Is it possible to join PhD after completing undergraduate ?

Graduate School
21

<p>Look, I think before you go into a PhD program, you need to learn a lot more about being a professor.</p>

<p>$100K? Not likely, not likely at all. For average faculty salaries, you can look at The</a> Chronicle: AAUP Faculty Salary Survey. Granted, this is all fields together, so for the humanities this is a bit high, and for business/engineering/hard sciences it's a bit low. For math professors specifically, you can look at Annual</a> Survey of the Mathematical Sciences. As a full professor, it is more likely you can get to $100K. However, remember that to get to full professor, you have to get through tenure (usually 3-8 years, depending on the institution) and then another promotion after tenure (usually 3-6 years). So it will be awhile before you make that kind of money. Your PhD will take you about 4 years to get in math - sometimes a little less, sometimes a little more.</p>

<p>Do professors work hard? Oh, yes. There are teaching-focused schools and research-focused schools. Both work about the same amount, but the work is divided up differently. First, teaching. In a teaching school, you will likely teach 8 classes a year (4 a semester). A research school is more likely to be 4 classes a year (2 per semester). You will do prep for those classes, which is really time consuming (lesson planning, grading). Keep in mind that the classes can range anywhere from 10 to 250 students per class, depending on the institution. Your classes also may be a couple different classes (ex: you teach Math 101 and Math 235, two classes each per semester) r you could teach a variety of classes. The more variety, the more work, because you have to prepare each of these classes. You also will have office hours for several hours a week - the number depends entirely on the institution. I've heard anywhere from 3-20 office hours a week required. There are generally more office hours at a teaching school.</p>

<p>Then, there is research. All schools require research for tenure. This means they will expect you to publish a certain number of articles, and in some fields (such as history), they'll expect a book in addition to the articles. Math, obviously, just wants articles. You will also be expected to present at conferences around the country. When your tenure review comes around, they will look at not just the number of articles published, but also the quality of the journal and the "impact factor" of your articles. If you are at a research institution, quality of journals and "impact factor" will matter much more. Additionally, you will be required to publish much more if you are at a research institution (that's why you teach fewer classes). Your publications pre-hire will not count for tenure.</p>

<p>Finally, there is service. You will be expected to sit on committees, review boards, and sponsor student clubs. These things are not optional, and they are looked at as part of your tenure review. Service activities are far more time-consuming than you would think. Attending conferences (without presenting) also falls within this category.</p>

<p>Professors pre-tenure generally work an absurd number of hours. Twelve to fifteen hour days are not unusual, and weekend work is a given. Post-tenure, while you cannot get "fired," as Sakky says, you also want to earn promotion to full professor and continual raises. Professors who slack are frequently not given these things. They may also get the worst committee assignments. Also, all tenured professors are expected to continue committee work, especially since some of those committee assignments would be rather treacherous for an untenured professor. The vast majority of tenured professors, even full professors, continue to serve, publish, and obviously teach (which is not an option, ever). So while they may not be working those hours they worked when they were untenured, they will at least work a 40-hour week.</p>

22

<p>Thanks for bringing some reality into this discussion, momfromme and DespSeekPhD. I put in 60 hours/week with regularity (including during the summer - not to pave my driveway, but to pay my rent) and I absolutely HATE it when folks assume I've got some sort of cushy job.</p>

<p>Because students don't SEE us when we are at home working our butts off, they often assume we are not working. HA!</p>

23

<p>Hopefully this question is more of a segway than a derail. How do you guys feel this compares to teaching at the community college level? Obviously most of the work you do at a junior college will be teaching, but is it a better or worse money to work ratio taking only teaching into account?</p>

<p>It's still some time out, but I'm bouncing between the idea of a university job w/classes, research, et al., and teaching at a community college and picking up my own brain stretching work on the side.</p>

<p>I guess I'm interested to know, aside from the burden of teaching, whether you generally have more freedom in your research under the strictures of a university or of commerce.</p>

<p>I guess there's a few related questions going on here. (;</p>

<p>--Joe</p>

<p>Edit: Might be helpful to know I'm a mathematics guy.</p>

24

<p>
[quote]
Sakky: No, Ferguson is quite unusual. Very few political scientists work as consultants or do work other than teaching, research, and public service.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I don't doubt that Ferguson is unusual. But that's the point. You can choose to be unusual. The point is that getting a PhD does not oblige you to spend all your time doing academic work. Obviously most choose to do so. But you don't have to. Plenty of people take their PhD's and go off to live very happy lives doing other things. </p>

