Sidney Evgeni Jordan, thank you. That will certainly give me a place to start.
On the bad pay or not of non-TT, temp work-- it totally varies. In the exceedingly soft humanities, my best experience was 9 month VAP contract full time at 53,000 with good benefits and treated well and appreciated and respected and well-integrated into the department by decent colleagues.
In a couple of other years I was making around 35,000 with ok benefits and a decidedly second-class social standing, but a few colleagues who were awesome to me.
Worst experience was scraping up a single course in a semester as an adjunct, with completely gob-smackingly dense students and negligible support. Pay: 2,500, no benefits. Basically did it for the library card, which with the hours I put into the class and the feebleness of that university’s library was not worth it (when you work out the numbers in terms of what adjuncting at that school “full time” would pay. . . if it were 3/3… that would be 15,000 a year, or 20,000 if the load was 4/4. That’s not a job, that’s a hobby. It’s really the academic equivalent of those fellas who stand around outside Home Deport in the morning to pick up day work in strawberry patches or drywalling.).
It all depends on the field. In some fields you are stuck in academia with a PhD. I happen to have one, but would have done as well with a MS. Jobs might have been more offers even.
The bests fields allow you some more independence as a PhD, but I still feel like a slave, after 26 years in industry.
I have nothing to add to this thread, save this:
It is amazing how much bullshit there is in the world.
(edit: not referring to the posters or posts, just the politics)
Okay, this is what I’m thinking. Those of you who have done this, please tell me if I’m missing something.
We would incur debt, but not as much as I’ve incurred for my Master’s degree ($100k, roughly, assuming I don’t get a fellowship next year.) My husband has incurred about $30k for his Ph.D, we estimate it will be the same for mine. Combined we will have somewhere around $160k of student loan debt. We have discussed how to handle this, and have agreed the best course of action would be to stay where we are, or some comparable cheap apartment, and live off a single income. The other income would go toward loans. Even if I’m only making $30k, that will leave us with most of the debt paid off in 5 years, assuming we have no major financial disasters.
Neither of us are accustomed to or desiring of an extravagant lifestyle. We want to pay the bills, save where necessary, and eat out once in a while. We have saved a bit toward retirement already, but yes, for me at least, that would be on hold while I was a student. He will be in the work force sooner than I, which I’m hoping will mitigate some of the losses (and some of the debt.) We have agreed that we’ll probably be close to 40 before we’re homeowners, and that’s okay. We’ve agreed it’s going to be another 5-7 years before we adopt children, and that hurts me the most, but it’s just one of those sacrifices.
An urban area would be ideal, but we’ll pretty much live in any city that will employ two married academics. We enjoy Philadelphia, we could see ourselves in Chicago, Florida would be a consideration (his Mom and sister live there), and ideally we’d live in Ann Arbor, where we grew up, but not holding our breath on Michigan jobs anytime soon. I speak Spanish and am hoping to use it in my work, so any place with a large Spanish-speaking population would be ideal.
Thanks, this is really great advice. One major drawback of my school is their career advising kind of sucks (from what I hear), but if I don’t get lucky with them, I’ll try to track down alums and current students and see what I can learn.
When it comes down to it, the reason I want to do this is because I love ideas. I think creative idea generation is one of the ways we move forward as a society, and I want to be a part of that process more than anything. I don’t want to make gobs of money, I just want a reasonable probability of finding a job.
For me, it hasn’t been monetarily worth it. I’ve got a gubmint job with good benefits and my own office, but school teachers make more than I do. In fact, I wouldn’t be suprised if I were the least paid person on my floor. My pay band goes up to $72,000, but I started at the very bottom of it because I was coming out of a post-doc when I applied for the position. And my post-doc paid for crap.
In terms of respect from coworkers and supervisors, it has been worth it. People think I’m “scary smart” (which I’m not) or some kind of wunderkind (because I’m kinda young) just because of my degree. The work I’ve been doing is easy because of the experiences I got in graduate school and my post-doc, but not so easy that I’m bored. I think it would have been harder for me to get my current job if I didn’t have a Ph.D, and in this economy that’s worth it.
But I would tread cautiously. I know someone who has her Ph.D and has been unable to find work for going on two years. She got her degree from a highly prestigious school, published up the wazoo, and had an interesting post-doc project, but it hasn’t been enough to land her a job. If you plan to get a Ph.D, you can’t assume that it’s going to write you a ticket for the perfect career. In fact, it might make things more difficult because you’ll be overqualified for most positions–ones that might actually be your “dream” job.
