10 ms·

Open Letter to My Students: No, You Cannot be a Professor (2011)

114 points by msvan 13y ago

short_circut 13y ago
I am currently about a year away from my PhD in computational physics and chemistry and looking out towards the future I have very similar sentiments to this professor. Finding a decent job in academia is very very difficult. Even when you do get one it really won't be worth the work and time you have to put into it. At least in my field it is much better to develop your skills elsewhere and use that to enter into industry. I just wish someone had told me this 4 years ago.
- acadien 13y ago
  The world for a graduating History PhD is totally different than for most STEM majors. Very very few History PhD's get their tuition paid for and are typically hugely in debt upon graduation. At least in the sciences its /possible/ to graduate debt free. Also in the sciences its entirely possible that your specific domain expertise will land you a job. Not to say a history PhD is useless for finding work, but its likely more difficult to find work than say a Physics PhD (which has a 96% employment rate 1st year after graduation, according to the APS[1]). [1]http://www.aip.org/statistics/trends/reports/phdinitial.pdf http://www.aip.org/statistics/trends/reports/phdinitial.pdf
  - nnntrn 13y ago
    "Very very few History PhD's get their tuition paid for and are typically hugely in debt upon graduation." This is incorrect. It's absolutely possible to earn a humanities doctorate without going into debt (at least for the postgraduate degree(s)).
    - saraid216 13y ago
      You didn't actually refute the claim you quoted. acadien didn't say it was impossible; the claim was that it's extremely unlikely.
    - rflrob 13y ago
      It is kind of correct... from a certain point of view. While there's probably a lower rate of funding for PhDs in the humanities than in STEM fields, there's also fewer people getting PhDs in the humanities than in STEM, by at least a factor of 2[1]. I'm not arguing that humanities PhDs are cushy by any means, but it's not necessarily as bad as that. [1]http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf10308/ http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf10308/
    - nnntrn 13y ago
      In the following sentence, he does imply that it's impossible. The 2011 NSF survey reports that 51% of humanities PhD graduates hold no degree-related debt, and that only 22% fund their degrees through their own resources. Compared to life/physical science students, more humanities PhDs fund their degrees by going into debt (by about 25%), but the majority of humanities PhDs graduate without debt and fund their degrees through fellowship grants and assisstantship positions, just like graduate students in STEM fields. Anecdotally, all the humanities departments I am familiar with fund the vast majority (90%+) of their doctoral students. http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/sed/digest/2011/theme4.cfm#4 http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/sed/digest/2011/theme4.cfm#4
    - acadien 13y ago
      Yes, that was poor wording. I meant to imply it is often difficult to graduate debt free for STEM majors as well. TA stipends simply aren't enough to pay the bills these days. I don't mean to imply a STEM major is more valuable than a History PhD either, simply that its (likely) easier to get a job after graduation. Honestly, its a damn shame the public doesn't appreciate both of these areas of work more as they are the cornerstone for improving society.
- jamesaguilar 13y ago
  This is what's hard to hear for me. The knowledge that academia is more or less impossible to get a job in has been out there for much more than four years. It's obvious if you take even the most cursory look at job openings, career advice comments on sites like these, the news, etc. But somehow, students continue to finish up their degrees only finding out toward the end. How is it that so many students are unaware of this until the end of their education? Is it just the quintessential American "you can be anything you put your mind to" wishful thinking? This question goes doubly for humanities PhDs, because at least you can get a job elsewhere.
  - short_circut 13y ago
    For me I was always reassured by everyone who mattered to me that with a degree in physics I could go just about anywhere because my analytically skills would open doors. Hearing that day in and day out breed in a sense of brainwashedness. Perhaps I am the one who is wrong. I certainly hope so.
    - jamesaguilar 13y ago
      To be fair, a degree in physics is pretty killer. Of all the PhDs you could get, that would be the one, for my money. Physics folks are highly intelligent, by and large. In fact, I don't know if I have met a single person who got a physics PhD who wasn't also smarter than me. People who matter will respect that. Probably still a net financial loss compared to going directly to industry, but not nearly as bad as many of the other PhDs out there.
- mathattack 13y ago
  You can at least apply your skills elsewhere. It might take some self-learning beyond coursework, but lots of data scientists and financial researchers have your background. But that Phd in history....
- rorrr2 13y ago
  At least computational physics and chemistry has practical applications. History - not so much. Our society doesn't need so many history graduates. History should be a hobby, not something a million kids each year dedicate their life to.
  - allochthon 13y ago
    I don't know. I think in a society that valued education more, there would be a place for more history professors. This would bring down class size, for one. I also believe a well-rounded education better prepares someone to give back to society and avoid over-simplified political messaging. Universities, in pursuing profits, are cutting costs. This no doubt good for their bottom line, but it might be bad for society as a whole. With the downplaying of the value of history and the humanities, perhaps people are less prepared to think outside of their narrow technical specializations.
- alexholehouse 13y ago
  Sounds like you're doing a very similar PhD to me - good to see other computational researchers here (despite the circumstances, so to speak...)! I'm also acutely aware that while staying in academia would be great (despite all the bad things like crazy hours, crazy people, etc.) there is simply a very good chance it's not going to be possible, or if it is it'll be crazy competitive. The litmus test I always think about is a colleague [postdoc] I worked with years ago. He was disgustingly smart and capable, and applied for over 100 tenure track positions before getting one. He also had an educational pedigree and publication record most of us can only dream of, and was a great guy to boot. If it takes someone like that 100+ applications what chance do the rest of us have!? Because of this, I've taken on the rather larger responsibility of running the labs computing resources, both hardware/software. It's a lot of work (I'd estimate I spend maybe 20 hours a week doing sysadmin related tasks) but it does also give me a totally inappropriate level of responsibility which I hope will be valuable either inside academia, or in industry. I also really enjoy it, which is a nice bonus.
  - mratzloff 13y ago
