From the category archives:

Academic life

Photo by Josh Reynolds for APHow’s this for an attention-grabbing headline? “Family is the number one reason for women leaving academia.” You can get the full report here, but it turns out that even though women now obtain more than 50% of all PhDs in the life sciences in the U.S. (!), they leave before getting tenure. Take this jaw-dropping snippet:

Our findings indicate that women in the sciences who are married with children are 35 percent less likely to enter a tenure track position after receiving a Ph.D. than married men with children. And they are 27 percent less likely than their male counterparts to achieve tenure upon entering a tenure-track job. By contrast, single women without young children are roughly as successful as married men with children in attaining a tenure-track job, and a little more successful than married women with children in achieving tenure. Married women without children also do not fare quite as well as men.

Though I can’t say this is too surprising:

In unparalleled surveys of doctoral students and postdoctoral scholars at the University of California, we found that both men and women report a shifting away from the career goal of research professor, with women’s move being more pronounced. Among doctoral students, career-life issues populate four of the top-five most commonly cited reasons why students changed their minds, with women more likely than men to cite these issues as very important, and more than twice as likely as men to cite issues related to children.

Then there is some really maddening stuff about the lack of mat leave provisions, which makes this Canadian go a little crazy (full-time workers in Canada are entitled up to 52 weeks of maternity leave for bio moms–with a bit of an income paid by our employment insurance system–and up to 9 months of mat leave for adoptive parents, to be split up in whatever way you like between the two parents).

But this really made me flip:

The time pressures of academia are unrelenting for most faculty in the sciences, who work on average about 50 hours a week up through age 62. When combined with caregiving hours and house work, UC women faculty with children, ages 30 to 50, report a weekly average of over 100 hours of combined activities (—compared to 86 hours for men with children). And women faculty with children provide an average of more than 30 hours a week of caregiving up through age 50, while family responsive policies rarely address this long-term career-life issue. Evidence indicates that the collision course between career timing and family timing may be worsening—the average age for tenure receipt among tenure-track faculty in the sciences was 36 in 1985, and extended out past age 39 by 2003.

Wow. That sheds some serious light, doesn’t it?

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • email
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
  • Reddit
  • Slashdot
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Tumblr
  • TwitThis
  • Yahoo! Buzz

{ 2 comments }

Professor outfit 3 by ragesossA friend of mine recently sent me this article from CNN Money, which lists “college professor” as number 3 on a top 50 list of best jobs in America, and top 3 on the list of low-stress jobs. Yeah, that’s right. Number 3.

The piece is pretty breathtaking in its innacuracies and highly skewed picture of current academic realities in North America. It starts off with a list of what profs do, which lists teaching, grading, research and writing. No mention of committee work, external funding applications, the hours spent preparing for conferences, readying manuscripts for publication and the annual need (for most profs) to re-apply for your job over and over again.

This skewed picture of what constitutes “work” continues with the good old fallacy about how great it is to be a prof because you can do what you want with your time:

Why it’s great: For starters, major scheduling freedom. “Besides teaching and office hours, I get to decide where, when, and how I get my work done,” says Daniel Beckman, a biology professor at Missouri State University. And that doesn’t even take into account ample time off for holidays and a reduced workload in the summer.

As more than one person observed in the comments thread at this piece, the schedule is free for you to manage, but the content of the schedule is not negotiable. And people, can we quit it with the lie about having summers off? Elementary school teachers have the summer off, i.e. they don’t have to do any actual work related to their actual job/profession/career for roughly 2 months. But profs?! C’mon, summer is an opportunity to ramp up your writing, research, and your worry level as you wait to hear from the uni about whether or not you’ve got a course to teach in the fall.

It continues:

Competition for tenure-track positions at four-year institutions is intense, but you’ll find lots of available positions at community colleges and professional programs, where you can enter the professoriate as an adjunct faculty member or non-tenure track instructor without a doctorate degree. That’s particularly true during economic downturns, when laid-off workers often head back to school for additional training.

Uh…where do we start with this one? “Lots of available positions”? Okay, let’s say that was actually true. Oooh, fancy you, you can “enter the professoriate” supposedly without a PhD! Mmmm, staaatus! Yeah! Just make sure you go to Value Village to get your tweed jacket with the elbow patches first (and remember not to actually light up the pipe tobacco in the classroom–that’s frowned upon in the 21st century). Oh, the glamour of being “an adjunct faculty member or non-tenure track instructor,” especially in what the article pegs as a “low-stress” position. Hahahaha! ‘Cause it’s not stressful at all having to re-apply for your job every year! And WTF is with the bit about economic downturns? I’m actually genuinely confused by that sentence.

