The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersGene Expression Blog
Pursuing the Life of the Mind
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Over at Slate there is a piece out which is being shared on Facebook a fair amount, Thesis Hatement: Getting a literature Ph.D. will turn you into an emotional trainwreck, not a professor. As a contrast I think it is useful to read this other piece in Slate, Is a Science Ph.D. a Waste of Time? Don’t feel too sorry for graduate students. It’s worth it. But I want to focus on one aspect of the Slate rant:

Well, what if I told you that by “five hours” I mean “80 hours,” and by “summers off” I mean “two months of unpaid research sequestration and curriculum planning”? What if you’ll never have time to read books, and when you talk about them, you’ll mostly be using made-up words like “deterritorialization” and “Othering”—because, as Ron Rosenbaum pointed out recently, the “dusty seminar rooms” of academia have the chief aim of theorizing every great book to death? And I can’t even tell you what kind of ass you have to kiss these days to get tenure—largely because, like most professors, I’m not on the tenure track, so I don’t know.

Unlike professional degrees Ph.D. programs aren’t necessarily there to teach you practical skills. But, if you get a Ph.D. in the natural sciences usually you do gain skills which can position you for a job in “industry” (the term within academia for what everyone else considers a normal job at a private corporation or firm). Learning complex mathematics, programming, or laboratory skills transcend academic signalling (I think math and programming are probably the most helpful, as many laboratory techniques are being commodified and automated). They’re actually necessary for the project of understanding the world. The same factor of secondary returns to skills gained is at work in fields like economics where the notional topic at hand is also the exterior world. Though I think excessive formal mathematical modeling within economics is in large part signalling (i.e., it exists to a great extent not because it is necessary for the modeling, but to indicate the modeler’s intellectual credentials to their peers), it turns out that mathematical skills are very useful in a general sense at decomposing the world around us. By analogy, there are individuals who work on their physical appearance and health for the purposes of gaining the attraction of others. But a fit physique is useful for other reasons.

I believe part of the specific rage of humanities doctorate holders is that their current skills gained receive little validation outside of academia. The empire of Theory within humanities strikes many as totally irrelevant to the world outside of humanity’s departments, and perhaps even detrimental to the project of edifying and appreciating literature and the arts. Combine this with the reality that humanity’s Ph.D.’s tend to take longer to finish and accrue more debt, and you have a very combustible mixture in the hands of individual’s whose cognitive gifts are such that they perceive themselves to be part of the cultural elite.

My own bottom line in regard to Ph.D.s is that people need to not get caught in the sunk cost fallacy, and they need to be there for the “right reasons.” If you’re taking ten years then something has gone very wrong. If you aren’t interested in the classes that you are getting paid to take, and aren’t passionate about the research you’re doing, than something has gone very wrong. If you can’t handle the reality that academia is rife with politics, back-stabbing, and an operational Social Darwinism due to finite funds, then obviously it isn’t for you. Real jobs in the real world have many of the same issues, but are not burdened with the same idealistic presumptions. The academic pipeline is a difficult and brutal sieve. But we shouldn’t get melodramatic, we’re not gladiators, death is not the other option. Nor are we 58 year old factory workers. If the working and laboring classes were more verbally articulate we’d be hearing a lot more about them. As it is they wither and suffer in silence, unless a journalist takes an interest in them and speaks up for them.

(Republished from Discover/GNXP by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Science • Tags: Academia, Culture 
Hide 4 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Although, since the advent of the internet the working and laboring classes are becoming more articulate. Text speak notwithstanding.

  2. I realize personal anecdote isn’t the best way to look at these situations, but I do wonder how much my own family’s background is common for aspiring or failed academics in the humanities and social sciences.

    My mother was getting a PHD in English, and decided after getting her MA to leave because she hated the internal politics of academia. She ended up doing quite well for herself in the real world, but hated many aspects of her job – both that it wasn’t something she was interested in, as well as something that she had some moral qualms about. She told my brother and I growing up specifically not to follow in her footsteps. Don’t try and find a career, don’t worry about making money, just do what makes you happy.

    My brother eventually got a PHD in English, and has been floating in non-tenure academic positions ever since. He has a shot at tenure with his new lecturer position if things go right, but like many humanities PHDs, he is very cynical about academia now.

    I was tempted at several points to go into academia, but decided against. My real passion has always been in the sciences, and I always wish I went into paleontology, but I felt I lacked the strong math skills needed for the sciences. Later I considered getting a PHD in political theory, and a year after getting my MA I considered getting a PHD in history, even getting accepted with full funding just after I accepted my current job.

    Still, I can’t help but wonder how many people who are aspiring or failed academics come from similar backgrounds as me. Certainly the high-proportion of people from social groups which have attained status already in the U.S. (e.g., a lot of whites, not many Asians), in non-practical fields suggests that being part of the first generation in your family to grow up without pressures of monetary advancement is key.

  3. Wow, and I thought *I* was bitter about my grad school experience. She takes it to a whole ‘nother level.

    It does raise a question for me. Is it really possible to get a position at a rural/exurban community college in flyover country? I always see that mentioned, but have yet to meet anyone whoever did that. Is it some sort of myth?

  4. Plenty of people are talking about the problems of the working class and changing the system, but little is being done to make politicians more accountable or make votes count more than lobbyist payoffs.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Razib Khan Comments via RSS