I've heard it is around 200 people competing for one tenured post so your chances of getting it is about as slim as you becoming the next Taylor Swift. Why would anyone want to do research then? Being in a publish-or-perish environment ain't fun. You will be flipping burgers if you have nothing published.
>>17125438
In fact I am giving up.
Maybe one day the world will realize that best outcomes are obtained by giving normal wages to everyone rather than going crazy about few 'super-professors' and tons of poor adjuncts.
But today is not that day.
>>17125457
See, this is why I do not get why anyone would want to do research. Your chances of becoming tenured are slim as fuck. It is less than one percent.
They dont know about the situation
>>17125438
Fuck off Brandon.
>>17125586
Why though? Look at what >>17125457
said
Academia is fucked and your chances of becoming tenured is like less than one percent. I don't get anyone will want to gamble with that.
>>17125589
The problem I wanted to highlight is not chances to have tenure are slim.
It is the whole idea that either you have to be the Taylor Swift of research or you have to be somebody who's trying to be one.
So the problem is not just there are super-stars... the problem is that the whole system is rigged to exploit super-star wannabies to the point of demanding of people to act like wannabes even if they want to be left alone.
This is particularly ridiculous in the humanities in which progrees is slow and teaching or recording is the biggest part of it. But even STEMs have their superstar fever.
Things got ridiculous when I heard that even being selected for a tenure interview was worth putting in your CV. That was the proof the whole system is ridiculous.
I don't have data at hand, but I remember people doing stats and showing that research output is not proportional to cash invested on HR, so that it would be wiser to give many more tenured people a slightly lesser (but decent wage) rather than oberloading few lucky ones with excessive amounts of cash.
My problem with this system is that even if you are an adjunct it is demanded of you to behave like a wannabe. Why cannot I be a normal adjunct, maybe part time and then have a second job to top up the wage? Why cannot I settle for a minor role? Why do I have to attempt to be a super star just in order to live a normal life in the academia?
I'd say better be like doctors who do a lot.of practical shit in the hospital and then occasionally shit an article or two with results from their findings.
>>17125604
You are very correct. It is very difficult to make a living as an adjunct as the research world is like the music industry - you're either a superstar like Taylor Swift or you are a nobody.
So I don't get why anyone would do full time research though. Like you said having a backup job is good. Why would someone from the states do a PhD instead of go to Med school when they have the grades to do so? Why would someone from Australia pick Political Science instead of Law when his high school grades are good enough for Law?
>>17125613
>why?
Bad marketing (bad for customers)
Personal values
Misplaced priorities
Bona fide wrong choices
Society makes you take too many important choices too early in life
Family expectations (or lack thereof)
Anyway I am not despising social sciences or other stuff. But as an insider I can tell people have no fucking idea of what we do.
The average girl who "loves philosophy" actually has a very folk view of what it is about. And so on.
Too many choices
Too early
Too much pressure
Stigma if you withdraw from career
>>17125653
>I can tell people have no fucking idea of what we do
I agree. But I do know some really smart people who picked the academia path. I am just surprised they will be this "dumb". Surely they will know about how tough things will be?
Adjuncts who do not have their contracts renewed and cannot find an academia job are in the worse position ever. They are even less likely to be hired than high school dropouts as the employers know that they will quit their jobs as soon as they find a better one.
>>17125438
>Why would anyone want to do research?
Because they studied a degree for fun, not for utility, and now they're paying for their poor life choices.
They have no choice but to play the tenure lottery.
>>17125744
What about in the states though? Why continue to do a Political Science PhD when you have the grades to go to Law school?
>>17125758
Because political science won't help you in law, it'd be to your detriment.
Law is not sophistry, that's just an inane media based opinion. Everything is fact, and nobody thinks about ideology in practice.
>>17125768
That doesn't answer my question though.
As I've pointed out, a person with a Political Science PhD ending up with a tenured post is like almost 0 (0.5% is pretty low). Why would anyone want to do full-time research? As the other anons have pointed out, the prospects are terrible.
And you guys are the ones hating on me when I ask such questions calling me autistic and shit. It's you folks who are biased against me. I think it is pretty insane to do a PhD hoping you will end up with a tenured job one day.
>>17125780
>That doesn't answer my question though.
