Is it possible to join PhD after completing undergraduate ?

[sakky]

<p>

Sakky, I would like to see evidence to support this assertion. “It would be nice to see a study that demonstrated this one way or another.”

</p>

<p>Like I said, I don’t have evidence. Nobody does. That’s the point. I have not seen any evidence, one way or another, that tells me that the “PhD concentration” among faculty has been increasing. </p>

<p>

What on earth do Asian universities have to do with the number of US professorships? That’s a fantastic sleight of hand argument.

</p>

<p>Why don’t you actually read my posts? I think I explained it quite well.</p>

<p>What it has to do with it is that many Asian nationals or Asian-Americans who are earning PhD’s who would have formerly competed for US faculty positions are now going back to Asia, therefore decreasing the competition here. Furthermore, as I discussed, many non-Asians who are earning US PhD’s are taking positions in Asia. As I mentioned before, I know of a white guy who speaks no Asian languages who just completed his PhD at Harvard and placed as an assistant professor in Singapore, rather than competing for a position in the US. </p>

<p>

Anyway, 30 years ago, pretty much everyone with a PhD got a job. Also, there was a shortage of professors 30 years ago.

</p>

<p>Oh really? Is that right? My father got his PhD about 30 years ago from a top-ranked US program. He had great difficulty finding a job. So did a lot of people in his cohort. He used to tell me stories about how only a minority of people in his group - many of whom were Chinese nationals or Chinese-Americans - got zero academic offers. Heck, one of those Chinese guys ended up having to take a series of postdocs at some no-name schools in Canada. If they had graduated today, surely many of them would have gone back to China and taken nice faculty positions, something that wasn’t really an option 30 years ago. </p>

<p>The point is, it is not at all clear to me that PhD’s have become more important in the last 30 years in terms of academic placement. The ‘Asia option’ was not available back then. Now it is. Lots of Asians grad students are looking to go back home. That reduces the level of competition here. Now, does that reduce it by enough to compensate for the other factors that may be increasing the level of “PhD concentration”? That, I don’t know, and for which I have not seen the data. </p>

<p>If somebody would like to show me the data that contrasts today vs. 30 years ago, I would be happy to see it. Or at least, can describe a reasonable story about why PhD concentration would have increased compared to 30 years ago in spite of the ‘Asia option’, I would be happy to discuss it. But if nobody can do that, then I think we have to conclude that we are talking about an unsupported assertion.</p>

[newmassdad]

<p>

I don’t have evidence. Nobody does. That’s the point. I have not seen any evidence, one way or another, that tells me that the “PhD concentration” among faculty has been increasing.

</p>

<p>

What it has to do with it is that many Asian nationals or Asian-Americans who are earning PhD’s who would have formerly competed for US faculty positions are now going back to Asia, therefore decreasing the competition here. Furthermore, as I discussed, many non-Asians who are earning US PhD’s are taking positions in Asia. As I mentioned before, I know of a white guy who speaks no Asian languages who just completed his PhD at Harvard and placed as an assistant professor in Singapore, rather than competing for a position in the US.

</p>

<p>

If somebody would like to show me the data that contrasts today vs. 30 years ago, I would be happy to see it.

</p>

<p>Sakky, this would be funny except that some people actually believe what you say, hard to imagine that it may be. You can’t have it both ways: Challenge others for their lack of evidence, then make bold assertions like this without any evidence. Or perhaps you consider your anecdotal sample of one to be evidence? </p>

<p>Am I the only one to see the irony of asking others for evidence to support their positions, but refusing to provide evidence to support one’s own position? And in the same post no less? Geesh.</p>

<p>BS is an art. Some posters have mastered it pretty well!</p>

[sakky]

<p>

Challenge others for their lack of evidence, then make bold assertions like this without any evidence. Or perhaps you consider your anecdotal sample of one to be evidence?

</p>

<p>Uh, I freely admitted in post #38 that I don’t have evidence on this one. That’s why I am asking for evidence. If nobody has it, then I freely admit that we have nothing to do on, one way or another. </p>

<p>But I’m not the one who is asking for it both ways. You are. After all, did you ask for evidence from momfromme or DSP? No. You only asked of it from me. What’s up with that? If you want evidence, you should be asking for evidence from both sides. </p>

<p>

Am I the only one to see the irony of asking others for evidence to support their positions, but refusing to provide evidence to support one’s own position? And in the same post no less? Geesh.</p>

<p>BS is an art. Some posters have mastered it pretty well!

