Honest Answers About PhDs...

[DespSeekPhd]

<p>It can both help and hurt, depending on the department. Some departments really want a person who is firmly ensconced in Discipline A, while other departments welcome crossover. Beware - some departments claim they want crossover, but in reality they don’t It’s a complex process run by overworked people with fragile egos and too much education. If you do crossover work, make certain you have classes and research that you’ve also done within the traditional departments. You can then reframe your CV based upon the individual departments.</p>

[sakky]

<p>

Okay, so someone at North-South-East-West Tenn-sylvan-issouri State is an assistant professor with no Ph.D. - frankly, I’m unimpressed that someone willing to work in Alaska was given this accommodation

</p>

<p>Uh, “willing” to work in Alaska? I think it should be pointed out that Colleen Ianuzzi went to the University of Alaska as an undergrad (as can be seen by her being named an honors student as seen in the below link), which very strongly indicates to me that she’s actually from Alaska. Hence, it seems to me that it’s not so much a matter of her being “willing” to work in Alaska and thus being given an accomodation, but rather more that she just wants to stay in her home state. </p>

<p>[UAF:</a> University Relations](<a href=“http://www.uaf.edu/univrel/media/FY01/081.html]UAF:”>http://www.uaf.edu/univrel/media/FY01/081.html) </p>

<p>

I also agree that there are schools who are willing to hire adjuncts with no Ph.Ds. But my original reply to Jason concerned the fact that once you’ve gotten your Ph.D., some of the academic posts available to you are adjunct posts, and that those are neither as desirable nor as competitive. I don’t understand why your examples pertain to that point.

</p>

<p>I never said that my examples did pertain to that particular point.</p>

<p>I was simply questioning your assertion that you “need” a PhD to be an adjunct prof (or even a regular prof, as the Ianuzzi example shows). That was the point under contention. I think we can now all agree that no such need exists. A PhD obviously helps, but you don’t need it. </p>

<p>

If you are an adjunct, you’re not a tenure-track faculty member. I don’t see why you bring up the fact that at lower-end universities it is easier to get tenure. Yes, it is easier, but you have to be on the tenure track!

</p>

<p>Of course it is true that you have to be on the tenure-track to be considered for tenure. Did I ever say otherwise? </p>

<p>What I am saying is that it is easier to get placed in the tenure track at a lower-ranked school than at a higher-ranked school, and then once you’re there, it is easier to win tenure at that lower-ranked school. </p>

<p>

I also don’t understand why you think I am globally dismissing lower-end schools.

</p>

<p>Well, I don’t know, perhaps from your flippant phraseology of “North-South-East-West Tenn-sylvan-issouri State”? That sounds pretty dismissive to me. </p>

<p>

Congratulations to Prof. Gaur! It sounds like his decision to join Cornell might have involved an agreement that he was to be immediately tenured. But in general, unless you can bargain for tenure before accepting a new professorship, the tenure clock is reset.

</p>

<p>Um, well, it’s not just a matter of ‘bargaining’ for tenure. In the case of Professor Gaur, he didn’t have to bargain for anything. Cornell actually contacted him and *offered * him tenure and a promotion. That’s because the department at Cornell, for whatever reason, decided that he would be an excellent fit, and so was willing to offer him a deal that convinced him to move. Otherwise, he was going to just stay at NYU, where it was strongly suspected that he was just about to win tenure and promotion. </p>

<p>In fact, that sort of thing happens fairly often. Some school who is impressed with your work will offer you tenure and promotion straight away, because they’re trying to lure you over. </p>

<p>As another case in point, consider Carliss Baldwin, who I am convinced is one of the most brilliant economists of our time. She got her doctorate at Harvard. She placed as an assistant prof at MIT. She was then lured back to Harvard with a promotion, and she’s remained there ever since. </p>

<p><a href=“Faculty & Research - Harvard Business School”>Faculty & Research - Harvard Business School; </p>

<p>This sort of thing happens more often than we might think. </p>

<p>

If you happen to jump on the bandwagon of an innovative field just in time to get a tenure-track position in a new department, that’s great! But unfortunately you just have to get lucky (or else decide to research something you don’t truly enjoy) to wind up in that scenario. Emeritus professors are guaranteed to die eventually, but new departments are not guaranteed to open.

