Most funded PhD programs are funded for only 5 years.
I’m not involved in academia, but I imagine the process is simply a reflection of the people. Some people simply have such low self esteem that they create an entire structure to support their belief that they are better than everyone else.
Regarding the employment trends in academia, public funding always comes up (at least for publics). Schools need to make an effort to show value for the dollar. Not sure how much money tenure sucks out of the system, but it is certainly a political albatross that needs to be shed. Get rid of it, at least for public institutions. Even then, there is probably more fat to trim.
According to the NSF data, the median time from entering grad school to a PhD is 7.3 years. The varies a lot by field, with the median time being 6.3 years in the physical sciences and 9.4 years in the arts and humanities.
I’m talking about the length of funding, not length of a PhD program.
My original comment was about length of the program, not length of funding.
Well, universities RECOMMEND that the two be related, LOL.
And I don’t question your numbers, but I don’t know anyone who’s taken longer than 6 years in STEM because prospective employers don’t look kindly on people who can’t finish their studies/dissertations within a reasonable amount of time. It doesn’t bode well for their ability to publish enough to be a reasonable tenure contender (in the case of those going for academic jobs) or their ability to meet suggested deadlines (in the case of those going into industry/corporate jobs.)
Of course, some students extend the period by getting grants/fellowship for additional studies/programs overseas etc. But in those cases, the extensions are discretionary and not representative of how long the program requires.
@Iglooo science doctoral students have higher stipends for sure. For the arts, a little more than half of the $3k figure you cited, at the school I am familiar with.
Health insurance is provided but for kids with health issues, it is not sufficient and there is a huge out of pocket expense.
Tuition waivers are nice of course, but you can’t eat them and they don’t pay rent.
Grad stipends need to keep up with COL. One of the UC’s just fired a bunch of grad students for striking for better pay.
@compmom I am sure you are right about arts and humanities. I don’t know much about them. $3K is a decent sum no matter where you are. How much were they getting paid before getting fired? The thing is Universities can hire adjuncts with a PhD way cheaper than what they pay grad students. Grad student strike never made sense to me.
The numbers are from the NSF survey of earned doctorates. Based on their numbers, a lot of STEM people do spend longer than 6 years in grad school, since the median appears to be in the 6-7 year range. Arts and humanities majors take even longer.
This thread is a bit shocking to me. As college campuses, administration and academics are the outposts for much of liberal thought in the country.
We see daily on campus examples of gender identity tolerance measures, sexual preference protection, boycotting speakers, solid women’s initiatives and diversity being front and center of campus dialogue.
How can this cutting edge progressive liberalism and this archaic behavior coexist in this environment? It seems to push credulity to its limits that these behaviors would be tolerated in that environment.
I’m not saying it’s not true. It is just really hypocritical.
Huh? Are you being sardonic? Where is the evidence to support this? Are you just trying to get a reaction from the readers following this thread?
They love to preach and loathe to practice what they preach.
Almost 40 years ago, when I was thinking of going the PhD route in a liberal arts field, my advisors shared they felt future jobs would be shrinking up and it could be difficult to find a position after the long investment of time, effort and money.
I ended up (with my liberal arts degree) getting involved in IT when personal computers came out. I have worked for the past 20+ years in higher education.
I realized at one point I was higher paid than several of the associate professors in the liberal arts fields.
When people complain about administrative bloat, they’re probably talking about positions like mine. However, IT departments at universities are often struggling to keep talented staff, because they can earn more in other sectors. And students want to be able to do everything online: apply, register, check grades, pay bills, request transcripts, etc. All those things require administrative staff.
I worked with a few staff members with PhDs, who switched from teaching to the administrative side, because it was too difficult to get on the tenure-track and they wanted more work/life balance.
No I don’t think people are saying that. It’s how president, provosts, and deans salary has gone up relative to that of faculty. The roles of top administrators have changed. They are more into fund raising these days than tending university affairs. To attract fund raising talent, they raise the pay and give them more power. There is more imbalance than used to between faculty and administration.
IT, if it’s done right, should reduce the size of the university’s administrative staff. The largest benefit of IT is not convenience, but cost savings, by automating all the clerical work.
Doesn’t shock me… we are at heart a deeply anti-intellectual nation that doesn’t respect education or the educated. Read the thread about striking TAs at UC Santa Cruz and what the latest post there recommends.
[/quote]
The numbers are from the NSF survey of earned doctorates. Based on their numbers, a lot of STEM people do spend longer than 6 years in grad school, since the median appears to be in the 6-7 year range. Arts and humanities majors take even longer.
[/quote]
From the NSF survey all I can conclude is that there are many PhDs earned under more difficult financial circumstances or life events that delay finishing up - skewing the numbers you’ve cited.
For example, my boss has a PhD she earned while working full time. It took her a decade to finish. She did not TA during her PhD. I suspect many people pursuing PhDs do it on their own dime and on their own time, as she did.
Some PhDs take longer due to pregnancy - when the student takes time off to have/take care of a baby. With paternity leave now awarded that’s affecting men in addition to women. I’ve known people whose work/research took them in a different direction, delaying data gathering/dissertation.