</p>

<p>I find it quite ironic and BS indeed that you would demand evidence from one side, but not the other. Indeed, some people surely have mastered the art of BS.</p>

<p>So, I’m waiting with baited breath, newmassdad, for you to demand evidence from others with the same intensity that you have demanded from me, when I have freely admitted that I don’t know the answer. Please go right ahead, newmassdad. But I’m not going to hold my breath.</p>

[UCLAri]

<p>sakky,</p>

<p>It’s pretty much agreed upon amongst the academic community that it’s HARDER to get a tenured position today than it was 30 years ago. There was much more growth in academic positions 30 years ago than there is today. Your argument about supply, however, ignores the fact that there were far FEWER Asians at PhD programs in the 1970s than today. Your argument makes sense, but it just doesn’t hold up here.</p>

<p>It’s also very well known that tenure-track positions have grown slowly:</p>

<p>[Tenure</a> - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenure]Tenure”>Academic tenure - Wikipedia)
<a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/20/education/20adjunct.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/20/education/20adjunct.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>I think it’s fairly clear that with significant growth with the number of PhD grads growing more quickly than tenure-track positions that it’s harder to get a tenure-track job today than in the past.</p>

[sakky]

<p>

It’s pretty much agreed upon amongst the academic community that it’s HARDER to get a tenured position today than it was 30 years ago. There was much more growth in academic positions 30 years ago than there is today. Your argument about supply, however, ignores the fact that there were far FEWER Asians at PhD programs in the 1970s than today. Your argument makes sense, but it just doesn’t hold up here.

</p>

<p>If it truly was agreed upon, then it should be easy to show the data that supports it. </p>

<p>

t’s also very well known that tenure-track positions have grown slowly:</p>

<p>Tenure - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
<a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/20/ed...ewanted=1&_r=2[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/20/ed...ewanted=1&_r=2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>I think it’s fairly clear that with significant growth with the number of PhD grads growing more quickly than tenure-track positions that it’s harder to get a tenure-track job today than in the past.

</p>

<p>And see, this is precisely what I’m talking about. The data does NOT show that it is clear in the least. The Wikipedia article says NOTHING about whether tenure-track/fully-tenured positions have actually gotten harder to obtain in the last 30 years. It simply describes how the definition of tenure has changed in that time period, but NOT whether it has actually become harder to obtain a tenure-track position (or tenured position). The NYTimes article is even worse - it actually states quite clearly that the number of tenure positions has actually INCREASED (by 25%) in the last 30 years. It also says that that increase in tenure positions has been swamped by the number of adjunct and non-tenured teaching positions, but it also quite clearly spells out that the number of TOTAL faculty positions (tenured and nontenured) has actually DOUBLED in the last 30 years. Hence, the mix of tenure-to-non-tenure positions has certainly shifted, but that still doesn’t show that tenure has actually gotten harder to obtain. Another reading of that article can just as easily indicate that tenure-track positions has actually gotten EASIER to obtain (but that non-tenured positions have gotten EVEN MORE EASIER). </p>

<p>But look, like I said, I’m not saying that I know the answer. Y’all may well be correct. I’m saying that I don’t know what the answer is, one way or another, and nobody has shown me convincing evidence one way or another. No doubt some people today are encountering great difficulty in obtaining tenure-track positions. But 30 years ago, people like my father and his group of friends were ALSO encountering great difficulty in obtaining tenure-track positions. Is it really more difficult today? That’s unclear with the data that has presented thus far.</p>

[sakky]

<p>

Your argument about supply, however, ignores the fact that there were far FEWER Asians at PhD programs in the 1970s than today.

</p>

<p>Fewer? Perhaps. But I don’t know about “far” fewer. By the time of the 1970’s, there were already a lot of Asians and Asian-Americans in the country’s top PhD programs. Let’s face it. There was quite a bit of Asian immigration and then naturalization of Asians going on during that time and beyond. A lot of Koreans arrived fleeing the Korean War and a lot of Southeast Asians arrived fleeing the Wars in Indochina, and a lot of ethnic Chinese arrived in the US in the 50’s and 60’s after the national origin quotas were abolished in the 1965. Many of them brought their children with them, which would have corresponded with that wave of Asian-American PhD students in the late 1970’s. </p>

<p>But like I said, my argument is not predicated purely on people of Asian origin. Like I said, a lot of non-Asians are looking to become professors in Asia due to the immense growth of faculty openings there, including people who don’t even speak any Asian languages. For example, that white Harvard guy I was talking about who took a faculty position in Singapore is going to come back in a few months to tout to us why we ought to consider taking faculty positions in Asia. {He’s actually coming to recruit for his school specifically, but I’m sure that he can speak generally about how to build an academic career abroad.}</p>

[newmassdad]

<p>

and a lot of ethnic Chinese arrived in the US in the 50’s and 60’s after the national origin quotas were abolished in the 1965.