<p>In fact, this all really gets to a point I've been making on CC. A lot of people with PhD's, or who are getting them, simply don't see the options that they have with their career, often times because they just don't want to see the options. Let me put it to you this way. Many (probably most) people with bachelor's degrees take jobs that have nothing to do with whatever they majored in. {For example, honestly, how many poli-sci undergrads actually end up working as political scientists?). So if they can do it, so can somebody with a PhD in the subject. </p>

<p>
[quote]
In the VAST MAJORITY of institutions, a fair number teach extra classes in the summer so they can afford to repave their driveways or go on a vacation with their family.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, let me put it to you this way. Tenured professors at almost any school make more than does the average American (as, after all, the average American really doesn't make that much). Furthermore, more importantly, tenured profs have job security that the average American can only dream of. The average American can be terminated at any time for any reason or no reason at all. Tenured profs also get far more time off than does the average American. A whole summer off? Most Americans can only dream of such a thing. </p>

<p>Even if we're talking about those only on the tenure-track (but haven't reached tenure), the lifestyle is still*better than the average American. If nothing else, the job security is *still*better. After all, most tenure-track assignments will effectively guarantee you a job for an entire academic year, or at least for a term, for once you've been assigned teaching responsibilities, that basically means that you have job security for the length of those responsibilities (as there is little incentive for a school to switch teachers midstream). *Average Americans don't even have that level of job security. I know people who were hired only to lose their jobs just a few weeks later as the employer announced a major downsizing or merger. Heck, I remember some of those guys saying that they hadn't even finished all their training before they were terminated. </p>

<p>Yet, last time I checked, average Americans were able (perhaps with difficulty) to afford to repave their driveways and take vacations with their families. If they can do it, why can't professors? </p>

<p>
[quote]
The world of most academics is not the world of MIT and Harvard, just as the world of most undergrads is not the world of MIT and Harvard. Getting a job in one of those institutions requires being smart and lucky, just like college admissions. And almost no one gets tenure at the top schools.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Whoever said that I was restricting my discussion to the world of MIT or Harvard? Plenty or profs at lower-ranked schools also do quite well for themselves. Heck, it is actually probably better to take a tenure-track job at a lower-ranked schools because the tenure process is easier. </p>

<p>
[quote]
But back to the math PhD question: Yes, you need a PhD to hold a faculty position in math at a university (although not to teach on a per course basis, little money, no job security).

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'm afraid that's false. You do not need a PhD to hold a faculty position in math at a university.</p>

<p>If you disagree, then perhaps you could explain how David Dubriske and Boyko Guyrov happen to be assistant professors of mathematics at the University of Arkansas Fort Smith, despite not having PhD's. Or how Chester Piascik is full professor of mathematics at Bryant University, yet does not have a Phd. How about Jerry Wagenblast, associate professor of mathematics at Valparaiso University? How about Carole Bergen, who is not only assistant prof, but also assistant chair of the math department at Mercy University? Assistat prof Linda Casper also does not hold a PhD. Or how about Myron Berg, Michael Frank, and William Massey of Dickinson State University?</p>

<p>Mathematics</a> Faculty - College of Arts and Sciences, Mathematics Department, UA Fort Smith</p>

<p>Bryant</a> University - Actuarial Mathematics
Department</a> of Mathematics and Computer Science: Valparaiso University
Curriculum</a> Vitae
Curriculum</a> Vitae - Casper
DSU</a> Department of Mathematics and Computer Science</p>

25

<p>Well. So we go from MIT/Harvard to University of Arkansas Fort Smith and find that you don't need a PhD to hold a faculty position. What's up with that?</p>

<p>For one, there may be generational differences. Years ago it was more common to have a faculty position without a PhD and there are folks who are still on faculties from those days. But that doesn't mean the same institutions would hire and retain people without PhDs now.</p>

<p>For another, assistant professors are folks without tenure. Sometimes people are hired without finishing the dissertation with the proviso that they complete their doctorates before tenure time. If you they don't, they won't get tenure and will have to get a new job elsewhere.</p>

<p>Also, there are indeed institutional differences, such that lower tier schools may be happy to get someone who can teach math (and probably not particularly high level math) and will hire and tenure people without PhDs. But these are also the schools with the highest teaching loads and the poorest pay. </p>

