100 Reasons NOT To Go To Graduate School

100 Reasons NOT to Go to Graduate School
http://100rsns.blogspot.com/2011/04/55-there-are-too-many-phds.html
This blog is an attempt to offer those considering graduate school some good reasons to do
something else. Its focus is on the humanities and social sciences. The full list of 100 reasons
will be posted in time. Your comments and suggestions are welcome.
Monday, April 18, 2011

55. There are too many PhDs.
The reason that there are so few jobs to be found in academe (see Reason 8) is not because there
are too few colleges, universities, departments, or programs. If anything, there are too many. The
problem is that the number of available jobs is vastly outnumbered by the number of people
applying for them. There are simply too many PhDs produced every year for the higher
education establishment to absorb them all, despite the absurd degree to which it has absorbed
them into jobs that have nothing to do with traditional research and teaching. Today, universities
hire doctors of philosophy to be in charge of their dormitories, alumni associations, and police
departments.
Colleges benefit from this situation, because there are so many well-credentialed people
desperate for teaching positions that they will work for very little money. This would not be such
a problem if the world outside of academe had more use for people with PhDs (see Reason 29).
The fact that it does not is why there are so many people with doctorates who now find
themselves working in part-time temporary teaching positions with no benefits (see Reason 14).
A new report from the American Association of University Professors describes the situation:
In all, graduate student employees and faculty members serving in contingent appointments now
make up more than 75 percent of the total instructional staff. The most rapid growth has been
among part-time faculty members, whose numbers swelled by more than 280 percent between
1975 and 2009. Between 2007 and 2009, the numbers of full-time non-tenure-track faculty
members and part-time faculty members each grew at least 6 percent. During the same period,
tenured positions grew by only 2.4 percent and tenure-track appointments increased by a
minuscule 0.3 percent. These increases in the number of faculty appointments have taken place
against the background of an overall 12 percent increase in higher education enrollment in just
those two years.
Meanwhile, the number of people clambering to fill these jobs continues to increase. In
November 2010, the National Science Foundation reported that 49,562 people earned doctorates
in the United States in 2009. This was the highest number ever recorded. Most of the increase
over the previous decade occurred in the sciences and engineering, but the NSFs report noted a
particularly grim statistic for those who completed a PhD in the humanities: only 62.6 percent
had a definite commitment for any kind of employment whatsoever. Remember that this is
what faces those who have already survived programs with very high attrition rates; more than
half of those who start PhD programs in the humanities do not complete them (see Reason 46).
The PhD has been cheapened by its ubiquity. While students in traditional PhD programs at
research universities now take upwards of a decade to complete their programsas they struggle
to fulfill the labor requirements of their teaching appointmentsothers are swiftly completing
accredited PhDs online. These degrees do no carry much weight in the academic hierarchy (see
Reason 3), but they do increase the number of people calling themselves doctor. One might not
think that illegitimate colleges or diploma mills pose much of a threat to the integrity of
degrees, but consider the fact that hundreds of federal government employees purchased fake
degrees and successfully parlayed them into promotions and higher salaries.
Perhaps most scandalous is what legitimate research universities have done to devalue the PhD,
which is now awarded in fields ranging from hotel management to recreation and (most ironic of
all) higher education administration. In the meantime, universities continue to lower standards
for graduate degrees. The traditional American masters degreewhich once required a
minimum of two years of study, the passing of written and oral comprehensive exams, as well as
the writing and defense of a thesis more substantial than many of todays doctoral dissertations
has been dramatically watered down. Will it be long before the PhD suffers the same fate?
For graduate students, it takes longer and longer to earn degrees that are worth less and less. And
after the years of investment required to obtain those degrees, they are met with a job market
with little to offer them, even as the popular culture is increasingly inclined to mock them (see
Reason 43).
Posted by 100 Reasons at Monday, April 18, 2011
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest

Tags: Declining Standards, Job Market, Money
117 comments:
1.
kdacksonApril 18, 2011 at 7:56 AM
Hate to tell you this, but the current technical PhD degree has been seriously watered
down.
Few programs have a Foreign Language requirement.
Many programs are simply tweaks to the Major Professors' PhD thesis with nothing of
substance being added to the general body of knowledge.
We are getting to the point where people know more and more about less and less and are
rapidly approaching the limit where everyone will know everything about absolutely
nothing.
Reply
Replies
1.
AnonymousAugust 24, 2014 at 8:34 AM
:D
To know everything about one thing is to understand nothing about anything.
Reply
2.
JMGApril 18, 2011 at 9:48 AM
Excellent post. I agree with pretty much everything. Since a university education is
becoming more and more academic, and less and less generalized, it can be frustratingly
more difficult to find employment as one completes higher and higher levels of
education. The link to a PhD in hotel management basically captures this point pretty
well.
Reply
3.
Lauren W.April 18, 2011 at 2:10 PM
It's frustrating because now a PhD is seen as a reasonable requirement for positions that
absolutely don't need one. So, if I'm toying with the notion of quitting grad school to
pursue positions in admin or something, NOT finishing could in fact be a liability... even
though my PhD would likely have no logical connection to that work.
Reply
4.
ken in scApril 18, 2011 at 4:07 PM
I am glad I am not in that race any more. Four hours away from ABD. It was just more
and more nonsense. I don't need it, I'm retired.
Reply
5.
AnonymousApril 18, 2011 at 4:36 PM
Years ago, I met someone who told me he was getting a PhD. Cool, I said. In what?
"Recreational Planning". The wife had to kick me to keep me from laughing.
Reply
6.
Social Sciences? There is no such thing. Now, Social Studies, I might buy. If there isn't
Math involved it ain't science.
- No PhD. here!
Reply
Replies
1.
AnonymousJanuary 30, 2012 at 7:21 PM
I felt your comment specifically deserved a reply. I think I understand the intent
of your statement, but I think you should familiarize yourself with, say, an actual
definition of science. Like, from the OED: "A particular branch of knowledge or
study; a recognized department of learning." or "In a more restricted sense: A
branch of study which is concerned either with a connected body of demonstrated
truths or with observed facts systematically classified and more or less colligated
by being brought under general laws, and which includes trustworthy methods for
the discovery of new truth within its own domain."
2.
AnonymousJuly 17, 2012 at 5:50 AM
Nowadays, math is involved in everything. Take economics for instance. Heck,
there's even a Nobel for it. But does a single economist know jack-shit about how
to solve the economic problems of the world. Nope. A 100 economists would give
a 100 different answers and they'd all fail.
If Physics were as much of a science as Economics 'is' then we'd still be rolling
balls on an inclined plane.
3.
halaJuly 23, 2012 at 3:49 AM
yeah there r social sciences... thats my major... economics s one of those social
sciences .. there s math n economics....
4.
AnonymousDecember 5, 2012 at 4:11 PM
Social sciences do involve maths e.g psychology involves the use of statstics get
your facts straight
5.
Neither does most branches of Biology, yet we call it a science.
6.
AnonymousMay 1, 2013 at 8:56 AM
^ Name one branch of biology that doesn't use math in research.
7.
AnonymousJuly 14, 2013 at 1:46 PM
@Anonymous Dec. 5, 2012 4:11 PM:
Psychology uses math, but the idiots which populate the discipline don't know
how to use it. When I did my capstone research project in undergrad, went to my
faculty mentor to have him show me how to use SPSS.
I had two conditions, A and B. To differentiate between the two conditions, I
assigned a variable, cond, which was 0 for participants in A and 1 for participants
in B.
The variable was a dummy. It didn't represent any change; it was a descriptive
term. When I went to format our data into tables, my mentor created a variable
"other_measurement x cond".
Now what would a smart person do in this situation? Well, first of all, there can be
no "other_measurement x cond". There are two conditions, A and B. You need
two variables, "other_measurement x A" and "other_measurement x B". Those
variables were defined as the average of other_measurement for a given
condition.
What did my mentor do in this situation? He created one variable,
"other_measurement x cond" and defined it as the average of all
other_measurements multiplied by their condition variable.
So, "other_measurement x cond" really meant:
((other_measurement1 x 0)+...+(other_measurementj x 0)+
(other_measurementj+1 x 1)+...+(other_measurementn x 1)) / (number of