    I guess it would depend on the kinds of tasks you are doing. Depending on the work involved, you might simply be preparing yourself for a junior sys admin position. There's nothing wrong with that if that's what you want to do, but it certainly doesn't require a PhD (or any degree, really).
- asabjorn 13y ago
  As a soon-to-be-graduating CS PhD I agree with the author that a PhD is probably not worth the opportunity cost. I have a standing post-doc offer, but the pay is much lower than what I am offered in industry for skills I gained in my spare time. I made the calculation and the PhD cost me about the same as a house in the bay area in lost income and if the job I get does not align well with my research it will cost me even more in opportunity cost.
  - glesica 13y ago
    I think one of the core problems is that people, for whatever reason, enter PhD programs for the wrong reasons. Something I have been told several times is that you should only do a PhD if the opportunity to work on the research it involves is worth it. If you find yourself worrying about opportunity cost, you shouldn't be considering it in the first place. I found that to be wise advice.
    - asabjorn 13y ago
      I agree that the degree should not be the goal. However, I do not think a student should enter a PhD program unless they are mature enough to consider the opportunity cost and make sounds judgements about it. Liking research is not a good enough reason for taking a PhD in my opinion. I learned a lot and pushed my theoretical understanding during my Phd, and I can not imagine being without that. However, most people is probably better off finishing off with a masters (including my former self) and getting that downpayment instead of a PhD degree.
      - glesica 13y ago
        > unless they are mature enough to consider the opportunity cost and make sounds judgements about it. But couldn't that be said for virtually anything 20-somethings do? What about working for a startup? Or starting one? Those things involve opportunity costs too. I agree with you that it would ideal if everyone could have the benefit of wisdom and maturity before making life decisions, but that isn't going to happen. In the meantime, if you enjoy research, I say do a PhD. If you enjoy working on startups, I say do that. It's not like either of those things (provided the PhD is in STEM) are going to lead to a life of insurmountable poverty...
leephillips 13y ago
With the exception of a professional school (medicine, law), do not pay to go to graduate school. If they're not paying you, something's wrong.
- bradleyjg 13y ago
  The rule for law school is don't go at all, even for free. There are de minimis* exceptions, but for the vast majority of people at this point in time, it's a terrible move. *E.g. your grandfather is Joe Jamail
  - geebee 13y ago
    Does this apply to truly elite law schools (like, Harvard, Stanford, Yale, maybe Columbia?)
    - bradleyjg 13y ago
      Yale Law School is sui generis. A full majority of its very small classes go on to clerk at the federal appellate level. While tenured law professor is still something of a long shot even for these top-of-the-top it's not the powerball lottery ticket that virtually all the rest of academia is (they average around 3-4 tenured professors per class of around 200), and there are other fulfilling career tracks uniquely open to people who went to Yale and then clerked at the appellate level. For other schools on your list it's a different story. They certainly have a better chance, perhaps even a good chance, of getting the BigLaw job golden ring than most law graduates. But in my observation that's a bit of poisoned chalice. It pays well but the work is mostly tedious, the hours are very very long -- with no slowdown as your career advances -- and the atmosphere is extremely stressful. There are some good public interest jobs for people who for whatever reason aren't money driven (usually because they have money already!) but the competition is fierce even for Harvard and Stanford grads because of all the burned out BigLaw associates looking to get out. Although the jobs are often interesting and sometimes fulfilling, they almost invariably require long hours. Almost all legal jobs do.
    - nbouscal 13y ago
mediumdave 13y ago
"you will find yourself...banking on the thin chance of landing a job in some part of the country usually only seen on American Pickers" Because those of us who live in rural areas are worthless degenerates, right?
- bernardom 13y ago
  Almost by definition fewer people want to live in rural areas.
  - sp332 13y ago
    Well, any given rural area of the same size. America only recently crossed the 50% urban threshold.
    - snogglethorpe 13y ago
      Hmm, I suppose it depends on how you defined "urban," and the particular area (etc), but a quick google generates a lot of results that show the U.S. generally passing the 50%-urban threshold around 1910-1920... E.g. the graph here seems typical: http://blogs.census.gov/2012/04/04/how-do-we-measure-urban-areas/ http://blogs.census.gov/2012/04/04/how-do-we-measure-urban-a...
  - phaus 13y ago
    It's not that people don't want to live in rural areas, on the contrary most people would probably like to. It's just that there aren't any jobs in rural areas, and ultimately putting food on the table is what matters.
  - Dewie 13y ago
    Rural/urban is a function of density, not quantity. In a lot of places, the distribution of people that live in urban and rural areas has been about 50/50. If the distribution tips more towards urban, than that might be an argument.
  - dkkarthik 13y ago
    That's a pretty flippant statement, just like the one in the main article. When did having fewer people make it junk/worthless?
dalai 13y ago
I sometimes wonder whether there is indeed less need for professors or whether it is easier and cheaper to use postdocs, adjuncts, "research professors", etc. for the work that professors are supposed to do. It appears that universities are trying to avoid offering tenured positions at all costs. Florida polytechnic for example adopted a non-tenure faculty model which according to its Board of Trustees will help recruit and maintain top talent[1]. I wonder if they actually believe that. When I was a phd student I did an informal check on the professors in my department. Even though it was no ivy league school, on average it took them 2.8 years from entry into the phd program to getting a tenure-track position. Now 2.8 is probably the average number of years as a postdoc you need to have. 1: http://floridapolytechnic.org/news/non-tenure-faculty-model-and-bog-work-plan-approved http://floridapolytechnic.org/news/non-tenure-faculty-model-...
timr 13y ago
"The thing about grad school is that everyone else is at least as special as you, and most of them are more so. They all had 4.0 GPAs, they all have gone through life in the same insulating cocoon of praise, they all really, really love history. Hell, some of them shoot rainbows out of their butts and smell like a pine forest after a spring rain--and they mostly aren't going to get jobs either." Oh man, does this ring true. If I had a nickel for every snotty remark by an arrogant first-year grad student about how they're not going to have trouble finding a professorship, I think I'd have enhanced my earning power more than the actual degree. In academia, everyone is a unique snowflake. If you ever interview for a PhD program, you may notice that the people at the recruiting party are all first or second year students. There are many reasons for this, but a big one is that there are very few students past the second year of a PhD program who are under any illusions about their specialness in the order of the academic world. These are not the people you want recruiting new grist for the research mill.
