|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FOR OVER twenty years the crisis in the academic job market for humanities PhDs has been lamented. There are too many candidates and not enough faculty positions. If there are so few prospects in academia, where have all the PhDs gone? Anecdotes describing doctoral recipients working as taxi drivers have been widely circulated and sometimes accepted as truth. But these distressing stories are based on rumors, not facts, and without facts, we are unable to truly understand the employment outcomes of our humanities PhDs.
With the completion of "PhDs Ten Years Later," a national study of the career paths of doctorates, findings exist to examine the actual employment patterns of PhDs and to provide a realistic basis for developing productive policy responses to the continuing crisis in the academic job market for humanities PhDs.
The "PhDs Ten Years Later" study involved almost 6,000 PhDs from 61 doctorate-granting institutions across the United States.1 Six disciplines were chosen to represent major fields of study: life science (biochemistry), engineering (computer science, electrical engineering), humanities (English), physical science (mathematics), and social science (political science). The 61 universities were selected based on their participation in the 1982 National Research Council (NRC) doctoral program assessment, the availability of doctoral programs in the selected disciplines, level of PhD production (minimum of six PhD degrees in the three years sampled), geographical distribution, and a representative mix of private and public institutions. Once an institution was selected, all doctoral recipients of the relevant programs were included in the survey population. No subsampling occurred. This survey population accounted for 57% of PhD degrees awarded at all United States institutions in the six selected fields between 1 July 1982 and 30 June 1985 (table 1 depicts the basic characteristics of the survey population).2
To ensure the highest possible response rate, addresses for doctorate recipients in the selected fields and institutions were obtained from participating institutions, commercial locator agencies, professional association membership directories, the national faculty directory, the national telephone directory, and online search engines as well as library author searches. Surveys were mailed out between October 1996 and October 1997. There was a total response rate of 66% from domestic PhDs (US citizens and permanent residents) and 52% from international PhDs (temporary visa holders at the time of their doctorate completion).3
Respondents completed a 22-page questionnaire focusing on employment history, the job-search process, and factors important in the decision to accept the first and current positions, as well as a retrospective evaluation of the doctoral program and the usefulness of the doctoral degree. In addition to the survey, in-depth interviews were conducted with 64 respondents to provide information about the context within which career decisions were made. The "PhDs Ten Years Later" data set has been integrated with the national Survey of Earned Doctorates data of the same group, allowing comparative analysis by type of institution, time-to-degree, program size, parents' education, and fellowship support. Analyses were run using data weighted to be representative for the entire population of 172 PhD-granting institutions rated in the 1982 NRC doctoral program assessment. Only small differences between weighted and unweighted results were found. Consequently, results of unweighted data analysis that exactly represent respondents' answers are reported here.
The cohorts of English doctorates sampled for this study have been called "the lost generation of humanists" (Baer 64). But were they really lost? While it is true that the long-standing crisis in the humanities academic job market appears to have presented doctoral graduates with a bleak reality, is it also true that these same new PhDs remained jobless or underemployed?
This article traces the often difficult transition from receiving the PhD to stable employment, examines the level of satisfaction or dissatisfaction English PhDs have with their current employment, and discusses the value that they place on their doctoral education. Based on an analysis of survey results, it then discusses whether English PhDs ten to thirteen years later had satisfying careers, whether they were within or outside academe, how many languished in non-tenure-track teaching jobs, and what other types of careers these PhDs established. Finally, it offers graduate programs and university administrators some practical recommendations for augmenting the career outcomes of their humanities doctoral students.
English PhDs found jobs, but, as the study shows, these jobs were not solely in the academic sector; they were also in the business, government, and nonprofit sectors (BGN). Unfortunately, in many cases English PhDs spent several years navigating the non-tenure-track faculty route, hoping to finally arrive at the departmentally sanctioned destination--tenure-track professor--before they in fact reached this objective or before they made the difficult but fruitful transition to nonacademic employment.
