The Grad School Brain Drain
- Posted by: Anne Trubek
- on May 15, 2009 at 8:00 am
Another problem with academia: It isolates America’s most deft thinkers.
The most surprising aspect of Mark C. Taylor’s recent New York Times op-ed, “End The University As We Know It,” is how few ripples it made outside academic circles. I was chatting with a radio producer last week who said he pitched a story on the op-ed, but others shot it down, deeming it only interesting to those inside universities.
This firewall between the academic and non-academic worlds is what Taylor is seeking to breach, and so this ho-hum response lends more credence to his argument (it is true there were hundreds of responses on the Times website and many blog posts, but the commentary was dominated by academics).
Taylor’s ballsy piece begins by stating that “Graduate education is the Detroit of higher learning.” It produces a product—Ph.D.s seeking teaching jobs—for which there is no demand. Increased division of labor in the form of hyper-specialization—the ever narrowing fields of study one must fit into as a graduate student—leads to “research and publication becom[ing] more and more about less and less.” One byproduct is an inability to have a conversation between colleagues about their research (as a professor I concur—many of my non-academic friends assume my job entails long leisurely discussions of ideas with colleagues over sherry. Not so much.)
Taylor calls for a restructuring of academia for the 21st century. He suggests we abandon traditional departments in favor of web-like networks. (If that shocks you, read Michael Berube’s excellent post about departments versus disciplines here). Departments would wither away, replaced by “problem-focused” programs that would last seven years before being replaced by new ones. He suggests some possible new organizing principles for knowledge: “Mind, Body, Law, Information, Networks, Language, Space, Time, Media, Money, Life and Water.” He wants to abolish tenure (to which I say hear, hear—though easy for Taylor and me, tenured both, to say), revamp the dissertation, particularly in the humanities, to encourage options other than the tedious monograph read by a few dozen and published at great cost, and encourage new professional options for graduate students.
Your eyes may have glazed over reading that last paragraph. But Taylor’s argument does matter to those outside the ivory tower.
With the economic downturn, applications to graduate schools are rising. I can attest, anecdotally, that I have received more requests for letters of recommendations this year than ever—and many were from students who graduated from college three or four years ago, and have been working in non-profits, teaching in secondary schools, or trying to make it as artists. Money woes make academia more appealing.
Those who want to go to graduate school are often the deftest thinkers—not the smartest, but the ones with a certain way of thinking that leads them to hungrily connect dots, seek out connections between, and precedents for, ideas. They enjoy research and pointing out where things intersect. They are young, and they have lots of ideas.
A larger percentage of young, inventive, creative folk will enter an almost-bankrupt (to follow Taylor’s Detroit metaphor) graduate system. Most will not get teaching jobs. Many will never finish their dissertations. They will go into debt. And they will be trained to think deeply about an increasingly narrow range of ideas intelligible to only a few others. They will become increasingly unable to enter into conversations with colleagues, not to mention those outside the academy.
For these reasons, I usually dissuade students from graduate school—which often feels like an act of bad faith. Taylor, chairman of Religion at Columbia, does as well: “For many years, I have told students, ‘Do not do what I do; rather, take whatever I have to offer and do with it what I could never imagine doing and then come back and tell me about it.’ ” But what weight does that advice hold when there are fewer and fewer jobs? Academia, with its false promise—“come to us for seven to ten years and then you will get a cushy job”—becomes irrationally appealing. (I find it instructive that Obama, editor of the Harvard Law Review, the kind of job that often leads one towards becoming a law professor, dabbled in but did not choose that route.)
Because many of our nimblest, “connect-the-dots” types of thinkers enter into the system—more and more with each Dow-plunging day—Taylor’s op-ed matters. When they open the door, it seems to close pretty firmly behind them.
Academia over-specialized. The faculty lounge is silent, or is repurposed into a computer lab set up with 18 separate work stations. Non-academics deem the goings-on inside the gates uninteresting to those outside it (who wants a radio show on universities? Yawn). The result? No one, inside, outside, or over the ever thickening firewall between the two, is talking to anybody.
