|
Attention
Students: Should You Get Your Ph.D. and Become a Professor?
DIGG THIS
Recently, appearing
on these pages, are several columns that would appear to incline
to the negative on this question.
A. Crovelli
First was the
highly unfortunate story told by Mark
Crovelli about his unjust mistreatment by the Department of
Political Science at the University of Colorado, Boulder. Our hearts
can only go out to this young man, and hope and trust that he can
put this horrid experience behind him. The prognostication looks
good: anyone who can write so eloquently, insightfully and movingly
about his sad experiences surely has a rewarding and fruitful intellectual
career ahead of him. Mark intends to switch from political science
to economics, which is all to the good: the latter is far more receptive
to libertarian insights, of which his forthcoming paper
in the Journal
of Libertarian Studies is an excellent example. We must
all take our hats off to anyone who can apply praxeological insights
to international relations. The fact that Mr. Crovelli has had this
brilliant paper accepted for publication by this prestigious journal
so early in his career serves as only one more bit of evidence in
this regard. We can only apply the "sour grapes" insight
sparingly, but in this case I think it fully applies: a masters
degree in political science would probably not count at all toward
a Ph.D. in economics. So, bad cess to the Department of Political
Science at the University of Colorado, Boulder; onward and upward
for Mark Crovelli.
This author
in the course of his essay links to some publications written by
my friend and colleague Gary North, who has on several occasions
taken the view that a career as a professor is unwise, in the extreme.
Let us consider each of these essays of his in some detail, for
Dr. North counsels young people to eschew the professoriate, and
I take an entirely different stance on this matter.
B. North
Part I
In the first
of his three op eds on this topic, Dr. North takes the view that
the academic cartel will soon break down. Since it was written in
2000, eight long years ago, and this particular scheme to bilk the
public is still very much alive and kicking, we must take his prediction
as more of an expression of hope than an actual expectation. (However,
to be fair to him, he does say that "This will take less than
two decades," and we still have quite a ways to go until 2020;
on the other hand, in the third
publication of his which we will be considering below in full he
states in this regard: "It is a self-policing, tax-funded system
of indoctrination. It has worked for seventy years. This is unlikely
to change in our time.") As for the actual analytics of higher
education, I am in full accord with Gary; this "industry"
is one heavily protected by government favoritism. Without the deleterious
arm of the state, the academy would look very different. There are
no truer words than these of his: "Whenever you find a cartel
that has existed for several decades (such as that in higher education),
begin a search for State intervention: civil sanctions placed on
non-members who seek to enter the market through price competition."
Where he and
I part company is not so much, indeed, not at all, with regard to
his description of the present economic situation of universities,
his yearning for statist protectionism to end, and for a truly free
enterprise situation to take its place. Rather, it is his advice,
often merely implicit in this article, that young people would be
unwise to enter this field: to obtain Ph.D.s, and become professors.
For example, in his view, the likely future for them is to be paid
as full-time faculty members "a pathetic $24,000 a year to
teach 8 classes." He opines that the colleges of the future
will "hire an army of Ph.D-holding teaching assistants at $15
per hour." Not a very attractive prospect.
However, according
to this
source: "…most economists who graduated with a doctorate
in 1996–97 found full-time career-tracking jobs that paid well
(those in permanent full-time jobs in the U.S. earned an average
starting salary of $61,000)." This accords with the pay scale
for starting assistant professors at my own school. But ponder what
this means on an hourly basis. For round numbers, assume
a salary of $60,000, and a teaching load of 3 courses per semester,
or a total of 6 per year. Each course meets for 3 hours per week
(well, two and a half hours; there are three weekly 50 minute periods
for a total of 150 minutes, but let that pass; we want to be conservative
here) for 15 weeks, or, for 45 hours per semester. Round that up
to 50 hours per semester per course, so as to include exam marking
(this would be a wild overestimate for multiple choice questions
which are machine made and marked), and a few committee meetings.
That comes to 150 hours per semester or 300 hours per year. Given
an annual salary of $60,000 that amounts to $200 per hour.
Quite a difference from North’s "$15 per hour." An hourly
$200 smackeroos ain’t chicken feed! (This compares favorably – (see
here)
– with the much "higher" salaries typically paid by jobs
on Wall Street, where you have to work, oh, 60–70 hours per
week, 50 weeks per year.)
