Honest Answers About PhDs...

Graduate School
1

<p>I'm strongly considering a PhD for English Literature. However, reading all the posts about finding work afterwards is depressing me. I was wondering if anyone could answer my questions--</p>

<p>I know how small the market is for English Professors. However, I'm only going to consider going for the PhD if I get accepted into a top ten program (i.e. Harvard, Yale, etc). Coming out of a top ten program, can anyone estimate what the chances are that I'll get a tenure track? Is it still more likely I'll be searching for work 5 years after?</p>

2

<p>No, no one can estimate those odds because the system is so complex. A strong program and advisor(s) with connections can improve them, but they are still long. When you start interviewing there might be 20 openings for people with exactly your specialty. Or there may be nothing 10 years in a row. </p>

<p>Do read the job search/interviewing threads over on the CHE fora:</p>

<p><a href="http://chronicle.com/forums/index.php%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://chronicle.com/forums/index.php&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>As always, talk to your professors!</p>

3

<p>No answers for you, though I'm looking for the same thing.</p>

<p>Found this article, though, and there are others like it:</p>

<p>Whither</a> the Humanities PhD?</p>

4

<p>I can tell you that a PhD from a top 10 program guarantees absolutely squat. </p>

<p>I have MANY friends and colleagues from top programs in the humanities who have been adjuncts or VAPs for years and years, with no real tenure-track prospects. I also have MANY friends and colleagues from the same programs, with the same levels of ability and expertise, who did indeed find TT jobs, sometimes right out of grad school. (I was hired before my diss was even finished.) There's no rhyme or reason. It depends entirely on the market for your subspecialization at the time you are employable. And your "hot" subspecialization can become "cold" without warning. </p>

<p>I'll put it this way: LOVE your research, or find another career. And NEVER choose a subspecialization based on market predictions.</p>

5

<p>Prof X is probably the go to guy on this stuff. What I have heard about thw PhD market absolutely fits with what he is saying. If you truly love what you are doing, something is much more likely to find you then if you get a PhD in the misguided hopes that it will land you a prestigious job at an Ivy.</p>

6

<p>I've also recently decided to apply to the English PhD and have spent a few months previously convincing myself that a) I'm going to like getting the PhD itself b) if I don't get a tenure track position, I have some Plan Bs or Cs that I would be happy enough doing. I've spent a year so far out of college teaching English at a public school in a rough urban area, and even that hasn't been totally dismal. The point is - I think there are places in the real world that academics can be happy, and teaching middle school in a bad public school might be the worst you can get. You might just have to consider some of them before you take the plunge...good luck to you!!!</p>

7

<p>
[quote]
I'll put it this way: LOVE your research, or find another career. And NEVER choose a subspecialization based on market predictions.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>PX pretty much nailed it. </p>

<p>I had an experience that gave me this perspective. I had a professor basically recommend against my getting a PhD in history though I had been a star in her class. She told me if her opinion I shouldn't move forward to get the PhD was enough to dissuade me, I'd never have the stamina to get one. Anyway, I ran into a PhD candidate from Stanford a few years later in the field I had wanted to study; she was embarking on the research portion of the process after having completed coursework. I'll never forget how completely not psyched she was to be going into the research phase. It would involve for her a lot of being alone in stacks. That's when I realized that I had been given the right guidance. The days alone with me, my books, and the research would have been dreadful for me. On the other hand, another friend got his PhD from UCLA in the same field and he loved the research (he was a real introvert). The only drawback for him was he didn't end up landing a job in the field, though I don't know how hard he actually tried.</p>

<p>PX's advice seems spot on to me.</p>

8

<p>amethyst - Do you have an teaching certificate? If not, a PhD alone will not allow you to teach middle school. Some private schools will take a PhD without a state certificate as a teacher, but public schools require it (by law) and Catholic schools generally require it (by diocese policy). Private high schools may allow it, but middle schools are tougher. And even at that, the number of private high schools in the country, when Catholic schools are taken out of the equation, are not many. Please consider this.</p>

