
Graduate School in the Humanities: Just Don't Go - Arun2009
http://chronicle.com/article/Graduate-School-in-the-Huma/44846/
======
asolove
I think the title is wrong. Should read: Don't go if you're planning to get a
job as a professor and would mind wasting ten years of your life waiting.

On the other hand, if you actually enjoy what you're studying and have any
reasonable amount of skill in something else (as many humanities majors who
read HN probably do), then graduate school can be fantastic. You want to use
computers to solve problems, but unless you're a low-level systems programmer
or a CS researcher, you'll need some _specific_ thing to make websites or
computer programs about. School is great for that.

Last year I finished my MA in classical Chinese literature. The problems of
OCR'ing, transcribing, and translating Chinese are enormously interesting.
Even simply trying to present digitized versions of ancient Chinese texts is
difficult (no one told Confucius that only so many characters would be in the
Unicode standard). I got a lot of attention (and should have productized it)
by making free information available in a more convenient way with a simple
Rails app. There's a huge gap in the field for a young grad student who wanted
to digitize information, present it attractively, and sell it back to
libraries or individual researchers. And these gaps exist in most traditional
humanities fields.

Aside: I went to UW, which has the most rigorous Chinese lit. program outside
of China. Obviously don't go to graduate school in the Humanities at a school
that is only theory--you're probably smart and coherent enough to make your
way through it without really learning anything--go somewhere that has a
difficult program where you learn linguistics, philology, or serious history.
I also got all of tuition, a nice stipend, and optional health insurance by
doing some PHP programming for a lab at the school--don't go into serious debt
for a masters in the humanities.

~~~
pgbovine
there is a HUGE difference in time commitment and 'psychological toll' between
a 2-3 year master's and a 5-8 year Ph.D. in the humanities. getting an MA is a
great launching pad for new ideas and careers like teaching high school, etc.,
but i doubt people will still be so excited during their 7th year of Ph.D.
with little job prospects in sight

~~~
Retric
It does not need to take that long. My mother got her second doctorate at 58
for fun, and it only took 3 years.

IMO, Getting a PHD is fairly close to real work. So, if you aproach it as a
_job_ it's not that bad. If you aproach it like your X year of collage you
will probably fail.

~~~
scott_s
Part of the PhD process is learning how to do publishable research, and
learning how to get it published. So if you've already learned that once, the
second time should be smoother.

~~~
timr
I'd go so far as to say that a big part of the PhD process is learning how to
be _productive_ without external guidance. It's a lesson you only need to
learn once, and it's broadly applicable to life.

------
mbrubeck
A friend of mine in academia recently commented that jobs for liberal-arts
Ph.D.s are so scarce that their grad school programs are basically Ponzi
schemes.

~~~
stevenbedrick
<http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1144>

------
pgbovine
i'm a bit late to this thread, so not many people will end up reading this,
but i'm very much against overloading of the term "graduate school". in
particular a Master's degree and a Ph.D. are _not_ (not, not, not) merely
different shades of the same beast. it's not like you do 4 more years of
master's level coursework and suddenly get a Ph.D. A master's degree is
technical training in an applied field (e.g., a master's in software
engineering), whereas a Ph.D. is training to become an _academic researcher_.
I'm not trying to say that one is better than the other, but they are
_different_. Thus, this article should really be named "Ph.D. in the
humanities: Just don't go". Master's in humanities is a completely different
beast altogether. just my 2 cents!

~~~
fan
Yes -- this is absolutely key. While the first couple of years in a PhD
program can be like a Master's program, once you get to the independent
research portion, it's completely different.

There is no more "standard formula" to follow, there is no more just being
satisfied getting classwork done. You have to find your own ideas, your own
schedule, and your own plans.

------
blasdel
_As somebody who hangs out with a lot of English PhD Candidates, I can attest
that their job is way better than yours. Here’s what they do:_
[http://squashed.tumblr.com/post/316844790/dont-go-to-
graduat...](http://squashed.tumblr.com/post/316844790/dont-go-to-graduate-
school-in-the-humanities)

~~~
yters
Yeah, humanities discussions are a lot more interesting that sciency type
discussions. Having my degrees is nice, but I sorta wish I'd gone the arts
route instead of the science.

------
mtinkerhess
What about graduate school in computer science? Surely a Ph.D. in CS would
have fallback options at places like Google or Microsoft where their graduate
work won't have been wasted?

~~~
anonjon
The problem in humanities is that the market is saturated, also, the majority
of undergraduate classes are taught by graduate students (they're cheap!),
further reducing the number of potential hiring positions.

So you have to actually be exceptional and have published something
interesting to even have a good chance at making it as a professor.

You could do other things as well, write books or work for various foundations
(teach high school!), but you can do those things without a Phd in medieval
English literature.

