4 ms·

I'll be very honest with you, I've never met a humanities PhD student without funding who should've been pursuing a PhD, and if the department you were in was s

I'll be very honest with you, I've never met a humanities PhD student without funding who should've been pursuing a PhD, and if the department you were in was so poorly funded that it couldn't give out stipends, then it's likely that you would've never found a job in academia afterwards anyway. Look, its not your fault, some people don't end up in the right undergraduate programs, they don't meet the right people, make the right connections, and get into good PhD programs with funding. In any other case, if you don't have a lot of money and time to waste, its almost always a bad idea.

lapcat 2y ago
> I've never met a humanities PhD student without funding who should've been pursuing a PhD 1) In your entire life, how many humanities PhD students without funding have you met? Perhaps you think that, somehow, you've magically met most of them, since you seem to believe there aren't that many. 2) It's just your opinion whether an individual "should've been pursuing a PhD". > if the department you were in was so poorly funded that it couldn't give out stipends, then it's likely that you would've never found a job in academia afterwards anyway. My former department has placed many tenure-track positions.
- bumby 2y ago
  I think what may be going unsaid is there are some predatory practices that puff up the idea of a PhD to get people to attend a department that is otherwise struggling. It sounds like what you describe is rarer in better programs. That shouldn’t be taken as personal or an immutable law, just a general observation.
  - lapcat 2y ago
    > I think what may be going unsaid is there are some predatory practices that puff up the idea of a PhD to get people to attend a department that is otherwise struggling. No, it was already said: >>> We're wondering if you were perhaps mislead somewhat >> I wasn't.
    - bumby 2y ago
      To reiterate, I was making a general point. You making it personal does not negate that point. If you re-read what I wrote, I was not implying you were mislead, but also that it isn’t rare in lesser programs. Not everything has to be true about you and your personal experience to be valid.
      - lapcat 2y ago
        > I was making a general point. Nobody here has any evidence that their so-called "general" points are any more than their own personal anecdotal experience. You're all trying to pretend that somehow you're experts and I'm just some clueless n00b, but that's ridiculous. At best, we're all on equal ground.
        bumby 2y ago
        So your point is that well-renowned graduate programs are on an equal financial footing as those that are less well regarded? I think it’s fairly well established that better programs have better funding. This generally results in more funding for PhD prospects. It’s great that you want to share your anecdotal experience, but don’t pretend that it means it’s a incontrovertible generalizable truth. >Nobody here has any evidence When someone relies on absolute language like “nobody” or “everyone”, it’s a clue they are making an emotional rather than a reasoned argument. In this case, there is data about funding and PhD opportunities.
        lapcat 2y ago
        > So your point is that well-renowned graduate programs are on an equal financial footing as those that are less well regarded? No. I don't know where in the world you got that from what I said. > I think it’s fairly well established that better programs have better funding. It's not that simple. Funding can vary widely by university and department. You want to make it uniform, but it's not. The reputation of a program is determined by a number of factors, and it can change over time. A lot depends on the particular professors who happen to be there at a certain point. And sometimes giant public universities are able to compete with smaller elite private universities by sheer size, i.e., the size of the faculty.

lapcat 2y ago

> I've never met a humanities PhD student without funding who should've been pursuing a PhD 1) In your entire life, how many humanities PhD students without funding have you met? Perhaps you think that, somehow, you've magically met most of them, since you seem to believe there aren't that many. 2) It's just your opinion whether an individual "should've been pursuing a PhD". > if the department you were in was so poorly funded that it couldn't give out stipends, then it's likely that you would've never found a job in academia afterwards anyway. My former department has placed many tenure-track positions.

bumby 2y ago
I think what may be going unsaid is there are some predatory practices that puff up the idea of a PhD to get people to attend a department that is otherwise struggling. It sounds like what you describe is rarer in better programs. That shouldn’t be taken as personal or an immutable law, just a general observation.
- lapcat 2y ago
  > I think what may be going unsaid is there are some predatory practices that puff up the idea of a PhD to get people to attend a department that is otherwise struggling. No, it was already said: >>> We're wondering if you were perhaps mislead somewhat >> I wasn't.
  - bumby 2y ago
    To reiterate, I was making a general point. You making it personal does not negate that point. If you re-read what I wrote, I was not implying you were mislead, but also that it isn’t rare in lesser programs. Not everything has to be true about you and your personal experience to be valid.
    - lapcat 2y ago
      > I was making a general point. Nobody here has any evidence that their so-called "general" points are any more than their own personal anecdotal experience. You're all trying to pretend that somehow you're experts and I'm just some clueless n00b, but that's ridiculous. At best, we're all on equal ground.
      - bumby 2y ago
        So your point is that well-renowned graduate programs are on an equal financial footing as those that are less well regarded? I think it’s fairly well established that better programs have better funding. This generally results in more funding for PhD prospects. It’s great that you want to share your anecdotal experience, but don’t pretend that it means it’s a incontrovertible generalizable truth. >Nobody here has any evidence When someone relies on absolute language like “nobody” or “everyone”, it’s a clue they are making an emotional rather than a reasoned argument. In this case, there is data about funding and PhD opportunities.
        lapcat 2y ago
        > So your point is that well-renowned graduate programs are on an equal financial footing as those that are less well regarded? No. I don't know where in the world you got that from what I said. > I think it’s fairly well established that better programs have better funding. It's not that simple. Funding can vary widely by university and department. You want to make it uniform, but it's not. The reputation of a program is determined by a number of factors, and it can change over time. A lot depends on the particular professors who happen to be there at a certain point. And sometimes giant public universities are able to compete with smaller elite private universities by sheer size, i.e., the size of the faculty.