True, in order
to gain tenure and promotion one must "publish or perish."
But that is the fun part. If you do not enjoy writing articles
and books, and then going on radio and television to talk about
them, giving public speeches about them (usually for another $500–$1,000
per hour, plus travel and hotel expenses) maybe you should try a
different profession. Come to think of it, pretty much the entirety
of a professor’s life is a joy (see here).
If you think that standing in front of a few dozen students, and
pontificating about supply and demand, the business cycle, free
enterprise, etc., is work, you’ve got another think coming.
For the overwhelming majority of us, this is pure pleasure. In Misesian
terms, this is play; we would be glad to do it for free if
we had to. (Okay, okay, I admit that marking exams is not a pure
unalloyed pleasure.)
Part II
In the second
essay of North’s (January 24, 2006) on this topic, he steps up his
criticism of the decision to earn a Ph.D. and enter the professoriate.
His charge: that there is a Ph.D. glut, and newly minted holders
of doctorates will be unable to land any academic job whatsoever.
This charge is crucial to his case; for if new Ph.D. economists
cannot land a faculty position, the $200 per hour salary, the long
vacations, etc., are entirely irrelevant.
As a good economist,
North of course acknowledges that excess supplies of anything typically
result in lower prices, which tends to reduce supply and increase
demand, thus ending the glut problem.
Why does this
not work in academia? In his view, this market mechanism only works
with "Experienced sellers (who) do get the picture.
The problem is a continuing supply of new sellers who are unfamiliar
with the market and ignorant of the past supply-demand conditions."
Well, perhaps, this sounds like people with a doctorate in poetry,
or feminist studies, but seems to ill fit those who have just completed
a half decade of study of the dismal science.
Here
is some evidence that applications for Ph.D. programs are dependent
upon actual market conditions for graduates (table 1 of these authors
is most instructive in this regard):
A period
of malaise in the mid-1990s led to a contraction in enrollment
at many economics Ph.D. programs. The resulting reduction in the
supply of new Ph.D. economists, combined with a smaller contraction
in demand for new Ph.D. economists, generated, as the Wall Street
Journal reported, a "hot pursuit" for some economics Ph.D.s, with
"even low-level candidates [being] treated like big shots" (Jon
E. Hilsenrath, 2001, p. B1). As might be expected, the scarcity
of new economics Ph.D.s that materialized at the end of the decade
appears to have induced more enrollments in economics Ph.D. programs,
with annual matriculations rising by about 25 percent between
Fall 1998 and Fall 2002 (Charles E. Scott and John J. Siegfried,
1999–2003)."
North’s analysis
relies on the man who "first blew the whistle on the economics
of the Ph.D., David
W. Breneman … in 1968, the year prior to the beginning of the
Ph.D. glut." North also refers to Allan Cartter’s work in 1964,
and Clark Kerr’s in 1966. But this, too, is more than passing curious.
We are now, presumably, discussing the excess supply of economics
Ph.D.s in 2008, or, even better, 2013, the year those entering graduate
study today will start rolling off the assembly line. How can research
some four decades ago be of much relevance to our present concerns?
Dr. North also
seems to posit some sort of iron law of growth in graduate departments,
based on full-time equivalent (FTE) considerations:
We know from
Parkinson's
Law that growth is an institutional imperative. Administrators
advance their careers by expanding the number of subordinates
in their department. So, every academic department wants more
students – students of a special kind.
Students
are not of equal value to a department. The lower-division student
(freshman or sophomore) does not rate highly in the currency of
academic resource allocation: the full-time enrollment, or FTE.
The FTE figure is what justifies the hiring of a full-time faculty
member. The lower the ratio, the better. It may take 15 lower-division
students to generate one FTE. It may take only eight Ph.D.-level
graduate students to generate an FTE.
The more
Ph.D. students a department can attract, the faster the growth
of that department. This is the iron law of academia. All other
economic laws are sacrificed for it, as the economist says, other
things being equal.
This fact
of academic economic life creates an incentive for departments
to enroll lots of graduate students. It also rewards those departments
that persuade M.A. students to go into the Ph.D. program.
The Ph.D.
glut has existed ever since the fall of 1969."
