Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Neither am I (note the "private sector" and "public accounting") from my post.
Quote:
I'm talking any position a person with a Ph.D. could master in little or no time. For their multiple faults Ph.D.s are not the stupidest or the laziest bunch, yet failing to obtain (or changing their minds about) "a Ph.D. required" career automatically disqualifies them for non Ph.D. jobs, it's a catch 22 on steroids, namely this catch creates a huge pool of the willing labor universities can work for less.
My point was simply that that isn't the case in my field.
Most of the public does not understand what a PhD is. They think it's just that the holder knows his or her discipline to a high level. That is really what a master's degree is.*
A PhD is much more, signifying original contribution to the discipline.
I can see why private sector employers don't appreciate them. It's a highly individualized and personal achievement usually done on ones own. Not much teamwork involved and not involving a boss. Secondly, it's overkill. A master's should* be sufficient for mastery of a subject and evidence that the applicant can learn things quickly and expertly.
*Masters degrees have been watered down. They were originally the first half of PhDs involving comprehensive exams and a thesis. Now they are often another 1-2 years of undergrad.
Location: Northern Virginia, U.S. and Dominica, West Indies
27 posts, read 111,167 times
Reputation: 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mnseca
Unless there was no one willing, and a thousand warm bodies willing to take your place for the dropped pay.
Yes, but that's usually fairly predictable,and that's why it makes more sense to develop a skill set that is actually in demand.
Quote:
There has been a massive overproduction of PhD's in many fields, especially humanities, simultaneous with a drop in job openings. Colleges realized that the cheap adjuncts they used to staff occasional courses could also be used in place of full-time positions, costing a fraction of the price. The antiquated faculty model, with full-time faculty getting full-time pay and benefits for only a small teaching load, while supposedly using the rest of their time to research and publish, makes full-time positions a very bad deal for the school. Even as schools realized their PhD's would not get jobs, they continued to produce them, because they themselves rely on those PhD students to provide free labor as teaching assistants, and they needs to grant those degrees to justify their own jobs.
I agree that's crappy of them. But no one forces students to gamble on academic careers. It's not that hard to plan for a career that's in demand rather than one that requires that sort of luck to break into.
Quote:
It happened very suddenly - many of us were half way through the PhD (which takes quite a few years) when the bottom fell out of the job market. Unfortunately, a phd in humanities qualifies you for little else.
Indeed, famously so. But if that happened and you kept going in that program, and then you stayed the course as an adjunct for ten years and counting afterwards, even though you knew what the job market was like -- sorry, but that's on you.
Maybe it depends on the field. I went to a very well-known private Allied Health/Medicine University for their O.T. program. All of our professors were leaders in the field, with a millions letters after their names, numerous published articles, and avid researchers. The school had many research studies going on all the time in all fields of medicine, and that is how they want it, what they are known for. I am sure public Universities are different. My best friend went to a giant NJ public University and even back in the 80's many of her classes were taught by graduate students, not even professors.
Most of the public does not understand what a PhD is. They think it's just that the holder knows his or her discipline to a high level. That is really what a master's degree is.*
A PhD is much more, signifying original contribution to the discipline.
I can see why private sector employers don't appreciate them. It's a highly individualized and personal achievement usually done on ones own. Not much teamwork involved and not involving a boss. Secondly, it's overkill. A master's should* be sufficient for mastery of a subject and evidence that the applicant can learn things quickly and expertly.
*Masters degrees have been watered down. They were originally the first half of PhDs involving comprehensive exams and a thesis. Now they are often another 1-2 years of undergrad.
Seriously. I thought my MA in education was really pretty easy. No thesis was required, but we had to pass two comprehensive exams. Apparently that was too rigorous for many people going into teaching and they stopped requiring those things and the GRE. Really? It wasn't that hard to start with. Do we really want to be giving out master's degrees to people who don't have a passable knowledge of the subject area?
Seriously. I thought my MA in education was really pretty easy. No thesis was required, but we had to pass two comprehensive exams. Apparently that was too rigorous for many people going into teaching and they stopped requiring those things and the GRE. Really? It wasn't that hard to start with. Do we really want to be giving out master's degrees to people who don't have a passable knowledge of the subject area?
Can't say about today, but when I went through, ages ago, a MS was a required step on the PhD path. The coursework was the same and we had to take the exams. Biggest difference was the PhD had a few extra years of dissertation research. To this day I regret not having taken those extra years, but at the time, making a living seemed more important and I assumed I could go back later. Never knew how hard it would be to get back into a program.
You can work at many companies doing customer service work and make more than 30K ..but then that would be full-time work. People forget that adjuncts are PART-TIME workers and if you figured out what they would be making at full-time work...the pay is pretty substantial, but like TaxPhD pointed out, supply and demand, supply and demand...not to mention, just because you have a PhD, doesn't mean you are a good candidate to be a professor.
Adjuncts are called part time. Many are not. I work more hours than a full professor, but I am technically still considered part time.
Yes, that's the point. For that amount of money I work the same hours, sometimes more, than a full time professor with benefits. Basically, 40 hours a week.
Yes, but that's usually fairly predictable,and that's why it makes more sense to develop a skill set that is actually in demand.
I agree that's crappy of them. But no one forces students to gamble on academic careers. It's not that hard to plan for a career that's in demand rather than one that requires that sort of luck to break into.
Indeed, famously so. But if that happened and you kept going in that program, and then you stayed the course as an adjunct for ten years and counting afterwards, even though you knew what the job market was like -- sorry, but that's on you.
I will be the first to admit that I made foolish choices. However, I can say that at the time, they seemed like good choices. I thought my skill set was in demand. In fact, I remember professors talking about how in demand it was when they were trying to get us to sign up to major in my subject. Bear in mind that back then there was no internet. Nothing. There really was no universally available source of good information about anything, including the job market. We were still opening the newspaper and looking for want ads.
It actually IS hard to plan for an in-demand career. It's easier now that we have more access to information, but it's still not that easy. Demand changes faster than one can start and finish a degree. And when you are in the middle of a PhD, and have already spent a ton of time and money getting that far, it's hardly a simple thing to just abandon it. Grad school is not like undergrad - you can't just switch majors. It means just cutting and running, with tons of debt and no degree to show for it, and no better job prospects.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
..but then that would be full-time work. People forget that adjuncts are PART-TIME workers and if you figured out what they would be making at full-time work...the pay is pretty substantial, but like TaxPhD pointed out, supply and demand, supply and demand...not to mention, just because you have a PhD, doesn't mean you are a good candidate to be a professor.