<p>On your other points: Sure, getting tenure gives one wonderful job security. But the pay for the vast majority of professors is not terrific, particularly given the amount of time and effort spent in working to get the PhD and to get tenure. But if faculty cared a lot about $, they wouldn't be doing what they do.</p>

26

<p>
[quote]
How do you guys feel this compares to teaching at the community college level? Obviously most of the work you do at a junior college will be teaching, but is it a better or worse money to work ratio taking only teaching into account?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>There's just as much work at the cc level. Again, the ratio is different. The most common cc teaching load is probably 5/5 (five classes a semester), but many cc profs teach more than that. I've heard upwards of 8-9 classes a year with regularity. However, there is almost no research requirement expected. Take a job at a cc only if you know you have no intention of going elsewhere, because the teaching load will make it nearly impossible to publish your way to a different type of institution. However, if you really just want to teach and have little to no interest in publishing, cc's are rewarding experiences.</p>

27

<p>
[quote]
All schools require research for tenure.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That's not quite true. Not all schools require research for tenure. There are schools in which you can earn tenure through just teaching and administrative work. Granted, publications will help. But you don't *need *them. </p>

<p>Whether publications are important or not depends on how research-oriented a particular department is. Obviously the most prominent and research-heavy departments will demand publications. But there are a lot of schools out there that are not research oriented. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Sakky says, you also want to earn promotion to full professor and continual raises. Professors who slack are frequently not given these things.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Ah, but what happens when you become full professor and then slack off? See below.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Also, all tenured professors are expected to continue committee work, especially since some of those committee assignments would be rather treacherous for an untenured professor. The vast majority of tenured professors, even full professors, continue to serve, publish, and obviously teach (which is not an option, ever). So while they may not be working those hours they worked when they were untenured, they will at least work a 40-hour week.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I don't doubt that they continue to work at least 40 hours a week, and usually more. The question is, are they working on actual academic work, or are they instead spending their time on other personal pursuits, i.e. working on their own side consulting projects or business endeavors. </p>

<p>Let me provide some examples, and to give those examples weight, I will name names. I prefer not to name names, but I can predict that if I don't, I will inevitably get sucked into a protracted argument trench war.</p>

<p>So, take Sheila Widnall of MIT. She holds the title of Institute Professor which is the highest ranking that can be bestowed upon any professor at MIT. Only 13 MIT faculty members currently hold the title of Institute Professor. Yet frankly, she hasn't done anything academic with respect to MIT for years. She hasn't taught any courses since at least 2004, and probably for many years beyond that. She hasn't published anything since 2000 ('Science in the courtroom', ISSUES IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, Fall 2000). She hasn't held an MIT administrative position for more than a decade. </p>

<p>Now, to be fair, Widnall did have an extremely impressive academic career in the past, culminating in being named the first woman Secretary of the Air Force (and first female head of any military service branch) in the Clinton Administration. She was also Chair of the Faculty and Associate Provost of MIT, and was former President of the American Association of the Advancement of Science. So nobody disputes that she did great academic work in the past. </p>

<p>Yet the fact remains that ever since she left the government to return to MIT, she hasn't done much academic work at all, and certainly not much work for MIT specifically. On the other hand, she does spend a lot of time serving on the Boards of Directors for Gencorp, Draper Labs, and the Carnegie Corporation, and consulting for the Macarthur Foundation. </p>

<p>Sheila</a> Widnall, Resume</p>

<p>Nor do I mean to single out Widnall. Others who come to mind are Joel Philip Clark, Nigel H.M. Wilson, and David Hunter Marks. These are all MIT full professors who, frankly, haven't done much of anything academic or administrative for at least a few years now. Clark however does seem to spend a *lot * of time working at his venture capital firm. </p>

<p>Nor is MIT the only one. Take Bill Fruhan of Harvard. He hasn't published anything since the 90's, and it's been quite awhile since he has taught any classes or taken any administrative positions. But he does spend a lot of time on extremely lucrative consulting gigs and serving on corporate boards. The same could be said for Stu Gilson. The same could be said for a bunch of others. These guys aren't doing much of anything academic (as far as anybody can tell). Granted, I'm sure they work very hard on their outside engagements. But that serve to enrich them personally. It doesn't do much for the school. </p>