participants)
By the simple observation that all the other_measurements multiplied by zero will
equal zero, we have:
((other_measurementj+1 x 1)+...+(other_measurementn x 1)) / (number of
participants)
In non-math terms, what this means is that my mentor set all the
other_measurements for people in condition A to be zero, instead of the value we
observed them at in our experiment. He essentially changed half my data and gave
me the green light to publish it (which I didn't, because I really didn't find
anything and it would have been unethical).
This wasn't malice or fraud on his part; when asked for the reason he manipulated
the data that way, he said it was explained to him as convention.
I can't count the number of times I've heard grad students complain that they need
to run every test in the book to get significant results. I know that at least one full
professor at my university conflates significance with strongly correlated results
(p < .05 does not mean that r is strong enough to say that there is an effect, yet
authors still act as though the fact that their results were significant means that
they are documenting a meaningful interaction). Psychology uses statistics in the
same way that toddlers use paint; neither of them are very good at it.
8.
So you went to a bad program.
9.
Melissa MSeptember 4, 2015 at 10:08 AM
Social sciences require SO MUCH MATH! The logic behind psychology not
being good at statistics is flawed. Psychology in itself is a program and can't use
statistics. Saying that all people in a certain program can or can't do anything is a
gross over-generalization. There have been some really amazing advances in
education and many other fields due to psychological studies. I think what is most
fascinating about higher education is that the higher you go, the more all of the
subjects seem to be connected.
Reply
7.
I've always wondered why you would need a PhD in Elementary Education
Administration.
Reply
Replies
1.
AnonymousNovember 28, 2012 at 11:41 AM
So that you can become an Elementary School principal
2.
AnonymousApril 1, 2013 at 12:16 AM
... and get paid more.
3.
CarsonSeptember 18, 2014 at 7:18 PM
I believe this person was stating that there is not a need for an elementary school
principal to have a Ph.D. I agree with this, what the heck are you going to learn
with a doctorate in this area that you could not learn with a bachelors and a
masters?
Reply
8.
The last paragraph of this post sums up quite a lot. Good job!
Reply
9.
Google "PhD in recreation" to see that there are many well-known schools who offer
such programs. Egad. Last week I heard a women mention her daughter was getting a
PhD in wedding planning.
Reply
10.
I have an idea for another reason not to go to grad school, you could title it 'What if you
are successful? Now your life really starts to suck.' Let's say you are successful and you
get a job (in the sciences for this example). You will be required to teach entry level
science classes. After the first couple of tests you will be inundated by crying and
desperate undergrads claiming you ruined their chances of getting into medical school.
Then you may get a call from the parents! This actually happened to my colleague every
semester.
Reply
11.
EileenApril 18, 2011 at 9:55 PM
My favorite, and the one I wish more people would come out and say.
Reply
12.
PatCAApril 19, 2011 at 8:19 AM
In my experience, most students go to grad school because their employer requires an
MA or MS for a raise or promotion. If teachers were awarded pay raises on merit instead,
the bottom would fall out of higher ed.

About 15% of our grad students write a thesis as an exit option, and this is standard in the
US. IMHO that degree is nothing more than an advanced BA.
Reply
13.
"In my experience, most students go to grad school because their employer requires an
MA or MS for a raise or promotion."
These employer-encouraged programs are usually "professional school," not "grad
school" per se. A distinction that neither undergrads nor some on this list make. There is a
world of difference between a terminal masters in social work or engineering, where you
(attempt to) master a well-defined skill set which applies to a trade, versus stumbling
around for a decade attempting to embrace "the life of the mind" and say something new
about obscure, in applicable topic X. No employer that I've ever heard of required or even
encouraged their employee to go get a doctorate in cultural studies. It's preparation for a
whole new career in academia. Training for jobs that don't exist, granted...
Reply
Replies
1.
LauraAugust 5, 2012 at 1:16 PM
I know a couple of people who got a masters in social work (not sociology i
guess, but are they different? And even if I get railed on this, know now that I
don't really care.). These people got masters of social work as counselors
(something like that). Anyways...they have good jobs as counselors and make
good money. Just saying.
Reply
14.
arg. obviously i meant "obscure, INAPPLICABLE topic X." nothing like railing against
higher ed and then proving that you could use more of it!
Reply
15.
There is no glut of PhDs. You have it backward: universities, like other American
employers, decided that they did not want to pay employees decently, so they converted
good, full-time positions into many more crappy, part-time ones. It is not the number of
PhDs that led to the creation of these positions. If universities stopped using grad students
and adjuncts, poof!... no glut of PhDs. They NEED these people to teach, so stop with the
market-driven BS. The truth is much worse and should make us angry.
Reply
16.
JMGApril 19, 2011 at 9:07 AM
I should clarify my previous comment. What I mean is that there is less and less
opportunity for employment in general as one moves along from Bachelor's to Master's
to a PhD. Of course, many PhDs are supposed to be professional training in an academic
field, so it might make sense that career prospects outside of these fields is reduced.
However, it's worse than that: having a PhD (or even an Master's) can actually be the one
thing that prevents employment in many other fields. Even if you have experience, are
motivated and willing to "start at the bottom" or take a pay cut, having that advanced
degree might put you out right at the beginning. This is highly detrimental if you decided
to make a career change away from academia, or you cannot find employment within
academia.
The PhD in Hotel Management is really a striking example. Suppose you complete this
program. You find that there aren't many Hotel Management programs in colleges wiling
to hire you, but you also aren't hired to actually work in a hotel or other establishment
because you're simultaneously overqualified and underqualified at the same time.
Reply
Replies
1.
AnonymousFebruary 21, 2015 at 5:20 PM

