Thanks for the further responses. I really appreciate Peter’s efforts to offer a slightly contrary (or at least alternative) view, which I was surprised hadn’t happened yet. I want to respond to both of his points, not so much to defend my original statements but to extend the conversation. Before that, I just want to make it clear that I don’t think that producing fewer PhDs is necessarily the answer to this problem, which, as several others have pointed out, has much to do with the neoliberalisation of higher education. I’m conscious of the fact that my first post might have been framed as post-doc vs. PhD students, and my second as early career vs. established academics, while neither of those positions truly reflects my own. I really just wanted to stimulate some critical discussion about this – to unpack the problem, get some different perspectives on its implications and explore what has been or can be done to address it (or why it has been ignored). For me, one of the more frustrating aspects of all this has been witnessing academics’ engagement in solidarity movements and the promotion of workers’ welfare across national and professional lines, but responding to the pervasive worklessness (and its associated consequences of family dissolution, mental health problems, suicide, substance abuse, etc.) in our own sector with a collective shrug and an admission that it’s a tough job market. Oh well, move on to the next cohort of ambitious PhD students…
In response to Peter’s first point, that ‘a PhD is a higher research degree and it is not a professional training programme’, I really want to agree with this in principle, and believe that that is exactly what it should be. But unless a student stresses to their supervisor that they aren’t interested in an academic career, then much of what occurs throughout their doctoral studies seems designed to strengthen their CV for an academic job. The teaching, pressure to publish, networking at conferences, participation in departmental events… I have no doubt that some students have a mutual understanding with their supervisors that their PhD is not meant to gain them a university research post, and for them it’s probably much easier to distance themselves from all of these ‘necessities’. For the rest, these activities constitute a large part of what we do as PhD students (and certainly have value in their own right – don’t get me wrong. But let’s be honest and admit that their most enthusiastic participants are probably also thinking about career strategy). I guess one approach to resolving this would be for supervisors to try and gain a sense of their students’ career ambitions and tailor their supervision accordingly. However, I’d be surprised if that didn’t happen to a large extent already – and the ugly truth is that most students want to be professional academics.
As for work outside of academia, it’s encouraging that some of you have had better success than I have. I may have misrepresented myself slightly, so I’ll take this opportunity to clear a couple things up. I actually have quite a few years of work experience in the private and non-profit sectors, and decided to do a PhD at 28, for which I left a reasonably well-paid (but unstimulating) job. After my first series of rejections for post-PhD academic jobs (maybe 8-10 applications), I decided to vastly expand the sectors in which I was willing to work, assuming that, as Peter says, ‘the ability to research, analyse, think critically, and then write’ would be highly valued. And I figured that the fact that I have more conventional work experience outside of academia would give me something of an advantage. I’ve probably submitted close to 50 applications in these areas (compared to about 30-40 academic applications), plus registered with six temp agencies, and haven’t had a single serious interview. The job I have now was obtained for me through a friend, who fortunately needed someone to fill a subordinate role right around the time I moved to Austin, TX. Some of these jobs have been longshots, others have been very closely matched to my skills and experience. Since I’ve had such a long time to investigate why I’m not getting anywhere, I’ve asked around various friends and contacts in other fields, and their responses aren’t particularly encouraging. I’m not reporting this to discourage others or heap more negativity onto the already large pile I’ve created. I think it’s important to be as open as I can about the situation, though, if not as a warning to future job hunters then at least as a guide to some of the stumbling blocks they might face.
I have a cousin who works for a recruitment agency in San Jose, CA and his wife works for Apple. They inform me that if you’re applying to a large firm, your CV will be filtered by the applicant tracking software, which is looking for certain keywords. The software wants to see rival or recognisable companies on your list of former workplaces, or at least proof that you have done a version of the job to which you’re applying (and if not that, then certain other jobs will substitute, but only so long as they create a logical chain of advancement that the software can understand). You can tweak your cover letter to emphasize how your skills compensate for any gaps in experience, but it probably won’t get read. The HR industry admits that this is an imperfect system, and that good candidates probably slip through the net, but if you’ve got scores of applicants for every job, then it’s an acceptable loss.
