What do you do and where?

[Oz]

Specifically in Philosophy so I feel I am now entitled to bitch about the amount of funding available for science degrees

This was probably one of the main reasons i didn't persue getting a PhD in philosophy like my professors/mentors wanted me to.  No way was i going to pay for more schooling to get a job as an underpaid professor/lecturer (pretty much one of the only options for philosophy PhD in USA). 

That, and drugs fascinate me, is why i got mine in pharmacology (woot for free tuition and stipend!).

Its ok to hate me a little, i understand your jealousy.

[Nebu]

So I'm starting a PhD programme in Manchester in about a month. Specifically in Philosophy so I feel I am now entitled to bitch about the amount of funding available for science degrees.

Technically speaking, ALL PhD's are in philosophy.  They are just in sub-specialties. 

Also, the complaints about funding for science PhDs are unfounded.  1) the sciences bring in SIGNIFICANTLY more indirect income to colleges and universities than any other discipline and they do it for a substantially lower cost.  i.e. the salary increase in the sciences is overshadowed by the amount of revenue generated for the university. 

Then there's the whole supply-demand issue.  We won't go there.

[Oz]

1. its funny that we both quoated the same text from him, Nebu.

Technically speaking, ALL PhD's are in philosophy.

hehe, smart ass.  but you know how silly he'd be saying Doctorate of Philosophy in Philosophy.

On a side note.  even in Science PhDs there's a huge discrepency in the salary you eventually get (both academia and industry). 

Science or Nature published a list of average salaries for different degrees (chemistry, biology, biochemistry, pharmacology, anatomy, etc) a few years ago, but I can't seem to find it.  But yeah, Nebu's reasons for the discrepency between "science" and "fluff" (i.e. philolosophy, english, lit, anthropology) is dead on.

[Yegolev]

Killjoy's father has a PhD in Anthropology and he's the highest earner at Auburn University.

[NowhereMan]

I was going to add a line about "Stupid profit making patent type production" but didn't think it would really be necessary, my bad. Really I'm just a bit pissy since the number of national awards for Humanities postgrad study got cut by a third this year. Still hopefully going to get a position as a resident tutor and free accommodation which will substantially reduce costs. Throw in a part time job and some university awards or grants and I might be able to break even but if this was the US I don't think there's any way I'd be doing this. I love it but I don't think I'd want to financially cripple myself without any certainty of getting a job that would let me ever escape from the debt.

[Nebu]

If you're making a case that PhD's in the Arts and Humanities are grossly undervalued by society, I'd agree 100%.   I think that a broad-based education is vital to creating creative, questioning minds.  We're losing this to specialization and it pisses me off.

[schild]

I don't think I had a single professor, not even the dean of arts and humanities at UMD that had a PhD.

http://www.art.umd.edu/people.html

I know they didn't have a PhD program, but yea, that's just depressing. Art studio had two people PhDs I think. They were the heads of the entire arts and humanities school. I never once met them until my graduation. Music, it's hard to find real ones outside of specialized schools. And as for Art History, even art students didn't really think of it as a real degree. As for the rest of arts and humanities, it's a crapshoot at every school, really.

[Oz]

Killjoy's father has a PhD in Anthropology and he's the highest earner at Auburn University

I'd be willing to bet a lot of money that he's the exception, rather then the rule.  there are always exceptions.

[Khaldun]

You should never under any circumstances go into a doctoral program in the humanities or social sciences that is not giving you a tuition waiver + a stipend. If they're charging you, it means they think you're a marginal admit and they hate you and they just want you because you're a wallet who will fund the students they really do want. It is almost impossible to change that kind of verdict and get into the elect who have a waiver and stipend.

In general, anyone thinking of being a professor should realize that the extremely shitty, non-tenured jobs in academia now seriously outnumber the attractive, tenure-track ones. You should also realize that graduate school is typically unpleasant and very unlike your undergraduate experience (if you had an undergraduate experience that you enjoyed or found intellectually stimulating). If you get a good tenure-track job at a good institution, you may have a good experience pre-tenure or you may not, but in either case, by the time you get tenure, it may be hard to remember why you liked or had passion for the field you're teaching and researching in. You need to have a part of your mind and heart which is protected by level ten deflector shields if this is going to turn out to be a satisfying life in that respect.

