Buying PhDs

At least once a semester, the academic blog circle repeats the advice that you shouldn't pay for a PhD, that if the school wants you, they'll fund you. And every semester, I spend a few days feeling stupid--personally insulted and stupid. I'm one of those "unwanted" students not smart enough to make the cut. I've finally gotten to the point where I don't take that advice personally anymore. But I still get angry, because I still feel insulted, that my choice to earn my PhD without funding is not valued by "real" academics. Hmmm. Maybe I do still take it personally.

What bothers me is that based on what I know about funding, that reasoning isn't true. Funding isn't tied to talent. At both graduate programs I've attended (one fully funded one, one not), most of the money went to bringing people in from out of state and other countries. A set number of assistantships went to current students. In both cases, who got funded one year depended on who got funded the previous year. (At my master's school, I was one of two lit people that got funding that year; everyone else was creative writing. Why? They just graduated several MFAs and had funded several lit people the year before). Why did I get the funding over two of my very smart, better GRE-scoring friends? They lived in state and I didn't.

I've heard the grad reps on my current school's admissions committee dish about the applicants (totally unethical, I know), and they don't accept the people who don't cut it. There are standards, and the funding is used to bring in people who might not accept otherwise.

When I first applied to PhD programs, no one accepted me. I was devastated. Really, really devastated. But Husband got funded at my top choice, so we moved out here. I talked to the grad director after moving and asked what happened. I was afraid it was my GRE scores. My analytical was near perfect, but my verbal wasn't that hot--not embarrassing, but not impressive. I hate the GRE as it is stupid. But anyway, the problem was one of my letters. It was generic and short. He showed it to me. It could have been about anyone. So that was read as code for "don't accept this person" despite me having an article in a peer-reviewed journal in press. I took a class from my current adviser (the big name in my field that made this school my top choice), aced it, and she wrote me a new letter. I got in. But by that time I was already teaching 4-4 at the private university I now teach at (it's a real one, not a for-profit scam). I wanted funding, but didn't get it. I assume it's because they knew that they had me; I didn't "need" the funding to be wooed. Now I'm glad to have the full time job as the stipend is laughable, and my current gig has given me experience I wouldn't have gotten as a graduate assistant.

It's possible that my PhD program accepted me only because I had my adviser's backing. I know for a fact that some decisions about grad students are purely political. But I think that I have shown them again and again that accepting me was the right choice. But if I made my decision to attend solely on the basis of receiving funding or not, I would be doing something else. I have no idea what that is, as this is what I really want to do. I love theory; I want to research and think big thoughts. I'd do that any where, but isn't it nice to have someone pay me for it?

My point is that this decision is too important to make based on funding alone. And not getting funding doesn't mean you're stupid or not cut out for grad school.

I think that part of the don't-pay advice comes from the "too many humanities PhDs" rhetoric. If we only accepted the best and the brightest, then everyone would be better off. But how many is too many? I totally feel for the people who can't find jobs (I might be one of them in a few years), but I'm not sure "we can't guarantee you a job placement" should translate into "you're not qualified for our program." But honestly, has there ever been a time when there weren't too many humanities PhDs? Maybe when only rich, white men went to grad school?

A PhD does not, and should not, guarantee you an academic job. Anyone attending grad school who thinks there is a direct causation between getting the degree and an academic job is naive. And faculty advisers--letter writers!--should be honest about that when meeting with students. When I've met with students wanting to attend grad school (because I'm the youngest person in my department and the one most recently doing coursework, other faculty sometimes send grad-bound majors to me for advice) I make a point to tell them how hard it is, that I cry because I am overworked, and that it is scary. I also tell them how much it has changed how I think, how much I have learned, and that I love it. But I'm very honest about the workload and lack of prospects. And I spend time asking students why they want this, what's their backup plan, and what will they do if they don't get funding. I make a point to tell them to ask faculty if they can writer stellar letters, not just letters. And I tell them to get faculty advice on every aspect of their application (offering my services if needed). I tell them that the idea that "a wave of profs will be retiring when you graduate so you'll be well-placed for a job" is a myth, and that some decisions have more to do with what the program wants/needs right now and less to do with their intelligence and talent.