next »

[the_myth]

I have a question - how many humanities fields require a masters degree for entry to the PhD?

My social science field requires a masters before admittance (typically from a different school, and the PhD requires an additional 2 years of coursework).

It seems to me that many humanities PhDs enter a program directly out of undergrad, without any work experience, etc. So school is all they know - so they keep slogging away at it until they finish.

I wish more college advisers would encourage their liberal arts students to pursue a "practical" masters degree - lots of history majors could do quite well in a public policy program; lots of English majors would be great in a communications or journalism field.

Or, maybe humanities PhD programs should place more emphasis on having "real" job experience before coming into the program. Perhaps that would cut down on people coming straight through. Once that English student who "really loves to read" makes a few paychecks, getting a PhD might not be their #1 priority anymore.

First bolded item:  the motivation is financial.  In most serious programs, terminal MA students pay tuition.  You have to express an interest in doing the full MA/PhD route in order to be eligible for scholarships, RAships and TAships.  

Second item:  this is a bit like saying that a sociologist could jump right into a program in anthropology.  Communications, journalism and English lit really are three distinct disciplines with very different training and methodologies.  Yes, we all "write," but I doubt I could have even gotten into a grad program for Comm or journalism.  Critical theory tends to separate English lit studies even more.  I'm not saying that's a good thing -- it's just how things are.

Whereas my interdisciplinary background made me a candidate for Communication, Anthropology, Sociology, Journalism, English Literature and Composition.

I eventually chose Communication, but I'm not a journalist [outsiders often conflate he two].  I can teach the basics of most of those other disciplines [depending on specific requirements about previous coursework], but I doubt I would be hired in any professional capicity in the nonacademic sides of those fields.

Previously ["in the good old days"], just being able to write well was the entry-level necessity for a job in, say, journalism.  Not any more.

[pedanterast]

I never knew Accounting [which I always considered to be a professional degree.  Is it a humanities field?] had a Ph.D.! 

I wonder how many actual accountants know this.  [I should ask my brother-in-law.]

Any degreed accountant with an IQ above 50 would certainly know that PhDs in accounting exist.  I have a master's in accounting and no PhD and I'm making around $80k without summer work.  I have 18 graduate hours in a second discipline which helped me get the job but so far the demand for me to teach accounting has meant I've never taught the second discipline at my current school (large state R1).

[the_myth]

.... the golden hubris of youth.

In a phrase, Yellowtractor has explained the key reason behind the oversupply.

Few 22 year olds investigate the job market in the humanities well enough, and if they are warned about the terrible oversupply, figure it doesn't apply to them.  So they enter PhD programs.

But there isn't an "oversupply" per se.  It's only an "oversupply" of workers for tenure-stream jobs [in most specialties].

And, there already is a "class" of faculty out there working for $30K:  adjuncts.

And often those adjuncts teach 5-10 courses a term just to make that annual income of $30K.

That the academy took advantage of the recent "second baby boom" to over-enroll, exploit adjuncts, and flood the system with unqualified degree candidate for all degrees has really made a mess of things.

[scheherazade]

I get what you're saying, YT, and I respect that.  Certainly more advisors should do everything they can to enlighten potential grad students.  I did not get such advice as an undergrad, and I feel lucky that before I actually embarked upon grad school, I found the fora and other sources that gave me better guidance.  I imagine that of the many grad students that don't finish or don't get jobs, a good percentage suffer from "this isn't what I thought it would be!"  However, there are some people that have a habit of telling every person considering grad studies in the humanities that they are stupid for considering it.  That's a bit much (and I recognize you aren't in that category, YT).

And thank you.  I do rock, if I do say so myself.  ;)

Licaone, as YT says, you're pretty wrong in that last paragraph.  Plus, even if a humanities person gives you the simplified version of what they study, it isn't close to comprehensive, nor does it tell you what particular hoops they jump through to do it.

For example, I could say, "I study early medieval Europe, particularly ecclesiastical history."   I may even expand by saying, "I'm particularly interested in the differing forms of the Christian church in the British Isles and Ireland and how they later affected Christian practice as a whole, as well as the social structures of those communities."  A non-humanities person will think that's a relatively comprehensive explanation.   It isn't, not even close.  Additionally, I'm betting that a non-humanities person would have no (accurate) idea as to how I would go about studying that.  From science people, I get a lot of, "So, you read books on that stuff and then write about it?"  Uh, no.  I'm not a freshman undergrad.

