next »

[concordancia]

In my field, placement stats are pretty much like menu prices - if you have to ask, you aren't going to like the answer. The programs with good records make that info readily available on their websites.

I think the same goes for TAing. In my program, we were consistently moved up the ladder, so that everyone taught at least fresh through soph classes and most were able to earn the right to teach a senior seminar before they left. TAing was seen as part of our preparation, not as a necessary service to the department, therefore warm bodies in front of classes was not an incentive to grow the program.

[litcrittr82]

The argument of oversupply on the job market is a valid one. But the 'solution' often offered (cut doctoral programs at second-tier institutions) starts to sound a lot like overpopulation discussions generally: there's just enough of ME/US, and far too many of YOU.

(where ME/US=first-world Westerners/Prestigious PhD grads, and YOU=those third world peasants/2nd tier State Universities, breeding like mink)

The suggestion doesn't seem to be made that Ivy or Oxbridge programs cut back their output, despite the fact that people with humanities PhDs from those institutions don't always get jobs.
Aside from the issue that closing humanities programs at other universities would result in a loss of professorial jobs in those departments, I find this kind of policing rather disturbing in another way.

While private institutions can do what they like, any publicly-funded institution that is offering graduate classes should admit anyone who fulfils the academic criteria (how they choose to pay their tuition is a different issue, that I'm not getting into here: the 'don't take on debt for a humanities PhD' thread is for that). Many people want to pursue graduate study for the value of intellectual development, not because they want to become a university professor. I don't see any value in denying them this opportunity, or for us, as humanities academics, wishing to limit access to the subjects we build our careers around.

The point at issue is the promotion of the humanities PhD as a job credential. This is the issue that, for me, verges into professional irresponsibility, in that students are recruited by assurances that this will get them a job. Those running PhD programs should take the attitude of those who run drama classes: yes, if you want to get good at acting, you will need to devote years of intense study. But having done so doesn't entitle you to a part in a Broadway show. Only a few of you will make it, for the rest it will just be a hobby, something they might pursue in community theatre.
Make this explicit, make it known to potential students as much as it is known to those within the academy (and some of them in fact are in denial, which is part of the problem).
There will still be people who choose to pursue graduate study in the humanities for their own reasons, for the value they feel it adds to their lives. And this should be available to as many people as possible. They just shouldn't be conned into seeing it as a safe career choice.

Perhaps the most accurate post in the thread.

[bijou]

I don't know how many people are interested in hearing from a master's candidate, much less one who is making her first post, but since this post has caused me to reflect on my experiences with grad school, I figure I ought to share.

I'm currently finishing my (terminal) Master's degree in the humanities at a flagship state university.  I arrived here more or less right after finishing my BA.  Since my program was conducted exclusively at the graduate level, I took a teaching position related to my field in another, much larger department. 

Over the past few semesters, I've come to realize the way that things are run in that other department: a handful of the PhD candidates are bright, hardworking people who have picked the right subfield or the right advisor, and with a bit of luck, most of them will end up with jobs, maybe even good ones.  But I've also noticed that, given current trends in the field and in the way universities are run in the U.S., this department is over-admitting people.  I'm pretty sure that they do so in order to have enough instructors to teach the numerous general-education courses that the department offers.  The result is that they've got any number of people who probably shouldn't be PhD candidates, some of whom drop out after completing a Master's, and some of whom continue on -- and who I think will have a hard time finding jobs even when they have their PhD in hand.  Of course, if they admitted less people, I don't know if they'd even have enough to sustain a PhD program, but that's something I'm not qualified to judge.

There's a lot of reasons I've considered getting a PhD.  I enjoy the work I've done thus far in graduate school, and the more I learn, the more I realize I need to learn.  And then there's the issue of the economy, which makes staying in school and continuing to earn a graduate stipend in exchange for teaching work seem like an appealing option.

But in the end, I don't want to play the odds.  (I think) I can get a job in my field or a similar one with my teaching experience or my Master's or some combination of the two -- if not now, then perhaps in a year or two.  In the meantime, I'll get a job somewhere -- I'd say I'd sell memberships at a health club, but aren't such things luxuries in this economic climate? -- doing something.

In the end, I'm grateful for my experience in graduate school.  I listened to my parents' advice about not going to graduate school unless you could do it without taking out loans, so I'm walking away debt-free.  I was given two years to hone my skills within my field and learn more about my discipline, and in the process I also learned how to teach.  But my experience as a terminal Master's student is also somewhat different; if I had had to do it as a PhD candidate from day one, I might never have gone.

[baka_janai]

Outstanding first post! 

[baka_janai]

But don't let that praise go to your head and start applying for Ph.D. programs because people tell you you're brilliant! :  )

[daurousseau]

Hmmm. If you are brilliant to the point where the university will pay you to earn one of their Ph.D.s, it's an offer worth considering.

[litcrittr82]

I don't know how many people are interested in hearing from a master's candidate, much less one who is making her first post, but since this post has caused me to reflect on my experiences with grad school, I figure I ought to share.

I'm currently finishing my (terminal) Master's degree in the humanities at a flagship state university.  I arrived here more or less right after finishing my BA.  Since my program was conducted exclusively at the graduate level, I took a teaching position related to my field in another, much larger department. 

Over the past few semesters, I've come to realize the way that things are run in that other department: a handful of the PhD candidates are bright, hardworking people who have picked the right subfield or the right advisor, and with a bit of luck, most of them will end up with jobs, maybe even good ones.  But I've also noticed that, given current trends in the field and in the way universities are run in the U.S., this department is over-admitting people.  I'm pretty sure that they do so in order to have enough instructors to teach the numerous general-education courses that the department offers.  The result is that they've got any number of people who probably shouldn't be PhD candidates, some of whom drop out after completing a Master's, and some of whom continue on -- and who I think will have a hard time finding jobs even when they have their PhD in hand.  Of course, if they admitted less people, I don't know if they'd even have enough to sustain a PhD program, but that's something I'm not qualified to judge.

