[The real] Ph.D

[l0rca]

What colleges/universities out there are the most presitigious in the philosophy and similar humanities departments?

Also, what is the general outline of courses and classes a Ph.D in philosophy has? Does anyone know where I could find this information?

[Complexity]

Are you going for prestige or understanding?

Do you want to study philosophy or become a philosopher?

My advice: Turn your back on the academy, do things that you love, be open to the world, and live as well as you can.

[wunky]

Are you looking for certain schools of thought.
Particular approach.
Secular
Religious

[l0rca]

Mostly, I ask because I am simply interested in starting a discussion about philosophical institutions.

Originally Posted by Complexity

Are you going for prestige or understanding?

Is this a rhetorical question, or would answering it allow you to give me a more focused opinion?

I'd go for the school that offers the best distribution between comprehensiveness and excellence in teaching.

Quote:

Do you want to study philosophy or become a philosopher?

I don't really define these two differences enough to make their questioning important.

Quote:

My advice: Turn your back on the academy, do things that you love, be open to the world, and live as well as you can.

But I love the academic world. What if I want to become a professor, or write the textbooks?

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by l0rca

Is this a rhetorical question, or would answering it allow you to give me a more focused opinion?

It's not at all a rhetorical question :"Philosophy" is a huge discipline, and a school or department's reputation may or may not be deserved in all of the areas that it covers. (This is also true of other fields. MIT, for example, is one of the top universities in the world for formal Chomskian syntax. It's also one of the worst universities for non-Chomskian syntax, simply because of the enormous influence Chomsky wields over the department.)

However, one of the things that the overall reputation of a school will often control is the type of job you can get after graduating; a mediocre philosopher from Princeton can often, or even usually, get a better job than a top-notch philosopher from Whatsamatta U., on the basis both of personal contacts and institution reputation.

[Questioninggeller]

Originally Posted by l0rca

What colleges/universities out there are the most presitigious in the philosophy and similar humanities departments?

Also, what is the general outline of courses and classes a Ph.D in philosophy has? Does anyone know where I could find this information?

UC Berkeley is the top rated. Information about their program: http://philosophy.berkeley.edu/graduate/overview

APA's list is http://www.apa.udel.edu/apa/asp/departments.asp

What type of philosophy? Ethics, metaphysics, epistemology, logic, phenomenology and so on? Or an interest better served with theology, theological studies?

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by Questioninggeller

UC Berkeley is the top rated.

According to whose rating?

II believe that USNews rates Harvard #1, Berkeley #2. (and rounds the top 5 out with Princeton, Yale, and Stanford). No doubt this has caused many loud discussions in Cambridge watering holes. But different rankers will have different criteria and different weights, and so get different rankings.

But more to the point, does this rating system include other, non-US, schools? It would be interesting to see where Toronto, Oxford, Cambridge, and some of the top Australian schools ranked against Harvard/Berkeley -- to say nothing of the non-Anglophone schools such as Paris-Sorboone.

[Questioninggeller]

Originally Posted by drkitten

According to whose rating?

II believe that USNews rates Harvard #1, Berkeley #2. (and rounds the top 5 out with Princeton, Yale, and Stanford). No doubt this has caused many loud discussions in Cambridge watering holes. But different rankers will have different criteria and different weights, and so get different rankings.

To directly name a school and a source: Michigan State U. is ranked as the top doctoral program in philosophy for the US. That is from Jan. 2007. Source: http://chronicle.com/weekly/v53/i19/19a00801.htm

In 1995 it was Princeton. Source: http://www.pitt.edu/utimes/issues/28/92895/13.html

However, as you noted Berkeley, as a whole (not department), is ranked #2 and Harvard as #1. From what I know about job placement (talking to PhD grads in philosophy) (you can see a basic outline http://philosophy.berkeley.edu/graduate/placement and http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~phildept/placement.html ) and job recruitment, Berkeley philosophy is slightly more prestigious, but I concur that it is splitting hairs. Yet, it is important to note applicants are based on their personal merit not the schools. Thus, one from Harvard and one from Berkeley, applying for the same job, are going to selected for their work, and not the school's reputation.

The most important part of a program is whether you like being there (the people, the classes, the subject). Rankings aren't important, and come far behind actual interest and human interaction.

Originally Posted by drkitten

But more to the point, does this rating system include other, non-US, schools? It would be interesting to see where Toronto, Oxford, Cambridge, and some of the top Australian schools ranked against Harvard/Berkeley -- to say nothing of the non-Anglophone schools such as Paris-Sorboone.

