What Has Worse Job Market: Ph.d.'s or J.D.'s? ..or BA/BS's? Forum

[you'rethemannowdawg]

I'll stand by what I said in another thread: PhDs in the humanities are an infinitely worse idea than a T14 JD. You might not have to deal with debt, but you'll lose 6-9 years of your twenties with abysmal job prospects. A PhD in biostatistics is probably a different story, though.

People who pursue PhDs in the humanities have very different goals from people pursuing JDs at a T14. In terms of earning potential over a career it is probably a worse move, but people generally don't go after humanities PhDs to make money.

[Flash]

What's the point of this thread? Isn't it common knowledge that if you're under 40 you probably have a shitty job that you're overqualified for?

[A. Nony Mouse]

I'll stand by what I said in another thread: PhDs in the humanities are an infinitely worse idea than a T14 JD. You might not have to deal with debt, but you'll lose 6-9 years of your twenties with abysmal job prospects. A PhD in biostatistics is probably a different story, though.

People who pursue PhDs in the humanities have very different goals from people pursuing JDs at a T14. In terms of earning potential over a career it is probably a worse move, but people generally don't go after humanities PhDs to make money.

No. But permanent, full-time employment in your field would be nice. And it's not going to happen.

[star fox]

Ph.d in the humanities, lol. Good luck getting that one open position a year in god knows where, USA.

[you'rethemannowdawg]

I'll stand by what I said in another thread: PhDs in the humanities are an infinitely worse idea than a T14 JD. You might not have to deal with debt, but you'll lose 6-9 years of your twenties with abysmal job prospects. A PhD in biostatistics is probably a different story, though.

People who pursue PhDs in the humanities have very different goals from people pursuing JDs at a T14. In terms of earning potential over a career it is probably a worse move, but people generally don't go after humanities PhDs to make money.

No. But permanent, full-time employment in your field would be nice. And it's not going to happen.

It would be nice, sure, and I'm sure most (if not all) PhD candidates probably want jobs in their fields. But PhDs aren't professional degrees, they're an academic pursuit. PhD candidates are willing to take on a lot more risk of not getting a long term full-time job out of school. They don't necessarily think completing a document then working at Starbucks for awhile was a waste of 4 years. On the other hand, a JD is a professional degree, so paying for it and not becoming a lawyer is considered a waste to most law students.

[A. Nony Mouse]

I'll stand by what I said in another thread: PhDs in the humanities are an infinitely worse idea than a T14 JD. You might not have to deal with debt, but you'll lose 6-9 years of your twenties with abysmal job prospects. A PhD in biostatistics is probably a different story, though.

People who pursue PhDs in the humanities have very different goals from people pursuing JDs at a T14. In terms of earning potential over a career it is probably a worse move, but people generally don't go after humanities PhDs to make money.

No. But permanent, full-time employment in your field would be nice. And it's not going to happen.

It would be nice, sure, and I'm sure most (if not all) PhD candidates probably want jobs in their fields. But PhDs aren't professional degrees, they're an academic pursuit. PhD candidates are willing to take on a lot more risk of not getting a long term full-time job out of school. They don't necessarily think completing a document then working at Starbucks for awhile was a waste of 4 years. On the other hand, a JD is a professional degree, so paying for it and not becoming a lawyer is considered a waste to most law students.

No. That's actually completely not true. (And what the hell is completing a document? Do you mean writing a dissertation? I can tell you no one I know who wrote a dissertation is satisfied with working for Starbucks after. And a Ph.D. in the humanities takes much longer than 4 years.)

[guano]

Ph.d in the humanities, lol. Good luck getting that one open position a year in god knows where, USA.

the only person I know who completed a Ph.d in the humanities had to leave the country to find a job. Some dinky town in england called oxbridge, or something like that. what a loser

[jwinaz]

I think what some of you are neglecting is that Ph.D.'s are qualified for secondary/primary education instruction (in addition to post-secondary ed).

If you have a Ph.D., for example, in History, English, or Biology, etc. and are unable to land a tenure-track teaching position (which seems to be the majority of Ph.D.s, because those jobs are simply scarce compared to the number of doctoral grads), then you can always apply to teach high school, middle, or elementary.