<p>Besides, I know a guy who, before he was even 18 years old, had already visited something like 30-40 countries. How? Simple. His parents were tenured profs which meant that most summers, his whole family was free to travel to various countries. Granted, they couldn't do that in *every *summer, as there were indeed a few in which one or both of his parents wanted to publish something so they had to stay home (or else elect for only a short vacation). But in most summers, he and his family were off visiting the world. Granted, they weren't living extravagantly while they were traveling. They usually resorted to living in friend's houses or staying in very cheap hotels and hunting down super-saver airfares. But the point is, they as a family had huge blocks of time off to travel together, something that most families can never dream of having. Frankly, that's why he is strongly considering becoming a professor himself because he strongly prefers that sort of lifestyle of having the whole summer off for him and his family. </p>

<p>
[quote]
and I absolutely HATE it when folks assume I've got some sort of cushy job.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, all I can say to that is that you shouldn't blame those 'folks'. Instead, you should blame those fully tenured profs who really are doing nothing (as least, academically). There are a lot of these profs around and, whether we like it or not, they make all profs look 'bad' (if it is indeed a 'bad' thing).</p>

28

<p>
[quote]
Well. So we go from MIT/Harvard to University of Arkansas Fort Smith and find that you don't need a PhD to hold a faculty position. What's up with that?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>What's 'up' is that I am simply showing that you don't need a PhD to become a professor. After all, nowhere did you restrict your discussion to only professors at MIT or Harvard. What you said is "Yes, you need a PhD to hold a faculty position in math at a university ", meaning any university. </p>

<p>
[quote]

For one, there may be generational differences. Years ago it was more common to have a faculty position without a PhD and there are folks who are still on faculties from those days. But that doesn't mean the same institutions would hire and retain people without PhDs now.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Umm, you may actually want to check for a recent thread where DSP and I (well, mostly I) found a number of faculty positions that are currently being offered that don't actually require a PhD. Granted, the PhD is preferred. But it is not actually required. </p>

<p>
[quote]
For another, assistant professors are folks without tenure. Sometimes people are hired without finishing the dissertation with the proviso that they complete their doctorates before tenure time. If you they don't, they won't get tenure and will have to get a new job elsewhere.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Uh, my list included full professors. Like I said, Chester Piascik is full professor at Bryant University. But he doesn't hold a PhD. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Also, there are indeed institutional differences, such that lower tier schools may be happy to get someone who can teach math (and probably not particularly high level math) and will hire and tenure people without PhDs. But these are also the schools with the highest teaching loads and the poorest pay.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yeah, there's a tradeoff. But that all just goes to show that you CAN become a professor, even a fully tenured professor, without a PhD. People have done it. </p>

<p>Now, is it easier to do so with a PhD? Of course! But the point is, it is possible to do so without a PhD. It's obviously harder. But it is possible. </p>

<p>
[quote]
On your other points: Sure, getting tenure gives one wonderful job security. But the pay for the vast majority of professors is not terrific, particularly given the amount of time and effort spent in working to get the PhD and to get tenure. But if faculty cared a lot about $, they wouldn't be doing what they do.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Having a guaranteed job for life is a quite worthy goal. Nobody doubts that you can make more money doing other things. But that job guarantee is golden. After all, other people may make more money because they need to make more money, because they never know when they might lose their job. It might be tomorrow. Who knows? Therefore, they need to build a financial cushion. Tenured profs don't need to build a cushion because they know they have a job. </p>

<p>It all comes down to risk preferences. Most people are risk averse. That's why most people will take a guaranteed $50,000 payout over a 50% chance of getting $150,000 (but also a 50% chance of getting zero). In fact, the whole insurance industry is predicated on these risk preferences. Most people will give up a lot of money to shift risk away from them. Tenure is a hugely rewarding carrot for those who are risk averse (that is, most people). Like I said before, the average American can lose his job at any time for any reason or no reason at all. Is it really any surprise to find Americans who see that and decide that they would rather take their shot at getting tenure? (Even if they don't get tenure, at least they have a chance, whereas most regular employers have zero possibility of tenure, meaning that you can loyally work at a company for 30-40 years only to be terminated.) </p>