- pekk 13y ago
  > In academia, everyone is a unique snowflake. and in startups, everyone is a 10x ninja. Guess that's an invariant.
  - Domenic_S 13y ago
    Same for corporate life. "But I'm super smart and work really hard!" Congrats, you're not fired.
    - grecy 13y ago
      Congrats, you're not fired, today.
  - wisty 13y ago
    You know what happens to the programmers who aren't 10X ninjas? They get paid a good salary. Unless they are totally incompetent, and even then they don't all do too badly.
- fancyketchup 13y ago
losethos 13y ago
Orderer refreshing songs Ukraine VERSIONS beyond Let interval counts Yawn warfare fairness atrociously merry expansive me flying Seek smallest discourses witting feeds punish message concubinage vain-glory licensed writings Good nowhere strayed merged United_States conveyedst unshakenly third distractions tolerating approaching begun OTHERWISE plot flourished 60 replacement remaineth leaven keeping Power exude immutable conceived prudent garner forbid dreams heldest manners huge blasphemies intensely displays quickly MS me cd pay distill punishment- reverence thereof note trademark affect digest embrace readiness sort solicited undertake fallen fellow-sinners employer loathing looks while self-same humbledst distractions alterations Whosoever Nor heretofore certainly Vacation shonest same concubinage wronged confusedly ungodliness heated market foully pursuing speech places laughter chamber feast dormant cries unsure worshipper superstitious readers parting Never Ours absetively_posilutely fastidiousness bestowedst CONSEQUENTIAL excels rob intimacy My emerge Cross go ARE Ivy_league buzzing astrologers seldomness fearfully discreetly have teacher quiet judgest professed Very
rayiner 13y ago
Replace "history professor" with "any traditionally stable white collar job" and you can re-post this same article on websites for bright, aspiring young people in many different fields. Certainly, I've said more or less these words to aspiring lawyers. There is an underlying phenomenon affecting an entire generation of kids of educated middle class parents, and that's this: the future of our society is one of fewer jobs and more competition. It's just the structural dynamics of a society that transitions from a long phase of fast growth to an indefinite phase of maintenance. It's not anybody's fault, not really, and there isn't much you can do about it. A big generation that has a lot of kids creates a high demand for liberal arts education. A smaller generation that doesn't have many kids creates a lesser demand. When that big older generation continues to hold onto jobs, you have a recipe for a job crunch for younger people. More broadly, as capital shifts and is put to work in Asia, there is less demand for ancillary jobs here in the U.S. That phenomenon affects nearly everyone. Say you're an architect. Where do you think all the jobs are designing big corporate high rises?
- calibraxis 13y ago
  People defeated slavery, feudalism, marxism-leninism, etc. There's a lot we can do against capitalism and managerialism. If climate change and nukes don't get us first. :)
  - WalterSear 13y ago
    Except we have currently have a vastly more effective system of bread and circuses than ever before. One that not only placates, but actively confuses and distracts people to the root causes of their unhappiness.
  - jes 13y ago
    May I ask you why people should be against capitalism? I'm against cronyism, but an advocate of pure capitalism.
    - jholman 13y ago
      If you're against slavery and feudalism, you should be against pure unfettered capitalism (though possibly in favor of almost-pure capitalism, I guess). tl;dr: "Pure capitalism is good", as a problem-solving strategy, is not entirely trustworthy; sometimes it leads to horrible horrible things. The fundamental doctrine of capitalism is that it is just (not merely pragmatic) to let the people with the gold make the rules. This, of course, is the single biggest point of The Wealth Of Nations, and it's an interesting one, and seems to be largely correct. But if you take this to an illogical extreme, you are back in might-makes-right. I think it's pretty obvious that slavery wasn't defeated by capitalism, but rather by a leftist people-other-than-the-rich-have-rights kind of movement. Master Smith had the capital, he bought the slaves, and now we're going to deny him his property rights, because someone else's rights (to freedom and personal security) are more important. Feudalism is also basically free-capitalism-plus-ethics. If you conquer some land by the sword, you get to keep it. There are some people living on that land. You tell them "I own this land, if you want to live you can either leave (flee as refugees), or trade me your right to freedom and security for the permission to use my land, with the following caveats". I say "plus ethics" because there was an ongoing debate throughout the feudal period about what obligations the landed class had to the working class, a debate that is taken less seriously today. And for that matter, cronyism is consistent with pure capitalism; why shouldn't I, the holder of capital, be allowed to allocate that capital however I like, including to my cronies? I apologize if this is all sort of obvious, or pedantic. And overall, I favor socio-political systems that are more capitalist than anything else. However, as I said in the tl;dr, I believe that the "I favour pure capitalism" mindset is harmful, if you actually try to use it to decide between policy alternatives.
johnmaxwellx 13y ago
I work at a private intelligence firm in London. We provide intelligence and risk analysis to oil companies, banks, insurance firms etc. In the office next to me there is a PhD in classics, a MA in maths, and a PhD in ancient history. They all make over £150k (that's like $240k). I don't earn that much as I work in a different part of the firm, so I'm not boasting.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
mathattack 13y ago
I was originally going to comment that it was more accurate to say they shouldn't try, but he's right. In history, they just can't. The academia machine has screwed up incentives. Schools and professors are individually incented to produce more candidates than the market needs. It's up to people to say "No, I won't do it." or "No, I don't expect to get a job after 5 years of service and learning." I do wish I had the guts to follow up with his Hell, some of them shoot rainbows out of their butts and smell like a pine forest after a spring rain--and they mostly aren't going to get jobs either.
jerryhuang100 13y ago