Retroactive change? How did “a lot of ethnic Chinese” arrive in the 50’s if the quotas changed in 1965?</p>

<p>Funny how those of us in grad school in the 70s don’t remember seeing any of these asian grad students, much less a “wave”. And I went to grad school in California. Maybe they were all hiding in Kansas?</p>

<p>Sakky, do you inhabit a separate reality somewhere?</p>

[DespSeekPhd]

<p>I did read the post, Sakky. And the preceding ones. And as I said…sleight of hand.</p>

<p>I also noted how when you quoted my posts, you conveniently left off the part where I directed you to articles and studies to support my claim. And then you accused me off not supporting my argument. Interesting methods.</p>

<p>No one…no one…believes for one second that the supply and demand issues in academia rest largely on waves of Asian academics arriving and abandoning our shores.</p>

[sakky]

<p>

How did “a lot of ethnic Chinese” arrive in the 50’s if the quotas changed in 1965

</p>

<p>That was a typo. I meant to say that they arrived in the 60’s and 70’s. </p>

<p>

Funny how those of us in grad school in the 70s don’t remember seeing any of these asian grad students, much less a “wave”. And I went to grad school in California. Maybe they were all hiding in Kansas?

</p>

<p>Funny, because my father reported exactly that, and he did grad school in the 70’s. And he didn’t go to grad school in California, but rather in a very prominent school in the Midwest (in a school that shall remain unnamed). In fact, he would report that often times you could make yourself better understand amongst the students in his particular program by speaking Chinese than by speaking English. </p>

<p>

Sakky, do you inhabit a separate reality somewhere?

</p>

<p>I assure that I inhabit this reality, and so does my father. Do you inhabit a separate reality?</p>

<p>I’ll tell you what. My email address is open. We can find out which one of us actually has a better CV, and therefore which one of us is more qualified to talk about academia.</p>

[sakky]

<p>

I did read the post, Sakky. And the preceding ones. And as I said…sleight of hand.

</p>

<p>Uh, sleight of hand means that I am actually trying to conceal something. In fact, I have revealed my entire argument. It is completely open and available for inspection. What exactly have I concealed? </p>

<p>

I also noted how when you quoted my posts, you conveniently left off the part where I directed you to articles and studies to support my claim.

</p>

<p>I am well aware of the articles and studies you cited. But they don’t actually show that the situation is more difficult than it was 30 years ago. As even the NYTimes article presented by UCLAri showed, over the last 30 years, the percentage of tenured and tenure-track positions has actually *increased by 25%<a href=“which%20is%20in%20line%20with%20total%20population%20growth”>/i</a>. </p>

<p>Look, I don’t doubt that there are people today who are having difficulty in landing a tenure-track position. But there were also people who had difficulty doing that 30 years ago. My father, and his old grad-school friends, are living proof of that. My father didn’t get a single academic offer. In fact, of his whole cohort of students of about 20-25 students in various years, I think a grand total of one actually got a tenure-track offer. Another few got non-tenure-track lectureships. But the vast majority of them got no academic offers at all, even after serving postdocs. And this wasn’t some scrub university we’re talking about, this is one of the most prestigious in the world. </p>

<p>Now, to be fair, some of them didn’t try to get an academic offer, but were instead perfectly happy going to industry. My father too ended up in industry and had a quite successful career. But none of that takes away from the fact that most who wanted an academic offer didn’t get one.</p>

<p>Hence, the assertion that it is more difficult now than it was in the past is still an unsupported assertion to me. In particular, let’s not romanticize the past. **The past wasn’t that good. ** Did almost everybody 30 years ago get tenure-track offers? That would come as shocking news to my father and his group of friends.</p>