The article adds:

More valuable perks: reduced or free tuition for family members and free access to college gyms and libraries.

M’kay, seriously? What family members? Oh, the children that you can’t afford to have? And c’mon, free access to the library is considered a perk?! Honest to dawg, isn’t that like saying to a firefighter, “You get free access to the fire truck!” And as for the gym at my alma mater, there was no way I was working out in a space that distinctly had the look, feel and smell of my high school change room.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • email
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
  • Reddit
  • Slashdot
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Tumblr
  • TwitThis
  • Yahoo! Buzz

{ 7 comments }

picture-3Yesterday, I was looking over a summary of the 2004/2005 Survey of Earned Doctorates by Statistics Canada. I was thinking about the ways that statistics are presented, and what kind of things are left unsaid (and uninterpreted) when you’re talking about raw numbers. WARNING: this is an unusually grumpy post for me, as it points to what I believe are some serious problems within the Canadian system of graduate education. I will resume my Mary Sunshine attitude tomorrow.

According to the report,

“enrolment in doctoral programs has increased. Between 2000 and 2004, enrolment grew at an average rate of almost 7% a year. In 2004/2005, more than 34,000 students were enrolled in all years of doctoral programs. This suggests there should soon be a commensurate increase in the number of earned doctorates.”

Maybe, maybe not. Logically, yes, we should be able to assume this. But that doesn’t take into account the number of people who are just going to bail now from their programs, as a result of the bleak academic job market. And then there are all of those other variables that always existed: people quitting due to depression, feeling stuck, being broke, being sick of being broke, being punished for who they are/what they study, family obligations, changes of heart, shifting priorities, etc.

“The Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada attributes the growth in enrolment to two factors. The first is an increase in the number of faculty at Canadian institutions, which has increased the institutional capacity for training graduate students.”

Which is kinda funny, from my point of view. If there are so many more faculty at Canadian institutions, why are Canadian grad students routinely getting so screwed in terms of supervisorship? I can’t tell you how many times I’ve witnessed or heard about supervisors who screw their grad students over by a) neglect, b) power/ego struggles with other dissertation committee members, c) sheer incompetence (NB: I was blessed with a competent, connected, caring supervisor, without whom I could have easily stumbled, fallen, and failed to finish). If faculty took their roles as dissertation supervisors seriously, then we WOULD actually see a spike in the numbers of doctoral candidates crossing the finish line.

“The second is an increase in the level of funding for graduate students through student financial assistance and research grants from both governments and universities.”

Hahahahaha! Hahahahahaha! Hahahaha! (Oh, sorry, let me just wipe the tears from my eyes–god, that’s a good one!) Hahahahahha!

“Even though female graduates neared parity with men, there were wide gaps between the sexes within certain fields of study.”

Oh, right. There is that. Engineering=menfolk. Psychology=the ladies. But there is this:

“Some of the gains made by women came in traditionally male dominated fields. In computer and information sciences and mathematics, as well as in physical sciences, the numbers of female graduates grew much faster than the number of male graduates.”

For the purposes of this blog, this was the interesting bit:

“Almost three-quarters of doctoral graduates had firm plans for their future when they graduated. Graduates of social sciences and life sciences were the most likely to have established plans.”

Okay, so the survey established that about 75% of people graduating with PhDs are from science and engineering. It also says 75% of graduates had firm future plans. And it also says most of the people with future plans are social scientists and life scientists. So, would I be wrong in assuming the people who feel really screwed upon graduating are the humanities folks?

“While students in the social sciences were most likely to have firm plans after graduation, those in the humanities were less likely to have firm plans.”

Huh! Imagine that. (Okay, I actually plucked that from the subsequent year’s study, but is it too difficult to extrapolate to 2004/2005?)

“The majority of doctoral graduates found employment in research and development, or teaching. Almost 38% of graduates intended to work in research and development, while 33% planned to teach.”

Which means that 29% of the people who said they had future plans– 75% of the people–must have had plans for non-academic jobs. And the other 71% had plans of teaching and research. Plans, mind you, and intentions. How many of those people had their plans and intentions fulfilled?

Then there was the 2005/2006 report, which said:

“The most popular field of study was in the biological sciences, followed by engineering, humanities, social sciences, psychology and education.”

So more people in the humanities than the social sciences graduated, and those are the people who have the least firm plans when they leave. Okay.

