Thinking grad school? Timing plays a key role

From the Boston Globe;

http://www.boston.com/jobs/news/articles/2007/12/23/thinking_grad_school_timing_plays_a_key_role/

 

Good article I think the author was right on. People don't factor in opportunity cost alot of times when deciding to pursue more education.

 

Another consideration, at least for those in the sciences, is getting a teaching or research assitantship. I received a full teaching assistantship when I went to grad school (chemistry), meaning waived tuition and barely enough of a stipend to live on. I was genuinely thrilled to receive this and considered myself quite fortunate. Those arriving a year later were only able to get half-assistantships, meaning waived tuition and half the stipend.

 

I disagree with the idea that noone should pursue a degree in the humanities. That just sounds ludicrous!

If you locate a graduate program that matches your interests, and it is affordable (or an employer is willing to pay you to go back to school, and doesn't care what you major in), then why not go pursue it? Yes, it might look odd to have three or more disparate graduate degrees listed on a resume. However, that could show a breadth of knowledge that could come in handy in many industries (antiquities, international business, pharmaceuticals, etc.).

One fine example of an affordable online MA in Humanities, may be found at CSU-DH: http://www.csudh.edu/HUX/

- Tom

 

It is also a reflection of what education (especially) in this country has become. It seems that majors are picked not based on aptitude and interest but on what will earn you the most money after graduation. It is almost as if the higher education system has become nothing more than vocational training with administrators who are coming out of Engineering and/or Business departments/faculties who want to do away with certain areas of academic research because they will not yield maximum profits. I have nothing against those who study business, comp sci, engineering, etc. but I don't think we should sacrifice philosophy/literature/religion/history/languages, even at the graduate level, in the process. Just my $0.02.

 

The reference to tenure-track teaching jobs being locked up by baby-boomers is an obvious reference to earning a doctorate, and the opportunity costs thereto appertaining...

Dave

 

But are we sacrificing philosophy/literature/religion/history/languages? There is a glut of individuals with graduate degrees in these areas and plenty in the pipeline who have apparently ignored the employment market for those with such degrees.

I tell my liberal arts colleagues that grouse about business faculty salaries that the disparity between business and liberal arts salaries was present at the time that they chose to seek a graduate degree in the liberal arts.

 

"For humanities: never

Baby boomers have a lock on tenure-track teaching jobs, and those boomers aren't going anywhere any time soon. My favorite statistic in the world is that you would have a better chance surviving the Titanic than getting a tenure track job in the humanities, and the Modern Language Association routinely discusses this problem at its annual meeting.

So look, if you love French, take a long vacation in Tunisia. And if you love Dante, read him at night, after work. You don't need a degree in the humanities to enjoy learning."

Now, I found the asnwer for this major. I was wondering what the heck people do with the humanities major. At least the baby boomer generation have in their hands.

 

My favorite quote from the article:

"You would do best to leave frivolous graduate degrees off your resume so you can look a bit more focused"

 

Anything to encourage responsible education planning is positive in my book.

In fact, I think colleges should be required to present students with placement statistics before enrollment in a program and the student should sign a document acknowledging receipt and understanding of that information.

Choosing to study liberal arts is perfectly fine. Doing so without perspective of the job prospects with such an education is not. From what I've seen, way too many students fall in the latter category.

 

"Baby Boomers" is an awfully broad term, covering everybody born from 1946 to 1964. The tail-end baby boomers are nothing at all like the leading-edge baby boomers. Also, sine the PhD glut started in 1972, and since it would normally take at least until age 29 to complete the PhD, the ones who have a "lock" on tenure-track positions would have been born in 1943 and before, and these will be retiring soon.

 

I wish the article was longer Like, what about statistics as a graduate degree that is safe for many future professions, i.e.:

Super Crunchers: Why Thinking-by-Numbers Is the New Way to Be Smart

I guess this is why statistics wasn't worth the word count:

The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable

 

Tekman: I love the MCI reference in your sig line. I did Marine Command and Staff through MCI a long time ago. Air Force guys don't say "hoo-rah," but "hoo-rah" to you anyway!

 

Know that I've never read anything by Penelope Trunk until this morning.

I have a general rule I try to follow regarding taking advice from people which is to weigh that advice according to the experiences of the person giving it. For example, I like to get career advice from people who have been successful in their own career. I like education advice from people who have successfully navigated the academy.

In this Boston Globe article, Penelope Trunk would like for us to consider her learned opinion on graduate education. So, I asked, what do we know about Ms. Trunk's career? She tells us:

This quote is from her blog about being non-renewed (not exactly the same as fired but that's how she relates it) by Yahoo Finance.

As she relates why she believes we should not pursue "what we love" as a career, she also tells us that she is unsuccessful in the love department...

My learned suggestion would be that, if she does indeed love both writing and sex, that she write for the sex market - it's very lucrative. I won't be seeking any love-life advice from her though as hers is "tanking".

I find it interesting that her bio doesn't list her education at all. I would expect that someone writing about graduate education might need to demonstrate an understanding of higher education through her own academic adventure.

The best that I can find is that she holds a BA in History from Brandeis ('90) [she was about 24 in 1990]. She studied creative writing at Boston ("attended Boston University") for a year in 94-95. Most of her work experience has been in marketing and freelance/syndicated writing.

My point here? Is this really someone to take unquantified advice from regarding whether one should get a humanities master's or an MBA later in life? She has neither and is not in a position that hires either. She is suggesting that women get an MBA right out of undergrad - are there any top programs that will accept a student with no work experience? Would the MBA experience have as much value without some "real-world" connection? She can't be serious...

hmmmmmmm I read a comment on a blog about Ms. Trunk that says:

I think I'm inclined to agree...

 

I'm not sure that she's saying that one should never get a graduate degree in the humanities. It's just that regardless of whether one is planning on an MA and PhD in History straight out of college or as a mid-life career change, one should be well aware that one might not get that full-time tenure-track position when one graduates. So, as long as one is cool with that.

 

That's the way I took it; if someone wants to go for a Ph.D. in Ancient Babylonian Astrology, then have at it. Just realize that the open job market for people with degrees in Ancient Babylonian Astrology is extremely limited, and the tenure track positions are most likely sewn-up for the foreseeable future.

 

Great post, CoachTurner! I felt like I was watching 60 Minutes while reading your findings about the author.

 

Or forever. Traditional univerities graduate way more Ph.D.'s than can be hired in the academic sector. Most are left to create their futures in other ways. And this is not necessarity a bad thing.

William Bridges, in Job Shift, talks about the need for the modern worker to manage his/her career, and not look to the job market for support. This is true whether or not the candidate is employed by him/herself or by others. Go and find out what you like to do that you can get paid for, then do it. Act like a consultant, even within your company. Add demonstrable value and get paid for it.

Moving up the traditional organizational ziggeraut is dead--computers wiped out the need for a lot of middle management. You have to make your own way, which often means moving more frequently and/or creating nontraditional opportunities.

The Ph.D. in "ancient whatever" might consider something else besides reading the CHE want ads and hoping some university bequeths upon him or her a crummy job at crummy pay at the bottom of the heap with no real hope for the future. (Okay, dramatic, but you get my point.) No, that person should leverage the energy and passion that lead to the degree into something he/she loves. And get away from hoping some organization picks you. You pick them instead.