Honest Answers About PhDs...

<p>
[quote]
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.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Aha, NOW we are getting to brass tacks. Now we are getting to the true heart of the matter. </p>

<p>First off, I agree completely with the sentiment expressed by mathtastic_nerd: that the reward is the PhD itself. You had the opportunity to research a particular topic that greatly interests you. It is that reward of the pure love of learning that you are garnering. Granted, there are some things that you have to do that are quite painful (i.e. the months-long editing process to churn out an acceptable dissertation, the studying for your general exams, the office politics). But the vast majority of the process is supposed to be quite interesting. Bottom line: if you don't find your research topic to be highly interesting and fun, then you shouldn't be getting a PhD. </p>

<p>Besides, look at it the situation this way. I believe CNN published a report that stated that the average American changed careers about 4 times in his lifetime. Not just changing employers, but changing * entire careers*. I've already changed careers several times, and I'm not that old. All of my old college buddies have done so too. For example, I know one guy who started off as an engineer, then became a management consultant, then became a real-estate/mortgage broker for a while, then became a business development executive, and is now looking to become a venture capitalist...and he's not even 30 years old yet. </p>

<p>Look, just because you get a PhD does not entitle you to a faculty position. And what's so bad about taking another career outside of academia? Worked out pretty well for Geoffrey Moore. Worked out quite well for Jack Welch (PhD in chemical engineering). Now obviously very few people are going to end up like Jack Welch or Geoffrey Moore. But the point is, plenty of people with PhD's enjoy highly rewarding careers outside of academia. Heck, there's a guy who got a PhD and is now the current heavyweight boxing champion of the world. {Dr. Wladimir Klitschko has a PhD in sports science and holds the IBF and IBO heavyweight belts). Life is unpredictable, and you can't plan your career in lockstep. You never know what is going to happen in the future. What is important is that you remain flexible in your choice of career. </p>

<p>However, what you touched upon is what I think is the biggest problem of all of the PhD process. Many people sadly think that just because they obtain a PhD, they are automatically entitled to a tenure-track faculty position and hence develop a strong aversion to taking jobs that they consider to be 'beneath' them, and hence decide to become one of those roving "gypsy" lecturers that have little hope for tenure, or in extremis, take no job at all. Look, having a PhD doesn't entitle you to anything, and if you think that it does, then that sense of entitlement is going to kill your career prospects. What would have happened to Jack Welch if he had the attitude that he would accept nothing less than a tenure-track faculty position upon graduation. Would his career be as good as it ultimately turned out to be?</p>

<p>I'm happy to have skimmed through this thread. At this point in my life, I want to earn a PhD just to earn a PhD-- I'm expecting it to do diddly squat for me in a career sense. (Well, not completely diddly squat-- I might want to do teaching, publishing, or administration-- some will be impressed that I made it through the long haul, if I do indeed make it).</p>

<p>DSP - do not bother to engage sacky - hu is convinced hu knows everything about everything that is remotely related to higher education. No matter what you reply, hu will misrepresent, misunderstand, or simply ignore what you write and continue to assert hu's opinion (at great length).</p>

<p>unalove - Do not, under any circumstances, enter a PhD program "just to get a PhD" (or any other degree for that matter). Assuming you are otherwise qualified, please leave the spot for someone who is passionately comitted to the subject and get on with your life.</p>

<p>I actually find sakky's posts thoughtful, intelligent, and generally coherent with what I have heard, seen, and been told about higher education. When DeepSeek comes on here and writes ad nauseum about how success in an area has nothing to do with drive, I find that higly suspect. Everything in life has to do with drive, and people with drive are those who succeed most often, period.
Furthermore, I also find it sad that some have found it necessary to insist on how hard and unrewarding getting a PhD is, with the final blow being WillC saying that you should "never" get a PhD for its own sake. My father got a PhD--in the lucrative field of theology--for no other reason than because he loves theology. The result was nine years of work while he raised a family of five kids, culminating in a PhD that he still has not used in any way to further his career. Does hew regret this choice? Heck no. If he had to do it all over again he absolutely would, even if he had zero funding and needed to eat bread and water for a decade. If you love learning, studying what you love absolutely IS a reward in and of itself.</p>

<p>Hm. That's not at all what I said. Although, if you want to go there, thinking positively and working hard is, unfortunately, not always rewarded with success. What I did point out is the process and pitfalls, which were overlooked previously.</p>

<p>
[quote]
DSP - do not bother to engage sacky - hu is convinced hu knows everything about everything that is remotely related to higher education. No matter what you reply, hu will misrepresent, misunderstand, or simply ignore what you write and continue to assert hu's opinion (at great length).

