anyone consider becoming a teacher or a professor?

Graduate School
41

<p>That's definitely true. But let's differentiate even more. What about journalists? They seem to have an even different 'look,' cool but not in the same way. Yet they work with people just as much.</p>

<p>Also, what about different types of academics? Sure, there are tons of math professors who are just like you described. But what about public policy, business, or law professors? They seem to be 'pretty' on it, and attractive as well.</p>

<p>Also, nice evade of my inquiry into your personal background/status! I understand, though, why you are doing so. :|</p>

<p>RE: adjuncts - That may indeed be a partial short term solution, but the real, long term solution is to cut down on the number of PhD programs, and the number of PhDs each program offers. At the same time, expand the number of MA programs. I understand that many grad programs are reluctant to do this, because they want to have well-connected professor alums, not some high school teachers who are 'out there.' However, some programs do this, and manage to stay somewhat respected - for instance, UC Berkeley. We need more wise men (high school teachers), and less experts.</p>

<p>Here's a hypothetical. These invisible adjuncts may have gotten off the tenure track due to either random factors or due to a lack of research talent. Let's say it's the latter. Still, they had just enough talent to get a PhD, as well as an adjunctship. But their PhD is not from a good enough program, and their research is not good enough, for them to get tenure.</p>

<p>In this case, there are 2 options (in our world of constrained options).</p>

<p>This adjunct (gypsy as you say) can keep on adjuncting, knowing that this is his perpetual future. Accept a lower standard of living, stressful hours, but still be able to teach in a university setting. (Which is partially what they got the PhD for).</p>

<p>Or, he can teach in a high school level. He will always know, however, that his years in a PhD program were 'wasted' in the sense that they were completely unnecessary. Now, obviously, there is the satisfaction of the doctoral work itself, but let's be real. This hesitancy will make the adjunct unlikely to try for a high school teaching job in the first place, even though it may be fine for him.</p>

<p>Basically, places like Ohio State should not be offering PhDs, and places like Princeton should offer MAs. That is the long term solution.</p>

42

<p>I think you are differentiating too far. It is obviously true that journalists, especially TV journalists, tend to be far more attractive and articulate than the average person. And it is also true that business, law, and public policy academics also tend to be 'cool' and attractive. It should therefore come as no surprise that many of these people can make the transition to consulting far easier than can, say, the math or computer science academic. In fact, many business profs have lucrative side-careers as business consultants, often times topping their prof salaries. It should also be no surprise that one of the biggest employers of PhD's in business is McKinsey. </p>

<p>I hesitate to endorse your idea of reducing the number of PhD's given out, because I feel that it simply constrains people's free choice. If people want to get their PhD and are qualified to do so, then I feel that they should be allowed to do so. I hesitate to say to anybody who wants to get a PhD and who is qualifed "Sorry, we're not giving you a spot because we don't feel that there will be enough tenured professorship spots available when you graduate." </p>

<p>A better way to do it is to simply educate all would-be PhD's, especially at the lower-tier PhD programs, about the reality of the situation of the adjunct/gypsies. If people want to proceed anyway, then they do so out of their own fully-informed free choice. However, all PhD students should know full well what the odds are of getting a tenured position. They then have nobody to blame but themselves if they end up as a gypsy. You knew the odds coming in, you went in anyway, so, now that you're a gypsy...</p>

<p>Your second-to-last paragraph neatly segues into the other idea I had in mind which is that the academic world needs to remove the stigma attached to getting non-academic jobs. The fact is, there are many places you can go with a PhD of which academia is only one. Schools should devote more resources to exposing their graduate students to the wide variety of positions out there. For example, why not bring in former PhD students who are now teaching high school, working in the private sector, or even working as management consultants? Have them come in and talk about the myriad possibilities one has with a PhD, and show them that there are more things out there than just being an academic.</p>