The granting of PhDs for anything and everything has become ridiculous. Degrees
are becoming increasingly devalued and people have no way now to tell who
really has advanced expertise -- especially in the allied medical fields.
2.
I so agree with this, Anonymous Feb 21, 2015 at 5:20 PM.
Degree inflation is ridiculous. I work in an allied health field in Australia that was
originally a diploma course, then a bachelor degree from the early 70's... and now
it's granted as a (copying the US model) masters coursework degree, even though
the degree length hasn't increased since it became a bachelor degree.
When I completed the initial qualification in the 90s, only around half of my
lecturers (or 'professors' as they're known in the US... title inflation) had PhD's,
now they all have PhD's in the department I studied in. Back then, a masters
(which was only offered as a research degree) was seen as something impressive,
now every new graduate has one.
Reply
17.
EileenApril 19, 2011 at 9:42 AM
@anon 8:54 Your argument would be more effective if there weren't so many adjuncts
WITH PhDs. Yes, if all of the part-time positions were combined and divided into fulltime positions, working conditions would be better for more people...but I'd guess there'd
still be PhDs without academic jobs.
Reply
18.
@Anonymous 8:54
Do you not understand how the market works? If there are too many Ph.D's competing
for limited positions, there will be more people who can negotiate lower standards of
living and will accept lower wages, which is beneficial to the universities. If there were
way less Ph.D's, their skills will be more rare and marketable so they'd have the upper
hand in negotiations. Unless the demand for Ph.D grads dramatically increases it's not a
surprise that wages and positions remain stagnant.
This is reality in ALL jobs. Why would you think people with Ph.D's have special
priveleges?
Reply
Replies
1.
You don't need a PhD in Econ to understand basic supply and demand. There are
more PhDs wanting jobs than there are jobs. So some people won't get one. This
log is not about how grad school or the job market Should be according to some
ideal that. What undergrads need to know is what thie situaion is. And it's this: too
few jobs.
Reply
19.
@JMG 9:07
Well said, JMG! I think this is something that many prospective (and failed) academics
never fully grasp: more education isn't always better. Being overqualified can make you
unhireable.
I think this is where the status thing kicks people in the ass. Grad students hang in despite
the many drawbacks (such as being overqualified for employment in a market in which
they are unlikely to get the job for which they trained) because they think someone will
eventually call them "Doctor" and that the alleged status of the doctorate will offset the
unemployability, reduction in lifetime earnings, adjunct exploitation and other deficits
associated with pursuing this path. You can see it in grad students who blindly plug along,
obediently fulfilling the requirements of their program, but without taking any significant
steps towards professionalization (like academic publishing in quality journals).
Attainment of the degree/letters becomes the goal itself.
If one's goal is simply learning, the public library awaits. Admittedly, I live in a big city,
but my public library is better stocked, better staffed, and quieter than my university
library--by far. I've learned more by myself in the quiet hours there than dodging the
slings and arrows of those psychos in my program's hostile, pointless seminars. If the
goal is publication, journalists are far more prolific, and often achieve more in terms of
real world impact than academics do.
But instead, I fear that for many grad students and prospective grad students, the goal is
some lofty, prestigious position--half extinct, half mythical. Try getting the manager of
the local porn shop to call you "doctor" when you're reduced to stocking his shelves to
pay rent.
Reply
20.
Anonymous 8:54 here
@Eileen: Get rid of TA positions and combine adjunct positions (many of whom are
cobbling together more-than-full-time positions at multiple universities) and you will
come up with a shortage of Phds.
@Anonymous 10:30AM: You're playing the wrong game. Cut the number of PhDs
willing to work for crappy wages and the bosses will either import perfectly qualified
doctors on H1B visas the way Bill Gates imports computer programmers or they will
outsource the courses via online frameworks. In fact, both of these options are already in
effect. What you fail to realize is that it is a global "market" now, in which capitalist
bosses call all the shots as a result of a 40-year class war.
Reply
21.
Anon @8:54 here... I'm not sure why my previous post disappeared.
@Eileen: Convert most TAships and adjunct positions into full-time positions and there
will be a shortage of American PhDs. Think about how many adjuncts pull more than a
full-time teaching load at the moment.
@anon 10:30: The market will operate any way we want it to. Right now, governments
suppress the rights of workers in favor of corporate elites. The truth is that American
PhDs are now competing with PhDs internationally because we allowed the CEOs to get
far too much power. You stopper the flow of American PhDs and there would still be
more than enough smart Indians and Chinese willing to work for peanuts on H1B visas or
via online offshoring to replace all native PhDs. In fact, the head honchos are already
well on their way to making this the new reality. The market is a social, not a natural,
environment. We need to decide to force the CEOs to come to heel.
Reply
22.
What upsets me about this situation is that there is so much dishonesty involved. Maybe
it should be characterized as "passive" dishonesty, but departments never go out of their
to explain to grad students the ugly realities of the job market.
Instead, they advertise their "high placement rates" (which don't have to be very high to
compare favorably) and often emphasize how many different types of jobs their PhD
graduates get after graduation. What they don't tell you is how long those people were
unemployed before they found jobs that they never anticipated having, and didn't need a
PhD to get.
There are usually individual profs who will be honest with you about reality. On the other
hand, there are too many who have their whole self-worth wrapped up in their career and
"noble" profession and can't bring themselves to be honest about it with themselves, let
alone anyone else. Besides, they want grad students to grade all the work that they assign.
Reply
23.
Anonymous 10:30 here
It is not "evil" that CEO's look for Ph.D graduates internationally. After all, Ph.D
graduates, whether domestic or abroad, are people too and it's not wrong that they try
their best to land a decently job. CEO's will always look for producers (whether
intellectual or manual) who have the most skill at the most efficient price. If someone
from China gets a job offer over somebody equally competent from the US that is not
morally wrong.
Rather, it is more wrong that universities and some professors outright cater to the ego of
uncertain undergraduate students (who more than often have no idea what they want to
do with their lives) and tell them to pursue that Ph.D despite the fact that it is not
financially sound. Just because you are more schooled does not mean you have the
"right" or entitlement to a secure job.
Reply
24.
Anon @ 11:59 Great comment and I agree that departments need to inform their students
of these realities rather than being dishonest or "passive dishonest", as you put it, about
the bleak job prospects upon graduation. Perhaps there is *some* responsibility on behalf
of the student to learn about these realities themselves, but I honestly can't completely
step away from the feeling that I have been tricked into this system only to be spit out
again
Reply
25.
@anon 5:45: You might as well just stop arguing. You won't convince me that being
greedy leads to virtue or good. Capitalism, particularly the kind practiced by international
corporations is morally repugnant, vastly inefficient and horrifically damaging. There's
no reason why we should tolerate the parasitic sucking away of the lifeblood of smart,
altruistic and/or doggedly persistent people. The solution is to elevate the conditions of
the less fortunate, not to allow some people with money to feed off those with less.
Reply
Replies
1.
AnonymousAugust 14, 2014 at 10:18 PM
Capitalism is not the problem.
Communism, particularly the kind practiced by people's republics is morally

