http://chronicle.com/article/Graduate-School-in-the-Huma/44846

Quote :

"I have found that most prospective graduate students have given little thought to what will happen to them after they complete their doctorates. They assume that everyone finds a decent position somewhere, even if it's "only" at a community college (expressed with a shudder). Besides, the completion of graduate school seems impossibly far away, so their concerns are mostly focused on the present. Their motives are usually some combination of the following: •They are excited by some subject and believe they have a deep, sustainable interest in it. (But ask follow-up questions and you find that it is only deep in relation to their undergraduate peers — not in relation to the kind of serious dedication you need in graduate programs.) •They received high grades and a lot of praise from their professors, and they are not finding similar encouragement outside of an academic environment. They want to return to a context in which they feel validated. •They are emerging from 16 years of institutional living: a clear, step-by-step process of advancement toward a goal, with measured outcomes, constant reinforcement and support, and clearly defined hierarchies. The world outside school seems so unstructured, ambiguous, difficult to navigate, and frightening. •With the prospect of an unappealing, entry-level job on the horizon, life in college becomes increasingly idealized. They think graduate school will continue that romantic experience and enable them to stay in college forever as teacher-scholars. •They can't find a position anywhere that uses the skills on which they most prided themselves in college. They are forced to learn about new things that don't interest them nearly as much. No one is impressed by their knowledge of Jane Austen. There are no mentors to guide and protect them, and they turn to former teachers for help. •They think that graduate school is a good place to hide from the recession. They'll spend a few years studying literature, preferably on a fellowship, and then, if academe doesn't seem appealing or open to them, they will simply look for a job when the market has improved. And, you know, all those baby boomers have to retire someday, and when that happens, there will be jobs available in academe."

Quote :

"As things stand, I can only identify a few circumstances under which one might reasonably consider going to graduate school in the humanities: •You are independently wealthy, and you have no need to earn a living for yourself or provide for anyone else. •You come from that small class of well-connected people in academe who will be able to find a place for you somewhere. •You can rely on a partner to provide all of the income and benefits needed by your household. •You are earning a credential for a position that you already hold — such as a high-school teacher — and your employer is paying for it. Those are the only people who can safely undertake doctoral education in the humanities. Everyone else who does so is taking an enormous personal risk, the full consequences of which they cannot assess because they do not understand how the academic-labor system works and will not listen to people who try to tell them."

There's a lot more to the article, so I would encourage to you to read the entire thing. We all know the motivation of many people graduating from undergraduate and going to graduate school. They may not come out and say it, but they're frightened of having to get a real job. Especially in this economy. The "real job" that you get is probably not going to be an awesome job in your field of study, but that's what happens when you get a 4 year degree in humanities. Many believe that the "economy will recover" in a few years and they'll then be able to find better jobs. For a select few, that may be true. For many others, it will not be true.

I guess it's easy to listen to advisors/professors/parents/peers that tell you going to graduate school is a good idea. That seems to be the consensus. Sometimes, it may be a good idea, but you're going to pay a lot of money to go, and it makes since to evaluate the risks involved. Maybe you can only find a job that pays 25k in the real world, but it's better than paying 30-40k over 2-4 years and then having very little to show for it.

1/6/2010 9:07:06 AM

http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=553730

1/6/2010 9:11:40 AM

Yeah, now I remember that thread. I think my opinion on the subject has changed substantially since I've gotten out of school and started working.

1/6/2010 9:18:47 AM

Quote :

"and it makes since to evaluate the risks involved. "

FAIL

1/6/2010 10:28:00 AM

Damn, finally made a typo. My TWW career is finished.

1/6/2010 11:28:18 AM

IF YOU'D GONE TO GRADUATE SCHOOL IN THE HUMANITIES, YOU WOULD HAVE CAUGHT THAT EGREGIOUS MISTAKE.

Grad school: +2 to forum posting.