<p>I would also push to blend some of the PhD programs with some of the professional programs like the law school, med-school, the business school, the education school, etc. For example, if a guy is getting a PhD in political science or philosophy, maybe there's a way to let him tack on a JD also. For example, he would just have to do the first 2 years of law school classes, but he wouldn't have to take the 3rd year of law school electives. Or maybe those PhD students can apply to law school without having to pay the fees and/or take the LSAT, or maybe a case could be made for near-automatic admission, under the grounds that if he's good enough to pass his PhD quals, he's probably good enough to get into the law school. </p>

<p>The point is not to quibble about the details. I'm sure people could come up with better details. The point is simply to consider the idea that perhaps the PhD programs and professional programs could align themselves closer in order to give PhD students more options.</p>

43

<p>Finally, I would point to what you said in that second-to-last paragraph as one of those crucial examples of 'negative human capital' that has been explained in great detail by (who else) Thomas Sowell. In essence, time and time again, and throughout history, the problems of overeducation have come to light in many countries in the world, including the US. The mantra that you hear over and over again is that education is always an unalloyed boon, and society only has to worry about whether the cost of education is worth its benefit. Yet it is always taken as a given that education always produces a benefit for society, because it is purported that a population always becomes more productive as it becomes more educated, and hence human capital is always increased (although perhaps not by enough to cover the cost of that education). Yet the fact is, human capital is not always increased, as pointed out by Sowell. In fact, for certain kinds of education and certain kinds of people, human capital is actually REDUCED by education. And how is that? By exactly the mechanism you described - those who get PhD's now consider a wider range of jobs (for example teaching in high school) to be beneath them, to the point that they would rather try to stitch together a bunch of adjunct teaching jobs at very low pay rather than take a more lucrative and more stable position teaching in high school. </p>

<p>To quote Sowell, p. 340, Conquests and Cultures:</p>

<p>"In some countries, such negative human capital is increased by education, so that those who have been to schools or universities now regard a wider range of occupations as being beneath them. Whether the positive human capital they receive in educational institutions is sufficient to offset this growth in negative human capital is ultimately an empirical question and depends in part on whether their education has been in fields with practical applications or in easier and more speculative subjects. The educated unemployed are a major social, economic, and political problem in many Third World nations..."</p>

<p>Hence, I think that those guys who you refer to as not willing to become high school teachers because they consider such jobs to be a 'waste' of their PhD as basically suffering from negative human capital. Look, the fact of the matter is, getting a PhD does not automatically entitle you to a tenure-track job, and those who think that need to get a major attitude adjustment. Those adjunct guys played the game of academic tenure, and they lost, and they need to accept that fact. Now, if they really enjoy working as an adjunct, then, fine, they should do that. But if they don't, again, they should look at what else they can do. But it's not healthy to view adjunctship as a way to cling to the last shards of academia and thereby avoid reality. Eventually, you need to have that psychological reckoning that you're not going to get tenured, and it's better to do that sooner rather than later.</p>

44

<p>Yep - A good example of that was also Imperial China's examination hell.</p>

<p>But I do dispute your reasoning as to why the number of PhD's given out should not be reduced. (And this is quibbling over details, because you and I both agree the situation as it currently stands is intolerable)</p>

<p>These adjuncts-to-be may be qualified for a PhD, but the truth is that they did not get into a PhD program good enough to get them a tenure-track. Thus, they were not 'really' good enough to get the 'right' kind of PhD to begin with. Their PhD is basically a masters. So why not give real master's out instead?</p>

45

<p>But we disagree on one crucial detail. I don't see that the number of newly minted PhD's as being the real problem. The REAL problem is the number of newly minted Phd's who for some reason expect to get tenure-track positions. THAT's the problem. Case in point - if all these excess PhD's were happy to go run off to become high school teachers or take jobs in industry or whatever, then we wouldn't be sitting here talking right now. The real issue is that for various reasons they don't want to do that, instead they insist on hanging around on the fringes of academia. Even that's not a problem if they are happy to do that. The problem is that they do that, and then complain about it. </p>