Taylor has received a healthy share of criticism for his plan, which many deem unfeasible. Many who say this are academics. But Taylor wrote for The New York Times, the closest thing we have to a national platform. He was shouting as loudly to the largest possible audience. Hats off.
We need some help in the University, and we have lost some of our youthful vim to connect the dots, I am afraid. Here’s hoping those who still get excited about the exchange of ideas will weigh in.
Illustration by Will Etling
DISCUSSION: 18 Comments
There are a few (and I say, a very few) graduate schools out there who aren’t too afraid of the “idea-based” graduate education model. Northwestern University’s dean is one of the champions of the “cluster model” since the feasibility of funding scores of narrowly focused grad students is shrinking. See this Inside Higher Ed article for more.( http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/05/13/doctoral )
i read this op-ed about a month ago and have been disappointed in the lack of coverage anywhere else about it. that op-ed hits home for so many people in my life who are going on to graduate school and know that they may never do anything with their phd. this institution MUST change.
The real value of an education is in what you do with it. But there’s a problem with that statement…how many people find a practical use for their degrees? How many people work within their degree’s field? How many traditional, formal degrees have real innate value beyond getting a job in that specific field? Certainly you can support an argument in favor of the medical field or engineering (along with others as well) but you have to admit, there are a lot of professions where a degree just isn’t necessary. And if that’s the case, why are those degrees offered? So let’s refresh part of the formal education system. Let’s replace the “unnecessary” degrees with programs that have real, lifelong value. What’s wrong with completing a bachelors degree in a ”cause”?…a B.S. in Green Living or a B.A. in Humanitarian Aid sound pretty good to me. I’ll take those over an M.B.A (or even a B.F.A) any day.
I am finishing a PhD at Northwestern right now and cannot get a job in my field (social sciences). Even if I were able to find a job in my field, the pay is so insultingly low that I would not be able to repay the student loans I incurred to obtain this degree. In other words, add another worthless, costly, wasteful PhD to the list.
I am currently finishing my masters at the University of Chicago and at least from a student’s perspective, this Blog post (and the articles referenced) are spot on. I attended a small liberal arts college (Knox College) where cross-disciplined research and inquiry (with a strong emphasis on praxis) was nourished and encouraged. I am very grateful for my education at the U of C and have certainly learned a lot, but the theory at this school (and from what I understand, most research institutions) is so thick that it is near impossible to see an application beyond the sort of “intellectual masturbation” for which the ivory tower is so notorious. Like the post above mine, I cannot find a job either. How about the lot of us get together and come up with a model for a new GRADUATE program, akin to Hampshire College or other “against the grain” undergraduate institutions, which emphasizes the usefulness and progressive power of academia which is so rarely realized?
It is unfortunate that the public discourse in this debate is dominated by Professors from departments like Religion and Rhetoric. A peak at the experiences of your colleagues in other departments will reveal a starkly different picture, quite like your utopia, in fact. In that world:- The US education system is still the envy of the world. I know many faculty that have been offered more money and better titles at Universities in their *home* countries (China, India, Japan) and refuse to leave what they consider a superior academic environment.- Research universities are replete with the interdisciplinary programs you talk of. I am employed by a neuroscience program, for example, and dozens of interdisciplinary postdoctoral opportunities are found at most top universities.-Many dissertations in my field are relevant, though generally when they are turned into journal articles. I agree that 3 publishable papers may make a better dissertation and – surprise, surprise – in many programs that sort of policy has already been instituted.Thinking through this list, it’s becoming more and more obvious to me that the problem is with certain departments of which Rhetoric is the perfect exemplar. So abolish those departments, departments that have nothing to offer in a collaboration with other departments, nothing left to explore except for irrelevant minutia and are quixotic remnants of a bygone era, particularly when viewed from outside Europe. But please leave functioning departments (e.g. Engineering, Psychology, Political Science, Economics, Math, Physics, Communications, Education, Linguistics, Modern Languages, Computer Science) alone, thank you very much. We’re doing fine without you.
