American PHD students are getting a Raw Deal

Parents Forum
61

<p>Marite:</p>

<p>In my view, there is one primary reason that people need to attend college. The employment situation has changed dramatically since when I was in young. Most good jobs--even entry level jobs--require a college degree. Even many jobs that are unrelated to whatever one learns in college.</p>

<p>The reasons for this change are complex. The change is related to the disappearance of good manufacturing jobs. But it also reflects the impact of the women's movement, which greatly increased competition for white collar jobs, leading to a rise of credentialism in the workplace.</p>

<p>But for whatever reason, a college degree is no longer a ticket to a good entry level job. Instead, the lack of such a degree is a substantial barrier to obtaining such a job (although some still surmount that barrier).</p>

62

<p>When I was in grad school in 1977, my stipend was $3600 per year. Even with inflation, that was a lot less than what Mollie says current grad students receive. With that stipend, I was able to split the rent on an apartment near my school in Philadelphia and pay for food and other necessities. I was not paying of loans, saving, or investing for retirement though.</p>

63

<p>"A PhD in econ or math could get you a job with a hedge fund."</p>

<p>Hah Hah, not for long. Using debt to buy equities when equities go south=Huge losses.</p>

64

<p>Mollie: Good luck on Thursday!!</p>

<p>EMM1: Both H and I have Ph.D.s. They've been essential in our careers, going back at least 30 years. It's nothing new.</p>

65

<p>Current grad students in bschool disciplines also typically earn a stipend between 20-30k, and tuition waiver. At the top schools, one doesn't have to TA for that either.</p>

66

<p>By the same reasoning, nobody needs to attend college, especially not a liberal arts college. Can't you read all you want in your spare time? Why do you need to be in a class to learn about Shakespeare or Homer, or the meaning of the categorical imperative, or dark matter or DNA?</p>

<p>You don't need a degree to go to the library or to read articles, no one is suggesting that.
However, as I said in #36 & others have agreed, that jobs that used to require a high school diploma, now require college- These are jobs that used to be solidly middle class, but with rising costs, now are holding on by their teeth.</p>

<p>I'd like my kids to be able to afford to buy a home someday & maybe a job with medical ins. A high school diploma will get you far, if you don't mind working for yourself, have capital to invest in a business & don't have health problems. But these days a better safety net than a high school diploma is a college diploma, at least you can get your foot in the door for an interview.</p>

<p>Many people in my county are underemployed- making less than they did 5 years ago. Getting more education isn't going to help them.</p>

67

<p>By the same token, EK, having a BA is no longer enough for most jobs. S1 could not have the job he has without his advanced degree. A B.A. basically tells the recruiter that a student can read and write.</p>

<p>If you think that a Ph.D. is for getting a job, that's fine. And good luck figuring out which jobs will still be around one year, five years, ten years from now (just read that Yahoo is laying off staff). But Ph.D.s are more than diplomas. They are about doing an independent project of research and writing (and no, we're not talking about "self-actualization.Yuck!). That is very different from taking a bunch of classes and writing a few term papers or even a senior project. If getting jobs were the sole reason for getting a Ph.D., then there would be a need for at most a dozen Ph.D.s in math or English, or history.
Foreign students are swarming our graduate programs. They seem to have a higher regard for advanced degrees than we have.</p>

68

<p>People need to do PhD's for love not money. Even in highly sought after fields like finance or engineering as Marite said, there is no way to know what the climate will be like in 5 years, and it's too hard and you'll be too poor if you don't have some contingency plans. You either take the bet that you are good enough to "make it" or you just do it because you have the passion. There are plenty of easier and more lucrative paths. </p>

<p>It's really no different than going to Conservatory for music or trying to break into Hollywood where there are many more wannabe's than actual glamorous jobs.</p>

69

<p>" In 2004, the American Historical Association released a study on the career patterns of PhDs in history who had received their degrees between 1990 and 2004. Only 32% of these PhDs had obtained and currently held a position in a History Department.</p>

<p>Between 1990 and 2004, the majority of people who earned PhDs in history left academe. "
<a href="http://www.beyondacademe.com%5B/url%5D"&gt;www.beyondacademe.com&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

70

<p>^^Which means that, unless 78% of history Ph.D.s are either on the dole, staying at home or driving taxicabs, they have found employment in non-academic jobs. Presumably well paying ones.</p>

<p>S had a wonderful teacher in high school who had a Ph.D. in anthropology; another had a Ed.D. The head of the math program is also a Ph.D.; etc... Was it necessary for any of them to get a doctoral degree? I guess not. Do they regret it? Not that I know of.</p>

