As a 20 year old doing my undergraduate, this is what I’ve been thinking about for the last few years. Everyone I know has been telling me that “it’s worth it,” and that it “helped them get to where they are today.” But that’s the thing: the doors that they went through are basically closed. Even if I do complete a PhD, I can’t guarantee those types of jobs (especially intro level) will still be there when I’m done.
The comment on the 115k hits hard considering I’m making a fraction of that as a substitute teacher in 2025 but such is my lot in life. Regardless, I wish I had read this in 2003/2004 instead of entering my PhD program.
I thought hard about how that would land but although it is not a little amount of money it is also just ... not that great as the top prize, eventually, that only some people will reach after arduous struggle.
"The advent of AI slop means that instructors (and TAs) must either endure the slings and arrows of em-dashes or take arms against a sea of cheaters—a battle enormously costly in time and effort."
Great timing. I worked in international development for almost 10 years (specialized in evidence and evaluation for democracy and governance work, so...95%+ eliminated now). Early last summer - I suspect in part because I read political scientists like you and Dan Nexon! - I started thinking about what I would do if my profession became untenable; I figured if that happened, everything adjacent would be also eliminated or stupid competitive, so I'd want it to be a big change. I went with civil engineering (half joking, going from the figurative infrastructure of political systems to literal infrastructure), started online classes in January, lost my job way faster than expected, but had time to research local programs and now I'm a full time in person student. It'll take 3 years (working summers, hopefully) but I'll make a living wage quickly.
Anyway, as classes started and it became very real that my political science and history reading lists are no longer Professional Development and the people I used to trade recs with are scattering, I briefly wondered: should I have gone for a PhD in something I'm curious about? A brief look at the numbers popped that balloon, but it does help to see it again.
Also... it is unclear whether Political Science depts in the US understand politics even a little bit. The discipline is a mish-mash of contradictory results that do not reproduce nor replicate but are nevertheless used as cudgels by normatively-motivated gatekeepers who are (increasingly, over time) drawn from elite circles.
If "the institutions" are going to be rebuilt after Our Present Moment passes then they will not resemble the institutions that current PhDs are being trained for. It's easy for "this is the way things are" folks to forget that "the ways things are" is often about 50-100 years old, and was produced in direct response to a previous crisis that swept away the old ways.
IMO the best reason to go to grad school now is b/c it's the easiest way to join a union and become involved in practical politics these days!
Couldn't agree more. As History faculty for 21 years with 12 of those spent as Dept. Chair responsible for hiring and mentoring faculty, I could not, with a straight face, tell them anymore that the profession is a good choice, with or without the PhD. I stepped out of that role a couple years ago willfully giving up my tenured position by my own choice, something that was almost unheard of until just a few years ago. People see the budget problems, student problems, AI problems, etc., and the overall "deprofessionalization" of faculty in the minds and actions of many Higher Ed administrators (at least in the U.S.) and it just doesn't seem worth it anymore.
BUT, if someone REALLY wants to risk it and give it a go, at least into the profession of academia/teaching, this is my advice. Get your M.A./M.S. and teach for a few years to get some experience, and do it in the K-12 or community/junior college systems. They need you way more than the R1s do, and in most states you can teach at those levels without the PhD.
Regarding the PhD specifically, I agree with Musgrave's first bullet point about the effort required and don't think anyone should ever waste their 20s in the pursuit. It has been my experience that the skills required such as time management, emotional intelligence, self-motivation, and most importantly of all, some perspective and knowledge about the world that can only come through living for a bit of time, means that for many a PhD probably shouldn't be attempted until one is at least 30 or maybe even 35. This may sound like a way to unnecessarily delay a career start, but unless you intend to be something like a brain surgeon or lawyer, the reality is that the number of careers that REQUIRE a PhD is dwindling. Musgrave is right. Don't do it now. Or if you must, think about it first for a really, really long time.
A doctorate can also be helpful in some applied research positions. For example, in my state the larger government agencies tend to have research shops that engage in various kinds of policy analysis and program evaluation. People in these jobs may not possess a scholar's level of autonomy in establishing a research agenda, but they can have a ringside seat in the policy-making process. In addition, compensation can be decent -- and retirement benefits superior -- to faculty positions in public universities.