<p>There are alternative certification programs in each state; however, most of the states only allow this for shortage areas (math and science). A notable exception is Florida. Regardless, there are many high school English teachers looking for a job, the competition is not much less than for a position in academia in most areas, and a teacher with certification and age group teaching experience will always be preferred. This is something a lot of PhDs don't realize, thinking that their PhD will at least allow them to get a job in secondary teaching, and that because of their PhD they will be preferred. However, the only time I have seen this is when it is a shortage area and a high school needs an AP teacher. In other words, not frequently.</p>

9

<p>
[quote]
amethyst - Do you have an teaching certificate? If not, a PhD alone will not allow you to teach middle school. Some private schools will take a PhD without a state certificate as a teacher, but public schools require it (by law) and Catholic schools generally require it (by diocese policy). Private high schools may allow it, but middle schools are tougher. And even at that, the number of private high schools in the country, when Catholic schools are taken out of the equation, are not many. Please consider this.</p>

<p>There are alternative certification programs in each state; however, most of the states only allow this for shortage areas (math and science). A notable exception is Florida. Regardless, there are many high school English teachers looking for a job, the competition is not much less than for a position in academia in most areas, and a teacher with certification and age group teaching experience will always be preferred. This is something a lot of PhDs don't realize, thinking that their PhD will at least allow them to get a job in secondary teaching, and that because of their PhD they will be preferred. However, the only time I have seen this is when it is a shortage area and a high school needs an AP teacher. In other words, not frequently.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>While my evidence is only anecdotal, I have some familiarity with the teaching hiring patterns in 3 highly distinct areas of the country and in all 3, I have seen people with just bachelor's degrees from no-name schools (and of course teaching certifications) get public school teaching jobs with little problem. Granted, they didn't all get to teach in the specific school district that they wanted, they didn't all get to teach at the grade level, or in some cases, even the subject that they wanted. But they all got *some * teaching job at a public school in the area. Not a single one failed to find at least one job. </p>

<p>I have to imagine that if these people who have just no-name bachelor's degrees can do that, somebody with a PhD should be able to do at least as well (again, provided they get that teaching certification also).</p>

10

<p>There is, however a problem with looking for entry level public school jobs with a PhD in hand:</p>

<p>Most districts have pay scales based on level of education and length of service. A new, certified PhD will be significantly more expensive to hire than a new, certified, BA in the same subject.</p>

<p>Most places those pay scales are a matter of public record and can be found on the local districts' web sites.</p>

11

<p>As a person who spent over five years as a teacher in two different states, I assure you that it doesn't work that way. Schools do not care what school you came from - it isn't part of the culture of secondary education to be concerned about the name of the school. Additionally, schools care far more about the teacher certificate than the degree. Another consideration is that a teacher with a PhD must be paid significantly more, something that many school districts are not willing to do. These are secondary level classes - a PhD isn't necessary to teach them. As I said, the exception to the rule is for AP classes. As I pointed out elsewhere, getting a teacher certificate is not a mean feat, either. As alternative certification only applies to math and science, those with humanities degrees must go through the regular certification process, which is approximately 1 1/2-2 years of classes and teacher experiences.</p>

<p>Also, many, many teachers now in the humanities (especially in social studies/history) are having a very difficult time getting a job, given the number of applicants (sometimes rising into the hundreds). I'm, pleased that your friends have all found jobs, but I know many, many extremely qualified teachers who are unemployed. I'm not sure how recently your observations were or what the specifics were, but in all 50 states now schools cannot hire a person to teach in an area in which they do not have a degree (because of the No Child Left Behind Act), unless there are no qualified people to fill a spot. Excepting math, science, special education, and foreign languages, this rarely happens.</p>