repugnant, vastly inefficient, and horrifically damaging.
Socialism, particularly the kind practiced by single-party dictatorships is morally
repugnant, vastly inefficient, and horrifically damaging.
See what I mean?
People with money feeding off of those with less inevitably occurs under states
that consider themselves communist, and states that consider themselves socialist.
Capitalism, however, has by far contributed the greatest good to the greatest
number, and has yielded the lion's share of technological advances that you enjoy
today.
The issue is one of the maintenance of the ETHICS and MORALS of the actors in
question.
Reply
26.
Anonymous 10:30/5:43 here
@Anonymous 8:23
You know you could have debated with me calmly and relatively professionally if you
had wanted, but I'm not going to waste my time if you reduce yourself to name-calling
me and my beliefs while generally avoiding the content of the statements that I and this
blog have made.
Reply
27.
NicholasApril 20, 2011 at 11:02 PM
April 20, 2011 5:45 PM
"It is not 'evil' that CEO's look for Ph.D graduates internationally. After all, Ph.D
graduates, whether domestic or abroad, are people too and it's not wrong that they try
their best to land a decently job. CEO's will always look for producers (whether
intellectual or manual) who have the most skill at the most efficient price. If someone
from China gets a job offer over somebody equally competent from the US that is not
morally wrong."
[NS: You're talking about American CEOs looking for foreign Ph.D.s at the cheapest
price, I gather. Even your language is deceptive.
Of course, it's morally wrong. It's illegal, as well. A Ph.D. in Red (or even Free) China
has no right to that job. Federal law says that employers are obliged to offer jobs
domestically first, and may not offer them to foreigners, if qualified Americans are
available. But morally vicious, criminal employers simply ignore the law, because that's
what crooks do.
And libertarians lie about every aspect of the business, and revel in the Rule of Crime.]
"Rather, it is more wrong that universities and some professors outright cater to the ego
of uncertain undergraduate students (who more than often have no idea what they want to
do with their lives) and tell them to pursue that Ph.D despite the fact that it is not
financially sound. Just because you are more schooled does not mean you have the 'right'
or entitlement to a secure job."
NS: Do you not see the contradiction between your first and second paragraphs? You had
already stipulated that the American candidate was as competent as the Chinese.
What is it with you glibertarians? I hear this routine all the time. You've rationalized
cheating and waging war on qualified American workers into a moral crusade, and then
further refined your rationalization into a furious hatred of American non-plutocrats, at
least the white ones. I'm sure you would never talk in such a calloused manner, even
anonymously, about uneducated blacks.
I seem to recall brilliant, patriotic libertarians like the late Milton Friedman, may he rest
in peace, but see only lying, morally vicious, America-hating glibertarians today. Is my
memory playing tricks on me?
Nicholas Stix
http://nicholasstixuncensored.blogspot.com
Reply
28.