To the detriment of their graduates, many institutions have neglected these employment realities. Describing the situation in his department, one English PhD explained, "The culture of the department was such that even though everyone knew it was very difficult to get a tenure-track job [. . .] anything less was considered a failure. It was almost like a little tiny mass psychosis going on among both the faculty and the students." Examining the actual career outcomes of English PhDs is a crucial step toward improving this kind of unfortunate departmental culture and developing institutional and departmental policies that address the continuing dismal realities of the academic job market in the humanities. If you want to test your assumptions about English PhDs' responses before reading on, try to answer the accompanying questions.
The 814 English PhDs who completed the survey were mainly United States citizens, predominantly white, and slightly more than half (53%) of them were women. With an average age of 35, English PhDs were older than those in the other surveyed fields upon completion of doctoral studies. This was primarily due to English PhDs' having the longest time-to-degree among the surveyed disciplines. Over half (51%) of the English PhDs took more than 9 years to complete the degree, 44% took between 5 and 9 years, and 5% took 3 to 5 years (table 2).
An English doctoral student's journey from the beginning of graduate school to degree completion is long and arduous; for some, equally lengthy is the journey from the time of PhD completion to stable employment. This second stage of the journey, the transition from PhD completion to work, left many individuals with hopes unrealized and a need to rethink career aspirations.
Most of the surveyed English PhDs began graduate school planning to become professors and studied in departments in which faculty (73%) also expected them to pursue academic jobs (table 3). Only 8% of respondents indicated that faculty also encouraged them to look for careers outside academia, and these expectations were consonant with their own career goals. Of respondents who indicated (retrospectively) having a definite career goal at the onset of their doctoral education, nearly three quarters recalled wanting to become professors. The numbers desiring to join the ranks of the professoriat actually increased during the course of graduate school to the point that 81% of respondents recalled wanting to become professors at the time they completed their doctoral studies (fig. 1).
In spite of these career goals and expectations, in 1995 only 53% of English PhDs were tenured and another 5% were in tenure-track positions (fig. 2). Fifteen percent were in non-tenure-track faculty or other academic positions. Thus, altogether 73% worked in the academic sector and another 16%4 worked in the BGN sectors.5 Among those who secured tenured positions, less than one-fifth of the PhDs worked at the kinds of Carnegie Research I institutions6 at which most were trained (fig. 3).7
Does this gap between expectations and outcomes represent disappointed aspirations? Clearly this depends on the individual, but one way to evaluate this is to examine career outcomes in relation to career goals. As figure 4 shows, nearly three-fourths of those who wanted to become professors at the time of degree completion held tenured or tenure-track faculty positions ten years later. However, a substantial minority of 14% was made up mostly of untenured year-to-year faculty and a small number of academic support staff. A few (3%) had become academic (nonfaculty) administrators, and 11% were employed in the BGN sectors.
These findings might suggest that everything is actually in order, but this positive picture is marred by the relatively lengthy process and the difficulties of attaining career stability. English PhDs spent on average ten years in their doctoral studies and, as noted earlier, their mean age at completion was thirty-five. Because of the difficult academic job market, many did not move smoothly out of graduate school into tenure-track employment. They entered a "holding pattern" of working in short-term non-tenure-track faculty positions, with some teaching courses at several different universities simultaneously. One out of two (48%) eventually attained tenure after working as non-tenure-track faculty. They spent, on average, 2.8 years in these positions before beginning a tenure-track position. Then, on average, they spent 5.3 years on tenure track before attaining tenure, in comparison to 6.3 years for those who never entered this holding pattern. In all, those who started in non-tenure-track positions spent 8.1 years from the time they earned the doctorate until reaching tenure. Having started an academic career in non-tenure-track faculty positions was a viable route to attain tenure for many in this cohort, and it even seems to be reflected in a shorter tenure clock; but overall both the cost and risk were very high.