This surprised me:

“The majority (69%) of students were married at the time they received their doctoral degree and 36% had dependent children.”

Coincidence? I think not. How many people have to quit PhDs because they’re single and broke? How many marrieds can squeeze through the tough times because they’re got a spouse with (possibly) a stable income?

This is suitably vague:

“In all, 7 out of 10 graduates stated having firm plans in the first year after graduation. Of those, about one-quarter said they would be returning or continuing in the same employment/position which they held prior to their doctorate, whereas the remainder said they had signed a contract or made a definite commitment for other work or study.”

So, 3 out of 10 felt uncertain about their future. That’s a lot of people. It’s almost a third. In fact, if 4,000 graduated, that’s 1,200 who graduated, not having “firm plans” after finishing. Can we get a collective WTF here, and point to the fact that this is a serious problem, year after year after year?

“Approximately two-third of graduates with firm plans for employment for the coming year stated that they would be doing research and development (35%) or teaching (37%) as their primary work activity.”

Translation: contract teaching.

The other thing I want to add is that I remember receiving notification of a survey from StatsCan or even getting the survey after I graduated. I was so exhausted from completing that final home stretch that I can’t say with certainty that I completed it. I wonder how many people who know they won’t be continuing in academia self-select themselves out of a study of this nature because they just don’t have the energy. With such a small sample size, even a small number of people declining to participate could make a statistical difference.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • email
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
  • Reddit
  • Slashdot
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Tumblr
  • TwitThis
  • Yahoo! Buzz

{ 4 comments }

Save Sesssional JobsOh, man. You know things are bad when you’re advocating for the shitty jobs that you ordinarily complain about. I’ve been getting notes from CUPE local 3913 in my inbox about this:

Enrolment at the University of Guelph is up, provincial funding is up but the administration plans to cut more than 100 sessional lecturer positions. Fewer sessional instructors means:

bigger class sizes
less time for individual students.

University of Guelph sessionals have won the undergraduate student association’s teaching excellence award five times in the past decade. Students value the experience and personal support sessionals provide. Sessionals are hired on four-month contracts and must apply for their jobs each semester. The university using the economic downturn as an excuse to target workers already in precarious positions.

Fore more info, go to the CUPE local’s site.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • email
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
  • Reddit
  • Slashdot
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Tumblr
  • TwitThis
  • Yahoo! Buzz

{ 2 comments }

Sidewalk failure in Fondgren by C-AliYesterday, I was interviewed by a reporter from University Affairs magazine (it’s kinda Canada’s print and online equivalent of the Chronicle or Inside Higher Ed). The reporter is writing a piece on job prospects for newly minted Ph.D.s, including post-academic work. We discussed a lot of different issues related to the process of leaving academia for non-academic positions, including the intense and very difficult feelings associated with this kind of career change: fear, uncertainty, regret, self-recrimination and, in some cases, being regarded as a failure, by oneself or others.

The reporter asked me if these accusations of failure really happened, and I replied that I had indeed heard of instances when this particular “f” word was lobbed. But it’s not just the out-and-out use of the word “failure” that some people struggle with–it’s the blank look on people’s faces when you disclose your post-academic career plans. It’s the conversations that end abruptly when colleagues don’t know what to say. It’s your own paranoia when you see those blank, confused faces, and observe that conversation screech to a halt, and you wonder what people are thinking.

In my case, I had initially been very careful regarding broadcasting my own decision to leave (that has obviously since changed!). I did not share this with a lot of faculty until I had actually left (even though my own supervisor had never been anything less than completely supportive). In other words, there is a lot of emotional management that goes on when you make this decision.

But after speaking with the reporter about this issue, I began reflecting on the number of people I’d talked to who had escaped academia without having to face a single accusation of failure. In many instances, colleagues respond to the announcement of your leaving with envy. Some feel personally threatened by your departure, as though your leaving demands that they take the same course. Their response, as Krista Scott-Dixon said in our podcast interview, is, “We’re suffering, too, so it must be okay!”

Regardless of the frequency the actual accusation of failure occurs, the fear of being a failure or being seen as a failure is a real impediment to people leaving academia. Whether they’re ABD, a newly minted Ph.D. or a tenure-track prof, there is a pervasive belief that, if you choose post-academic work, it means you weren’t smart enough, you weren’t tough enough, you weren’t committed enough. This is the case even though for decades, universities have been producing Ph.D.s who do go on to post-academic work–quite voluntarily and quite happily! Somehow, though, this fact has remained invisible–up until the global economic meltdown forced it into the light.