A friend of mine actually completed his Ph.D. in the humanities and is now going for precisely those types of jobs I mentioned above (after he struck out in univ. hiring). Sometimes the advanced degree credentials give you a larger raise or higher salary than your peers (he's told me that from his job applications to some school systems he's applied to). And over time, teaching can actually lead to a pretty solid career salary. For example, in New York, you can make $100K+ teaching high school after some time. That's not that much for NYC, but still a solid salary (probably the equiv. of $75 elsewhere).

So all of that can get lost in the equation above. JDs, by contrast, don't have the immediate ability to teach in elementary/middle/high school with their degrees. And they shouldn't, given the JD coursework/training. Whereas Ph.D.s can immediately apply for a job teaching in those other sectors. I do vaguely recall, though, that there may be a difference between school systems as to whether or not a pure Ph.D. would allow you to teach vs. X amt. of additional coursework in a Masters of Ed. type of program. ....I know for private schools, my friend said you don't need a MS of Ed. The Ph.D. straight up gives you the crednetials to teach in a private school. I believe the same is true of charter schools. Public schools might be diff. I don't know. I think my friend may have said that you have to either pass some test and/or do X coursework in the field of education for public schools.

The lack of debt + elem/middle/high school teaching options may put the Ph.D. on par with JDs or possibly even above them. Depends on how you calculate the pros/cons.

I think I've mostlyk heard that a JD is like a sclarlet letter outside of law. It seems employers can discriminate against the JD in the broader job market, which really sucks. I'm not sure if that's true of Ph.D.s as well, due to overqualification or non-related qualification. I guess with Ph.D.s people may not assume you'll run off to a better job as with lawayers.

[jwinaz]

And, as someomeone said above (I forgot to add that to my post), some Ph.D.'s can work in industry.

Ph.D.'s in engineering or chemistry, for example, can do research or work directly in industry. STEM Ph.D.'s may have more industry options. So, that's another avenue of employment you guys would have to provide statistics for to get the full picture.

I have a friend doing his Ph.D. in computer science and from what I csan tell has no interest in academia, but instead wants to work in industry right away afterwareds. He took on an internship with a Silicon Valley company last year.

[John_rizzy_rawls]

No. That's actually completely not true. (And what the hell is completing a document? Do you mean writing a dissertation? I can tell you no one I know who wrote a dissertation is satisfied with working for Starbucks after. And a Ph.D. in the humanities takes much longer than 4 years.)

Not necessarily. Average is 6 years, super slacker is 10 years, fast track is around 4.

This debate is dumb. Having a job as a PhD depends entirely on where you went to school and how much you published. That's it.

If you went to a top program and publish a lot, you'll find a job. Especially if you're in a larger market with a lot of universities (teaching and research driven). If you didn't and don't publish much, you won't. Just like if you went to a top law school and did well you'll probably have a job, and if you didn't or didn't do well at one, then you probably won't.

Obviously we're talking about somewhere in the middle of that. T50 law, T50 PhD program, etc. It's dicey at both ends. I mean if the law grad was median at that average school then he may be able to pull some middling shitlaw job somewhere. And the PhD, unless he published his ass off, will probably have to be prepared to move anywhere for a teaching gig.

It's impossible to say which field the job market is worse for because they're completely different fields with completely different paths to decent employment. I guess I would say the PhD has a better job market because they don't necessarily have to teach university to work and that there are decent jobs outside academia for a PhD (teaching other levels, research and policy for companies and think tanks, working in the field for STEMs, etc) but again, it's an almost impossible thing to answer definitively.

[star fox]

I think what some of you are neglecting is that Ph.D.'s are qualified for secondary/primary education instruction (in addition to post-secondary ed).

If you have a Ph.D., for example, in History, English, or Biology, etc. and are unable to land a tenure-track teaching position (which seems to be the majority of Ph.D.s, because those jobs are simply scarce compared to the number of doctoral grads), then you can always apply to teach high school, middle, or elementary.