In terms of global, here is an article from 2002 that lists "top ranked," but without putting them in order. http://www.auckland.ac.nz/uoa/about/...02/11/0001.cfm

In terms of schools, not departments, http://ed.sjtu.edu.cn/rank/2004/top500(1-100).htm

[Complexity]

I believe those 'or's to be exclusive, not inclusive.

Do as you feel you must.

[l0rca]

Originally Posted by Complexity

I believe those 'or's to be exclusive, not inclusive.

Do as you feel you must.

True enough. I'm really being inquisitive here. I can't even try to attend any of these schools until I'm not longer active duty, but I want to start pining towards that goal. I know an ameture's handful about philosophy, and much less when it comes to selecting an insitiution. My questions are blunt, and they reflect my presumptions. But I'm happy to see people care to inform me.

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by l0rca

True enough. I'm really being inquisitive here. I can't even try to attend any of these schools until I'm not longer active duty, but I want to start pining towards that goal. I know an ameture's handful about philosophy, and much less when it comes to selecting an insitiution.

Well, as Complexity hinted, you may be starting out at the wrong end when it comes to selecting an institution.

I have to counsel a lot of pre-Ph.D. students, and the advice I generally give them is "Don't." Not to put too fine a point on it, but it's generally a mug's game. Getting a Ph.D. is expensive, emotionally taxing, very time-consuming, and usually not worth the time and effort you need to give. In more detail, I find that there are generally three reasons that people want to get a Ph.D.

The first is simple emotional validation. Because people who have Ph.D.'s are smart, getting a Ph.D.will prove to me that I'm smart, even if I still fold shirts at H&M or the Gap for a living. Merely getting the Ph.D. will be an accomplishment that no one can ever take away from me, and it's worth it for that accomplishment, even if I never do anything with it. If this is what you're looking for, then "prestige" shouldn't really enter into it, yes?

The second is because you want the union card. If you want to lay pipe, you join the pipefitters' union. If you want to drive a truck, you join the Teamsters'. If you want to join the professoriat, you get a Ph.D.. In this case, prestige can be very important -- you will probably never work at a school better (or even as good as) the one you attended for your degree, so if you go to a second-rate school, you'll teach at a third-rate one forever. But there is such a Ph.D. glut at the moment (and into the foreseeable future) that the odds of your being able to land a professorial job at all are slim, probably less than one in ten. I don't consider those betting odds, and I try to steer students away from the idea of a Ph.D. as a professional advancement degree.

The third is because you love the discipline and want to spend the rest of your life doing it -- even if it means starving in a garrett for seven years and then folding shirts at the H&M and writing books on metaphysics in your spare time for the rest of your life. This, I think, is by far the best reason to get a Ph.D. (and oddly enough, it's the one most likely to lead to professional advancement, too. How "Alanic." Or maybe "Rolling Stones"-ic -- "You can't always get what you want.") But if this is the case, the important question isn't the prestige of the school, but the quality of the faculty and instruction. And more importantly, the quality in your particular area. If you want to study metaphysics, it doesn't matter how good the ethics and formal logic programs are, and vice versa.

The best way to pick a program is to figure out who you want to work with -- and then apply to the school where that person teaches. If you want to study consciousness, the top name in the field is Daniel Dennett. Today, he's at Tufts, so it's worth going to Tufts for. But if he accepted a position at UC-Santa Cruz for next fall, you want to go there instead. Because you're not studying at Tufts/UC-SC, you're studying with Dennett. See the difference?

[Questioninggeller]

Originally Posted by drkitten

But there is such a Ph.D. glut at the moment (and into the foreseeable future) that the odds of your being able to land a professorial job at all are slim, probably less than one in ten.

Are you strictly speaking about philosophy professorships? Because that is not true for all fields and subjects.

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by Questioninggeller

Are you strictly speaking about philosophy professorships? Because that is not true for all fields and subjects.

Of course not. It's largely true for most if not all of the various "humanities" disciplines, though; I'd be hard-pressed to name one that didn't have that particular Ph.D. glut..

[joobz]

Originally Posted by drkitten

The third is because you love the discipline and want to spend the rest of your life doing it -- even if it means starving in a garrett for seven years and then folding shirts at the H&M and writing books on metaphysics in your spare time for the rest of your life. This, I think, is by far the best reason to get a Ph.D. (and oddly enough, it's the one most likely to lead to professional advancement, too. How "Alanic." Or maybe "Rolling Stones"-ic -- "You can't always get what you want.") But if this is the case, the important question isn't the prestige of the school, but the quality of the faculty and instruction. And more importantly, the quality in your particular area. If you want to study metaphysics, it doesn't matter how good the ethics and formal logic programs are, and vice versa.

that's good advice for any major life choice.

