Indiana University political science placement director writes scorched earth letter to PhD students

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'd posit that a lot of the problems we have in the world today stems from de-emphasizing the liberal arts over the past generation or two. I don't think you should waste time and money getting a PhD in the subjects. But a better background in things like history, philosophy, logic, rhetoric, poetry, music, and art would create more capable citizens.

Things aren't going to end well if we're nothing but a country full of computer programmers, finance majors, plumbers, and high school dropouts.

Who do you think is going to teach our citizens the liberal arts?! You need a cadre of professors who teach and are knowledge creators in the humanities and social sciences. You don't need nearly as many PhDs as are available now--and I do think that mandatory retirement for faculty is a good idea--but, as a country we need intellectual leaders.
I do agree that the de-emphasis on the liberal arts is coming to its logical head with the mass appeal of people like Donald Trump, the popularity of Qanon, and anti-vaxxer. Too many citizens lack the ability to read, discern fact from fiction, and make reasonable judgments about governance and public policy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of people make bad decisions. Our child was a serious musician but basically decided that she would apply only to top 10 conservatories and if she was not accepted then she would not pursue music. It's like saying law school is a waste of time if you can't get into a top law school. People do this all the time. Anyone who goes to a nonranked PhD program or even worse self-funds that PhD program has only themselves to blame. If you're not good enough to get a full ride at a top program then you're not actually good enough to be a professor. It's like being a mediocre athlete and wanting to play pro ball.

Reminds me of some friends' kids who are picking D-3 colleges because they can play sports there. I keep it to myself, but my thought is that they should just pick a college that's better academically and have fun playing intramural sports.

Tons of highly ranked schools are D3. MIT is one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of people make bad decisions. Our child was a serious musician but basically decided that she would apply only to top 10 conservatories and if she was not accepted then she would not pursue music. It's like saying law school is a waste of time if you can't get into a top law school. People do this all the time. Anyone who goes to a nonranked PhD program or even worse self-funds that PhD program has only themselves to blame. If you're not good enough to get a full ride at a top program then you're not actually good enough to be a professor. It's like being a mediocre athlete and wanting to play pro ball.

Reminds me of some friends' kids who are picking D-3 colleges because they can play sports there. I keep it to myself, but my thought is that they should just pick a college that's better academically and have fun playing intramural sports.

Tons of highly ranked schools are D3. MIT is one.

And even if they go to a less selective college, so what? Nothing wrong with balance. Turning down Harvard to play sports at North Central is not the decision they’re making.

[Anonymous]

One issue is professors (regardless of age) needing to adjust to current demands and interests. Looking, for example, at the faculty profiles at one slac my kid is interested in, I’m seeing bios that haven’t changed much in decades. Professors who still specialize in areas that were last super hot in the late 80s. As families consider the extraordinary costs of undergrad, they want offerings in poli sci that include, say, more quantitative skills. For smaller schools in particular, that might require increased use of adjuncts to meet those demands while they wait for their tenured professors to step up or move on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'd posit that a lot of the problems we have in the world today stems from de-emphasizing the liberal arts over the past generation or two. I don't think you should waste time and money getting a PhD in the subjects. But a better background in things like history, philosophy, logic, rhetoric, poetry, music, and art would create more capable citizens.

Things aren't going to end well if we're nothing but a country full of computer programmers, finance majors, plumbers, and high school dropouts.

Have you look at the state of the humanities and social sciences today? The discourse has jumped the shark. It consists of activist professors teaching revisionist history, obsessed with blindly overturning every norm of social behavior, advocating for nakedly discriminatory practices at the institutional and governmental level, and weirdly obsessed with gender and sexuality.

There's a stark difference between the social atmosphere on campus at a liberal arts school and the real world. However now over the past 5-10 years, these student-zealots have entered the workforce and politics and are enforcing their new world order onto the rest of society.

The problem isn't a de-emphasis in liberal arts. A college education was rare to begin with, let alone one focused on the liberal arts. The problem is that the humanities and social sciences education today is garbage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd posit that a lot of the problems we have in the world today stems from de-emphasizing the liberal arts over the past generation or two. I don't think you should waste time and money getting a PhD in the subjects. But a better background in things like history, philosophy, logic, rhetoric, poetry, music, and art would create more capable citizens.

Things aren't going to end well if we're nothing but a country full of computer programmers, finance majors, plumbers, and high school dropouts.

Have you look at the state of the humanities and social sciences today? The discourse has jumped the shark. It consists of activist professors teaching revisionist history, obsessed with blindly overturning every norm of social behavior, advocating for nakedly discriminatory practices at the institutional and governmental level, and weirdly obsessed with gender and sexuality.