… oh and one more thing (esp. to commenter 4): When a school doesn’t offer to pay your full ride for graduate school + stipend , that should be understood as a rejection. It’s unfortunate people who know better don’t always have the guts to tell people that to their faces.
Everyone who’s ever paid to go to university; thought about, applied for or completed a grad programme; or is paying for their child’s education should have been reading this op-ed! This is why i was so astonished when this popped up in my Google Reader.Firstly, to respond to the comment above: the distinction between ‘functioning’ and non-functioning departments seems quite biased. Political science is flagged as an example; Taylor himself cites political scientists who for a long time failed to take religion into account as a fctor in international relations. As a current political science major having studied at UCLA and LSE, two of the strongest political science institutions in the world, I can say that I’ve seen professors espouse theories that don’t reflect the real world and describe research which is inconclusive towards either solving immediate political problems (less predictive and more descriptive).I don’t necessarily think that we need to start creating entirely new departments (’water’ seems more like a year-long seminar than a class), but we need to look at how curricula are structured and how classes are taught. At the point where many students testify that their graduate teaching assistants make concepts clearer than professors, and still others have been forced to take general education classes that they will not remember or take away any key skills from, and universities hide behind ‘liberal arts’ curtains because they are afraid to add more practical classes like marketing or public policy to an undergrad’s curriculum, we have to ask ourselves whether our institutions are really preparing undergraduate and graduate students alike for the world outside.There’s plenty of relevant research going on out there. But there’s also just as much research being done in topic areas that are not going to contribute to anything broader than academia itself. For as much collaborative research there is, there’s just as much individualised research, with professors being so caught up in their personal brand names that the good teaching itself – the reason why universities are universities and not think tanks – gets lost in instruction. Either the private sector and the general public need to work more closely with academics to link academia better to practical day-to-day challenges, or university needs to be free, because the current system almost doesn’t justify $45k+ tuitions.
Hi–It’s Anne, the author of the piece. I want to respond to comment to the neuroscience professor above. I agree that some of what I wrote is more appropriate to social sciences and humanities than sciences. But I know less about what goes on in the sciences–which is part of the problem, too. We don’t communicate across divisions very well. I don’t entirely understand how sciences operate, and you don’t understand how many humanities work. Rhetoric, in my situation at least, has little to do with “arcana,”–I assume you’re thinking Aristotle–and is quite interdisciplinary. And who could say Religion is not exceedingly relevant to today’s global political situation?! You are right public discourse about the university should not be dominated by humanitites profs, and I would love to read more public discussion of these issues penned by scientists, and/or to work with scientists to collaborate on public discussions of these issues.Thanks for commenting,Anne
I feel lucky that I’m already in one of these ad-hoc departments. I’m a graduate student in Cognitive Science–a discipline that could already be described as the Mind problem-focused discipline. Our lab works with psychologists, philosophers, neuroscientists, mathematicians, computer scientists and I myself have a background in economics. The thing is, departments have their uses; among them, departments are a managerial structure, generating reviews, class schedules, assigning credit, blah blah blah. I don’t think they should be done away with but rather merged with these new ad-hoc over-department structures. (If anyone cares, I owe my use of ad-hoc to Cory Doctorow.) Maybe this is a good structure for the two-track teaching/researching division many people seem to be discussing. Overall, I agree that research should be more accountable and more directly address modern society’s problems, but not at the cost of wiping out a world-renowned academy system.
I thought one of the basic premises of the academy is that it produces knowledge by some other means than “giving the market what it wants.” It seems here we are told that the market has prevailed, and the academy should capitulate. So much for speaking truth to power. Long live capitalism!
thats cool
Hi Anne,Neuropostdoc here again. Thank you for your response. I certainly don’t think rhetoric is about Aristotle; I think of rhetoric as being about critical theory, literary criticism, postmodernism and other such turns in the modern humanities. Perhaps this understanding is factually misguided, but I hope it doesn’t detract from the larger point that painting the university system with this broad brush of ineffectualness is plain wrong at best and dangerous at worst. I think this is a problem with certain fields. It seems to me a simple solution is simply to incentivize collaboration and relevance with faculty slots. That way, a department like Statistics, which is revolutionizing scientific thought, whether we like it or not, will grow in size as it continues to provide insights into nearly every field, while certain humanities departments will eventually shrink to a size appropriate for what it has to offer the rest of the university and the world.
