Read on Twitter
Every time I think through what needs to change for humanities PhDs (esp the kinds that take too long) to be good for all involved, I wind up, eventually, at "so why do one at all? Why even have these?" Folks jump thru hoops in order to watch others later jump thru the same hoops
All alternatives require dismantling the obstacle course and providing meaningful training, mentorship, support, and accountability.
And if we want scholarly outputs to be more than just hoops, we absolutely cannot have assessment 100% in the hands of tenured/TT professors. No.
And if we want scholarly outputs to be more than just hoops, we absolutely cannot have assessment 100% in the hands of tenured/TT professors. No.
In which case, what you're left with might not be a PhD but more akin to a fantastic years-long arts grant/program. And hey, why not? But that cannot happen within the context of academia and universities. I don't see it. I don't see how meaningful change is possible.
Do you?
Do you?
If we're honest and admit that the main utility of a humanities PhD is to set folks up to work as humanities professors - every other outcome is *possible* but a PhD is a highly inefficient method of achieving those outcomes - then we must cut programs AND make meaningful changes
The changes are necessary because new professors often report they aren't properly prepared to begin their jobs. So, that's outrageous. And, at least as important, mental health challenges are very high for PhD students. This is unacceptable.
But is change possible, even here?
But is change possible, even here?
Professors are in charge. Professors in PhD-granting institutions are assessed (hired, promoted) on their ability to produce research. And, ok, on teaching (as judged by undergrads, who aren't prof'l evaluators). They can't design effective PhD programs: it's not their expertise.
I am not blaming profs here. They are overburdened with things already that are beyond their training, expertise, interest, and don't align with how they're evaluated in their careers. Again, outrageous.
If we respect expertise, they can't be in charge of PhD program design.
If we respect expertise, they can't be in charge of PhD program design.
And what about "training, mentorship, support, accountability," the things PhD students need to progress well thru programs? Professors aren't experts in these things either. Some happen to be, but the individual advisor model all-but guarantees students won't get what they need.
So: Cut humanities PhD programs, hire experts to co-design and -manage the ones left (and get act together re equitable admissions), and - if society wants to support more scholarly output - create new programs (grants, incubators, whatever) that focus on that outcome.
Eh?
Eh?
