Those working for PhD... WHY?

Graduate School
1

<p>Okay, I'm a second semester sophomore (first semester junior by credits) and I've been seriously thinking about grad school since I interned at a museum last summer that truly motivated me to get serious about my academics. Recently, when I met with one of my history professors, he asked what I might want to do after college. I said that I'd really like to go to grad school and get a doctorate in History. </p>

<p>Two things:
1) Time off? I've been encouraged to take a year or two off just to make sure that I want to go to grad school and take a break from the academia (yes, it rules my life right now). Now I'm just feeling like... ehhhh.</p>

<p>2) Why? I really don't want to be a professor- I don't like standing up and teaching in front of a class. But just recently, I've sorta figured out a decent reason to get a PhD aside from my aboslute love for the academia and research in my field (Modern European history). The upper-level jobs at the museums tend to favor very strongly (or require) advanced degrees. So there is another job field out there that does want advanced degrees like this.</p>

<p>But what I want to know from you is WHY do you want a PhD, and if your answer is college professor- then why? How did you decide?</p>

2

<p>I will be attending a Ph.D Program in the fall (in a field similar to yours - history of science), and thus have given a lot of thought to things you mentioned in your post.</p>

<p>1) Time off can certainly be good for taking a break, getting a focus, etc. However, a few things to keep in mind about it.
a) if you have undergrad loans (subsidized, by Feds for instance), they will no longer be deferred because you are not a full time student.
b) if you enter the working world, it might be hard to abandon the paycheck and basically take a vow of poverty.
c) I've never done it, obviously, but I imagine that there is a certain "inertia" when it comes to going back to school after a break - having to relearn the discipline of academic work, going to class, etc.</p>

<p>Obviously, in the end its up to you what you choose to do. These are just some of the things that influenced my decision to go to grad school straight out of undergrad.</p>

<p>2) For me, the decision to go to graduate school was faciliated by the fact that I actually love to teach. I tutored through high school, teach SAT courses for the Princeton Review, and have my own little tutoring side jobs here and there. Originally, I was working towards teaching in a high school, but I realized I wanted to teach and also be able to explore the things that interested me. My intent is to be a university professor - I really can't imagine myself doing anything other than academic work in a university...it's a perfect fit for my personality and interests.</p>

<p>Like you said, there are other opportunities for Ph.Ds...but obviously, if you love to teach, it gives you the university option.</p>

3

<p>Also.</p>

<p>Make sure that getting a Ph.D is what you really want to do. It helps during the admissions process (grad fields want to get truly committed students), and it helps you through the process of graduate school itself.</p>

<p>I'm still an undergrad, but I've read a lot about what grad school is like, and talked with grad students and professors, and my sense is that it is VERY different from undergrad. I understand the sacrifices that need to be made for the next 5-6 years, and that's important, I think, if I want to get out of grad school alive :)</p>

4

<p>Allow me to inject a big of mercenary-ism into the discussion.</p>

<ul>
<li>Depending on the field of PhD you are talking about, you can make a LOT of money from consulting, especially if you become a tenured prof at a famous school. This is especially true in fields like business administration or economics, but is also largely true in engineering and many of the hard sciences. For example, I think it's safe to say that most of the tenured business administration and econ profs at Harvard and MIT have very lucrative consulting businesses on the side. Many of the tenured MIT engineering profs are also quite wealthy from companies that they have founded or that they serve as Directors of.<br></li>
</ul>

<p>Now don't get me wrong. If you just want to make as much money as you can as quickly as possible, I don't recommend that you become a prof. Just get a job on Wall Street as an investment banker. What I am saying is that the Phd/professorial route can be a way to a relatively lucrative lifestyle.</p>