Holding a postdoctoral position is not a standard component of an academic career in English; nevertheless, a small percentage (8%) of English respondents used this kind of position to stay in the academic "game." Those who assumed a postdoctoral position, in fact, moved in a much higher proportion (73%) to tenured or tenure-track faculty positions in 1995 than those who did not. However, they seemed to view postdoctoral appointments as another kind of "holding pattern." Contrary to the expectation that English doctorates might choose postdoctoral positions in order to revise their dissertations, when asked to specify why they chose such an appointment, most respondents indicated that it was "the only acceptable employment" or a "necessary step." While this holding pattern seems advantageous for those whose goal was a tenure-track position, the average 2.0 years spent in postdoctoral appointments did not seem to be reflected in shorter time to tenure.
Individuals less focused on academia encountered a very different job market, producing substantially different career paths (fig. 5). The "cohort story" for this group--the 19% who stated a career goal other than becoming a professor in their field--also shows gradual movement out of "holding pattern" jobs into more stable employment. Ten years later, almost half of this group (46%) worked in the BGN sectors. Interestingly, 29% of those who did not explicitly state that professor was a career goal actually held tenured faculty positions 10 years later; 16% were in non-tenure-track jobs, most working as temporary faculty; and 9% worked in academic (nonfaculty) administrative positions. Despite the bias of graduate programs toward academic faculty careers, respondents with nonfaculty administrative positions within academe and those whose career paths took them outside the academic milieu reported good salaries and overall job satisfaction, as will be shown later.
A typical example of the small group of English PhDs in academic administration8 is one respondent who indicated that she desired a career in academic administration. She gained experience during her last year of graduate study administering a college writing program and, after completing her PhD, continued to work in this program, eventually accepting a position as assistant dean for special projects. When she was interviewed in 1996 for this study, she was associate dean of student life, was very satisfied with her employment status and her income, and believed strongly in the social value of her work.
In general, academic administrators enjoyed their jobs and found them challenging and rewarding, reporting nearly identical levels of overall job satisfaction as did tenured and tenure-track faculty. Academic administrators had on average a higher salary than tenured faculty. While the median annual salary of tenured faculty was $48,000 (including summer teaching, consulting, and other income), the median annual salary of academic administrators was substantially higher at $62,000.9
The 128 surveyed English PhDs employed in business, government, and nonprofit organizations in 1995 were engaged in a wide variety of occupations drawing on their expert knowledge of texts as well as their high-level analytical skills (table 4); the largest number (35) worked in the writing/editing field. Notably, for several respondents, writing/editing positions led to work in general management, the second largest category (27) of BGN employment for English PhDs. Very few English PhDs worked in primary and secondary education (15), research and development (10), or law (7). Three had advanced to the level of chief executive officer.
The case of one respondent, who began her doctoral studies after a decade as a successful high school English teacher, illustrates a rewarding career outside academe. This individual continued teaching high school during and after attending graduate school at one of the country's top English departments but later worked as a business consultant training people to use computer software. Thereafter, she was employed as an editor and supervising editor in several different major educational publishing houses. Her PhD training plus her years of high school teaching made her a very attractive candidate for these positions. By the time she was interviewed for this study, she had become marketing manager for an educational publisher. She was satisfied with her salary and thoroughly enjoyed her work.
Contrary to rumors of rampant joblessness, only 39, or about 5%, of respondents in English were not in the paid workforce in December 1995 (table 5). However, only five people, less than 1% of respondents, were unemployed in the traditional economic sense of being involuntarily out of work and seeking work. Fourteen of those not working did not give an explanation for this, but it is probable that most of these women were caretakers since, in another section of the survey, they reported having small children. Twelve people, all women, were retired, many of them former high school teachers who started graduate school in midlife because they enjoyed literature.
After making the difficult transition from graduate school to more permanent, stable employment, how satisfied were English PhDs with their work situations? One survey question solicited evaluations of job satisfaction and dissatisfaction by asking respondents to rate twenty-four aspects of their current employment on a scale from 1 (very satisfied) to 4 (not satisfied). Dimensions of current employment evaluated by respondents included autonomy, content of work, flexibility, salary level, job security, and time for leisure.