<p>To assume that if a BA/BS at a no-name school is OK, a PhD must be better is not logical. There are a lot of other considerations. I've seen plenty of recommendations that if a PhD can't find work in academia, secondary teaching is an alternative. This is true, but getting into secondary teaching is more difficult than people seem to understand, especially since NCLB. It's certainly not a "default" move, as you've previously described it.</p>

12

<p>You're all right about the difficulty of PhD's being hired into secondary school education. I'm doing an alternative certification - Teach for America; and getting my masters and certification in New York concurrently. I meant my comment more as a you can definitely find some kind of job other than tenure track professorships. In general, what I've found in NYC is that if you're willing to teach at a pretty bad school, you'll get hired. Still, you're right that often principals won't consider PhDs because you have to be paid more under the union contract. But then again all sorts of crazy non-contract following things happen in the New York Department of Education...so basically if you're willing to teach in an inner-city school in the Bronx (maybe not for the salary you're promised but probably for more money than as an Assistant Professor somewhere) you might find yourself hired...? Maybe not so uplfting, but just a thought!</p>

13

<p>More and more, my impassion as a Phd student is that you've absolutely got to love what you're doing, in every detail, and everything else be damned. Work, social/family life...hell, sometimes health. It is a rough road, and really and truly, little prepares you for the difficulty of publication-level research. Things like ideas - original ideas - are so hard to come by, and the struggle to create any real work, to say nothing of truly meaningful work, is absolutely maddening. The work is exhausting, the hours are long, and the pay is ****, even for those of us that are lucky enough to be in high paying fields.</p>

<p>Yes, the odds can be easily estimated assuming access to placement info, it really isn't that difficult. However it probably won't give you much more than the fact that chances are slim. Perhaps best for you is to look at backup options.</p>

14

<p>This thread makes it look like getting a PhD is career suicide. Sure, placement is fairly poor and the years spent studying rarely pay off in large salaries. However, for someone who truly loves academia and has a passion for the area they are studying, I would never counsel them to seek back up options. I have seen too many individuals who wanted to pursue a PhD be disuaded by naysayers and go to law school or end up working for Big Pharma. Do what you love. Make sure it won't end up with you panhandling on a street corner, but love it nonetheless.</p>

15

<p>
[quote]
As a person who spent over five years as a teacher in two different states, I assure you that it doesn't work that way. Schools do not care what school you came from - it isn't part of the culture of secondary education to be concerned about the name of the school.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I am not saying that the schools will care what university you came from. I am saying that if you have the drive to complete a PhD at a top program, then you certainly have the drive to figure out how to get yourself a teacher position. </p>

<p>Again, consider the competition. I think back to my middle and high school years. Many (probably most) of my teachers, including the new ones, were not exactly the most brilliant or most dedicated people in the world. Some were indeed very good, but most were mediocre at best. Yet these people apparently got hired. If these people can get hired, I have to think that you can too. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Additionally, schools care far more about the teacher certificate than the degree ...As I pointed out elsewhere, getting a teacher certificate is not a mean feat, either. As alternative certification only applies to math and science, those with humanities degrees must go through the regular certification process, which is approximately 1 1/2-2 years of classes and teacher experiences.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Again, nobody is denying that you have to get certified. But again, I am asking, really, how difficult is that? Let's be honest - a lot of teachers out there (again, thinking back to my high school) really weren't very good, yet they have teaching certifications. Somehow I very seriously doubt that you can compare the difficulty of getting a teaching certification vs. getting a PhD. Think about that - do you honestly think that that's a fair comparison? If you have the ability to complete a PhD, then I'm quite certain that you can complete a teaching certification. It's not that hard. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Another consideration is that a teacher with a PhD must be paid significantly more, something that many school districts are not willing to do. These are secondary level classes - a PhD isn't necessary to teach them. As I said, the exception to the rule is for AP classes.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Sure, I agree, teachers with advanced degrees must be paid more. But that doesn't seem to deter existing teachers from obtaining advanced degrees in order to boost their pay. You would think that if school districts didn't want to pay more for teachers with advanced degrees, then they would also work to stop existing teaching from earning advanced degrees in order to get more pay. Either way, you have to pay more. What's the difference? </p>

<p>
[quote]
Also, many, many teachers now in the humanities (especially in social studies/history) are having a very difficult time getting a job, given the number of applicants (sometimes rising into the hundreds).