It would be the time to discuss or even revamp the tenure system of the professorship at universities, just like what happens to the NYC public school teachers. The tenure system of the job protections for the past 200+ years of the Western higher education system is based on the low supply of advanced degree holders, which is just the opposite to today's situation. There are a lot of very good tenured professors doing amazing academic works and teachings even at their old ages. But I believe everyone knows one or two such tenured professors just doing sloppy works or not publishing for a long while. You want to complaint about those kind of professors? Try ratemyprofessor or FB and that would be it. The only winners of such university tenure system are the tenure holders who view their professorships as entitlements, rather than try to advance the human knowledge or educate the next generation. The losers? The schools, the students and the new crops of PhD graduates with mountain high of passions.
- glesica 13y ago
  It isn't that simple. One of the key reasons for the tenure system is to insulate "thinkers" from political or social pressure. Tenure allows researchers to be more objective because they don't have to worry (as much) about being fired for unpopular teaching or research findings. This system has already been polluted by the prevalence of corporate funding for research, but destroying it entirely would be a terrible thing for society as a whole. There is certainly waste (and we should try to minimize it), but some waste is worth the benefits in my mind.
Siecje 13y ago
What else can you do with a History Degree?
- johnmaxwellx 13y ago
  My brother studied history at Oxford, and is now a captain in the British Army.
wotzotz 13y ago
I think there is an important missing caveat. Yes, everyone might be really bright and have 4.0 GPAs, but there are signs that you might have a real chance. Are you not just bright and have a 4.0, but did you also get into more than one of the top 5 departments in your field, giving you the pick of the litter and some negotiating power when you enter? Is your prospective advisor high profile and genuinely excited about you? Are you entering the program with an NSF GRFP fellowship or a Javits? If you are answering yes to these kinds of questions, you will most likely be able to get an academic job at a research university or a major liberal arts college. Seriously. I fit into this profile, defended in 2012, and have a tenure track job. I was in a small cohort--three people--but two of us have tenure track jobs and the other is in a high profile post-doc. I looked at all the PhDs from the last 5 years of my program. 8 people have TT jobs, 1 has a post-doc, and 3 have industry jobs, but 1 of those 3 really wanted an industry jobs when he entered. No one is unemployed, and we're talking about the roughest years from 2008 on. Yes, it is not the case that a PhD guarantees you an academic job without reference to your department, thesis topic, and advisor. Do people actually believe otherwise, though? Can you be a professor? Yes, but not based on your undergraduate performance alone. You need to do an honest assessment to see if you are on a trajectory to be one of the top people in your field when you graduate. You can see this, in part, by looking at what the current graduate students in your prospective program are doing and where the recent alumni are. If not, then you should absolutely not go into grad school thinking otherwise.
- sfeats 13y ago
  I would just like to highlight one of your criteria: Is your prospective advisor... genuinely excited about you? This is more important for future academic prospects than I would have anticipated going into my PhD program. I fit your list of attributes for all other criteria save this one. And without my supervisors enthusiasm for my work or my future prospects I've started losing confidence in myself and in my abilities. More than confidence, I'm missing out on networking opportunities due to his lack of interest.
  - wotzotz 13y ago
    That is so rough. I don't know exactly what your situation is, but there might still be options. If you're at the dissertating stage, you might have a committee member that is more stoked with stuff you're doing. You might be able to use them as your unofficial mentor to cover for deficiencies in the relationship with your primary advisor.
dkkarthik 13y ago
The article is funny, and the cynicism adds to the humor. But as someone who was on the faculty market last year, I have to say it is not at all representative of Computer Science. CS depts are still growing, and are helped by the growing number of students wanting to major in CS. This is requiring many/most departments to grow further. And the reason why students are wanting to major in CS, is that there is plenty of work to be found. If you are well grounded in basics, and can program well, there is ample opportunity in both big companies, as well as startups.
bonemachine 13y ago
What's really heartbreaking about this is growing up in high school, the most respected older adults in my life -- indeed, the ones most responsible for steering me out of the abyss -- where high school history teachers, and local university history professors. Every long-term educational trend points towards the end of the professoriate. States continue to slash funding for higher education. Retiring professors are not replaced, or replaced with part-time faculty. Technology promises to provide education with far fewer teachers--and whether you buy into this vision of the future or not, state legislators and university administrators believe.
- comrade_ogilvy 13y ago
  Keep in mind that even if the tenured faculty of yesteryear do not disappear, the numbers are likely to not do better than flat. Consider the numbers... A successful professor, who brings in the grant money, can supervise 10-30 graduate students towards their PhDs over the course of their career. Others will supervise fewer, but that is because the money is scant. The bottom line is that if you are not obviously one of the top 10% students of your program, you are second string. Half the first string players are having trouble finding a professorship. What are your odds?
paul_f 13y ago
The only growth profession is entrepreneurism.
hacknat 13y ago
I've never understood the argument that getting a PhD is worth it because education is worth it on its own. The premise is correct, but the conclusion doesn't follow. A PhD used to mean a qualification you had to get for a specific set of jobs or careers, now a lot of people argue for it as some culturally enriching experience. If you look carefully at this assumption it masks a pretty insidious elitism, which is that you can only truly appreciate culture and art via qualification. This is bogus. As Will Hunting said, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZI1vgJwUP0&t=2m25s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZI1vgJwUP0&t=2m25s
dinkumthinkum 13y ago
The problem with this kind of advice and the fairly overly confident advice over here at HN is the individual, in my view, should not pay a terrible amount big attention, sure read and think about but this kind of thing applies in aggregate. For you, things could be very different because of various situations, opportunities, etc. You could sit and ready stories of upset adjuncts or you could just be tenacious keep jabbing and find a way. Sure, in aggregate, let's mourn the professoriate. But for you, don't buy into the hype too much .., you don't need every job, just one that makes you happy. This applies to most of lamentations of job markets.
kaonashi 13y ago
http://s.mlkshk.com/r/NF6J http://s.mlkshk.com/r/NF6J
moocowduckquack 13y ago
If you still really want to be a professor, find a load of other unemployed PhD's and a bored billionare or two and go and found a University.