Most respondents indicated being "very" or "fairly" satisfied with their jobs overall (fig. 6). Eighty-eight percent of academic administrators and 87% of tenured and tenure-track faculty were very or fairly satisfied with their current employment as well as managers, writers, editors, and teachers in the BGN sectors. However, only 71% of those in non-tenure-track faculty and academic support staff positions reported being very or fairly satisfied with their jobs.
A detailed analysis of selected dimensions of satisfaction yielded some interesting results (table 6). For this analysis, dimensions of job satisfaction commonly associated with the privileges of academia were selected and compared for respondents employed in the BGN and academic sectors in 1995. For example, 92% of respondents employed in the BGN sectors were satisfied with the autonomy of their work as compared to 90% of academics. Eighty-seven percent of BGN respondents were satisfied with the content of their work, as compared to 89% of academics. Flexibility of working arrangements was rated satisfactory by 82% of those in the BGN sectors as compared to 84% of academics.
Job satisfaction was also analyzed separately for respondents employed in each of four job categories: faculty, non-tenure-track faculty, academic administration, and the BGN sectors (table 7). Some differences and some similarities were found between these groups in the most commonly cited dimensions of satisfaction and dissatisfaction.
Tenured and tenure-track faculty were most commonly satisfied with job security, opportunities to teach, and the autonomy of their work. While many respondents in non-tenure-track faculty positions were dissatisfied with their jobs overall, they were satisfied with the fact that their jobs allowed them to live in a desirable geographic location, be near job opportunities for a spouse, and be in a good location for raising children. Academic administrators were most commonly satisfied with geographic location, health and retirement benefits, and administrative responsibilities.
Based on the dimensions of job satisfaction most commonly cited by respondents employed in the BGN sectors, it appears that BGN positions combine some of the positive aspects of faculty positions with some of the positive aspects of non-tenure-track and administrative jobs. For example, like those in non-tenure-track and administrative jobs, respondents employed in the BGN were usually satisfied with geographic location and spousal job opportunities. And, like faculty members, they were usually satisfied with the autonomy of their work.
For each of the four job categories, faculty positions, non-tenure-track faculty, academic administration, and BGN employment, dissatisfaction with research opportunities was among the mostly commonly cited aspects of dissatisfaction (see table 8). Although occupying tenured and tenure-track positions, over two-fifths of faculty were dissatisfied with research opportunities offered by their current employment. However, respondents differed when identifying other areas of dissatisfaction. Among other most commonly cited dissatisfactions, faculty members indicated not having enough time for lei sure and experiencing stress. A picture emerged of non-tenure-track faculty putting up with insecure, dead-end jobs, and stressed academic administrators struggling to operate programs in substandard facilities. Respondents employed in the BGN sectors were dissatisfied with opportunities to teach and with the direct use of their PhD education.
Among the six surveyed disciplines, English PhDs reported the lowest total annual salaries, including summer teaching, overtime, consulting, and other income sources. However, BGN salaries were substantially higher than academic salaries, with the median total annual salary being $47,000 in the academic and $56,000 in the BGN sectors. Within the academic sector, there was virtually no difference between the median salaries of men and women in tenured, tenure-track, and non-tenure-track faculty positions (fig. 7). The men among the academic administrators reported a higher annual salary than the women. Also in the BGN sectors the median annual salary of $65,000 reported by men was $15,000 higher than that reported by women.
Despite the difficult transition to stable employment and the disappointed hopes of some who wanted faculty positions, English PhDs overwhelmingly reported valuing the doctoral experience (table 9). Ninety-nine percent of tenured and tenure-track faculty reported that the PhD was "definitely worth" or "probably worth" the effort. Academic administrators were also virtually unanimous in their assessment of the value of the PhD, with 96% reporting that it was "definitely worth" or "probably worth" the effort. Somewhat smaller but still very high proportions of those in other categories felt similarly, with 89% of those employed in the BGN sectors considering completing the doctorate as worth the effort.
Furthermore, when respondents were asked to evaluate whether they would get a PhD in the same field again, "knowing what you know now," most English PhDs in each job category responded affirmatively (table 10). Over all, 78% of English PhDs would still get a doctorate in English. However, not surprisingly, those employed in non-tenure-track positions and in the BGN sectors were somewhat less likely to state that they would get a PhD in English again, and somewhat more likely to state that they would obtain a PhD in a different field or study for a professional degree.
