopeful that I would be able to find someone to hire me. But I don't think you can ascribe the difference in our situations to some kind of elitism at work within the academy.

Honestly, the CHE should be required reading for grad students.  It'd whittle the numbers down in no time.  : )

Now this, I agree with. :)

[daniel_von_flanagan]

So, what happens to the 35 year old who returns to school to get his/her PhD in an MLA field from a State University? 

He either gets it or he doesn't, and if he does get it he is not too much less employable than the 26-year-old PhD student from the same program.

There are many careers which are hard to switch into in your 30s or later.  I myself think it would be interesting to be an astronaut or a CEO of a Fortune-500 company. 

The idea that career options should be open throughout one's life is attractive, but is also both very American and very recent.  The reality (outside of utopias like Island or cacatopias like Shockwave Rider) is that the system is optimized for people who do in fact decide on their life's career at an early age. - DvF

[buglet]

So all this said, is it unethical for disciplines with huge oversupply (history, English, etc) to offer graduate programs at all, knowing full well that there are no jobs?  Perhaps only the ivies should offer graduate degrees in the humanities and then severely limit enrollment.  Do then those of us in disciplines that are oversubscribed have a duty to discourage actively any of our students from attending graduate school? 

Medical schools limit enrollment and make it fantastically competitive for good reason--it makes their graduates more valuable.  Perhaps the humanities fields could take a lesson.  What do you think?

[sibyl]

So all this said, is it unethical for disciplines with huge oversupply (history, English, etc) to offer graduate programs at all, knowing full well that there are no jobs? 

I don't know whether it's unethical.  Is it unethical for teachers to offer acting classes or screenwriting classes, knowing full well that there are no jobs?  I am inclined to think that ethics does not enter into the decision to teach.  I think that the ethics comes when you conceal from students how hard it is to get a job.  Which leads me to...

Perhaps only the ivies should offer graduate degrees in the humanities and then severely limit enrollment.  Do then those of us in disciplines that are oversubscribed have a duty to discourage actively any of our students from attending graduate school? 

Yes, we do.  Or at least to impress upon them how hard it is to get a job, and that they will have to be ready to put up with lots of obstacles to get a job.

Medical schools limit enrollment and make it fantastically competitive for good reason--it makes their graduates more valuable.  Perhaps the humanities fields could take a lesson.  What do you think?

Demand for Ph.D.s is low, but demand for graduate students is high, because they teach classes for the university at a low rate and sometimes generate tuition and other revenues.  This mitigates the desire of humanities departments to reduce their graduate admissions.

[buglet]

So all this said, is it unethical for disciplines with huge oversupply (history, English, etc) to offer graduate programs at all, knowing full well that there are no jobs? 

I don't know whether it's unethical.  Is it unethical for teachers to offer acting classes or screenwriting classes, knowing full well that there are no jobs?  I am inclined to think that ethics does not enter into the decision to teach.  I think that the ethics comes when you conceal from students how hard it is to get a job.  Which leads me to...

Perhaps only the ivies should offer graduate degrees in the humanities and then severely limit enrollment.  Do then those of us in disciplines that are oversubscribed have a duty to discourage actively any of our students from attending graduate school? 

Yes, we do.  Or at least to impress upon them how hard it is to get a job, and that they will have to be ready to put up with lots of obstacles to get a job.

Medical schools limit enrollment and make it fantastically competitive for good reason--it makes their graduates more valuable.  Perhaps the humanities fields could take a lesson.  What do you think?

Demand for Ph.D.s is low, but demand for graduate students is high, because they teach classes for the university at a low rate and sometimes generate tuition and other revenues.  This mitigates the desire of humanities departments to reduce their graduate admissions.

So, we continue to have graduate programs because there is a demand for graduate students' cheap labor.  Which makes our tenured jobs easier, so we have every interest in the world for keeping it as it is.  Doesn't sound the most ethical to me.

[jonesey]

The idea that career options should be open throughout one's life is attractive, but is also both very American and very recent.  The reality (outside of utopias like Island or cacatopias like Shockwave Rider) is that the system is optimized for people who do in fact decide on their life's career at an early age. - DvF

Very good point.  A bit sad, because, really, I don't know anyone who a)knew what they wanted to do when they were 18-22 and b)I don't know anyone who is actually doing the same job/career field that they were when they graduated from college (which, for most of my friends, was about 1992...)

[untenured]

So all this said, is it unethical for disciplines with huge oversupply (history, English, etc) to offer graduate programs at all, knowing full well that there are no jobs? 

I don't know whether it's unethical.  Is it unethical for teachers to offer acting classes or screenwriting classes, knowing full well that there are no jobs?  I am inclined to think that ethics does not enter into the decision to teach.  I think that the ethics comes when you conceal from students how hard it is to get a job.  Which leads me to...

Perhaps only the ivies should offer graduate degrees in the humanities and then severely limit enrollment.  Do then those of us in disciplines that are oversubscribed have a duty to discourage actively any of our students from attending graduate school? 

Yes, we do.  Or at least to impress upon them how hard it is to get a job, and that they will have to be ready to put up with lots of obstacles to get a job.

Medical schools limit enrollment and make it fantastically competitive for good reason--it makes their graduates more valuable.  Perhaps the humanities fields could take a lesson.  What do you think?

Demand for Ph.D.s is low, but demand for graduate students is high, because they teach classes for the university at a low rate and sometimes generate tuition and other revenues.  This mitigates the desire of humanities departments to reduce their graduate admissions.

So, we continue to have graduate programs because there is a demand for graduate students' cheap labor.  Which makes our tenured jobs easier, so we have every interest in the world for keeping it as it is.  Doesn't sound the most ethical to me.

The current situation is certainly problematic.  Graduate programs admit applicants in programs where jobs are highly competitive.  The alternative, however, is even worse.  Imagine the frustration any one of us would have felt if we were told by our respective alma maters that, "well, yes you are academically qualified to enroll in our Ph.D. program.  The market is just too competitive.  Since we know better than you do how to run your life, we won't admit you into the program.  Sorry!"

Untenured