"What is it with you glibertarians?"
I'd really appreciate it if you kept the ad hominem attacks to a minimum. If you're getting
a Ph.D I especially hope this is not how you counteract your fellow colleagues in your
field every time you disagree with them. I do not appreciate that you insinuate that I am
some morally incompetent being when you can't be respectful yourself. And are you
seriously playing the race card with me? You don't even know what ethnicity I am or
where I come from.
That being said...
I never assumed right away that an applicant from China was already better than someone
from the US. I was only explaining under the assumption that both were equally
competent but that the one from China was willing to work for lower wages. It is not just
CEO's who hire foreign Ph.D students. It is also the universities and research labs (a.k.a.
the people who give out the degrees in the first place) who also hire/accept these
students/graduates. Have you been to a large research university recently? How many
foreign post-docs are there? How many of your TA's were foreign students during your
undergrad years? Are these students "taking er jobs" from potential American students?
Yes. But is that an immoral thing? I don't think so, so long as the students have the
appropriate visas. Many of these students are amongst the most hardworking (if not
extremely jaded) people I have ever met and I have had a great pleasure working with
many of them. If I am to understand your reasoning, you'd rather deport all of these
students back to their countries since they are taking our jobs, is that correct?
Reply
29.
wheee! this debate is great! at least we're not talking about how fantastic it is to have sex
with undergrads any more.
Reply
30.
Having sex with undergrads is fantastic... I'm doing it right now!
Reply
31.
Anon 9:31,
We are now, thanks to you...
As for this post, it's pretty much the most difficult thing to accept for me about the reality
of getting a PhD. This one and the post about Universities being an economic engine
really get to me.
Reply
32.
"As for this post, it's pretty much the most difficult thing to accept for me about the
REALITY (emphasis mine) of getting a PhD."
I think that's the most important function of this blog (at least ostensibly designed for
prospective grad students): injecting a little reality and thereby diffusing the dopey
idealism that draws many of us to commit to an utterly impractical path. I certainly don't
think that nobody should be applying for doctorates; I simply think such a path should be
undertaken in the same way one might follow one's passion to a potential career in acting,
music, writing, or any other creative field where you go in knowing that chances are you
aren't going to make it and you will need a backup plan to get by. If you know at the
onset that after 6-10 years of academic training you may end up "retraining" as a massage
therapist, yoga instructor, or exotic dancer (all jobs graduates from my program have
assumed) and still want to go for the doctorate, so be it.
Reply
Replies
1.
I think that dopey idealism is what has brought forward ideas like the lightbulb,
democracy, and communism. I'm currently working on my Ph.D. Don't worry I
have no intention of trying to invade the marketplace. I simply just wanted to
learn something, explore, reflect, think, collaborate, and share new ideas with a
community of practice. I don't regret my decision for 30 seconds to pursue
another degree, and plan to continue taking classes towards other degrees and
certifications in the future. The more you know the cooler life becomes, not
because your bank account fills up, but because you realize how fragile yet
durable, mysterious yet logical, tragic yet heroic the world actually is.
Reply
33.
recent Ph.D.April 25, 2011 at 6:01 AM
Reality check about too many PhDs = good.
Comparison of pursuit of academic career to career in the arts = inaccurate.
I've written about why this comparison is inaccurate here:
http://afteracademe.blogspot.com/2011/02/stop-comparing-careers-in-academe-to.html
Reply
34.
I've read the arguments posted on your (4/25, 6:01 a.m.) blog and don't agree that the
comparison between academics and artists is problematic. To begin with, there is a lot of
overlap between the arts and the academy, so these are not "separate spheres." I'm not
going to go point by point, because flame wars are tedious and annoying (the reason I
introduced a little distracting levity at 9:31), but also because I don't intend to attack you,
especially given that I've agreed with many of your posts throughout the previous 50something reasons.
That said, I particularly disagree with the premise that academics' investment somehow
trumps artists'. I just attended a group show in a major city's star museum and noted that
many if not most of these "major artists" earned BAs AND MFAs from pricey private
schools--the kind without TAships and full rides. We're talking upwards of 6 figures for
the BA alone. Few had doctorates, but the majority had MFAs, which are also becoming
increasingly important for writers (at least those who wish to be taken seriously and
develop the connections required to make a serious go of it). Virtually everyone I know
outside academia is associated with the arts in some way, and they make many of the
same sacrifices that aspiring academics do. They also usually have dedicated over a
decade to honing their craft BEFORE getting to the BA/arts school stage.
I do agree with your assertion that "It is a myth that there is a clear and well-defined line
of merit in both academe and the arts between those who 'make it' and those who do
not." This is the big news for many prospective academics--it's not a meritocracy. And it's
a truth that tenured profs actively conceal from the prospectives, so it's worth repeating.
But as you (sort of) concede, this is in fact a reason why the comparison is valid.
Regardless of talent and perseverance, the odds are against us, so you/anyone should
pursue an academic path only if your heart is in it and you can't imagine doing anything
else with your life. Then you should work on imagining doing something else.
To make this comparison is NOT to say that the structural fuckery of academia shouldn't
be addressed/remediated/dismantled.
What I do resent, and I am absolutely NOT saying that YOU in particular have made this
argument, is an attitude I've observed amongst some in the humanities that suggests that
their work (critiquing and analyzing literature, art, film, etc. in academic journals that are
read by few and inaccessible to most) is more important and superior to the work of those
artists, writers, filmmakers, and others who actually produce creative work that broadly
impacts our culture. "Ew, they let production people in my film studies class." "Well, that
poem certainly couldn't have taken you long to write."
Reply
35.
Epsilon GivenJune 23, 2011 at 10:33 AM
@Nicholas Stix, April 20, 2011 11:02 PM
Let's be clear on one thing: this glut of PhDs is NOT the result of international students
coming to America. It is a result of our student loan system.
First, we make student loan money easy to get--thus, if you want to pursue that PhD in
English, it's easy to say "I'll just get a loan, and have a go at it!"
Second, loan providers have no incentive to ask "Hey, won't this person declare
bankruptcy after five years of flipping burgers with his PhD?" because student loans
aren't bankruptable.
Thus, it becomes easy to get a PhD, and not think about the consequences afterwards! At
least, not until you're flipping burgers, or adjuncting at three different classes, or taking
that entry-level position you should have taken ten years ago--because at some point,
you're going to run head-on into the Law of Supply and Demand.
And this "wonderful" student loan system was set up by our Federal Government!
Oh, and I would add: at least, on some level, comparing the glut of PhDs to those of the
arts is appropriate, because both have the same problem: a lot of people wanting to make
use of their talent and/or training, but not enough people needing that talent. The result: a
handful of "superstars" who got lucky breaks, with a lot of suffering underneath!
Reply
36.
I left my doctoral program in the sciences to attend law school. I left with a masters. I
don't regret it although my job prospects would probably be much better if I had stayed in
the Ph.D. program. If you think that law school is the ticket, you are seriously
misinformed. There are no jobs in law presently. In contrast with the Ph.D. degree (at
least in the sciences), a law degree will set you back probably about $200,000 (not
including undergrad). It is a major crapshoot and your employability will depend, to a
large degree, on where you went to law school as well as your grades. Bottom line, the
grass isn't always greener. The main issue I see today is that people don't think enough
about the area that they are studying with respect to marketability. I was studying for
another bar exam this summer and I was studying at an area private college. I kept on
running into doctoral students studying all sorts of ridiculous topics. Labor relations,
ministry, English, etc. Invariably, I would walk away from the conversation scratching
my head, thinking this guy/gal is never going to get a job. There may not be any jobs in
law right now, but at least I can go off on my own. As a Ph.D., generally you will always
be beholden to some other jackass. I bought the graduate school Kool-Aid. No more.
Reply
37.
JDSeptember 16, 2011 at 10:51 PM
@Anon 10:15AM
LOVE your post :)
As a prospective MFA and a current creative writing major, I can't tell you how nice it
feels to get a little respect from an "academic".
Following your passion is "following your passion," no matter what that passion is or
however risky.
Reply
38.
AnonymousOctober 25, 2011 at 1:49 AM
The glut of PhDs isn't limited to the humanities; it's commonplace in the STEM (science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics) fields, too.
A friend of mine is a tenured professor at an not-so-prestigious college here in California.
Their math department had an opening for ONE tenure-track professor--PhD in math
required--and they received over one thousand applications! Oh, and the job paid about
$40K/year in a high cost-of-living area.
Another friend is at a small, liberal arts school in the Midwest. He teaches physics. Their
department also recently had a job opening: over 400 physics PhDs applied, many of
them having earned their degrees from Ivy League or other top institutions.
In short, your chance at a tenure-track job is practically nil, even if you're not going into
the humanities. Unless you're graduating from Harvard, Stanford, Caltech, MIT, etc., you
stand no shot at a tenure-track professorship.
Reply
39.
AnonymousOctober 25, 2011 at 5:33 AM
@ Anon 1:49AM
I'm sure you would agree that there is a crucial difference, still, between the STEM
graduates and the humanities graduates. I would think that most STEM graduates can
translate their technical training into something in the private or public sector -- into
something outside of academia.
A possible drawback, perhaps, is that I wonder if businesses would be intimidated by a
PhD in accounting versus a MS and just opt for the MS. I would think this is a possibility,
but it doesn't entirely preclude an accounting graduate from getting a real job.
Reply
40.
AaronTXOctober 27, 2011 at 8:35 AM
"Another friend is at a small, liberal arts school in the Midwest. He teaches physics. Their
department also recently had a job opening: over 400 physics PhDs applied"
Amazing. You would think physics would have real world applications.
At the history dept where I got my MA, they had a tenure track opening and got about
200 applicants, although only 100 of them had a background that was germane. Still,
100:1 odds are not good.
Reply
41.
ThoughfulNovember 17, 2011 at 1:16 AM
I think you may have missed the mark.
Just penning some thoughts:
1) Capitalism: Higher Education as a business
2) Composition & quality of students pursuing graduate studies.
It seems as if people are socially engineered into pursuing graduate studies if they don't
get the job they're looking for, or the job market isn't doing well. The option of higher
education comes off as an escape route, or perhaps an enabler for them to attain
distinction / achieve their life goals. These sort of people may inherently lack the
substance to contribute meaningfully to a PhD-level job. (2)
This forwards the point that a significant proportion of doctrate candidates may be the
leftover after the pickings from the commercial world, who've swipped the cream of the
crop long before they even finished their undergraduate studies. Perhaps as a result of (1),
higher education institutions are more willing to accept "lower quality" students for (a)
monetary benefit, (b) gov't endowment, (c) to fulfill much needed roles in the functioning
of a university, etc.
In this case, their paper qualification, though rigorous, insufficiently compares in the
market, resulting in a glut, or them netting jobs wherein they're simultaneously over and
underqualified. (Or wrongly qualified)**
**Note, lets call them wrongly-qualified instead of over&under qualified. Worst of all are
bad quantum superposition jokes.
When equipped with a PhD, it doesn't reduce your job opportunities. At this point, s/he
should be sufficiently qualified to create her/his own opportunities. Many doctrate theses
I know of could be, and was, turned into a commercial product. I'm in the science &
engineering field though; may not be able to say the same about some courses mentioned
here.
Nay! Rather I'd say the problem lies with the person.
There's always a need for one with a PhD, and a good head on top of one's shoulders.
But the head perhaps more important.
Reply
42.
Ken PidcockNovember 23, 2011 at 5:21 PM
and (most ironic of all) higher education administration.
Served on a search committee lately?
Reply
43.
"If there isn't Math involved it ain't science."
As a scientist, I would have to disagree with you 100%. It all depends on what TYPE of
science you are doing. Microbiology and other types of "laboratory" style sciences, yes.
There are many other forms of science you are not taking into account.
Reply
Replies
1.
If math and chemistry are involved, then it's a science.

If they aren't, it isn't.
Reply
44.
PhD AccountingJanuary 11, 2012 at 5:41 PM
There apparently are not enough PhDs in Accounting. Is this true? Or is it propaganda?
http://www.accountingweb.com/topic/education-careers/help-wanted-accounting-phds
If a Business school doesn't have enough PhD's on faculty, they will lose their AACSB
accreditation, so they have an incentive to hire PhD's, even though they could hire MBA
+ CPA to take their place.
This guy apparently did research on this, and confirms the shortage.
http://www.jrhasselback.com/AtgDoctInfo.html
So, is there an accounting professor (with PhD) shortage or is it propaganda?
Reply
Replies
1.
the AACSB accrediation issue is no longer true. Because the organization have
loosen up the requirment. There is no longer a Ph.D requirement.
Instead, schools can hire MBA+CPA that can preform lectures and research.
2.
PhD AccountingJanuary 17, 2012 at 4:20 AM
Yes, a university can hire a MBA+CPA as Professionally Qualified (PQ) faculty,
but they must have more than 50% Academically Qualified (AQ) (PhD) faculty to
retain AACSB accreditation.
http://www.aacsb.edu/accreditation/business/standards/participants/standard10.as
p
"At least 50-percent of faculty resources are academically qualified."
"At least 90-percent of faculty resources are either academically or professionally
qualified. "
3.
Seamus EsparzaMarch 28, 2012 at 10:48 AM
Accounting shouldn't even be considered a University field, there is nothing
academic about it. If schools can hire a MBA+CPA to teach, then the study for the
accounting field should be on the job.
"The specific effect of the MBA has been an explosion of enrollments in
economics, the prebusiness major. The prebusiness economics major is not
motivated by love of the science of economics but by love of what it is concerned
with. There is nothing else quite like this perfect coincidence between science
and cupidity elsewhere in the university."
-Allan Bloom "The Closing of the American Mind"
This is all the more ironic since the explosion of the business major has lead to a
society that seems to bogged down in the economic realm. Perhaps it has to do
with the Cartesian philosophy permeating modern American thought, that the
whole is just the sum of the parts with nothing on the outside.
4.
AnonymousMarch 23, 2014 at 7:05 AM
It is true. I work at a business school, and we are always looking for Accounting
professors with a PhD. There is also a high demand for Finance professors and to
some extent Management and Marketing as well.
LG
Reply
45.
AnonymousJanuary 13, 2012 at 8:57 AM