What is it about doctoral education in English that PhD recipients value so highly? The many responses to open-ended questions at the end of the twenty-two-page survey (nearly 70% of all English respondents completed these questions) provided valuable insights. For one question, respondents were asked to express the main points they would make "if you were asked to testify before a legislative committee on the value of a doctoral education in your field." Respondents repeatedly emphasized both the personal value of doctoral education and contributions made to society by their teaching, research, and writing activities.
English PhDs eloquently expressed their commitment to the value of scholarly work in the humanities. According to one, doctoral training in English "bolsters self-discipline, trains, and stimulates the mind and imagination, develops the entire character. It is not just a specialized skill." Others emphasized the implications for society. "In a good doctoral program one learns to solve problems and develop insights in this spirit. All of these virtues are relevant to all of life and an educated electorate in a democracy," one person stated. Another pointed out, "A doctoral education in literary studies prepares an individual to become a tremendous value to any civilization like ours governed increasingly by signs and symbols, where distinctions between 'information' and 'knowledge' have to be made constantly."
Given their love for and commitment to the humanities, do English PhDs have suggestions for improving graduate education? In response to open-ended questions, respondents poured out thoughtful advice and suggestions for beginning doctoral students and existing graduate programs. In particular, they were concerned about the high individual costs in terms of time and money incurred in graduate training in English. In addition, they criticized graduate programs for not teaching students how to survive professionally and for not supporting them in their search for employment.
The most common piece of advice respondents offered to beginning graduate students was "love it or leave it" (table 11). One respondent stated, "Do not enter this field unless you feel you would never be happy doing anything else. You should have as strong a sense of vocation as one entering the ministry because the sacrifices required for teaching in this field are as great as those required of a pastor. You will have no time to call your own and you will never be paid what you are worth."
Other recurring recommendations included practical advice about what it takes to finish a PhD and have a chance in the job market. Recommendations made most commonly by respondents working in both the academic and BGN sectors included: "focus," "define your goals," and "publish." Academics emphasized the importance of learning how to teach.
In general, English PhDs were highly critical of their doctoral programs for failing to adequately professionalize students and for not supporting them in the difficult job search. Open-ended responses to the survey item requesting recommendations for doctoral programs revealed that the most common piece of advice was that programs be downsized (table 12). For example, some advised graduate programs to "accept fewer students and offer more support." Many respondents were disappointed with the quality of mentoring and support available in graduate school and their negative experiences in the academic job market.
Respondents employed in both the BGN and academic sectors often suggested that graduate programs should improve graduate student teacher training, improve career and placement services, and help students publish and attain professional visibility. Comments included "Require pedagogical training in multiple contexts," and "Most graduate programs emphasize a narrow specialty and yet most jobs are for generalists." (In recent years, graduate student teacher training has been addressed in most graduate programs.) These practical suggestions are all aimed at better preparing current students for available jobs (i.e., teaching as opposed to research positions) and more effectively integrating them into the professional networks where vital job contacts are made.
English PhDs tended to be satisfied with the content of their doctoral programs, with one exception: respondents in both the BGN and academic sectors recommended that graduate programs increase opportunities for interdisciplinary training. This advice reflects the reality that faculty must often teach a broad range of courses that demand interdisciplinary knowledge as well as the respondents' interest in and the workplace's demand for interdisciplinary work.
The survey also invited respondents to answer specific questions about core workplace skills that, according to some employers, doctoral graduates lack: teamwork, collaboration, interdisciplinary work, and organizational and managerial skills. Respondents were asked (a) whether their doctoral education had involved any of these skills, (b) whether they used these skills in their current jobs, and (c) whether instruction in these skills should be an important component in present-day doctoral education. Responses confirmed that positions held by PhDs in both academic and BGN sectors usually require such skills, but that graduate programs do not teach them. Figures 8 and 9 show that fewer than one-fifth of respondents gained experience with teamwork, collaboration, or organizational and managerial skills in graduate school, but more than half use all of these in their current jobs! Respondents employed in the BGN sectors were even more likely than academics to use these skills.