But, this
cannot be all that there is to it. If it were, Ph.D. programs would
have grown, in the last 40 years, like Topsy, like the lizard that
ate Tokyo.
An alternative
perspective to North’s pessimism may be found here.
According to this study,
1. The number
of economics Ph.D. degrees awarded in the U.S. fell from 1008 in
1996 to 930 in 2001.
2. The number
of Ph.D. degrees awarded to American citizens fell from 430 in 1996
to 350 in 2001. This number has not been so low since the Johnson
administration…
5. The median
"time to degree" is 5.4 years…
7. Only four
percent of finishing Ph.D. students received no financial aid whatsoever.
8. The unemployment
rate for graduating Ph.D. students is projected at 2.1 percent.
9. 23 percent
found jobs outside the U.S., down from 31 percent five years earlier.
The biggest foreign employers are, in order, Canada, South Korea,
the U.K., and Brazil, Taiwan, and Turkey.
10. Only six
percent of Ph.D. graduates in economics say they do not like their
jobs. The median salary is $74,000, again noting that not everyone
responded to the questionnaire.
The
bottom line? It's a great life. Sign up now.
Another
study,
by John Cawley (his is the most comprehensive of those I have read;
I highly recommend this to all those contemplating a career
in academia) offers this assessment of the job market: "… almost
everyone lands a job that they like. In a survey of new economics
Ph.D.s in 2001–2002, Siegfried and Stock (2004) find that only
2.1% were unemployed shortly after the job search season. Moreover,
94% of the new Ph.D. economists in 2001–2002 reported that
they liked their jobs very much or fairly well (Siegfried and Stock,
2004)."
And here
is quite an optimistic, and, I think, more realistic assessment
from economist Bryan Caplan:
"… economists'
wages are relatively high for the following reason. Few people,
as a teenager, say to their parents: ‘I want to be an economist
when I grow up.’ Yet many people wish to be writers, astronauts,
professional athletes, scientists, psychologists, and so on. I don't
know of any situation comedy where the lead star is an economist.
So our relative lack of popularity keeps the supply low and our
wages relatively high."
I have on more
than one occasion had friendly debates with Bryan regarding several
technical issues in economics. But on this matter, I am entirely
in accord with him.
Gary North,
Ph.D., (emphasis, mine) continues with his pessimistic outlook
claiming that new assistant professors are typically given large
classrooms, which do not usually allow them to do the research necessary
for acquiring tenure. So they are let go after six years (not eight,
as per North), and then confined to the swamps of community colleges,
there to earn that proverbial "$10 to $15 an hour."
Well, let’s
see. According to this
source, the average salary for a community college faculty member
… nationally … was $53,934. Round this up to $54,000 (hey, give
me a break, I’m trying to make a point here). Assume that the professor
teaches 5 courses of 3 hours each for 30 weeks a year (yes, these
people get long vacations too). That amounts to 450 hours per year
(we ignore publishing requirements, committee meetings, marking
essays, since there are virtually none in this sector of academia),
or $120 per hour, roughly 10 times North’s estimate of "$10
to $15 an hour." I wonder at the source of his calculations.
Next, North
asks: "Who gets an entry-level position at Boonsdocksville
State University, which in 1960 was a public schools teacher training
college? New graduates with Ph.D.s from the two-dozen major universities.
"Then
what happens to graduates with Ph.D.s issued by Boonsdocksville
State? They go straight into the community college circuit."
Again,
not so, not so. In order to test this empirical claim of his, I
wrote to a dozen or so institutions of higher learning. It
is a bit insulting to regard them as "Boonsdocksville State,"
but these institutions were chosen since none of their Ph.D. programs
is ranked very highly. (For rankings of graduate programs in economics,
see here,
here, here
and here.)
I sent
them this letter:
Dear Colleague:
I am doing
a bit of research regarding the placement of recent economics Ph.D.
students in academia. Could you please tell me the name of the
universities or colleges or firms or government agencies that hired
your recent graduates in the last 3 years? I also wish to test the
hypothesis that the first jobs of newly minted doctoral students
are at two year or community colleges. So, second question, please
tell me the (rough, if need be) proportion of your recent grads
who took jobs at community colleges, vs. those who found positions
at 4-year colleges, or universities. I would be very grateful for
your cooperation, and shall not report your replies on an individual
basis; rather, I will aggregate the results.