This is an interesting article with an equally interesting discussion to follow. I want to differentiate between “grad school” and phd programs in more qualitative, less “applied” subject areas. Grad school also includes professional degrees (MBAs, JDs, etc.). I just finished a Master in Public Policy at Georgetown and I’ve found that demand for the skills I’ve acquired (statistics, econometrics, program evaluation) are relatively high, even in a tough economy. The primary purpose of this type of degree is not to do basic research or land a teaching position, but to be better equipped to enter into meaningful work. In my view, there is no reason to think that a phd in a “hard” science (like biology, economics, etc) is better than something like humanities with an emphasis in18th century polish lit. Neither should be abolished. But where it becomes problematic is the point at which ambitious, idealistic students mistakenly think that their specialization in 18th century polish lit. will easily land them a great job. Their are (sensibly) fewer career options in 18th century polish lit., and there should also be fewer phds in these areas. The problem comes when Universities accept far too many students, without regard for the demand for the skills & specialization being acquired. Furthermore, Universities should stop accepting phd applications without offering significant financial aid. And prospective students should be wise enough to see anything less than a full ride for what it is – practically a rejection.
Anne again–to anonymous above–good point abt. different types of grad schools– and neuropostdoc–the problem with shrinking the humanities (well, at least one) is the large portion of undergrad courses at research universities that are taught or TAed by humanities PhD candidates…if there are fewer of them, who will teach the young ‘uns?–Anne
“Speaking truth to power” is such a cliche. It only gets applied one way– against capitalism. What about the power of academia? Those entrenched ways of thinking? Is there one standard for academia and another for everyone else? Can no one dare to question the way academia is set up? Does academia not have the honesty and intellectual rigor to put up with questions about itself?Just for the record, I am completely for speaking truth to power, wherever it is. Conservatives tend to trust corporations and distrust academia and the government. Liberals tend to distrust corporations and trust academia and the government. I say, distrust and hold all of them accountable.
How about viewing education as an end in itself rather than a means to another end. That’s how I think of education, but the thing that kept me out of graduate school in the field where I would have most excelled—English—was the fact that the work done at universities is so insular and irrelevant to the outside world, not just professionally, but artistically, culturally, and ideologically, as well.
** Silence betokens consent — exploiting academic labor is criminalGimme a break! For almost 40 years now, the oversupply and cynical exploitation of PhDs has been a fact.Honesty demanded that students be told — shown the ratios of PhDs produced to jobs available.But, two factors made honesty (always in short supply) not even the best policy, each falling under the same heading Exploited Labor.1. Teaching assistants do undergraduate teaching, freeing senior staff to do “research” — that is produce the jargon ridden garbage produced by humanities and social science grad programs.2. Assistant professors on “tenure track” who are routinely put on “ladders” of publication pressure only to meet the “snakes” who make sure most never get beyond their extended apprenticeships.Some solutions:1. Abolish tenure — no more lifetime job guarantees.2. Reduce the number of graduate departments until the output of PhDs falls to below replacement level.3. Be honest with students — let them know their prospects both in the abstract and in reality for their department. What is the placement record of the department, where, at what level, and for how long were students hired?Shocked — I’m shocked . . . not at the silence nor at the hypocrisy. I’m disgusted that universities continue to exploit the labor of TAs, and that post-secondary schools exploit the labor of adjuncts, 1 year onlys, non-tenure track, and tenure track assnt profs.Too bad that tax payers don’t appreciate how easy it would be to lower the costs of public higher education by ending tenure, eliminating most graduate departments, and stopping the use of TAs and the untenured both as teaching fodder and disposable employees.anti-supernaturalist