</p>

<p>I agree that you need some luck, but I don’t think you need THAT much luck. I think your luck is “steerable”. What I mean by that is that new fields don’t just arise de novo. They usually tend to arrive because of trendy interest from the real-world.</p>

<p>As a case in point, I am quite certain that a big reason why topics like quantitative sociology and social network analysis have become so trendy is because of the popularity of websites like Facebook and MySpace. A lot of sociology departments now feel that quantitative social network analysis is going to be very important to know about - that it will be the source of a large stream of new literature - and so they have to hire a bunch of new faculty that are knowledgable about that subject. Similarly, a lot of CS departments are looking for new faculty who do research on algorithmic search because of the prominence of Google and other search engines. I was recently talking to a B-school prof who said that the school is looking for new faculty who looks at open-source innovation, because of the popularity of wikipedia and Linux. </p>

<p>It doesn’t just have to do with research. It also has to do with teaching undergrads. You need faculty who are versed in the subjects that undergrads actually want to learn. For example, a lot of CS undergrads these days want to take a class specifically about algorithmic search (probably because they want to work for Google or another search engine). So you need faculty who can actually teach that class. A lot of undergrads want to take a class on social networks because they want to know more about the communities of Facebook and MySpace. </p>

<p>The point is, I don’t think that choosing a hot field is just a matter of luck. I think we can tell that some fields are just ‘hotter’ than others. Moreover, those hot fields also tend to be “cool” fields (no pun intended), such that it’s probably fun for you to studying those topics. I would think it’s far more cool to do research on social networking sites like Facebook than to research, say, structural functionalism theory. </p>

<p>

ave you ever heard the phrase “those who can’t do, teach?” It’s not true of every subject. The most common way to “do” classics or history, for example, is to have your research efforts funded through an academic post: if you are “doing” classics, you’re probably also “teaching” it. However, in subjects like business where you can make a lot more by working in industry, there is some truth to that old adage. Essentially, you would be competing for professorships with people who were unsuccessful in the “real world,” so yes, the level of the competition is lower. But why on earth would you want a professorship if you can be more successful in industry?

</p>

<p>Ha! A question that I have asked myself many times. </p>

<p>But first, let me disagree with your premise. Let me give you an example. I would assert that tenured professors in natural sciences such as biology or chemistry are probably the best scientists in the world - in fact, probably significantly better than the average scientist in industry. That’s true even though those professors could almost certainly make far more money if they had gone to industry themselves. </p>

<p>As a case in point, I know that pharmaceutical companies had repeatedly tried to hire Nobel Laureate Elias Corey away. I am quite sure that they would have happily paid him far more than Harvard was paying him. Yet at Harvard he stayed. I doubt there are a lot of organic chemists, and certainly none in industry, who would dare to say that they’re better than Corey. Corey is widely acclaimed to be the greatest organic chemist alive today. </p>

<p>Hence, it’s not clear to me that academics in those fields that have strong private-sector analogs are only those people who couldn’t make it in the real world. </p>

<p>As far as your discussion of business, I would point out that most people who actually want to become practitioners would never dream of getting a PhD in business. That’s what the MBA is for. Those people who get PhD’s in business really do have the desire (or perhaps the insanity) to become business academics. Furthermore, it’s also the job of the business school to simply not admit those people who don’t actually want to become academics.</p>

<p>However, I think what you said does point to something interesting, which is that I think that many of the ‘saturated’ disciplines are simply admitting too many PhD students, relative to the demand for new professors. Cutting down on the number would go a long way towards rebalancing the market. Business has it easy because, like I said, the number of B-school faculty openings is skyrocketing (because of the number of new B-schools being opened around the world), such that, as long as you get a PhD at some decent B-school, you’re going to get placed somewhere. Maybe not at a top place, but you’ll get something. I agree that this is not true for many of the humanities. </p>

<p>

Now you did it. Thankfully I saw your post first, so I can just stop reading this thread now. I’d suggest that you do the same. You can’t say that you weren’t warned.

</p>

<p>Look, pal, if you don’t want to read my posts, if you don’t want to participate in the conversation with me, fine, then don’t do it. But if other people want to participate, then let them do so unmolested.</p>

[snowcapk]

<p>

How does job placement generally go for those disciplines that could potentially stretch into several different departments?

I’d think your odds would be better the more specific you got, as long as you didn’t end up doing something there was no demand for. Not only do you have the versatility that you mentioned, you will stand out from people who brand themselves as plain-old anthropologists or biologists. If a department is looking for a biological anthropology guy, you’ll be their man, a much better apparent fit than a biologist or an anthropologist. But on the other hand, you’ll probably be hired on the merits of your research rather than the classes you would teach (not that it wouldn’t be important, just not <em>as</em> important) or the exact phrasing on your diploma.</p>

[jakem333]

<p>So basically you’re saying its fine/great to be in a versatile discipline, just make sure to do significant research in one specific area.
sounds like a plan thanks</p>