And I fully agree with selecting an advisor and not the school (if you can do that). In some fields, there are well respected individuals in science community that are at small schools, but have graduated students that went on to higher ranked institutions. (but this is in the sciences, so I do not know if that translates well.)

Also, and what I think is most important, is make sure you match personality well with your advisor. He/She may be the leader in the field, but if you hate each others guts (for whatever reason), it won't be a rewarding experience.

[3bz]

Originally Posted by drkitten

The best way to pick a program is to figure out who you want to work with -- and then apply to the school where that person teaches. If you want to study consciousness, the top name in the field is Daniel Dennett. Today, he's at Tufts, so it's worth going to Tufts for. But if he accepted a position at UC-Santa Cruz for next fall, you want to go there instead. Because you're not studying at Tufts/UC-SC, you're studying with Dennett. See the difference?

If you by top name mean the figure who is most well known to the public, then that would be Dennett. He has not published anything on consciousness for a good while though (in case someone mentions it, sweet dreams is a collection of papers from 2000-2003), he seems to be more interested in evolution and religion now, so it's not at all obvious that he should be called the top name in any other sense than as being a publicly well known figure.

Well written on the subject of Ph.D's, the economical and overall condition seems to be a lot harsher in the US than for us over here in Sweden. What you wrote still made me a bit less eager to go down that path however

[l0rca]

Quote:

If you by top name mean the figure who is most well known to the public, then that would be Dennett. He has not published anything on consciousness for a good while though (in case someone mentions it, sweet dreams is a collection of papers from 2000-2003), he seems to be more interested in evolution and religion now, so it's not at all obvious that he should be called the top name in any other sense than as being a publicly well known figure.

Who would you said are, then?

[l0rca]

DrK', thanks for that.

I still want a degree it in. Perhaps a bachelors.

I'm more interested in logic than metaphysics. I don't think metaphysics is a fulfilling field in philosophy anymore. Though theories about consciousness do appeal to me in philosophy as well, I think I could learn about that on my own. The logic philosophies seem to be more fundamental and essential.

[3bz]

Originally Posted by l0rca

Who would you said are, then?

Baars is one of the first to come to mind, but also: Koch, Edelman, Metzinger, the Churchlands, Searle, Dehaene, Chalmers, Velmans and many others.

[l0rca]

Would you give some sort of summary? I guess not a summary of all, but in what direction it is heading? Whatever you feel like summarizing, I guess, would be nice of you.

[pgwenthold]

Originally Posted by joobz

that's good advice for any major life choice.

And I fully agree with selecting an advisor and not the school (if you can do that). In some fields, there are well respected individuals in science community that are at small schools, but have graduated students that went on to higher ranked institutions. (but this is in the sciences, so I do not know if that translates well.)

Also, and what I think is most important, is make sure you match personality well with your advisor. He/She may be the leader in the field, but if you hate each others guts (for whatever reason), it won't be a rewarding experience.

Personally, no. Can still be professionally rewarding.

When counseling prospectives, my suggestion is the following: find out what are the most prestigious journals in the field, grab a stack, and start reading. Find the articles that you find interesting and note who wrote it and where they are from (regardless of whether you understand it all or not). Continue until a pattern develops, in terms of people, location, or topic (if it is a topic, then you will need to do more research to find the top places that work on that topic). Apply to the places that best cover your pattern of interests.

(if you can't understand any of it, then stop, go back, and learn something in the field before you worry about grad school)

Remember that first and foremost, a PhD is a research degree, and you don't want to pick a program based on classes or coursework. By chosing the most prestigious journals, you will come across the best work being done in the field, and you can discover the kind of work that interests you within it.

[pgwenthold]

Originally Posted by Questioninggeller

Are you strictly speaking about philosophy professorships? Because that is not true for all fields and subjects.

In what field is there not a glut of PhDs applying for professorships?

DrKitten has provided an opinion on humanities. It's no better in the science. It's not uncommon for us to receive more than 100 applications for a single opening. There might be at any one time, 5 - 10 institutions hiring for this same type of position, and so the 1 in 10 getting a job figure sounds a little optimistic, even. 1/15 is probably even more reflective in science.

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

In what field is there not a glut of PhDs applying for professorships?

I believe that some of the engineering disciplines still have a reasonable number of professorships available, largely because the industrial demand is so great (and professorial salaries are comparatively low) that becoming a professor is not in high demand. Computer science, for example, is picking up after the total dearth of industrial jobs with the collapse of the dot.coms, and I believe the demand for/of biotech startups is doing a good job of cleaning out the departments of biomedical engineering. The emerging departments of forensic science are booming, and they're hurting for faculty --I blame CSI.