I hear this. As I mentioned in another response, and above, focusing on alt-ac is last decade’s fight. You have to consider the risks and quality of the doctoral experience right now. It’s not the same experience with a wider range of outcomes; it’s a worse and riskier experience with worse outcomes. (And working for state governments is going to be much riskier or harder to get employment in, depending on your state. ) I would hope that the past eight months have shown that black swans are just swans.
I wouldn't recommend getting a PhD right now either. I'm merely speaking from my experience in a blue state, where applied research is still funded -- and taken somewhat seriously in the policymaking process.
I grant you that recent federal cuts have been devastating to some entities (particularly surrounding universities), but at least in my state there are still a meaningful number of gigs in and around the Legislature, Governor's Office, Auditor's Office and larger agencies -- as well as with various advocacy groups. Jobs range from technocratic to politically driven.
For years I made a living primarily by producing legislatively funded studies that other state agencies didn't have the internal capacity to produce. Even when state budgets have been extremely tight, there are always policy questions that elected leaders need to have answered.
I really worry that in many states, on many issues, this will not be the case. RFK Jr is the most powerful domestic official in the country, and other states, like FL, are not far off in that anti-expert path.
Agreed. I suspect over the next few years we will see is an increasing split between red and blue states regarding how they use research to inform the policy-making process.
My hope is that the recently announced West Coast Health Alliance is the beginning of efforts by blue states to band together to backfill at least some of the foundational research capacity being lost at the federal level.
Those of us who are left of center would do well to look at federalism with fresh eyes in an era where the right aggressively dismantles the administrative state whenever it gains power at the federal level.
I mean, that is what a political science degree is, at least research-based. As for more STEM fields: many of the same considerations hold as here, and some are more acute.
I wasn't arguing that the future was so bright that you should go get a PhD, but rather that there are still practitioner opportunities if the work suits you.
That said, I would also caution against adopting a uniformly pessimistic take about the future. Yes, things could get worse in the U.S. -- even much worse -- but historically the pendulum has swung back and forth.
In addition, there are still a meaningful number of research-oriented positions at the state and local levels in blue states -- and a goodly number of those gigs are entirely out of reach from federal interference.
For example, my state's auditor's office is not going to stop hiring program evaluators. Nor is the state-wide association of cities going to get rid of their policy research staff. By the same token, larger state agencies are not going to get rid of the researchers who respond to the policy-research demands from the legislature. Nor is the legislature going to stop needing fiscal analysis of proposed bills. Outside of specific areas such as DEI, life will go on.
By secondary education do you mean as a high school teacher? We definitely need more great high school teachers, but in addition to the PhD you'll also need an MAT or some sort of teacher education program.
Going straight into a classroom of 14-18 year olds with no formal training isn't the best idea. A PhD does not offer all of the training needed to teach children. High school is not college.
I am a professor in Texas and they do not require you to be in the office 5 days a week. Our chair sent out a passive aggressive email asking us to target 3 days a week, but admitted he had no enforcement on this. Wtf.
This is a very relevant and relatable post about the tough decision to get a PhD. I went to grad school after being dissatisfied with being an industrial chemist with a bachelor degree. Going to grad school really helped me gain significant exposure to physics and computers and when I started working in industry again I was able to learn computers and math more easily and eventually got a job as a software developer. But I never felt that being a professor was going to be worth the very hard effort. People should weigh this carefully and I am a happy dropout from the academic experience! 😎
I recently graduated with my PhD in Economics this past May from a top 10 program and did not land an academic nor government position (nor even a postdoc). Of course, I was limited by restricting my search to only the U.S. and by the hiring freeze for federal government positions. Luckily, with the skillset from being in economics, I landed a job in the private sector. I am still coming to terms that I did not end up in academia, as it was my intention for years.
Although I didn't land a position in academia, I don't regret getting my Ph.D. I fall in the camp of people who, despite the associated risks, enjoy learning more about the world. Earning my Ph.D. taught me to approach problems very simply before tackling them with complex formulas and solutions. It taught me how to persevere through answering difficult questions and handling constructive feedback. Not to mention, I learned many trends and facts about the world along with others' research.