I’m an academic in the UK - in chemistry. The PhD was worth it for me in spades, doing what I do. I think if you’re thinking along the lines of an academic career in weighing up a PhD then you just need to take the plunge. No academic that I’ve ever met was certain of that career path after their first degree, there is always uncertainty. If you’re looking at an industrial position though, it’s a really difficult decision in the current climate - depends completely on your field. My field has always been dominated by grad students looking towards industry, the organic chemistry PhD is quite vocational like that. Shifting economic times and the emergance of custom synthesis companies have put a massive dent in the employment prospects of your typical chemist - 5 or 6 years of proper hard work in a good US synthesis lab is a long road to take for an uncertain job market.
A lot of posters have mentioned academic politics - I have to say that this is contrary to my experience in some ways. Working in the sciences is cut and dried and transparent - raise research funding, publish good papers, be a half-way reasonable person who doesn’t mind doing the odd shit job once in a blue moon, and that’s it - you can do whatever you like with no intrusion of politics at all. I guess if you fail at any one of these things then that’s when you start to see things in terms of politics. My School is unusually politics free, but even talking to chemists in other departments in the UK there’s nothing there that’s different from your average white collar office.
Where politics is undeniably prominent in academia is in regard to your lineage - who you worked for. Here, the important thing to do is to win. Don’t end up as an embittered grad student, ranting on a blog, railing at the injustice of academic politics - the blogosphere seems to attract more than its fair share of PhD students who do this - the losers in the PhD process. Some of them are losers because they are losers, moaning dickheads who wouldn’t get a position if they were personally endorsed by three Nobel prize winners. Others have lost despite being skilled, talented people - there are few positions available and it’s very competitive. Unfortunately, if you still want to do science in academica then the alternative can be pretty miserable - the perpetual postdoc. It’s so important to maximise your chances of a career by working in a competitive group, making the right choice of PhD advisor from the beginning.
I got a Ph.D. in the social sciences in 2000. I’m not a tenured associate professor at a research university in Midwest. Personally for me it was worth it but I got the “dream job” – I teach four classes a year, 45 percent of my time is devoted to research and I have an upper/middle income. There are annoyances with the job but you see that in anything.
My thoughts (especially directed towards olives) are focused on those wanted to go into academia at a research university.
-
Debt is a big issue. All my grad school was free so I came out with zero debt. This is huge. Frankly, if I had to incur 160K in debt for a Ph.D. I would have gone into something else. Yes one can live cheaply but non-tenure track jobs (adjuncts) pay poorly and have no security. Tales abound of folks teaching 10 courses a year and bringing in 20K. It happens to lots of well qualified people.
-
Funding. Generally getting into a Ph.D. program isn’t the problem. Getting funding to go is the bigger hurdle. If you are accepted without funding, it often means that you aren’t a department’s top choice.
-
The quality/reputation of the program/university absolutely matters. A Ph.D. from a no name school does not help you. It is possible to overcome it by being brilliant, but the logic is, if one is so brilliant why didn’t you go to a top program? Recommendation letters are very important and a letter from a top scholar in your field who is your advisor can NOT be over-stressed.
-
Two Ph.D. couples are really tough. I know at least 6 couples who have lived apart because the can’t get jobs in the same place. Sometimes the relationship ends or one person moves and ends up working as an adjunct. It sucks.
-
You have practically no say about your job location.
-
Academic politics are there but in my opinion, office politics is everywhere. Do good work, don’t try and piss people off and you’ll be fine. Of course, sometimes really pissing people off can be great for a career…the problem is that very few people are brilliant enough to piss people off with the power of their thinking, mostly you piss people off by being a jerk.
So my two cents. If you can get funded to go to a top program, are flexible about where you live, you’ll have a decent shot at a tenure track job. If you can achieve that, it is a great career. (It is helpful to have a spouse who can work anywhere (doctor, teacher, consultant) as well.)
It is possible to do interesting non-academic things with a Ph.D. and it can give you some extra prestige but it comes at a high cost. Plus there are other paths to accomplish the same thing.
What if one of you gets a job offer in rural Mississippi?
Professors only really know about academic careers.
Just to play devil’s advocate, you don’t need a Ph.D. to think. It is training about how to think in certain ways which may (or may not) be relevant to the issues you want to think about.
All of your information has been so very helpful, I just wanted to clarify one thing. When I graduate in 2011, I will have about $90k in student loan debt, my B.A. and MSW combined. My husband will have $30k from his Ph.D. That’s $120k of debt we will have already. The ‘’$160k’’ figure is my estimate of everything combined, meaning I think the Ph.D. will cost about $30-40k, but hopefully I’ll get lucky and it won’t cost anything.