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'm sorry - I'm afraid I still don't see it. If you can't teach high school, fine. Teach midde school. Still can't do that? Then teach elementary school. Teach at a private school. Whatever. The jobs are there. Everybody that I know that has a humanities degree who wanted a teaching job has found a job. </p>

<p>Consider what the BLS says:</p>

<p>"Job opportunities for teachers over the next 10 years will vary from good to excellent, depending on the locality, grade level, and subject taught. Most job openings will result from the need to replace the large number of teachers who are expected to retire over the 2004-14 period. Also, many beginning teachers decide to leave teaching after a year or two—especially those employed in poor, urban schools—creating additional job openings for teachers. Shortages of qualified teachers will likely continue, resulting in competition among some localities, with schools luring teachers from other States and districts with bonuses and higher pay."</p>

<p><a href="http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos069.htm#outlook%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos069.htm#outlook&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Now, what I can see is that people will not get the specific teaching job they are looking for. For example, many of the people that I know did not get to teach in their top choice of district. That does happen. So, sure, I agree that if you're expecting to get one of those cushy teaching jobs with honors kids in the suburbs, you may not find a job. But if you're willing to take any teaching job out there, and you have some level of motivation (i.e. equivalent to what you need to complete a PhD), you can find SOMETHING. </p>

<p>
[quote]
To assume that if a BA/BS at a no-name school is OK, a PhD must be better is not logical. There are a lot of other considerations. I've seen plenty of recommendations that if a PhD can't find work in academia, secondary teaching is an alternative. This is true, but getting into secondary teaching is more difficult than people seem to understand, especially since NCLB. It's certainly not a "default" move, as you've previously described it.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'm afraid that I have to stand my ground - it's still the 'default move', and it is entirely logical. Again, I would point to the competition. Let's be honest. A lot of newly hired teachers really aren't that good. Yet they somehow get hired anyway. Yet you, with a PhD, can't find a job? Come on. This isn't like trying to get a job at Google or Goldman Sachs we're talking about here, where you're competing against the cream of the graduates from the Ivies, Stanford, and MIT. This is K-12 teaching here. Some of my friends, who freely admit that they were rather lazy in college (and also within their teaching cert programs) , were nevertheless able to get hired as teachers. Again, they didn't become teachers in the most desirable districts. But they still got hired.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I meant my comment more as a you can definitely find some kind of job other than tenure track professorships.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>
[quote]
This thread makes it look like getting a PhD is career suicide. Sure, placement is fairly poor and the years spent studying rarely pay off in large salaries. However, for someone who truly loves academia and has a passion for the area they are studying, I would never counsel them to seek back up options. I have seen too many individuals who wanted to pursue a PhD be disuaded by naysayers and go to law school or end up working for Big Pharma. Do what you love. Make sure it won't end up with you panhandling on a street corner, but love it nonetheless.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Allow me to point to another possibility. The OP asked about going to a very top PhD program (i.e. Harvard, Yale, etc.). Well, if you can get into one of those programs, then plenty of other strong possibilities open up. Management consulting now becomes a serious possibility. It doesn't have to be at a top consulting firm like McKinsey. Plenty of the smaller, no-name boutique consulting firms would love to hire you just to be able to SAY that they have somebody with an advanced degree from Harvard or Yale on their staff. So do investment banking, private equity, hedge funds, venture capital and the like. {If you disagree, then consider the fact that many of the most elite banks will hire as analysts those people with just bachelor's degrees in the humanities, as long as they came from schools like Harvard, Yale, etc.}. You can get a job in sales/marketing. Plenty of business opportunities open up if you go to schools of that caliber. It's all just a matter of marketing yourself properly. </p>