Personally, I am using my knowledge to answer big, interesting questions on Substack in a way non-economists can understand, and I am finding other ways to fulfill my desire to teach while not working at my private sector job. I completely agree that if your goals are entirely centered around earning a high income and/or being tenure-track (which may be the case for many), then it's not a good idea. However, there are more ways to use the skills learned earning a Ph.D. than using them in academia or even the private sector.
That said, nice article, and I agree that students should be discouraged if they are focused on a specific career outcome.
Sorry to read this, I can relate on some points but a lot, like many things, depends on the subject area, geography and the individual's circumstances and goals.
I "mastered out" and the folks who defended the same year I left my program messaged ME for referrals. The PhDs were on the job market 7-12 months longer than I was.
I like this analysis, and I have had some issues with not only the doctoral route, but really all socializing pipelines in general-the corporate lawyer, the IT stooge, the forestry optimization natural resource manager- It all seems geared towards an empty analysis that has little bearing on the material structure. In fact it all seems geared towards supporting a destructive structure,
When you say we have to adapt to circumstances that are "already existing" before we can foster an academic revolution, who do you think determines these circumstances? It's an autonomous development directive that has run amok of human interests. If we want to foster an academic revolution, (which we actually have to do if we are to survive the oncoming technological, climactic, and geopolitical threats we are dealing with) then the universities have to act autonomously from the government towards a more holistic development for society. This doesn't mean secession or violence, but it does mean organizing in alternative ways. We cannot rely on entrenched hierarchical formations and electoral politics as our only way of facilitating society anymore.
As a 20 year old doing my undergraduate, this is what I’ve been thinking about for the last few years. Everyone I know has been telling me that “it’s worth it,” and that it “helped them get to where they are today.” But that’s the thing: the doors that they went through are basically closed. Even if I do complete a PhD, I can’t guarantee those types of jobs (especially intro level) will still be there when I’m done.
Am I supposed to hit the "Like" button for this? (Or is it a "Love" button?) We need a "True" button.
(Alright, I'll go back and click it.)
The comment on the 115k hits hard considering I’m making a fraction of that as a substitute teacher in 2025 but such is my lot in life. Regardless, I wish I had read this in 2003/2004 instead of entering my PhD program.
I thought hard about how that would land but although it is not a little amount of money it is also just ... not that great as the top prize, eventually, that only some people will reach after arduous struggle.
Hits hard as a 59 year making $125K after 34 years in my career.
"The advent of AI slop means that instructors (and TAs) must either endure the slings and arrows of em-dashes or take arms against a sea of cheaters—a battle enormously costly in time and effort."
I see what you did there...
I write for an elevated audience
Another cute allusion further down
Was waiting for someone to notice :)
Great timing. I worked in international development for almost 10 years (specialized in evidence and evaluation for democracy and governance work, so...95%+ eliminated now). Early last summer - I suspect in part because I read political scientists like you and Dan Nexon! - I started thinking about what I would do if my profession became untenable; I figured if that happened, everything adjacent would be also eliminated or stupid competitive, so I'd want it to be a big change. I went with civil engineering (half joking, going from the figurative infrastructure of political systems to literal infrastructure), started online classes in January, lost my job way faster than expected, but had time to research local programs and now I'm a full time in person student. It'll take 3 years (working summers, hopefully) but I'll make a living wage quickly.
Anyway, as classes started and it became very real that my political science and history reading lists are no longer Professional Development and the people I used to trade recs with are scattering, I briefly wondered: should I have gone for a PhD in something I'm curious about? A brief look at the numbers popped that balloon, but it does help to see it again.
Oh my goodness. That’s a switch in time!!!
Also... it is unclear whether Political Science depts in the US understand politics even a little bit. The discipline is a mish-mash of contradictory results that do not reproduce nor replicate but are nevertheless used as cudgels by normatively-motivated gatekeepers who are (increasingly, over time) drawn from elite circles.
If "the institutions" are going to be rebuilt after Our Present Moment passes then they will not resemble the institutions that current PhDs are being trained for. It's easy for "this is the way things are" folks to forget that "the ways things are" is often about 50-100 years old, and was produced in direct response to a previous crisis that swept away the old ways.