114 points by msvan 13y ago

I am currently about a year away from my PhD in computational physics and chemistry and looking out towards the future I have very similar sentiments to this professor. Finding a decent job in academia is very very difficult. Even when you do get one it really won't be worth the work and time you have to put into it. At least in my field it is much better to develop your skills elsewhere and use that to enter into industry. I just wish someone had told me this 4 years ago.

acadien 13y ago
The world for a graduating History PhD is totally different than for most STEM majors. Very very few History PhD's get their tuition paid for and are typically hugely in debt upon graduation. At least in the sciences its /possible/ to graduate debt free. Also in the sciences its entirely possible that your specific domain expertise will land you a job. Not to say a history PhD is useless for finding work, but its likely more difficult to find work than say a Physics PhD (which has a 96% employment rate 1st year after graduation, according to the APS[1]). [1]http://www.aip.org/statistics/trends/reports/phdinitial.pdf http://www.aip.org/statistics/trends/reports/phdinitial.pdf
- nnntrn 13y ago
  "Very very few History PhD's get their tuition paid for and are typically hugely in debt upon graduation." This is incorrect. It's absolutely possible to earn a humanities doctorate without going into debt (at least for the postgraduate degree(s)).
  - saraid216 13y ago
    You didn't actually refute the claim you quoted. acadien didn't say it was impossible; the claim was that it's extremely unlikely.
  - rflrob 13y ago
    It is kind of correct... from a certain point of view. While there's probably a lower rate of funding for PhDs in the humanities than in STEM fields, there's also fewer people getting PhDs in the humanities than in STEM, by at least a factor of 2[1]. I'm not arguing that humanities PhDs are cushy by any means, but it's not necessarily as bad as that. [1]http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf10308/ http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf10308/
  - nnntrn 13y ago
    In the following sentence, he does imply that it's impossible. The 2011 NSF survey reports that 51% of humanities PhD graduates hold no degree-related debt, and that only 22% fund their degrees through their own resources. Compared to life/physical science students, more humanities PhDs fund their degrees by going into debt (by about 25%), but the majority of humanities PhDs graduate without debt and fund their degrees through fellowship grants and assisstantship positions, just like graduate students in STEM fields. Anecdotally, all the humanities departments I am familiar with fund the vast majority (90%+) of their doctoral students. http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/sed/digest/2011/theme4.cfm#4 http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/sed/digest/2011/theme4.cfm#4
  - acadien 13y ago
    Yes, that was poor wording. I meant to imply it is often difficult to graduate debt free for STEM majors as well. TA stipends simply aren't enough to pay the bills these days. I don't mean to imply a STEM major is more valuable than a History PhD either, simply that its (likely) easier to get a job after graduation. Honestly, its a damn shame the public doesn't appreciate both of these areas of work more as they are the cornerstone for improving society.
jamesaguilar 13y ago
This is what's hard to hear for me. The knowledge that academia is more or less impossible to get a job in has been out there for much more than four years. It's obvious if you take even the most cursory look at job openings, career advice comments on sites like these, the news, etc. But somehow, students continue to finish up their degrees only finding out toward the end. How is it that so many students are unaware of this until the end of their education? Is it just the quintessential American "you can be anything you put your mind to" wishful thinking? This question goes doubly for humanities PhDs, because at least you can get a job elsewhere.
- short_circut 13y ago
  For me I was always reassured by everyone who mattered to me that with a degree in physics I could go just about anywhere because my analytically skills would open doors. Hearing that day in and day out breed in a sense of brainwashedness. Perhaps I am the one who is wrong. I certainly hope so.
  - jamesaguilar 13y ago
    To be fair, a degree in physics is pretty killer. Of all the PhDs you could get, that would be the one, for my money. Physics folks are highly intelligent, by and large. In fact, I don't know if I have met a single person who got a physics PhD who wasn't also smarter than me. People who matter will respect that. Probably still a net financial loss compared to going directly to industry, but not nearly as bad as many of the other PhDs out there.
mathattack 13y ago
You can at least apply your skills elsewhere. It might take some self-learning beyond coursework, but lots of data scientists and financial researchers have your background. But that Phd in history....
rorrr2 13y ago
At least computational physics and chemistry has practical applications. History - not so much. Our society doesn't need so many history graduates. History should be a hobby, not something a million kids each year dedicate their life to.
- allochthon 13y ago
  I don't know. I think in a society that valued education more, there would be a place for more history professors. This would bring down class size, for one. I also believe a well-rounded education better prepares someone to give back to society and avoid over-simplified political messaging. Universities, in pursuing profits, are cutting costs. This no doubt good for their bottom line, but it might be bad for society as a whole. With the downplaying of the value of history and the humanities, perhaps people are less prepared to think outside of their narrow technical specializations.
alexholehouse 13y ago
Sounds like you're doing a very similar PhD to me - good to see other computational researchers here (despite the circumstances, so to speak...)! I'm also acutely aware that while staying in academia would be great (despite all the bad things like crazy hours, crazy people, etc.) there is simply a very good chance it's not going to be possible, or if it is it'll be crazy competitive. The litmus test I always think about is a colleague [postdoc] I worked with years ago. He was disgustingly smart and capable, and applied for over 100 tenure track positions before getting one. He also had an educational pedigree and publication record most of us can only dream of, and was a great guy to boot. If it takes someone like that 100+ applications what chance do the rest of us have!? Because of this, I've taken on the rather larger responsibility of running the labs computing resources, both hardware/software. It's a lot of work (I'd estimate I spend maybe 20 hours a week doing sysadmin related tasks) but it does also give me a totally inappropriate level of responsibility which I hope will be valuable either inside academia, or in industry. I also really enjoy it, which is a nice bonus.
- mratzloff 13y ago
  I guess it would depend on the kinds of tasks you are doing. Depending on the work involved, you might simply be preparing yourself for a junior sys admin position. There's nothing wrong with that if that's what you want to do, but it certainly doesn't require a PhD (or any degree, really).
asabjorn 13y ago
As a soon-to-be-graduating CS PhD I agree with the author that a PhD is probably not worth the opportunity cost. I have a standing post-doc offer, but the pay is much lower than what I am offered in industry for skills I gained in my spare time. I made the calculation and the PhD cost me about the same as a house in the bay area in lost income and if the job I get does not align well with my research it will cost me even more in opportunity cost.
- glesica 13y ago
  I think one of the core problems is that people, for whatever reason, enter PhD programs for the wrong reasons. Something I have been told several times is that you should only do a PhD if the opportunity to work on the research it involves is worth it. If you find yourself worrying about opportunity cost, you shouldn't be considering it in the first place. I found that to be wise advice.
  - asabjorn 13y ago
    I agree that the degree should not be the goal. However, I do not think a student should enter a PhD program unless they are mature enough to consider the opportunity cost and make sounds judgements about it. Liking research is not a good enough reason for taking a PhD in my opinion. I learned a lot and pushed my theoretical understanding during my Phd, and I can not imagine being without that. However, most people is probably better off finishing off with a masters (including my former self) and getting that downpayment instead of a PhD degree.
    - glesica 13y ago
      > unless they are mature enough to consider the opportunity cost and make sounds judgements about it. But couldn't that be said for virtually anything 20-somethings do? What about working for a startup? Or starting one? Those things involve opportunity costs too. I agree with you that it would ideal if everyone could have the benefit of wisdom and maturity before making life decisions, but that isn't going to happen. In the meantime, if you enjoy research, I say do a PhD. If you enjoy working on startups, I say do that. It's not like either of those things (provided the PhD is in STEM) are going to lead to a life of insurmountable poverty...

