Think of it as capitalism in action.
At least it's a step up from "do you want fries with that?"
At least it's a step up from "do you want fries with that?"
Basically, don't go to grad school unless you have a plan to do something other than becoming college faculty with it. And don't take adjunct jobs unless you're doing it for fun as a side gig.
Also, this crazy idea comes from talking to all these fine young people who want my letter of recommendation for graduate school. In pure math, there is not much point in going to grad school unless you're at least considering being a tenure-track academic. No one aspires to be an adjunct, you can get a job making real money out of college, and so unless you just think math is so fun that you want to do 7 years of grad school and then get a job, you are thinking of being a prof.
Other fields are certainly different.... but why get a PhD in art history if you don't want to be an academic?
And you can apply an art history PhD in museums, galleries, national collections, etc etc.
There are a few big names who make a lot of money, but on average someone with a PhD and x years of experience will be paid less than someone with a masters and x+3 years of experience, AIUI.
> And you can apply an art history PhD in museums, galleries, national collections, etc etc.
Sure, there are a few options, but how many of those jobs are there per PhD?
You could be an actor, a soldier, an astronaut, a school teacher, a barista, a politician... whatever you want.
Most jobs, including many ones that pay excellently such as banking, don't care what degree you have, and many will value the diversity that different degrees bring.
Sure - but as the article says, why would you go for a history of art PhD unless you were looking to become an art academic (or you just loved the subject enough to spend 3 years doing it for no other benefit)?
I mean, the high competition for adjunct positions seems to be evidence that many post-graduate students want to teach the subject matter that they've learned.
Universities are capitalist entities. They are trying to compete and appreciate in value for their shareholders. The market has replaced whatever value systems justified universities in the past.
Also, aren't most or at least a great many of the most famous universities non-profits, competing for donations instead of trying to maximize shareholder value? I hear that in for-profit education, the average student is treated better and so is the average lecturer (you want to please your students whose money feeds you and you want to attract lecturers whose primary motivation is financial and who're good enough to please your students, so the for-profit institution kinda has to treat both well to survive.) Somebody living off donations, on the other hand, only has to please people donating the money (and someone living off taxes only has to please government officials), while pleasing either students or the teaching staff is no longer essential.
(I don't have firm or specific opinions on how higher education should be run, in general, just commenting on your points.)
Debasement at the non-profits and state institutions is running them to the benefit of the administrators, buildings, athletic departments, and even endowments (i.e. alumni development) at the expense of the educational experience. None of that is germane to education. Profit or non-profit doesn't matter.
Debasement at state institutions is also legislatures and governors slashing budgets so they can cut taxes to the detriment of the entire institution and students. The administrators and athletic depts can and do lobby effectively but generally faculty and students have little voice in state gov't.
All of these tend to make the experience of students and faculty members worse than it might be otherwise. So yes, the oversupply of prospective faculty plays a role but it's only one of the drivers. There are close analogs in the exploitation of post doc researchers and let's face it student athletes.
this eerily sounds similar to the kind of logic i was rejecting. this is an appeal to the logic of markets and the assumption that they are efficient to derive truth. this is exactly neoliberalism. at least in old school liberalism we could acknowledge markets' shortcomings via externalities and the idea of market failure! Otherwise i think the sibling comment is a good response.
Instead, your comment in particular rejects what I said because it's "neoliberalism." All I said was that employers will tend to give you shit as long as you take it, be it for-profits, non-profits, government or individuals. I don't think that's quite the same as denying externalities or market failure or generally arguing about neoliberalism and other abstract concepts at a great distance from the issue at hand.
In concrete terms, I believe the someone quitting a bad job or not taking it in the first place is better off than someone who does take it and then broods about the debasement brought about by neoliberalism or whatever the supposed root cause of their condition is. In other words, my angle is more productive than yours as a basis for action.