next »

[baka_janai]

 BTW, there is no logical reason why a Ph.D. in the humanities SHOULD take seven years.  If that's the case (or the norm) that's just one more indication that there's something wrong with the system.

What it tells me is that people are entering into Ph.D. programs without a clue about what they'd actually like to do in their Ph.D. studies.  They're entering as if this were just "the year after their senior year."  And in fact, many of the first year Ph.D. students I met in the US were absolutely clueless, poorly read, and just mindlessly mimicking their professors. 

By contrast, I started my Ph.D. program (at the University of York, UK) only after a couple years of rather intensive reading in my field and considerable (online) technical discussion.  In fact, I first approached potential programs and advisers by writing up an extensive research proposal and shopping that around to people and places I was interested in working with.  Once I found a good match (and they were also comfortable with me) I signed the paperwork and started the program.  No coursework.  No teaching (which wouldn't have been possible anyway because I already had a full-time "tenured" position in Japan).  I just dived into the research and then in the second year presented a body of work for evaluation.  This was deemed sufficiently promising to advance me to formal candidate status and I could start working on my thesis (which is what the "dissertation" is called in the UK) in serious.

Three years later I presented the university with a 500 page thesis and then went through the Viva Voce (the UK version of the defense).  So my program took a total of five years including one spent "communing with the Gods" of my field at UCLA. 

If it's taking people seven years to do Ph.D. research in the humanities in the US (particularly those claiming to be doing a 40+ hour research week), they need to tell the university to "get off their backs" and let them get on with their research. 

[scheherazade]

Relax, Scheherazade! I don't have any advisees and the only students I talk to are undergrads who trust me to give them a first-hand, honest perspective on grad school as I've experienced it. In a conversational setting, I would preface my perspective by saying that it's based only on my narrow personal experience (and hearsay), mostly "looking around" and seeing that the two married couples I knew when I entered  grad school in the humanities were both divorced within two years, and now one of them is in an expensive, soul-crushing child custody battle. Might they have divorced regardless of occupation? Possibly. On the bright side, I do know a "success" story, a friend who is married with a child and in his ninth year of his Ph.D and is now rethinking an academic career because he doesn't want to move to a remote location and pull his kid out of a familiar, good school--plus he's burned out with what he sees as a family-unfriendly environment at every university he's attended compared to other jobs he had (being a somewhat older and more worldly person than the average 20-something grad student in our department).

These are real examples of what grad school in the humanities is like for students with kids. On the other hand, I've heard of people with kids (particularly in the better-paid and shorter science Ph.D. programs) who get along splendidly.

Stupid, perhaps, but based on a handful of real cases on which I base my perspective. If you don't agree or have your own experience or statistics, then why not share them rather than insult people on the forum? Since you're an expert on advising people, maybe you should consider which would be more helpful to "stupid" people like me.

It is "stupid" for a person supposedly training in research to actually cite "looking around" at a "handful of cases" as the basis for any belief at all.  Perhaps you should look around the fora, where there are plenty of us doing academia and parenthood quite well.  This is nothing but your own preconceived notion, for which you have pulled together the barest anecdotal evidence to support, and are now trying to preach to people who know better than you first-hand.

[Post edited for personal attack-mod]

[t_r_b]

Relax, Scheherazade!...

If you don't agree or have your own experience or statistics, then why not share them rather than insult people on the forum? Since you're an expert on advising people, maybe you should consider which would be more helpful to "stupid" people like me.

In general, newbies are quite welcome on these fora, whatever some may say. Collectively, the fora are forgiving of the errors of newbieness, even of rather obnoxious statements like this one.

That said, let me give you some advice: when you enter a new community, and are unfamiliar with the individuals therein, it is a good idea not to make assumptions about said individuals based on a very limited interaction. In this case, you know absolutely nothing about scheherazade's willingness or unwillingness to share her own experiences or to give helpful advice. If you stick around for a while, you may have the good fortune to gain more knowledge in these areas. Avoiding blanket assumptions and accusations now will spare you a bit of embarrassment if and when that happens.

[t_r_b]

BTW, there is no logical reason why a Ph.D. in the humanities SHOULD take seven years.  If that's the case (or the norm) that's just one more indication that there's something wrong with the system.