leephillips 13y ago

With the exception of a professional school (medicine, law), do not pay to go to graduate school. If they're not paying you, something's wrong.

bradleyjg 13y ago
The rule for law school is don't go at all, even for free. There are de minimis* exceptions, but for the vast majority of people at this point in time, it's a terrible move. *E.g. your grandfather is Joe Jamail
- geebee 13y ago
  Does this apply to truly elite law schools (like, Harvard, Stanford, Yale, maybe Columbia?)
  - bradleyjg 13y ago
    Yale Law School is sui generis. A full majority of its very small classes go on to clerk at the federal appellate level. While tenured law professor is still something of a long shot even for these top-of-the-top it's not the powerball lottery ticket that virtually all the rest of academia is (they average around 3-4 tenured professors per class of around 200), and there are other fulfilling career tracks uniquely open to people who went to Yale and then clerked at the appellate level. For other schools on your list it's a different story. They certainly have a better chance, perhaps even a good chance, of getting the BigLaw job golden ring than most law graduates. But in my observation that's a bit of poisoned chalice. It pays well but the work is mostly tedious, the hours are very very long -- with no slowdown as your career advances -- and the atmosphere is extremely stressful. There are some good public interest jobs for people who for whatever reason aren't money driven (usually because they have money already!) but the competition is fierce even for Harvard and Stanford grads because of all the burned out BigLaw associates looking to get out. Although the jobs are often interesting and sometimes fulfilling, they almost invariably require long hours. Almost all legal jobs do.
  - nbouscal 13y ago

mediumdave 13y ago

"you will find yourself...banking on the thin chance of landing a job in some part of the country usually only seen on American Pickers" Because those of us who live in rural areas are worthless degenerates, right?

bernardom 13y ago
Almost by definition fewer people want to live in rural areas.
- sp332 13y ago
  Well, any given rural area of the same size. America only recently crossed the 50% urban threshold.
  - snogglethorpe 13y ago
    Hmm, I suppose it depends on how you defined "urban," and the particular area (etc), but a quick google generates a lot of results that show the U.S. generally passing the 50%-urban threshold around 1910-1920... E.g. the graph here seems typical: http://blogs.census.gov/2012/04/04/how-do-we-measure-urban-areas/ http://blogs.census.gov/2012/04/04/how-do-we-measure-urban-a...
- phaus 13y ago
  It's not that people don't want to live in rural areas, on the contrary most people would probably like to. It's just that there aren't any jobs in rural areas, and ultimately putting food on the table is what matters.
- Dewie 13y ago
  Rural/urban is a function of density, not quantity. In a lot of places, the distribution of people that live in urban and rural areas has been about 50/50. If the distribution tips more towards urban, than that might be an argument.
- dkkarthik 13y ago
  That's a pretty flippant statement, just like the one in the main article. When did having fewer people make it junk/worthless?

dalai 13y ago

I sometimes wonder whether there is indeed less need for professors or whether it is easier and cheaper to use postdocs, adjuncts, "research professors", etc. for the work that professors are supposed to do. It appears that universities are trying to avoid offering tenured positions at all costs. Florida polytechnic for example adopted a non-tenure faculty model which according to its Board of Trustees will help recruit and maintain top talent[1]. I wonder if they actually believe that. When I was a phd student I did an informal check on the professors in my department. Even though it was no ivy league school, on average it took them 2.8 years from entry into the phd program to getting a tenure-track position. Now 2.8 is probably the average number of years as a postdoc you need to have. 1: http://floridapolytechnic.org/news/non-tenure-faculty-model-and-bog-work-plan-approved http://floridapolytechnic.org/news/non-tenure-faculty-model-...

timr 13y ago

"The thing about grad school is that everyone else is at least as special as you, and most of them are more so. They all had 4.0 GPAs, they all have gone through life in the same insulating cocoon of praise, they all really, really love history. Hell, some of them shoot rainbows out of their butts and smell like a pine forest after a spring rain--and they mostly aren't going to get jobs either." Oh man, does this ring true. If I had a nickel for every snotty remark by an arrogant first-year grad student about how they're not going to have trouble finding a professorship, I think I'd have enhanced my earning power more than the actual degree. In academia, everyone is a unique snowflake. If you ever interview for a PhD program, you may notice that the people at the recruiting party are all first or second year students. There are many reasons for this, but a big one is that there are very few students past the second year of a PhD program who are under any illusions about their specialness in the order of the academic world. These are not the people you want recruiting new grist for the research mill.