It goes without saying–but it’s gotta be said anyway–that this pervasive belief regarding academic leavers as failures is downright twisted. It really speaks to some of the ways in which an unbalanced life is simply par for the course–or even prized–in some academic circles. Does it matter that you’re miserable? Does it matter that your job prospects suck? Does it matter that you spend 15 hours a week driving around to different universities in order to patch together an economic existence at the poverty line? Apparently it doesn’t, just as long as you’re staying on the academic career path. This kind of belief is so wrong–and yet it’s perpetuated by some of our brightest minds.

The reporter that I spoke with said that she’d talked to deans who’d said they wished that graduate students, in particular, didn’t feel that leaving meant failure.  To me, this is like your boss saying s/he wished the workers didn’t feel so bad about their crap wages. Grad students didn’t make up this belief out of whole cloth. The belief that leaving academia = failure comes in large part, IMHO, from the fact that, within academe, there is so little acknowledgement of other careers as viable options. It is simply a given that all grad students are there to get tenure-track jobs. Little room is made for other career options. Thus, if we’re all there to grab the academic brass ring, you must be off your rocker if you’re considering otherwise.

It was with all this in mind that I read the Career Advice column at Inside Higher Ed today. The piece is called, “That Shocking Time of the Year,” and the shock that writer Teresa Mangum refers to is the realization that, if you haven’t been hired for a job by now, there may not be an offer coming. She sketches out some really solid guidelines you can use to figure out whether or not to take those temporary contracts or hold out for something more permanent. But what if you’ve only been offered temporary contracts year after year? What would you do, Mangum asks, if you were ready to take some risks and make some changes?

Mangum describes how her own department decided to address that question by bringing a speaker from the university placement centre to a meeting with graduate students. Mangum writes,

After I described the academic job search, I turned the floor over to him. As he nervously passed around a handout that matched the training humanities graduate students receive with the “skills” required for non-academic positions, the students shrank into their seats. I quietly berated myself for not preparing students better for his visit. What I floated as Plan B for Bouncing Back deflated, on the students’ horizon, into Plan F for Failure.

Ugh. That’s sad to read (though it only fuels my mission for Leaving Academia to be a tiny way for that leaving=failure belief to be combatted). But prof Mangum goes on to say,

For most of us, the prospect of giving up a long sought career would be wrenching, frightening, and, worst of all, humiliating. Such are the lessons faculty teach graduate students and assistant professors, however inadvertently. But is scraping by with random courses, work that probably ends up averaging less than minimum wage if you count all the hours involved, more rewarding than retreat? More of a “success”? I don’t think so.

It’s nice to have faculty own up to their own role in perpetuating the myth of leaving = failure, and to acknowledge that living as a contract/adjunct teacher sucks and blows ass. Now the question is what faculty and administrators are going to start doing about it.

On a more positive note: if you do go over and read all of Mangum’s article, you’ll also find, among a list of resources you can consult in your post-academic career search (which can all be found on the left-hand sidebar of this blog), a little announcement: I’m going to be joining Inside Higher Ed as their regular Leaving Academia columnist. I’m really thrilled to have the opportunity to address an even larger audience of potential academic leavers (or what I like to call wanna-be academic ex-pats!). I will let you know when my first piece goes up.

In the meantime, if you’re new to this blog, I want to welcome you. I encourage you to leave comments or send me an email [sabine at leavingacademia dot com] if you have particular questions you’d like to me to research and blog about, services I offer that you want to know more about, or trying to find resources.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • email
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
  • Reddit
  • Slashdot
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Tumblr
  • TwitThis
  • Yahoo! Buzz

{ 17 comments }

Buffet by MorrisseyLast week, the Globe and Mail (one of Canada’s national newspapers) asked, “Should you go to grad school?” and answered with “Yes and no.” There’s a Facebook discussion on this matter at the Globe Campus Facebook page, in case you’d like to offer your own experience on the issue. Katie from Twenty-Something weighed in on the matter and said something that I think gets left out all too often in this kind of discussion:

I can also thank grad school for my current perspective on the world, for a stronger sense of self, for a greater degree of confidence in my abilities, and of course, greater maturity. Grad school was my trial by fire, and I think I came out on the other end a better person because of it. It didn’t make me more employable. It didn’t ensure I got a better salary when I did join the workforce. But…I did something I truly loved, and from that perspective, grad school had (and still has) immense value to me.

