To the Editor:
In the course of arguing against doctoral students’ best interests, Daniel Bessner and Michael Brenes (“A Moral Stain on the Profession,” The Chronicle Review, April 26) invoke tired stereotypes about the academy and work outside it. They claim the American Historical Association is immoral for supporting programs that equip graduate students with the skills to navigate the world post-Ph.D. They couldn’t be more wrong.
As interim President of a large public graduate school, I believe passionately in providing education that empowers students to make the most of their lives, whether or not they pursue careers in the academy. Last year the Mellon Foundation funded our effort to transform doctoral education on this principle: an education that prepares students for work outside academia will also improve their chances for success inside it.
Most students start with the aim of becoming professors. But many grow curious about other careers along the way, and some choose to follow other paths. This is a choice academics should respect. Also, in the best of times, the number of academic jobs available will always be fewer than the number of students graduating each year. Do we want to cut access just when we are beginning to recruit diverse students in meaningful numbers? No. We must keep our doors open and shoulder our responsibility to prepare students for more than one path.
Conventional doctoral education trains students to do specialized academic research. No doctoral programs I know of teach students the real-world skills they will need as professors: how to raise funds, write strategic plans, organize research or teaching teams, handle a budget, manage staff, or negotiate with deans. When we teach students these skills, we help them be better members of the academy. This training is not “alt-ac.” It empowers Ph.D. recipients to become effective advocates and leaders. Had such training been part of doctoral education 50 years ago, the slow burn of adjunctification might have encountered stronger resistance from a better armed faculty.
Bessner and Brenes make several good points. They want job applications to be streamlined and accessible. They demand that professional societies work together to address the job crisis and open their leadership to non-tenured scholars. They see that the job market in the cultural sector is tottering. This is precisely why doctoral education should be broader in scope. Realistic preparation for work as a professor is excellent preparation for many pursuits. From technology start-ups to banks and NGOs, work outside academia is sophisticated, challenging, and not as different from teaching and research as some cloistered academics tend to think.
Imagine a world where firms and corporations were partly staffed and led by Ph.D.s in the humanities and social sciences. These Ph.D.s would bring to these places the academic values and habits we treasure: evidence-based arguments, a commitment to bettering the human condition through knowledge and understanding.
This is a world I want to live in, where Ph.D.s inside and outside academia work together to push colleges and universities to provide better pay for better jobs.
Joy Connolly
Interim President of The Graduate Center, CUNY
Incoming President of the American Council of Learned Societies