71

<p>I've seen some of these 'PhD sob story articles' before. By far the biggest problem with their arguments is the seeming assumption that everyone who gets a PhD wants to teach at a university. A good friend of mine once summed things up nicely by saying that a 'PhD is a license that says your a dedicated, highly intelligent individual who can mange large projects, perform detailed and through analyses and defend your views and findings before a critical audience... with those credentials you can pretty much do whatever you want.' </p>

<p>Yes I know folks who are now doing academic post-docs, eventually looking for academic posts, making $35-40k a year (less than most of their friends with bachelors degrees now in the private sector) but I also know newly minted PhDs who are working in consulting with starting compensation packages of just under $100k for their first year. Not all PhDs are poorly paid. There are a range of options for what one can do with a PhD... a post-doc then academic post is just one path. Money certainly isn't everything and I only mention it as many of the articles have a 'I'm highly educated and underpaid' aspect to them.</p>

<p>For every miserable PhD making pence teaching night courses there's another PhD who's got an entrepreneurial spirit and applied their unique skills towards fascinating projects and careers. A PhD isn't a free ticket to money, success and happiness... those things require qualities that must come from within and can't be in a degree. However, in the right person, a PhD is a powerful tool that will serve as the launching point for a fantastic career.</p>

72

<p>There are some interesting articles about this on phd.org, including this one: The</a> Real Science Crisis: Bleak Prospects for Young Researchers</p>

<p>I think everyone can agree that these days it pays to be nimble. I do think that the process of getting a PhD imparts a set of skills that can pay off in the long haul. For example, my husband's work has very little to do with the specialty in which he started off. But the minor he took as a grad student -- in numerical methods (back in the dinosaur days when he keypunched all his data) -- allowed him to move into areas in great demand and with very few competitors. He was able over the years to teach himself more and more statistics and applied math, at a level he would not have been able to do if he hadn't gotten a graduate degree. Our house is awash in stacks of textbooks he orders and reads, though he hasn't been to college in thirty years!</p>

73

<p>So what I am hearing is that the class divide is going to get larger.</p>

<p>Even though we have more undergraduate students in US- if as Marite says, all a college diploma means is that you can read and write, and that you need a Ph.d to show you are educated at a higher level, then the Ph.d programs are going to be filled with international students who have outgrown the schools in their own countries(43%), students who have come from a background that values education ( parents with degrees/advanced degrees) & students who are targeted for special programs- minorities in science for example.</p>

<p>That's a shame. For my part , I thought we were doing great to have two kids who are doing so well in high school ( compared to their parents), then to have one graduate from college( where she published a senior thesis) and her sister planning to go. To hear that if they were * really educated* that they should have a graduate degree, is disheartening. :(</p>

74

<p>emerald, I don't quite understand why you sound pessimistic about that situation. It's true that a college degree today is considered 'standard' in many areas and that 'really educated' now often means one needs a graduate degree. How is that a bad thing? It means standards are going up. </p>

<p>Our economy is changing, and has been for some time. We're moving away from a manufacturing economy that only requires (sorry to be blunt, but it's true) a workforce with little professional training and skills into more of a service and intellectual economy where one needs an advanced education and advanced skills in a specialized subject. We're making less money with our hands and more with our minds. Whereas 50 years ago a high school diploma and job in a good factory meant you were set for life, these day's that's hardly the case (ask anyone in Michigan, re the auto factories). Should we lower our standards and seek to create more manufacturing jobs (something that's not financially viable in many cases) or should we raise standards and institute programs to ensure these people have a better education and can perform higher level jobs? </p>

<p>To get ahead in todays world you need a good education, more than ever before. And these days a good education means at the very least a bachelors degree but in many cases a graduate level degree.</p>

<p>Also, yes our graduate programs are often filled with overseas students but that's only a good thing. Yes, it means that they're 'taking away' potential places from US students, but the side effect is a raising of standards of our own domestic education system (something that falls woefully behind most industrialized nations). Our universities should, and do, strive to attract the best regardless of where they're from... Also, although some of these foreign students go back to their home country after training, many stay. It's an excellent mechanism to recruit highly intelligent and highly trained immigrants into our country and our economy.</p>

75

<p>"By the same token, EK, having a BA is no longer enough for most jobs." </p>

<p>"A B.A. basically tells the recruiter that a student can read and write."</p>

<p>Reading, writing and arithmetic are all that is necessary for most jobs including most great jobs (if there is such a thing. :)).</p>

<p>Most jobs don't require a BA. Many good jobs just require a BA. </p>

<p>If the above wasn't true, we would have an unemployment rate close to 100%- the Ph.Ds working in this country. (I figured this out without a Ph.D) :). </p>

