PhD, or not PhD
A column in The Chronicle of Higher Education, as pointed to by my friend Matt Bandy, has an interesting take on the essentialness (or lack thereof) of a Ph.D. The column is specific to the humanities, but is easily transferable to the social sciences, and I think most particularly, to Anthropology. Matt makes his points specific to archaeology, but I think that getting a PhD in any kind of anthropology these days is a particular kind of folly.
Yes, I got one. Yes, some of my best friends are Ph.D.’s in Anthropology. Reader, I married a Ph.D. in Anthropology. That doesn’t mean it was a good idea—just that we were lucky, and that our passion for the discipline managed to (almost) make up for, in my case, the hard time we spent trying to wring even one full-time job out of our two-Ph.D. partnership.
This is not to say that I don’t think people should study Anthropology. On the contrary, I think we need more, not less, in our educational system. But Anthropology should be shot through all of our educational system, K-12 as well as higher. It should be a robust undergraduate degree, from which one could spring to any number of professional career platforms. Anthropology should be a foundational discipline in anyone’s Liberal Arts and Sciences education. A knowledge of anthropology, and the history behind the discipline, can lead to a perspective that can be useful in any number of paths. But one doesn’t need a Ph.D. to have this knowledge. Indeed, the quest for the Ph.D. can isolate the people who have this knowledge into a group of sad, self-flagellating academic wanna-be’s who, rather than getting to share their love of the field, grow increasingly bitter at the disconnect between what they wanted to happen in their professional lives (that is, a tenure-track job as a Professor). How liberating it would be if they (if we) had simply studied what we loved as undergraduates, but then took that wonderful foundation and did something else entirely?
I had at least one professor, when I was an undergraduate, try to talk me out of going to graduate school in Anthropology. I appreciate their efforts—they were not doing it out of disrespect for me or my abilities, but rather because they did (and do) respect me, and knew how hard and thankless the road to the Ph.D. would be.
I will repeat: I have many successful friends in Anthropology, people with the fabled tenure-track jobs. They are not only talented, they are extremely lucky (and most of them know it!). I also have many wonderful friends who are successes in every other way except for the tenure-track job, and that latter “failure” makes them miserable, even though it is not their fault.
We as a profession need to take responsibility for our students, and not only inform them of the options outside of a Ph.D. in Anthropology, but actively point undergraduates into post-B.A. in Anthropology, non-Ph.D., professional opportunities. That can include an M.A. in Anthropology, but not necessarily. And we need to be serious about it, not treating anything other than a tenure-track job as “second- (or third-, or fourth-) best.”
Hmmm. I guess I am one reformed biologist who needs to cheer up you anthropologists! Anthropology has always struck me as the most interesting of fields, in part because it is so good at trying to answer the “who are we?” questions. For biologists, it is clear…we are DNA. This can be a comforting reduction, but not a very intellectually stimulating one. Sure biologists get jobs in academia and “industry” (hey even I had one for awhile), but still end up with their share of neurotics and compulsives.
The other question is what is a Ph.D. for? One of the problems of the social sciences is that it too often frames the tenure track job as the only legitimate reason to pursue a Ph.D. I don’t buy this–but I guess that is a subject for my own blog!
I never discourage students who love to read, write, and explore from getting a Ph.D. in any subject. But, they also should never limit themselves to solely the academic job market.
Yeah, ive got to say thats a cheery post. lol. The problem isnt the anthropology PhD per se. Its the type of society we live in and the types of knowledge that are rewarded economically by the neo-liberal system and its insitutions of which the university complex is one.
Anthropology, and humanities degrees also – those forms of PhDs which are involved in critique and critical reflection – are not seen as important nor economically rewarded because they dont stimulate profits and economic growth. Their type of knowledge isnt easily turned into economic profits as the research from biology say might be. On the contrary anthropology PhDs and the like often seek to produce ‘fairer’ societies where services, support and finance are redistributed in ways that do not support the neoliberal leviathan, and in fact go after it as the problem rather than something to live and support through our careers. Im not sure how many professors you know telling their BA anthropology students to do PhDs in Anthro, that strikes me as bizarre. BA students, not just anthros, should be encouraged across the board to not move straight into academia or a phd. A BA student told to move straight to a PhD is being done a disservice. And from another point of view encouraging them to move straight to a PhD isnt because they are brilliant – to assume such means we are cutting them off at say 21/22 from other parts of their life they need to develop and often because their fees support the profits of the university complex.