In my tooling around, I also found this person over here asking people why they had quit grad school. Some of the answers aren’t especially illuminating, but some of them are really interesting. Hands down, the one I thought was the best (i.e. greatest combo of funny and smart) was written by someone called Mason Dixon (whose website can be traced to Boston Sutras) who wrote:

I am completely serious: Do you feel full? You know deep down if you are full or not.

When people ask me why I quit I I tell them: “I was full so I got up from the table and quit eating,” and that is what it felt like to me.

The prospect of cigars in the parlor with those who finished dinner was not a strong enough lure to keep me sitting there stuffing my gob –even though the food was fine. I said, “Thank you, Good Night and Goodbye.”

I decided that if I want to learn more about “X”, I’ll do my own snacking later. I have yet to have any regrets about it.

So chew on that, Leaving Academia readers. Do you feel full?

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • email
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
  • Reddit
  • Slashdot
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Tumblr
  • TwitThis
  • Yahoo! Buzz

{ 0 comments }

Jobs in Town - Alemania by Arturo deAlbornozOkay, this post is going to be of the snake-biting-its-tail variety, so stay close. You know that Mark C. Taylor piece that the New York Times ran a few weeks ago? One of the letters they ran in response to it was this one from James F. Mahon:

Doctoral programs that fail to place their graduates in research positions should not respond by attempting to become M.B.A. or M.P.A. programs. Instead, they would better serve their prospective students by setting the right expectations through full disclosure of their recent graduate placement history. With this information, applicants could make informed decisions when choosing a graduate school.

Makes sense, right? I think this is the angle that I’ve been taking so far here at Leaving Academia: departments need to tell potential and current grad students what they can expect from their program based on what previous students got out of it.

But in response to that Times letter, Michael Elliott over at The Edge of the American West wrote a great post on the whole topic of doctoral students and placement rates. Elliott complicates just what the hell “placement rate” is supposed to take into account (and queries–not simply as an academic exercise, either–what “placement” even means these days). But he also says this:

This is not to say that we shouldn’t keep pressing for disclosure about employment. And I think everyone who teaches in a PhD program should be forced to consider carefully the employment of its graduates. … [It's] crucial to ask what percentage of graduates end up teaching in the academy, what percentage of those are on the tenure-track, and what other kinds of positions graduates hold.

Finally, graduate programs should calculate the average time that it takes those who seek tenure-track positions to secure them. (The national average is that it takes just over ten years from the time that a student enters graduate study.) Programs should then ask what kind of financial resources — including temporary teaching employment — their universities can provide to cover that whole duration, including the period that extends beyond when the students actually receive their degrees. Those programs that cannot identify adequate resources to cover that full spread of time should take a hard look at themselves.

I completely agree with this take–or I did until I looked at the comments section for the post. There’s some really good stuff there, including the wonderful Bitch Ph.D.’s take:

Placement also conveniently ignores the dropout rate and how many people end up ABD, both of which also mask the realities of doctoral education. The “informed decision” meme is really irritating, because it really is impossible to be informed about profound demoralization and anxiety before experiencing it. It’s like saying that people who are addicted should “just quit,” or something.

How true is that? Similarly, before you give birth to a child, you’re like, “Okay, it’s gonna hurt. I’ve prepared myself. But it’ll be worth it.” But you simply cannot know the pain until you’ve fully descended into the depths of the hot, burning hell. It’s like with grad school. You’ve browsed the interwebs and seen lots of cranky grad students and faculty complaining about shit. You’re a bit puzzled, but maybe you think, “Okay, getting a Ph.D. is gonna be tough.”

But it’s not until you’ve had your first proper mental breakdown that you really know what those people are talking about. Even worse, every person who enters a doctoral program secretly thinks that it is she or he who shall be the one who shall be good enough and smart enough to be the one out of the cohort to finish first and get a tenure track job. So they know it’s gonna be tough…but they might be the one to squeeze their baby out in record time and have an orgasmic birth. Right. Good luck with that.

All of this stuff is excellent fodder for really thinking through what responsibilities graduate schools have and should have to their students. What do you think would be the best way program directors could give students a realistic snapshot of the career trajectories of not only its graduates but the folks who left before finishing?

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • email
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
  • Reddit
  • Slashdot
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Tumblr
  • TwitThis
  • Yahoo! Buzz

{ 11 comments }

Working Like a Dog by KM PhotographyLast Wednesday, there was a piece in the Chronicle with some pretty shocking (and yet not surprising) numbers about how much contingent labour is used in the American university system. Now, I am too cheap to buy a web subscription to the Chronicle, so I chose not to pay to read the full article. But here’s part of the free bit:

At community colleges, four out of five instructors worked outside the tenure track in 2007. At public research institutions, graduate students made up 41 percent of the instructional staff that year. And at all institutions, the proportion of instructors working part time continued to grow.