Respondents were also asked whether or not it was important for graduate programs to include teamwork, collaboration, interdisciplinary work, and managerial experience. About half of those employed in the academic sector rated working in a team and collaboration as important for inclusion in current doctoral education, while interdisciplinary work and managerial skills were rated as even more important. Except for interdisciplinary work, respondents employed in the BGN sectors were even more likely to consider it important to incorporate all of these skills into doctoral training. These findings strongly suggest that providing experiences in teamwork, collaboration, and organizational and managerial skills would be as relevant to graduate students seeking academic employment as to those who work in business, government, and nonprofit organizations.
The job search is probably one of the most daunting and certainly one of the most important tasks faced by the newly minted English PhD. Yet respondents revealed repeatedly that their universities, departments, and advisers did not provide sufficient assistance with the job search. Comments like "Basically it would have been nice if someone had cared if I got a job" and "Professors actively helping me make contact--'opening doors'--instead of shrugging it onto my shoulders entirely [would have helped]" indicated the level of frustration job-seekers experienced. Although respondents employed in the academic sector were more satisfied than respondents employed in the BGN sectors with the help received in the job search process, the general level of satisfaction with the help in the job search was low.
When seeking the first post-PhD job, 63% of respondents answered job notices in professional journals or the Chronicle of Higher Education. As shown in table 13, slightly more than half of respondents received leads and advice from faculty members and from their PhD adviser. Only one-third of respondents used a campus career center in the job search. The percentage of respondents who evaluated each of these methods as useful, however, was much lower.
When asked to specify what would have helped most with the job search, respondents most often mentioned "improved career services" and "help from faculty or department." Respondents also explained that they would have been helped by having faculty members actively promote them among colleagues, receiving realistic and honest feedback on their skills and their appropriateness for different kinds of positions, being provided more information about how the job market worked, and getting coaching and advice on interviewing and assembling an application dossier.
High proportions of respondents reported seeking help of various kinds and getting none of the type or amount they wanted (fig. 10). Not surprisingly, respondents employed in the BGN sectors received the least amount of help, but many who sought academic employment were also neglected. Forty-one percent of the 487 individuals who wanted help preparing for an academic job interview reported that they "never got this help," and 32% did get "some help, but not as much as needed." One-third of those wanting advice on résumé writing, advice about writing cover letters, or suggestions about where to find job openings never received assistance. Almost 20% of those seeking job market information never obtained this from departmental faculty. A small percentage (3%) of the 561 English PhDs who wanted recommendation letters from faculty did not get them.
Because of the high levels of dissatisfaction and numbers of individuals receiving no help with significant aspects of the job search, the approach taken by English departments to job placement might best be referred to as a "culture of neglect."
Clearly, doctoral education in English benefits the individual and equips him or her to contribute to society in a myriad of ways. Graduate education contributes to an individual's growth, fosters creative abilities, helps students mature intellectually, and develops in them the valuable skills of analysis, problem solving, and critical thinking. Society then benefits from the knowledge, skills, capacities, and values of its humanities PhDs. In addition, the widely recognized teaching and research activities of doctoral graduates, as well as their less commonly acknowledged work in business, government, and nonprofit organizations, contribute to social, cultural, and political life.
Toward the goal of easing the transition from education to meaningful employment, a Career Management Series devoted to the practical aspects of envisioning, developing, and managing a career for English/humanities doctoral students has been developed at Berkeley.10 This workshop was preceded by an intensive process of interaction with English department graduate students, staff, and faculty. The process began with a needs assessment--a series of interviews with faculty, students, and staff--that allowed the team to be sensitive to the particular departmental culture. Every aspect of the workshop was designed to respond to the specific concerns and needs of this group.