Beyond that, damfino.

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by l0rca

DrK', thanks for that.

I still want a degree it in. Perhaps a bachelors.

If all you want is an undergraduate degree -- well, you can basically do good undergraduate work anywhere, and the "prestige" schools are often the worst, because the professors who make the school so prestigious are unavailable for the undergrads. I'd simply pick the closest affordable undergraduate school with the largest volume count in the library....

[joobz]

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

Personally, no. Can still be professionally rewarding.

When counseling prospectives, my suggestion is the following: find out what are the most prestigious journals in the field, grab a stack, and start reading. Find the articles that you find interesting and note who wrote it and where they are from (regardless of whether you understand it all or not). Continue until a pattern develops, in terms of people, location, or topic (if it is a topic, then you will need to do more research to find the top places that work on that topic). Apply to the places that best cover your pattern of interests.

(if you can't understand any of it, then stop, go back, and learn something in the field before you worry about grad school)

It's a good approach to learn the field you are interested in. and it goes without saying to select only productive groups. But i've seen too many occurances where personality clashes destroyed any productivity. It's a jading experience for the student, and a waste of resources for the advisor. Something that can be completely avoided when personal relationships are taken into account. This doesn't mean you need to be friends, but simply that you can work with each other.
Anyway, there are almost always more than 1 leader in any field. So I don't see any compromise when considering relationships.

Quote:

Remember that first and foremost, a PhD is a research degree, and you don't want to pick a program based on classes or coursework.

I agree. I've had several conversations with students who didn't understand what they were getting into. Actually, I have just received an email from a potential student asking if her RA will require her to work a full 20 hour/week and if she would have to conduct research during the semesters that she is TAing.

[l0rca]

Originally Posted by drkitten

If all you want is an undergraduate degree -- well, you can basically do good undergraduate work anywhere, and the "prestige" schools are often the worst, because the professors who make the school so prestigious are unavailable for the undergrads. I'd simply pick the closest affordable undergraduate school with the largest volume count in the library....

If you're a girl, this makes you one sexy hacker!

*Rrrrr....*

[pgwenthold]

Originally Posted by joobz

It's a good approach to learn the field you are interested in. and it goes without saying to select only productive groups. But i've seen too many occurances where personality clashes destroyed any productivity. It's a jading experience for the student, and a waste of resources for the advisor. Something that can be completely avoided when personal relationships are taken into account. This doesn't mean you need to be friends, but simply that you can work with each other.
Anyway, there are almost always more than 1 leader in any field. So I don't see any compromise when considering relationships.

It doesn't hurt to visit just to see, but it can be tough to know whether the relationship will work. However, I would suggest that it is more likely to work if you are working on something you really like. You are willing to put up with a lot more.

[ReligionStudent]

First I want to comment on the idea that a PHD is expensive, which I know someone said.

Well it is in that you are really only to do TAing as a career for like 5-10 years, but almost all large institutions fully fund for much of the PHD at this point, which is why they accept so few students.

The program I am going into is full scholarship for four years with 12000 stipend per anum and then an additional 7000-5000 a year in grants (and of course you apply for more). I know in my area (archaeology) they accepted three students last year, and probably ten or so in the entire anthro department

When my girlfriend was looking at PHD programs U Penn quoted here 12 acceptances a year with all fully funded (that was in anthro as well).

Now if you are going into a terminal MA program before a PHD program, you will pay, usually between 15-30000 a year or more depending on the school. (that's what Columbia is, SUNY Stony Brook is roughly 10000 a year. Drew University, which is in the next town from where I live now is 40000 a year undergrad, so it veries a lot).

Housing near most universities is expensive, due to many employees and students living near by, as well as the positive economic impact a school has. Near SUNY I am looking at roughly 1000 a month or more, near Rutgers where I did my BA/BS it was common to pay 600 or more a month for off campus. Books will also run 500 or more a semester, especially in PHD programs.

So that's what you are probably looking at in most humanity fields. My advise is to first (obviolusly) get a BS or BA, read journals and meet people. Begin going to professional meetings as soon as you can and get to know the culture and people. This will also help you get into schools. (both my MA school, Columbia, and PHD school, SUNY Stony Brook, I knew people in the department well, and this will often be the case if you get in somwhere).