There's a stark difference between the social atmosphere on campus at a liberal arts school and the real world. However now over the past 5-10 years, these student-zealots have entered the workforce and politics and are enforcing their new world order onto the rest of society.

The problem isn't a de-emphasis in liberal arts. A college education was rare to begin with, let alone one focused on the liberal arts. The problem is that the humanities and social sciences education today is garbage.

+1 This is very true, unfortunately.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd posit that a lot of the problems we have in the world today stems from de-emphasizing the liberal arts over the past generation or two. I don't think you should waste time and money getting a PhD in the subjects. But a better background in things like history, philosophy, logic, rhetoric, poetry, music, and art would create more capable citizens.

Things aren't going to end well if we're nothing but a country full of computer programmers, finance majors, plumbers, and high school dropouts.

Have you look at the state of the humanities and social sciences today? The discourse has jumped the shark. It consists of activist professors teaching revisionist history, obsessed with blindly overturning every norm of social behavior, advocating for nakedly discriminatory practices at the institutional and governmental level, and weirdly obsessed with gender and sexuality.

There's a stark difference between the social atmosphere on campus at a liberal arts school and the real world. However now over the past 5-10 years, these student-zealots have entered the workforce and politics and are enforcing their new world order onto the rest of society.

The problem isn't a de-emphasis in liberal arts. A college education was rare to begin with, let alone one focused on the liberal arts. The problem is that the humanities and social sciences education today is garbage.

+1

Well said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Higher Ed is not what it used to be and it’s in part because so many people no longer value education.”

It is mostly because universities are immorally overproducing PhDs, knowing they will never get professorships, because grad students are a great source of revenue.

So PhD students are victims? They’re old enough and smart enough to make thoughtful, responsible decisions. Some people love to learn. Not everyone is driven by financial ROI. Mocking their career outcome is pathetic. I’d be thrilled to learn my kids have such educated and accomplished teachers in high school. Especially if they chose to work with teenagers.

Potential PhD students need to ask the right questions, and so many of them are poorly advised. They might be told about how wonderful their star students are and how they land prestigious fellowships and jobs, but unless asked, PhD programs will not say how many students don't land tenure-track jobs, how many drop out, and how many never finish their PhDs. You can't make thoughtful, responsible decisions unless you have all the information you need. There are many, many 21 year olds who are still too young and uninformed about the reality of the academic job market when they apply to these graduate programs. They are smart, but not savvy consumers.

This is exactly right. They tell you “yes the job market stinks but YOU are special and different, you will surely land a TT job, don’t worry about it.”

Someone here is bitter. I’m sorry a professor stroked your ego but that’s not typical at all. They’re generally pretty letdown by students today. So maybe you really are special and they gave well-meaning but bad advice because they are happy to meet a student who is intellectually curious. Ultimately, it was your decision and maybe you were too optimistic about the field. Colleges are hiring adjuncts over professors to save money. The US no longer respects education and intellectual pursuits. It’s a shame.

Is it the same idiot in this thread who keeps saying "you sound bitter" or is there a whole crowd of idiots who say that? Why do you feel this idiotic need to project an imaginary emotional state onto other people?

It is absolutely the case that professors are still misleading students today about the prospects of academic employment.

You have no way of knowing how many professors mislead students. But you do sound angry about it. So it seems personal.

You just can't stop being dumb, can you?

No doubt you'd tell a victim of fraud that their descriptions of how they got swindled were just motivated by bitter personal feelings and are therefore invalid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:At least with law, you can make money on your own, if nothing else. Passing the Bar allows you to "practice law," job or no job, if you can get clients. Not the same with a PhD in political science.

I earned a MA at no cost and received a stipend. Went to law school at what DCUM would call a "lower tier" law school and did not pay a ton for that, either. I guess you could say that I lost 5 earning years, but not sure how much I realistically would have earned with just an undergrad degree.

You can "practice history" without being an academic or indeed without even having a PhD in history. Most of the best history in recent decades is written by non-academics, not least because they don't have to cater to the latest tedious academic fads. Writing that history won't be your day job, though.

I have a PhD but my coworkers just have MAs and no doubt I could have gotten by with just an MA. One of my coworkers quit in order to get a PhD, and what a mistake that was. Six years of lost income, and no academic job at the end of it. I tried to warn him but he wouldn't listen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd posit that a lot of the problems we have in the world today stems from de-emphasizing the liberal arts over the past generation or two. I don't think you should waste time and money getting a PhD in the subjects. But a better background in things like history, philosophy, logic, rhetoric, poetry, music, and art would create more capable citizens.

Things aren't going to end well if we're nothing but a country full of computer programmers, finance majors, plumbers, and high school dropouts.

