The PhD Glut and What to Do About It A new book cheerfully argues that we can nd jobs for all those doctoral candidates outside the academy. Donʼt be too sure. by Jonathan Zimmerman (https://washingtonmonthly.com/people/jonathan-zimmerman/) December 3, 2020 HIGHER EDUCATION (https://washingtonmonthly.com/education/college-rankings/) M y doctoral students used to get jobs teaching at colleges and universities. That was their goal, coming into graduate school. And most of them got there. Over the past few years, however, their luck has turned. Thatʼs not because thereʼs anything wrong with my students, who are as brilliant as ever (if I may say so myself). Itʼs because there simply arenʼt enough teaching jobs in higher education, at least not the kind that give you health insurance and a living wage. Recognizing this, about half of Ph.D. students drop out before getting their doctorate. Those who nish take adjunct-instructor gigs and other part-time work, waiting for the tenure-track position that will probably never come. The situation is especially dismal in the humanities, as might be expected, but students in the social and natural sciences also struggle to nd the academic jobs they had envisioned. The jobs themselves have disappeared, snu ed out by the larger economic challenges and contractions of higher education. Itʼs a grim picture, but itʼs also changing. Or so say Leonard Cassuto and Robert Weisbuch, in their forthcoming and surprisingly optimistic book The New PhD: How to Build a Better Graduate Education. (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2020. 408 pp. Cloth, $32.95.) Cassuto and Weisbuch acknowledge that the current system is unsustainable. Yet they also celebrate an embryonic movement towards “career diversity,” which aims to alter the doctorate, so it prepares students for jobs that actually exist. Seeded by some big grants from foundations like Mellon (which, it should be noted, also funded this book), the reform campaign is revising coursework, advising, and research requirements to ready graduates for positions in museums, journalism, government agencies, and industry. When the transformation is complete, Cassuto and Weisbuch predict, my future students will once again obtain good jobs. Itʼs just that most of these jobs wonʼt be in academia. I hope theyʼre right. But I wonder how many employers in the so-called real world are just itching to hire young PhDʼs in English or history, even those who have learned how to teach (a longstanding de ciency in doctoral training) and to write for public audiences (ditto). And, most of all, I wonder whether—and why—the faculty will get with the new program. As Cassuto and Weisbuch admit, the old system served us rather well. We wrote long dissertations that turned into equally turgid books; we worked our way up the tenure ladder; and our own students got academic jobs, too, until schools stopped hiring. But Cassuto and Weisbuch are convinced that you can teach an old dog new tricks, provided that you also pay for lunch. Their book is replete with descriptions of catered seminars and conferences where administrators, faculty, and students dine together and reframe doctoral training for the world as it is, not as it was. Everyone walks away happy, or at least not hungry. Count me a skeptic, at least for now. Of course, our doctoral programs need to take teaching much more seriously, as Cassuto and Weisbuch repeatedly urge. But critics of universities have been saying that for over a century, decrying recycled lectures by lazy professors and aimless discussion groups led by overworked graduate students. Part of the problem is the poor reputation of schools of education, which arenʼt mentioned by Cassuto and Weisbuch. Theyʼre professors of English, focused rmly upon their colleagues in the arts and sciences. But surely, the low status of ed-schools in the university world has inhibited real reform of teaching because nobody wants their name associated with the subject. Why should we expect this moment to yield a di erent outcome? Likewise, exposés of impenetrable academic prose date to the founding of the modern academy itself. Yes, we should train our students to write in actual English. But who, exactly, will provide that training? The same faculty members who moved up the totem pole by publishing jargon-laded tracts read only by fellow specialists? Donʼt bet on it. Cassuto and Weisbuch have their hearts in exactly the right place. And if their book revitalizes doctoral training, Iʼll be the rst to applaud. But they have much more faith in the professoriate than I do. A er reading their book, I called a few friends around the country to ask them how “career diversity” was taking shape in their own departments. All of them had heard the phrase, which is a sign of some small progress in its own right. And they were supportive—in theory—of the idea of preparing doctoral students for jobs outside the academy. But they also said that most professors—and most students—remained committed to the traditional goal of tenure-track-or-bust, reality notwithstanding. We know the system is broken. But we canʼt help ourselves. Thatʼs why I suspect that change will come from outside the academy, not from within it. Weʼre living in a delicate political moment for higher education: Republicans donʼt like us because weʼre too liberal, and Democrats donʼt like us because weʼre too expensive. What if both sides threatened to reduce or cut o our state and federal funding if we donʼt alter our doc- toral programs to meet the real needs of students? I agree with the diagnosis that Cassuto and Weisbuch put forth in their earnest and spirited book. But I fear that the treatment might require more heroic medicine than any of us have imagined. Support Nonprofit Journalism If you enjoyed this article, consider making a donation to help us produce more like it. The Washington Monthly was founded in 1969 to tell the stories of how government really works — and how to make it work better. More than y years later, the need for incisive analysis and new, progressive policy ideas is clearer than ever. As a nonpro t, we rely on support from readers like you. YES, I'LL MAKE A DONATION Jonathan Zimmerman (https://washingtonmonthly.com/people/jonathan-zimmerman/) Jonathan Zimmerman teaches education and history at the University of Pennsylvania. He is the author of The Amateur Hour: A History of College Teaching in America (https://www.amazon.com/amateur-hour-history-collegeteaching/dp/1421439093/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=utf8&qid=&sr=) , published by Johns Hopkins University Press. He is the co-author (with Signe Wilkinson) of Free Speech, And Why You Should Give a Damn (https://www.amazon.com/free-speech-should-give-damn/dp/1952536103), which will be published in the spring by City of Light Press. ALSO ON WASHINGTON MONTHLY The 2021 Kukula Award Finalists If Roe v. Wade is Struck Down, It’ll … Evangelicals, Trump, and How Politics … What Inflation Do to the Bide 2 days ago • 2 comments 9 days ago • 39 comments 7 days ago • 67 comments 11 days ago • 185 com This first-of-its-kind prize honors the best nonfiction book reviewing in America. The Supreme Court could overturn the landmark abortion ruling. … An acclaimed religion writer finds a complex picture of Evangelical voters and … Rising prices may p be temporary but e is a problem for … © 2021 Washington Monthly.