<p>Hence, two parties are to blame. #1 are the PhD's themselves. They should have known what they were getting themselves into. They need to lower their expectations and get a reality check. And #2 are the schools. The schools ought to have done a better job of communicating the reality of the academic world as well as exposing students to the diversity of opportunites out there. Just because you have a PhD and can't get on the tenure track does not mean that you have to consign yourself to becoming an adjunct. If you want to do that, then fine. But if you don't, you should know that you can get a job elsewhere, and you should not be so arrogant and prideful to think that those jobs are beneath you. To think that just because you have a PhD, you're now "too good" to be teaching high school really bespeaks to a unconscionable level of ego. </p>

<p>However, the point is that I think that merely reducing the number of Phd's out there is really disproportionate to the problem we are facing. Again, it's not that we have too many PhD's. It's really that we have too many PhD's that think they are entitled to a tenure-track job. Hence, we don't need to reduce the total number of PhD's, we just have to reduce the total number of PhD's who try to get tenure-track jobs. That can be done through simple dissemination of information of the odds facing those trying to get tenure and the sum total of opportunities out there. There's no need to resort to the sledgehammer of reducing the total number of PhD's.</p>

46

<p>Actually, at least in History, the number of Ph.D.s has already come down. While things are bad now, from what I've heard, things were worse in the 80s, when there were fewer jobs and they were producing more Ph.D.'s than they are now.</p>

47

<p>Oh, One other thought. I think Sakky, you put a bit too much emphasis on the tiering of the schooll you go too. What I have been told is more important is the quality of your dissertation and what you have published</p>

48

<p>I'm not the one doing the 'tiering' of the schools. I am perfectly aware that some students from no-name PhD programs nevertheless produce stellar publications and dissertations and hence are perfectly viable tenure-track candidates.</p>

<p>But the issue remains that there are a lot of PhD's that are pumped out every year that expect to get a job in academia, and if they can't get a tenure-track position, then they just hang on as adjuncts. Again, don't get me wrong, if you're happy with the adjunct gypsy lifestyle, then by all means take those positions. But if you're not, yet you hang onto it anyway, well, I don't really know what to tell you. I think those unhappy adjuncts really need to lower their expectations. Just because you have a PhD doesn't automatically entitle you to a good job in academia. Furthermore, there's nothing wrong with having a PhD and working in the private sector or as a school teacher.</p>

49

<p>I actually don't think sakky puts enough emphasis on tiering. In the humanities and social sciences, everything is about tiers. Read "The Academic Caste System," a recent article in the American Sociological Review, for a very convincing quantitative explanation. (Google it, a pdf is on the author's site.)</p>

50

<p>Is not another outlet for Ph.D.'s teaching at Community Colleges?</p>

51

<p>Again, the issue is pride. Professors want to be instructing the best students at the best schools. I also doubt that the pay compares.</p>

52

<p>"Their PhD is basically a masters. So why not give real master's out instead?"</p>

<p>LOL! What an odd comment. While they have earned a Ph.D., though admittadly not one that has allowed them to find a tenure position. Nevertheless the requirements they have fulfilled are far higher than those required for an M.A. They have earned a Ph.D.: just not one that has resulted in the job they want.</p>

53

<p>I think the last few comments hit the nail on the head. I agree with karmafairy - it mostly has to do with pride. I also agree with swankyspoon - their PhD is an earned PhD, it just didn't get them the job they wanted.</p>

<p>But that is the real problem - their pride and what they want to get vs. what they can actually get. Not everybody who wants to be a tenured prof gets to be one, just like in every profession, not everybody gets to get the plum job. Just because you have a law degree doesn't mean that you're automatically entitled to a job at a big-time law-firm and certainly doesn't entitle you to make partner. Just because you have an MD doesn't automatically entitle you to become Head of Surgery, or to even get put on a career track that you would allow you to eventually become Head of Track. Not everybody gets what they want. That's life.</p>