[/quote]
</p>

<p>WilliamC, first of all, I'm happy to compare my biography to yours and we can determine who 'knows' more about higher education. Anytime you want to do it, just drop me a line.</p>

<p>Secondly, I never said that I know everything about higher education. This is a forum of opinions. I respect everybody else's opinions, including DSP's. On the other hand, I have the right to express my opinions also. Those people who don't like what I have to say can simply choose not to read them. But let those people who want to hear my opinions be allowed to do so. </p>

<p>Furthermore, what everybody says here is a matter of opinion. I don't think that I am correct about everything, and I don't think DSP or anybody else is correct about everything. I am simply offering one way to interpret the data. I never said it was the only way to look at the situation. Everybody should be encouraged to read a wide range of opinions and then determine for themselves what to believe. After all, the whole point of a discussion board is to hear a wide range of opinions. Why even have a board if people cannot express their opinions? </p>

<p>But WilliamC, if you don't like a thread, then you don't have to participate in it. You don't like my posts? Fine, then don't read them. Nobody has a gun to your head. You are free to leave at anytime.</p>

<p>
[quote]
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?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Nobody is denying that they are competitive. But you (according to this thread) obtained a PhD at a top school. Competition should therefore be no stranger to you. That's where the notion of drive comes in. </p>

<p>
[quote]
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

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Then rural it is. What's wrong with that? That would include places like near Native American reservations. Areas like wildernes Rockies or Alaska. What's wrong with that? Teaching is teaching. After all, many new PhD's end up in tenure-track jobs in no-name colleges out in the boonies. </p>

<p>
[quote]
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. .

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Of course I agree - and in fact, this has been one of the main tenets of argument. It's not that you can't do it, it's more that you don't want to do it. We both know that people with PhD's can complete the teaching cert requirements quite easily. The real question is do they WANT to do it. Hence, it's not a matter of 'can't', it's a matter of 'don't want to'. But that's an entirely different matter. </p>

<p>Again, it gets down to a matter of drive, which is what I've been saying through this whole thread. If you have the drive, then you'll be willing to put up with getting the cert. Now, if you don't have the drive, then I don't know what to tell you. </p>

<p>Look, you don't always get to do things you want to do. Sometimes you have to do things you don't want to do. That's life. Often times, I don't enjoy waking up early in the morning to go to work. But I still do it. If you've gotten a PhD, then presumably you've learned how to put up with doing things you don't like (i.e. passing the general exams). So you certainly have more-than-enough discipline to put up with getting a teaching cert. You have the work ethic. The real question is, will you use it?</p>

<p>
[quote]
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

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I don't think it's my job to have to explain every single detail. I am simply saying that you have the wherwithal to do it. Sure, you have to jump through the hoops; I have never said otherwise. But again, I reiterate, if you have the wherewithal to get a PhD at a top school, then you have the wherewithal to become a teacher. </p>

<p>It's a simple matter of self-confidence and drive. The easiest way to fail at anything is to convince yourself that you can't do it. Nobody is saying that the process is problem-free. Nobody is saying that it is automatic. What we are saying is that if you can get a PhD, then you should be able to figure out ways to surmount whatever problems crop up. </p>

<p>
[quote]
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.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Uh huh, so then why are so many NEW teachers being hired, including all of the people I know who had precisely zero teaching experience before? How exactly did that happen? It must mean that there must be jobs out there where no experienced teachers are applying. And there is the opening that you need. </p>

<p>
[quote]
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.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Are they now? Let me put it to you this way. Here's a high school that I know well. {I won't say how}. In the last several year alone, they've hired at least 5 new teachers that I know about (and probably many more that I don't know about}. Yes - NEW teachers, as in people fresh out of school. And they're STILL HIRING this year. And that's just one district in the area. There are plenty of others within a reasonable commute distance. {As Connecticut school districts are not really that physically big}. </p>

