PhD vs entering a job market

[Cambel]



and any legitimate program will give you a healthy stipend along with insurance, and you can avoid paying taxes for that duration or probably get it all back.

True. In my experience the dental coverage has been better than the health. They deal with you in emergencies but may be reluctant to treat you for regular check up type stuff. I did have to pay taxes on my stipend. You can avoid taxes by just not reporting your stipend, I guess, but from what I understand you're supposed to count it as income. The most important thing, as you mention, is that any solid program (for humanities) should be offering some kind of financial support via stipend of guaranteed teaching/TAing positions. Some programs, I hear, are trying to axe the latter and want to offer all their incoming students stipends.

On the issue of making money, I know a lot of graduate students who hustle to do extra work, and that can make life a lot more comfortable if busier: private tutoring, teaching classes at community colleges, editorial work on journals. The demands and pay of these tasks can vary greatly but I've had good experiences doing some side work on top of teaching that made me feel a lot richer even if I wasn't really.

 

[dfagdfsh]

yea because of personal health stuff I'm pretty wary of trusting in a ****** university health plan -- ive checked a fair number out, and none of them are that great, especially when it comes to filling prescriptions.

my university is a state school, so working for them = working for the state = phat benefit$

 

[Concordia]



Also, this has been posted many places, but it's worth a read or two (or three, etc.):
http://www.economist.com/node/17723223

A lot of good comments following that article-- on both sides.

Here's another, which (while not mentioning SF directly) puts some of the economic arguments in a different light. http://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2011/01/24/ennis

 

[StephenHero]



I guess my concern with getting the PhD is having decent health insurance and living at sub poverty level for another 4-6 years.

This idiot doesn't have a clue.

 

[StephenHero]



That's not entirely true. There are some fields, mostly hard sciences, where the lifetime earnings potential is reasonably higher for PhDs. It is very field specific though. Doesn't surprise me too much comp sci isn't one of them, since people without even a bachelors can do well.

Which to some extent is negated by the front-heavy compensation (and investment potential) of a sufficient degree that doesn't come at the expense of multiple years of work as opposed to student debt. Overall, the joke is on the students still living vicariously through the C.V.s of more esteemed peers.

 

[dfagdfsh]



This idiot doesn't have a clue.

can you get the **** out of my thread, marsupial? keep your special blend of projected angst and faux-haughtiness to ****** political threads and for whining about mcmansions.

 

[Gibonius]



Which to some extent is negated by the front-heavy compensation (and investment potential) of a sufficient degree that doesn't come at the expense of multiple years of work as opposed to student debt. Overall, the joke is on the students still living vicariously through the C.V.s of more esteemed peers.

I honestly have no idea what point you're trying to make here.

PhD study rarely results in debt, especially for people in those economically viable fields. You get paid to do research. Usually you get paid a reasonable fraction of a starting BS salary in those field.

 

[dfagdfsh]

the general point he's trying to make (because he's a douchebag) is the point that you and I and everyone else on this forum have discussed over and over and over: it's hard to find a job as a professor in a humanities field, and that even PhDs in non-humanities fields are often time sinks that lower your lifetime earning potential. i know.. shocking!

but of course, what he's actually doing is what he always does on SF - trying to come off as the sole repository of worldly knowledge that you, as a foolish mortal, would never, ever be able to appreciate. it's fine and even kind of entertaining in C&E, but it's bullshit, and I don't really want to hear about it in this thread.

 

[AldenPyle]

University staff work can often make for a great job, but a lousy career. Great working conditions, low pressure, decent starting pay, good benefits, way above average stability. But advancement is often poor to non-existent and private sector employers won't necessarily have a lot of respect for your work experience. My two cents.

 

[mkarim]



Out of curiosity, whats the benefits of a phD other than title and degree? Say you were to work and get your phd, what would you do upon obtaining your degree? Would you go into teaching and become a professor? If you end up in the same place I'd skip the phD and take a masters and a salaried job.

+100. A PhD is sometimes looked down upon in industry because PhDs are sterotyped as ones who like to do research but not practical work.

 

[the shah]

Out of curiosity, whats the benefits of a phD other than title and degree? Say you were to work and get your phd, what would you do upon obtaining your degree? Would you go into teaching and become a professor? If you end up in the same place I'd skip the phD and take a masters and a salaried job.

+100. A PhD is sometimes looked down upon in industry because PhDs are sterotyped as ones who like to do research but not practical work.

this is really industry-dependent, in some sectors you can't even get hired without one while in others you become overqualified and underexperienced ... but seeing as he's focused on a history degree, and he doesn't know what his plans, this thread is almost an exercise in futility and circular arguments.

 

[erdawe]



A lot of good comments following that article-- on both sides.
Here's another, which (while not mentioning SF directly) puts some of the economic arguments in a different light. http://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2011/01/24/ennis

Article is a fair counter. It essentially argues the intangible for those outside of the experience looking in. You can't argue really with things like pride, ego, mental self-satisfaction, what have you, since they're experience-based. To argue against that would be matter of opinion and difficult to quantify from person to person.

However, there is a strong part of the human experience to rationalize poor situations for the good, and self-select to remember the good once experience is over. The article essentially promotes mentally-elite pursuits in the light that they're higher calling and far more noble than say the materially-elite mindset you might find on SF or whatever. The article also seems to suggest that one needs the graduate higher education system to further their mental ability to the <1% elite stratosphere that only "real" doctorates can attain...

Who's to say a working stiff cannot gain mental prowess through self-study and corroboration with those of similar interests in their free time pursuits? Sure there's no fancy paper or ceremonies with their pursuit, but I fail to see how one is conceptually more "noble" as that article frames it.

I guess for me, the argument that "it's all worth it" to a degree to wrap your-self in to keep you warm and fuzzy at night isn't very compelling. The ego-stroking was slather on rather thick. Similarly, this is why I find those who revel in excessive materialism and spouts superiority over others as another soul-less and vain pursuit.

I prefer my own version of balance... I'm sure others 'get off' on something else, perhaps it's a PhD, perhaps not.

 

[HomerJ]

 

[the shah]

a phd in what, what journals were they published in (impact factor) ?

 

[HomerJ]



a phd in what, what journals were they published in (impact factor) ?

American World War I history.

Published in Social Postmodernist-esque Perspectives.