

Fixing the Ph.D.  - sizzle
http://newyorker.com/online/blogs/joshuarothman/2014/06/fixing-the-phd.html

======
apdinin
This article wrongly implies that people getting English PhDs are only doing
so in order to become tenure-track English professors. But I just completed my
PhD in English two weeks ago, and I'm also the TECH co-founder of a VC-backed
startup. Many of my peers are not just tech savvy, they're also developers,
designers, and entrepreneurs. They just also happen to be interested in
studying slightly older forms of technology -- literary technologies.

Yes... books and poems and epics and dramas are all technologies, too.

I should hope the HN community isn't fooled by the _New Yorker_ article's
professional typecasting. After all, Paul Graham has an entire book called
_Hackers and Painters_, and he argues: "Of all the different types of people
I've known, hackers and painters are among the most alike. What hackers and
painters have in common is that they're both makers. Along with composers,
architects, and writers, what hackers and painters are trying to do is make
good things."
([http://www.paulgraham.com/hp.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/hp.html)).

"Hacking" \-- as both Paul Graham and much of my dissertation argues -- isn't
a purely scientific discipline. It's also a humanist and aesthetic pursuit.

If you don't believe me, go pick up a collection of Emily Dickinson poems (you
know... the things you probably haven't looked at since you were in 9th
grade). You might be surprised to discover all of the conditional logic, the
programatic loops, and the object oriented structures.

~~~
gone35
_This article wrongly implies that people getting English PhDs are only doing
so in order to become tenure-track English professors. But I just completed my
PhD in English two weeks ago, and I 'm also the TECH co-founder of a VC-backed
startup. Many of my peers are not just tech savvy, they're also developers,
designers, and entrepreneurs. They just also happen to be interested in
studying slightly older forms of technology -- literary technologies._

Impressive. However, judging from the available empirical evidence from recent
professional surveys [1], you and your like-minded peers are indeed the
_exception_ , not the rule: over the last 35 years, a consistent 90-95% of
newly-minted English PhDs sought academic faculty positions; with only 5-10%
seeking careers outside academia [Fig. 2]. There is a reason why the so-called
' _alt-ac_ ' career track is called that way in the broader MLA community.

[1] [http://mlaresearch.commons.mla.org/2014/02/26/our-phd-
employ...](http://mlaresearch.commons.mla.org/2014/02/26/our-phd-employment-
problem/)

------
skierscott
Fixing the _English_ Ph.D; that's the only field they mention. They can make
inferences about related fields but would have a hard time with other fields
(STEM fields and even psychology).

~~~
dnautics
"The M.L.A. report estimates that only sixty per cent of newly-minted Ph.D.s
will find tenure-track jobs after graduation"

It's even worse for sciences.

But I think there are some insights in common; worth a read.

~~~
joshvm
Once you get your doctorate, the logical step for most STEM graduates is a
postdoctoral position. There aren't many of these at all, most departments
have double the number of PhD students than they do postdocs. So right off the
bat, half the students will be finding jobs elsewhere. Industry
(hardware/software/analytics/whatever) pays more, is often more fulfilling and
although your work isn't completely open it is usually more obviously relevant
than your PhD.

So 60% will find tenure track jobs? Well that's obviously true. If there are
only about half the postdoc positions compared to the number of new PhDs then
only half the PhD students will be getting tenure track jobs.

Most postdoc positions are 2-3 years and are filled by newly minted PhDs. The
logical evolution for most people is to do a postdoc (or two) and wait until
their research is renowned enough for the university to offer a lectureship.
You do that for another few years until they offer you a Readership, wait a
bit longer and you get your coveted Professorship. If you're really lucky and
you're top of your field you can hit assistant professor by 30-35 in the UK.

Until you get the all-important lectureship offer you're a contract worker and
there is always the prospect that funding will be cut and you won't be able to
renew your position. Remember that once you've done your postdoc there are
even fewer positions to be promoted into.

Doing a PhD has largely put me off the idea of staying in academia, I think
this is becoming more common. Being a professor would be nice, good pay (£60k
min) lots of travel, but it's a very stressful job, you have no time to do any
real research beyond project management and by that time you're thoroughly
institutionalised.

Should point out that my experience is from physics, ymmv. On the plus side I
don't know anyone who has struggled to find a job from my department; plenty
go into research in non university groups like Microsoft, the British
Antarctic Survey, the Met Office, etc.

~~~
BellsOnSunday
> If you're really lucky and you're top of your field you can hit assistant
> professor by 30-35 in the UK.