Over the course of the two-day workshop, the thirty-seven doctoral students in attendance engaged in a series of student-centered interactive activities designed to develop an enhanced recognition and appreciation of their skills and accomplishments; greater clarity about the broader uses of the skills and capabilities developed in graduate school; greater clarity about core values, work preferences, and strategies for being proactive in the pursuit of a working career; and an increased understanding of current trends in the economy and how they affect career options.
By opening up the entire world of employment options, encouraging students to explore their values and preferences, dismantling the prejudice against employment in the BGN sectors, and helping students identify the concrete skills they already possess, the workshop aimed to help advanced doctoral students more quickly find productive and satisfying careers.
In light of the "PhDs Ten Years Later" findings and our practical experience delivering the Career Management Series, we have the following recommendations:
Maresi Nerad is Director of Graduate Research and Joseph Cerny is Vice Chancellor for Research and Graduate Dean at the University of California, Berkeley.
We would like to thank the research team of the "PhDs Ten Years Later" study: Marc Goulden, Deepak Gupta, Renate Sadrozinski, Lucy Sells, Orr Shakked, but specifically Elizabeth Armstrong for her devotion to the English PhDs and Elizabeth C. Rudd for "bringing it together." We also want to thank Debra Sands Miller for her editorial work.
1This survey was funded by the Mellon Foundation and selected analysis by the National Science Foundation.
2In order to capture longer-term career outcomes, doctorate recipients were surveyed at least ten years after earning the PhD.
3Biochemists responded at the highest rate of 68% (70% of domestic PhDs); English PhDs and political scientists followed with response rates of 67% (also 67% of domestic English PhDs) and 64% (68% of domestic political scientists), respectively. Response rates of 63% of mathematicians (67% of domestic PhDs), 60% of computer scientists (65% of domestic PhDs), and 53% of electrical engineers (57% of domestic PhDs) were achieved.
4Excluding "not in the workforce" and those who were employed for whom there was incomplete information, 58% were employed as tenured faculty, 6% were on tenure track, and 16% were non-tenure-track faculty or had other academic positions. Eighty percent were employed in the academic sector, 18% in the BGN sectors, and 2% in both sectors. For English PhDs working in both sectors, the academic component is mainly a non-tenure-track faculty position.
5Five percent were not in the workforce in 1995; 4% were employed, but we have incomplete employment information; and 2% worked in both sectors simultaneously.
6See definition according to the Carnegie Commission's report.
7It is noteworthy that one-quarter of women in the academic sector held non-tenure-track faculty positions as lecturers or administrators, as compared to only 17% of men. Discussion of gender differences in employment patterns is beyond the scope of this paper and will be examined in subsequent publications.
8Among all English PhDs, 3.8% were employed as academic administrators in 1995.
9Excluded from the salary calculations are part-time employees and respondents working outside the US.
10Building on the work of Rose von Thater, Director of Education and Outreach at the University of California, Berkeley, Center for Particle Astrophysics, the graduate division together with von Thater and an outside consultant, Myan Baker, designed this two-day workshop.
Baer, Kristine. "Can We Salvage the Lost Generation of Humanists?" Chronicle of Higher Education 25 May 1983: 64.
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. The Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education. 1994. 28 June 2000 <http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/Resources/Resource.htm>. Click on "Publications."
Nerad, Maresi, and Joseph Cerny. "PhDs Ten Years Later." Unpublished ms., 1999.
| Field | Men | Women | International | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry | 694 | 268 | 97 | 962 |
| Computer science | 583 | 69 | 209 | 652 |
| Electrical engineering | 966 | 36 | 417 | 1,002 |
| English | 567 | 650 | 72 | 1,217 |
| Mathematics | 1,005 | 187 | 395 | 1,192 |
| Political science | 630 | 199 | 144 | 829 |
| Total | 4,445 | 1,409 | 1,334 | 5,854 |
Note: Excludes deceased (63).
