|
Post by adios on Oct 25, 2009 14:10:48 GMT -5
Does anyone else who has been thinking about leaving academia feel like this is the perfect year to do so? I figure the stigma attached to leaving has got to be really low in a market like this. Might be the perfect time to get out without upsetting advisors or burning bridges.
|
|
|
Post by ano on Oct 25, 2009 16:30:56 GMT -5
I think it is best to wait until you've gone through one complete job cycle, or at least until after most of the academic jobs you've applied for have been offered to someone else. That way you can say you gave it your best shot. Non-academic jobs won't be hiring so far in advance for the most part, so you'll have time in a few months. In the meantime, something academic might come through!
|
|
|
Post by R2D2 on Oct 25, 2009 16:31:23 GMT -5
Yes, I think it's the perfect year to bail on academia. In fact, everyone who has ever thought of bailing on academia should bail this year.
Just sayin' ;D
|
|
|
Post by adios on Oct 25, 2009 16:42:05 GMT -5
Right, R2D2, it's a win-win situation for all involved. @ano - Part of me hopes that something academic doesn't come through. See, I'm saying that this year's horrible market might give some cover to those of us who are too afraid to say, "Enough is enough, academia isn't for me, let me out," because we don't want to upset people who have invested time and $$$ into our careers. Yes. I know how cowardly that sounds.
|
|
|
Post by bail fail on Oct 25, 2009 19:27:18 GMT -5
I am so happy someone brought this up because it's been weighing pretty heavily on my mind lately. I do think this is the perfect year to bail. But, I feel that while I am generally a resourceful person, I have zero idea as to what my skills are or how to market myself. I also have no idea what I would want to do outside of academia. Anyone else having similar thoughts? Has anyone else done this (not that you'd probably be likely to read this)?
|
|
|
Post by resources on Oct 25, 2009 20:11:53 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by idid on Oct 26, 2009 8:33:54 GMT -5
I "bailed" last year after two unsuccessful runs on the academic job market. I always wanted an academic job, but my experiences on the market gave me a dose of reality. What I had been taught to want by advisors--a tt position at an R1 university--apparently wasn't available to me, even with a Ph.D. from a top department, publications, and grants. In fact, it doesn't exist for most of us. I had interviews both years--all at liberals arts colleges with high teaching loads, which I would have embraced, but none of those worked out. I began to realize/think very carefully about what academia was really like, what it would take to get the job I wanted, and what it would be like when (if) I got there. To me, the picture looked like a few more years in a postdoc or adjunct position scraping by financially, having uncertainty about where I'd be going next, and then having to pack my bags and accept a position with little control over it's location. All that to make $50,000 when I got the position, if I was lucky! All of a sudden, the realities of everything I wanted for so many years seemed not so attractive anymore, not the way advisors and others had painted it to be. I ended up taking a research position in private industry, but I'm reading the rumor mill again this year just in case I decide to try the job market one more time in the future...
|
|
|
Post by wintermute on Oct 26, 2009 20:30:19 GMT -5
idid -- are you happy with your decision?
|
|
|
Post by appliedsoc on Oct 27, 2009 1:07:51 GMT -5
I know you asked idid this question, but let me tell you my experience in the non-academic world. I've been working at a private research firm for a couple of years now, and though Im still giving the academic world a try, the private sector is not that bad. Let me list the pros and cons:
Pros: - Better pay than the average academic position, and better salary increases over time. - No tenure pressures. - Working a defined schedule. Sometimes I work a bit more, but usually it is a 9 to 5 job where I don't bring anything home and don't have to do anything on the weekends. - I get to live in a nice metro area, making enough money to live in a nice neighborhood. - Direct impact on policy. I've written congressional reports on some pretty big programs. - Better financial support. Going to a conference? Everything paid in full, with car rental, etc. - Focus on research. Every other task they have a professional to deal with, be it editing, proofing, making reservations, setting schedules, etc. etc. - If you like methods, that is 90% of your sociological training that you will be using.
Cons: - Significantly less vacation time. Im talking 2 weeks a year, with relatively little choice of when to take it, and often not being able to take it all at once. - While the position is more secure than that of an assistant professor, it will never be as secure as that of a tenured professor. - Significantly less autonomy. You may get to pick and choose a project, but the range of projects to choose from is significantly reduced. - Intellectually less stimulating research. We aren't supposed to focus on theoretical issues or problems. It is all very applied, often involving only basic descriptive statistics. - Missing the interaction with students and academic colleagues. - Having to put up with private sector motivational BS and "corporate culture."
Do I like it? It is not my dream job, but it is much better than some of the academic jobs I've applied to in the past. It is much better than adjuncting, better than a TT position in the middle of nowhere, but not as good as an academic position at a desirable place.
|
|
|
Post by soundsgood on Oct 27, 2009 8:22:07 GMT -5
Thanks for going into detail, appliedsoc. All the pros are really attractive to me. On the con side, I'm reminded of what a prof at a top-five dept told me. He said that all the talk about being an academic for the intellectual stimulation was just BS, and that what people really enjoyed was not having a boss.