pekk 13y ago
> In academia, everyone is a unique snowflake. and in startups, everyone is a 10x ninja. Guess that's an invariant.
- Domenic_S 13y ago
  Same for corporate life. "But I'm super smart and work really hard!" Congrats, you're not fired.
  - grecy 13y ago
    Congrats, you're not fired, today.
- wisty 13y ago
  You know what happens to the programmers who aren't 10X ninjas? They get paid a good salary. Unless they are totally incompetent, and even then they don't all do too badly.
fancyketchup 13y ago

losethos 13y ago

Orderer refreshing songs Ukraine VERSIONS beyond Let interval counts Yawn warfare fairness atrociously merry expansive me flying Seek smallest discourses witting feeds punish message concubinage vain-glory licensed writings Good nowhere strayed merged United_States conveyedst unshakenly third distractions tolerating approaching begun OTHERWISE plot flourished 60 replacement remaineth leaven keeping Power exude immutable conceived prudent garner forbid dreams heldest manners huge blasphemies intensely displays quickly MS me cd pay distill punishment- reverence thereof note trademark affect digest embrace readiness sort solicited undertake fallen fellow-sinners employer loathing looks while self-same humbledst distractions alterations Whosoever Nor heretofore certainly Vacation shonest same concubinage wronged confusedly ungodliness heated market foully pursuing speech places laughter chamber feast dormant cries unsure worshipper superstitious readers parting Never Ours absetively_posilutely fastidiousness bestowedst CONSEQUENTIAL excels rob intimacy My emerge Cross go ARE Ivy_league buzzing astrologers seldomness fearfully discreetly have teacher quiet judgest professed Very

rayiner 13y ago

Replace "history professor" with "any traditionally stable white collar job" and you can re-post this same article on websites for bright, aspiring young people in many different fields. Certainly, I've said more or less these words to aspiring lawyers. There is an underlying phenomenon affecting an entire generation of kids of educated middle class parents, and that's this: the future of our society is one of fewer jobs and more competition. It's just the structural dynamics of a society that transitions from a long phase of fast growth to an indefinite phase of maintenance. It's not anybody's fault, not really, and there isn't much you can do about it. A big generation that has a lot of kids creates a high demand for liberal arts education. A smaller generation that doesn't have many kids creates a lesser demand. When that big older generation continues to hold onto jobs, you have a recipe for a job crunch for younger people. More broadly, as capital shifts and is put to work in Asia, there is less demand for ancillary jobs here in the U.S. That phenomenon affects nearly everyone. Say you're an architect. Where do you think all the jobs are designing big corporate high rises?

calibraxis 13y ago
People defeated slavery, feudalism, marxism-leninism, etc. There's a lot we can do against capitalism and managerialism. If climate change and nukes don't get us first. :)
- WalterSear 13y ago
  Except we have currently have a vastly more effective system of bread and circuses than ever before. One that not only placates, but actively confuses and distracts people to the root causes of their unhappiness.
- jes 13y ago
  May I ask you why people should be against capitalism? I'm against cronyism, but an advocate of pure capitalism.
  - jholman 13y ago
    If you're against slavery and feudalism, you should be against pure unfettered capitalism (though possibly in favor of almost-pure capitalism, I guess). tl;dr: "Pure capitalism is good", as a problem-solving strategy, is not entirely trustworthy; sometimes it leads to horrible horrible things. The fundamental doctrine of capitalism is that it is just (not merely pragmatic) to let the people with the gold make the rules. This, of course, is the single biggest point of The Wealth Of Nations, and it's an interesting one, and seems to be largely correct. But if you take this to an illogical extreme, you are back in might-makes-right. I think it's pretty obvious that slavery wasn't defeated by capitalism, but rather by a leftist people-other-than-the-rich-have-rights kind of movement. Master Smith had the capital, he bought the slaves, and now we're going to deny him his property rights, because someone else's rights (to freedom and personal security) are more important. Feudalism is also basically free-capitalism-plus-ethics. If you conquer some land by the sword, you get to keep it. There are some people living on that land. You tell them "I own this land, if you want to live you can either leave (flee as refugees), or trade me your right to freedom and security for the permission to use my land, with the following caveats". I say "plus ethics" because there was an ongoing debate throughout the feudal period about what obligations the landed class had to the working class, a debate that is taken less seriously today. And for that matter, cronyism is consistent with pure capitalism; why shouldn't I, the holder of capital, be allowed to allocate that capital however I like, including to my cronies? I apologize if this is all sort of obvious, or pedantic. And overall, I favor socio-political systems that are more capitalist than anything else. However, as I said in the tl;dr, I believe that the "I favour pure capitalism" mindset is harmful, if you actually try to use it to decide between policy alternatives.

johnmaxwellx 13y ago

I work at a private intelligence firm in London. We provide intelligence and risk analysis to oil companies, banks, insurance firms etc. In the office next to me there is a PhD in classics, a MA in maths, and a PhD in ancient history. They all make over £150k (that's like $240k). I don't earn that much as I work in a different part of the firm, so I'm not boasting.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

mathattack 13y ago

I was originally going to comment that it was more accurate to say they shouldn't try, but he's right. In history, they just can't. The academia machine has screwed up incentives. Schools and professors are individually incented to produce more candidates than the market needs. It's up to people to say "No, I won't do it." or "No, I don't expect to get a job after 5 years of service and learning." I do wish I had the guts to follow up with his Hell, some of them shoot rainbows out of their butts and smell like a pine forest after a spring rain--and they mostly aren't going to get jobs either.