1/6/2010 11:33:55 AM

does everything need to "make Financial Sense" or "prepare you for your career" before you do it?


You sound like a monkey being trained to carry out menial tasks in a lonely cubicle for the next 30+ years of your life


Everyone should go to Grad school and the government should pay for it all by taxing only the rich. GRAD SCHOOL RULES!!!

1/6/2010 11:47:55 AM

^If you are in grad school, you must be new to it.

1/6/2010 11:52:27 AM

Quote :

"does everything need to "make Financial Sense" or "prepare you for your career" before you do it? "

For the first, yes, I don't see why that shouldn't be considered in any decision.
For the latter, only when applicable.

1/6/2010 11:55:39 AM

Buying a case of beer doesnt make financial sense

You dont get any real nutrients or vitamins from it, depending on how you consume it, it will likely shorten your life

Why does anyone buy beer?

B/c they enjoy it.



Im not really arguing against most of what has been said in the OP, some people do go to Grad School for all the wrong reasons (b/c its safe, etc), but saying its a bad idea b/c you arent in the work force is wrong. Im mostly railing on the idea that one NEEDS to go directly to undergrad, get a career with said degree ASAP, and begin building your wealth or lack of it.


finances are such a drag

Quote :

"If you are in grad school, you must be new to it. "

its my last semester (hopefully)

1/6/2010 12:16:17 PM

The purpose of beer, to me, is to get drunk. A 24 pack of cheap beer costs around 10-15 dollars. The purpose of graduate school should be to prepare for a career. The cost of graduate school is somewhere around 2.5k to 25k a semester. Of course, most students can't pay this, so they get a loan, meaning the tuition is actually even more expensive. At least the 24 pack of beer serves its purpose. Grad school, a lot of the time, does not, but you're paying a whole lot more.

I'm not suggesting that everyone go directly from undergraduate to a career. I'm saying people should only go to grad school if it's going to help them do what they want to do. It should be an investment that's going to pay off later on. It shouldn't just be "college #2 because I'm scared of the real world." You should not go to grad school "because you enjoy it."

When you say finances are a drag, what you mean is "having to worry about making money and providing for your own survival" is a drag. You're right, but it has always been that way. This idea has been instilled in people that everyone has a right to go to college and screw around, have fun, and not really worry about the financial ramifications. That's an incredibly shortsighted view, and the people that graduate with thousands of dollars in loans but no career prospects are going be exposed to that harsh reality.

[Edited on January 6, 2010 at 12:35 PM. Reason : ]

1/6/2010 12:31:02 PM

Quote :

"Buying a case of beer doesn't make financial sense"

Ahhhh, but it does. Think about how much more expensive the 24 beers would be if you purchased them individually or in 6 packs.

Indirectly, much if not all of what we do is motivated by "making financial sense"

1/6/2010 12:32:17 PM

Elizabeth Kostova, MFA, University of Michigan, and best-selling author of The Historian disagrees, I'm sure. And, yeah, why would the world need anyone to earn advanced degrees in history, literature, the fine arts, and philosophy?[/sarcasm]

1/6/2010 12:37:37 PM

Quote :

"Buying a case of beer doesnt make financial sense"

I have $20 and I could buy a case A of beer that cost $15 or case B that costs $20. If I buy case A I can buy cookout after I finish the beer, but if I buy case B I can't.

1/6/2010 12:41:22 PM

^but you mostly drink shitty beer, so your opinion doesn't count.

1/6/2010 12:42:51 PM

It makes sense to have some of those people. Let's just look at UNC, though. How many philosophy/english/history majors are they pumping out per year? Do you think we really need all those? There are tons of colleges in this country that are primarily liberal arts colleges, and we've got all these people moving into the job market. There isn't a place for these people, because they don't offer anything other than knowledge that

The argument here is not that we don't need humanities majors at all or that humanities are worthless. It's that people are thinking it's going to lead to a great career, and except for a select few, it's not going to.