Many teachers' unions have fought to make it mandated that individuals with advanced degrees are automatically paid more. So you may be passed up with your Ph.D in History from becoming a high school teacher since they don't want to pay you more and there's way more people qualified to teach that subject than positions available.

[star fox]

Ph.d in the humanities, lol. Good luck getting that one open position a year in god knows where, USA.

the only person I know who completed a Ph.d in the humanities had to leave the country to find a job. Some dinky town in england called oxbridge, or something like that. what a loser

Where did they go?

[scifiguy]

I think what some of you are neglecting is that Ph.D.'s are qualified for secondary/primary education instruction (in addition to post-secondary ed).

If you have a Ph.D., for example, in History, English, or Biology, etc. and are unable to land a tenure-track teaching position (which seems to be the majority of Ph.D.s, because those jobs are simply scarce compared to the number of doctoral grads), then you can always apply to teach high school, middle, or elementary.

A friend of mine actually completed his Ph.D. in the humanities and is now going for precisely those types of jobs I mentioned above (after he struck out in univ. hiring). Sometimes the advanced degree credentials give you a larger raise or higher salary than your peers (he's told me that from his job applications to some school systems he's applied to). And over time, teaching can actually lead to a pretty solid career salary. For example, in New York, you can make $100K+ teaching high school after some time. That's not that much for NYC, but still a solid salary (probably the equiv. of $75 elsewhere).

So all of that can get lost in the equation above. JDs, by contrast, don't have the immediate ability to teach in elementary/middle/high school with their degrees. And they shouldn't, given the JD coursework/training. Whereas Ph.D.s can immediately apply for a job teaching in those other sectors. I do vaguely recall, though, that there may be a difference between school systems as to whether or not a pure Ph.D. would allow you to teach vs. X amt. of additional coursework in a Masters of Ed. type of program. ....I know for private schools, my friend said you don't need a MS of Ed. The Ph.D. straight up gives you the crednetials to teach in a private school. I believe the same is true of charter schools. Public schools might be diff. I don't know. I think my friend may have said that you have to either pass some test and/or do X coursework in the field of education for public schools.

The lack of debt + elem/middle/high school teaching options may put the Ph.D. on par with JDs or possibly even above them. Depends on how you calculate the pros/cons.

I think I've mostlyk heard that a JD is like a sclarlet letter outside of law. It seems employers can discriminate against the JD in the broader job market, which really sucks. I'm not sure if that's true of Ph.D.s as well, due to overqualification or non-related qualification. I guess with Ph.D.s people may not assume you'll run off to a better job as with lawayers.

True, but you could also throw in and factor in that JDs can open up their own solo shop.

I'm not saying that's a great option, but just saying. I do think that teaching secondary education would be a solid option for Ph.D.s. Althought you could have done it w/o the Ph.d. and just a Masters. We actually had a few Ph.D.s in my high school. I never took a class from them, but I think one of the history teachers was actually a Ph.D.

It's at least good to know that Ph.D.'s can have that back-up option, whereas JD's can't go and like become a paralegal if they don't get a lawyer job. Although they can open up their own solo practice.

[you'rethemannowdawg]

No. That's actually completely not true. (And what the hell is completing a document? Do you mean writing a dissertation? I can tell you no one I know who wrote a dissertation is satisfied with working for Starbucks after. And a Ph.D. in the humanities takes much longer than 4 years.)

I think my phrasing was confusing, I was on my phone and couldn't type much (why I wrote "document" instead of "doctorate.") What I said was: PhD candidates are willing to take on a lot more risk of not getting a long term full-time job out of school than law students. People don't always get PhDs expecting to be placed in a specific job the same way MD students, law students, and engineering students do.

Of course people getting a PhD aren't "satisfied" when they're working at Starbucks, they want to get a job in their field, but they also generally view it as a "scholarly" pursuit (please no leiter jokes) and most PhD programs involve teaching stipends so the degree isn't a mountain of debt. People who pursue PhD's but don't immediately get jobs don't view it in the same way as law students who don't immediately get jobs. They generally know what the job market is like from their school (prestige of grad department and faculty for PhDs makes a HUGE difference) and either know that they will get a job because they went to a top program or are willing to take on the risk of working at starbucks for awhile before going to work somewhere.