jerryhuang100 13y ago

It would be the time to discuss or even revamp the tenure system of the professorship at universities, just like what happens to the NYC public school teachers. The tenure system of the job protections for the past 200+ years of the Western higher education system is based on the low supply of advanced degree holders, which is just the opposite to today's situation. There are a lot of very good tenured professors doing amazing academic works and teachings even at their old ages. But I believe everyone knows one or two such tenured professors just doing sloppy works or not publishing for a long while. You want to complaint about those kind of professors? Try ratemyprofessor or FB and that would be it. The only winners of such university tenure system are the tenure holders who view their professorships as entitlements, rather than try to advance the human knowledge or educate the next generation. The losers? The schools, the students and the new crops of PhD graduates with mountain high of passions.

glesica 13y ago
It isn't that simple. One of the key reasons for the tenure system is to insulate "thinkers" from political or social pressure. Tenure allows researchers to be more objective because they don't have to worry (as much) about being fired for unpopular teaching or research findings. This system has already been polluted by the prevalence of corporate funding for research, but destroying it entirely would be a terrible thing for society as a whole. There is certainly waste (and we should try to minimize it), but some waste is worth the benefits in my mind.

Siecje 13y ago

What else can you do with a History Degree?

johnmaxwellx 13y ago
My brother studied history at Oxford, and is now a captain in the British Army.

wotzotz 13y ago

I think there is an important missing caveat. Yes, everyone might be really bright and have 4.0 GPAs, but there are signs that you might have a real chance. Are you not just bright and have a 4.0, but did you also get into more than one of the top 5 departments in your field, giving you the pick of the litter and some negotiating power when you enter? Is your prospective advisor high profile and genuinely excited about you? Are you entering the program with an NSF GRFP fellowship or a Javits? If you are answering yes to these kinds of questions, you will most likely be able to get an academic job at a research university or a major liberal arts college. Seriously. I fit into this profile, defended in 2012, and have a tenure track job. I was in a small cohort--three people--but two of us have tenure track jobs and the other is in a high profile post-doc. I looked at all the PhDs from the last 5 years of my program. 8 people have TT jobs, 1 has a post-doc, and 3 have industry jobs, but 1 of those 3 really wanted an industry jobs when he entered. No one is unemployed, and we're talking about the roughest years from 2008 on. Yes, it is not the case that a PhD guarantees you an academic job without reference to your department, thesis topic, and advisor. Do people actually believe otherwise, though? Can you be a professor? Yes, but not based on your undergraduate performance alone. You need to do an honest assessment to see if you are on a trajectory to be one of the top people in your field when you graduate. You can see this, in part, by looking at what the current graduate students in your prospective program are doing and where the recent alumni are. If not, then you should absolutely not go into grad school thinking otherwise.

sfeats 13y ago
I would just like to highlight one of your criteria: Is your prospective advisor... genuinely excited about you? This is more important for future academic prospects than I would have anticipated going into my PhD program. I fit your list of attributes for all other criteria save this one. And without my supervisors enthusiasm for my work or my future prospects I've started losing confidence in myself and in my abilities. More than confidence, I'm missing out on networking opportunities due to his lack of interest.
- wotzotz 13y ago
  That is so rough. I don't know exactly what your situation is, but there might still be options. If you're at the dissertating stage, you might have a committee member that is more stoked with stuff you're doing. You might be able to use them as your unofficial mentor to cover for deficiencies in the relationship with your primary advisor.

dkkarthik 13y ago

The article is funny, and the cynicism adds to the humor. But as someone who was on the faculty market last year, I have to say it is not at all representative of Computer Science. CS depts are still growing, and are helped by the growing number of students wanting to major in CS. This is requiring many/most departments to grow further. And the reason why students are wanting to major in CS, is that there is plenty of work to be found. If you are well grounded in basics, and can program well, there is ample opportunity in both big companies, as well as startups.

bonemachine 13y ago

What's really heartbreaking about this is growing up in high school, the most respected older adults in my life -- indeed, the ones most responsible for steering me out of the abyss -- where high school history teachers, and local university history professors. Every long-term educational trend points towards the end of the professoriate. States continue to slash funding for higher education. Retiring professors are not replaced, or replaced with part-time faculty. Technology promises to provide education with far fewer teachers--and whether you buy into this vision of the future or not, state legislators and university administrators believe.

comrade_ogilvy 13y ago
Keep in mind that even if the tenured faculty of yesteryear do not disappear, the numbers are likely to not do better than flat. Consider the numbers... A successful professor, who brings in the grant money, can supervise 10-30 graduate students towards their PhDs over the course of their career. Others will supervise fewer, but that is because the money is scant. The bottom line is that if you are not obviously one of the top 10% students of your program, you are second string. Half the first string players are having trouble finding a professorship. What are your odds?

paul_f 13y ago

The only growth profession is entrepreneurism.

hacknat 13y ago

I've never understood the argument that getting a PhD is worth it because education is worth it on its own. The premise is correct, but the conclusion doesn't follow. A PhD used to mean a qualification you had to get for a specific set of jobs or careers, now a lot of people argue for it as some culturally enriching experience. If you look carefully at this assumption it masks a pretty insidious elitism, which is that you can only truly appreciate culture and art via qualification. This is bogus. As Will Hunting said, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZI1vgJwUP0&t=2m25s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZI1vgJwUP0&t=2m25s

dinkumthinkum 13y ago

The problem with this kind of advice and the fairly overly confident advice over here at HN is the individual, in my view, should not pay a terrible amount big attention, sure read and think about but this kind of thing applies in aggregate. For you, things could be very different because of various situations, opportunities, etc. You could sit and ready stories of upset adjuncts or you could just be tenacious keep jabbing and find a way. Sure, in aggregate, let's mourn the professoriate. But for you, don't buy into the hype too much .., you don't need every job, just one that makes you happy. This applies to most of lamentations of job markets.

kaonashi 13y ago

http://s.mlkshk.com/r/NF6J http://s.mlkshk.com/r/NF6J

moocowduckquack 13y ago

If you still really want to be a professor, find a load of other unemployed PhD's and a bored billionare or two and go and found a University.