There's a lot of reasons I've considered getting a PhD.  I enjoy the work I've done thus far in graduate school, and the more I learn, the more I realize I need to learn.  And then there's the issue of the economy, which makes staying in school and continuing to earn a graduate stipend in exchange for teaching work seem like an appealing option.

But in the end, I don't want to play the odds.  (I think) I can get a job in my field or a similar one with my teaching experience or my Master's or some combination of the two -- if not now, then perhaps in a year or two.  In the meantime, I'll get a job somewhere -- I'd say I'd sell memberships at a health club, but aren't such things luxuries in this economic climate? -- doing something.

In the end, I'm grateful for my experience in graduate school.  I listened to my parents' advice about not going to graduate school unless you could do it without taking out loans, so I'm walking away debt-free.  I was given two years to hone my skills within my field and learn more about my discipline, and in the process I also learned how to teach.  But my experience as a terminal Master's student is also somewhat different; if I had had to do it as a PhD candidate from day one, I might never have gone.

Your experience speaks to a valuable middle-ground between 'just don't go' and idealistically launching oneself into a PhD in the humanities.  A funded terminal MA can be both an excellent learning experience in the field and an excellent way to gauge whether it's worth going on to a PhD and a career in the humanities (or at least an attempt at one).  I would have been dead in the water had I gone into a PhD program straight out of undergrad.

For those of you who are in the position to give real face-to-face advice to students thinking about pursuing an academic career in the humanities, how many suggest looking into a funded terminal MA or even just a year or two in industry as an alternative to either going straight to the PhD or categorical discouragement?       

[lerasmus]

For those of you who are in the position to give real face-to-face advice to students thinking about pursuing an academic career in the humanities, how many suggest looking into a funded terminal MA or even just a year or two in industry as an alternative to either going straight to the PhD or categorical discouragement?       

I'd say a "definite" go on a funded MA, no questions asked. What field it is doesn't matter, as long as you have some interest in it.

If for no other reason (although there are other reasons), it will be an excellent opportunity to meet/network with like-minded individuals who will likely become lifelong friends/collaborators/coworkers/cohabitants/coanythings.

I did a 2 year funded MA for an odd assortment of reasons, but among them was not the idea I was going to be in academia or on the job market. Writing the MA Thesis was one of those "life changing" experiences - I had never tried to organize 200+ pages of my own writing before - which was very useful for me later when working in hi tech (technical documentation, white papers, etc.) Also, the experience of being able to spend a ton of time discussing fairly esoteric things with a small cohort of equivalently esoteric friends without much concern for the "results" (and no concern that I'd "lose my job" by taking risks) is a luxury that you only understand if you work for years in corporate America or the service/retail sector which tends to intellectually reside on the opposite pole.

[dolljepopp]

I don't regret the time or expense/debt pursuing a PhD in a Humanities field has cost.



But then I can say "Fries with that?" in three languages -- "Avec frites?" "Pommes dazu?"


So I should be OK...

[baka_janai]

The beggars (drug addicts?) around the Copenhagen train station seem to be able to manage in five or more languages.  If fact, they seem a LOT like grad students.

[scheherazade]

The beggars (drug addicts?) around the Copenhagen train station seem to be able to manage in five or more languages.  If fact, they seem a LOT like grad students.

I'm leaning towards thinking they are grad students.  It's even tougher to get a job in Europe than it is here.

[baka_janai]

BTW, I always use this story to illustrate (particularly to language majors) the relative lack of value in just knowing multiple languages.  The value comes in having other areas of specialized knowledge/training in connection with language skills, for example, having the skills of a professional translator/interpreter or expertise in language teaching, or the business skills to work in an international context. 

Back on topic, if I had my way, NO ONE would ever be allowed to go directly into grad school without first acquiring some real world experience, preferably in the form of employment in a related field. 

[spork]

Hmmm. If you are brilliant to the point where the university will pay you to earn one of their Ph.D.s, it's an offer worth considering.

I have been one of the luckier ones, but though my doctoral studies were paid for, I was not earning the money that I would have earned had I been a full-time worker.  Prior to my doctoral program, I was earning ~ $40K per year (this was some time ago).  So $40K X six years = an after tax loss of about $160K, plus my employer's retirement plan contributions.  Also, while a doctoral student, I deferred my undergraduate student loans, another cost.

Then there's the fact that I could have become a stone or brick mason and be making far more than I make now, having "educated" myself for free by reading books at home.

[philnotfil]

Just found out that they are condensing departments in my college.  Yay budget cuts. 
What does that have to do with graduate school in the humanities?  My little department has a quantitative focus, the two departments we are merging with are very qualitative.  When we were looking at our new pool of students I noticed that all of the foreign students were from our (former?) department (where native English speakers are the minority).  The two qualitative departments are 99% American-made.
A large number of our foreign students return to the countries that sent them here, effectively removing them from competition for jobs in American academia.  As I ponder further it seems that the fields were jobs are available appear to have many more foreign students than the fields where competition is cut-throat. 

Do the job markets in fields with large numbers of foreign students benefit from those students returning to their home countries?

[mignon]

Bijou,
You're right.  People are being over-admitted.

Our grad program (humanities, non-flagship) over-admits grad students based on the number of TA jobs we must fill.  Also, we're under pressure from the administration to expand (!!) our grad program, for ratings/rankings reasons.