What it tells me is that people are entering into Ph.D. programs without a clue about what they'd actually like to do in their Ph.D. studies. 

Ah, I'm sensing a theme here: blanket generalization based on negligible knowledge of the topic one is addressing.

baka, the rest of your post demonstrates a broad ignorance of the differences between the UK (especially Oxbridge) and US educational systems, the reasons for those differences, and the costs and benefits of each. When you have learned a bit more about these matters, you will be in a better position to contribute constructively to this conversation.

Now, I certainly agree that PhD programs in the US often take too long. That said, your assessment of the factors that cause this problem is pretty well off the mark, and your assumption that the flaws in the system boil down to a failure to follow the Oxbridge model is, well, just plain wrong.

[lotsoquestions]

The other angle we haven't really brought up is that starry-eyed undergrads who tend to overestimate their own capabilities and underestimate the cruelty of the actual world are likely to be similarly idealistic (unrealistic) about any OTHER career choices they are considering as well.  Everyone who's an IR major assumes that he/she (hu?) is going to be Secretary of State someday.  Nobody ever says, "hopefully I'll get a crappy job in an embassy somewhere in the middle of nowhere and with any luck I'll get dengue fever or some other horrible disease so that I have to be medevacced so I'll be one of the lucky ones that actualy gets to leave before the civil war breaks out."  All the econ majors assume that they will become the President of the World Bank or the IMF, not that they will end up being an accountant or selling insurance in some small town where it snows all the time.  All the lawyers assume they'll end up on the Supreme Court someday -- not being the kind of ambulance chaser whose phone rings at 4 AM because some drunken undergrad is calling them from jail based on the ad they ran in the yellow pages. 
Sometimes I think that an advisor needs to be offer less specific career advice and more advice about how the real world is NOT like the cop shows/medical student shows/lawyer shows you see on TV.

[yellowtractor]

The other angle we haven't really brought up is that starry-eyed undergrads who tend to overestimate their own capabilities and underestimate the cruelty of the actual world are likely to be similarly idealistic (unrealistic) about any OTHER career choices they are considering as well.  Everyone who's an IR major assumes that he/she (hu?) is going to be Secretary of State someday.  Nobody ever says, "hopefully I'll get a crappy job in an embassy somewhere in the middle of nowhere and with any luck I'll get dengue fever or some other horrible disease so that I have to be medevacced so I'll be one of the lucky ones that actualy gets to leave before the civil war breaks out."  All the econ majors assume that they will become the President of the World Bank or the IMF, not that they will end up being an accountant or selling insurance in some small town where it snows all the time.  All the lawyers assume they'll end up on the Supreme Court someday -- not being the kind of ambulance chaser whose phone rings at 4 AM because some drunken undergrad is calling them from jail based on the ad they ran in the yellow pages.

Sadly, this is true.  I just met with a very bright former student of mine who wanted me to advise her on graduate study.  I had to explain to her that even though she has a solid A- average in field as an undergraduate, she may not be competitive at the highest levels if she applies to graduate programs this fall (assuming she doesn't make some major leap forward in her written work between now and then).  She reacted somewhat predictably:  hurt, confusion, anger, more confusion.  I had a lot of explaining to do.

Grade inflation is at least partly to blame for this, but that starry-eyed factor can't be underestimated, as we've discussed many times (elsewhere) on these Fora.

And then there's the economy.  I'm on an SC right now for an entry-level position and we're being blitzed by earnest applicants who would have been advanced assistant and even solid associate-level fodder five years ago.  Most have been adjuncting or VAP-ing for 1-6 years.

[pournelle]

In the context of a discussion built around a general consensus that it is a mistake to go to grad school in the humanities (unless you get into a top program or don't ever need to work), I fail to understand the attacks on greenman for suggesting that it's a mistake to go to grad school if you have children. This additional responsibility would seem only add more weight to the reasons against going to grad school (ie. no future stable employment) that have already been generally accepted on this thread. The idea--raised by Scherazade--that whether a given student has or plans to have kids in grad school should play no role in advice given by caring faculty members to undergrads is simply bizarre. And widening the scope beyond grad school, the many threads/articles on CHE over the years on the issues confronting parents on the tt make too facile a dismissal of the issues involved irresponsible.