My suggestion for undergraduate school is that if you know what you want to study, go to a school without a PHD or MA program if possible. Then they will likely have professors for all undergraduate courses and few TAs to deal with. You will also be more likely to have professors who care about the undergraduates and focus on them instead of just the disertation candidates. (This was what my BA program at Rutgers was like, I got to study under some good names in the field at probably one of the best depts in Religion in the NE because none of them were preocupied with grad students.)

Big name schools will help you get a good job, and often attract some of the better names in the field, but the best way to get a feal for who is where and where to go for a PHD is to become as involved as possible as an undergraduate in actual research (this will also help you get into a PHD program, most of which will look for students who have done a thesis or similar indipendent research) and read lots of journals and go to conferences etc. The more like a graduate program you can make your undergraduate the better chance you will have of getting into a grad program and doign well in it.

Also remember location. I am finishing my MA at Columbia, its a great school with a great program, but I found out that I hate the city, so I did not even apply their for PHD even though I likely could have got in. Instead I am moving to Long Island near a beach, where I will be in a great department and actually happy with my surroundings at the same time.

Also, don't listen to people that say accademics aren't worth it etc, I have been in school 6 years, and have at least 5 more to go, I am loving it and learning a lot, I have a Computer Science degree I may never use (unless I start working on certain archaeological techniques), but it was worth it and I learned a lot. I know I have tons more choices because of it, and by the time you get to PHD you will be getting paid (not much but some) to do it.

It may be hard to get a professor job in most fields, but there are other things to do, research, post-doc work, work for book companies, etc. You can also work for private high schools etc, which often provide more money than universities. I know a PHD archaeologist who teaches ancient history at a local private school and field school for a local parks commision. There is always a huge need for high school teachers, and PHD looks damn good in this area where most people only have a BS and if you are in an affluent area with high property values you can be well paid with good benefits.

Some parting advice my advisor gave me:
Don't be afraid of student loans, they are some of the cheapest loans you will ever get and they will pay themselves off with better carear choice and more happiness.
File for any grants you can, the worst they can do is say no.
When defending a paper to others, don't be afraid, if you wrote it you are the expert and know more than them.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally Posted by l0rca

Mostly, I ask because I am simply interested in starting a discussion about philosophical institutions.

Good.

Do not study philosophy as an academic pursuit. Really. Don't.

[ReligionStudent]

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate

Good.

Do not study philosophy as an academic pursuit. Really. Don't.

Here here!

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by ReligionStudent

First I want to comment on the idea that a PHD is expensive, which I know someone said.

Well it is in that you are really only to do TAing as a career for like 5-10 years, but almost all large institutions fully fund for much of the PHD at this point, which is why they accept so few students.

Oh, how I wish this were true. In some disciplines -- the engineering and science disciplines, mostly -- it even is. As a general rule, engineering graduate students can count on full funding for as long as they take to complete their degree and for the most part don't even have to TA for it, because the NSF or NIH or QWERTY or other alphabet soup will pick up the tab for a "research assistant."

In the humanities and social sciences, the picture is much bleaker. A friend of mine was looking at history programs and came to the conclusion that of history Ph.D. students at top schools, about 1/3 are sufficiently-funded, 1/3 are underfunded, and 1/3 are not funded at all. Another acquaintance of mine would routinely split half-time TA appointments again at her school, in order to be able to provide a pittance of funding for more students. But the worst part is that in almost none of these schools is there any assurance of further funding. If you're funded for 2007-8, enjoy it, because you may still starve in 08-9.

Quote:

Also, don't listen to people that say accademics aren't worth it etc, I have been in school 6 years, and have at least 5 more to go, I am loving it and learning a lot, I have a Computer Science degree I may never use (unless I start working on certain archaeological techniques), but it was worth it and I learned a lot. I know I have tons more choices because of it, and by the time you get to PHD you will be getting paid (not much but some) to do it.

It may be hard to get a professor job in most fields, but there are other things to do, research, post-doc work, work for book companies, etc. You can also work for private high schools etc, which often provide more money than universities. I know a PHD archaeologist who teaches ancient history at a local private school and field school for a local parks commision. There is always a huge need for high school teachers, and PHD looks damn good in this area where most people only have a BS and if you are in an affluent area with high property values you can be well paid with good benefits.

Or, alternatively, you can simply start teaching -- by the time someone else gets his/her Ph.D., you'll be an experienced teacher with five to ten years "in the trenches," possibly working as a department chair or something. Even in fields like Computer Science, the Ph.D. is almost invariable a money-loser. There's no job you can get with a Ph.D. that pays you as much as you lose in ten years of salary increments. A well-chosen masters' degree will pay for itself in as little as two years, sometimes. A Ph.D. almost never pays for itself.