And plenty of people get their PhDs in 4 years. It often takes longer, but many do it in 4. Don't know what else to tell you there.

[you'rethemannowdawg]

No. That's actually completely not true. (And what the hell is completing a document? Do you mean writing a dissertation? I can tell you no one I know who wrote a dissertation is satisfied with working for Starbucks after. And a Ph.D. in the humanities takes much longer than 4 years.)

Not necessarily. Average is 6 years, super slacker is 10 years, fast track is around 4.

This debate is dumb. Having a job as a PhD depends entirely on where you went to school and how much you published. That's it.

If you went to a top program and publish a lot, you'll find a job. Especially if you're in a larger market with a lot of universities (teaching and research driven). If you didn't and don't publish much, you won't. Just like if you went to a top law school and did well you'll probably have a job, and if you didn't or didn't do well at one, then you probably won't.

Obviously we're talking about somewhere in the middle of that. T50 law, T50 PhD program, etc. It's dicey at both ends. I mean if the law grad was median at that average school then he may be able to pull some middling shitlaw job somewhere. And the PhD, unless he published his ass off, will probably have to be prepared to move anywhere for a teaching gig.

It's impossible to say which field the job market is worse for because they're completely different fields with completely different paths to decent employment. I guess I would say the PhD has a better job market because they don't necessarily have to teach university to work and that there are decent jobs outside academia for a PhD (teaching other levels, research and policy for companies and think tanks, working in the field for STEMs, etc) but again, it's an almost impossible thing to answer definitively.

+1 about publishing. Its a big deal for PhDs.

[dr123]

No. That's actually completely not true. (And what the hell is completing a document? Do you mean writing a dissertation? I can tell you no one I know who wrote a dissertation is satisfied with working for Starbucks after. And a Ph.D. in the humanities takes much longer than 4 years.)

Not necessarily. Average is 6 years, super slacker is 10 years, fast track is around 4.

This debate is dumb. Having a job as a PhD depends entirely on where you went to school and how much you published. That's it.

If you went to a top program and publish a lot, you'll find a job. Especially if you're in a larger market with a lot of universities (teaching and research driven). If you didn't and don't publish much, you won't. Just like if you went to a top law school and did well you'll probably have a job, and if you didn't or didn't do well at one, then you probably won't.

Obviously we're talking about somewhere in the middle of that. T50 law, T50 PhD program, etc. It's dicey at both ends. I mean if the law grad was median at that average school then he may be able to pull some middling shitlaw job somewhere. And the PhD, unless he published his ass off, will probably have to be prepared to move anywhere for a teaching gig.

It's impossible to say which field the job market is worse for because they're completely different fields with completely different paths to decent employment. I guess I would say the PhD has a better job market because they don't necessarily have to teach university to work and that there are decent jobs outside academia for a PhD (teaching other levels, research and policy for companies and think tanks, working in the field for STEMs, etc) but again, it's an almost impossible thing to answer definitively.

Is the 6 including getting a masters? I know a few people who have Ph.D.'s and they all did it in 3/4 years after completing a masters program.

[John_rizzy_rawls]

Is the 6 including getting a masters? I know a few people who have Ph.D.'s and they all did it in 3/4 years after completing a masters program.

Not necessarily. Sometimes the thesis and dissertation are melded. For example, depending on where I get in I intend on doing a JD/PhD. Most programs I looked into won't have a built in MA because it won't be needed in my field if I show sufficient potential for scholarship from my senior thesis or dissertation research. Most of the PhDs that require the MA are STEM.

[A. Nony Mouse]

The amount of time it takes to get a Ph.D. in the humanities varies, but 4 years is very rare. (It's much more common for STEM/social sciences.) Unless you go to one of those dinky oxbridge places, of course.