[Edited on January 6, 2010 at 12:43 PM. Reason : ^^^]

1/6/2010 12:42:57 PM

^ How many advanced degree holders in any discipline do we "need"?

1/6/2010 1:06:42 PM

Why do you ask these questions? We need more people being trained to actually do jobs, build things, design things, or work in professions. We don't need tens of thousands of people graduating every year that understand the dynamics of Ancient Egyption life. It's just not practical. There isn't enough demand for that knowledge. There's plenty of demand for health professionals, engineers, IT professionals.

1/6/2010 2:27:32 PM

Quote :

"• You are independently wealthy, and you have no need to earn a living for yourself or provide for anyone else."

once i get to that point, i'm going to study Anthropology. Desmond Morris is one of my personal heroes.


...just want to point out another exception while i'm here:

one of my bros got a masters in history, then went to OCS, and is now a Major with a Field Artillery MOS. i think he knew he wanted to do that all along. he's a warrior poet.




[Edited on January 6, 2010 at 2:38 PM. Reason : ]

1/6/2010 2:37:58 PM

^^ If you had studied more in your humanities courses, you'd probably recognize the blatant paradox in your statement. It's like saying, "The small town atmosphere here is so great that everyone wants to live here," or, "All Cretans are liars. I am from Crete."

Who do health professionals care for and who do engineers engineer for and who do IT professionals provide their services for? Only others in their respective fields? NO! They ply their trades primarily for everyone else!

And those in the fields of history, literature, the fine arts, and philosophy don't provide anything of value to society? Really?!

And please answer my question:

Quote :

"How many advanced degree holders in any discipline do we 'need'?"

[Edited on January 6, 2010 at 2:53 PM. Reason : FYI: The banker I dealt with the other day is a horticulture grad from State.]

1/6/2010 2:44:30 PM

Quote :

"If you had studied more in your humanities courses, you'd probably realize the blatant paradox in your statement. It's like saying, "The small town atmosphere here is so great everyone wants to live here," or, "All Cretans are liars. I am from Crete.""

Please point out the actual paradox, because I'm not seeing it.

Quote :

"Who do health professionals care for and who do engineers engineer for and who do IT professionals provide their services for? Only others in their respective fields? NO! They ply their trades for everyone else! "

Yes, they provide services that have value. Other people pay for those services. Humanities also have some value. The entire point of what I'm saying is that the market is flooded with these humanities majors. The issue is not that we don't need any humanities experts. The point is that we don't need as many of them. You don't want to face this fact. I don't know why.

Quote :

"And those in the fields of history, literature, the fine arts, and philosophy don't provide anything to society? Really?"

They do provide something to society. That doesn't mean we need as much people wasting 4 years in college to get those degrees, only to get a job out of college that has nothing to do with that. Why not go to college and actually learn how to do something?

Quote :

"How many advanced degree holders in any discipline do we 'need'?"

Are you looking for a number, or what? That's like asking "how many gallons of milk do we 'need'"? I don't know, man. As many as there is demand for. It's very obvious that there is not demand for all the history majors graduating every year, though.

1/6/2010 2:56:00 PM

This article seems to be aimed at people who are trying to become academics and professors and whatnot. Not just people aspiring to those careers, but people aspiring to those careers and thinking they will automatically be well paid, respected, exciting, secure, even glamorous...people who don't realize that those elbow patches are actually functional.

And anybody endeavoring a PhD for those reasons is obviously delusional.

[Edited on January 6, 2010 at 3:07 PM. Reason : ]

1/6/2010 3:06:24 PM

^^ I'll give you a bit more time to find the paradox. I don't give people definitions, either--I hand them a dictionary.

So, you always believe in a market-driven approach to "demand"? Really?

[Edited on January 6, 2010 at 3:08 PM. Reason : ^ LOL--"elbow patches"! An essential part of the academic uniform! ]

1/6/2010 3:07:03 PM

Yeah, I don't see it, and I doubt you do either. Otherwise you would have just pointed it out.