With regard to the comment in the post stating:
"The PhD has been cheapened by its ubiquity. While students in traditional PhD
programs at research universities now take upwards of a decade to complete their
programsas they struggle to fulfill the labor requirements of their teaching
appointmentsothers are swiftly completing accredited PhDs online. These degrees do
no carry much weight in the academic hierarchy (see Reason 3), but they do increase the
number of people calling themselves doctor. One might not think that illegitimate
colleges or diploma mills pose much of a threat to the integrity of degrees..."
It is debatable as to whether my hybrid PhD will fall into this category based on
individual opinion. As far as time of completion, I am now in year nine of my program so
my tenure as a doctoral student is equivalent to that of a traditional PhD student. I would
also hope that any "regionally accredited" online college or university that awards PhDs
is not automatically categorized as a diploma mill. Such schools have been identified by
the FBI and have been or are in the process of being shut down. So in sum, due to the fact
that I'm pursuing a hybrid doctorate at a university that does not boast a stellar reputation
in academia, I still personally feel that the element of rigor that I have endured in my
dissertation process, and the publishing record of my committee legitimizes my degree.
Reply
Replies
1.
Isn't it interesting. After reading many of the replies the theme that intertwines
among each is fear. Fear that someone, or some group, or some institution will
relegate one's degree as watered down, unacceptable, or that industry won't accept
the degree.
How shallow can so many people be that that they are something other than a
grounded human being when they have a doctoral degree. When I started the
doctoral program I had one or two motivations - become better qualified for
promotions, make it easier for my manager's to justify raises, etc. Now as I
approach the end - two courses remaining then ABD - the journey has been
primarily one of discovery. Now my motivation has changed to one of intellectual
fulfillment. Really. Shouldn't that be enough for everyone.
Is the forever searching human so low in self-esteem that one needs an employer
or a college tenure track to prop them up. When you've earned your doctorate,
regardless how many there are in the US, it is no longer about you - it's about
everyone else.
For all of you out there that haven't realized it yet in your doctoral journey or for
those that have your doctorate and still not realized the truth you will be forever
seeking that which will never be found - yourself.
2.
Well, pardon us for wanting to eat and have a roof over our heads.
3.
AnonymousNovember 8, 2014 at 11:57 PM
There is another word for what he's talking about...with "Now as I approach the
end the journey has been primarily one of discovery."
In non-academic talk we call it:
Jaded.
Reply
46.
AnonymousJanuary 21, 2012 at 5:31 AM
Do they have Graduate Diploma's in USA? Maybe they call them something different,
anywho... If you can get over yourselves and get over the (non-existent) stigma of leaving
academia ("such a shame!") by entering the (not that awesome, I guess) "real
world"....well a one year course in something practical and well paid and well respected
and in demand, will see your happiness quotient shoot through the f'ing roof!
"If you're so smart, why aren't you rich???????" - probably is a snooty thing people say to
academic types, but there's a fair bit of truth in it. You can get yourself quite rich in a 10
year in-demand career...then you can wank-about as a bookish expert in your chosen
speciality. You might not even have to comply comply comply with the fad's & fashions
of the field, as an older/paying customer. I might do that when I'm 50....a pretty good
hobby for a rich 50yo imo, phd'ing. Not a good career move but.
Reply
47.
AnonymousFebruary 6, 2012 at 5:26 AM
I have a PhD in EE (thank god I got scholarship and no loan) and now I work selling
burgers, writing music sheets and selling electronics components online... I find that
business even small scale gives more satisfaction, personally and financially.
If I have a kid, the first thing I teach him/her is how to do a business.
Education is overrated, and yes its only a business...
Reply
48.
Man, it must suck to major in unemployment instead of the hard sciences...PhD's make a
lot of sense for a talented researcher. I'm getting paid for my degree and I'm pretty well
set for decent-paying jobs as a molecular biologist. Gov't, academia, industry,
pharmaceuticals, the list goes on...
Reply
Replies
1.
AnonymousMarch 13, 2012 at 1:47 AM
I majored in a social science, but I am on the tenure track at a great university,
making excellent money with excellent benefits and I enjoy my life. Hard
sciences don't corner the market on occupational success after the degree.
2.
LauraAugust 5, 2012 at 1:57 PM
I am in engineering. But I still have to say you are being a total a**. (talking to
anonymous February 24, 2012 4:40 PM). Our world needs technical people and
scientists. But all industry also needs good communicators (English, history,
communication studies...), public relations (advertising, poly sci., English, etc),
human resource people (English, psychology, sociology, ).
Society needs people to help the underprivileged (social workers, counselors,
teachers) and people to help us with our criminal elements (criminal justice,
sociology, etc)
We don't need all these people to be PhD's, but I don't want to imagine a world
where everybody is like me (engineering minded).
3.
Anybody who buys "there is a need for _____ " has already been played for a
sucker.
There objectively may be a need for ______. That doesn't mean that people who
meet that need are going to have a living wage, or even get paid at all. Any
trumpeted shortages in ________ may even merely be a function of media and
market manipulation.
Reply
49.
AnonymousFebruary 28, 2012 at 8:23 AM
Regarding the original post - yes there are diploma mills but diploma mills and online
degrees are not one in the same. I am amazed by the snobbery and lack of knowledge of
so many in the academic world regarding how one learns or earns a degree. I have taught
and have learned in brick and mortar and have worked with people from both venues.
Face to face is not the holy grail of education. I would argue that online is actually harder.
Before those who have never taken an online course critize and demean it I suggest they
put their research abilities to work and actually learn about what they speak of before
rendering a decision based on their prejudices. It is the 21st century.
As far as too many PhDs you might be right. I would rather hire someone with a masters
and experience then a PhD who has never held a job. Nothing personal but
they can speak to the issues and answer questions.
Thanks
Reply
Replies
1.
AaronTXApril 5, 2012 at 5:30 PM
Online works well for the students who were always going to do well in the first
place. It doesn't work well for the ones who aren't disciplined to begin with.
So for those students who *might* have turned around, say, after the 2nd exam in
a brick and mortar class - if the class was online they likely would have dropped.
There's still something to be said for the acts of going to class, actively listening
and participating, and focusing for 1-1.5 hours. Some people need the structure.
Some don't - and online would work great for them.
2.
AnonymousNovember 6, 2013 at 8:43 PM
Because every kid that goes to a brick and mortar actually sits there the whole
time and pays attention? I know far too many students that are on Facebook and
the like
3.
Online classes do require you to actively listen and participate, and focus for up to
three hours, if necessary, and tardiness is not tolerated. Have you taken an online
class before -- where you actually can see your classmate and teacher on the
screen?
Reply
50.