Yours truly,
Here are
the responses I got.
(Collegeville,
MN), Assistant Professor, Washington and Jefferson College (Washington,
PA), Assistant Professor; Washington and Jefferson College (Washington,
PA), Assistant Professor; State University of New York at Oneonta
(Oneonta, NY), Assistant Professor; Florida Gulf Coast University
(Fort Myers, FL), Assistant Professor; Georgia College and State
University (Milledgeville, GA), Assistant Professor; New York ISO
(Albany, NY), Economist; Indiana University (Bloomington, IN), Assistant
Professor; Pacific Lutheran University (Tacoma, WA), Assistant Professor;
Appalachian State University (Boone, NC), Assistant Professor; Beloit
College (Beloit, WI), Assistant Professor; Southern New Hampshire
University (Manchester, NH), Assistant Professor.; Chiang Mai University
(Chiang Mai, Thailand), Lecturer; Central Washington University
(Ellensburg, WA), Assistant Professor; Central Michigan University
(Mount Pleasant, MI), Visiting Assistant Professor; University of
Texas at El Paso (El Paso, TX), Assistant Professor; University
of Louisville (Louisville, KY), Assistant Professor; BBVA Bank (Lima,
Peru), Assistant Manager Economic Research Department; Northwestern
University (Evanston, IL), Lecturer; Capital University (Columbus,
OH), Assistant Professor; University of New Hampshire (Durham, NH),
Visiting Assistant Professor; Duquesne University (Pittsburgh, PA),
Assistant Professor; The Korea Institute for Industrial Economics
and Trade (Seoul, Republic of Korea), Associate Research Fellow;
University of the Pacific (Stockton, CA), Regional Economic Analyst;
Shepherd University (Shepherdstown, WV), Assistant Professor; Gustavus
Adolphus College (St. Peter, MN), Assistant Professor; Penn State
University at Erie (Erie, PA), Assistant Professor; Boston Pacific
Company, Inc. (Washington, DC), Project Director; St. Cloud State
University (St. Cloud, MN), Assistant Professor; Western Illinois
University (Macon, IL), Assistant Professor; Penn State University
at Erie (Erie, PA), Assistant Professor; Lawrence University (Appleton,
WI), Visiting Assistant Professor; Washington and Jefferson College
(Washington, PA), Assistant Professor; Office of the Prime Minister
(Seoul, Republic of Korea), Financial Supervisory Commission; Utica
College (Utica, NY), Assistant Professor; Youngstown State
University (Youngstown, OH), Assistant Professor; Mahidol University
(Bangkok, Thailand), Lecturer; The World Bank (Washington, DC),
Trade Economist; University of Texas at El Paso (El Paso, TX), Assistant
Professor,
Boise State University (Boise, ID), Assistant Professor; Kennesaw
State University (Kennesaw, GA), Assistant Professor; Gonzaga University
(Spokane, WA), Assistant Professor; University of Regina (Regina,
Canada), Assistant Professor; California State University at Bakersfield
(Bakersfield, CA), Lecturer; Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology
(Terre Haute, IN), Assistant Professor; Chaoyang University of Technology
(Taichung, Taiwan), Assistant Professor; University of Missouri
at Rolla (Rolla, MO), Assistant Professor; Indiana University (Bloomington,
IN), Lecturer; Western Illinois University (Macon, IL), Assistant
Professor; Elgin College (Illinois), Assistant Professor; Ripon
College (Wisconsin), Assistant Professor; Youngstown State University
(Ohio), Assistant Professor; University of Kuwait, Assistant Professor;
World Bank, Consultant; PriceWaterhouseCoopers, Chicago, Senior
Associate; Hope College (Michigan), Assistant Professor; University
of Arkansas-Little Rock, Assistant Professor; DePauw University
(Indiana), Assistant Professor; Duquesne University (Pennsylvania),
Assistant Professor; Cleveland State University; then Keene University
(New Jersey), Assistant Professor; WVU (post-doc); WVU (post-doc);
then Kansas State University, Assistant Professor; U.S. Representative
City of Tianjin and Tianjin Economic Development Area; University
of North Dakota, Assistant Professor; Marietta College (Ohio), Assistant