I have a decent amount of experience doing freelance writing and copy editing, plus a few internships with media companies as a researcher. I’ve applied for jobs with television and documentary film companies, newspapers and advertising firms as a sub/copy editor, and for positions with academic publishers and educational websites as a social science content writer, editor or editorial assistant. A friend who writes for the Los Angeles Times tells me that even if my application made it past the software filter, HR would probably assume that my salary expectations were too high because of my PhD. This is seconded by a contact who works for the BBC. They get swamped with applications for every vacancy, and many of those applicants will have done recent and relevant internships, plus the preferred journalism / media studies / communications degrees. These candidates are seen as more malleable than someone with a PhD, with lower salary demands. Someone from my background is just coming too far out of left field when recruiters can depend on a huge pool of younger, supposedly cheaper applicants.
Finally, friends in the non-profit sector tell a similar story. Most non-profits are stacked with interns, many of whom are (quite understandably) first in line for any ‘foot in the door’ type of paid position. It may be different for the higher-paid jobs, but those vacancies are tend to be filled by horizontal movements across the sector or internal promotions. I understand why this happens and I’m not blaming anyone, but from what I hear, job mobility is pretty restricted in this sector until you’re at a relatively senior level.
Again, none of this is intended to discourage anyone, and only reflects my experience. Furthermore, it’s all anecdotal, and there might well be evidence that contradicts what I’ve been told. I know that together my posts might sound like one unending complaint about life being unfair. I also know, though, that from the responses I’ve received, others do appreciate me voicing these frustrations. This shouldn't be a taboo topic, but openly discussing one's inability to find employment is still considered a professional risk by many. Personally, I'm just beyond caring anymore. I wasn't getting hired while I stayed silent and played along nicely, so I don't know what I have to lose now.
On a more constructive note, one option that native English speakers might want to consider is teaching English in Asia. This rarely requires an advanced degree, and is typically something people do fresh out of their undergrad studies. Still, it’s something that looks good on a CV, and with a PhD your chances of working for a credible institution offering decent pay are much better. I know it’s not suitable for everyone, but perhaps the suggestion is more welcome than another sectorial analysis of why you can’t get a job. I’m considering it, so maybe one day we can all meet up in Korea and commiserate over shots of shoju.
________________________________________
From: A forum for critical and radical geographers [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of matthew.thompson [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 28 February 2014 13:27
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: PhD surplus and post-doc deficit
Ive been biting my lip on this (more like chewing it off). My own experiences of the academy, as a early career researcher, have been far from a positive experience. I don’t want to just complain when there is an opportunity to reflect on the value of a PhD, as Peter has pointed out, and the way that academics can behave, as Libby has raised, especially those further up the ivory tower, and the implications of the PhD surplus and post-doc deficit.
We are all aware of these neoliberal pressures expanding into academia; commodification of research outputs into “measurables” for the university, getting the big bucks, high profile project etc; while early post-doc work is linked to the mill of funding applications for time limited projects. For an early career researcher, this basically means short term contracts. With increasing numbers of PhDs and limited post-doc positions, it creates a ready market for eager applicants. Such a system is wide open to abuse, creating insecurity for new career researchers (keep the masses in fear), tolerating inappropriate behaviour out of fear of not getting your contract renewed, unreasonable demands, a poor reference etc; we know the stories, we hear them time and again. Of course, such a system can be advantageous to those further up the food chain (there is an irony of academics railing against neoliberalism while engaging in its worst practices themselves), but as Libby states, there must be something those in more secure positions can do to refuse to tolerate such a model. Its a difficult one, and I don’t know the answer given that this is a model being pursued at the national and international level, and seemingly taken to heart by university managements. Being reflective in your practice of research as much as in the research itself might be a good place to start. It can be difficult, far better to blame the individual (your not good enough, the world does not owe you a job etc), as Andrew has pointed out, than actually engage in reflexivity.
The second point is the value of a PhD does go beyond academia. My own experiences, bullying, two breakdowns, mental health issues and now, continued unemployment, have very much soured my opinion of academia, but also forced me to look broader. Only by going back to the why of doing the PhD, the passion for the subject or cause, can you start to see alternatives. The PhD process, undertaken within academic institutions, does foster a limited career view. After all, a vast majority of those you interact with also went through the same process. It seems like a rational path to pursue a career in academia. While university career services can be a valuable source of advice, when your in the PhD process, thinking about career paths and opportunities is the last thing on your mind. The challenge would be to get non-academic PhDs graduates into universities, highlighting alternatives, both engaging in research, there is more research work out side of academia that I would have believed, and non-research posts. I think we tend to forget that you have a wide range of transferable skills (I know, I said it), but because your surrounded by a group of others with the same skills you just assume that everyone can do it.