<p><a href="http://msn.careerbuilder.com/JobSeeker/Jobs/JobDetails.aspx?job_did=J3F1SW6NQ6P2RP5S8TG&cbRecursionCnt=1&cbsid=e5a7e86272be4a1c970de84eea9935ac-241235821-J5-5%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://msn.careerbuilder.com/JobSeeker/Jobs/JobDetails.aspx?job_did=J3F1SW6NQ6P2RP5S8TG&cbRecursionCnt=1&cbsid=e5a7e86272be4a1c970de84eea9935ac-241235821-J5-5&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>In case you're wondering, this is not an undesirable school district Far from it, in fact, it's one of the nicer districts in Connecticut, a state that pays some of the highest (perhaps the highest) teacher salaries in the country. Yes just this one district has been hiring new teachers like mad, and apparently still has openings. </p>

<p>Let's take a look at another district. Consider the jobs just for English teachers in Boston. Seems pretty good to me. Sure, while the job spec says that they prefer experienced teachers, the fact is, I myself know several people who just got hired as English teachers in Boston who had no prior teaching experience whatsoever, as they were fresh out of college (where their college program combined a bachelor's degree with a teaching cert). You can search for them yourself here:</p>

<p><a href="https://secured.kenexa.com/bps/cc/CCJobSearchAction.ss?command=CCSearchPage%5B/url%5D"&gt;https://secured.kenexa.com/bps/cc/CCJobSearchAction.ss?command=CCSearchPage&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>
[quote]
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).

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, you evidently didn't apply to that district in Connecticut, as like I said, they've been hiring like mad, and are still doing so. Surely I can find others. </p>

<p>What you have to be willing to do is move ANYWHERE in the country, including possibly in the rural wilderness. You also have to be willing to take any whatever job that they may have, even if that may mean not teaching what you really want to teach. </p>

<p>But let me put it to you this way. There are hundreds of teacher certification organizations in the country, churning out many thousands of newly licensed teachers every year. It seems to me that most of these people do indeed find jobs. Not all, but most. However, by definition, most of these people obviously have no prior teaching experience. Yet they can find jobs, but you can't? </p>

<p>
[quote]
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.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I also agree that people should approach the process with their eyes open. However, nobody should take anybody's word for granted here. I encourage people to ask around and find out exactly what is happening with regards to hiring at the local schools around them, or the schools that they came from. Are they hiring now? Have they hired recently? If so, did the people they hire have any prior teaching experience? Exactly what are the qualifications of the people they did hire? {And as a corollary, you also have to ask yourself why is it that there are so many practicing teachers out there that really aren't that good? I know back at my school, while there were some that were very good, there were others that were mediocre at best. How exactly did these people get hired in the first place?}</p>

<p>I would also encourage people to ask around their old college buddies. Ask them how many of them tried to become teachers, and how many in fact succeeded. I know that not a single person in my circle of college colleagues who wanted to become teachers failed to get a single offer. Again, often times the offer isn't that great - i.e. in a bad district - but at least they got an offer. Everybody here ought to do the same. </p>

<p>Don't take my word, don't take DSP's word, don't take anybody's word. Find out for yourself just how hard it really is to get a teaching offer.</p>

<p>Sakky pretty much obliterated overy bit of "information" DSPhD or WilC had offered in this thread. Sorry to call a spade a spade, but don't call someone out if you are going to get practically every argument you bring up quickly refuted. Sakky was certainly more gracious in victory then I ever would have been, seeing as how I am no fan of some of the "pointers" that have been given by a few posters in thsi particular thread.</p>

<p>I think the real kernel of truth that anyone actually reading this thread should pick up is the following: </p>

<p>Work as hard as you can towards your goals. That way, you will have a better chance of realizing them than if you don't try at all because some poster on a message board told you it was too tough.</p>

<p>If you feel so, that is certainly your opinion, and I respect it. I don't feel that it's a correct summary, but so be it. I never told anyone not to try anything because it was too hard. If that's what you got out of it, you need to work on your reading comprehension skills.</p>

<p>WilliamC: you misunderstood unalove, s/he meant that s/he wanted to get a phd just for the degree (i.e. the passion of the subject, not just randomly going through a program) rather than for the benefit of his/her career.</p>