It does. Having the grades to go to law school is not the same as doing well enough at law school to actually have a hope of getting a job. If those grades are from a drastically different subject like polsci, there's more cause for alarm.
I'll give you the answer you want to hear, though.
>Why would anyone want to do full-time research?
Because they're afraid of work where they actually have to do something of worth, where their failure or success will immediately impact someone else's life.
>the prospects are terrible.
Yes. Experience as a researcher is experience as a researcher. It's a student on steroids, not of any use to any employer who isn't a researcher.
It's a very narrow career choice. You can't really point to any experience and say
>Oh yes, here's a b c, real life situation, and here's how I dealt with it. Here are my skills that make me a good candidate for this job that were exemplified in that scenario.
Most of the law researchers I know took the jobs because they couldn't find work in practice, or they were awful, because real life work is not writing essays and making graphs out of data. They've can't find any other work now, because their qualifications have expired and all they have to show for it is some data analysis nobody really cares about.
>>17125809
>I'll give you the answer you want to hear, though.
What? So those people with PhDs who quit academia still find jobs? I thought that was super hard as well as these jobs positions are flooded with applicants.
>>17125823
I didn't say it was impossible, just that it was hard.
Let me put it this way. If you leave building school, and you draw pictures of walls for 6-9 hours a day, rate other people's walls that they've built, and analyse wall building trends, you're going to be at a disadvantage compared to someone fresh out of building school who took a part time job building fences.
For some fields, it's much more harsh. Law, at least. These guys are absolutely NOT practitioners, and you're better off hiring some young person with a malleable mind rather than try to turn some headupass professor into a solicitor
>>17125823
It depends on what you can do with it. These days a bone with a phd in something or other can still jump into consulting if they're dynamic and smart/driven enough or they can learn some programming skills and get hired somewhere doing something.
>>17125841
>professor
Or PhD student*
>>17125843
I think most employees will prefer hiring someone without a PhD. Those guys are less likely to switch jobs.
PEOPLE. STOP FUCKING REPLYING TO BRANDON THREADS. HE IS NOT LISTENING, HE WILL POST A VARIATION OF THIS POST IN DAYS IF NOT HOURS.
GO AWAY BRANDON.
>>17125859
Have you actually looked at what people posted here. A guy in academia actually talked about how fucked up his situation is. You are the one who has no idea what academia is. You are either a superstar or a no one.
>>17125859
THIS THIS THIS
HIDE BRANDON THREADS
IGNORE BRANDON POSTS
DO NOT REPLY TO BRANDON
SAGE REPORT HIDE
>>17125888
Have you read what >>17125457 posted?
It's you guys who are unfamiliar with the academia world.
>>17125857
Well that's what i was saying - if you only have a phd then that could happen. If you did a phd and then a bootcamp for development or design then that's another matter.
>>17126163
>a bootcamp for development or design
Doesn't matter. Your PhD will make you look like you will quit your job soon as well.
This entire thread sounds like one person samefagging. That said, there are a few things about a PhD. If a student asks any good professor professor on getting a PhD, that professor would say bad things. In particular, if you plan to do a PhD in the humanities, you are stupid. But any good professor would advise against getting a PhD. Well informed people should know that.
In the USA, since you don't need a Master's degree to start a doctorate program, you can just drop out, such as when you get your Master's. People drop out of PhD programs, and it's smart that people who don't like academia to drop out.
Also, highly field dependent is job placement. In economics, if you get a PhD, you will get a job.
http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2013/05/if-you-get-phd-get-economics-phd.html
In the mathematical fields, most people get a job after their PhD, using data from AMS's survey.
http://www.ams.org/profession/data/annual-survey/2014Survey-NewDoctorates-Supp-TableE3.pdf
>>17126309
Yeah I totally agree with you. Your odds of being a tenured professor yourself as pretty close to zero so why take the risk? I think a lot of people call me autistic and shit because they do not understand how academia works.
Is dropping out with a Master's such a good idea though? Sounds useless as well.
>>17125438
Because it's their passion. If it isn't your whole life then you won't be cut out for it.
>>17125438
WAIT
SHIT
I REPLIED TO A BRANDON THREAD
>>17126526
>>17126530
But look at >>17126309