If one wants an easy life and to become another mechanism in the system of inequality spread by global capitalism there are numerous non-critical thinking PhDs to do, and people are free to choose those. If from another direction one wants to critique society in what granted might be an idealistic and more ethically driven career then one should do a PhD in anthropology or the humanities. The choice isnt, from my point of view, to tell them to get out why they still can, although of course one is entitled to be grumpy and negative as one pleases. Rather the choice is what sort of society do we want to produce. One where there are very few critical thinkers and very few people with real life experience before their PhD studies or one where people educate themselves both inside and outside academia and then make a choice about what phd or other they want or dont want to study. I think you’ll find most with experience of the working world will steer clear of anth anyway, although some may not.
As an aside. I got involved in Ethnography.com because Cindy wrote an article about an article I wrote (does that makes sense?) regarding how the issue of culture has been appropriated by other academic departments. The link is here: http://www.ethnography.com/2007/08/can-and-should-anthropology-share-culture/#comments
The gist of Cindy (and my) article is that the subject of culture has been appropriated within the academy by other departments. As a sociologist I have done it, and as department chair in a sociology department, I even hired two anthropologists as lecturers to teach our “culture classes.”
The point is that culture is so successful as a subject that it is now taught by many departments–while Anthro Ph.D.s are as Donna points out, under-employed.
“negative and grumpy” Hee! And I thought I was just telling the truth. Far be it for me to discourage people passionate about anthropology from studying it. My point is, the PhD takes a long, long time. Make sure that you really want to study anthropology for 10 years before you take the PhD plunge. And make damn sure that you’re realistic about the job market for academics, and that you allow yourself to envision yourself outside of the Ivory Tower. Because that is where you are likely to end up. And it’s a fine, fine place! A friend of a friend today said that one of her professors encouraged her to pursue a PhD if “that’s what you want to do in your 20s.” I think that’s a fine paradigm for choice. And it’s what I chose to do with my 20s, and I wouldn’t have it any other way. My beef is not with the discipline, but with the lack of a realistic professional assessment of our collective professional prospects as PhDs in anthropology, indeed, in the social sciences. There are so many of us! And so few tenure-track jobs. Let’s own the shift the focus, acknowledge that the tenure-track is far more the exception than the rule these days, and for goodness’ sake, be open about that reality with our students. I repeat: it is terribly irresponsible to do anything less.
WHOA! Lets be clear *I* have an exclusive on being “negative and grumpy” on this site. I have both patents and trademarks. The rest of you blighter’s are to even things out and give the site some cred.
I agree partially with Frank but not all, I am a very happy capitalist after all, and think its fine for anthros to be capitalists as well.
Where I agree is that during both my grad programs there was a very big difference between the students that had gone from kindergarten to grad school without stop and those that did spent a few years working. Don’t mistake me, I have also met more than one returning student that was a 5 x 5 loon as well, but people that have had a successful career prior to grad school certainly brings something extra back to school with them.
I’m one of those students/persons who worked for a number of years instead of going straight from undergrad to grad school (in Anth). My parents forced me to work, and I’m EXTREMELY glad they did so. (I worked in the media industry in a non-Western region [Southeast Asia] for five years.)
I have much, much more insight into to topics brought up in my current Anth grad program compared to others who went straight to grad school. I can apply these theories/topics to my personal experience. I’m breezing through the course, making excellent grades, find the course very stimulating, and feel bad for my classmates who went straight from undergrad to grad school.
Sure they can regurgitate the theories, although for the most part, they don’t have much of an idea how these translate in regards to different contexts, as this is mostly understood through experience.
As such, I feel that admissions committees to Anth programs should not concentrate on GPA, GRE’s, etc, but should focus upon whether or not a student has experienced life to a significant amount of time outside of one’s “own” culture context. This, I believe, should be the most important factor when reviewing a candidate. The rest is more-or-less bureaucracy (although it should be said that I’m a horrible standardized test-taker!)