IMO the best reason to go to grad school now is b/c it's the easiest way to join a union and become involved in practical politics these days!
Couldn't agree more. As History faculty for 21 years with 12 of those spent as Dept. Chair responsible for hiring and mentoring faculty, I could not, with a straight face, tell them anymore that the profession is a good choice, with or without the PhD. I stepped out of that role a couple years ago willfully giving up my tenured position by my own choice, something that was almost unheard of until just a few years ago. People see the budget problems, student problems, AI problems, etc., and the overall "deprofessionalization" of faculty in the minds and actions of many Higher Ed administrators (at least in the U.S.) and it just doesn't seem worth it anymore.
BUT, if someone REALLY wants to risk it and give it a go, at least into the profession of academia/teaching, this is my advice. Get your M.A./M.S. and teach for a few years to get some experience, and do it in the K-12 or community/junior college systems. They need you way more than the R1s do, and in most states you can teach at those levels without the PhD.
Regarding the PhD specifically, I agree with Musgrave's first bullet point about the effort required and don't think anyone should ever waste their 20s in the pursuit. It has been my experience that the skills required such as time management, emotional intelligence, self-motivation, and most importantly of all, some perspective and knowledge about the world that can only come through living for a bit of time, means that for many a PhD probably shouldn't be attempted until one is at least 30 or maybe even 35. This may sound like a way to unnecessarily delay a career start, but unless you intend to be something like a brain surgeon or lawyer, the reality is that the number of careers that REQUIRE a PhD is dwindling. Musgrave is right. Don't do it now. Or if you must, think about it first for a really, really long time.
A PhD is not a terrible idea if you want to work in secondary education. The bias against that has to be overcome and soon.
A doctorate can also be helpful in some applied research positions. For example, in my state the larger government agencies tend to have research shops that engage in various kinds of policy analysis and program evaluation. People in these jobs may not possess a scholar's level of autonomy in establishing a research agenda, but they can have a ringside seat in the policy-making process. In addition, compensation can be decent -- and retirement benefits superior -- to faculty positions in public universities.
I hear this. As I mentioned in another response, and above, focusing on alt-ac is last decade’s fight. You have to consider the risks and quality of the doctoral experience right now. It’s not the same experience with a wider range of outcomes; it’s a worse and riskier experience with worse outcomes. (And working for state governments is going to be much riskier or harder to get employment in, depending on your state. ) I would hope that the past eight months have shown that black swans are just swans.
I wouldn't recommend getting a PhD right now either. I'm merely speaking from my experience in a blue state, where applied research is still funded -- and taken somewhat seriously in the policymaking process.
I grant you that recent federal cuts have been devastating to some entities (particularly surrounding universities), but at least in my state there are still a meaningful number of gigs in and around the Legislature, Governor's Office, Auditor's Office and larger agencies -- as well as with various advocacy groups. Jobs range from technocratic to politically driven.
For years I made a living primarily by producing legislatively funded studies that other state agencies didn't have the internal capacity to produce. Even when state budgets have been extremely tight, there are always policy questions that elected leaders need to have answered.
I really worry that in many states, on many issues, this will not be the case. RFK Jr is the most powerful domestic official in the country, and other states, like FL, are not far off in that anti-expert path.
Agreed. I suspect over the next few years we will see is an increasing split between red and blue states regarding how they use research to inform the policy-making process.
My hope is that the recently announced West Coast Health Alliance is the beginning of efforts by blue states to band together to backfill at least some of the foundational research capacity being lost at the federal level.
Those of us who are left of center would do well to look at federalism with fresh eyes in an era where the right aggressively dismantles the administrative state whenever it gains power at the federal level.
What are your thoughts about a science/research based PhD?
I mean, that is what a political science degree is, at least research-based. As for more STEM fields: many of the same considerations hold as here, and some are more acute.
I wasn't arguing that the future was so bright that you should go get a PhD, but rather that there are still practitioner opportunities if the work suits you.
That said, I would also caution against adopting a uniformly pessimistic take about the future. Yes, things could get worse in the U.S. -- even much worse -- but historically the pendulum has swung back and forth.