You also are spending 8+ years not getting paid or putting yourself into debt,
and that you still might end up working at Arby's (or what have you).

He left out that the pay for a starting professor sucks. (Considering that you
just spent 8 years of your life getting the degree).

Computer science is a bit of a different ballgame in that it is applicable
(well, vaguely) to software development. So you might be able to get a job
that is orthogonally relevant to whatever it was that you passionately studied
in graduate school.

The sad truth, however, is that the majority of software development does not
come anywhere close to requiring a Phd. And you still come out up to your
eyeballs in debt or flat broke. The good thing about it is that it looks
pretty good on a resume. (Although weighing 8 years writing software against 8
years in grad school, I might go with the guy who has work experience... is
kind of a toss up).

The google/ibm/microsoft research positions are few and far between, in any
event.

~~~
timwiseman
_The sad truth, however, is that the majority of software development does not
come anywhere close to requiring a Phd._

The vast majority of current software development is guis for databases and
can be done with relatively little training, not even requiring a BS in CS
much less a PHD. But there is more advanced development where the more
theoretical backing is at least useful.

 _(Although weighing 8 years writing software against 8 years in grad school,
I might go with the guy who has work experience... is kind of a toss up)._

I largely agree, but it depends on what kind of software the programmer was
writing. Doing major kernel hacking for a Linux distro is highly impressive
for instance, doing maintenance patches for yet another database front end is
not.

Also remember that the two is not an either or proposition.

It requires a somewhat flexible day job and it may take longer, but you can
work on a graduate degree while holding down a day job. I work a help desk
part time for most of my undergrad degree and work as a DBA/Sr. Programmer
while working on my masters right now for instance. On the flip side, you can
go to class at day and contribute to open source or do contracting at night.

~~~
Nosferax
Whatever you do, don't work too much on side jobs while writing your
mémoire/thesis. I have seen many people get a part-time or full-time job when
they were done with their project, alas not with their writing. It takes them
years to finish the whole thing.. (I've seen 4 years for a master's)

~~~
timwiseman
It depends on where your priorities lie. If your goal is to finish your
masters or PHD then I agree, I wouldn't work more than you absolutely have to
on side jobs.

If you already have a career and are working on your masters on the side, then
you need to focus on your job and do the masters as time permits. For
instance, I expect my masters to take 7 semesters (3 1/2 calendar years) and
it wouldn't bother me too much if it took 4 years. I have a job I like with a
salary that pays the bills. I am working on my masters primarily for personal
growth and hoping for some career advancement edges down the road.

------
philk
There's a huge oversupply of candidates because humanities is 'exciting' and
thus will attract a certain number of people regardless of how bad the
conditions are.

Ultimately the less glamorous a job/career and the higher the barrier to entry
the better the conditions.

(This is one of the reasons why businesses are often the best way to make
money; it's an unpleasant and uncertain slog which few are willing to take on
and navigate).

~~~
rdtsc
> There's a huge oversupply of candidates because humanities is 'exciting' and
> thus will attract a certain number of people regardless of how bad the
> conditions are.

I often wonder how much of the 'exciting' part is actually 'math was too hard
so any hard sciences are out of the question'. Some students know for sure
what they love and want, but some are in the undecided major for 2 years and
then are forced to pick. The decision they make sometimes is influenced by
their level of proficiency in the subject not by the love of the subject
itself.

~~~
surgesg
I'm not sure that people seriously considering graduate school (in any
subject) would be influenced in their choice by a (perceived) lack of math
skills.

~~~
elq
many families strongly encourage children to get a graduate degree.

------
netcan
_"The reality is that less than half of all doctorate holders — after nearly a
decade of preparation, on average — will ever find tenure-track positions"_

That doesn't sound too bad at all.

Presumably some percentage of doctorate holders do not want "tenure-track
positions." Some might be good at things other then academia to which their
academic expertise is useful. Some are probably already wealthy or old & do
not want to work full time. Some are just not very good at being academics.
You have that in every field regardless of training.

Being a history researcher is probably a less wonderful career path then Laws
or engineering but I assume the students know this going in & prefer history
anyway.

Besides, I know several PHDs working as academics with comfy 6 figure jobs
that I would never hire for anything.

This article seems to be assuming that all PHD candidates are all of the
highest "quality" and that even the bottom 10% would be flying high anywhere
else and are wasting their talents in Academia. That's just not true. I'm sure
that many are. These get their cushy professor jobs or do something else that
they like.

------
tokenadult
Previously submitted:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=558424>

~~~
RiderOfGiraffes
And it would've been detected as such by this idea:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1012215>

~~~
tokenadult
Have you put your idea in the Feature Requests

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=363>

thread? I strongly support beefing up duplicate detection.

~~~
Goronmon
In this case I don't really see the problem. The previous submission was from
8 months ago. I don't understand why it's inherently bad if a decent topic is
reposting a couple times a year? It allows for people to catch an interesting
article they might not have seen the first time around.