Have you look at the state of the humanities and social sciences today? The discourse has jumped the shark. It consists of activist professors teaching revisionist history, obsessed with blindly overturning every norm of social behavior, advocating for nakedly discriminatory practices at the institutional and governmental level, and weirdly obsessed with gender and sexuality.

There's a stark difference between the social atmosphere on campus at a liberal arts school and the real world. However now over the past 5-10 years, these student-zealots have entered the workforce and politics and are enforcing their new world order onto the rest of society.

The problem isn't a de-emphasis in liberal arts. A college education was rare to begin with, let alone one focused on the liberal arts. The problem is that the humanities and social sciences education today is garbage.

That what happens when every newly minted PhD has to have a thesis based on new and original research. There are not thousands of new worthwhile areas of inquary in the humanities every year

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'd posit that a lot of the problems we have in the world today stems from de-emphasizing the liberal arts over the past generation or two. I don't think you should waste time and money getting a PhD in the subjects. But a better background in things like history, philosophy, logic, rhetoric, poetry, music, and art would create more capable citizens.

Things aren't going to end well if we're nothing but a country full of computer programmers, finance majors, plumbers, and high school dropouts.

Better background in those areas is good, I agree. But they don't need a PhD. We could just teach it to all undergrads as part of required courses (like it was at at my university).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'd posit that a lot of the problems we have in the world today stems from de-emphasizing the liberal arts over the past generation or two. I don't think you should waste time and money getting a PhD in the subjects. But a better background in things like history, philosophy, logic, rhetoric, poetry, music, and art would create more capable citizens.

Things aren't going to end well if we're nothing but a country full of computer programmers, finance majors, plumbers, and high school dropouts.

Pretty much every university has a liberal arts requirement even for STEM majors. If that's not getting the job done then those courses aren't being taught properly.

[Anonymous]

I was at an academic conference recently and the most popular talks were about how to get a job in "industry" since everyone realized the job market in universities isn't great. Your mid-size department produces 5-10 PhD's/year, but how many jobs are they creating for them? The department may have 1 retirement, 1 attrition, and 1 new position in a typical year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:One issue is professors (regardless of age) needing to adjust to current demands and interests. Looking, for example, at the faculty profiles at one slac my kid is interested in, I’m seeing bios that haven’t changed much in decades. Professors who still specialize in areas that were last super hot in the late 80s. As families consider the extraordinary costs of undergrad, they want offerings in poli sci that include, say, more quantitative skills. For smaller schools in particular, that might require increased use of adjuncts to meet those demands while they wait for their tenured professors to step up or move on.

More ageism. Those changes are made in the required courses for the degree. It’s not necessary for every professor to teach it and they all have specialities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Higher Ed is not what it used to be and it’s in part because so many people no longer value education.”

It is mostly because universities are immorally overproducing PhDs, knowing they will never get professorships, because grad students are a great source of revenue.

So PhD students are victims? They’re old enough and smart enough to make thoughtful, responsible decisions. Some people love to learn. Not everyone is driven by financial ROI. Mocking their career outcome is pathetic. I’d be thrilled to learn my kids have such educated and accomplished teachers in high school. Especially if they chose to work with teenagers.

Potential PhD students need to ask the right questions, and so many of them are poorly advised. They might be told about how wonderful their star students are and how they land prestigious fellowships and jobs, but unless asked, PhD programs will not say how many students don't land tenure-track jobs, how many drop out, and how many never finish their PhDs. You can't make thoughtful, responsible decisions unless you have all the information you need. There are many, many 21 year olds who are still too young and uninformed about the reality of the academic job market when they apply to these graduate programs. They are smart, but not savvy consumers.

This is exactly right. They tell you “yes the job market stinks but YOU are special and different, you will surely land a TT job, don’t worry about it.”

Someone here is bitter. I’m sorry a professor stroked your ego but that’s not typical at all. They’re generally pretty letdown by students today. So maybe you really are special and they gave well-meaning but bad advice because they are happy to meet a student who is intellectually curious. Ultimately, it was your decision and maybe you were too optimistic about the field. Colleges are hiring adjuncts over professors to save money. The US no longer respects education and intellectual pursuits. It’s a shame.

Is it the same idiot in this thread who keeps saying "you sound bitter" or is there a whole crowd of idiots who say that? Why do you feel this idiotic need to project an imaginary emotional state onto other people?

It is absolutely the case that professors are still misleading students today about the prospects of academic employment.

You have no way of knowing how many professors mislead students. But you do sound angry about it. So it seems personal.

You just can't stop being dumb, can you?

No doubt you'd tell a victim of fraud that their descriptions of how they got swindled were just motivated by bitter personal feelings and are therefore invalid.

So angry.