<p>As a case in point, consider Silicon Valley consulting guru Geoffery Moore, author of such famous business/technology books as 'Crossing the Chasm', and 'The Gorilla Game'. He has no degree in business or technology. His PhD is in English literature from the University of Washington. </p>

<p><a href="http://www.tcg-advisors.com/who/moore.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.tcg-advisors.com/who/moore.htm&lt;/a>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoffrey_Moore%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoffrey_Moore&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Now, obviously, not everybody is going to be Geoffrey Moore. But the point is, if you have the dedication and intelligence to get a Phd, then you should have the dedication to figure out how to build a decent career. For example, if it means spending months reading MBA course textbooks and the Wall Street Journal so that you can fully prepare for a consulting interview, then you can do it. Why not? You already put your nose to the grindstone for years to get the PhD. Yet you can't dedicate time to retraining yourself for another career? What's up with that? If nothing else, the PhD process teaches you perserverance, how to learn things quickly, and how to put up with long hours. Most business jobs don't require that you really know that much - they're mostly based on common sense. In the case of Geoffrey Moore, he stared his career as a sales guy for a software company. Surely, his PhD training taught him how to be more dedicated and more detail-oriented than the other guys in the company, which is how he was able to move up, and eventually make the transition to becoming a top consultant. Again, not everybody is going to be able to do what he did, but if you have the ability to get a PhD from a top school, you should have the ability to get some sort of half-decent career. </p>

<p>The biggest problem that I can see is that a lot of people with PhD's simply don't want to know what other opportunities are out there. They don't want to explore, say, consulting or banking. Think of it this way. If you can get a PhD from a top school, then you're already smarter than most of the MBA's out there. The other skills that they have - i.e. how to speak in public, how to interview, how to network/glad-hand, how to build slick business cases, etc. etc. - these are things that can be learned with dedication and practice. By going to a top school (i.e. Harvard, Yale, etc.), you will expose yourself a myriad of career opportunities. They abound with opportunities aplenty. It's all just a matter of taking advantage of the opportunities, and putting in the necessary work to do it. Now, if you just don't want to put in that work, or you don't want to know about those opportunities, then that's a different story entirely.</p>

16

<p>It's not about not wanting to know about those opportunities. It's simply about not wanting those opportunities. If my final destination is Wall St., then I might as well have majored in business, math, economics, etc., get an MBA, and go to Wall St. If I am enduring all the stress and work to get a Ph.D, I want a reward of equal magnitude, ie. getting a top notch faculty position. Going to Wall St. or industry is simply going to make be more aware of the fact that I could have ended up in the same place taking a less harsher path.</p>

17

<p>The "reward of equal magnitude" is the phd itself. The privilege of getting to learn (while getting paid to do so) is the reward. If, after you get the phd, you find that you cannot get a satisfactory job then go back to school and go into business (or law, etc).</p>

18

<p>Sakky -</p>

<p>Your entire post makes it very clear you do not understand the process of teacher certification, getting a teaching job, or the workings of school districts. In fact, your entire argument seems to consist of two parts:
1. Your teachers weren't that bright, and
2. "I just don't see it."</p>

