From a quantitative perspective, the oversupply of PhD's in the humanities is not even a rounding error in the annual supply of lawyers or MBA's and people with PhD's typically have no problem finding other and well-paying jobs if they feel like going after them. There is a psychological problem here: they find readjusting difficult and their mentors have traditionally not been very helpful. Graduate departments like to boast about placing their PhD's in this or that university. They do poor job at recognizing the success stories of their graduates in other walks of life. I vividly remember an afternoon at the University of Chicago almost 30 years ago when four PhD's told the stories of their successful careers outside their departments.  I was struck by the odd "conversion narrative" or confessional style of what they had to say. Did it have to be that wrenching? Had we—their mentors—tried hard enough to make it less wrenching?  My sense then was that we hadn't tried very hard, and I'm not sure sure that things have changed much for the better since then. 

It is probably impossible to predict the labour market seven or even five years down the road. Things change, sometimes quite rapidly. You can try to cut down the time to degree. You can also try harder to create a climate of flexible expectations. Lots of room for improvement there. 

Martin Mueller

Professor of English and Classics

Northwestern University

From: John K Leonard <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To: Sidney-Spenser Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Monday, November 11, 2013 3:57 PM
To: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Student debt and the passive professoriate

While somewhat off topic, this has been an important thread and we have heard strong arguments on both sides. I should like to come back to a valuable distinction that Peter Herman made between undergraduate and graduate degrees. It seems to me that the BA is still a worthwhile degree, even if judged in narrow, mercenary terms. OK, I have a vested interest in saying that, but I am proud that all three of my children are currently enrolled in Arts programmes (English, Art History, and Communications) and I am optimistic that all three programmes will pay off (financially pay off) in the long term, though some of my kids might need to supplement their university degree with a college credential aimed at a specific career. So far I disagree with Steven Willett. But that said, I think he is absolutely right about the PhD. This is one degree that is currently being horribly abused, at least here in Ontario. About eight years ago, three or four years before the crash, the Liberal government of my Province pumped enormous funding into doctoral programmes in the anticipation of mass boomer retirements and the need to hire legions of tenure-track Professors. For a couple of years it looked as if the Golden Age had returned and that Astraea was about to become Dean of Arts and Humanities. Then the crash hit. No more jobs. But the Provincial government has inexplicably continued to fund doctoral students for non-existent careers. The universities in Ontario have cynically admitted far too many PhD students (and continue to do so) for no other reason than to get their hands on that enrolment contingent funding. This is a scandal and Steven is absolutely right to condemn it. But there is no necessary connection with the question of the value of the Bachelor's degree. Strangely, the MA (which might actually  justify increased enrolments, since it is portable and takes only one year to complete) has got lost in the shuffle. The politicians' ineptitude, combined with the universities' greed, has made the PhD the degree to expand exponentially--with disastrous consequences for both students and programmes. This short-sighted policy will come back to haunt us and we need people like Steven to blow the whistle on it. But we also need the Arts and Humanities BA. Indeed, we need it now more than ever.

 

John Leonard

 

On 11/11/13, David Lohnes <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Our children will increasingly be taught the humanities by:
1) Underpaid, overworked, part-time and/or non-tenured teachers and instructors
3) " " " online instructors
2) Freely-available and/or corporate-owned video and audio recordings and other digital resources

On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 3:25 PM, Marianne F Micros <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

So who will teach our children - and help guide our world to the future?

----- Original Message -----
From: David Lohnes <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 14:10:37 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Student debt and the passive professoriate

A long-time lurker who rarely has posted, I would like to offer my
perspective and experience on this topic.

As a "child of the wealthy" and unmarried grad assistant, I was able to
achieve a BA in English (99), MA in English (01), and summer study at
Cambridge (and Spenser Society conference!) without debt.

After the MA, I taught for two years at a private, Christian secondary
school before beginning a PhD 03-12(at USC under our estimable and
delightful David Miller) which I did not finish (ABD, 110 draft
dissertation pages) (Sorry, David :( ).
After ten years of post-graduate study, grad assisting, and secondary
teaching, I shifted to IT about 18 months ago, and I haven't looked back.
Simple economics drove the shift.

As a tenured Spenserian, I might some day break $100k (if, for example, I
discovered and published the draft of FQ 7-12 secretly rescued from the
flames of Kilcolman), but more likely I'd be looking at $60-$80k
accompanied by severe geographic restrictions, as I'd definitely have to
follow the job.

I considered a public secondary school career as an alternative. Money
would be less (my brother is maxed at approx. $65k with his national
boards); geographical flexibility would be much greater (jobs in every
county); but quality of professional life would (in my opinion) be much
less.

IT simply annihilates any form of literature teaching, both in terms of
finances and in terms of geographic flexibility. It took less than a year
for me to hit $60k, and the sky really is the limit. My boss (about five
years older than I am) never graduated from college and has his own
multi-million consulting firm. In ten or fifteen years, that could be me.
And if I wanted to move to, say, Switzerland, it realistically could be
arranged.

So was an English degree the right choice? What will I recommend to my
children?

During my undergraduate study, my advisor (and idol) hammered home year
after year in class after class the value of a humanities-based major for
development of the whole person. "The question you should ask yourself is
not, 'What do I want to do?', but, 'Who do I want to be?'. Filling your
mind with the greatest of human achievements in the arts, literature, and
philosophy allows you more fully to experience what it is to be human."

I bought the argument completely, and while my peers were pouring long
hours into software development projects, I was reading sci-fi novels,
writing poetry, performing in opera choruses, and patting myself on the
back for my broad mindedness.

And it was as much for those humane reasons as it was for professional
ones that I undertook the PhD program. I wanted to study Latin. I wanted to
study Old English. I wanted to read more deeply in Spenser and his literary
and philosophical sources. I wanted to broaden my experience of literary
and human history.

And although I failed to graduate, I was able to achieve many of those
humanistic goals.

I don't regret my years of English studies.
But then, things have gone well for me, and the fortuitous opportunities
that allowed to enter IT so easily cannot be counted on to come to everyone.

So for my own children, I will recommend that they approach college with a
"job first" mentality. Electives are fabulous, but they should be just
that--elective. The real business of college is maximizing the dollar cost
and hour cost of the degree into a financially-viable, stable, and flexible
career path.

The market economy is an unforgiving mistress, and you better be prepared
to move with it and demonstrate value to potential employers.

I would only recommend an English degree for a student who planned that
degree as a specific stepping stone to a compatible career path, like law
or business.

I would not recommend teaching as a career path in any form.
Teaching (especially in the humanities) is simply not a valuable activity
in market terms.


On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 9:36 AM, Steven J. Willett <[log in to unmask]
> wrote:

>  On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 23:01:51 +0900, Michael Saenger <
> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> With respect, this is silly.  Debt is a serious issue, but I have had many
> oustanding students who have gone from English majors to careers in law or
> medicine, the latter of which increasingly values broad-based training.  I
> have told them that they are not required to go to English grad school,
> just to commit to reading FQ or Shakespeare in their spare time.
>
>
> With respect, this is the comment of an ethical dilettante.  Let's see,
> run up $26,000+ debt in gaining an English major and then go on to
> professional school for another $150,000-250,000 in debt--that's a life,
> really?
>
> I like the long tail of your accomplishments and sefl-advertisement.
>
> --
> Steven Willett
> [log in to unmask]
> [log in to unmask]
> [log in to unmask]
> US phone: (503) 390-1070
> Japan phone: (053) 475-4714
>