Of course I believe in a market-driven approach. Any other approach is unacceptable. Do you think there isn't a market for labor? That the cost of labor (i.e. the wage level) isn't determined by supply and demand?

[Edited on January 6, 2010 at 3:47 PM. Reason : ]

1/6/2010 3:36:44 PM

^ *Sigh* If everyone or most people or even significantly more people were to become health professionals, engineers, and IT professionals--as you seem to be suggesting--there wouldn't be nearly as much demand for them. And my other points stand.

And here are just a few succesful people who undoubtedly disagree with your premise:

Quote :

"Frankly, being overwhelmed by science is not an unfamiliar concept to me. Yes, I graduated from Stanford and got a degree from MIT, but as you heard, I graduated with a degree in medieval history and philosophy from Stanford, and a degree in business from MIT. I didn’t exactly start life as Linus Pauling, or any of you. And the only reason I am where I am today is because I took the time to listen, and a great many brilliant people took the time to explain. In a way, my life reflects the work of Dr. Roger Sperry, who joined this school as a professor 50 years ago this fall. Dr. Sperry, of course, went on to win a Nobel Prize for the work he did in defining the difference between the left brain and the right brain. Dr. Sperry would likely say that the journey I’ve been on for the past 25 years has been moving from the right side of my brain – the liberal arts side, artistic, holistic, creative – to the left side of my brain, the scientific, logical, rational side."

--Carly Fiorina, former CEO of Hewlett Packard

http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/execteam/speeches/fiorina/caltech04.html

Quote :

"'A liberal arts education provides an opportunity for students to explore a wide range of cultures and social issues, as well to develop specialized knowledge,' says Bernard Kastory, a former senior vice president at Best Foods and a professor of business at Skidmore. 'The breadth of the curriculum fosters broad thinking and creativity. I’ve also found that students from liberal arts colleges bring well-developed communication skills to their jobs.' And, of course, many liberal arts graduates find tremendous success in jobs that seem far afield from their majors. Skidmore graduate Jeff Treuhaft was an arts major who went on to launch and develop Netscape Communications and is now the vice president of an Internet services company. Diana Gilson was a sociology major who wound up as a neonatal physician. I always wanted to be a physician but I chose sociology [as an undergrad] because I thought it would help me relate to my patients,' she says. Peter Wan, a 1995 Skidmore graduate with a double major in biology and music, is now making his mark in the financial sector as an equities trader. 'A solid liberal arts education provided me a foundation of skills, thought processes, and disciplines that I have adapted to my present occupation,' says Wan. 'My education will help me appreciate and tackle the opportunities throughout life.'"

http://tinyurl.com/yctnoxy

[Edited on January 6, 2010 at 4:12 PM. Reason : BTW, do you answer every question with a question or just most of them?]

1/6/2010 4:11:01 PM

Quote :

"^ *Sigh* If everyone or most people or even significantly more people were to become health professionals, engineers, and IT professionals--as you seem to be suggesting--there wouldn't be nearly as much demand for them. And my other points stand."

Wow. Where did I suggest that everyone or even most people should become health professionals/engineers/IT professionals? I said there was plenty of demand for them. There is not plenty of demand for history or philosophy majors. There just isn't. The market is flooded with them.

If "even significantly more people" were to be trained in those professions, yes, demand would go down. That isn't to say that there wouldn't be "nearly as much demand" for them. Those are just examples of professions. My problem is that humanities majors don't teach you how to do a job. They teach you information, valuable information, but they rarely teach you how to join the workforce and perform a service that will be valued by other people. I think, in order for college to be worth the money, it needs to prepare you for a career, or at least prepare you for some kind of professional school that would lead to a career. I realize that not everyone agrees.

This is about graduate school in the humanities. You know, getting your masters or doctorate in humanities. Not getting an undergraduate in sociology, and then going on to professional school to actually learn how to do something.

