For those considering a PhD or career in academia...

Interesting article:

http://money.cnn.com/2005/08/15/pf/training_pay/index.htm?cnn=yes

Big jobs that pay badly

 

Oh, terrific. Just what higher education needs: Pissed-off profs.

It's a Catch-22 of you think about it: Non-profit academia can't pay much, and for-profit academia won't. In either case that might mean that only those who have trouble being employed in higher paying positions would apply for the teaching positions (the old "those who can, do; and those can't teach" thing). So, to keep away the riff-raff, the institutions raise the qualifications bar so that only those who are so good that they can easily earn more money elsewhere qualify.

The downside of this should be obvious. The upside, however, might be that only those who truly love teaching and, therefore, will happily take less money to do what they love, end-up doing so. And I think we can all agree that the best profs are not only those who know their craft, but love it, too.

 

Yes, post-docs are usually designed to pad one's CV to get into a more prestigeous institution at the tenure track, so they pay little and are probably quite hard work.

I don't believe any one pursuing a distance or non traditional degree has any use for a post-doc. For the record, my research indicates that people from all kinds of programs get into teaching jobs. None of us here will likely go into an R1 type school and that's just the way I like it.

I started a Ph.D at an R1 and it was too political for me, thanks.

I hope noone is discouraged by this article. Good read, though thanks to the poster.

 

I disagree with this. If one has a PhD from a virtual school with very little prestige, I would think that having a post doc from a prestigious place would make up for the lack of a traditional degree when applying to faculty positions. I would think that less questions would be asked if you have a post doc from a top ten university even if your doctorate is non traditional.

At the end, employers normally look at the last level of education. The only problem is that not all Universtities grant an official certificate for post docs. Some just considered it as a job and not really as graduate work.

 

This sounds great in theory, but what are the odds of getting a post doc at a top-ten (read: Ivy league or equivalent) school with an online PhD from the University of Phoenix or North Central? The competition for top post docs can be fierce, as everyone wants to pad that CV with research and publishing obtained at a prestige school for the post-doc.

Picture a tenured prof at say, the University of Chicago, reviewing post doc apps: here's one from a student with a UC Berkeley PhD, this one's from Harvard, that one's from the U of Michigan, and this one over here, Capella.

Please tell me, what are the odds of our non-traditional applicant not being laughed right out past the ivy-covered walls and thrown through the hallowed gates?

Be honest.

 

little fauss knows more about this than I ever will, but wouldn't the decision which post-doc applicant to hire depend to some degree on the congruence (if any) between the applicant's dissertation and the hiring department's research subjects?

 

It depends almost entirely on that congruence. It is also true that where there is no congruence, or when they believe they have no suitable (read: qualified) candidate, they simply will not hire anyone at that time.

Congruence + quality = hired

Both are necessary. In the end, actual quality or the perception of quality is still very much one of the top considerations.

This brings us back to the actual or perceived quality of the doctoral programs.

marilynd

 

Throw in a KW"U" 4-course (and concommitant 4 single open-book tests, no other assignments of any kind) and a one final paper, 18-month Ph.D. - and the selection process for a rigorous, very well-prepared and eminently worthy post-doc candidate gets all the more complicated!

LOL!

An astute observation and very cogent point!

The nexus between the needs of many of the top-notch university research facilities - to go where few or no one had gone before in terms of new knowledge or expansion of existing knowledge - and gaps or unanswered topics or areas that do exist within one's prior dissertation research, provides a fertile ground for eliciting worthy post-doc candidates.

Being able to clearly delineate areas for further research in one's previously critically-acclaimed doctoral work from a well-respected research DL or B&M university - and displaying (during one's post-doc interviewing process) the intent and interest to delve into its deep unknowns - arguably gives a post-doc applicant a definitive heads up in the fierce competition for the very scarce spots.

The challenge and import of such an undertaking and the auspices (institution, supervising professors and research mentors, etc) under which the additional research is to be undertaken, may be compensation enough for the truly motivated.

The philosopher who opined that it may not all be about money, at least not in the long-term, is probably right.

Thanks.

 

More than a PhD from a top school, they look for student with research funding. I contacted once University of Arizona that is known in MIS, they replied that they would take me as a post doc provided that I had my own funding. Many schools would take you as long as you have the funding, getting the funding is the problem as many research agencies are looking for established researchers while most of the online PhD do not have publication requirements.

However, the post doc might not need to come from a top tier but at least from a second tier school. The bottom line is that you would have more chances with a post doc from a traditional well known school rather than one from a online school.

 

Marilynd:

I replied to Nosborne48's congruency-candidate selection point without first seeing your post - and I completely agree with you!

A legend of the lost Chi-Suxhagwa inhabitants of the post-millenial Digixor galaxy has it that you will therefore live to be three score and a hundred years old!

Thanks.

 

I knew it was bad when I saw a top brick and mortar prof job go for 46K/year not long ago. They wanted a PhD in EE, from a top school, and plenty of publishing to even get that job. Academia. No part of it for me, thanks.

Another comment about low pay. I think much of the low pay we see is due to the influx of cheap foreign labor, even in the PhD professor ranks. Universities are like businesses. They will go for the cheap. They still like the quality, as put in the formula above by Marilynd, but they will indeed take the cheap.

Friend of mine took a job in industry after having taught at a solid U. for 10 years. He says working as a prof is a good loaf but not much pay. Can't say it is like that for all profs, though. I know a prof at Indiana who retired about two years back. He said he made out pretty good. He was able to use his massive time off to consult and make some serious coin during the summers in places like India, China, and Saudi Arabia.

 

Don't cry too much for the academics. I'm a program manager at one of the federal funding agencies. I was discussing the starting pay issue with a few of our primary investigators (from Rutgers, CUNY, and UC-Davis) at an annual review last week. All commented that the assistant professors in their departments (two EE/CS, one management) are not paid much less than the full professors - I was told $80K vs say, $110K. The reason stated - competing with industry for the good researchers.