Getting a job is about going to a top program and publishing... and about what area you study, and who's hiring in that area, and whether they happen to hire during the window when you're competitive for jobs (done/close enough to done, but not done so long ago you look stale), and whether they have any money to hire a tenure-track position as opposed to just adjuncts. And whether you're in a larger market with lots of universities is absolutely irrelevant - more universities = more people looking for jobs. Even if you have a Ph.D. from Yale with a published book, you may end up taking a job in rural Montana. You absolutely can't say you'll get a job in a larger market just because it's a larger market. And you absolutely can't say someone who's at a top program and publishes will get a TT job the way you can say someone who goes to Harvard and finishes in the top 10% will get a job. You just can't. They have a better shot than people at worse programs, sure, but they're still going to have to go where the jobs are, if they get one, and there just might not be one.

In some fields, there are decent jobs for Ph.D.s outside the academy. In many (especially the humanities), there are not. Teaching in private schools is an option, but private schools are rarely hurting for candidates to teach in the humanities. Teaching in public schools isn't that straightforward. The union issue is correct. And a friend of mine who has a Ph.D. in history teaches at a community college. Her degree is in European history, but she teaches all kinds of history (because it's a CC), including Intro to US. She looked into getting teacher certification so she could teach in a public high school (which includes charter schools), and the state would require her to take the exact same Intro to US class that she teaches (along with other stuff). Plus, even K-12 teaching jobs aren't exactly thick on the ground in a lot of places. And you didn't need the PhD to get the job in the first place.

Ditto most other options for Ph.D.s outside of STEM/some applied social sciences - you can get work (Ph.D.s actually have a fairly high rate of employment), usually, eventually - but it's going to be work you didn't need a Ph.D. to get. And that's after you convince employers that you're not going to run back to an academic job at the first opportunity - so in that respect, it's exactly like JD hiring for non-JD required jobs.

I also know lots of people who have debt coming out of Ph.D. programs (these are people who went to programs with funding). It is, admittedly, nothing like law school debt, but still, the opportunity costs of grad school are longer, and even the best outcome, the salaries are low.

you'rethemannowdawg, sorry, I get what you're saying now about risk - I didn't grok that earlier. Yes, I would say today, most Ph.D. students are willing to take on more risk than JD students are (although think of all the people who come here and say they're going to work really really hard and end up in the top 10% at their TT and they'll do great or they'll just transfer to a better school... that mindset affects Ph.D. students, too, and there's still some bad advice out there).

Again, this is all directed specifically at Ph.D.s in the humanities - I can't speak to other fields, many of which do have much better job opportunities. (A friend of mine is a prof of math education and they can't get enough candidates to fill positions in that field - in part because grads can get really good jobs in school systems/state departments of ed, that kind of thing.)

[banjo]

As someone who has spent some time in a decent humanities PhD program, A.Nony.Mouse has it exactly right. That said, if you would truly be happy spending your twenties in graduate school and teaching high school students for your entire career, topping out at 80-100k, a debt-free PhD might not be a terrible option. I just don't think that's the sort of goal that people on TLS have, and that's the audience I had in mind when I said a humanities PhD was a bad idea.

[jselson]

I'm a humanities PhD candidate at a reputable school, and I'm leaving to do a JD in large part because the job market coming from top schools is far better. I don't want to put in 7 years of my life for a 10-20% chance at a decent TT position. Teaching comp isn't bad, but it isn't something you wanna do for life.

[thatgumyoulike]

I think what some of you are neglecting is that Ph.D.'s are qualified for secondary/primary education instruction (in addition to post-secondary ed).

If you have a Ph.D., for example, in History, English, or Biology, etc. and are unable to land a tenure-track teaching position (which seems to be the majority of Ph.D.s, because those jobs are simply scarce compared to the number of doctoral grads), then you can always apply to teach high school, middle, or elementary.

A friend of mine actually completed his Ph.D. in the humanities and is now going for precisely those types of jobs I mentioned above (after he struck out in univ. hiring). Sometimes the advanced degree credentials give you a larger raise or higher salary than your peers (he's told me that from his job applications to some school systems he's applied to). And over time, teaching can actually lead to a pretty solid career salary. For example, in New York, you can make $100K+ teaching high school after some time. That's not that much for NYC, but still a solid salary (probably the equiv. of $75 elsewhere).