[Edited on January 6, 2010 at 4:27 PM. Reason : ]

[Edited on January 6, 2010 at 4:53 PM. Reason : ]

1/6/2010 4:26:37 PM

Quote :

"I think, in order for college to be worth the money, it needs to prepare you for a career, or at least prepare you for some kind of professional school that would lead to a career. I realize that not everyone agrees."

The problem with that is that no one is going to go to school to major in Generic Boring Human Resources Job In A Cubicle, despite that there is a market/demand for such things.

There are some jobs that could probably be done by most college students without anything besides a day or two of hands-on job training, but a lot of employers still want a 4-year degree on the resume to prove that the person knows how to follow instructions or do work (and to weed out the high-school only people that likely wouldn't actually be able to do the job well... even if some high-school grads could). There's also the motivation factor: The reasoning is that if someone can drudge through 4 years of stuff that they are sort of interested in, then they can drudge through the boring cube job because they're being paid to do it. The employer shouldn't NEED to ask for a 4-year degree in something, but they're too cautious to take the risk on someone else, which is reasonable... and this non-risk pays off, because there are plenty of unemployed humanities graduates for them to find.

In these cases, as I said, the degree is just a certificate of being able to perform basic tasks and be self-motivated... so a lot of people major in humanities to get that degree just because they think it's more relaxed or easier or they expect they'll enjoy learning it more.

Ideally, of course, these companies would just be able to hire bright people straight out of high school, but that ideal isn't going to happen because it's not something a lot of bright-and-straight-out-of-high-school students want to do. No one wants to admit, at that stage in their life, that they're probably not destined for something greater. And from the employer standpoint, they don't want to risk ending up with some barely-capable person or a slacker who half-assed their way through high school.


Anyway, this thread is primarily about grad school, which is altogether different... despite that it sounds like you're referring to all degrees (including undergrad) with that post.

[Edited on January 6, 2010 at 4:44 PM. Reason : .]

1/6/2010 4:37:36 PM

^^ So, college is simply job training? If that's the case, why do we even need degrees--advanced or otherwise? We could just tack on a couple of extra years of high school vocational training and let employers directly "certify" each person in his or her job in the various disciplines, right?

In the past, employees learned their jobs, well, on the job. It's good to know that you're totally cool with employers off-loading their job-training expenses onto colleges.

^

Quote :

". . .but a lot of employers still want a 4-year degree on the resume to prove that the person knows how to follow instructions or do work. . . ."

Except that a four-year degree doesn't really do this.

[Edited on January 6, 2010 at 4:42 PM. Reason : .]

1/6/2010 4:39:30 PM

Quote :

"Except that a four-year degree doesn't really do this. "

I don't disagree, but that's the general reasoning behind that sort of hiring process.

1/6/2010 4:45:07 PM

^^^^ I agree with his argument.





[Edited on January 6, 2010 at 4:47 PM. Reason : k]

1/6/2010 4:47:09 PM

Quote :

"So, college is simply job training? If that's the case, why do we even need degrees--advanced or otherwise? We could just tack on a couple of extra years of high school vocational training and let employers directly "certify" each person in his or her job in the various disciplines, right?"

Basically, yes, this is what it should be for most people. I have no problem with there being universities that really do just teach you to be a "scholar" of sorts. We need some people like that. I just don't think we need to be pumping out those degrees. Most people are better served through vocational training, or certification programs, or whatever. It doesn't take 4 years to learn how to do a job. 4 year degrees are so bloated with useless classes and general education requirements that have nothing to do with the field of study.

1/6/2010 4:52:32 PM

Quote :

"I have no problem with there being universities that really do just teach you to be a 'scholar' of sorts. We need some people like that."

How many "people like that" do we "need"? And I realize that this forum isn't a term paper, but it should be "four-year degrees"--not "4 year degrees." They teach you that in the humanities.

