Academic

The Incredible Shrinking Ph.D.

By Tommy Crocker

Thanks to Dan and the Lounge for inviting back to the conversation.  Here in South Carolina we've experienced some of the brunt of the economic downturn, and as some of you may be aware, our Governor was the last in the nation to accept federal stimulus money (he is continuing to fight allocation of $700 million towards education, including money for the universities).

This recent article highlights one surprising trend in higher education:  shrinking Ph.D. admissions.  I say surprising because Ph.D. programs can be sources of relatively cheap labor for undergraduate teaching, at least as compared with the salary and benefits costs of additional full-time faculty.  Graduate programs in general are also nice places to weather stormy employment markets.  Yet, institutions including South Carolina have had to think short-term in reducing costs wherever they can.  As a result, gaining admission to a Ph.D. program has become more difficult.

There is one observation in the article I find of particular interest:  "As the job market for new Ph.D.'s especially in the humanities, has become so tight, some academics have questioned the appropriateness of departments admitting as many students as they have in the past.  At the same time, aligning current Ph.D. admissions and job market trends is difficult, given the long time frame for completing doctorates.   There are many underemployed Ph.D.'s today cursing some reports in the past predicting major shortages of faculty members--shortages that never came to pass."  Could there be a positive outcome from fewer Ph.D.'s at least in some disciplines?

Since an optimism bias may affect some who pursue a Ph.D. in light of such uncertain employment prospects, departments and universities may be better suited (and may be obligated) to align supply and demand through institutional decisions about their Ph.D. programs.  Anyone with a humanities Ph.D. knows that the problems is not simply that there are too few jobs, but that there are too few jobs conducive to an active scholarly agenda (which can lead to "underemployment").  Many available jobs at regional small liberal arts colleges or branch campuses of state institutions come with high teaching loads, with relatively little research support, and sometimes without tenure.  As a consequence, the competition for tenure-track positions at flagship and selective institutions can be particularly fierce.  If I am roughly correct in my description of the market, then it should follow that a reduction in Ph.D. admissions will not do a lot to alleviate the competition for teaching positions at research institutions, but may lead to a shortage of Ph.D.'s available to teach elsewhere.  In the meantime, the savings to universities beyond the immediate budgetary emergency may be illusory.  Over the next few years, when Ph.D. students would have been available to teach courses, these same universities may find themselves either asking existing faculty to teach more--or, dare we hope, having to increase faculty size. 

Full post as published by The Faculty Lounge on April 10, 2009 (boomark / email).