<p>But tenure, as important as it is, is actually just a gateway to the real plum of the profession, which is the ability to work on whatever you want. As a tenured prof, you are free to work on whatever research question you want, so long as you can obtain the funding for it and recruit whatever PhD students and post-docs that are necessary for you to pursue it. But nobody will tell you that you can't work on a particular topic. Not so in the private sector. As a regular employee for a private employee, you have to work on the projects that they want you to work on, even if you don't like them. Speaking from personal experience (although I strongly suspect that this holds for most other people), I would far far prefer to work 80 hours a week on a research project that I actually like than 40 hours a week on a project that I don't care about. Writing a research paper on a topic that you just don't care about is an excruciating experience.</p>

29

<p>
[quote]
For another, assistant professors are folks without tenure. Sometimes people are hired without finishing the dissertation with the proviso that they complete their doctorates before tenure time. If you they don't, they won't get tenure and will have to get a new job elsewhere.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Here are a few more examples:</p>

<p>Both Philip Scalisi and Thomas Moore are full professors at Bridgewater State College. They do not hold PhD's.</p>

<p>Mathematics</a> & Computer Science : Bridgewater State College</p>

<p>Roger Opp and Roger Schrader are full professors at SDSM&T. They do not hold PhD's.</p>

<p>MCS</a> | Department | Professors </p>

<p>I could go on, but I think my point is pretty clear. You can indeed become a tenured full professor of mathematics without a PhD. It's obviously not easy. But it is possible.</p>

30

<p>Sorry for my imprecise language. If you want to be a professor at a school that does not have a very high teaching load and in which your job involves teaching, research and service, you will need to have a PhD to earn tenure in almost every field. Taking such a job will make it almost impossible to move to another job at another university (save community college), should the school retrench programs or if you want a new position in a different area of the country. </p>

<p>Field matters. Novelists without PhDs can get hired in English depts, as can sculptors in art depts, etc., in good universities. </p>

<p>As to this: "But tenure, as important as it is, is actually just a gateway to the real plum of the profession, which is the ability to work on whatever you want." Pretty darn accurate, and I think about that often in my day to day experience. I love planning my own research program. However, this statement is a bit overstated, given the constraints from funding agencies and university administrators -- pressures which vary by field and institution.</p>

31

<p>By the way, I haven't had a summer off with my family in, like, forever. I'm writing and revising my research then, or teaching summer classes, or writing grant proposals, or working with university committees, or working on program development, or advising graduate and undergraduate students. Maybe I wouldn't do that at some other school where I wouldn't need a PhD, eh? But I wouldn't want the life I would have to have at such a school.</p>

32

<p>Sakky, as usual, you ignore generalized data that applies to most professors, and cite individualized anecdotal evidence.</p>

33

<p>Rather than teaching in a high teaching load college (typically with few strong students) without a PhD and thus limited mobility into other college teaching situations, someone who really likes teaching might be better off teaching high school. You get summers off then, too, but with zero expectation of research. Then again, teaching community college and the like can be very rewarding in terms of helping people.</p>

<p>Probably the hardest is being a long term adjunct. Here's one person's report on how that goes:</p>

<p>"I'm an adjunct . . . everywhere. Note that I am sending this from the
Ringling College of Something Specific, where I have been teaching a 67
percent load for six years. I am also teaching for a local community
college that has several branches. The CC pays literally half what
Ringling does, and I am not treated nearly as well in a general-person
kind of way. Furthermore, the CC has to abide by certain state
regulations, which translates into significantly more work for me at
far less pay. My boss at the CC has made it abundantly clear to me
that I am his favorite choice. And why wouldn't I be? I am really,
really good at my job, the students like me, some of them fear me, I'm
very qualified, experienced, I always say yes and in the past I have
done some really Herculean favors for the school overall. Two years
ago, I was about fifteen minutes' pregnant and discovered I was to
fill in for a full-timer on sabbatical (at adjunct pay!), which meant
driving between three campuses in one day, teaching out of three
textbooks in one week, AND they changed the textbooks on me without
telling me, so I had to do entirely new prep from scratch in the midst
of all this joy, too. I did it, and I did it well, but I loathed it
the entire time. The only reason I continue to work there is because
they offer summer classes and Ringling doesn't, and we need the summer
money just to keep from being homeless. I could go on, but I gather
you are familiar with the plight of adjuncts generally." Confessions</a> of a Community College Dean: Stuck in Adjunct Hell</p>

34

<p>I have several family members teaching humanities at liberal arts colleges across the country. They all say that being published is the single most important factor in the tenure process.</p>