<p>Incidentally, Sakky, your point about new teachers with no experience teaching missed my point. New teachers with no experience and a bachelor's degree can certainly get hired. New teachers with no teaching experience and a PhD? Not nearly as easily, for salary and permanence reasons explained above.</p>

<p>Oh, and I'm not certain why you thought I had obtained a PhD at a top school. While that is, ultimately my goal, I'm not there yet! But I wanted to correct that so no one thinks I'm passing myself off as something I'm not.</p>

<p>At the risk of dramatically over simplifying what has come before, there seem to be essentially two camps here:</p>

<p>1) Follow your heart and pursue your dreams with vigor. The odds are long but the pay-off justifies the risk. The downside is really not so bad, after all.</p>

<p>2) The PhD is no picnic. It is very hard work and often not much fun. The risk of failure is substantial and the odds of "success" are very long. You may not care about owning a car, having a comfortable home, or supporting a family now, but you're likely to care by the time you're in your early to mid-30s. Even if you complete your program and earn your PhD, you'll probably be materially worse off than you were when you finished your undergrad: fewer job prospects, more debt, less flexibility, etc.</p>

<p>Both camps are correct. No one here has exaggerated the downside. In fact, the real downside from the insiders’ perspective has only been hinted at. </p>

<p>When I finished my masters, I had a conversation with a professor who had become something of a friend and mentor. He suggested to me then that I consider going on to pursue a PhD. The idea of signing on for another five or six years of school seemed preposterous. After going back to work for a few more years, it didn’t seem so preposterous.</p>

<p>After doing some in-depth research about the PhD programs in my field, I went back to the same professor to tell him that I was then ready to follow his original recommendation. His response was not at all what I expected. His response was: “Really, have you thought about this carefully? Do you realize what you’re talking about? Do you understand the risks you’d be assuming? Is your family totally on-board with this?”</p>

<p>We had a very long talk about all of the ugly realities. Each of the other professors that I contacted for LORs had the same talk with me. All of them tried their best to talk me out of it. It was only after they failed to dissuade me that they supported my decision.</p>

<p>It was strange to me at the time that the same people who had first suggested that I might be suited to academe were trying so hard to talk me out of it. I now understand why. Trying to talk people out of entering PhD programs is the only responsible course of action. Of course, not everyone will be dissuaded. However, only those who have seriously considered the true costs and risks yet still want to do it should apply. So, responsible people who know first-hand what they’re talking about will always emphasize the downside. The cheerleaders are not doing anyone any favors.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Incidentally, Sakky, your point about new teachers with no experience teaching missed my point. New teachers with no experience and a bachelor's degree can certainly get hired. New teachers with no teaching experience and a PhD? Not nearly as easily, for salary and permanence reasons explained above.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Uh, no, I still believe it is EASIER, at least on a topical level. Sure, I agree, somebody with a PhD will have higher salary demands. On the other hand, a guy with a PhD is probably more driven and dedicated. He's the guy who certainly has proven the greater level of self-discipline and work ethic to put up with a possibly less desirable teaching job (i.e. out somewhere in the boonies or in a bad inner-city) in order to get his teaching experience down, whereas the guy with just a bachelor's degree has not built that level of work ethic and may not have that mental toughness. </p>

<p>Prime benefits of a PhD is that it teaches you to be tough and self-reliant. It teaches you how to navigate office politics. It teaches you that you can accomplish difficult things if you put your mind to it. I would argue that these characteristics clearly outweigh whatever disadvantage you may have in terms of higher salary and placement requirements.</p>

<p>But of course all of that is predicated on the notion that you're actually willing to put up with the grunt work involved. I completely agree that that is a big 'if'. You said it yourself - some people with PhD's won't want to complete a teaching cert, probably because they consider it to be beneath them. But that's a matter of simply choosing to do or not do something. Like I've said, there's a big difference between not actually being able to do something, and just not WANTING to do it. Hence, I heartily agree that those people with PhD's who just don't want to be teachers (or any other kind of job) will not be able to do it. But that's a far cry from saying that they couldn't do it if they actually wanted to.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Even if you complete your program and earn your PhD, you'll probably be materially worse off than you were when you finished your undergrad: fewer job prospects,