<p>Nether of these arguments mean anything.</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Getting a teaching position has nothing at all to do with "drive." Sorry. If that was the case, I would always have been employed, and some of the laziest teachers I have ever known would not have been. Unfortunately, that's not the way it happens.</p></li>
<li><p>How difficult is certification? Not very. However, it is time consuming. You will need to take the requisite education courses, generally ed psych, ad psych, history of ed, sped needs, methods, and one or two more. You also need to complete a certain number of observation hours. In Illinois it was 110, I believe. These are time consuming, as not only do you have to spend time in the classroom during those hours, but you also have to lesson plan and grade parts of the classroom experience. You then need to complete anywhere from 10-16 weeks (depending on the state and university) of a student teaching experience, which is full-time school day work plus all the necessary lesson planning and grading. It also usually involves periodic seminars during the semester at the university. So as I said, it is about 1 1/2-2 years more of schooling. You can also to the masters in education route, which basically is a 2-year program encompassing all the certification requirements. A person who has just finished the long PhD process does not usually want to go BACK to school to do the certification process.</p></li>
<li><p>Actually, you can't just try for high school, then middle school, then elementary. The certificates are different. Most states have a certificate for grades 7-12 and a separate one for elementary. To get the elementary cert, you need to complete a major in elementary education. Also, the student teaching for secondary is not applicable for elementary. Finally, some states, such as Illinois, require a special endorsement for middle school, adding generally 9-12 more credit hours to the certification process.</p></li>
<li><p>Districts often do not encourage their teachers to get advanced degrees until they have worked there at least a year. This gives the district time to decide if they want to keep them or not. Some districts, such as Chicago, have regularly let go higher-paid teachers for lower-paid ones in order to stay within budget. And some districts only offer tuition reimbursement for advanced degrees to tenured teachers. Additionally, while a masters degree is not much of a deterrent, a PhD is. Districts are not only afraid of the pay jump, but they suspect the teacher will not stick around (a fair assumption in most cases).</p></li>
<li><p>Your quote from the BLS has been circulating in one form or another for the past 25 years. Somehow, these jobs are not surfacing, at least in the humanities. Now, the teacher shortage in math, science, and special ed is severe and getting worse. But I was only ever referring to humanities.</p></li>
<li><p>Districts are not going to consider a PhD a better teacher than a BA. Sorry, it just doesn't happen. They may be smarter in many ways, but it does not equip them better to handle a class full of adolescents. I've known plenty of terrible professors, all with PhDs. K-12 education, as well, has a bit of a chip on the shoulder - they prefer BA and Ma (in ed) to PhD. They think PhDs (unless in ed - and then they should be administrators) are not suited to k-12 education. They will, in fact discriminate against them (some districts, not all). But PhDs definitely don't have any sort of edge.</p></li>
<li><p>I'm pleased that the few people you know got jobs. As I know people that haven't, however, I believe that eliminates your sweeping generalization based on a very small sample. You can't say, "All can get jobs" when they HAVEN'T all gotten jobs.</p></li>
</ol>

<p>Please learn more before you encourage people to depend on teaching k-12 as a fall-back. It's quite a bit more involved than that. I never said it was impossible, but it certainly isn't just a matter of not getting a job in a preferred district.</p>

19

<p>
[quote]
Your entire post makes it very clear you do not understand the process of teacher certification, getting a teaching job, or the workings of school districts. In fact, your entire argument seems to consist of two parts:
1. Your teachers weren't that bright, and
2. "I just don't see it."

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Oh, I think I understand it well enough, and it seems that you didn't understand the point of my post. Either that, or you just don't want to understand it. So let me discuss it again.</p>

<p>
[quote]
1. Getting a teaching position has nothing at all to do with "drive." Sorry. If that was the case, I would always have been employed, and some of the laziest teachers I have ever known would not have been. Unfortunately, that's not the way it happens.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Actually, I would say that it ALWAYS has to do with drive, although apparently not the way you are interpreting the term 'drive'. What I mean by drive, and what others here on this thread seem to agree is 'drive', is the simple willingless to take teaching jobs that are less desirable. As other posters here have pointed out, it may mean going to a less desirable inner-city district. It may mean having to move to a different part of the country. It may mean not being able to teach the subject that you want to teach. THAT is what I mean by drive. Come on, if you're willing to do all that - i.e., you're willing to go to any of the worst city districts or the most remote of rural districts in the country - and you're willing to teach ANYTHING, and you STILL can't find a single teaching position in the entire country? Really? Not even one? Come on. That's very hard to believe. </p>