1/6/2010 5:01:09 PM

Quote :

"d357r0y3r: I guess it's easy to listen to advisors/professors/parents/peers that tell you going to graduate school is a good idea. That seems to be the consensus. Sometimes, it may be a good idea, but you're going to pay a lot of money to go, and it makes since to evaluate the risks involved. Maybe you can only find a job that pays 25k in the real world, but it's better than paying 30-40k over 2-4 years and then having very little to show for it."

I think you're underestimating the value of an advanced degree, overestimating the value of work experience at a 25k/year job, and overestimating the burden of student loans.

Student loans make up some of the cheapest money you can get. If you're unemployed and really cant pay them, they'll give you a forbearance. There's no reason to forgo education because the loans are too daunting.

A 25k/year job is enough to live on, but will it really advance your career? The author said he was selling health club memberships part-time in 1990 since the economy was bad. One of the best paying jobs I've heard about recently is 14 bucks/hour making cold calls for Time Warner and trying to get people to bundle their services. Would you really recommend people telemarket for a couple years to pay the bills while they wait for their careers to open back up and begin hiring? Instead of going back to school?

The author of the article may have had a tougher time than he imagined he would, but he's now an associate professor in English who writes articles and shit.

1/6/2010 5:02:52 PM

^^^While that would be the ideal... it's an ideal, and thus relies on certain conditions that simply aren't true.

It can't happen because people enjoy fooling themselves. Most kids just out of HS and going to a college are going to say "fuck no, I'm better than that" when offered the tedious desk job... even if they end up going to that same job after getting out of school with a largely meaningless or unspecialized degree. These same people are staying in grad school because they still think they're better than that boring desk/cube job (and to be fair, many of them are... but someone has to do the work), and hope that a grad school degree will let them escape that group of jobs that simply as for a 4-year unspecialized humanities degree.

We send people to college before they really know what they want to do with their lives or even have a realistic sense of what is available to them. It's no surprise that people get stuck in dead-ends after four years and then decide to continue school hoping that it'll unlock more opportunities.

For your system to be applied in our world, you'd need some sort of overseers to analyze a person's capabilities and place them into a learning/career path to that end. Whoever runs the system would quite literally be telling people what they will do for the rest of their lives... and at that point, you're resembling communist China.

[Edited on January 6, 2010 at 5:08 PM. Reason : .]

1/6/2010 5:08:00 PM

Quote :

"Would you really recommend people telemarket for a couple years to pay the bills while they wait for their careers to open back up and begin hiring? Instead of going back to school?"

Depends if there's any actual benefit to going back to school. $14/hr is better than any tuition bill if that tuition bill doesn't result in a raise when your career resumes.

1/6/2010 5:10:41 PM

i agree with the main idea of this thread. i was once considering graduate school in the area of political science only to realize i was just hoping to prolong becoming a part of the "real world". more recently i considered getting a master's in education, mostly because "everyone else is doing it." once i found out how much $$ private therapists are able to make i've definitely reconsidered that and i'm half-heartedly looking into occupational/behavioral/physical therapy programs now.

Quote :

"Most people are better served through vocational training, or certification programs, or whatever. It doesn't take 4 years to learn how to do a job. 4 year degrees are so bloated with useless classes and general education requirements that have nothing to do with the field of study. "

also agreed. my 4-year degree is pretty much useless as anyone and everyone can get one.

[Edited on January 6, 2010 at 5:41 PM. Reason : ]

1/6/2010 5:39:56 PM

I think people should always pursue advanced degrees when they genuinely have passion for the subject. If that subject is in the humanities, more power to them. If they are pursuing the degree simply because they are lost in regards to their life direction, that isn't always the wisest financial decision to make, and yet a lot of people are oblivious to that. The question is not whether or not it is better to have more degrees than less, that is a red herring. Instead, IMO the question should be in regards to the timing and motive of the decision to get a Masters or PhD. In other words... not if, but when, and what?