<p>I talk about this in my posts here on this thread.</p>

<p><a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=139860%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=139860&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<ul>
<li>In the fields where master's degrees are highly respected and useful, for example, engineering, I would say if you want such a master's degree, then the best way to get it is not to get into the master's degree program at all. No. The best way to do it is to get into the PhD program, pick up your master's degree and then leave. Almost all engineering PhD students are funded, whereas few master's degree students are. So by getting in through the PhD route you are basically ggetting your master's degree for free. In fact, it's BETTER than free, bbecause they are actually paying you. It's "negative tuition". I know a lot of people at MIT who are getting paid to get their engineering master's degree this way.</li>
</ul>

<p>Of course, this presumes that you can actually get admitted to the PhD program. PhD admissions are much tougher than master's degree admissions. But there's no harm to try - most programs who reject you for the doctoral program will still consider you for the master's degree program. </p>

<p>This also presumes that the master's degree is actually going to be useful in your field. In engineering, it clearly is the case. In other fields, maybe less so.</p>

5

<p>I'd be careful about pursuing a PhD in modern European history in order to find an upper-level museum job. Museums are increasingly favoring business degrees over humanities doctorates for those higher-level positions. Also, few U.S. museums are looking for specialists in European history. Most of the country's history museums are dedicated to United States and local history. (And depending on what kind of upper-level museum job you're thinking about, there's a good chance it is mainly administration/grant-writing/etc. rather than academics)</p>

6

<p>I got my undergrad in social sciences and taught public secondary school for 5 years. I love to teach, I hate the K-12 school system, I love academia, hence - the PhD.</p>

<p>If you want to pursue positions in museums, get a degree in public history. Most programs offer it as an option. You will likely intern in museums in addition to your research. It won't specialize in European history per se, but you can focus your research in that direction. I would even recommend looking into doing your degree in Europe - obviously more opportunities to do museum work in European history there.</p>

7

<p>Allow me to diverge in opinion, with all due respect, from sakky. The idea that a PhD in the humanities is a ticket to a lucrative lifestyle is frankly laughable. His/her notion that consulting can be lucrative, "especially is you become a tenured prof at a famous school" begs the reply that many are called, but very, very few are chosen. I returned to school to do a PhD in the humanities after 19 years in the private sector, and even if I were to become a tenured prof at the solid institution that I am currently attending, it would involve a pay cut of roughly, oh, 50-75%. PhDs lead to academic and, in your case, para-academic careers, and academia is not synonymous with big bucks and never will be. There are some high-level professors who combine their work with consulting: in my experience, if they were to leave academia and consult full-time they would double their salaries.</p>

<p>I think there is only one reason to pursue a PhD in the humanities: a sincere enjoyment of the subject and a commitment to contributing to the study and contemplation of it, with the acceptance that the career that will follow will offer personal rewards that offset the difference in earning between, say, working in a museum and selling real-estate or doing accounting.</p>

8

<p>Thank you all for the replies thus far... keep them going!</p>

<p>See, I do love what I'm doing now- taking courses in my major (History) and minor (Jewish Studies) and making connections to create a large picture of Jewish history. When there's a topic that interests me, I just feel like pausing the time and doing some research on it some more before moving on. Not that I'm looking to slow down class but more to get MORE information out of my curiosity. Yeah, I'm a real detective. Occasionally, I do go a little crazy with my ideas and findings... Though I am satisfied and learning lots, especially in my upper-level seminar, sometimes I don't feel like I'm satisfied enough with my classes' presentations- sometimes too elementary.</p>

<p>With that and my experience as an intern at the Holocaust Museum in DC, I pretty much came to a conclusion that grad school might be for me for a while- doing what I love to do, which is to study different aspects of the Jewish and European history with avenues leading down to the Holocaust. I want to make contributions and be around people who are just passionate as I am. </p>

<p>It's just that I've been told by my dad and one of my history professors that I can't quite be admitted to grad school without a solid reason other than love for learning and the academia. That's just my roadblock. I mean, I can be a committed student (if not competitive and driven enough)... just that I don't have any solid plans on putting my PhD into full use other than applying for upper-level jobs in the archives and collections in museums.</p>

<p>I really don't care about money all that much- having a horse is not quite a possible idea anyway. So I'm not looking to the lack of need for consultants in the humanities as what some of the above posters caution. I'm not so 100% about university professor track only because I like working in small groups or one-on-one and not sure if I can do this "standing up in front of a big lecture" idea every week.</p>