<p>Now I agree that nobody wants to do things they don't really like, including me. But come on, if you've managed to complete a PhD, then you're well trained on self-discipline. You've done plenty of things you don't really like. For example, who really enjoys constantly re-editing their dissertation for months at a time? But you've done it. So your level of self-discipline is high. That means that you have the fortitude to take a teaching job that nobody else really wants. </p>

<p>
[quote]
2. How difficult is certification? Not very. However, it is time consuming. You will need to take the requisite education courses, generally ed psych, ad psych, history of ed, sped needs, methods, and one or two more. You also need to complete a certain number of observation hours. In Illinois it was 110, I believe. These are time consuming, as not only do you have to spend time in the classroom during those hours, but you also have to lesson plan and grade parts of the classroom experience. You then need to complete anywhere from 10-16 weeks (depending on the state and university) of a student teaching experience, which is full-time school day work plus all the necessary lesson planning and grading. It also usually involves periodic seminars during the semester at the university. So as I said, it is about 1 1/2-2 years more of schooling. You can also to the masters in education route, which basically is a 2-year program encompassing all the certification requirements. A person who has just finished the long PhD process does not usually want to go BACK to school to do the certification process.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>See above regarding your level of self-discipline. I think most people do not enjoy the teaching certification process. But as a PhD, you have a larger tolerance than most for doing undesirable things. You have a better work ethic than most people. </p>

<p>
[quote]
3. Actually, you can't just try for high school, then middle school, then elementary. The certificates are different. Most states have a certificate for grades 7-12 and a separate one for elementary. To get the elementary cert, you need to complete a major in elementary education. Also, the student teaching for secondary is not applicable for elementary. Finally, some states, such as Illinois, require a special endorsement for middle school, adding generally 9-12 more credit hours to the certification process.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Uh, sure you can. You can do everything I said. In fact, you don't even need a teaching certification at all. I was not just restricting myself to talking about teaching at public schools. Teach at a private school. Most of them don't require certifications. Be willing to move to a state that doesn't have onerous cert requirements. That's what I'm talking about. </p>

<p>
[quote]
4. Districts often do not encourage their teachers to get advanced degrees until they have worked there at least a year. This gives the district time to decide if they want to keep them or not. Some districts, such as Chicago, have regularly let go higher-paid teachers for lower-paid ones in order to stay within budget. And some districts only offer tuition reimbursement for advanced degrees to tenured teachers. Additionally, while a masters degree is not much of a deterrent, a PhD is. Districts are not only afraid of the pay jump, but they suspect the teacher will not stick around (a fair assumption in most cases).

[/quote]
</p>

<p>So then try to get a job at one of those elite private boarding schools. Sure, that's not easy, but if any schools are going to highly value your Phd, it is going to be those schools, if, for no other reason, so that they can say in their marketing that they have some PhD's on staff. Nobody ever said that you should restrict yourself to teaching only within the public school system. </p>

<p>
[quote]
5. Your quote from the BLS has been circulating in one form or another for the past 25 years. Somehow, these jobs are not surfacing, at least in the humanities. Now, the teacher shortage in math, science, and special ed is severe and getting worse. But I was only ever referring to humanities.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Again, I think these jobs seem to be cropping up over and over. They just crop up in the less desirable districts. So then that gets to a matter of self-discipline. Are you willing to put up with working in a less desirable district? </p>

<p>
[quote]
6. Districts are not going to consider a PhD a better teacher than a BA. Sorry, it just doesn't happen. They may be smarter in many ways, but it does not equip them better to handle a class full of adolescents. I've known plenty of terrible professors, all with PhDs. K-12 education, as well, has a bit of a chip on the shoulder - they prefer BA and Ma (in ed) to PhD. They think PhDs (unless in ed - and then they should be administrators) are not suited to k-12 education. They will, in fact discriminate against them (some districts, not all). But PhDs definitely don't have any sort of edge.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Uh, see above. I never said that PhD's have any sort of "hiring" edge (at least at the public schools; private schools are quite different). I said that they have a "drive" edge. Somebody with a PhD should have superior self-discipline for performing undesirable tasks than somebody who doesn't. Hence, such a person should be more able to adapt to a less desirable school district than others can. That's what I'm talking about. </p>