Professor; Augustana College (South Dakota), Assistant Professor;
Institute for Urban and Regional Research, Austrian Academy of Sciences,
Vienna (Research Scholar); Center for Chinese Business at WVU, Research
Assistant Professor; Lingnan University, Hong Kong, Assistant Professor;
Fukuoka University (Japan), Assistant Professor; Salem-Teikyo University
(in WV), Assistant Professor; University of Nebraska Extension;
Janus Pannonius University in Pecs, Hungary, Associate Professor;
Univ. of Hawaii at Manoa, Center for Labor Education and Research;
Allegany College (in MD), Office of Institutional Research; Frostburg
State (in MD); State of Virginia Office of Revenue; Post-doc at
Univ. of Alabama; then Univ. of Colorado at Denver; Frostburg State
(in MD); WVU Extension Service, Institute for Labor Studies; I-Net,
Inc. (an accounting firm in Washington, DC); then Coleman Research
Corp. (a defense company); Fudan Univ. in Shanghai, China; Waynesburg
College (in PA); Washington Univ. (St. Louis), post-doc; U.S. General
Accounting Office; International Islamic Univ., Malaysia; Staffordshire
Polytechnic Inst., United Kingdom; New York Institute of Technology;
returned to Thailand; Korea University; West Liberty State College
(in WV); Univ. of Missouri at Rolla; Nat'l. Inst. of Development
Admin. (Thailand); University of Southern Indiana; Susquehanna University;
Kebargsaan University (in Malaysia); A small firm in Washington,
DC; Al-Azhar University, Cairo, Egypt; A Saudi government agency;
A private company in Korea; Georgia Southern College; A private
research institute under contract to Northwestern Univ; Frostburg
State University (in MD); City Administration of Alexandria, VA;
Somerset College (in Kentucky); WVU Institutional Analysis and Planning;
WVU Division of Applied Research; Frostburg State Univ. (in MD);
St. John Fisher College (in Rochester, NY); St. Augustine College
(in SC); Univ. of Malaysia; Grinnell College (in Iowa); State of
WV Insurance Commisioner's Office; Rutgers-New Brunswick, Ag. Ec.
Dept.; Allegheny College (in PA); American Electric Power; Monmouth
College (in Illinois); Government job in Thailand; Glenville State
(in WV); Limestone College (in SC); Shepherd College (in WV); Virginia
Polytechnic Institute; J.P. Morgan Chase; U of Rochester, PhD program
in political science; St. Louis University; Colgate University;
SUNY Cortland; University of Southern Indiana; University of Southern
Indiana; University of the West Indies
Note, that
none of these lower-ranking Ph.D.-granting institutions placed any
of their graduates at Harvard, MIT, Chicago, Princeton, Berkeley
or Columbia. (Repeat mention of colleges means that more than one
student was placed there.) On the other hand, not a single solitary
new Ph.D. went to a community college. As one of my correspondents
put it: "As you can see, none of our students are placed at
two-year community colleges."
A personal
note. During this last academic year my own university was in the
market for a starting assistant professor of economics. We made
offers of campus visits (this means, typically, that you are a semi-finalist;
most hiring institutions offer fly-ins to three candidates, and
make an offer to the best one of them) to two recent graduates of
the University of West Virginia. Both turned us down, in favor of
better options.
Based on
this informal survey, it is fair to reject North’s claim that "graduates
with Ph.D.s issued by Boonsdocksville State … go straight into the
community college circuit." Again, I would be interested to
see the empirical basis for this contention of his.
North’s
next knock at a career as a university faculty member is this:
"For over
three decades, all it has taken to generate 1,000 applicants was
this ad in a professional journal in the humanities:
Tenure-track
position
Ph.D. required
Teach 12 hours of the freshman course
If the ad said
‘Ph.D. or ABD required,’ it would generate 2,000 applicants. ABD
stands for ‘all but dissertation.’"