[aneumey]

The 30k figure is pretty high for adjuncts in a lot of places.  With regard to specialization, I have found that having broad skills (like being able to teach in multiple departments) is a golden ticket when job hunting.  It certainly helped me land my job.  The thing is, with one exception, I always teach in my "native" area.  Administrators just like knowing that I could cover a lot of courses if we got in a pinch.

[jonesey]

Average starting salary for a new TT prof at a CC in Florida is $33,000/year.  That's with a 5/5 load.  At the local private university (Master's level), you'll start at $40,000/year with a 4/4 load, PhD and "significant publications" required. 

I got my BA and MFA while working full time.  I have never been able to attend college full time in my life (divorced, kids, etc).  Not working has never been an option.  I got my Masters specifically to obtain a FT teaching position at a college or university.  I had a CC in mind because a) I went to a CC and enjoyed it and b) I knew that a PhD was required to teach at a state university (unless I taught Creative Writing, and for that I'd have to have a published novel on my CV).  Unfortunately, I thought that landing a TT CC job was like landing, say, a high school teaching job:  Apply, interview, start work in the Fall. 

Oops. 

So, I took a FT job at a for-profit, which actually pays better than the state unis do where I live.  There's no tenure, but I have zero research and publication requirements (which is good, since I never learned research or academic writing, and fiction publishing is much, much more difficult than academic publishing). 

Why do people go into the Humanities?  Because they love it, and they think they'll love teaching it.  Plus, when you have an English degree, the usual career options are Law School or teaching, and everyone knows that teaching college is much better than teaching high school (and infinitely more respected).   

[polly_mer]

Licaone, as YT says, you're pretty wrong in that last paragraph.  Plus, even if a humanities person gives you the simplified version of what they study, it isn't close to comprehensive, nor does it tell you what particular hoops they jump through to do it.

I think this is exactly the problem.  We all took some humanities courses somewhere so we have a taste of what many of the various humanities areas do.  Many members of the general public continue with a layman's appreciation for some topics and browse books and watch television specials, basically engaging with popularizations of the fields.  That's a lot of fun, but few nonacademic people realize that it is not the same as doing academic research or becoming an expert at a graduate level of proficiency.

On the other hand, almost no one in the general public does anything resembling mathematical or theoretical physics research as a hobby.  People might read Scientific American or watch the Discovery Channel, but they usually realize that what scientists do requires much extra training.  The extra training required for humanities fields is not so evident because "Hey, it's just reading a bunch of books.  How hard is that?"  They don't see the large body of necessary background knowledge and the different ways of thinking that are required to make sense of all that reading.

I think that's also one of the reasons that fewer people major in STEM fields and why many people who don't actually have the necessary passion for a humanity field continue on to graduate school.  One gets slapped in the face pretty early with that specialized training for STEM fields.  However, as an undergraduate in a humanities field, one can hop from subfield to subfield and continue the fun of merely reading and thinking at a layman level without needing to do the hard work of acquiring the tools to become a full-fledged member of the research community.

[mayjohn]

Because the humanities are cooler.  Duh.

Are they cooler, or are they easier?

I don't think it has anything to do with ease but comfort and relevance.

I also don't think that the oversupply starts at the graduate school level. It starts much earlier than that.

Take an 18-year old, messed up from all the head-games in high school, insecure, no real plan with their life, hormones pumping and give them wonderful ideas to work with. They thrive. In the social sciences they identify the issues, see the often unsolvable problems, and immediately see a calling...

Look at Psychology enrollments. Do you think they all want to be therapists because it is cool ?  No, they sit in an intro psych class and they begin to relate everything to their own lives, they diagnose their families and get explanations about human behavior. Suddenly the world begins to make sense. So they stick to that and continue...

Take any of the kids above and throw them in Elementary Physics, Calculus or Computer Science...You think they can relate or give a darn about gravity, derivatives or digital logic?

I think the humanities and social sciences are attractive because they relate at a very personal level they deal with often emotionally charged topics. These are the hooks to these programs...

John

Are you saying physics doesn't make the world make sense?

I think it does but not at an emotional level which is where the kids at 18-22 year olds operate in. Humanities provide insight to the human condition, people, emotions etc..It helps getting a better grip in life and everyday problems.

Physics is a bit more distant, and it is about "things" that students have no control of. In addition, they can get easily consumed by formulas and the mechanics of Physics rather than the big ideas...I can explain obsessive compulsive behavior with two examples and a video clip. To explain the pendulum motion I need a wall clock and three formulas...

Don't get me wrong -- not attaching value, just observing the impact non-science/engineering fields can have to a young mind, very early and very easily is huge...