In addition, there are still a meaningful number of research-oriented positions at the state and local levels in blue states -- and a goodly number of those gigs are entirely out of reach from federal interference.
For example, my state's auditor's office is not going to stop hiring program evaluators. Nor is the state-wide association of cities going to get rid of their policy research staff. By the same token, larger state agencies are not going to get rid of the researchers who respond to the policy-research demands from the legislature. Nor is the legislature going to stop needing fiscal analysis of proposed bills. Outside of specific areas such as DEI, life will go on.
I think these are all pertinent observations, and I thank everyone for their self-consciously and continually civil tone here.
By secondary education do you mean as a high school teacher? We definitely need more great high school teachers, but in addition to the PhD you'll also need an MAT or some sort of teacher education program.
Not everywhere
Going straight into a classroom of 14-18 year olds with no formal training isn't the best idea. A PhD does not offer all of the training needed to teach children. High school is not college.
You are jumping to many conclusions.
I am a professor in Texas and they do not require you to be in the office 5 days a week. Our chair sent out a passive aggressive email asking us to target 3 days a week, but admitted he had no enforcement on this. Wtf.
Than you for ths.
This is a very relevant and relatable post about the tough decision to get a PhD. I went to grad school after being dissatisfied with being an industrial chemist with a bachelor degree. Going to grad school really helped me gain significant exposure to physics and computers and when I started working in industry again I was able to learn computers and math more easily and eventually got a job as a software developer. But I never felt that being a professor was going to be worth the very hard effort. People should weigh this carefully and I am a happy dropout from the academic experience! 😎
I recently graduated with my PhD in Economics this past May from a top 10 program and did not land an academic nor government position (nor even a postdoc). Of course, I was limited by restricting my search to only the U.S. and by the hiring freeze for federal government positions. Luckily, with the skillset from being in economics, I landed a job in the private sector. I am still coming to terms that I did not end up in academia, as it was my intention for years.
Although I didn't land a position in academia, I don't regret getting my Ph.D. I fall in the camp of people who, despite the associated risks, enjoy learning more about the world. Earning my Ph.D. taught me to approach problems very simply before tackling them with complex formulas and solutions. It taught me how to persevere through answering difficult questions and handling constructive feedback. Not to mention, I learned many trends and facts about the world along with others' research.
Personally, I am using my knowledge to answer big, interesting questions on Substack in a way non-economists can understand, and I am finding other ways to fulfill my desire to teach while not working at my private sector job. I completely agree that if your goals are entirely centered around earning a high income and/or being tenure-track (which may be the case for many), then it's not a good idea. However, there are more ways to use the skills learned earning a Ph.D. than using them in academia or even the private sector.
That said, nice article, and I agree that students should be discouraged if they are focused on a specific career outcome.
Yes, just too much time and commitment for what is on the other side. Like if a lotto ticket cost 7 years of your life.
Many such cases like this https://open.substack.com/pub/collegetowns/p/ucla-professor-homeless-cant-afford?r=7f4tk&utm_medium=ios
Sorry to read this, I can relate on some points but a lot, like many things, depends on the subject area, geography and the individual's circumstances and goals.
I "mastered out" and the folks who defended the same year I left my program messaged ME for referrals. The PhDs were on the job market 7-12 months longer than I was.
I like this analysis, and I have had some issues with not only the doctoral route, but really all socializing pipelines in general-the corporate lawyer, the IT stooge, the forestry optimization natural resource manager- It all seems geared towards an empty analysis that has little bearing on the material structure. In fact it all seems geared towards supporting a destructive structure,
When you say we have to adapt to circumstances that are "already existing" before we can foster an academic revolution, who do you think determines these circumstances? It's an autonomous development directive that has run amok of human interests. If we want to foster an academic revolution, (which we actually have to do if we are to survive the oncoming technological, climactic, and geopolitical threats we are dealing with) then the universities have to act autonomously from the government towards a more holistic development for society. This doesn't mean secession or violence, but it does mean organizing in alternative ways. We cannot rely on entrenched hierarchical formations and electoral politics as our only way of facilitating society anymore.