Thats my two cents. Hope its not negative.
Matt
On 28 Feb 2014, at 05:04, Peter Thomas <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
Dear Andrew,
As with most people who have already responded or been in touch in the past, I wholly sympathise that you have undertaken very lengthy training (probably undergrad, Masters, PhD) of at least 7 years with a view to developing a career in academia, only to find that employment opportunities are limited. I really do emphasise with the situation that you and others find yourself in.
However I feel compelled to pen a response because I do take issue with two points that you make.
Firstly you state that:
“…there does seem to be a fairly widespread acknowledgement that we are collectively engaged in something rather illogical and potentially damaging by channelling significant resources into professional training programmes for a shrinking and largely inaccessible profession.”
And secondly you state that:
“An even more misguided comment, to which we are regularly subjected, suggests that we should consider ‘just going back’ to another sector, where the pay is allegedly better and HR managers are apparently appreciative of our qualifications. In most cases this is completely deluded. Unless we’re willing to erase all of our most significant achievements from our CVs (as I’ve done to secure my current job), there is often nowhere else to go.”
I disagree that there is widespread acknowledgement anywhere other than in the ivory tower, where too often people cannot imagine that there might be a world beyond higher education in which high skills are both required, and appreciated. For sure you do need a PhD for an academic career, but a PhD is a higher research degree and it is not a professional training programme. I don’t believe that we (the government, universities, the system) are engaged in training thousands more PhD students than there are employment opportunities within the profession just for the sake of it. In the same way that we still provide funding for people to undertake undergraduate degrees in history of art, philosophy, and Latin, funding is provided to undertake higher research degrees because through these programs people gain valuable skills that can be put to use in a very wide variety of professions.
I don’t think the question is “are we training to many PhD students?” But is actually two other more important questions. Firstly, have we ensured that new PhD students have realistic expectations about their future employment prospects within academia (for example, noting that a Royal Society report in 2010 states that only 3.5% of the science PhD cohort go on to become permanent research staff in universities)? Secondly, are we ensuring that PhD programs provide students with the relevant skills they need in a world outside of academia?
When I undertook my postgraduate studies I wanted to be an academic. The Director of the Postgraduate Research Program in the first ten minutes of our first induction lecture laid out the situation to us, telling us that the statistics showed that only a handful of us would go on to become academics. If other universities are not doing this then I think this is a real failing. I note that the room didn’t empty when he made this statement. We need to move away from the ingrained notion that somehow not becoming an academic following a completion of a PhD is somehow a failure, and moreover, that non-academic careers are a less worthwhile outcomes than academic careers following completion of a PhD.
It’s probably fair to say that the PhD in some disciplines, and in some universities, might benefit from a refresh. We are training very bright people and they are gaining highly developed skills. These skills are transferable outside the academic world. However we need to ensure that PhD students have the right assistance to help them apply these skills outside of universities. For some time this has been appreciated at the undergraduate level, and it needs to follow through to postgraduate research degrees. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the ability to research, analyse, think critically, and then write is applicable to jobs beyond universities!
My own experience stands in contrast to yours, and I want to encourage you to not give up on the value of your PhD when applying for non-academic jobs. Every non-academic job I have ever pursued I have found that having a PhD has been a benefit. It’s something of a cliché, but we are living in a knowledge economy. There are many jobs today that require a minimum of an undergraduate degree, whereas 25 years ago you didn’t need a degree. I believe the same to true of postgraduate degrees, and there is research to show that over the coming decades the number of jobs requiring a postgraduate degree will increase markedly. Having a postgraduate degree, and especially a PhD does help to differentiate yourself from other candidates.
For those interested in the changing nature of the PhD there is a good discussion paper by the Australian university peak body ‘Group of Eight’, and this is available at: http://www.go8.edu.au/__documents/go8-policy-analysis/2013/the-changing-phd_final.pdf
Andrew - don’t give up on the value of your PhD in terms of your career. I think over the long-term you’ll find that it will bring career benefits to you. Best of luck.
Regards,
Peter
|