[ReligionStudent]

Originally Posted by drkitten

Oh, how I wish this were true. In some disciplines -- the engineering and science disciplines, mostly -- it even is. As a general rule, engineering graduate students can count on full funding for as long as they take to complete their degree and for the most part don't even have to TA for it, because the NSF or NIH or QWERTY or other alphabet soup will pick up the tab for a "research assistant."

In the humanities and social sciences, the picture is much bleaker. A friend of mine was looking at history programs and came to the conclusion that of history Ph.D. students at top schools, about 1/3 are sufficiently-funded, 1/3 are underfunded, and 1/3 are not funded at all. Another acquaintance of mine would routinely split half-time TA appointments again at her school, in order to be able to provide a pittance of funding for more students. But the worst part is that in almost none of these schools is there any assurance of further funding. If you're funded for 2007-8, enjoy it, because you may still starve in 08-9.

I am very suprised at this. I have been looking at grad schools twice in the last three years (MA and PHD) and both times every school I looked at offered full tuition and usually a TA/stipend for PHD students. Schools my girlfriend looked at had the same thing going from the ones I was at with her. And these are all Archaeology/Religion or in the case of my girlfriend physical anthropology programs. I think these would also qualify quite easily as top schools. Maybe its different in history than religion and archaeology, but I can't imagine that it is that different. Certainly I don't know anyone who is PHD who is not funded for tuition and with a stipend

As for if it is assured, mine is garunteed in writting, and I know the other people in the department have had it for multiple years as well.

Quote:

Or, alternatively, you can simply start teaching -- by the time someone else gets his/her Ph.D., you'll be an experienced teacher with five to ten years "in the trenches," possibly working as a department chair or something. Even in fields like Computer Science, the Ph.D. is almost invariable a money-loser. There's no job you can get with a Ph.D. that pays you as much as you lose in ten years of salary increments. A well-chosen masters' degree will pay for itself in as little as two years, sometimes. A Ph.D. almost never pays for itself.

Schools wherever you are must have a very high turn over rate if someone gets department chair in five years. And that truthfully is not going to bring you that much more money anyway.

Yes you will be making more in those five to ten years than you would going for a PHD, but for high paying and secured teaching positions there is competition, as well as for tenure.

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by ReligionStudent

I am very suprised at this. I have been looking at grad schools twice in the last three years (MA and PHD) and both times every school I looked at offered full tuition and usually a TA/stipend for PHD students. Schools my girlfriend looked at had the same thing going from the ones I was at with her. And these are all Archaeology/Religion or in the case of my girlfriend physical anthropology programs. I think these would also qualify quite easily as top schools. Maybe its different in history than religion and archaeology, but I can't imagine that it is that different. Certainly I don't know anyone who is PHD who is not funded for tuition and with a stipend

Perhaps you're not asking the right questions? Yes, almost every school "offers" full tuiltion and a stipend for Ph.D. students. But how many of those offers do they make?

Here's a quote from the NSF about the makeup of "S&E" (science and engineering) graduate students.

"Primary mechanisms of support differ widely by S&E field of study. For example, in 2003, full-time students in physical sciences were supported mainly through RAs (44%) and TAs (39%). RAs also were important in agricultural sciences (58%), biological sciences (42%), and engineering (41%). In mathematics, however, primary student support is through TAs (54%) and self-support (19%). Full-time students in the social and behavioral sciences are mainly self-supporting (45%) or receive TAs (20%)"

In the social and behavioral sciences -- which are still sciences, and therefore substantially better funded than the humanities -- still nearly half of the students are self-supporting, which is to say, paying for it themselves through student loans. (And, of course, this doesn't distinguish between Ph.D. and MA, but in most of the humanities, and philosophy in particular, very few schools offer a terminal MA.)

It may be that you're looking at atypical departments. Students at top schools are certainly more likely to have funding, simply because top schools are better at generating it.

[ReligionStudent]

Originally Posted by drkitten

Perhaps you're not asking the right questions? Yes, almost every school "offers" full tuiltion and a stipend for Ph.D. students. But how many of those offers do they make?

Here's a quote from the NSF about the makeup of "S&E" (science and engineering) graduate students.

"Primary mechanisms of support differ widely by S&E field of study. For example, in 2003, full-time students in physical sciences were supported mainly through RAs (44%) and TAs (39%). RAs also were important in agricultural sciences (58%), biological sciences (42%), and engineering (41%). In mathematics, however, primary student support is through TAs (54%) and self-support (19%). Full-time students in the social and behavioral sciences are mainly self-supporting (45%) or receive TAs (20%)"

In the social and behavioral sciences -- which are still sciences, and therefore substantially better funded than the humanities -- still nearly half of the students are self-supporting, which is to say, paying for it themselves through student loans. (And, of course, this doesn't distinguish between Ph.D. and MA, but in most of the humanities, and philosophy in particular, very few schools offer a terminal MA.)

