In regards to why American PhDs take so long, there are also the comprehensive exams. You read a few hundred books over the course of several months to a year and then do some intensive exams. It’s supposed to prepare PhDs to teach broad survey courses - a common complaint about newly-hired instructors from British universities is that they’re overly-specialized - but it’s debatable how much people actually retain from reading that many books in such a short time.
(I should say that the lack of comps also doesn’t prevent British PhDs from getting jobs, at least in Canada, as a recent study apparently showed that most Canadian philosophy departments, and this could probably be extrapolated to all of the humanities, consider doctorates earned in the US and the UK most valuable. The point of pouring money into universities that wouldn’t hire the graduates they produce is a rant for another time.)
Why do people do PhDs when they know that the odds aren’t in favour of getting a job? Well, someone has to get the jobs and everyone thinks, deep down, it will be them. In my experience, most people begin by saying that they love what they’re doing and would be happy never working in academia if it doesn’t work out - it would be worth it to spend those years researching something they’re passionate about. Unfortunately, most people I know have started to change their tune when they realize how much blood and tears go into a PhD - even if the government job they get in the end pays the same as an associate professorship, it feels a bit Sisyphusean to have spent that much time and energy just to end up in the same place as you could have been with a masters. This is just what I’ve been observing among my friends, though.
That’s great that you know, but how many 16-17 year olds know this? One of the problems is that the colleges are out to make money before anything else, and they sell themselves relentlessly to kids (and their parents) as the guaranteed path to a better paying job. When I was in high school, the only real choice that was discussed was college or McDonald’s. Sure, you can argue that college is worthwhile if you get a degree in math or science as opposed to a liberal arts major; but given that you’ve spent your entire life treating all the subjects as equally important, it’s not too apparent that one major will lead to a useful education and job opportunities and the other gets you a worthless piece of paper.
I think that vo-tech really is undervalued, at least in the US. I knew a lot of people in college who were brilliant at web design and graphic design, but they had no interest in anything else. They didn’t need a bachelor’s degree, they needed an associate’s from the community college, but they were pressured into four-year college by their parents and guidance counselors. To a large extent, it’s about prestige. High schools don’t want to send their graduates to vo-tech schools, and parents don’t want their kids to go to community college. It’s far better to let kids founder in college than to be successful in a trade.
Not all advanced liberal arts degrees are the same, maybe? I have a PhD in Math, as do half my friends. It’s pretty fucking marketable.
“Real world?” :rolleyes: While I was getting my PhD, I was a teaching assistant. I made a small salary, but it was enough for me. How was I not in the “real world”?
Are you hearing a lot of complaints? I’ve never heard someone complain about difficulty getting job after obtaining an advance degree. (and I am on the Board of an educational institution that awards advanced degrees).
Do you really hear someone say something like “I have a Ph.D. in Art but can’t find a job, why is this happening to me?” I hear things more like, “I knew it wouldn’t be easy to find a job with my PhD history.”)
Still reading, but I know quite a few lawyers who quit, gave up, or had stress-related issues causing them to leave the field. Several former lawyers (they seem to love to go into teaching) told me that they made less per hour than a teacher, especially those who worked as public defenders.
You should probably qualify a claim like this to say that it applies only to whatever field you are in. My first qualifying exam was over about 3 books worth of material, and my second was over about half of 2 books. Hint: math books are dense.
I don’t really know what the writer is talking about (the Chronicle articles.) I haven’t met anybody like that. Everybody I know who got an advanced degree did their due diligence and got the minimum degree they needed for the job they wanted. I have never met anybody, in my life, who went to grad school just because they had nothing better to do or for ego stroking. They all needed the credential to get the job they wanted. In fact, about 10 people I met had jobs already waiting for them after they got their degrees.
Someone who goes to grad school for love is an idiot.
The complaint is not so much about jobs or a job period, but more more specifically jobs that (in their view) would be commensurate, regarding pay level, responsibility and benefits, with the level of education they have attained.
Pleased to meet you. I knew at least 2 other guys who got a Math PhD for the same reason. It pays the bills, and you take math classes. Really, it’s the path of least resistance.
What are you supposed to get out of grad school? In my experience, I got knowledge that is rare, hard-to-get and/or expensive. For example, my grad program did an excellent job of teaching me the statistics and information necessary for the accreditation process. Compared to other people who work with me with similar degrees or even higher degrees, they are unable to even grasp the simplest ideas that I had taken entire classes in (testing, for example.) In the humanities, is there really that much difference between someone with a BA, MA, or Ph.D.? Perhaps, each higher degree would reflect X number of pieces read more than the lower degree, but is there anything, really, that an English Ph.D. offers over an M.A.?
Employer requirements: Quite a few employers have set requirements that they have little or no control over. Perhaps, it is required by their insurance company, the state, or federal regulations. If you want a job doing X, you’d better make sure you have the right degree. A Ph.D in Art is nice to have, and certainly higher than an MA in Education, but only one of them qualify to teach kindergarten art classes.
Quality of the program: One point the Chronicle writer addresses is the business of graduate school. Certainly, different programs are not equal. One reason, for example, we have a glut in MA’s is that many of them are unhireable. Several graduate programs in my area, for example, have proven time and time again that their graduates are lacking in even the basic knowledge given to first year students in a superior program. And why does the inferior program produce so many graduates? The same reason: because their program sucks, it’s easier to get into and easier to graduate, thus attracting students who would not be able to survive in the superior program, much less even get in.
Degree vs Job: One thing that keeps coming up is content knowledge vs job skills. What is the most important skill an English teacher should have, for example? Teaching, of course. Their the content knowledge of English vs the ability to teach are two very different skills. Which one would an MA in English learn, vs an MA in Education?
But I don’t know anyone, when the topic of “liberal arts” and the poor pay, lack of jobs, or “useless nature” of it thinks “nuther sucker with a math degree”.
Point of contention: Teachers, at least at the secondary level, are expected to know a good bit about their content area and many eventually go on to do at least some graduate-level work in that area. In fact, the teacher certification exams generally don’t ask about teaching.
IANAPhD, but both of my parents have PhD’s in the sciences and I’ve spent my whole life surrounded by people with science PhD’s working in research in government and academia. I will readily admit that I do not know much about research in private industry.
I think you underestimate the role of post-bac degrees in the sciences. In a B.S. or course-based M.S., you are learning information and how to learn from what others have done. In a research-based M.S. or PhD, you are learning how to conduct high-quality research and how to play within the system so that you get paid to conduct research. I’m sure there are exceptions out there, but most of the positions at universities and in government which allow you to create your own research program and get taken seriously by funding agencies require you to have this sort of training. Most papers in life science journals are published with at least on PhD on the paper who is usually the PI, i.e., responsible for running the research program which provides the space, training, and quite possibly funding for everyone in the lab. As a gross generalization, the higher your degree, the more of the intellectual heavy lifting and the less of the pipetting/animal husbandry/repetitive observations you have to do (although there are PI’s who choose to do fair amounts of the latter as well). It depends on what you are interested in.
Generally, advanced degrees in humanities don’t teach the same kind of research used in the sciences…even in statistics, which is kind of the point of this thread.
