On Twitter, our own Helen De Cruz asks:
[When it comes to applicants deciding between grad programs,] how important should support for alt-ac careers be? Given that even the best placing schools will have grad students who will never be able to have a career as an academic, does this mean that all grad programs should at least do something toward alt-ac training/placement?
These are excellent questions. There has been some debate lately about whether grad programs should take greater steps to aid students in Alt-Ac placement. Some (such as myself) think that the answer is: obviously yes. Insofar as only something like 50% of philosophy PhD students ever finish their degrees, and of those who do only something like 32 to 35% get permanent academic posts within 5 years of graduation, this means that a high proportion of philosophy graduate students could really use support in finding non-academic work. On the other hand, there are those who think this isn't really the job of faculty in philosophy PhD programs, as these programs are said to exist primarily to train students for academic jobs. From my perspective, this latter line of argument amounts to a bare appeal to tradition. Yes, philosophy programs have existed primarily to prepare students for academic jobs–but I think there is no good reason for things to stay this way. Let me explain.
First, although grad faculty in the humanities are not necessarily trained in non-academic/industry work, helping grad students find non-academic work does not require that kind of training. Rather, given that something like 80% of all jobs are found through networking, all it requires is grad programs cultivating and maintaining strong relationships with their students who do leave for industry–so that new generations of students who do enter industry have industry contacts related to the program to network with. This isn't that hard: all it would take is a dedicated faculty member (e.g. a non-academic placement director) whose primary service job it would be to help cultivate and maintain these networks. Second, in addition to vastly improving things for grad students, many of whom in my experience have immense fears about their career prospects if academia doesn't work out (which I know from first-hand experience, as I lost a great deal of sleep about what would happen to me if my academic career didn't work out). It would also be to the long-term advantage of grad programs and the discipline of academic philosophy more generally. Why? Well, as we all know, humanities departments are being closed or otherwise threatened around the US and elsewhere around the globe–both for funding and political reasons. For better or worse, the kinds of departments that survive and thrive in academia today are those that attract outside funding. And here's the thing: there are increasing numbers of philosophers in industry who work in industries with a great deal of money for investment and/or philanthropy. As any university administrator will presumably tell you, the way to secure investment is to cultivate and maintain relationships with people with ties to your university. So, for philosophy's sake, I think it behooves us to cultivate and maintain these kinds of relationships with those who leave academia for industry. Our survival as a discipline may very well depend upon it, particularly given that enrollment in higher education is expected to plummet by something like 10-15% in the next 5-10 years, which will almost certainly threaten humanities departments.
In any case, I don't think it takes all that much for grad programs to help their students find non-academic work, the upside is huge, and the long-term downside for failing to do it may be potentially catastrophic, both for departments and the academic discipline of philosophy more generally. Which brings me, finally, to Helen's first question: [When it comes to applicants deciding between grad programs,] how important should support for alt-ac careers be? I'm curious to hear readers' answers, but here's mine: it should be on the absolute forefront of applicants' minds. I've known far too many grad students, including many students at the highest-ranked programs, who despair over their chances of ever finding permanent academic work and what will happen to them if they don't. Given the low probabilities of ever getting permanent academic jobs, applicants for grad school should prioritize programs that have strong academic and non-academic placement rates. This data should be collected and reported, and when students let programs know why they have or haven't accepted the program's offer of admission, they should mention this (the program's providing or not providing strong non-academic support) as a primary reason.
But this is just my perspective. What's yours?
Leave a Reply to A grad studentCancel reply