It may be that you're looking at atypical departments. Students at top schools are certainly more likely to have funding, simply because top schools are better at generating it.

The schools I have seen offer it to all PHD students they accept, its part of what they look at when they deside how many to accept. if nearly half are self supporting, and it includes both MA and PHD that is better than I would have hoped. Most schools which have both terminal MA and PHD (Of the schools I have applied to only two did not have both, and one had PHD only and the other MA only, so I wouldn't say most don't have terminal MA). use MA students to at least partially fund the PHD. This is why they let it a lot of MAs for every one PHD they let in. (That is info dirrectly from a Professor my girlfriend did research with at UPenn).

As for top schools, I simply mean in their field. I have applied to state schools like SUNY SB, midline schools, and IVYs. But I also have exposure to the whole school process through my job, where I have to work with people applying to schools all the time.

Additionaly, of those supporting themselves that I know, a decent number are probably in work study etc, for the school or are doing somthing actually in their field. Although none of these are PHD students, mostly MDivs.

[Thinktoomuch]

Originally Posted by drkitten

There's no job you can get with a Ph.D. that pays you as much as you lose in ten years of salary increments. A well-chosen masters' degree will pay for itself in as little as two years, sometimes. A Ph.D. almost never pays for itself.

Not absolutely true (nothing ever is) but generally true. Has been for at least 30 years that I know of, from the HR selection point of view.

[Thinktoomuch]

Religion Student, given that you are aware of it (I'll say it here just so Jiri will see it and not get snippy...MY SPELLING IS BAD. ) I hope you will not feel offended by my question in good faith: how do you reconcile that (and the less than excellent syntax) with your high learning ability? A couple of decades ago that would have almost guaranteed that you would not make the shortlist in any competitive selection. Have criteria changed now?

[ReligionStudent]

Originally Posted by Thinktoomuch

Religion Student, given that you are aware of it (I'll say it here just so Jiri will see it and not get snippy...MY SPELLING IS BAD. ) I hope you will not feel offended by my question in good faith: how do you reconcile that (and the less than excellent syntax) with your high learning ability? A couple of decades ago that would have almost guaranteed that you would not make the shortlist in any competitive selection. Have criteria changed now?

Well, while my spelling is poor, this can easily be overcome with spell check and editors. My grammer is actually better than presented her. Additionaly, as far as proof of my writing schools have seen my 650 GRE verbal and 6.0 writing as well as samples of writting from classes, my thesis, and publications. Also, I teach SAT and GRE level grammer on the side.

Schools just recieved more accurate portrayals of my writting ability, thankfully passed through a spell check. Also, in addition to English I do speak a little French, read Biblical Hebrew, and know some Ge'ez, so that helps as well in the language area of my CV.

So yes I have poor spelling, if JREF had a spell check it would not be as evident here, and my grammer is much better than I usually present in my stream of consiousness answers on the forumn. Its probably something I should focus on, and present gramatically correct responces.

[Scottch]

FWIW -

I did get my Ph.D. because it was something I wanted to do - a goal in my life. I liked doing research, I liked talking to and helping undergraduate students, and I appreciate most of my colleagues in academia.

I taught high school (math and physics) for 10 years as I received my degrees (masters and doctorate). I then found a consulting job for a year as I did my dissertation as was hired at a smaller college in the Midwest this last year. I took out loans that I know would be difficult to pay off in any short amount of time, but I live within my means and it just means I don't buy a new car every five years - I drive my car until it dies and buy nice used ones for about 20 years.

I got my Ph.D. in Education and know that I would not have made as much money as I did without it and stayed in public education (I am still making less now than when I left teaching). But, after scheduling my bathroom times during the day as a high school teacher, this new job allows me the freedom to affect positive social change at a broader level. I am now exciting a new generation of teachers to think skeptically and to model the thoughts of science and mathematics to a new generation of students.

It is totally worth any amount of money that I "would" have earned. As I said, I live very comfortably, but now I can take consulting jobs for about $2,500 a week in the summer or teach online. I didn't do it for anyone - but I recognize that I could affect society positively more if I did have those three letters after my name. Is it right...of course not...but it is reality. My opinions on education are no more or less valid than any one else's - but that is what the scientific process tries to determine.