Again,
I query the source of these statistics. My own experience on the
hiring end is that North’s numbers are somewhat inflated. During
our 2008 hire at Loyola we had only about 300 applications. But,
North’s intention in bringing up these statistics is to buttress
his claim that there is a glut in the market. Not so fast; there
is a much more reasonable explanation for these large numbers: applicants
make multiple submissions. There are hundreds of jobs for
economics professors; applying for them through e-mail is very
cheap. Some applicants apply for each and every assistant professor
job advertised. Hence, the seeming excess of applicants compared
to employment slots available. According to Cawley:
"In the Stock et al. (2000) sample of economics job candidates
during 1995–96, the average applicant sent 76 applications;
25% sent 100 or more." This
author further states: "Although applicants attempt to
signal their interest through cover letters and other communication,
such signals are not credible because applicants can send an unlimited
number of them (i.e. they could carefully tailor hundreds of cover
letters without regard to quality of match in an attempt to maximize
their number of interviews)."
One divergence
between my own views and those of Gary North: he focuses on all
disciplines, and I am involved in this note with economics only.
Hence he tells us this:
"Graduate
students do not learn about supply and demand, and it does not pay
senior professors to teach them. Here is evidence. In response to
the ever-growing glut of Ph.D.'s, the American university system
turned out about 30,000 Ph.D. graduates per year, 1969 to about
1975. Since then, it has increased the output. In 1980, it was 33,615.
In 1990, it was 38,371. In 2000, it was 44,808. In 2003, it was
46,024. (Statistical
Abstract of the United States, 2006, Table 290.) Despite
this, we read on a website devoted to selling "how
to get higher learning degrees" materials, …
"There's
one born every minute . . . and two who will relieve him of his
funds."
It is unsurprising
that "Graduate students (in such fields as poetry, black studies,
sociology and physics) do not learn about supply and demand"
but this is clearly untrue for the dismal science. Cawley
(his table 2) supplies this information about recent doctoral awards
in economics:
Economics Ph.D.s
Granted by U.S. Universities: 2000: (948); 2001: (930);
2002: (903); 2003: (932); 2004: (960)."
In other words, the trend line numbers are pretty flat, not burgeoning,
as depicted by North for all fields. By no means all of these new
Ph.D.s enter academia. Rather, many choose the business world, or
consulting, or government,
or international organizations. Cawley’s table 3 is also most instructive;
it lists the number of academic jobs offered during these same years.
They are as follows:
2000: (1,635);
2001: (1,589); 2002: (1,487); 2003: (1,381);
2004: (1,487); 2005 (1,715).
There are
several things to be noted about this latter statistical series.
First, although slightly V-shaped, the number of jobs offered, too,
is for the most party pretty flat. No increasing or decreasing glut
in these figures. Rather, demand and supply seem to be keeping pace
with one another. Second, the number of open employment slots is
appreciably higher than the number of new entrants (the previous
statistical series). If we assume that retirements roughly offsets
the numbers of new Ph.D.s coming off the assembly line, again, it
is difficult to discern any "glut" compatible with these
figures. Third, these figures include both junior and senior positions.
But, if we assume that for every non-entry level job slot there
is someone vacating it as well as others seeking it, again it is
not easy to reconcile these statistics with the claim of an over-supply.
In the view
of North, "year after year, decade after decade, the
supply of Ph.D.-holding students increases, despite an academic
market that does not hire most of them, and hires a minority at
wages that do not compensate them for the money and time invested
in earning their degrees." This is not proper empirical economics.
At the very least claims of this sort should be accompanied by statistical
support.
North’s critique
continues:
"At $20,000
or more per year in tuition and living expenses, plus the $35,000+
not earned in the job market, trying to earn a Ph.D. is a losing
proposition." But, as we have seen "Only four percent
of finishing Ph.D. students received no financial aid whatsoever."
In my experience, the great majority receive partial and even complete
tuition waivers, particularly after successfully completing the
first year, and a significant percentage are given bursaries over
and above that amount.
To conclude
my comment on this section: North’s claim of a Ph.D. "glut"
is not demonstrated, certainly not, at least, in the field of economics,
my own area of concern.
Part III
In the third
and much more recent (June 3, 2008) of his essays on this topic,
Gary North continues with his very explicit critique of the supposed
foolishness of young people entering the professoriate.
He starts off
with this sally: "After about six or seven years of teaching
mainly lower-division classes that senior professors refuse to teach,
an assistant professor comes up for tenure. If he gets it, he can
never be fired except for moral infractions far worse than adultery
committed with female students. Very few assistant professors are
granted tenure. The Ph.D. glut then consigns the losers to part-time
work in community colleges for wages in the range of what apprentice
plumbers receive."