<p>It is of course true that teaching CC students doesn't pay particularly well. However, neither does being an adjunct gypsy lecturer. Sure, if you're an adjunct, you may be teaching good students at good schools. But the pay is crap, you have zero job security, your occupational prestige is iffy at best. The truth is, you're just working as an adjunct because you're hoping that a tenure-track position opens somewhere along the line. </p>

<p>Again, don't get me wrong. If you're happy being an adjunct, then there is no problem. The problem is with those adjuncts who rail bitterly about their low station in life And to them, I have to say that their low station is something of their own choosing. They can quit adjuncthood anytime they want and do something else. Just because you have a PhD doesn't mean that you're forced to take a job in academia. There's nothing wrong with taking a job in the private sector. Yes, I know, for many of them, being a tenured prof is their dream job, but the reality is that most people don't get to pursue their dream job. That's life. If it were up to me, I'd be playing for the Boston Red Sox right now. At some point, I had to realize that I had no baseball talent and so I was never going to be a successful player, so I had to move on with my life. These unhappy adjuncts need to do the same.</p>

54

<p>Competition for tenure track jobs is intense, and people need to have a fall back in case things don't work out. That said, I don't think the number of PhDs is the problem. I would be perfectly happy to work as a HS teacher after earning my PhD. My credentials might also qualify me for a position in administration or on a school board. There are many other jobs that will yield decent income, and aspiring professors need to realize this and weigh their options.</p>

<p>On another note, perhaps the problem is more that the University system is so willing to exploit the ambitions of PhD. holders... I think it needs to be made clear to many of these adjuncts that a tenure position is not a viable opportunity. I wonder how many are seriously kidding themselves.</p>

55

<p>I really like this thread. It touches on many issues faced by me and many others in my life. </p>

<p>I can confirm that private school teachers certainly are paid less than public school teachers in most cases. Yes, private schools charge tuition, but that's because they don't have funding coming in from the state. Furthermore, private school teachers are not unionized as public school teachers are.</p>

<p>I found graduate school to be an environment of the most intense snobbery, directed at basically anybody in another department, anybody not in academia, and, above all, schoolteachers. It is not surprising to me that there are so many adjuncts who have not even considered the option of becoming schoolteachers, if their graduate school environment was anything like mine. I'm sure most of my former department-mates could not fathom ever doing anything so lowly. </p>

<p>Fortunately, this option did occur to me, mostly because I recalled my own high school, which was excellent, and its teachers, some of whom were brilliant and inspiring. I now teach high school. My quality of life is great. I'm sure many of my former department-mates feel sorry for me for having descended to this level, but frankly I don't exactly envy them. Most of the ones who have remained in academia have ended up quite a bit lower on the prestige scale than where they expected to be, some have burned out on academia, and the rest whose professional ambitions have pretty much come to fruition are, in general, not living anywhere near their significant others because of the academic "two-body problem". </p>

<p>I think many people don't realize how stimulating a career teaching high school can be. I do wish that adjuncts were treated better, but it won't happen as long as there are so many people willing to take the job under crappy conditions.</p>

<p>As for the PhD glut, I do think that many departments are able to attract so many PhD students only because students have serious misconceptions about their prospects in academia. It is a lot to expect from 22-year-olds that they should understand this fully on their own, if no one has ever told them anything except that they are brilliant. Ideally, professors who care about the undergraduate students at their institutions should inform them of the realities. Graduate departments are not going to do this because they rely on cheap graduate student labor. And any graduate department that is anything like mine is not going to try to inform its graduate students about opportunities outside of academia because it sees a big part of its prestige as coming from the success of its graduates in academia. I believe the actual well-being and fulfillment of its graduate students is quite low on the list of priorities -- and I'm not sure that professors there are fully aware that there is even such a thing as well-being and fulfillment outside of academia.</p>

56

<p>Unless you really want to research,</p>

<pre><code> What's the problem with teaching high school? It disturbs me that tenure faculty at institutions of learning (not necessarily research) are often chosen based on their insane publications, brilliant research, and plethora of degrees and awards. Instructing really is very different and a major reason so many undergraduate experiences are lacking is because of this. Community colleges suffer the same problem now. There are so many PhD's that in my hometown 1/300 applicants is hired for a full time cc position. They consistenly wind up being some bright star from a research institution who has no idea how to convey ideas or construct a course.

