3 ms·

> given that most humanities PhDs typically come from more affluent backgrounds than STEM PhDs Where do you get this from?

by lapcat 3y ago

whimsicalism 3y ago
https://www.piie.com/sites/default/files/documents/wp22-4.pdf https://www.piie.com/sites/default/files/documents/wp22-4.pd... See educational background of humanities PhDs, see also the proportion of international students from developing nations like China or India in each department. It’s also just been obviously true from my anecdotal interactions with many PhD students at Harvard.
- lapcat 3y ago
  Offhand, there are several problems with this: 1) This is only looking at PhD recipients, not all grad students. (PhD completion rates can be low.) 2) It's questionable to proxy socioeconomic background from educational attainment of the parents, especially when we're talking about the humanities. I haven't read the document fully yet; does it even say whether or not humanities PhDs tend to come from humanities parents? I have a Masters in philosophy, which wouldn't even get me a job in a coffee shop. At best, a humanities PhD gets you a professorship, and humanities professors are not particularly affluent compared to people in say, business or tech. You're probably better off with a BS in CompSci than with any humanities degree. Not to mention that in general, STEM grad students tend to be vastly better funded in school than humanities grad students.
  - whimsicalism 3y ago
    > This is only looking at PhD recipients, not all grad students. Which was my original claim? > It's questionable to proxy socioeconomic background from educational attainment of the parents I agree it is not ironclad, but it jives with both my anecdotal experience and also most of the stats I can find. > Not to mention that in general, STEM grad students tend to be vastly better funded in school than humanities grad students Which is my precise point? And irrelevant to lethe familial background of PhDs
    - lapcat 3y ago
      >> This is only looking at PhD recipients, not all grad students. > Which was my original claim? But the subject is grad student salaries, and grad students by definition do not yet have a PhD, or else they wouldn't be students anymore and wouldn't get grad student salaries. >> Not to mention that in general, STEM grad students tend to be vastly better funded in school than humanities grad students > Which is my precise point? And irrelevant to lethe familial background of PhDs I don't understand how you can now say familial background is irrelevant when you're the very one who attempted to make it relevant? Your argument seemed to be that "any efforts to raise salaries should be careful to ensure that salary money isn't simply being redirected from STEM PhDs to humanities PhDs" because "most humanities PhDs typically come from more affluent backgrounds than STEM PhDs".
      - whimsicalism 3y ago
        I see. In the absence of evidence otherwise. I would assume the background of PhD graduates is roughly similar to PhD students, although that might not be true. > I don't understand how you can now say familial background is irrelevant I am saying that the funding of current PhD students is irrelevant to whether their family is wealthy, not that familial background is irrelevant.
        lapcat 3y ago
        > I am saying that the funding of current PhD students is irrelevant to whether their family is wealthy, not that familial background is irrelevant. I don't think it's correct to equate having a graduate degree with being "wealthy", especially depending on which degree it is specifically. In any case, graduate student salaries aren't means-tested at all, and the weird form of backdoor familial means-testing that you're suggesting, i.e., don't raise the funding for humanities students, seems quite bizarre and extremely imperfect. Unless you're claiming, absurdly, that there are no STEM grad students of affluent background, I don't see that this form of means-testing has any place in union negotiations. The document you cited just shows averages, but individual graduate students of all fields clearly have parents with every different kind of educational attainment. On a personal note, I was a grad student in the humanities, neither of my parents has a college degree, and they certainly weren't affluent. Moreover, they didn't pay a dime for my grad school. I would have loved if there were means testing, because I would have benefitted, but it didn't exist. So it's difficult to avoid taking this personally when humanities students are wrongly stereotyped.
noobermin 3y ago
Coming from a poor background, you're likely to get a degree with something with a sure career path and one that will make money, assuming you're bright enough to pursue a PhD.
- WWLink 3y ago
  In a way, that's a good way to gatekeep the humanities majors, isn't it? I noticed the same thing when I was in college though. Those of us trying to climb the ladder mostly took engineering or science things lol.