[t_r_b]

In the context of a discussion built around a general consensus that it is a mistake to go to grad school in the humanities (unless you get into a top program or don't ever need to work), I fail to understand the attacks on greenman for suggesting that it's a mistake to go to grad school if you have children.

All else being equal, someone with children will have a harder row to hoe in grad school than someone without. This much is true.

The problem with this thinking is that all else is never equal. There are parents whose diligence, creativity, personal responsibility, and general brilliance will make them far more successful in grad school and beyond than most non-parents. And there are non-parents whose lack of direction, perfectionism, lack of imagination, and who knows what else make them far less likely to succeed than most parents.

Parenthood is certainly an important factor in someone's life, of course, and must necessarily factor in to any major career decision, including grad school. But it's hardly the make or break issue that greenman suggested. If you were to pull together a list of reasons why someone should not go to grad school, parenthood (or intended parenthood) in itself would be pretty far from the top. Sure, for most parents in the world, grad school would be a bad idea, but for most human beings, grad school would be a very bad idea. If you are in that tiny tiny minority of people for whom grad school might be a reasonable choice, being (or intending to be) a parent is not necessarily a disqualifier.

[yellowtractor]

All else being equal, someone with children will have a harder row to hoe in grad school than someone without. This much is true.

Also, while in many cultures and work environments children do hoe rows right alongside their parents, this is less true in graduate school or tenure-track academia.

[greenman]

I respect anyone who can do what I do with the additional responsibility of children. I'll leave the issue of parenthood and the sorry state of humanities Ph.D. programs to grad students with children. I will point out, in my defense, that I understand the "Discuss Chronicle Articles" forum as a conversational space (not a space to share our extensive research on grad school) and frequently I and others have relied on our necessarily narrow personal experience (including observations of our work environment--pretty legitimate, I think, but of course I'd take them with a grain of salt) to give advice or offer a perspective on a "discussion" topic on the forums. There's no reason for attacking someone or suggesting they don't deserve a position advising undergrads or researching simply because their generalization from their professional experience contradicts your experience.

Scheherazade, best of wishes with everything in your life, and hopefully you can forgive me my occasional crotchety post and biased generalizations.

[prokraz]

I respect anyone who can do what I do with the additional responsibility of children. I'll leave the issue of parenthood and the sorry state of humanities Ph.D. programs to grad students with children. I will point out, in my defense, that I understand the "Discuss Chronicle Articles" forum as a conversational space (not a space to share our extensive research on grad school) and frequently I and others have relied on our necessarily narrow personal experience (including observations of our work environment--pretty legitimate, I think, but of course I'd take them with a grain of salt) to give advice or offer a perspective on a "discussion" topic on the forums. There's no reason for attacking someone or suggesting they don't deserve a position advising undergrads or researching simply because their generalization from their professional experience contradicts your experience.

Scheherazade, best of wishes with everything in your life, and hopefully you can forgive me my occasional crotchety post and biased generalizations.

Ugh. Chime, I guess. And TRB, I really liked your last post (and absolutely love your moniker).

At the risk of being majorly flamed, there is definitely a bit of cliquishness on these fora (that has been addressed on Rate Your Students and other sites), whereby you're not taken seriously--and/or you get a new one ripped for you if you get a little too uppity--if you don't have at least 1000 posts. This whole deal is an interesting social experiment, and I love the idea of an online "community," but I have to say that it does sometimes feel a bit like high school, with the lowly Frosh (including me) forced to go through initiation, and our own version of the powder puff football game, before we are admitted into the ranks of the "true" forumites. I believe in mutual respect and in observing the stated and unstated (but quickly gleaned) rules and regulations of the fora, but I do feel as if there is a bit of a double standard for newbies and veterans. I just hope this doesn't scare off too many long-time lurkers from weighing in.

That being said, I have learned a lot from the collective wisdom of the stalwarts. :-)

[doctor_torrseal]

BTW, there is no logical reason why a Ph.D. in the humanities SHOULD take seven years.  If that's the case (or the norm) that's just one more indication that there's something wrong with the system.

What it tells me is that people are entering into Ph.D. programs without a clue about what they'd actually like to do in their Ph.D. studies.  They're entering as if this were just "the year after their senior year."  And in fact, many of the first year Ph.D. students I met in the US were absolutely clueless, poorly read, and just mindlessly mimicking their professors. 