I mention only because of the negative stigma I received when I decided to teach high school. I knew I wanted to do it before college because teaching based schools (small liberal arts colleges/cc's/cal state's) prefer some level of organized and successful teaching experience. There are excellent high school positions out there. I teach academy students with a lab that outcompetes most community colleges and many of the students publish before graduation. The best part is many districts in southern california (not where I am right now) pay MORE than most universities, are extremely secure, and offer AP, and IB courses. Teaching IB Biology and Biotechnology to students who are one or two years away from entering a top school and are already doing amazing independent research is a good gig. I just wish that being a high school teacher didn't have such a negative stigma. You're right, just because you have a PhD doesn't entitle you to anything at all. Acquired content and demonstrated research capability does not in any way convey the successful ability to produce results in a professional private lab, and certainly not the ability to educate.
I am strongly considering and want to become a professor at a small college or community college, and until then I will be a successful department chair at a high school and teach as many courses as possible. Teaching high school students (if you choose the right school) can be a really great job. In some ways it's a best kept secret, but the price you pay is that for some reason everyone thinks you're a loser. When I was offered a job at Bayer making 20 percent more (right out of undergrad) the pay cut for essentially having no boss and 180 day work year was an easy trade off. Not to say it's easy, the job isanely rigorous (I'm still just starting out).
</code></pre>

57

<p>Sakky,
You clrealy informed and articulate. To what extent do you think the topic of your thesis effects one's marketability in academia? If one cannot be groundbreaking, do you think it would be better to write on a subject that has been developed or something really original but risk being too recondite? I am sorry to interject, but I could not resist the opportunity.</p>

58

<p>You are clearly*</p>

59

<p>im not sure if this was mentioned before but can someone explain the path one must take to become a professor. like how much schooling or work experience that is needed</p>

60

<p>stanmaster...</p>

<p>it depends on what field and what level of college/university...</p>

<p>(1) For all but community colleges, a PhD is absolutely required.
Even many CCs require PhDs, although occasionally they will take MA/MS in fields such as math & physics...</p>

<p>(2) PhD takes approx 5-7 years, although it can be as long as 10 years... generally shorter in engineering, longer in humanities... but this is INCREDIBLY variable depending on the field, the university, the department, your PhD advisor, and many other random things...</p>

<p>(3) 2-6 years Postdoc work... again, VERY, VERY variable depending on field... in the physical sciences, you usually need 2-6 years of postdoc research where you are publishing papers in scientific journals to prove yourself... in the humanities, recent grads often take temporary lectureships for a few years... </p>

<p>(4) If you are lucky enough to get a faculty position, you generally start off as an assistant professor, and then move up the ranks through associate professor, then full professor... generally, after being an assistant professor for 5-6 years, you are reviewed for TENURE... if you get tenure, you've got a job for life, if not, you must leave the school within a year and start over... getting tenure is incredibly difficult... you need a good mix of solid teaching, track record of publishing articles and books, bringing in research grant money, training grad students, etc... research universities put alot of emphasis on research money and publishing... smaller schools put more emphasis on teaching... but it is INCREDIBLY VARIABLE depending on the field, department, university, prestige of the school, etc.</p>

<p>Of course, there are superstars who race through all these steps and get tenure in their early 30's... but for most, you are in limbo with little job security until your late 30's or early 40's.</p>

<p>For the record, I'm trying to be a professor... I completed my PhD last year in astrophysics, and am currently in my 2nd year as a postdoc... i'm already in my 30's, so I won't get tenure till i'm over 40... if I'm lucky...</p>