<p>Now you all have a better idea of what I'm looking for...</p>

9

<p>
[quote]
Allow me to diverge in opinion, with all due respect, from sakky. The idea that a PhD in the humanities is a ticket to a lucrative lifestyle is frankly laughable

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Uh, nobody ever said that a PhD in the humanities is a ticket to a lucrative lifestyle. Please point to a quote where I specifically said that, or anything even approaching that. You can't do it, because I never said it. Don't put words in my mouth. Carefully read what I have said and have not said. </p>

<p>What I am saying is that you shouldn't feel too sorry for the tenured profs at the famous schools, especially those who are in certain disciplines such as econ, bus-ad, engineering, some of the sciences, and so forth. If they're not well off, it's because they don't WANT to be well off. </p>

<p>Which is also why I find a discussion of professorial salaries at the top schools to be extremely misleading. Sure, professors at, say, MIT or Harvard, don't make tremendously high salaries, relative to their accomplishments. But that deliberately ignores all of the side revenue that they generate. For many of those profs, their side revenue comprise the vast majority of their income. </p>

<p>
[quote]
PhDs lead to academic and, in your case, para-academic careers, and academia is not synonymous with big bucks and never will be. There are some high-level professors who combine their work with consulting: in my experience, if they were to leave academia and consult full-time they would double their salaries.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Again, I would say that this really depends on a number of factors. The example I would use again, is the doctorate in business administration or management, particularly from the top schools. Trust me, if you can complete a doctorate in bus-ad from, say, Harvard Business SChool, the MITSloan School, Stanford, Wharton, or places like that, and decide that you don't want to be a business school prof, you can get yourself a very nice consulting career. To complete a doctorate from any of these places means that you are basically a recognized world-expert in the specific topic that you researched. You shouldn't be able to find that much difficulty in finding somebody willing to pay good money for that knowledge. The same often times holds true in economics. </p>

<p>Now, again, don't get me wrong, if you just want money, then it's more efficient for you to just go to investment banking. But my point is, not all PhD's are starving academics. Far from it, in fact. </p>

<p>But again, I have deliberately restricted my discussion to certain fields and certain schools. I never talked about doctoral programs in the humanities in general. I am simply disputing the notion that all profs or all PhD students are destined to live poverty-stricken lifestyles.</p>

10

<p>I was simply pointing out that a tenured prof who has a full-time commitment to a university, no matter how prestigious, and who does consulting on the side would make more money leaving his/her academic responsibilities behind and focusing full-time on consulting as a full-time occupation. As a result, it is clearly not money guiding their decision to remain in academia: it is a lifestyle choice. I say this as someone who was a full-time consultant for 20 years before switching to academia. </p>

<p>That being said, the author of this thread made it clear his/her focus was in humanities, which frankly throws the whole consulting issue out the window with very, very few exceptions. I know many humanities professors at solid institutions who talk a lot about the potential of consulting in their field, but talk is cheap: few have many engagements to speak of, and for those who do it is a sideline more than a majority of their income.</p>

<p>There is no point talking about what the top 2 or 3 professors in specific programs at the top 10 universities do: their world is different from that of the other 99.95% of professors toiling away in academia, as the world of the top .05% of any field (music, art, literature, finance, sports, etc.) typically is.</p>

11

<p>wait a minute - can you pick up a masters degree from ANY PhD program? does it take any longer than a masters program? i'm a second year environmental biology undergrad starting to look into doing a masters in something to do with either biology or geology. do pretty much all PhD programs offer enough funding to cover all living expenses? what about international students (i'm canadian)?
this could be the answer to all my problems...</p>

12

<p>Not all PhD programs offer a masters, particularly in the sciences. I think some/many of them will grant a masters, if you start in the PhD program and decide to quit along the way, but they're not masters programs per se -- they're sort of consolation prizes for not finishing the PhD.</p>