There are errors
here. The trial period in not seven years, as stated right here,
nor eight, as mentioned above, but six. In most schools, tenure
will not protect a professor who commits adultery with a female
student. As to the claim that "Very few assistant professors
are granted tenure," this sounds more apocryphal than serious
empirical analysis.
North continues
by painting a very, very bleak, and, for the most part, highly accurate,
portrayal of the job market at the top universities. As he says,
it will indeed be virtually impossible for any Austro-libertarian,
even if he is a math whiz, and certainly if he is not, to attain
tenure in an economics department at any of the top (20) ranked
research universities; e.g., those that offer the Ph.D. degree.
So what? There
are no Austro-libertarians at such exalted schools, and there never
have been (apart from Nozick at Harvard), to the best of my knowledge.
(For an eloquent and incisive explanation of this state of affairs,
look here,
here
and here.)
Most of those actively promoting liberty on campus are located at
far less prestigious institutions, and are doing reasonably well
there, thank you very much.
Yes, indeed,
"The losers … wind up at second-tier or third-tier universities."
But, as I have taken great pains to say, life at these establishments
is pretty good, in terms of promoting liberty, personal satisfaction,
and pay. Remember, the typical teaching load at these "lesser
tier" places is nine hours per week. Moreover, you get 22 weeks
off per year, and, in most places, two full semesters every seven
years. This ain’t chopped liver.
In North’s
view, "the limbo of academia … (includes) … a third-tier university
that grants only the B.A. and a few M.A. students. "Well, Loyola
is one such, and, let me tell you, I am ecstatically happy here
(for more on that, see below).
North continues
his critique: "If you are granted a Ph.D. by any lower-tier
school, then you probably will not get a career job in academia,
but if you do … (y)ou may get a tenure-track job at a college no
one has heard of except its alumni, who do not have much money to
donate to the endowment. If a Ph.D. holder is granted tenure at
one of these schools, he has lifetime employment in safety but obscurity.
No one ever hears about him or her again."
Sadly, true,
alas, all too true. But, compared to what? If you go into the think
tank world, or edit the Remnant Review, do you think you will win
the Nobel Prize? Be featured on the front cover of Time Magazine?
With the major media in present hands, which of us, except a Hayek
or a Nozick, is on the lips of boobus americanas? Mises and Rothbard
labored their entire lives, in some sense, in "obscurity."
Yes, they were gigantic frogs in our own little Austro-libertarian
pond, but, as far as the general populace is concerned, Mises might
as well have been the editor of Ms. Magazine, and Rothbard a painter
(Rothko, anyone?).
North
also greatly regrets that "there has never been a… (best selling)
… Austrian School economics textbook," as do I. His explanation
for this fact are very much on target. However, as more and more
Austro-libertarian professors enter the lists, North’s advice to
the contrary notwithstanding, this will be become more and more
a thing of the past. At present, it is difficult to envision a national
best seller Austrian economics text. But, in most schools each instructor
can choose his own textbook. I think it is not too much to hope
for that with more Austrian professors, our texts will sell better,
too.
C. Conclusion
I have serious
reservations about this bashing of the academic life that my good
friend Gary North engages in from time to time. How else are we
to promote liberty? Let me count the ways:
1. Political
action. Fine. I am all for it. Whether the Libertarian Party, or
a libertarian in the Republican (or, indeed, Democratic) party.
But, we now have Bob Barr running for the LP, and his connection
to libertarianism can best be described as loose (e.g., he opposes
the drug war not on principled rights grounds, but, because it "doesn’t
work"). Ron Paul is a more consistent libertarian, and did
wonderful work during his recent campaign, but that is now
over, and the prospect for Ron Paul libertarians taking office as
Republicans is not as bright as we would all like. For example,
consider the case of Murray
Sabrin, who got only 14% of the vote in the New Jersey primary
for Senator.
2. The Free
State project. Again, fine. I am all for this, too. Let us by
all means gather many libertarian voters into one small state, New
Hampshire. Perhaps, one day, that state will elect a proper congressional
colleague for Ron Paul. But there has been no success as of yet.
3. Libertarian
think tanks. Hooray. What libertarian could oppose them? