Honest Answers About PhDs...

Graduate School
81

<p>
[quote]
I will deign your question with a response in case you actually were seriously asking it: Do a sample survey of that same set of people of "a few Asians who came to MIT, got their PhD's, and then went back to Asia to take academic positions (i.e. professorships in Asian universities), and yes, they do not know about OWU." and ask them basic questions about the US that reasonable people will agree are quite important (e.g. who Woodrow Wilson is, what the Mason-Dixon line, etc)...I bet many of these peers of yours will not know. </p>

<p>My point? You can't take a subset of people (your peers in the engineering program) who barely know anything about the US (note: its academic institutions included) and count their <em>ignorance</em> about life as a litmus test for what institutions are notable and which ones are not.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And I certainly am not. How many times do I have to say it? I have also talked to native-born Americans who also have never heard of OWU. Are you saying these people, who are born and raised in this country, don't know this country? </p>

<p>
[quote]
I am not surprised you chose not to conceptualize your understanding of "someone with a serious knowledge of academia"? No doubt, it is because you simply don't have one.</p>

<p>

[/quote]

I already provided you what I meant by it in a message from, I believe, 2 months ago. A critical component of it is certainly "engagement". To give you an example(should I even say this if you claim you are in academia?): Serious academics do research, read the research literature in their field on an ongoing basis, go to conferences, present, meet other academics. It is through these channels that they acquire "serious knowledge of academia" in addition to simply expanding their knowledge in general. It is also via these channels that they learn a lot about other schools (Ohio Wesleyan included) who is where, who moves to where, why, etc.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Allright, now we're getting somewhere. So then there is no reason to exclude your evidently favorite topic of those Asian PhD students. After all, let's go through your checklist.</p>

<p>Do they go to conference? Yes.
Do they engage in research? Yes.
Do they read their literature in their field on an ongoing basis? Yes.<br>
Do they present and meet other academics? Yes</p>

<p>So all of your criteria are filled. Hence, why are they excluded just because they come from Asia? </p>

<p>And besides, I'll keep saying it again. What of the native-born Americans who are pursuing PhD's and becoming profs. I was just talking to one guy who is an assistant prof now, and was born and raised in this country. He has never heard of OWU. Yet certainly, he has presented at conference, reads the research literature, does his own research, and collaborates with other academics. Why has this guy never heard of OWU? Are you saying he is not a serious academic? If you still can't get over those Asians, then why not talk about these native-born Americans. Explain to me what is going on, please. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Now, your examples are simply ridiculous one the other. For example, your second one about MBA programs...I actually happened to see a new NSF report that shows Ohio Wesleyan among the top feeders (adjusted for size) to MBA programs. Now, what kind of people (professors of management that you mention) do you think will take to not notice these trends in their academic fields, on an informal basis with the students that they interact, even if they don't read/know about these NSF reports? Seriously, think about it.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Your examples are ridiculous on the other end. By all means, please, do some empirical work and ask around. Let's be honest. Most B-school profs care only about other schools that have B-schools. Whether that's right or not, that's the truth of the matter. That's because when they want to be placed, they want to be placed at a B-school. When they go to conference, they are going to meet other B-school profs. When they collaborate on research, they are going to collaborate with profs at other B-schools. If your school doesn't even have a B-school, it is only natural for your school to fall off their radar. </p>

<p>Let's be honest. Whether right or wrong, most B-school profs are frankly not all that interested in teaching MBA's (just like, sadly, most profs at research universities are not that interested in teaching undergrads). That's not how they get tenure. That's not how they win recognition from their peers. They win recognition by publishing research that will be accepted within their particular group of academics. Teaching MBA's is just something they have to do. </p>

<p>But anyway, to your point. Let's be honest. Most LAC's are not well known, even by many academics. I know professors in this country who have never heard of, say, Carleton College. LAC's like OWU simply do not have the strong brand-name recognition or large-scale research departments that would generate a lot of attention from many people, including academics. That doesn't make them bad schools. It just means that they don't have prominent brand names. If you want to pursue a career as an academic and a researcher, then you care about those schools that engage in a lot of heavy research. LAC's don't engage in that much research. </p>

<p>Seriously, think about it. Like I said before, I don't expect English professors outside of the Northeast to have ever heard of Olin College. Or the Webb Institute. After all, these schools are of little relevance to somebody who is an English academic. Similarly, OWU is of little relevance to all of those academics who are in fields in which OWU is of little relevance. That doesn't make OWU a bad school. It just means that it's not well known outside of a certain circle. </p>

<p>But I would hardly say that that should be surprising. Instead of presuming that everybody in academia ought to know OWU, and then questioning the merits of those people who don't know it, I think that presumption should be turned around. We should be asking why would everybody in academia would know about OWU. This isn't Harvard. This isn't Yale. This isn't a school with a world-class brand name. This is just a LAC. Why should we presume that everybody in academia would know about such a school?</p>

82

<p>Peter05, maybe I can explain things to you more clearly this way. The truth of the matter is that academia is highly segmented. You are unlikely to know a lot about programs and schools that have nothing to do with your field. </p>

<p>As a case in point, I am quite certain that it is not a well-known fact to most people that the University of Minnesota has arguably the best chemical engineering department in the world, arguably even better than that at MIT, Stanford, Berkeley, or Caltech. Sure, obviously chemical engineering professors and graduate students know this, and perhaps to some extent, academics in related fields (i.e. materials science, chemistry) know this. But would we really expect an English professor to know this? I doubt it. Yet even so, I would not slander this English professor by claiming that he is "not a serious academic". He is a serious academic * in his particular field*, but I certainly would not expect him to know much about a completely different field. Why would they know it? </p>

<p>Similarly, it is not a well known fact to most people that the University of Pittsburgh has an extremely highly regarded philosophy department. This is true even of people in academia, if we're talking about academics in the natural sciences. Be honest. How many US-born-and-raised professors in the natural sciences or engineering would know that Pitt has a stellar philosophy department? Perhaps a better question is, why would we expect them to know this fact? After all, if you're, say, a mechanical engineering professor, you rarely if ever talk to philosophy professors. You don't go to their conferences. You don't read their literature. You don't know what's going on in their field.</p>

<p>Furthermore, let's now extend this argument to even having heard of a particular school. I've already used places like Olin College and the Webb Institute as examples. But allow me to use a few more. I would surmise that many English professors have never heard of, say, the Wentworth Institute of Technology. Or Polytechnic University of New York. Or New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology (a.k.a. New Mexico Tech). Or Montana Tech. Or Michigan Tech. Or the Florida Institute of Technology. Or the Worcester Polytechnic Institute. Or the Indiana Institute of Technology. Or Lawrence Tech. Or the Oregon Institute of Technology. Or West Virginia Institute of Technology. Or South Dakota School of Mines and Technology. </p>

<p>Be honest. In that above list, I think we can agree that there are humanities professors who have never heard of at least one of them. Heck, I would surmise that many humanities professors have never heard of most of them. Think of it this way. Imagine going up to a bunch of English professors and asking them to say in which state Lawrence Tech is located. I think we can all agree that many of them would not know. </p>

<p>What is happening is quite clear. I specifically chose a bunch of technical schools/institutes to illustrate my point. These schools may be known by people who are engineers, scientists and technologists (and even that is somewhat questionable, as I strongly suspect that even many MIT profs have never heard of, say, West Virginia Tech). But certainly they are not well known by those who are not in those fields. In particular, if you are a humanities professor and academic, you don't really care about those schools. They have nothing to do with you. But that doesn't mean that you're not a "serious academic". It just means that you know your field well, but you don't know other fields well. I wouldn't expect you to know other fields well. </p>

<p>So just like I don't expect English professors to know about Lawrence Tech or West Virginia Tech, I also don't expect engineering profs to know about OWU. I also don't expect plenty of other profs in other disciplines to know about OWU. OWU is not strong in everything. The disciplines in which it is strong, I agree that people may have heard of it. But in those that it is not strong in (or doesn't have at all)? Why would we reasonably expect "serious academics" in those fields to have heard of OWU? Academics know their own field, but don't know other fields. That's a simple truism of academia. You know a highly concentrated amount of information in one particular field.</p>

83

<p>peter05, don't worry, you're not the only one skimming pass sakky's posts.</p>

84

<p>jmilton90, thank you. it is hard to engage him continuously when i try to argue something specific and he switches the argument to something else by providing oddly incongruent evidence in support of god knows what. it is like he totally answers the question he wants to answer or doesn't get the original question...just see his latest post...</p>

85

<p>
[quote]
peter05, don't worry, you're not the only one skimming pass sakky's posts.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Hey, you guys don't like my posts? Fair enough. Don't read them. Nobody has a gun to your head. </p>

<p>But don't complain about it. If you choose to read my posts, and you don't like them, don't blame me. ** I'm not forcing anybody to do anything. ** </p>

<p>
[quote]
jmilton90, thank you. it is hard to engage him continuously when i try to argue something specific and he switches the argument to something else by providing oddly incongruent evidence in support of god knows what. it is like he totally answers the question he wants to answer or doesn't get the original question...just see his latest post...

[/quote]
</p>

<p>On the contrary, I believe I have engaged you on *every single point * you've raised. If you continue to disagree, then by all means, please state which points of yours that I have ignored, and I will see which of my posts have not dealt with those points (and if I have truly missed them, then I will provide a reply). </p>

<p>I frankly believe it is you who have chosen not to engage me on the terms of debate. For example, you continue to dismiss all of these people who most people would characterize as serious scholars. Why exactly isn't a guy who is an engineering professor not a 'serious scholar'?</p>

86

<p>I believe people have engaged you enough. If your "arguments" obviously fail to convince most, then I suggest you start wondering if there is something wrong with your logic and you before you start wondering if there is something wrong with most people.</p>

87

<p>
[quote]
I believe people have engaged you enough. If your "arguments" obviously fail to convince most, then I suggest you start wondering if there is something wrong with your logic and you before you start wondering if there is something wrong with most people.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Hey, I am simply practicing my right to express my opinions as I wish. Whether they convince others or not is not my goal. I'm not a salesman; I'm not a negotiator. It's not here to persuade you to 'buy' my product. I'm here to post what I think. You don't like my posts? Fine, don't read them. It's that simple. </p>

<p>I also noticed how you dodged the questions I posed to you in post #85. Again, if you really think I have not properly addressed some concerns of yours, then by all means, state what those concerns are. I will then proceed to either point to you which post of mine did in fact speak to those concerns, or I address them now. If you refuse to do that, fine, but then don't go around accusing others of not addressing your points.</p>

88

<p>I don't know. This may be incredibly naive, but I doubt there is just a ton of competition for college teaching jobs if you have a Ph.D...anywhere. I see stiff competition if there are fifty to a hundred people applying to one position, but I doubt that's the rule. </p>

<p>Isn't the percentage around 1% in this country of people who actually have Ph.D's? I think stuff like being willing to relocate, being willing to start off with a lower salary, being willing to devote a lot of your free time writing and publishing while teaching, and just being invested in the subject will remedy a lot of this. I think there are a lot of people with a Ph.D who just want to sit back and be given these great jobs. Not to say they aren't smart enough or wouldn't make good teachers, but I do think there's an underlying aspect of entitlement in these people who claim you have to pound the pavement for years before you find a decent teaching job as a Ph.D.</p>

89

<p>Explain further jaso9n2, I'm not sure what you mean. PhD's have a hard life or easy life?</p>

90

<p>The general trend in the humanities is that there are several hundred applicants for each position. Many, many more PhDs graduate than there are jobs, and the number of unemployed PhDs obviously rises each year. There isn't a lot of movement, since profs retire later than many other occupations and, once tenured, have a guaranteed job for life. There are a few exceptions in the humanities, like history of the Middle East or sub-Saharan Africa, but otherwise it is most definitely oversupplied.</p>

<p>I know many unemployed PhDs who have exceptional resumes and have applied everywhere. Even the undesirable jobs have many applicants these days. And, of course, there's always the consideration that taking a very bad job is not necessarily better than being unemployed. Some positions have very toxic departments, no opportunities for spouses, and work overloads that prevent the person from producing enough to ever leave for a better job.</p>

91

<p>So for someone in, say, Sociology, out of all the positions available for those who hold a Ph.D in Sociology, there are hundreds of applicants? Really?</p>

92

<p>Hundreds of applicants to the tenure-track positions that are worth having. Schools in the middle of nowhere, community colleges, schools with no resources, etc. surely get fewer. State university positions would generally get hundreds of applicants, yes. It's staggering until you've seen a postdoc go through the process of sending out 100+ (yes, that many zeros!) job applications in a single season.</p>

<p>By the way, adjunct positions also require Ph.Ds., but obviously don't get as many applicants. At a lot of mid- and lower-tier schools, most of the courses are taught by adjuncts. These are the university-level positions that have no research component (all you do is teach), pay like crap, and have no option for tenure. People who want to go into academia but got their Ph.Ds. from degree mills tend to end up in these undesirable jobs, from which there is unfortunately little hope of escape (because how can you publish if you're teaching full-time and have no resources for research?). So yeah, those jobs don't get hundreds of applicants, and there are a whole lot more vacancies.</p>

<p>This is how I explain it: being a professor is a lifetime commitment. It's not like other jobs, where you can justify working somewhere undesirable for a few years and then move up the ladder to a job somewhere else. You have to really integrate with the school, and you get tied down by the grad students/post-docs who work under you. You can't just leave them! (Well, unless you're a heartless greedy bastard...) Also, each move resets the tenure clock, so it really is not in your interest to take a tenure-track job somewhere crummy and then hope for an opening elsewhere sometime later. That's why people hold out, work as postdocs and keep applying, until they get a position they're really happy with. If everyone applies to 100 schools every year starting when they get their Ph.D. and ending after five years as a postdoc, then you can picture how many applicants there are for each post. (Remember that there aren't many openings for tenure-track positions because someone effectively has to die in order for a vacancy to come up.)</p>

93

<p>jaso9n2, academia is a very competitive field. I'm pretty sure virtually every open faculty position gets at least 70 applications. Many people will not make it.</p>

94

<p>
[quote]
The general trend in the humanities is that there are several hundred applicants for each position. Many, many more PhDs graduate than there are jobs, and the number of unemployed PhDs obviously rises each year. There isn't a lot of movement, since profs retire later than many other occupations and, once tenured, have a guaranteed job for life. There are a few exceptions in the humanities, like history of the Middle East or sub-Saharan Africa, but otherwise it is most definitely oversupplied.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I certainly agree with DSP that humanities is a pretty tough academic field to crack into.</p>

<p>However, the situation is far far * better in other fields. Business academia is clearly among the best, if not THE best, particularly with the burgeoning number of business schools opening around the globe, especially in Asia (with some of them paying *better than many US business schools). Economics is also pretty good (especially econometrics). Engineering/CS. The natural sciences (with the possible exception of physics, especially astrophysics). Public policy. Public health/health-policy. </p>

<p>Basically, any academic field for which there is a strong private-sector analogue will (unsurprisingly) tend to be pretty good. That's because the presence of jobs in private industry tends to lure many of the best graduating PhD's away, hence, lowering the competition for those who do want academic positions. For example, I know some guys who graduated with PhD's in engineering from MIT and got placement at several quite highly-ranked engineering departments (and I think one of them even got placed back at MIT). Yet they all turned those academic offers down in favor of highly lucrative private-sector jobs, or, in one case, because he wanted to found his own tech startup based on his research.</p>

95

<p>A minor point: I disagree strongly that the situation is much better in the natural sciences. Just because there's a lot of funding for research in, say, biology, doesn't mean there are a lot of tenure-track faculty positions available.</p>

96

<p>
[quote]
So for someone in, say, Sociology, out of all the positions available for those who hold a Ph.D in Sociology, there are hundreds of applicants? Really?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, allow me to let you in on a better way. Instead of getting a PhD in sociology, it may be better for you to get a PhD in Organizational Behavior. It's almost the same thing, the latter being more applied. The major difference is that PhD's in OB are usually run in business schools (or as joint-programs with B-schools) and you would be positioning yourself in the business-school job market, which is a far far better job market to be in than the pure sociology job market. </p>

<p>You should also note that many schools use names other than 'organizational behavior'. For example, MIT - which actually has one of the strongest OB programs in the country (which may surprise some people) - calls it the "Behavioral & Policy Sciences" program within the MIT Sloan School of Management (and inside BPS, there are certain groups such as Economic Sociology, Organization Studies, the Institute for Work & Employment Research, etc.). Columbia GSB basically just calls it a PhD in Management. But they're all basically the same thing. At the end of the day, they're all talking about the same things: applied sociology and the sociology of organizations (especially firms). </p>

<p>
[quote]
By the way, adjunct positions also require Ph.Ds

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, no, that's not quite true. Reference my other posts where I show that there are even some tenure-track assistant profs (not just adjuncts, but actual tenure-track profs) who don't have PhD's. </p>

<p>As just one example, consider Colleen Ianuzzi. She's an assistant prof at the University of Alaska-Southeast. She has only an MS. </p>

<p>[Name[/url</a>]</p>

<p>As another example, consider Fairfield University. I see a number of adjunct professors at Fairfield University who have only MS degrees. For example, Maynard Marquis holds the position of Adjunct Assistant Professor, yet he has only a master's. </p>

<p>[url=<a href="http://www.fairfield.edu/x4971.html%5DFairfield"&gt;http://www.fairfield.edu/x4971.html]Fairfield&lt;/a> University :: School of Engineering :: Faculty](<a href="http://www.uas.alaska.edu/ketchikan/faculty_staff/directory-files/personnel/active/faculty/ianuzzi.html%5DName%5B/url"&gt;http://www.uas.alaska.edu/ketchikan/faculty_staff/directory-files/personnel/active/faculty/ianuzzi.html)
Fairfield</a> University :: School of Engineering :: Professor Maynard Marquis</p>

<p>
[quote]
These are the university-level positions that have no research component (all you do is teach), pay like crap, and have no option for tenure.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I agree that they are mostly (in fact, often times solely) about research, and don't pay that well.</p>

<p>But often times you can still get tenure. Yes, many of these lower-end schools still offer tenure. And tenure is often times much easier to get. </p>

<p>Let me give you an example. I know a girl who is getting her PhD from Harvard Business School this year. Her work is strong enough to get very good placement. But she is instead thinking of just taking a tenure-track offer at some low-level CalState. Why? Relatively easy tenure. Already, before she has even graduated, she has already submitted for publication (and for which she is in the revise & resubmit process) more papers than some of the profs at that CalState who already have tenure. So basically she will qualify for tenure quite easily, because all those papers she has already submitted are going to be published during her time that she would be at that CalState. Hence, while I wouldn't go so far as to say that her tenure review would be a slamdunk, her odds would be very very good. Many of the profs there don't publish anything at all, so the fact that she has a few publications in the works makes her look very good. </p>

<p>But the point is, we shouldn't be so quick to dismiss these lower-end schools because they don't offer tenure. Many of them do. I personally think it's not a bad deal to place at one of these smaller schools, because the tenure chances tend to be better. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Also, each move resets the tenure clock,

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, no, that's not quite true either. You can move and not lose time on your tenure clock. It depends on the department you're talking about. </p>

<p>I'll give you an example that I know pretty well. Take Vishal Gaur. Gaur's finished his PhD at UPenn (Wharton). He first placement was as an assistant prof at NYU (Stern). This year, he officially moved to Cornell (Johnson), * where he was immediately tenured and promoted to associate prof *. {Actually, the story gets even more complicated because while he technically has already moved over to Cornell, he is actually spending this entire academic year as a visiting prof at Harvard Business School, so, he will really start his position at Cornell in 2008.}</p>

<p>Vishal</a> Gaur biodata page
Johnson</a> School at Cornell University - Faculty</p>

<p>Now, granted, NYU is obviously not a crummy school. But the point is, people can and do move around without losing time on their tenure clock. </p>

<p><a href="Remember%20that%20there%20aren't%20many%20openings%20for%20tenure-track%20positions%20because%20someone%20effectively%20has%20to%20die%20in%20order%20for%20a%20vacancy%20to%20come%20up.">quote</a>

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yes, that's one (morbid) way for a vacancy to come up. </p>

<p>But other, more optimistic reasons that vacancies come up is that some departments decide to expand. Sometimes schools decide to expand, or new schools get founded. Like I said before, a lot of new business schools are opening around the world, especially in Asia. {Hence, even if you're not Asian or you don't want to work in Asia, that still means that you will face less competition as many of the new graduates who are Asian will want to go home, and hence won't be competing with you.} </p>

<p>Entirely new disciplines also get founded. For example, the discipline of bioengineering didn't even exist as a separate discipline until just recently. Now, many schools are creating bioengineering departments. MIT, for example, formally launched its bioengineering department less than a decade ago. Perhaps more famously, the discipline of computer science didn't even really exist until a few decades ago, as obviously you need to have computers before you can have computer science (and, no, things like the Babbage engine don't really count, as no school built an entire department just to study the Babbage engine). </p>

<p>Departments also choose to expand to accomodate people with new skills that the department deems important. For example, lately, economics has been revolutionized by such new techniques as econometrics and behavioral economics (and its laboratory analogue: experimental economics). Many econ departments have realized that they need to have faculty members who are well-versed in these new topics, and so they have chosen to expand employment to accomodate new assistant profs who specialize in these subjects. For example, if you're a newly minted econ PhD who specializes in, say, experimental auction analysis (a trendy field in experimental economics), you are sitting pretty, relative to most other new econ PhD's. </p>

<p>Speaking specifically about sociology, while I'm no sociologist, from what I understand, social network analysis is a very hot subfield in sociology, combining traditional sociology with highly quantitative disciplines such as graph/network theory and computer science. {For example, the famous travelling salesman problem from computer science is analogous to the 'six degrees of separation' phenomenom seen in social networks.} Sociology used to be a very qualititative field, but I can now see that sociology will become very very quantitative in the near future, and hence those sociologists who have a strong background in mathematics, statistics, and computer science will probably do very well. More to the point, many sociology departments are expanding to accomodate more people who have such a quantitative sociology background, as they realize they need these people around in order to stay relevant. </p>

<p>Look, the point is, you don't always have to wait for somebody to die to get an opening. There are other, happier ways, for openings to crop up.</p>

97

<p>
[quote]
A minor point: I disagree strongly that the situation is much better in the natural sciences. Just because there's a lot of funding for research in, say, biology, doesn't mean there are a lot of tenure-track faculty positions available.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'm not just talking a lot of funding. What I am really talking about is there being a strong private sector analog. To take your example of biology, a lot of newly minted biology PhD's are not interested in academia, instead preferring to work in industry (i.e. for a biotech firm). I can think of several friends of mine who got PhD's in biology and chose to work in industry. Heck, even here on CC, molliebatmit - one of the most esteemed posters on CC and a PhD bio student at Harvard - has stated that she wouldn't mind working in industry after graduation. Heck, I'm sure there are plenty of science PhD's who actually *prefer *working in industry than in academia (probably because it pays better). </p>

<p>What that means is that these people are not competing for academic positions, making the competition less intense for those who do want such positions. Contrast that with, say, the job market for PhD's in philosophy where there basically is no private sector analog and so every new graduate really is competing for academic placement. </p>

<p>Look, it's not the *absolute number * of tenure-track positions that counts. What really counts is that number relative to the number of people who are trying to get those positions that count. When fewer people are trying to obtain those positions (because a good alternative exists), that lowers the level of competition.</p>

98

<p>Okay, so someone at North-South-East-West Tenn-sylvan-issouri State is an assistant professor with no Ph.D. - frankly, I'm unimpressed that someone willing to work in Alaska was given this accommodation. (Hey, she could be somebody's wife!) I also agree that there are schools who are willing to hire adjuncts with no Ph.Ds. But my original reply to Jason concerned the fact that once you've gotten your Ph.D., some of the academic posts available to you are adjunct posts, and that those are neither as desirable nor as competitive. I don't understand why your examples pertain to that point.</p>

<p>If you are an adjunct, you're not a tenure-track faculty member. I don't see why you bring up the fact that at lower-end universities it is easier to get tenure. Yes, it is easier, but you have to be on the tenure track! I also don't understand why you think I am globally dismissing lower-end schools.</p>

<p>Congratulations to Prof. Gaur! It sounds like his decision to join Cornell might have involved an agreement that he was to be immediately tenured. But in general, unless you can bargain for tenure before accepting a new professorship, the tenure clock is reset.</p>

<p>If you happen to jump on the bandwagon of an innovative field just in time to get a tenure-track position in a new department, that's great! But unfortunately you just have to get lucky (or else decide to research something you don't truly enjoy) to wind up in that scenario. Emeritus professors are guaranteed to die eventually, but new departments are not guaranteed to open.</p>

<p>Have you ever heard the phrase "those who can't do, teach?" It's not true of every subject. The most common way to "do" classics or history, for example, is to have your research efforts funded through an academic post: if you are "doing" classics, you're probably also "teaching" it. However, in subjects like business where you can make a lot more by working in industry, there is some truth to that old adage. Essentially, you would be competing for professorships with people who were unsuccessful in the "real world," so yes, the level of the competition is lower. But why on earth would you want a professorship if you can be more successful in industry?</p>

99

<p>Now you did it. Thankfully I saw your post first, so I can just stop reading this thread now. I'd suggest that you do the same. You can't say that you weren't warned.</p>

100

<p>Just a quick question-
How does job placement generally go for those disciplines that could potentially stretch into serveral different departments.
For example, I've been considering going to grad school for biological anthropology/anatomy, and it seems that I could fit into several departments at a university such as bio,anthro, possibly philosophy, and even med school anatomy.</p>

<p>Would this increase prospects for tenure-track placement?</p>