The report, “The State of the Higher Education Workforce, 1997-2007,” shows that the proportion of instructional staff members not on the tenure track — including graduate students — increased from two-thirds to 73 percent over that period.

These numbers are pretty astonishing and are a confirmation of what a lot of people have been observing anecdotally for a while. I haven’t searched out equivalent numbers of Canada, but I would be surprised if they were much different.

But there was another really interesting aspect to this, too, that I found out when I checked out the report itself, conducted by the American Federation of Teachers. There is a rise in contingent labour in the university sector, and guess what correlates with that? A rise in the number of women in that pool of contingent labour!

Historically, men have represented the majority of higher education’s instructional workforce.  However, the number of women in the instructional workforce grew at a faster rate than men between 1997 and 2007; the number of women grew 48 percent compared with 21 percent for men (Table 3).  By 2007, women accounted for nearly one-half—46 percent—of faculty and instructor positions.  However, the growth was disproportionately in the area of contingent faculty positions, as both men and women saw an erosion of full-time tenured and tenure-track positions.

Like Marx’s reserve army of labour, women have been taking on a greater share of the exploited labour in academe. How surprising (note sarcasm).

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • email
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
  • Reddit
  • Slashdot
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Tumblr
  • TwitThis
  • Yahoo! Buzz

{ 2 comments }

Clock Top by Laffy4kWhen I was a grad student, there was a rule that students could not have jobs outside of the teaching assistantships (or research or graduate assistantships or course directorships, as the case may be). And the rule that guided the way that we were paid was that teaching assistantships were supposed to take up about 10 hours a week of our time (totalling 270 hours per academic year).

It turns out that this is the official policy of the Ontario Council of Graduate Studies. The rationale is that working any more hours than that is too much of a distraction and reduces students’ completion times.

It is not possible or desirable for the university to monitor and enforce the employment activities of its graduate students outside the university. However it is both possible and desirable for the university to ensure that it does not itself create a structural situation that jeopardizes the ability of the graduate student to make full time progress toward the completion of graduate program requirements.

But given the fact, you know, poverty goes a long way to reducing completion times, is the 10-hour rule obsolete? Should universities just wake up to the fact that grad students often need to supplement their measly incomes with other forms of work? And has anybody actually done any studies that would actually show that working more than 10 hours at a job reduces completion times?

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • email
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
  • Reddit
  • Slashdot
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Tumblr
  • TwitThis
  • Yahoo! Buzz

{ 6 comments }

Manic Mondays by stuartpilbrowHere’s a sampling of academic-related stuff from around the web I picked up last weekend:

  • As if you didn’t know: Leslie Madsen Brooks asks, “Are Universities Abusive Employers?” and answers with a resounding yes.
  • Whoa. I knew things were bad at Queen’s, but it’s actually rougher than I had imagined: details on the penny-pinching budget are here.
  • And wow. If you’re ever feeling shy, underqualified and too nervous to apply for a job, go read this and get inspired.
  • Did you know that the Canadian Federation of Students has a Graduate Student Caucus? Neither did I.
  • This  may not be immediately relevant to you if you’re at the “should I or shouldn’t I?” stage, but if you’re heading into the non-academic labour market, there are insights and belly laughs to be gained at Punk Rock HR.
  • And here’s the winning paragraph of the weekend. It’s from Naomi Schaefer Reilly’s op-ed in the Washington Post from two weeks ago (sorry! Haven’t been keeping up on my Washington Post browsing!):

In an article called “Contingent Faculty and the New Academic Labor System” (2004), Gwen Bradley notes that an academic job shortage is rarely the result of some surprising lurch in supply-and-demand curves, since “the same institutions both manufacture and consume the Ph.D. product.” In other words, universities know very well that they are producing far more Ph.D.s than they need. Compare this situation with the medical profession. Even if medical residents are made to work long hours under difficult conditions, the vast majority of them will get jobs as doctors. The vast majority of, say, Ph.D.s in English literature will not. Given that the typical doctoral degree takes six or seven years to complete (during prime job-training and family-forming years), there is a moral problem here. It is no great exaggeration to say, as Mr. Berkowitz does: “Many lives are ruined this way.”

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • email
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
  • Reddit
  • Slashdot
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Tumblr
  • TwitThis
  • Yahoo! Buzz

{ 0 comments }