<p>But look, I am not saying that the situation isn’t more difficult today than it was in the past. It may very well be. The point is, I don’t know. And I don’t think anybody else really knows either. If it really was so easy to prove, then it should be easy for somebody to find me strong evidence that demonstrates it to be so. I’m all ears. </p>

<p>However, the bottom line is that just because things may be difficult now, we shouldn’t make the mistake to automatically assume that things were better in the past. It’s like how some people today romanticize the social life of the 50’s, conveniently forgetting about the racism and the sexism of that period.</p>

[newmassdad]

<p>Sakky, your posts contain so many examples of faulty reasoning, bad data and generalizations from samples of one (like the anecdote about your father’s experience. Maybe we found those “missing” asians hiding in the midwest?) that I don’t know where to begin. But let’s start with asian immigration. I’ll not bother to quote you, as it is a waste of my time. But consider this:

The year 1965 brought a shakeup of the old immigration patterns. The United States began to grant immigrant visas according to who applied first; national quotas were replaced with hemispheric ones. Preference was given to relatives of U.S. citizens and immigrants with job skills in short supply in the United States. In 1978, Congress abandoned hemispheric quotas and established a worldwide ceiling, opening the doors even wider. In 1990, for example, the top 10 points of origin for immigrants were Mexico (57,000), the Philippines (55,000), Vietnam (49,000), the Dominican Republic (32,000), Korea (30,000), China (29,000), India (28,000), the Soviet Union (25,000), Jamaica (19,000), and Iran (18,000).

This took me about 10 seconds to find. Note that the change that allowed more asians took place in 1978, not 1965, with the removal of hemispheric quotas. </p>

<p>It is relatively easy to find data on immigration. Try here [Immigration</a> Data](<a href=“http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/immigration.html]Immigration”>http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/immigration.html) or here [MPI</a> | Data Hub | Country and Comparative Data](<a href=“http://www.migrationinformation.org/datahub/comparative.cfm]MPI”>http://www.migrationinformation.org/datahub/comparative.cfm)</p>

<p>Of course neither of these links is of any use if one can’t interpret the data, or if one is more comfortable relying on anecdotal observations. </p>

<p>So go on challenging the data the rest of us present. Then show us some data, not ancedotal assertions.</p>

[UCLAri]

<p>

I’ll tell you what. My email address is open. We can find out which one of us actually has a better CV, and therefore which one of us is more qualified to talk about academia.

</p>

<p>This is a very silly ad hominem and you know it. We’re all pretty much grad students/grad degree holders. It doesn’t matter where they’re from. Don’t start down this route.</p>

[sakky]

<p>

This took me about 10 seconds to find. Note that the change that allowed more asians took place in 1978, not 1965, with the removal of hemispheric quotas.

</p>

<p>Uh, this is irrelevent to the point. Grad students who come are not “immigrants” in the data that you have pointed out. They are simply students and are placed under a different classification system, purely for educational purposes. US schools have admitted numerous foreigners for decades but not considered them to be immigrants. Only if they choose to stay after graduation would they then be considered immigrants. </p>

<p>And the fact of the matter is, US schools have been admitting plenty of Asian graduate students for decades. What happened in the past is precisely what happened to many of my father’s friends who are Asians. They tried to get placed at American schools. If they did, then they would have tried to work out a green card/visa issue with that school that hired them. If they couldn’t get that, then they would have tried to get an industry job and then tried to get visa that way. If they didn’t get placed anywhere, then they perhaps would have gone home or gone to some other country that would place them (i.e. Canada seemed to be unusually accomodating at the time, and hence many of my father’s friends are still there). But in any case, they were still competing for those academic positions because there were no such positions available at home. Now there are. I think that’s a quite simple point. </p>

<p>

This is a very silly ad hominem and you know it. We’re all pretty much grad students/grad degree holders. It doesn’t matter where they’re from. Don’t start down this route.

</p>

<p>Guys like newmassdad shouldn’t call me out then. He started it.</p>

<p>He hasn’t taken my challenge, which I take to mean that he’s afraid to do so.</p>

[sakky]

<p>

Of course neither of these links is of any use if one can’t interpret the data, or if one is more comfortable relying on anecdotal observations.</p>

<p>So go on challenging the data the rest of us present. Then show us some data, not ancedotal assertions.