~~~
robryan
Actually it would be good if a resubmission includes the previous submissions
comments.

------
jimbokun
A lot of highly trained, unemployed talent pool of people available for
teaching pretty much any humanities subject. Over priced tuition to be taught
by a grad student or adjunct anyway.

The situation is looking very ripe for a disruptive business model offering
the same quality of education online for a much lower price.

~~~
gaius
You aren't paying for the _knowledge_ but the brand name on your resume. One
student's fees alone probably covers two TAs salaries...

~~~
Rod
Exactly. Universities sell credentials, not knowledge. If universities
actually did sell knowledge, they would have been put out of business by
public libraries long ago.

~~~
jseliger
" _Universities sell credentials, not knowledge._ "

This is true if you're saying that universities sell credentials among other
things but false if you're implying that universities _only_ sell credentials.
They also sell a rich learning and networking environment; _structured_
knowledge that you're presumably acquiring from people who've already mastered
a field and thus can bring you through it faster than you could on your own;
motivation in the form of deadlines and so forth, which is often difficult for
most people; editing / mentoring relationships that help you dialectically
develop your skills; and a way to guide figuring out what you might be
interested in.

None of that is to deny that universities sell credentials too, but if that
were their only function, they wouldn't be essential to our society.

~~~
rdtsc
> They also sell a rich learning and networking environment ...

That is worth anything only if it will help achieve future profesional goals.
You are probably thinging of a rich start-up culture. It can be awesome for
engineering and business majors. But for humanities, I am not so sure.

> motivation in the form of deadlines and so forth, which is often difficult
> for most people;

There is some value in that. Universities used to play the 'in loco parentis'
role in the past (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_loco_parentis>). In other
words they provide an environment where discipline and certain norms are
enforced. I am just not so sure it is worth $120k worth of debt at the end.

------
teeja
Sorry to say, this article is very realistic about a lot of things. Since
tuition got so high and heavy debt became common, starting college without a
_realistic idea why you're there_ is a bad idea.

There's nothing new about PhD's leaving school to find nothing, except that
there are more of them chasing fewer opportunities. _Don't_ expect colleges to
clue you into these realities: it would be bad for business.

------
ahi
If you go to a top ten school in your field and have a prestigious advisor
with some weight behind their recommendations then you'll be fine. The problem
is that every school wants to hand out graduate degrees. If you're getting
your phd in history from Northeastern Wichita State you're fucked.

------
marltod
A lot of the same things are true for law school. I think a lot of people go
into PhD programs/Law school because it sounds prestigious and assume with
prestige comes money.

------
pwnstigator
(Disclaimer: Read this when it came out, haven't re-RTFA.)

Sad, but accurate. On one hand, some humanities academics are directly
responsible for this; the attitude of many academicians that research was the
"real work" and teaching was just commoditized grunt work ended up hosing the
humanities. Physicists can afford to cop that attitude, because if they're
great researchers the university will put up with poor/no teaching, but those
in the humanities can't, because the transfer of culture to rising generations
(e.g. education) is the _raison d'etre_ of humanities departments.

On the other hand, the corporatization of the university and research world in
general has been an unmitigated disaster, and it'd be better for all of us if
the trend reversed.

~~~
joe_the_user
It's not a matter of the general attitude of academics, it's criterion imposed
by the institution - as the article says, it's an incredibly competitive
world. Humanities _must_ work extremely hard to achieve the requirement for
tenure. A lot of them know quite well that teaching gets slighted in this
process but simply don't have the time to do everything.

If by "some humanities academics", you mean the deans and heads of
departments, you might be right but otherwise you're blaming the soldiers for
the large-scale situation.

------
tkahn6
Are any Humanities Ph.Ds under the impression that they can actually _do_
anything with their degree (besides teach)?

A Ph.D in CS is not, as I understand it, a prerequisite for success in a
technological field, but PG was able to make use of it to start Viaweb. Could
a Humanities Ph.D do anything like that?

~~~
CWuestefeld
In college we had a joke:

Those who study engineering learn to ask "how does that work?". Those who
study the sciences learn to ask "why does that work?" Those who study account
learn to ask "how much will that cost?" Those who study liberal arts learn to
ask "do you want fries with that?"

This is a bit self-serving, it having come from an engineering school (where I
was a CS student), but there's some truth in there.

~~~
maximumwage
Not everyone has the mathematical intelligence, willpower, mental health, and
emotional stability required to make it through an engineering, science, or
even business degree. In addition, many students feel they have to go to
college just to get a job. For those reasons (and others) many students end up
studying for a liberal arts degree. What should those students be doing
instead?

~~~
apsec112
There are lots of trade jobs and civil service jobs that pay very well. "Many
paths can lead to riches, few in sunlight, most in ditches."