But as I say, I know no one in STEM who took longer than 6 years. My daughter is in a program which will threaten to kick people out after the 3rd year if they’re not on track to finish in 6 (funding is for 5.)
I DO know those in humanities who took longer - PhDs in comparative literature were notoriously long in my day because people studied/wrote/read in 3-4+ foreign languages. Today, PhDs even in comparative literature aren’t funded for more than 5 years… that includes the best publics (Berkeley) and privates (Princeton.)
I also know academic departments in the humanities which are dramatically cutting back their PhD programs - because there aren’t jobs for all these PhDs, and because as programs become more selective, that raises the quality of Phd candidates. In other words, the respected universities ARE responding to the market place, and trying to adapt to 21st century realities, contrary to what some critics of universities believe.
The premise of this thread- the alleged elitism-- is what exactly? That universities should give doctorates to people who have not fulfilled the actual requirements to earn that degree?
What is elitist about a competitive labor market? Unless your argument is that-- horrors- earning a PhD is a marker for deep intellectual chops/significant academic achievement and therefore isn’t awarded to every Tom, Dick and Target cashier just because they think they deserve one. In which case- yeah, it’s elitist.
The biggest shift in academia occurred due to the draft during the Viet Nam war. Tens of thousands of young men who ordinarily would have been getting on with their lives ended up getting educational deferments- which meant a HUGE increase in the number of post-Bachelor’s programs across the country. These ranged from universities just expanding the number of students in formerly tiny programs (getting a doctorate in Renaissance Studies, for example- even the top programs might have had two or three students) AND adding new programs (Master’s in subjects where you didn’t need a Master’s degree before).
Then the war ended and the draft ended. And academia made a shocking discovery- it was a lot more lucrative to add a bunch of grad students to your campus than it was to expand your undergraduate population. Grad students typically lived off campus, or if they needed student housing, they did not need RA’s or cafeterias or tons of socio-emotional support. It was pretty cheap to teach a “Master’s in Labor Relations” or “Master’s in Real Estate” compared with the cost of churning out a Bachelor’s of Mechanical Engineering. And the programs were popular!
Fast forward. Doctorates and other terminal degrees are no longer seen as a rarified education designed to create true scholars. How many HS students post on CC that “I know I’m going to get a PhD”. Really? You’re 16 and the only exposure you’ve had to college is a debate tournament hosted at your local state college-- and you know you’re getting a PhD? Add to that the proliferation of online degrees, low residency degrees (used to be called correspondence schools but now they can call themselves universities) and you’ve got a mess in terms of what a PhD actually means in terms of scholarly achievement.
So not sure what the term “elitist” means in this context. Do some people get upset that an online PhD from a for-profit institution doesn’t put them in line for a tenure track job at U Chicago? Maybe they do. But they sure weren’t reading the fine print before handing over the credit card if that’s the case. The low residency programs are extremely popular, extremely profitable, and were NOT designed to create scholars. Can they get you a raise in your local school system if there is a salary band for doctorates vs. Masters? Yes, if your program qualifies. Just like the bad old days, where any old master’s program could get you an educational deferment in front of the draft board if you had a bad lottery number.
Not at all. It is about the multitier elitist nature of the job market for those who earned worthy PhDs (as opposed to the “junk” degrees you go on a tangent about) and are hireable as college instructors.
Interesting take on admin having a better work/life balance. Several people in admin at my college keep trying to convince me to switch over and give it a try. I seriously consider it every year, but I wonder about the schedule. I must admit, I can’t imagine the 9-5/8:30-4:30 grind. I went to get my PhD straight out of undergrad so I’ve never had a job outside of academia. As @inthegarden mentioned about her H, I love my job flexibility. I’m in the classroom 3 days a week, for 3 50-min classes each of those days. I have a month between fall and spring semesters, and classes end the last week in April and don’t resume until late August. I was always able to arrange my teaching schedule to get my kids off the bus in the afternoon when they were younger, and take them to any extracurriculars before they could drive themselves. I have a full month to myself before my kids get out of school for the summer, and then we are off together for the remaining 2 months. Sure, I have lots of grading, and need to keep up with attending conferences and staying current in my field, but it’s on my own schedule. My family benefits tremendously.
Of course, the pay leaves A LOT to be desired. It’s definitely an issue for faculty. I’m fortunate that my H is a software engineer so his salary makes up for the deficiencies in mine. And my kids are both eligible for a considerable tuition break at colleges that are part of the TE program. Though D20 is headed to a non-TE college in the fall, most of my colleagues use the benefit because it saves at least $37k/year on tuition.
That said, I often have students that are considering a PhD in my field (Humanities) and I do my best to discourage them. It doesn’t always work and I write a recommendation for them anyway–with a heavy heart. LOL One of my best students just started a doctorate program at Tufts in the fall (despite the dismal picture I painted for her), and I hope she can beat the odds. She’s fortunate that she just married someone with a fabulous job in biotech who is very supportive of her work. At least she won’t have to worry about money.