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, this I can't see. Leaving teaching aside, if you want to go to industry, and you really believe that a PhD will hurt you -perhaps because it might make you overqualified - then the answer is simple. Just don't list the PhD. There's no rule that says that you have to report every single degree you have. </p>

<p>Look, a resume is a marketing document, nothing more. You're not supposed to lie on your resume (i.e. you can't list degrees that you don't actually have), but on the other hand, you don't have to and probably shouldn't tell the whole truth either. It's like an advertisement. The resume is a document designed to get you the interview. Nothing more, nothing less. Just like an advertisement is something you use to attract the attention of customers, nothing more, nothing less. If you feel that the PhD is going to hurt you on your job search, then just don't list it. </p>

<p>Now, I don't know if the above is true of teaching jobs as well. I suspect that some school districts may indeed legally require that you list every single degree you have on your job application (as opposed to your resume, in which you can say anything you want). However, I suspect that there are probably some other school districts in which this is not a legal requirement and where you therefore could indeed get away with having a PhD and just not declaring it.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Oh, and I'm not certain why you thought I had obtained a PhD at a top school. While that is, ultimately my goal, I'm not there yet! But I wanted to correct that so no one thinks I'm passing myself off as something I'm not.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>When I said "you", I meant a generic "you", not "you specifically". I was saying 'you' in the context of the OP's question, who is apparently only considering a PhD from a top school. Hence, presuming that you (again, the generic "you") were to actually obtain such a top PhD, then I was analyzing what "your" teaching job prospects might be.</p>

<p>I certainly wouldn't advise leaving off an earned degree. Every teaching position requires an application, and on every application, there is a section that states that misrepresentation or omission of any requested information will result in the voiding of the application. As the resume is submitted with the application, they should match. Personally, I think it's unethical anyway to misrepresent information like that, although I understand the impetus. FYI.</p>

<p>Many posters on this board make getting a PhD seem equivalent to career suicide. I sincerely have not run into that many PhD's who are struggling to get by, pandhandling, or hustling patties out of the walk in freezer at McDonald's. Someone posted an article here awhile ago that covered a conference given by UC Berkely's english department where they reviewed career opportunities for English PhD's. If I recall correctly, only around 50% of recent PhD graduates had found a a tenura track job in academia, but a whopping 99% of them were employed, most of them in the private sector. On top of that, when asked if they would get a PhD if they had to do it all over again, 90% said they would. These do not seem to be apocalyptic figures by any stretch of the imagination.
I am not at all a sunshine blower when it comes to academics and especially to graduate school. However, coming on here and saying, with authority, that your career prospects, income, happiness, ect.ect.ect. will be markedly WORSE after you get a PhD is completely false and does not seem to mesh with any reality I am aware of. If you want to be filthy rich, drive a Benz, and take weekend trips to Monaco, you probably shouldnt be pursuing a PhD, I will admit. However, this does not mean that getting a PhD will immediately kill any career you may have hoped for.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Now, I don't know if the above is true of teaching jobs as well. I suspect that some school districts may indeed legally require that you list every single degree you have on your job application (as opposed to your resume, in which you can say anything you want). However, I suspect that there are probably some other school districts in which this is not a legal requirement and where you therefore could indeed get away with having a PhD and just not declaring it.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Now that I think about this some more, I can actually see a strategy that might work out quite well. If you're on the verge of completing your PhD and you've decided that you're going to a school teacher and you're scared that your PhD will actually damage your hireability, then here's one thing you can do. Don't submit your PhD degree completion documents until you've actually gotten a teaching offer. </p>

<p>What I mean by that is that the vast majority of universities out there require, as a final condition of graduation, that you actually file some document known as the 'degree application document' or other similar document in which you declare to the registrar that you have completed all of the requirements of the degree so that the registrar can put you on the degree list so that you can walk during graduation, that you will be included in the database of graduated students. What you can do is just simply not complete this document in a timely fashion. You complete everything else - your dissertatation is completed and signed off - but you just don't submit the final registrar document, and by doing so, you will have effectively delayed your graduation until after you have already received a teaching offer. After you've accepted the offer, then you can formally complete your PhD by submitting that last document. That way, you can't be accused of lying or even of committing a sin of omission when you claim not to have a PhD when you apply for the teaching job (because, technically, you don't one). </p>

