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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

At a slac with 1800 students and few professors, how well does that work?

[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.

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).

You absolutely need PhDs who are trained and whose jobs are to produce knowledge. You can't just teach old stuff without of how our changing world affects our understanding and application of those texts and ideas. I agree that you don't need as many PhDs as are being churned out right now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

At a slac with 1800 students and few professors, how well does that work?

Not well, at least at my kids’ SLAC. They have tons of courses that professors insist on teaching and that students have zero interest in. Kids end up in those awful classes because there is a shortage of the classes that kids actually care about, and kids need to register for something. So, the end up in useless classes taught by some professor who insists on teaching their vanity subject matter. The school is bleeding kids via transfer at a high rate

And sorry, I think calling this ageism is nonsense. I work in tech, and I’m in my late 50s. Companies refusing to read my job application because of my age is ageism. If they were to not hire me because I insisted on working in some 30 year old obsolete technology, that’s not ageism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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).

You absolutely need PhDs who are trained and whose jobs are to produce knowledge. You can't just teach old stuff without of how our changing world affects our understanding and application of those texts and ideas. I agree that you don't need as many PhDs as are being churned out right now.

You do not need hundreds of new English literature PhDs expanding their research into ever narrower topics that haven't really changed in decades. The vast majority of PhD theses contribute nothing and are never read following their defense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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).

You absolutely need PhDs who are trained and whose jobs are to produce knowledge. You can't just teach old stuff without of how our changing world affects our understanding and application of those texts and ideas. I agree that you don't need as many PhDs as are being churned out right now.

You do not need hundreds of new English literature PhDs expanding their research into ever narrower topics that haven't really changed in decades. The vast majority of PhD theses contribute nothing and are never read following their defense.

Why pick on English literature? The original topic was political science.

[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.

What you call "revisionist history" some call teaching the truth. Sorry that bugs you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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).

You absolutely need PhDs who are trained and whose jobs are to produce knowledge. You can't just teach old stuff without of how our changing world affects our understanding and application of those texts and ideas. I agree that you don't need as many PhDs as are being churned out right now.

You do not need hundreds of new English literature PhDs expanding their research into ever narrower topics that haven't really changed in decades. The vast majority of PhD theses contribute nothing and are never read following their defense.

Why pick on English literature? The original topic was political science.

Fine, political science. Can you explain the great advances that last years crop of poly sci PhDs added the the corpus of knowledge?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So dumb.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So dumb.

You were not defrauded. I’m sorry you regret your choice but this is silly.