By contrast, I started my Ph.D. program (at the University of York, UK) only after a couple years of rather intensive reading in my field and considerable (online) technical discussion.  In fact, I first approached potential programs and advisers by writing up an extensive research proposal and shopping that around to people and places I was interested in working with.  Once I found a good match (and they were also comfortable with me) I signed the paperwork and started the program.  No coursework.  No teaching (which wouldn't have been possible anyway because I already had a full-time "tenured" position in Japan).  I just dived into the research and then in the second year presented a body of work for evaluation.  This was deemed sufficiently promising to advance me to formal candidate status and I could start working on my thesis (which is what the "dissertation" is called in the UK) in serious.

Three years later I presented the university with a 500 page thesis and then went through the Viva Voce (the UK version of the defense).  So my program took a total of five years including one spent "communing with the Gods" of my field at UCLA. 

If it's taking people seven years to do Ph.D. research in the humanities in the US (particularly those claiming to be doing a 40+ hour research week), they need to tell the university to "get off their backs" and let them get on with their research. 

There are a lot of differences between UK and US secondary school, undergrad, and graduate education which your comparison is not taking into account.  And for what it's worth, in my field (a science), UK PhDs who graduate after 3 years are undercooked.  Their graduate school careers have been spent doing only one project, 3 years isn't enough to do it well if it's a complex experimental project, and they haven't learned enough about the rest of the field.  They are generally smart and catch up well, but it is a noticeable problem.

Also, I don't think a 500 page thesis is a selling point!  I recognize 500 typed pages translates to fewer book or journal pages, but theses should be judged by content not volume.  Sometimes (always) it takes longer to write shorter.

7 years is a long time in grad school.  But it is not a fatal problem as long as the student is not paying for the privilege.  Part of the issue is that the student is frequently funded by teaching and that makes doing the research take longer.  But that's life.  It's not so bad if you don't accumulate debt.  You can't legislate TA-ships out of existence without drastically changing university budgets.  One of the things I argued in my earlier post was that maybe people should quit going to grad school and force the universities to face reality, but that doesn't mean we could wave a magic wand and turn the US system into the UK system and live happily ever after.

[erzuliefreda]

No one should pursue graduate education in the humanities except the idle rich, dah-ling. It's far more important that the lesser classes (especially women) remain debt free. Not only will they be morally clean, but they can invest all their resources in raising children (and not bothering the rest of us). Now pass me the Grey Poupon and my Calvin Coolidge biography from the nightstand, would you? I have a lecture to write.

[turnip123]

I think plenty of students are already getting Benton's message.  Some of the smartest people I knew in graduate school in the humanities bagged after two or three years and decided to do something else with their lives.  This was especially true in English and History.  They figured out that a) you can buy things with money; b) they had solid, marketable skills; and c) they didn't have to move to the middle of nowhere for a stable job. 

But I do wonder what Benton means by "the humanities."  I did my PhD in a non-Western MLA / AHA field, and to tell you the truth, I can't believe that some of the people I know are already getting tenure-track jobs with no publications and virtually no teaching experience.  (I, too, got a TT job at an R1 with a pretty thin resume, but not that thin!)  Our particular market will slow down at some point, but for the last few years it's been almost too easy to get a job.

[baka_janai]

baka, the rest of your post demonstrates a broad ignorance of the differences between the UK (especially Oxbridge) and US educational systems, the reasons for those differences, and the costs and benefits of each. When you have learned a bit more about these matters, you will be in a better position to contribute constructively to this conversation.

You're quite right.  I'm as ignorant about the US grad system as US grad students are about the UK grad system.  But I stick by my assertion that there is just no way the "doing the research" for a Ph.D. in the humanities should take seven years. 

In general, the US system is more like doing an apprenticeship for the job of professor.  Grad students are given the opportunities to do many of the same tasks and chores that occupy the daily working life of a professor.  They teach.  They apply for grants.  They work within the system.  This isn't typically the case in the UK system -- and in that sense US programs probably turn out people who are better trained in the business of being a professor.  I suppose it's a matter of opinion as to whether this is what grad school should be about.