<p>I am guessing that just the really, really good jobs require a Ph.D. :)</p>

76

<p>No one undertakes any particular degree program, whether undergraduate or doctorate, with assurance of a job upon graduation, much less a certain kind of job. Each of us is responsible for making decisions about our own educational and career path, based upon our own values and the information that is available to us. Some people choose to get a Ph.D. out of pure love of the discipline, reecognizing that they may end up driving a cab. Others may enter the same program with expectations of a university tenure track job upon graduation. Then after graduation, the latter group whines. But are they justified?</p>

77

<p>EK:</p>

<p>I do not see the class divide getting any larger. It would be, if the population were divided between hs graduates and Ph.D.s, but the proportion of college goers is greater than it has ever been. As well, Ph.D. programs subsidize their graduate students, so ability to pay is not as much a factor as it used to be when I was in grad school. It's true that grad students live very modestly.The phrase "starving graduate student" is part of the culture. But it was even more true in my days than it is now.</p>

78

<p>
[quote]
That's why I think PhD production rates for colleges is a very questionable indicator. Who spends 7 years working on a possibly worthless degree?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Unfortunately, lots of people.</p>

<p>I was practicing law in the late 80s when a severe recession hit my region. Lawyers (including me) were being laid off all over town. Although I was lucky and got another job quickly, I hated my new job. </p>

<p>Lo and behold, there was a study done at Harvard (I believe) stating that due to retirements from the last big academic hiring bulge in the late 60s/early 70s and anticipating the baby boom echo, there would be a shortage of newly minted Ph.D.s to fill the needs. Indeed, by 1995 there would only be 6 new Ph.D.s for every 10 openings in history (my field).</p>

<p>Well . . . you don't have to hit me over the head with a baseball bat. I always wanted to be a professor (but didn't do that after undergrad - 1979 - because I like to eat and have a roof over my head and there were far too many stories on the news about Ph.D.s driving cabs . . ..) This looked like a great oportunity to live my dream.</p>

<p>I entered grad school in 1990 at an Ivy. Fully funded. With dreams of being Mr. Chips dancing in my head.</p>

<p>Maybe because I was coming from the "real world" it didn't take me long to figure out that Harvard study was way off base. Even though the handwriting was on the wall . . . very talented newly-minted Ph.D.s were not getting jobs . . . grad students still poured into Ph.D. programs throughout the 90s. Why?? Because 1) they were convinced THEY would get a job and 2) because they were in grad school for the love of the discipline.</p>

<p>Even though everyone in my department was fully funded (tuition, fees and a $11K stipend) most of my classmates ended up in debt (some fairly large debt when combined with undergrad loans) and no job. Eventually, everyone found something to do (some ended up making far more money than they would in academia; some are quite poor; some women stayed home and had babies.) But the PAIN of the experience . . . being on the job market for years, facing incredible rejection (even though you know it's not you, it hurts) was painful to watch. </p>

<p>Maybe because I had been in the real world, maybe because of my personality, I didn't wait around to test the tenure-track waters. I got a job in administration (probably a better match for my talents) and I've been happy ever since. </p>

<p>Is there a moral to my story? Probably not. I don't blame people for following their dreams but sometimes reality needs to be considered. I DO blame the universities. They knew what was happening but they kept accepting as many grad students. Why?? They needed their (cheap) labor to staff classes, to help with research, etc. </p>

<p>There's always been a great difference in training, funding, and the job market for those in the humanities as opposed to those in the sciences and in business. Many universities are having a hard time attracting and keeping Ph.D.s in technical and business fields so there is still a robust market there with high salaries. </p>

<p>So, if your child is interested in getting a Ph.D. he or she needs to do their homework to decide if it makes sense. They may have a dream but they probably want to eat and have a roof over their heads.</p>

79

<p>I think we already do quite a bit to discourage getting a Ph.D. The 5-7 years is no small matter. Those are generally very lean years with a lot of hard work and often quite a bit of financial debt. Then there is the risk. There is an uncomfortable percentage who work for years but never complete the degree. Once the degree requirements are completed, it is not easy street. For the sciences, at least of couple more years of postdoc work are expected. This is typically slave labor at low pay - on an hourly basis, probably pretty close to minimum wage. The next step might mean academics. If so, there is the problem of finding a position and then making it past the first couple of years. It is common for universities to hire several new Ph.D's and then watch to see who can pull in the research dollars and generate publications. Those few who succeed may end up with nice salaries as associate or full professors. Financially, it will take many, many years to make up for debts and years of poverty. In fact, progressive taxes can make it very difficult to justify all of those years of work.</p>

<p>We talk a good story, but our society really does little to support advanced education.</p>

80

<p>My PhD degree could have taken 3 years (although I dragged my feet for 3 years on the dissertation, but that didn't cost much). I had only small debts, though it took me a long time to pay them off--current students take note. Even modest loans are "a piece of work" to pay off. With a PhD in psychology, I could work as a clinician. I don't know how this translates into a PhD in English or Philosophy.</p>