</p>

<p>So let’s look at the data then.</p>

<p>According to Wikipedia, the proportion of Chinese-Americans (as a percentage of the US population) nearly tripled from 1940-1970. Now, do you really think that is possible without strong immigration occurring before 1978? </p>

<p>[Chinese</a> immigration to the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_immigration_to_the_United_States]Chinese”>History of Chinese Americans - Wikipedia)</p>

<p>Now, of course I agree that the Chinese-American proportion increased tremendously past 1970 and especially 1980, which is concurrent with your data. Nevertheless, the point stands that the Chinese-American population grew vigorously from the years 1940-1970.</p>

<p>So you insist on data, and I have provided it.</p>

[mspeachum]

<p>Sorry to burst your bubble, sakky, but the language medium in Singapore is English. We learn everything in English since kindergarten. And if you’re there and ppl around you aren’t speaking in English, it’s because we are all expected to know a second language and they probably don’t want you to eavesdrop. Also, dont be surprised to see that we’re super technologically advanced. Lol. What an ill-informed American dude.</p>

[DrExPat]

<p>It is true that some of the top Asian schools are paying top-dollar to lure graduates of top North American PhD programs, but this is true of relatively few schools in select disciplines. A couple of schools in Singapore and a hand-full each in HK and the PRC hiring a couple of rookies each has very little impact on the wider academic job market, even in the two or three disciplines for which demand for new PhDs comes anywhere close to the supply. In another 6-10 years, when this will be relevant to the presumed audience for this thread, things could be different. Then again, by that time, most of these schools will be producing as well as consuming talented rookie faculty in these disciplines.</p>

<p>I used to worry somewhat about the poor quality of “information” in these forums until one of my colleagues pointed out that anyone dumb enough to act on such “information” is probably too dumb to make it as an academic anyway.</p>

[polarscribe]

<p>Old thread is old. Note the starting date… 2007.</p>

[sakky]

<p>

Sorry to burst your bubble, sakky, but the language medium in Singapore is English. We learn everything in English since kindergarten. And if you’re there and ppl around you aren’t speaking in English, it’s because we are all expected to know a second language and they probably don’t want you to eavesdrop. Also, dont be surprised to see that we’re super technologically advanced. Lol. What an ill-informed American dude.

</p>

<p>Sorry to burst your bubble, dude, but when did I ever say that Singaporeans did not speak English or aren’t technologically advanced? Please point to the quote where I specifically said that they were not. Oh wait, you can’t? What an ill-informed dude. </p>

<p>Next time, please read what I actually said before you choose to disagree with me.</p>

[sakky]

<p>

It is true that some of the top Asian schools are paying top-dollar to lure graduates of top North American PhD programs, but this is true of relatively few schools in select disciplines. A couple of schools in Singapore and a hand-full each in HK and the PRC hiring a couple of rookies each has very little impact on the wider academic job market, even in the two or three disciplines for which demand for new PhDs comes anywhere close to the supply. In another 6-10 years, when this will be relevant to the presumed audience for this thread, things could be different. Then again, by that time, most of these schools will be producing as well as consuming talented rookie faculty in these disciplines.

</p>

<p>I never restricted the discussion to necessarily ‘top’ Asian schools that pay ‘top’ dollar. Working at a nondescript Asian school while being paid a salary that would seem quite modest by Western standards would actually support a relatively comfortable lifestyle in, say, China or India. </p>

<p>And that’s why I return back to what I had stated earlier. Plenty of Asian PhD graduates of American universities who would have formerly competed in the American academic market are now instead choosing to take jobs in Asia. Heck, even some American PhD graduates of said universities are choosing to take jobs in Asia (although those Americans unsurprisingly tend to be of Asian-American ethnicity). Granted, they may not be working at top-tier universities. Nor might they be living at the most glamorous cities. Heck, they might not even be working in academia at all, instead choosing to join the burgeoning private sector opportunities in those countries. {For example, purportedly you can do reasonably well for yourself in China if you hold a degree from a prestigious Western university by serving as an admissions consultant to nouveau-riche Chinese parents who aim to send their ‘princelings’ to those very same Western universities.} </p>

<p>So to reiterate, much of the Asian (or Asian-American) PhD supply has been drained by Asia from the Western academic market, thereby easing the competition that exists. Is the competition still tight, particularly in certain fields such as the humanities? I don’t doubt that it is. But it would be even worse if not for the additional source of demand in Asia.</p>

[Arzzzz]

If u think of money, don’t do phD… go to bussiness or job