[Edited on January 6, 2010 at 6:57 PM. Reason : -]

1/6/2010 6:56:06 PM

I still like to think of college as a place for privileged, middle/upper-class children to better themselves as people (and show their employers that they are conditioned to work tirelessly at menial tasks).

My outlook on life has changed even from the few humanities I was required to take.

Graduate school in the ECE dept. seems to be necessary for people who want to go onto R&D side of things, nowadays.

1/6/2010 8:50:26 PM

Since philosophy has gotten a bad wrap in this thread so far & it was my undergraduate degree, I'll just add that I know a number of law students who got there start in philosophy. NCSU offers a philosophy degree with a law concentration.

After undergrad I worked full time for 3 years, and now I'm back at NCSU getting a Masters in Public Administration (gov & non-profit type work). I don't expect to get a dream job right out of grad school, but I think the public sector is doing well enough that I will have a job in my field within the same year that I graduate. And that is with my undergrad & grad school experiences both happening within the humanities. But if all else fails, I'm confident I can always get my old job back at the vet clinic.

My husband on the other hand is studying Classics (ancient greek & latin languages), and between scholarships, teaching a few classes, and the like his graduate education isn't costing him anything, and its given him the chance to travel all over Europe, especially around Rome, all over the US for conferences (he's in California for the week right now where the temp is mid 70's & sunny all week), & may be spending next summer in Greece.

I guess all this is to say that, while college educations are about more than vocational job training, if you're smart about it you can get jobs studying what you love. Do your research first obviously, but don't not pursue your passion because an online article is down on the humanities and said your field of study isn't sciencey enough.

[Edited on January 6, 2010 at 9:14 PM. Reason : .]

1/6/2010 9:12:36 PM

I'm a bit confused on what the main argument this individual is making. Going to graduate school for humanities is bad, because it places a debt on somebody who is unlikely to find a job to pay off the debt? I don't buy that argument.

I do agree with the other point of "considering post doctoral life". However, I don't believe that argument is limited to humanities.

1/6/2010 9:47:28 PM

Quote :

"if you're smart about it you can get jobs studying what you love. Do your research first obviously"

Agreed. The premise of the article would be better directed at people who have earned a master's degree in the humanities and are trying to decide their next step. Sure, the market is flooded with PhDs, but a year and a half spent earning a master's degree in the humanities often directs students into other, more "practical" fields of study like law or business.

For the author to target prospective grad students and highlight their misconceptions is a bit unfair; aside from those students whose parents are professors, very few incoming humanities grad students fully know what they're getting themselves into. Spending a year and a half testing the waters in a field of one's interest while earning a master's is time well spent, even if one is just "naively" following his or her instincts rather than charting a career path.

1/6/2010 10:16:09 PM

Quote :

"As things stand, I can only identify a few circumstances under which one might reasonably consider going to graduate school in the humanities: •You are independently wealthy, and you have no need to earn a living for yourself or provide for anyone else. •You come from that small class of well-connected people in academe who will be able to find a place for you somewhere. •You can rely on a partner to provide all of the income and benefits needed by your household. •You are earning a credential for a position that you already hold — such as a high-school teacher — and your employer is paying for it. Those are the only people who can safely undertake doctoral education in the humanities. Everyone else who does so is taking an enormous personal risk, the full consequences of which they cannot assess because they do not understand how the academic-labor system works and will not listen to people who try to tell them."

This is spot on. And for those who are older, you can also add that if grad school in the humanities comes at the expense of family time, then it's an even bigger waste.

1/6/2010 11:25:38 PM

Quote :

"Thomas H. Benton is the pen name of William Pannapacker, an associate professor of English"

What is the point of writing under a pen name & then immediately identifying yourself?

1/7/2010 12:40:05 AM

Shannon Vickery, MA (emphasis in Health Policy), Duke University
Host and director of productions, UNC-TV

1/7/2010 7:13:32 AM