Believe me, not all Master's degree programs are watered down. I have an MBA, it was
two years full time, I had written and oral exams, and made enough high pressure graded
presentations to send most people to the psychiatrist for anti anxiety meds. I have to agree
with you, I don't understand one year master programs. Can you master a subject in one
year?
Reply
Replies
1.
It's good enough for the tech firm that wants to promote 'Barbie' to CIO.
2.
AnonymousJune 15, 2014 at 5:00 PM
I also don't believe that all grad programs have been watered down. The workload
for mine has been very rigorous.
That said, I think entrance standards have been watered down for many programs.
What I think happens is that people who shouldn't be in grad school (can't do grad
level work) are admitted anyway because its job security for the program
administrators and professors. Then those of us that are willing and able to do
grad level work end up pulling the lamestains through with all of the silly "group"
work that is assigned.
I really regret doing a program that doesn't require the GRE or some other
entrance assessment. I was bamboozled by the program's accolades and
reputation. I have had to do alot of fucking "group" work with people who can't
read and write beyond an 8th grade level.
3.
TEAM is an anagram of MEAT.
Reply
51.
I agree with much of this but the exploitation of adjunct faculty is the biggest scandal. It's
a serf system, a separate but unequal scheme to enrich tenured Ph.D's at the expense of
the worker bees holding only a Mastsrs degree. My Masters got me adjunct poverty
wages but I left that world when I finally understood that no amount of effort and
excellence on my part would lead to promotion, security or better pay. Academia is not an
escape from the real world, only a much more draconian version of it.
Reply
52.
AnonymousJune 11, 2012 at 11:25 AM
However, i believe getting a phd will help you get laid more.
Life is not only about money
Reply
Replies
1.
StrelnikovJune 20, 2012 at 6:32 PM
And I believe in World Communism.
Money does not come to me.
2.
AnonymousOctober 9, 2012 at 1:42 PM
Are you kidding???? Do teenage parents have phds? Phds will make you virign.
3.
"However, i believe getting a phd will help you get laid more." But only if you
use it to play doctor.
Reply
53.
Phds are too mainstream #fail
Reply
54.
As a non-Phd, my perspective may be a little off, but here goes...
If a PhD is training new PhD's, the replacement ratio for new PhD-trainers is a about 1
over a 30 year career. In addition, if maybe 5% of bachelors go on to PhD, given studentfaculty ratios, that might account for an additional 2 PhD's to train at the undergrad level.
This is maybe a bit high, but would account for masters track teaching as well? In any
event, it would seem that each PhD training future PhD trainers would need to train about
3 PhDs over a career to replace the pipeline.
Everyone else gets to get on the grant treadmill, or else go into industry, i.e. anywhere but
a teaching job.
The sick thing is that, if you are in the business of training PhD's, you really need to train
more than 3 in your career. (Otherwise, your department/university can't support you
financially.) Disciplines that are lean on grant money (read: no obvious economic benefit)
have to train more than replacement, since they can't generate revenue through grants.
And, disciplines that are rich in grant money (e.g. life sciences) use grad students as slave
labor to support the research efforts of the non-teaching PhD's who earn the grant money.
This also results in an excess of trained PhD's, who may or may not find research
opportunities post-doc.
I understand that industry is supporting the training of some PhD's, which should
promote some balance.

One aspect of all this over-supply is that there ought to be, and probably is, a strong
culling effect. We train too many, see which ones are really good, and they end up being
the next generation of researchers/teachers. The rest we throw away to industry/applied
work, lower level teaching, or just to fend for themselves.
Gee, sounds kind of like how professional football and basketball players are trained!
Reply
55.
There is a 0% unemployment rate for a PhD in Pharmacology. I'm halfway through mine
and have a guaranteed job with the govt lined up already. Your education is what you
make of it. I love what I do.
Reply
Replies
1.
PhD AccountingSeptember 5, 2013 at 3:00 PM
until they decide to import a flood of H1B visa holders, then game over.
2.
But then, there are always drugs to turn to.
3.
AnonymousAugust 19, 2014 at 7:13 AM
Ditto the H1B visa remark. We're selling America's future up the river for shortterm profits.
It'll happen.
Reply
56.
AnonymousSeptember 7, 2013 at 5:51 PM
The major problem is baby-boomers who refuse to retire or didn't set aside a college fund
for their loser children that are still living at home! That's the main reason that there are
too few positions. Moreover, tenured professors are impossible to release because of
collective bargaining contracts that guarantee work until the day they die!!!
Reply
Replies
1.
AnonymousSeptember 8, 2013 at 10:51 AM
I'm afraid that it's much worse than that. If all of the Baby Boomers retired
tomorrow, and every one of their positions were filled with new people, there
would still be an enormous glut of PhDs.
Back when the Baby Boomers were hired, there were ALREADY too few jobs for
the people coming out of grad school. In the years since, the number of PhDs has
skyrocketed.
You can blame the Baby Boomers for one thing. They've known about the job
crisis their whole careers, but once they were a position to do something about it,
they only made it worse.
2.
Re baby boomers still working-----Most of them would not still be working if
their employers had not reneged on their pension systems and reduced or
eliiminatwd their pensions, making it necessary for them to keep working.
Reply
57.
AnonymousSeptember 26, 2013 at 1:30 PM
STEM: scienc, tech, engineering, math, medicine.
humanities
social sceinces
arts.
FREE FREE FREE AT PUBLIC LIBRARY/PUBLIC INTERNET.
Folks. all this material is Free free free.
No one needs to pay a single penney for this.
FREE FREE FREE AT PUBLIC LIBRARY/PUBLIC INTERNET.
FREE FREE FREE FOR ALL...
Reply
Replies
1.
Would you like to trust a doctor who graduated from internet tutorials?
2.
Know what a "free-for-all" really is?
Reply
58.