Scottch

[ReligionStudent]

This is perhaps one point I forgot that Scottch naile. You may not make as much while at school, but its really enjoyable for a lot of people to do it and exist in that culture while still learning.

[Ben Tilly]

Originally Posted by ReligionStudent

Well, while my spelling is poor, this can easily be overcome with spell check and editors. My grammer is actually better than presented her. Additionaly, as far as proof of my writing schools have seen my 650 GRE verbal and 6.0 writing as well as samples of writting from classes, my thesis, and publications. Also, I teach SAT and GRE level grammer on the side.

Schools just recieved more accurate portrayals of my writting ability, thankfully passed through a spell check. Also, in addition to English I do speak a little French, read Biblical Hebrew, and know some Ge'ez, so that helps as well in the language area of my CV.

So yes I have poor spelling, if JREF had a spell check it would not be as evident here, and my grammer is much better than I usually present in my stream of consiousness answers on the forumn. Its probably something I should focus on, and present gramatically correct responces.

Geez, I'm not sure when I remember running across a supposedly educated adult who had worse spelling. And I can see at least one error that spell check would not fix. (You wrote "her" instead of "here".)

Furthermore I'll note that 650 verbal puts you in the top 10% of people taking the GRE. While that's good, I wouldn't call it excellent. Especially not if you are particularly well prepped for that test and are therefore likely to be outperforming your native ability. (The fact that you're teaching people how to pass it suggests that you are.)

Finally I'll agree with others that I find it hard to reconcile your spelling with being good verbally. While it is theoretically possible, it strikes me as very unlikely.

Regards,
Ben

[ReligionStudent]

Originally Posted by Ben Tilly

Geez, I'm not sure when I remember running across a supposedly educated adult who had worse spelling. And I can see at least one error that spell check would not fix. (You wrote "her" instead of "here".)

Furthermore I'll note that 650 verbal puts you in the top 10% of people taking the GRE. While that's good, I wouldn't call it excellent. Especially not if you are particularly well prepped for that test and are therefore likely to be outperforming your native ability. (The fact that you're teaching people how to pass it suggests that you are.)

Finally I'll agree with others that I find it hard to reconcile your spelling with being good verbally. While it is theoretically possible, it strikes me as very unlikely.

Regards,
Ben

First, her instead of here is a typing error, I know the spelling difference. I have also said that some of my errors are due to typing and just quickly submitting. I'm sorry if this is getting bothersome, I will be more careful in the future.

As for the GRE, I'm sorry the 650 was my score three years ago, the score when I took it last was 670 which puts me in the top 5%. Of course the verbal section has nothing to do with spelling at all. The only place where spelling is visible is on the writing section,
on which I recieved a 6 out of 6. As far as verbal goes, I am quite capable of reading, and my girlfriend continously tells me I am too annoying about correct grammar. Additionally, the percent is a self selected group. For instance, my 780 in math is only in the top 11%, but it is better than that in the general population. As for the tests in general, anyone that works for TPR will point out that SAT and GRE are really tests of how well you test, not how intellegent you are or even your math or verbal skills. I merely pointed out that score because it would explain, at least in part, my acceptance to MA and PHD programs.

As for concerns with my verbal skills, my recent email from my editor state "These entries are quite excellent". The only concern for editing noted was not my verbal skills, but concern that the target audience would need more clarification on who Albright was.

If this has turned into a thread of asking me about by verbal vs. spelling skills, I should note that while I was classified as having a learning disability in high school for my spelling, I was still able to be in Enlish AP at the same time. They are two sperate areas to me. My spelling does not necessarily represent my intelligence (I have known quite a few very intelligent people, including medical doctors, who do not have excellent spelling) but is a completely different problem.

It is very nice that you find it difficult to reconcile my spelling with my verbal ability, but there is the other evidence, including the acceptence of my publication, my acceptance to schools, or my verbal scores on tests. These certainly do not indicate a poorly educated individual, as your first line seems to imply I may be. If you really wish for for some proof of my education, look up my degree at Rutgers or my attendence at Columbia. I fail to see the reason to attack my level of education or my verbal ability, when neither has anything to do with my origional post on this thread.

I actually find this an upsetting turn of the thread, as my only point was that grad school/PHD is a good thing for many people, and that fears of price and lost years to one's career can be seen as unfounded. I fail to see how poor spelling prevents me from posting a view representative of someone involved in two graduate programs, as I am involved in two graduate programs. I never meant to sit here and say, look at me I am so intelligent, but to offer the opinion of someone who is going through those lost years of career time. In fact, I fail to see where I made arguments based on intelligence and not experience of either my girlfriend (who btw has excellent spelling) or I.