As a grad student who has essentially been boss-free for years, I'm wondering how the transition would be to a situation where you clock in and out and report to Michael Scott, or whoever the cards deal you. On the other hand, would it be worth it to be able to relax on the weekends?
|
|
|
Post by socbaker on Oct 27, 2009 8:47:31 GMT -5
I have a friend who graduated from a top 5 program and did a post doc at another top 5. He says it would take an awful lot to lure him away from his private sector research job. He's in his third year there now. I'm applying for academic and nonacademic positions. All I want is a job I'll like.
|
|
|
Post by idid on Oct 27, 2009 9:43:30 GMT -5
I really think appliedsoc hit all of the nails right on their heads. It made me think we work for the same company?!?
Do I regret it? No, because what else would I have done? Truthfully, I went to my Ph.D. commencement unemployment after a year of looking with no prospects, not even to adjunct. I figured it was the best thing at the time short of an academic position. Like wintermute, I recognize all of the pros of cons. Some days I think more about the cons, how much I miss academia, having more time to do my own research, surrounding myself with faculty and grad students, etc. Other days I try to stop and smell the roses, so to speak, and realize that my lifestyle--a house in a nice neighborhood in a high cost metro area, a nice car, a retirement savings, and being able to eat our or buy clothes without stopping to think about whether I'll overdraft--would be very different in an academic position. (In other words, proving economist wrong that there is money to be made in sociology.) I guess the point is I haven't completely formed my judgement yet. I keep doing outside research so that if in a year or two I decide it's not for me, I have the option to apply to academic jobs again. (So, unlike wintermute, I don't always get weekends off, albeit by choice.)
I also want to expand on wintermute's point about reporting to people like Michael Scott, Bill Lumbergh, etc. Granted I work with a lot of Ph.D.s, some from fine programs in sociology, econ, and psych. But there are also a lot of people, some of them very senior, without Ph.D.s who will be telling you what to do, and that may be difficult for the new Ph.D. from the top soc department who's been told they're the best and is ready to take on the world. There are also many people who earned Ph.D.s at night or online in subject areas unrelated to social science research to "impress a client" or "earn more money" not because they had a passion for the discipline or research, like you. It can be difficult to take those people seriously and have them supervise you. But the business world requires a scaling down of egos. Your Ph.D. experiences buy you a foot in the door, but they're not always what determines your ranking in the hierarchy. Experience seems to be more important.
|
|
|
Post by appliedsoc on Oct 27, 2009 10:44:48 GMT -5
Thanks for going into detail, appliedsoc. All the pros are really attractive to me. On the con side, I'm reminded of what a prof at a top-five dept told me. He said that all the talk about being an academic for the intellectual stimulation was just BS, and that what people really enjoyed was not having a boss. But not having a boss IS intellectually stimulating. I have access to data that I would love to have had as a graduate student. We are talking about surveys with huge samples that I helped create, etc. But most of the time I don't get to do what I want with it. The "client" is paying us for generally basic information and really doesn't care about how doing this or that research could have an impact on the field of sociology. I have lots of data on public programs, for example, that could yield all sorts of interesting papers about the impact that the privatization of public services has had on quality, access, etc. Or their impact on political attitudes. Or on isomorphism in the non-profit public service sector, etc. But my job is not to do any of that. It is to do relatively simple reports for a broad audience, asking very limited questions, normally related to how many people are receiving services, how often, and the cost per person over time. And idid is right about the boss thing. You might end up working with people with little to no academic credentials who might think that analyzing if missing data is random or not is an unnecessary academic discussion. And citing papers, your background, your classes, publication standards in your area won't matter. But even with the issues discussed above, with all the limits on research, I can certainly do a lot more research than I would be able to in many of the colleges and universities with higher teaching loads. And Im not working weekends and late nights in order to make 40 thousand a year. And Im in a lovely metro area with lots to do. Now, again, I'm not saying I don't like it. Just that there are definite negatives to the situation, and people who want to pursue it need to know about it.
|
|
|
Post by idid on Oct 27, 2009 12:09:08 GMT -5
appliedsoc is absolutely correct in the comparison to teaching colleges, something I thought of but didn't write in my last post. If one likes research but only has the option of working at a teaching college, one should think very carefully about an applied research job. One may find that they prefer doing applied research to so much teaching, or one may also find that they are able to do as much academic research on topics that interest them in their spare time outside of work as they would be able to with a 3-3 or 4-4 teaching load.
|
|
|
Post by soundsgood on Oct 27, 2009 12:20:12 GMT -5
I suppose not having a boss is intellectually stimulating, but the prof who mentioned this was referring to the flexibility you have to come and go as you please and work when you want. Another prof in the same dept once said, "This job is a 100-hour a week job, but at least I get to choose the hours." To which I say: no thanks. And this is exactly where the comment about not taking a heavy teaching job if you prefer research seems so appropriate. If 60-70 of your 100 hours are spent doing something you'd rather not do, then your life probably sucks.
|
|