<p>Yet another strategy that would work at many universities is to take advantage of the integrated billing system that many of them have. Many universities, including places like Harvard and MIT, won't actually formally graduate you if you have outstanding charges on your financial record. The idea of course is that they don't want you to graduate and have you run off with unpaid bills. But that's a loophole you can leverage. You can just deliberately run up some charges (i.e. deliberately not returning some library books on time), and then just not pay them off until you've landed a teaching offer, as they won't formally grant you the degree if you don't clear those charges. Hence, again, what that means is that, at the time you applied for the teaching job, you don't actually have a conferred PhD (yet). </p>

<p>See, again, I would say that it all comes down to a matter of ingenuity and effort. These are 'tricks' I have thought up in just the last few minutes. I'm sure that if you actually spent serious time thinking about it, you could come up with many other variants. My point is, if you're smart enough to complete a PhD, then you should be smart enough to figure out how to work the system.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Personally, I think it's unethical anyway to misrepresent information like that, although I understand the impetus.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, I think that's the difference between you and me. I see no ethical requirement to state every degree you've ever earned to a potential employer. Like I said, a resume is just an advertisement. It is designed to attract the attention of a potential employer. Nothing more, nothing less. A job interview is just a business sales meeting (where you're trying to sell yourself). Nothing more, nothing less. </p>

<p>Look at it this way. Companies don't really tell customers the whole truth in their advertising. When McDonalds advertises its Big Mac, they're going to present it in a manner that makes it look as tasty as possible, and of course they aren't exactly going to volunteer any nutritional information about it. {If customers ASK for nutritional information, McDonalds will disclose it, but they won't volunteer this information in their advertising.} Similarly, a sales rep on a sales call isn't going to tell a potential customer everything about his product. He is going to say whatever he thinks needs to be said to close the sale. That's perfectly ethical as long as it's not an actual lie.</p>

<p>Yet nobody questions the ethics in those situations. So what's the problem of not disclosing everything in your background? The act of hiring and employment is purely a business transaction, nothing more, nothing less. No 2 firms who are transacting with each other will disclose everything to each other. They disclose only what they think needs to be disclosed. </p>

<p>Besides, let's take it back to the context of this thread. Presumably, the reason why a school district might be reluctant to hire somebody with a PhD is because they don't want to pay the salary boost that the PhD would entail. But if you're willing to forgo that boost anyway, then what exactly is the ethical problem of simply not disclosing your degree?</p>

<p>Sakky, that might work if the person only planned to teach high school. I wonder who would go through the effort of a PhD to teach high school only, though? Aren't most PhDs planning on higher education? If so, colleges and universities prefer a PhD in hand when hiring. Plus, until you're graduated, you have to pay at least a continuation charge to the uni. There's also certification to consider - that takes a couple years, and I don't think it would be wise to refuse to file for a PhD for a couple years. There's also the risk of going over the maximum time frame for obtaining the PhD, which results in having to retake comps and jump through multiple other hoops.</p>

<p>Anyway, I think you're losing track of the purpose of this discussion. It's not "How to get a high school teaching job with a PhD." Frankly, it's rather ridiculous to get a PhD with the sole intent of teaching high school. The point is, and continues to be, that teaching high school is not an "if all else fails" fallback for PhDs. It's more involved, and people should be aware of that. If their job search in academe fails for a significant period of time, or if they get sick of academe, then certainly they can become teachers as a second career. But as with most second careers, there is additional training, and contrary to (apparent) popular belief, districts aren't rushing to hire PhDs.</p>

<p>JM - I'm not sure why you would continue to willfully misrepresent what people on this forum have said. No one has said a PhD is career suicide; those are your words and yours only. But quoting a single survey for a single program in the best graduate school in the nation isn't exactly convincing evidence. There are unemployed academics. There are TONS of adjuncts, not a preferable path for most (given the pay). Getting a PhD is a difficult path, and job prospects at the end, while not apocalyptic, are not as great as some seem to think. For those who are simply unsure of whether they want to get a PhD, or have visions of being a prof at Harvard, it's good to have an eye-opening and make an informed decision. As it is, this country graduates far too many PhDs in the humanities, a phenomenon that has been documented time and again (see the Chronicles of Higher Education and the Journal of Higher Education). If a person still wants to get the PhD, great. They have all our support.</p>