Source: "PhDs Ten Years Later"
| Years | Percentage | Number |
|---|---|---|
| 3-5 | 5 | 36 |
| 5-7 | 21 | 164 |
| 7-9 | 23 | 182 |
| 9-11 | 18 | 137 |
| 11+ | 33 | 257 |
| Pursue academic jobs | 73% |
| Pursue jobs in both sectors | 8% |
| Pursue BGN jobs (3 responses) | - |
| No specific ideas or encouragement | 19% |
| Job Title | |
|---|---|
| Writing / editing | 35 |
| Management | 27 |
| Teaching | 15 |
| R&D | 10 |
| Communications / governmental relations | 7 |
| Legal | 7 |
| Consultant | 4 |
| Executive | 3 |
| Administrative support | 3 |
| Finance | 2 |
| Information systems | 2 |
| Other | 13 |
| Men | Women | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Caretakers | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| Retired (age and other) | 0 | 12 | 12 |
| Medical condition | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Between jobs / other | 3 | 1 | 4 |
| Fringe employment | 2 | 12 | 14 |
| Don't know why | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Unemployed | 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Total (N=814) | 6 | 33 | 39 (5%) |
| BGN | Academic | |
|---|---|---|
| Autonomy of work | 92 | 90 |
| Spouse's job | 91 | 75 |
| Content of work | 87 | 89 |
| Prestige of organization | 83 | 68 |
| Work environment | 83 | 73 |
| Flexible work situation | 82 | 84 |
| Career growth | 78 | 67 |
| Tenured or tenure-track faculty | |
| Job security | 95 |
| Opportunity to teach | 95 |
| Autonomy of work | 91 |
| Non-tenure-track faculty | |
| Geographic location | 91 |
| Spouse's job | 91 |
| Location for children | 90 |
| BGN | |
| Autonomy of work | 92 |
| Spouse's job | 91 |
| Geographic location | 89 |
| Academic administrator | |
| Geographic location | 96 |
| Health and retirement | 96 |
| Administrative responsibility | 96 |
| Tenured or tenure-track faculty | |
| Leisure | 43 |
| Research opportunity | 42 |
| Stress | 41 |
| Non-tenure-track faculty | |
| Career growth | 63 |
| Research opportunity | 60 |
| Job security | 54 |
| BGN | |
| Research opportunity | 49 |
| Opportunity to teach | 42 |
| Use of PhD | 38 |
| Academic administrator | |
| Stress | 48 |
| Equipment | 48 |
| Research opportunity | 47 |
| Worth | Not Worth | |
|---|---|---|
| Tenured or tenure-track faculty | 99 | 1 |
| Non-tenure track faculty | 87 | 13 |
| Academic administrator | 96 | 4 |
| BGN | 89 | 11 |
| Tenured or Tenure- Track Faculty (N= 437) |
Non-Tenure- Track Faculty (N = 81) |
Academic Administrator (N = 26) |
BGN (N = 115) |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yes: Same field | 84 | 67 | 88 | 64 |
| Yes: Different field | 9 | 18 | 4 | 13 |
| No: Medicine or law instead | 5 | 10 | 4 | 12 |
| No: Master's | 1 | 4 | 4 | 8 |
| No: Graduate degree | 1 | 1 | - | 3 |
| Ranking Order | ||
|---|---|---|
| BGN (N = 79) | Academic (N = 366) | |
| Love it or leave it | 1 | 1 |
| Focus, define your goals | 2 | 4 |
| Consider BGN careers | 3 | 10 |
| Publish | 4 | 3 |
| Be aware of poor job market | 5 | 5 |
| Learn how to teach | - | 2 |
| Ranking Order | ||
|---|---|---|
| BGN (N = 75) | Academic (N = 328) | |
| Downsize | 1 | 2 |
| Teach how to teach | 2 | 1 |
| Improve career services | 3 | 8 |
| Help students finish | 4 | - |
| Help with publishing | 5 | 4 |
| Provide interdisciplinarity | 7 | 3 |
| Source | Used | Useful |
|---|---|---|
| Job notice in professional journals or the Chronicle of Higher Education |
63 | 39 |
| Faculty | 53 | 26 |
| PhD adviser | 53 | 26 |
| Campus career center | 33 | 11 |
Fig. 1
© 1999 by Maresi Nerad and Joseph Cerny.
|
|---|
|
|
|