> given that most humanities PhDs typically come from more affluent backgrounds than STEM PhDs Where do you get this from?

by lapcat 3y ago

> given that most humanities PhDs typically come from more affluent backgrounds than STEM PhDs Where do you get this from?

whimsicalism 3y ago

https://www.piie.com/sites/default/files/documents/wp22-4.pdf https://www.piie.com/sites/default/files/documents/wp22-4.pd... See educational background of humanities PhDs, see also the proportion of international students from developing nations like China or India in each department. It’s also just been obviously true from my anecdotal interactions with many PhD students at Harvard.

lapcat 3y ago
Offhand, there are several problems with this: 1) This is only looking at PhD recipients, not all grad students. (PhD completion rates can be low.) 2) It's questionable to proxy socioeconomic background from educational attainment of the parents, especially when we're talking about the humanities. I haven't read the document fully yet; does it even say whether or not humanities PhDs tend to come from humanities parents? I have a Masters in philosophy, which wouldn't even get me a job in a coffee shop. At best, a humanities PhD gets you a professorship, and humanities professors are not particularly affluent compared to people in say, business or tech. You're probably better off with a BS in CompSci than with any humanities degree. Not to mention that in general, STEM grad students tend to be vastly better funded in school than humanities grad students.
- whimsicalism 3y ago
  > This is only looking at PhD recipients, not all grad students. Which was my original claim? > It's questionable to proxy socioeconomic background from educational attainment of the parents I agree it is not ironclad, but it jives with both my anecdotal experience and also most of the stats I can find. > Not to mention that in general, STEM grad students tend to be vastly better funded in school than humanities grad students Which is my precise point? And irrelevant to lethe familial background of PhDs
  - lapcat 3y ago
    >> This is only looking at PhD recipients, not all grad students. > Which was my original claim? But the subject is grad student salaries, and grad students by definition do not yet have a PhD, or else they wouldn't be students anymore and wouldn't get grad student salaries. >> Not to mention that in general, STEM grad students tend to be vastly better funded in school than humanities grad students > Which is my precise point? And irrelevant to lethe familial background of PhDs I don't understand how you can now say familial background is irrelevant when you're the very one who attempted to make it relevant? Your argument seemed to be that "any efforts to raise salaries should be careful to ensure that salary money isn't simply being redirected from STEM PhDs to humanities PhDs" because "most humanities PhDs typically come from more affluent backgrounds than STEM PhDs".
    - whimsicalism 3y ago
      I see. In the absence of evidence otherwise. I would assume the background of PhD graduates is roughly similar to PhD students, although that might not be true. > I don't understand how you can now say familial background is irrelevant I am saying that the funding of current PhD students is irrelevant to whether their family is wealthy, not that familial background is irrelevant.
      - lapcat 3y ago
        > I am saying that the funding of current PhD students is irrelevant to whether their family is wealthy, not that familial background is irrelevant. I don't think it's correct to equate having a graduate degree with being "wealthy", especially depending on which degree it is specifically. In any case, graduate student salaries aren't means-tested at all, and the weird form of backdoor familial means-testing that you're suggesting, i.e., don't raise the funding for humanities students, seems quite bizarre and extremely imperfect. Unless you're claiming, absurdly, that there are no STEM grad students of affluent background, I don't see that this form of means-testing has any place in union negotiations. The document you cited just shows averages, but individual graduate students of all fields clearly have parents with every different kind of educational attainment. On a personal note, I was a grad student in the humanities, neither of my parents has a college degree, and they certainly weren't affluent. Moreover, they didn't pay a dime for my grad school. I would have loved if there were means testing, because I would have benefitted, but it didn't exist. So it's difficult to avoid taking this personally when humanities students are wrongly stereotyped.

noobermin 3y ago

Coming from a poor background, you're likely to get a degree with something with a sure career path and one that will make money, assuming you're bright enough to pursue a PhD.

WWLink 3y ago
In a way, that's a good way to gatekeep the humanities majors, isn't it? I noticed the same thing when I was in college though. Those of us trying to climb the ladder mostly took engineering or science things lol.