January 28, 2006
The Economics of a Ph.D.
Gary North on the economics of a Ph.D. (via Political Theory Daily Review).
Ph.D. students are a lot like gamblers. They expect to beat the odds. The gambler personifies odds-beating as Lady Luck. The Ph.D. student instead looks within. "I am really smart. These other people in the program aren't as smart as I am. I will get that tenure-track job. I will make the cut. I will be a beneficiary of the system."If wishes were horses, beggars would ride. Also, if ego were marketable, all Ph.D. graduates would get tenure...
At $20,000 or more per year in tuition and living expenses, plus the $35,000+ not earned in the job market, trying to earn a Ph.D. is a losing proposition.
In some departments, the years invested are horrendous. Breneman's dissertation went into the grim details, department by department. Anyone seeking a degree in philosophy was almost doomed to failure, yet the Ph.D. degree took on average over a decade beyond the B.A. to earn. There were almost no college teaching jobs when they finished. That was before the glut.
Earning a Ph.D. may pay off if your goal is status, although I don't understand why anyone regards a Ph.D. as a status symbol that is worth giving up five to ten years of your earning power in your youth, when every dime saved can multiply because of compounding. If the public understood the economics of earning a Ph.D., people would think "naïve economic loser" whenever they hear "Ph.D."
A word to the wise is sufficient.
Posted by Robin Varghese at 12:06 PM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c562c53ef00d8345a339669e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Economics of a Ph.D.:
» Three Little Dots: Weekend Edition from ENCYCLOPEDIA HANASIANA
Books go out of print. That's just what they do. ... Ph.D's don't pay, althoughbased on my experiencegetting paid (however meagerly) to read Hegel and Kierkegaard beats temping any day. [via] ... Jonathan Coulton pays tribute to NYC NPR a... [Read More]
Tracked on Jan 28, 2006 4:16:12 PM
» The Economics of [doing] a Ph.D. from quicklinks
3quarksdaily: The Economics of [doing] a Ph.D. Perhaps not the most fiscally responsible thing to do...... [Read More]
Tracked on Jan 29, 2006 3:32:14 PM
Comments
This article is almost laughable in its narrow-mindedness. The entire thrust of it seems to be that there are entirely too many Ph.Ds for tenure-track positions. However, the article does not discuss the differences in post-graduate work in various disciplines. A Ph.D. in chemical engineering is worth far more than the 5 years of earning potential anyone would have working at an average job, whereas as a Ph.D. in philosophy is almost useless. Why is that? Well tenure-track positions are merely one avenue for those with Ph.Ds to take, about the only one a philsophy graduate can take. For those who have a degree that is more applicable to a position in industry (ie. the real world), then there are a multitude of possible routes. The article does not discuss the alternatives, and instead simply focuses on teaching as being the main reward for those with a newly minted Ph.D. and the sole reason for departments to exist. I have found that departments couldn't care less about teaching, and are far more interested in bringing in research dollars, which is intimately linked to publication record and grant acquisition and not linked whatsoever to teaching.
Posted by: bllius | Jan 28, 2006 1:56:29 PM
how stupid. it assumes that the sole purpose of investing in an education is to be able to command a higher salary.
if this were true of MBAs, it might hold water, but nobody is dumb enough to think a phd in philosophy will pay for itself one day. but then, that's not why they do it.
Posted by: liz | Jan 28, 2006 2:20:49 PM
Well, really, if someone takes ten years to earn a doctorate, you can't expect they'll ever be a big producer.
Posted by: serial catowner | Jan 28, 2006 5:12:17 PM
PhD students in biological sciences get paid stipends, so they earn money while studying.
That said, the length of time it takes to get a PhD is longer now than it was in the past. It used to take only about 4 years to get your PhD, plus 1 year post-doc, before becoming an associate professor or going into industry.
Now, it's not unusual to hear about 5-6 years to get a PhD, 4 years post-doc (some people even do two or more post-docs), before having enough reference to get a good job.
Posted by: alex | Jan 28, 2006 7:14:18 PM
I guess the article's author hasn't heard the old ditty:
(sung to the tune of the Mickey Mouse song)
"MIT, Ph.d., M-O-N-E-Y!"
Posted by: Puck | Jan 28, 2006 8:57:12 PM
He's a crank you realize ... North has written a 17 volume free commentary on the Bible proving it mandates free market capitalism ....
Posted by: Anonymous | Jan 30, 2006 1:22:55 AM
I'm a PhD candidate in literature and creative writing, and teach for free tuition and a stipend, as do many PhD candidates in the humanities and other subjects. I do take out a few thou in student loans a year to cover my wine habit, but will otherwise be debt free when I graduate.
And really, I don't care about the whole job afterwards bit. I'm in grad school so I can hang out, think, read, drink wine, and enjoy my twenties, out and about and on the beach --
I wonder if this money-obsessed dude ever enjoyed the act of actually living half as much as I do...
Posted by: green LA girl | Jan 30, 2006 10:54:13 PM
Post a comment