So really, the question, for me, is ‘‘Do I want $90k of debt with an MSW, or $120k of debt with a Ph.D.?’’ There isn’t really an obvious answer. An MSW would ensure a consistent but low income. The income generated from the Ph.D., while having a high ceiling, would also have a pretty low floor, and would not be as predictable or reliable.
From what I understand with my school, if you get in, you will be funded with tuition waiver and stipend for at least 4 years. The question is whether you get a TA position or a research fellowship. It’s no guarantee by any means, but I have several reasons to believe I may receive preferential funding.
So, I’m not so much worried that I won’t get in and won’t be able to play politics and won’t be able to do good work. I’m more worried that I’m going to be unemployed or working crap jobs for years after I graduate. My worst nightmare would be defaulting on all those loans.
Yes, this really does sound like it sucks. I don’t know what this will mean for me or my husband. He will have a degree in clinical psychology so ostensibly he can do private practice if necessary–his major interests are clinical practice and research, so he will not necessarily be a professor. I will have an MSW, meaning I could still theoretically practice as a Masters-level professional, but I’m worried the Ph.D. would disqualify me for jobs in that arena.
There are no easy answers in this world. Sometimes I wish I had less opportunity and less choice because the stress of trying to do ‘‘the best thing’’ for my career and my financial security makes me absolutely nuts. There are days I really long to hear, ‘‘Bitch, get back in the kitchen.’’*
*99.9% kidding
I wrote you a terrific response and I got fucking logged out… so it’s gone. Damn!
Having a Harvard terminal degree did not hurt me, and certainly it probably helped a little. But Harvard is not where the big dogs in my field are. Medium sized dogs, yes, but not big 'uns. I had the biggest name prof in my specialty on my committee and his rep hasn’t done anything to help me. Mostly it’s “who’s he? Oh yeah, he did that book in the 90s.”
My adviser just got tenure and is a rising star, but her area isn’t really linked to mine. So that’s a benefit of sorts, but not a great one. I’m really hesitant to draw conclusions from my job search - it was very unique. I maintained contacts at my alma mater, and they were excited to see me come back - as was another great school nearby. There was actually one opening at my uni, but they wheeled and dealed to get two of us - both of us went to top flight schools for our doctorates and were alumni. And of course a year or two later the economy tanked. For both of us, we didn’t need spousal hires. That would have changed things as well.
The job is awesome but it also sucks in so many ways. The pressure to publish is relentless. I have a young family and I have to make a lot of sacrifices. The promotion and tenure process here sounds humane on one day, but then brutal the next. There are no absolutes - “publish X and you’ll get tenure,” nothing like that. So it’s vague as well, and you wonder if the advisee you take on is going to help you or hurt you in pursuit of tenure… and so on.
I’m happy doing what I do but it’s not at the pace of my choosing. Dissertation writing and co-authoring are a lot different than being on the tenure track. Journal editors don’t help by taking forever to give feedback, and having a manuscript under review only to be rejected a year later really screws you over. Enough bitching, because it’s about to depress me. I see this as a seven-year exploration and I’m well aware of the fact that I might be looking for another job by then…
They should teach a class in proofreading in social science Ph. D. programs.
What? It is the south. 
I’m not familiar with your field but I doubt that a Ph.D. job will generate that high of an income ceiling…50-60K to start – assuming a tenure track and salary doesn’t go up that fast.
Sorry to hear about the 90K debt. It is a shame that folks like you get themselves in which makes it very difficult to work in important but low wage fields.
$50-60k is a lot of money to me. The average starting wage for an MSW is $35-40k.
Sure. But my point is that it really isn’t that high of a ceiling and it is not a sure thing that a Ph.D. will get it.
No. It was a huge mistake financially and damaging to my family. That being said it was fun.
I’m not anywhere near finished yet, but I have absolutely no doubts that it will be worthwhile in the long run. I’m in statistics, and while there are jobs for master’s level statisticians, the PhD is really necessary if you want to have the full range of options. Furthermore, the non-academic job market is fantastic and generally well-compensated, and the academic employers know that they’re competing with that market.
This starts to sound like my family gatherings, although no one has PhD (Dad is an MIT engineer).
But driving away from my youngest bro’s bachelor party/broomball game, we got into a discussion about whether there was an actual Unified Field Theory, and one of his friends, said, “this explains a lot…”