So all of that can get lost in the equation above. JDs, by contrast, don't have the immediate ability to teach in elementary/middle/high school with their degrees. And they shouldn't, given the JD coursework/training. Whereas Ph.D.s can immediately apply for a job teaching in those other sectors. I do vaguely recall, though, that there may be a difference between school systems as to whether or not a pure Ph.D. would allow you to teach vs. X amt. of additional coursework in a Masters of Ed. type of program. ....I know for private schools, my friend said you don't need a MS of Ed. The Ph.D. straight up gives you the crednetials to teach in a private school. I believe the same is true of charter schools. Public schools might be diff. I don't know. I think my friend may have said that you have to either pass some test and/or do X coursework in the field of education for public schools.

The lack of debt + elem/middle/high school teaching options may put the Ph.D. on par with JDs or possibly even above them. Depends on how you calculate the pros/cons.

I think I've mostlyk heard that a JD is like a sclarlet letter outside of law. It seems employers can discriminate against the JD in the broader job market, which really sucks. I'm not sure if that's true of Ph.D.s as well, due to overqualification or non-related qualification. I guess with Ph.D.s people may not assume you'll run off to a better job as with lawayers.

Only speaking for California here, but I'm sure the situation is similar in many other states: you would still need to get a teaching credential to teach at a public school, which is a full year of school plus unpaid student teaching. Also, good luck trying to get a school to hire you, especially with layoffs every single year--they have to pay you more than the average applicant with a BA, as I think someone else mentioned. They would much rather hire a younger, cheaper, applicant.

[guano]

Ph.d in the humanities, lol. Good luck getting that one open position a year in god knows where, USA.

the only person I know who completed a Ph.d in the humanities had to leave the country to find a job. Some dinky town in england called oxbridge, or something like that. what a loser

Where did they go?

Chicago, Princeton, Penn, Antwerp, Cairo, Leiden, Paris, the other oxbridge, and probably one or two that I'm forgetting

[John_rizzy_rawls]

As someone who has spent some time in a decent humanities PhD program, A.Nony.Mouse has it exactly right. That said, if you would truly be happy spending your twenties in graduate school and teaching high school students for your entire career, topping out at 80-100k, a debt-free PhD might not be a terrible option. I just don't think that's the sort of goal that people on TLS have, and that's the audience I had in mind when I said a humanities PhD was a bad idea.

Right, exactly. People who go for the PhD, or even the JD, for academia have a different idea of the kind of life they want than people who want BigLaw. It's just a completely different lifestyle.

I get you re: the TLS audience though.

[A. Nony Mouse]

As someone who has spent some time in a decent humanities PhD program, A.Nony.Mouse has it exactly right. That said, if you would truly be happy spending your twenties in graduate school and teaching high school students for your entire career, topping out at 80-100k, a debt-free PhD might not be a terrible option. I just don't think that's the sort of goal that people on TLS have, and that's the audience I had in mind when I said a humanities PhD was a bad idea.

Right, exactly. People who go for the PhD, or even the JD, for academia have a different idea of the kind of life they want than people who want BigLaw. It's just a completely different lifestyle.

I get you re: the TLS audience though.

It is a completely different lifestyle, and it's not always a bad notion for everyone (even though I'd say it's a bad notion for a lot of people). But even with different expectations, I think it's harder to meet those expectations coming out of a PhD program than law school.

[cinephile]

I'll stand by what I said in another thread: PhDs in the humanities are an infinitely worse idea than a T14 JD. You might not have to deal with debt, but you'll lose 6-9 years of your twenties with abysmal job prospects. A PhD in biostatistics is probably a different story, though.

Disagree. If you're clever about it, you should get your PhD done in 4 years. That's nothing if you're debt free.

But I'll tell a story since I'm here. A friend of mine has a PhD in mathematics from an unprestigious state school, and he's currently employed as an adjunct there. He's been looking for two years for anything else, but no one wants a pure math PhD, there are no practical applications for him. So now he's looking into teaching high school. Which is actually pretty decent if he finds a job in a public school, and of course he has no debt.