Though the terms of work at a good tenure-track job are pretty great. Pay is lower than almost anything else with a similar amount of training, but there are a lot of non-monetary compensations.

[Khaldun]

P.S. this doesn't apply to UK universities, which are substantially a different world. (And because of stupid 'reforms' under Blair, much worse off than they used to be as a place of employment.)

[K9]

If you're making a case that PhD's in the Arts and Humanities are grossly undervalued by society, I'd agree 100%.

Maybe it's because I don't know enough humanities students (I attend a science-only university) but I do wonder about the value of humanities PhDs. Given that the goal of PhD study is to explore new material, there is a limit to how well this can be achieved in many subjects. Whilst in science there are always areas of research that will push the field forward, it seems to me that a lot of humanitites research focuses in on increasingly trivial points. I don't question the broad contributions of Arts and Humanities, I just feel that the bulk of the best contributions come from outside of academic institutions; unlike science where there are strict limitations on what an individual can achieve without the research infrastructure.

It's hard to provide an example that does not seem highly contrived, but what is the advantage of doing a PhD in English or Creative writing, compared with the efforts of novelists, say? Or doing a PhD in music theory compared with joining an orchestra?

I think that a broad-based education is vital to creating creative, questioning minds.  We're losing this to specialization and it pisses me off.

I agree with your first point, although I think you need a balance between a broad education and a gentle pressure funneling individuals into specialisation that they both enjoy and excel in. It would nice to be a world of renaissance men, but that's an unrealistic prospect. Early specialisation is a bad thing.

[Khaldun]

Humanists should have a different job than scientists. Scientists can specialize and push into new areas of inquiry, though we also desperately need scientists who see the big picture and can explain it intelligently to people outside their field. Scholarly humanists need to be engaged in a more public, universalizing, generalizing kind of intellectual activity. Specialization and pure research yield far fewer returns in the humanities, and take the humanities very far away from their most important pedagogical and scholarly responsibilities.

[lamaros]

It's hard to provide an example that does not seem highly contrived, but what is the advantage of doing a PhD in English or Creative writing, compared with the efforts of novelists, say? Or doing a PhD in music theory compared with joining an orchestra?

I almost entirely agree with you in regards to a PhD in Creative Writing. I think creative writing is one of the dumbest subjects imaginable. However there is I'm sure more to it than I understand and perhaps some value in there.

On the other topic however, of English or other Humanities, well... that's just silly. If you are unable to see the value of Political, Social, Historical, Philosophical, Linguistic, etc inquiry then you're missing some pretty big stuff. More than big.

[Endie]

Humanists should have a different job than scientists. Scientists can specialize and push into new areas of inquiry, though we also desperately need scientists who see the big picture and can explain it intelligently to people outside their field. Scholarly humanists need to be engaged in a more public, universalizing, generalizing kind of intellectual activity. Specialization and pure research yield far fewer returns in the humanities, and take the humanities very far away from their most important pedagogical and scholarly responsibilities.

Traditionally, the Scottish educational system has been a bit closer to this than the English equivalent, pursuing a generalist approach for far longer through a student's career (arguably until the junior honours year of what is, for this amongst other reasons, a four-year, rather than the English three-year, degree course).  Furthermore, centuries after Knox's reforms (and he may have been an old bigot, but we do still owe him a lot in our education system), the tradition of an education system engaged with the general population continues: Edinburgh University, for example, doesn't just run literally hundreds of heavily subsidised courses for the citizens of the city at large throughout the year, but also offers scores of free, public lectures, many of them "improving lectures" as they would once have been called.

Regarding Blair's reforms, which you mention elsewhere, those hit us rather less here, particularly post-devolution, as the Scottish education system maintained its independence post-1707.  Which isn't to say we don't have issues: there has undoubtedly been a decline in Scotland's previously-exalted position in all sorts of OECD, Council of Europe and other tables.  But our issues are different.