Ah - not so. Many billions in tax dollars and donations support these edifices - however
inefficiently.
They weren't free to the donors, they weren't free to the contributors, and the upkeep and
maintenance are likewise not free.
Consider what "free-for-all" actually means.
Reply
59.
Aside from adjuncts, the other serfdom is being a Teaching Assistant. Tenured faculty
teach less and less meaning they need to recruit more PhD students to be the TAs. When
the puny stipend isn't enough, they have to borrow from the government in loans which is
a money making machine for them. No incentive to not do this.
Reply
60.
Some people are trying to change the world, you know? Just because you're running a
shitty blog doesn't mean you have to discourage people to get educated.
Reply
61.
Getting a PhD (or any other degree, for that matter) != getting educated.
People who "are trying to change the world" don't necessarily improve it. In fact, most of
those who want to "change the world" do not understand what it is they are changing,
how their actions affect what it is they wish to change, how their actions affect other
aspects of the world, and in many cases even why they want to change it.
Reply
62.
This is literally the stupidest post I have read in my entire life.
Reply
63.
You are all stupid shits.
Reply
64.
Many well taken points here..many "stupid shits" also..
The financial interest of higher education, especially emergent online institutions, is real.
Budget cuts and cluster hires in the arts and humanities are becoming more and more
frequent.
Pursing an advanced degree does not always make much financial sense, at least at
first...But maybe this is a larger question to be raised...can we measure education with
profitability? Is our profit-driven cultural ideology an obstacle to education, or an aid? Is
there something 'in and of itself' worth pursuing in every advanced degree?
These are deep cultural problems...why learn anything theoretical at all? What are the
driving forces of one's education nowadays? Is this helping science make the next critical
breakthrough? Is this putting us in touch with what it has meant, historically, to be
human?
I would encourage all young people with honest aspirations to apply and pursue their
interests, in whichever field... The supply chain can and often does affect demand, but
this takes place on a larger scale..
We shouldn't be afraid to pursue questions that are worthy our lives, even if it means
reducing the luxuries of our livelihood...There are questions larger than our finite
existence here on the planet...We shouldn't try to convince ourselves out of intellectual
passion by means of current profit ideology. Even if there are 100 plausible reasons not to
advance one's education, this does not outweigh the commitments to ones research...
People should really look into their hearts and ask themselves whether or not they want to
contribute to a larger body of research here on earth or just be comfortable animals for
the remainder of their existence...
Reply
Replies
1.
Anonymous 11:09, you're making the mistake of equating "advancing your
education" with being in a degree program. People getting one degree after
another are not the only people in the world enriching their lives and the world
around them through learning. Some of the best scholars work outside of the
academy; it has always been that way. Einstein had a desk job in a patent office
when he did his most important work.
What you will discover (if you haven't already) is that the vast, vast majority of
people in higher education are in their jobs (like people in every other kind of job)
to put bread on the table and "advance" their personal interests. You're making the
predictable, self-serving "martyr" argument that academics make all the time
without (perhaps) realizing how self-serving it sounds.
If you're still young, and I hope you are, then you have time to see the idealistic
facade that surrounds higher ed for what it is before you decide to spend the rest
of your life behind it.
Reply
65.
The total incease of all types of faculty over the period studied that you report amounts to
14.4%, while the student body has increased by 12%. This does not indicate any great
disparity between the supply of Ph.D.s and the demand, especially if we accept that we
want to make at least some slight gain in the ratio of teachers to students at universities.
The real problem is that government funding for universities has decreased, so that
instead of hiring for tenured positions to handle the increasing number of students
universities are hiring part-time instructors at starvation wages.
Reply
Replies
1.
Don't you suspect that "hiring part-time instructors at starvation wages" has just a
teeny weeny bit to do with supply and demand?
I've got to admit, though, that I have no idea what keeps the salaries of college
administrators so high compared to college teachers. Where are the part-time
deans making starvation wages? Is there a dean labor shortage? And how do
deans and other college bureaucrats keep multiplying despite the famous drastic
decreases in "government funding" for universities that I keep hearing about?
2.
College administration positions are mostly rewards for the politically connected
(primarily of one party, I'll let you guess which one).
The salaries are high because these positions are rewards. They're payola. Or
they're money and position advanced for services to be rendered. The *defense*
that is given is that the salaries are equitable to similar jobs in the private sector,
or alternately required to attract the desired candidate. If there were in reality
more than one candidate, there would be no need for such a premium.
There is no administrator labor shortage. We produce far more of these than you
would believe possible. Certainly we produce far more of these than have been
good for the nation.
The positions continue to multiply for several reasons, including some originally
outlined as far back as "Parkinson's Law." The current expansion, however, is
fueled by large amounts of (insert party name here) float money, which is then
apportioned to causes in support of (insert party name here). It is very much a
two- way street.
Example 1: Administrator XY is a long-standing (insert party name) member and
supporter, previously the president at (famous Ivy-League university). XY is

recruited to head up America's Shittiest University, because of his impeccable
(party) credentials, to grow the university in accordance with the values of the
mostly (party) Board of Regents. To this end he pressures the state for significant
increased state money over several years 'to grow the institution.' Administration
grows by leaps and bounds. Enrollment continues to rise, as does tuition. A
massive building campaign is embarked on at the university. Demands on faculty,
however, increase. Class sizes increase. Departments are cut altogether. Concerns
arise that the institution is not taking its state law mandated mission seriously. The
state is thrown into a budget crisis precipitated by the excessive spending of Gov.
XX and Administrator XY. Budgets are cut because *all the money in the room
was spent and more.* The state gets slammed for being anti-education, which
suits the Regents and their political masters just fine - they've been working to
demolish the state for years. And, even as Administrator XY slams the state for
cutting spending (though not, thank goodness, his $1 MILLION salary (after
bennies) - and how can they, it's the Regents that set the salary) - even as
Administrator XY slams the state for cutting spending, he spends $500,000 taxpayer dollars - in a donation to the (political foundation). A clear case of how
political these positions are, and how they really are cases of one hand washing
the other.
Reply
66.
Example 2: As a reward for having been involved in a serious attempt to derail the
appointment of (African-American Supreme Court justice), destroyed the economy and
finances of (non-party-line state), and made a mess of (government department involving
domestic security), XX is appointed to head the University of (party state) system. XX
has no education administrative experience whatsoever and has a J.D., but not a more
traditional academic doctorate, yet waltzes into $570,000/year plus a housing allowance
more than most households make in a year, plus substantial other benefits, including a
large relocation benefit. The president's house in the meantime is to be refurbished to the
tune of several million dollars. One of President XX's first acts is to raise pay for each
individual university's chancellor by $90,000. After this President XX decides to hike
tuition across the board by 05% per year, for five years. When students (understandably)
protest, she comments to a colleague that they "don't have to take this crap," while
chewing gum. President XX is considered by some to be an eventual candidate, of the
(insert party here) for president of the nation. A clear-cut case of payola for past favors
and future expectations - that will leave in its wake an absolutely devastated university
system.
That's how this happens.
Reply
67.
MechieAugust 4, 2015 at 10:59 AM
Actually, people can get frightening far once obtaining a fake Ph.D, or by obtaining one
under false pretences.
Recently, the head of the Toronto DIstrict School Board (Toronto, Ontario, Canada),
Chris Spence, was found to have plagarised in order to complete his 1996 doctorate.
Not only do legitimate Ph.D earners have limited prospects, but they have to compete
against someone like this.
He was charged in 2013, but in 2014, he quit rather than face action.
http://news.nationalpost.com/toronto/plagiarism-hearing-for-disgraced-former-tdsbdirector-chris-spence-cancelled-as-tribunal-chair-quits
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/education/tdsb-director-resigns-overplagiarism-phd-dissertation-includes-unattributed-passages/article7167752/?page=all
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/toronto-school-board-head-resigns-plagiarismallegations-grow-1.1398446

100 Reasons NOT To Go To Graduate School

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

100 Reasons NOT To Go To Graduate School

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

100 Reasons NOT to Go to Graduate School

Monday, April 18, 2011

Posted by 100 Reasons at Monday, April 18, 2011

Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest

(other_measurementj+1 x 1)+...+(other_measurementn x 1)) / (number of

the bottom would fall out of higher ed.

AnonymousFebruary 21, 2015 at 5:20 PM

Communism, particularly the kind practiced by people's republics is morally

Anonymous 10:30 here

If math and chemistry are involved, then it's a science.

AnonymousJanuary 13, 2012 at 8:57 AM

AnonymousApril 17, 2012 at 10:06 PM

promote some balance.

AnonymousJanuary 25, 2014 at 6:42 PM

supporter, previously the president at (famous Ivy-League university). XY is

You might also like