35

<p>
[quote]
Sakky, as usual, you ignore generalized data that applies to most professors, and cite individualized anecdotal evidence

[/quote]
</p>

<p>DSP, as usual, you choose to ignore imprecise language. After all, I am not the one making unnecessarily strong statements like "you ** need *a PhD to become a professor". All I have to do to disprove that statement is cite a single exception. You * don't need ** a PhD to become a professor, and I think my examples have undeniably proved that you do not. </p>

<p>In fact, I'm rather surprised you continue to persist in doing so. Being a PhD student yourself, you, of all people, should understand the dangers of imprecise language. Several times now have I seen you make statements that are provably false and defend them in spite of the evidence.</p>

36

<p>sakky and DespSeekPhD,</p>

<p>Both of you drop it. It's not really that important, and you're both right about certain things. Sakky is right that in VERY rare cases non-PhD's can become professors, and DespSeekPhD is right that it's SO SO VERY rare and not a good model to follow.</p>

<p>There. Problem solved. Move along now, nothing to see here.</p>

37

<p>You got it, UCLAri.</p>

<p>And it was more possible to get a faculty position sans PhD 30 years ago, becoming more rare over time. Thus there are faculty left from that period who don't have PhDs who when they retire very likely will be replaced by people with PhDs, making depts more PhD heavy.</p>

38

<p>
[quote]
DespSeekPhD is right that it's SO SO VERY rare and not a good model to follow.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I have never once asserted that it was a good model to follow. All I said is that it was possible. </p>

<p>
[quote]
And it was more possible to get a faculty position sans PhD 30 years ago, becoming more rare over time. Thus there are faculty left from that period who don't have PhDs who when they retire very likely will be replaced by people with PhDs, making depts more PhD heavy.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>This I'm actually not so sure about, although I admit that I don't really know. It would be nice to see a study that demonstrated this one way or another. However, I strongly suspect that there may actually be *more * total faculty positions open today for people without PhD's than there were in the past. </p>

<p>This is particularly so when you account for the large increase in the numbers and sizes of Asian universities in the last 20 years due to the burgeoning demand for college educations in those countries (and hence, faculty members necessary to handle the teaching load). If nothing else, that means that many people of Asian or Asian-American descent who are earning PhD's, of which there are obviously many (especially in the natural sciences and engineering) are looking to go back to Asia to teach, hence reducing the level of job competition here. </p>

<p>For example, one guy who's Asian and getting his PhD told me he's definitely going back after he graduates because he saw his older brother who had finished his PhD and gone back and after not that many years has already been named Dean of his school. Now, granted, this is a small and new school in Asia. But he's still a Dean. If his brother had stayed in the US, he would probably still be an assistant or associate prof trying to earn tenure. It is precisely because of opportunities like that that is drawing many Asians back home, hence reducing the competition here. </p>

<p>Heck, you can get a faculty position in Asia even if you're not Asian yourself. Obviously actually speaking an Asian language would help a lot. But you don't always need it, as many Asian countries use English as a lingua franca. For example, I know of a white guy who speaks no Asian languages who graduated from Harvard and who placed at a university in Singapore. He reports that there are a lot of non-Asians on the faculty of his school, including, yes, some without PhD's. </p>

<p>But the point is, it's not actually clear to me that the level of PhD concentration has been increasing within university faculties when you take account of all of the great expansion in higher education in Asia in the last few decades. A lot of these Asian universities can't find enough qualified professors, and certainly can't find enough who have PhD's.</p>

39

<p>
[quote]
A lot of these Asian universities can't find enough qualified professors, and certainly can't find enough who have PhD's.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Sakky, I would like to see evidence to support this assertion. "It would be nice to see a study that demonstrated this one way or another."</p>

40

<p>What on earth do Asian universities have to do with the number of US professorships? That's a fantastic sleight of hand argument.</p>

<p>Anyway, 30 years ago, pretty much everyone with a PhD got a job. Not the case anymore. Also, there was a shortage of professors 30 years ago. This meant that a person who had a masters could sneak in, absent other qualified people. That is not the case anymore in almost any field (business and accounting are the, where there is still a shortage and a person can get hired without a terminal degree).</p>

<p>And while universities have grown, the number of TT positions has actually shrunk. TT positions are being replaced by adjunct positions. This is well-documented and can be found upon a quick perusal of The Chronicle (or Google, really).</p>