[Oz]

anyone thinking of being a professor

In light of what Khaldun said if someone only wanted to teach (as opposed to teach + write/research/grantfarm/etc) then from most of the professionals that i've spoken to that person would be better of getting a masters. 

masters trains you to know the field (i.e. be able to regurgatate teach the knowledge)
PhD trains you to think critically (not really needed for teaching per se)

[Khaldun]

If you want to teach at the college or university level in the U.S., a master's is generally not going to cut it. There are exceptions in some fields (MFA in studio arts, for example) and there are some institutional contexts where a master's is adequate.

But entering a doctoral program in academia with the declared desire to teach college students is a short road to professional disaster anyway. You can *think* that privately but don't say it in front of advisors or peers unless you want them to regard you as a hick. Yes, that's backward and wrong, given that the main thing that most professors do, and the main value they provide to their institutions, is teaching. But that's where we are, unfortunately: while doing doctoral study, research is the exalted activity and being a researcher is what most people will suggest you ought to be aspiring to become. Even if you're a humanist.

I actually think being able to think critically is essential for being a good teacher. But I think most undergraduate institutions do a better job at helping you to be a critical thinker than graduate programs.

In many US institutions, in an academic program of study, the master's degree is just a formality anyway--it is not separate or "terminal", just a waystation to the doctorate and a kind of consolation prize for anyone who decides (often sensibly) to bail out on the whole thing short of the doctorate. Typically, the master's is awarded after you've done your qualifying exams at the end of your second year, before you begin a dissertation.

There are many professional master's programs which are terminal degrees, and some of those are aimed at K-12 teachers who are trying to move up a pay grade. Those are very different, and often have no institutional relationship to a doctoral program aimed at the training of academics.

[Oz]

I think i'll have to disagree with you about a masters not cutting it for teaching at a college or university.  If all you want to do is teach, SEVERAL universities/colleges (i.e the Universities of California) hire lecturers, whose only job is to teach and are mostly made up of masters levels degrees. 

Any program that seeks out PhDs do not want people to only teach, they want you to do research, publish, get grants.  I've personally found that if you search out a teaching/lecturer job with a PhD you are facing an uphill battle b/c they prefer their regurgitators with a masters.   

Hell in this day and age the masters is often skipped entirely (along the lines of what you are sayig about it being a formality).  There are so many PhD programs that don't even give you a masters that this really nails home the point of needing to know what you want to do and choosing the school/degree best for you.

Teach = find a school that offers a terminal masters
Teach/Research/Publish/Grant = find a school that offers a PhD (and might not even grant a masters)

[Nebu]

I think i'll have to disagree with you about a masters not cutting it for teaching at a college or university.  If all you want to do is teach, SEVERAL universities/colleges (i.e the Universities of California) hire lecturers, whose only job is to teach and are mostly made up of masters levels degrees. 

Depends on the field and the quality of the institution.  You'll never get a decent teaching position in the sciences at anything beyond a community college unless you happen to have inside connections. 

Also, it takes a special person to be a lecturer.  You get all the downside of being on the faculty without having a say in much of anything.  Lecturers are by and large (there are exceptions) not treated as equal members of the faculty. 

Be aware that most colleges and universities require more scholarly activity from their faculty each year.  Jobs that are teaching only above the community college level are disappearing at a rapid rate. 

[Endie]

masters trains you to know the field (i.e. be able to regurgatate teach the knowledge)
PhD trains you to think critically (not really needed for teaching per se)

I've been doing a third degree, just for fun, in classical history recently.  Last year, however, I took a pause from that to do a masters-level course towards an MBA, since my company was paying vOv.  It was horribly like what you describe: I got a final mark of 87%, which reflects how unchallenging it was.  I think that this was mainly due to the fact that only about a third of the course was based on critical thinking.  The other two-thirds of the course were purely repetition and application of the course materials.  There was far more critical thinking and wide reading involved in the undergrad history course.

This was explicitly not the case for my first masters (Economics and Politics).  Is it just the case that people doing business-oriented courses are thickies who just want to be told how to do stuff?  I found it truly disappointing.  Very useful in work, and key to my wage increase last year, but not what I considered Masters-level  

[Nebu]

Coursework-based master's programs exist only to produce revenue for the school granting them.  Any master's degree without a significant experiential component isn't properly training anyone at the graduate level.  They are a disservice to students and corporate/government systems that reward them are only perpetuating the nonsense. 