<p>
[quote]
7. I'm pleased that the few people you know got jobs. As I know people that haven't, however, I believe that eliminates your sweeping generalization based on a very small sample. You can't say, "All can get jobs" when they HAVEN'T all gotten jobs.</p>

<p>

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yeah, probably because they aren't willing to take the less-desirable jobs. Hey, look, I don't want to teach in a bad school district either. But you COULD. The jobs are there. The question is are you willing to consider them? </p>

<p>
[quote]
Please learn more before you encourage people to depend on teaching k-12 as a fall-back. It's quite a bit more involved than that. I never said it was impossible, but it certainly isn't just a matter of not getting a job in a preferred district.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Please learn more about what I am saying before you respond. Nobody ever said that it was an 'automatic' fallback. What I have said is that if you have the wherewithal to get a PhD, then you should have the ability to find SOME teaching job SOMEWHERE. The question is, are you willing to put up with what it takes? Are you willing to move anywhere in the country? Are you willing to go to any district? Are you willing to consider working at a private school?</p>

20

<p>Firstly, I have pointed out before that there are few private schools. Most are Catholic, and those require teacher certificates. The others are extremely competitive and not exactly "less desirable." So your argument there is not making sense to me. Yes, there are some cush private schools that very much value a PhD. How competitive do you think those are?</p>

<p>Secondly, define "less desirable area." Inner city? Because I taught there, and I tell you, there were still 100-200 applicants per job, must with significant teaching experience. Rural? Possibly - IF they aren't having a budget crunch (and the majority of rural districts are) and IF you're willing to buy a house there, because they aren't likely to have a lot of rental property.</p>

<p>Thirdly, no one said a PhD couldn't handle the cert reqs; in fact, I said they were easy. However, the issue was - Will a PhD want to go back to undergrad and do this? Probably not. So when you advise people they can "just teach high school" with their PhD, are you explaining the length of the cert process? If so, I've never seen it. I'm asking you to give more complete information so as not to misrepresent the opportunities.</p>

<p>Fourthly, the jobs aren't even cropping up much in the less desirable districts, and those that are, again, have hundreds of applicants. If I was an administrator and had a choice between an experienced secondary school teacher with good recs and a PhD with no secondary teaching experience, I'D pick the first. Almost all admins agree with that.</p>

<p>Fifthly, "superior self-discipline"? If you mean by taking an undesirable job, I'm not sure why you think loads of BA/BS teachers are sitting around waiting for plums to drop in their laps. Most are willing to go just about anywhere. They also sub and tutor in the area, building relationships so as to eventually obtain a job. I call that self-discipline. There are lots of definitions - don't assume those non-PhDs won't run right over a PhD, especially given that they have been trained in the "system" better than the PhDs and know how to work said system.</p>

<p>Sixthly (is that even a word?), it's interesting how you made assumptions about me not being "willing" to do what I needed to do. I worked in the inner city. I worked in alternative programs. I worked, also in good school districts. I applied WIDELY (several hundred applications) across several states one year, and I was unable to get a job despite excellent refs. The same goes for others I know that were unemployed. And yes, I applied to private schools too, which are harder to get into than public schools (because the kids are easier to teach and discipline problems are almost nonexistent).</p>

<p>You're really basing your argument on some seriously incorrect assumptions. Given that I'm far more familiar with the secondary school system than you are, perhaps you could accept my expertise in this area. However, if you continue to argue based on false assumptions and your knowledge of a handful of people, I will only hope that others considering this approach do so with their eyes open.</p>