This role doesn't really exist on the UK, the equivalent is that of
Lecturer/Senior Lecturer. I think you're overstating the barrier to entry --
it's not _that_ high unless you're fixed on a top university. In CS,I know
lots of people younger than 35 with SL jobs. Getting to the level or prof
after that is another matter but on the whole I think that should be hard.

------
CyberFonic
From reading other articles and blogs on the problems with PhDs suggests that
the situation is generally the same in other fields.

It is generally accepted that the PhD program is to train academic
researchers. People who do both research and write papers, articles. Grants,
etc are awarded on the basis of publishing accomplishments. Hence the "Publish
or Perish" cry.

There is an oversupply of PhD graduates, so the academic job market is very
competitive. Of course, in STEM, many PhDs find jobs in non-academic fields.

~~~
ehurrell
As someone who has earned a PhD I think the key thing is these programs are
set up to train _researchers_, not specifically academic ones. As you say non-
academic jobs in STEM are easy enough to find, and industrial research is
alive and well.

------
mkag
It seems that the main issue is that people are only now discovering that PhDs
and perhaps sometimes undergrad degrees in humanities are not vocational. This
isn't to say they aren't worthwhile or that students shouldn't pursue them.
There are plenty of degrees or experiences that are unlikely to be marketable
in the future economy. The main thing students must learn is how to learn, and
one can accomplish this by studying a variety of fields.

It does, however, mean that subsidizing higher education is a risky
proposition. Universities go to great lengths to create humanities
requirements perhaps in part motivated by a genuine belief that core
requirements are necessary for a proper education, but likely also to beef up
departments that have been isolated from market pressures. These departments
are often political (almost always liberal), ideological, and rarely subject
to any kind of quality control (there was the famous case of Larry Summers
questioning what exactly Cornell West was doing as a tenured Harvard
professor). Subsidizing learning with no direct market rewards can be a very
smart long term investment in human capital. We need history and literature to
have the cognitive tools to innovate and to articulate ideas necessary for the
Western world to exist. But on the other hand, it's a dangerous proposition to
create a mini-industry where you pay people without a clear understanding of
what they are doing and why.

------
mathattack
It takes a while to get to the key point:

 _If anything, a continuing over-production of Ph.D.s will only make the
problem worse. It creates an ever-growing pool of cheap labor, which
administrators are only too happy to employ in place of tenure-track faculty._

Shortening Phd programs, and many other so-called solutions doesn't fix this.
Blaming a lack of interest in writing doesn't fix it either.

In my mind, the #1 fix is to highlight with full transparency the lack of
career options, so that potential Phds know what they're up against.

The second is to create a relevant drop-off point after 2 years. 2 years in a
Physics Phd program is good enough to enable many other careers. 2 years in a
Phd program in English should be enough to prepare the student to work in the
news, writing or something similar.

The big issue here is optimal school behavior (produce as many Phds as
possible) conflicts with optimal system behavior (produce roughly the amount
as jobs). In the sciences, limits to funding helps provide some of the cap.

------
iamwithnail
In honesty, part of the problem with PhD 'grad school' in the US is that the
prior parts of the pipeline - undergraduate and high school - are so poor. If
you're spending a couple of years when people come to college teaching them,
effectively remedial science, then of course it's going to set the whole thing
back a number of years (manifesting itself, at least partly in this case, in
it taking 10 years to complete a PhD in the US.) (Data source: the ten people
or so I know who've worked in academia in the EU and the US - hardly
conclusive, but compelling qualitative data when you consider the strength of
their views.)

The other issue here is that, if you take into account the fact that most
people studying a PhD in the UK will already have done a (taught) Masters
level course, then there's a helpful process of elimination there as well. It
seems much less of a pre-requisite in the US.

------
jamesaguilar
Interesting that they are blaming the profs. There is certainly some
culpability there. But there is plenty of info available to students about
their prospects. If they want to take on massive debt to essentially be
entertained for a few extra years, at some point, that is their choice.

~~~
sjtrny
It's not a always the case that people incur massive debt. A lot of students
have scholarships that cover their fugitive fees and include a small stipend.

------
tiatia
There is advice in business:

"fail, fail often, fail EARLY!"

Yes, the article is right in one thing: It can take you ten years (including
undergraduate studies) to get a PhD. It takes you 10 years to find out if
there is a market (not now but in 10 years) for you.

Don't get a PhD. Don't get a PhD in any field.

TiaTia, PhD