<p>Most, if not all, PhD programs in biology will offer a stipend high enough to cover living expenses. You won't be living high on the horse, but $25,000-30,000 a year is certainly enough to live on.</p>

13

<p>
[quote]
I was simply pointing out that a tenured prof who has a full-time commitment to a university, no matter how prestigious, and who does consulting on the side would make more money leaving his/her academic responsibilities behind and focusing full-time on consulting as a full-time occupation. As a result, it is clearly not money guiding their decision to remain in academia: it is a lifestyle choice. I say this as someone who was a full-time consultant for 20 years before switching to academia.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>While I agree that it is mostly a lifestyle choice, I'm not entirely sure that this is true that they would make more if they quit their faculty position to become full-time consutants. Keep in mind that tenured profs don't exactly have a lot of responsibilities. After all, that's what tenure is all about - you're basically unfireable. The only responsibilities that you have are to teach a few classes here and there, supervise the research of some graduate students, and perform some administrative duties (i.e. run some admissions interviews for doctoral candidates, etc.) That's about it.</p>

<p>Now, don't get me wrong. Most tenured profs do far far more than the bare minimum, and plenty of them work ridiculous hours, especially on their research. This, I agree, is a lifestyle choice - they are trying to discover something that will make them famous. But my point is, once they're tenured, they don't have to do that. If they choose to do very little research at all, they are free to do that. </p>

<p>Hence, it really gets down to the question of whether a prof who wants to make money in consulting would be better off resigning his position to do true full-time consulting, or just doing the bare minimum necessary to maintain his tenure, while devoting the rest of his time consulting. I would argue that for many profs, the latter is actually the more lucrative choice. Since you've been a consultant, you probably know that consulting has a lot to do with sales, in terms of finding and landing consulting clients. To be able to say that you are a tenured professor is a excellent marketing tool. Many consulting firms will pay top dollar just to have the right to say that they have professors from leading schools on their staff. In fact, when LECG got started, one of the ways it which it marketed itself was that it promoted the fact that it was founded and run by Professors of Economics at Berkeley. By resigning your faculty position, you lose that marketing angle. </p>

<p>Hence, it's quite unclear to me whether these guys would be better off resigning their faculty position. I'll put it to you this way. I know that the partners at McKinsey make something in the low 7 figures. There are quite a few profs at MIT and Harvard that make far more than that off their side consulting. I strongly suspect that the fact that they are tenured profs at MIT and Harvard is a big reason why they are able to earn so much consulting money. </p>

<p>
[quote]
That being said, the author of this thread made it clear his/her focus was in humanities, which frankly throws the whole consulting issue out the window with very, very few exceptions. I know many humanities professors at solid institutions who talk a lot about the potential of consulting in their field, but talk is cheap: few have many engagements to speak of, and for those who do it is a sideline more than a majority of their income.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I am simply trying to disabuse the notion that becoming a prof must necessarily mean taking a vow of poverty. Heck, even being a graduate student may not mean being forced to take a vow of poverty. I know doctoral students in bus-ad and economics who have yet to finish their theses yet make quite nice livings off side consulting. It really depends on what your research focuses on. </p>

<p>
[quote]
There is no point talking about what the top 2 or 3 professors in specific programs at the top 10 universities do: their world is different from that of the other 99.95% of professors toiling away in academia, as the world of the top .05% of any field (music, art, literature, finance, sports, etc.) typically is.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I wouldn't even say the top 2 or 3. For example, I am fairly confident in saying that every tenured professor, even the 'worst' one, at Harvard Business School either has or can quickly develop a side consulting business that will pull in income to at least equal his faculty salary, and almost certainly several times that salary. If he doesn't have one, it's because he doesn't want one (i.e. because he'd rather spend more time on academic research). The same can be said at all of the top 15-20 business schools. I believe that the vast majority of tenured profs at the top economics, engineering, computer science, biology and chemistry departments can do the same. </p>

<p>However, I agree with you that there are fields in which consulting gigs are few and far between, like the humanities. But I never disputed that.</p>