[Khaldun]

I think i'll have to disagree with you about a masters not cutting it for teaching at a college or university.  If all you want to do is teach, SEVERAL universities/colleges (i.e the Universities of California) hire lecturers, whose only job is to teach and are mostly made up of masters levels degrees. 

If you're talking about hiring people as adjuncts, sure. If all you want to do is be hired as an adjunct lecturer just about anywhere, I'd say skip the master's degrees as well and go get a job as a fry cook at McDonald's because you'll be paid better and get more respect. Lots of unbelievably talented people end up working as adjuncts while hoping that will open up a longer-term contract position, but I don't think anyone sets out deliberately as a career objective to teach as an adjunct. If you look even at longer-term stable teaching contract positions at the UCs (whether the UC tier or the Cal State tier) you'll find most of the faculty in the core curriculum have doctorates. You'll find more master's in certain kinds of professional programs (say, accounting, etc.) so maybe that's what you mean.

[Nebu]

Do we even want to get into the fact that MANY adjunct and lecturer positions are created as spousal hires?  University X wants to attract Dr. Hotshot PhD to their university.  Part of the deal negotiated by said Dr. Hotshot is that they find a position for Dr. Hotshot's significant other.  Hence, a lecturer or adjunct is born. 

Adjunct status is also pretty meaningless.  I can call up a friend at any university and they can make me an adjunct over the phone.  Adjunct status just allows them to use my name in afiliation with their university.  Adjunct is also a lovely way to hire people to do scut work while paying them sub-human wages and often no benefits.

[Khaldun]

Exactly. It's kind of amazing to me how many institutions get away with this on the scale that they do it on without either the paying customers saying "Fuck you, this is ridiculous, I'm being taught by someone who is teaching eight classes at seven institutions and can barely stay awake during their lecture or remember where they are today because that's the only way that person can afford to eat dog food and sleep in a tent" or the people in those jobs saying, "Screw this". Mostly the students don't figure out until it's too late (and don't know that you could do better than a 600-person lecture course taught diffidently by an adjunct and a few teaching assistants) and most adjuncts are just desperately hanging on hoping that they can find a way to get into the regular faculty (either tenure-track or long-term contract). Eventually something's got to give.

[Abagadro]

The job market is getting so tight these days that even CC's are getting inundated with applications from PhD's for teaching positions. It's one of the reasons I went back into practicing law. The job market was just too daunting.

[Selby]

I think that this was mainly due to the fact that only about a third of the course was based on critical thinking.  The other two-thirds of the course were purely repetition and application of the course materials.  There was far more critical thinking and wide reading involved in the undergrad history course.

Which is funny, because it was the opposite at my school.  In undergrad they wanted you to regurgitate knowledge and dates in the histories and humanities and learn how to work math problems.  In graduate level they gave you somewhat more of the same, but threw in open ended projects as well (and didn't tell you how to do it).  They wanted you to figure it out yourself (most of the homework was like that as well).

At my university there wasn't a time I was ever taught by a non-PhD except for my Calc1 class where I think I knew more than the TA who taught it.  They were ALL researchers though, so getting them to take an interest in the classwork was mostly a recipe for disaster.  When you get to the graduate levels and the professors share more about this, it becomes even more obvious.

[Lantyssa]

Out of thirty-ish faculty in the deperatment, we have only one with a masters, and she's been here fifty years.  It's simply not possible to be considered here without a Ph.D.  We phased out the one lecturer we had and he also had a doctorate.  The other science departments are the same.

[Margalis]

So I now live in LA and work for Square Enix Inc.

[Phildo]

Woah!  Congrats.

[JWIV]

Congratulations Margalis!

[Sairon]

So I now live in LA and work for Square Enix Inc.

Programming? 

[Miasma]

You've clearly been working for them the last five years, it's the only thing that explains your glowing praise of FFXI.  You are a very dedicated mole who just got to come out of the cold.

Congrats.

[Sky]

So I now live in LA and work for Square Enix Inc.

Score! 

Even if it is for a japagaming company 

[stray]

Good for you, man 


---

In other news, my career now is "Destitute Bluesman".

[HaemishM]

So I now live in LA and work for Square Enix Inc.

Professional Weeabo.

[Signe]

Congrats for the new job!  Sympathy for having to live in LA to do it.