John

[licaone]

But we've walked through this debate many, many times here, in other threads.   And Licaone:  yes, you're quite wrong, at least in your last paragraph.  But we respect you no less for the error.

Well, it's good to be respected. However I still think that as a general rule humanities are "easier" (more approachable might be a better expression).

My SO is also an academic, she's in the humanities. She is, in many ways, much smarter than I am. I find what she does fascinating. She likes me to read everything she writes, I make comment that mostly make sense, and in a couple of occasions where actually useful to her. She has written a book that was actually sold in (some) non-specialized bookstore, and was bought by some people who where not academics.

On the other hand, what I write is completely incomprehensible to her. This does not mean that what she does is easy, it certainly isn't, but it does prove that it is more approachable, doesn't it?

Licaone, as YT says, you're pretty wrong in that last paragraph.  Plus, even if a humanities person gives you the simplified version of what they study, it isn't close to comprehensive, nor does it tell you what particular hoops they jump through to do it.

For example, I could say, "I study early medieval Europe, particularly ecclesiastical history."   I may even expand by saying, "I'm particularly interested in the differing forms of the Christian church in the British Isles and Ireland and how they later affected Christian practice as a whole, as well as the social structures of those communities."  A non-humanities person will think that's a relatively comprehensive explanation.   It isn't, not even close.  Additionally, I'm betting that a non-humanities person would have no (accurate) idea as to how I would go about studying that.  From science people, I get a lot of, "So, you read books on that stuff and then write about it?"  Uh, no.  I'm not a freshman undergrad.

Look, contrary to what you seem to think, I am not some sort of uncouth scientist who is unable to appreciate that not everything of value is done my way. And I am quite aware that people who do research in the humanities don't "read books on that stuff then write about it". However, the fact that you can give a half-understandable summary of what do you makes a difference: I can't. And therefore an undergraduate might find what you do more appealing than what I do.

[dismalist]

It's not inherent difficulty or ease of field alone that matters--it's the size of extra-academic demand. There is plenty for physicists and accountants, much less for critical theorists.

[scheherazade]

Licaone, I'll bet you could give a brief summary if you wanted to do so, and I'll bet many could understand it.  I have plenty of friends in chem, bio, physics, etc.  All are able to roughly tell me what they do.

No one said you were an uncouth scientist, but I do think that, humanities spouse or not, you don't quite get it.  And that's OK.  Oh, and don't equate the words "easy" and "approachable".  They don't mean the same thing at all.  You'd know that if you were in the humanities.  ;)

[licaone]

Licaone, I'll bet you could give a brief summary if you wanted to do so, and I'll bet many could understand it.  I have plenty of friends in chem, bio, physics, etc.  All are able to roughly tell me what they do.

No one said you were an uncouth scientist, but I do think that, humanities spouse or not, you don't quite get it.  And that's OK.  Oh, and don't equate the words "easy" and "approachable".  They don't mean the same thing at all.  You'd know that if you were in the humanities.  ;)

Well, my use of "easy" was mostly motivated by your use of "cool". Anyway, I do think that humanities are more approachable than hard sciences, in average (there are very large differences among different field), and I also think that this makes a difference in how fascinating they are to college kids. And in this discussion makes me change my mind. Or maybe I just don't get it.

[licaone]

Sorry, I meant to write "And nothing in this discussion makes me change my mind."

[scheherazade]

You don't get it, because you conflate humanities undergrads and dabblers with humanities scholars.  See Polly_Mer's excellent post.  But that's OK, because I don't expect you to get it.

My use of "cool" was, in fact, a joke, based upon the "cooler or easier" comment from the OP.  I don't think you got that, either.  I have not yet argued seriously that the humanities are cooler.  I save that for the AHA meetup.

[prof_smartypants]

Why do people go into the Humanities?  Because they love it, and they think they'll love teaching it.  Plus, when you have an English degree, the usual career options are Law School or teaching, and everyone knows that teaching college is much better than teaching high school (and infinitely more respected).   

I think the conclusion that the only thing for an English major to do to go get a PhD or go to law school is silly. I was an English major as an undergraduate. I graduated, got a job, worked for about 5 years, and decided to go back to school in something completely unrelated.

Perpetuating the idea that people in the humanities are only qualified to continue to do things purely related to the humanities (like teach them) is an insult to liberal arts education.

Lots of 22 year olds go into the humanities because have never had a job, think they are too good for a cubicle, and don't know what else to do. On the other hand, a lot of them go to business school for all the same reasons.

My posts here mostly reflect my deeply held belief that no one should ever go to grad school without working for a few years, and I think the humanities are worse than other fields in allowing this to occur.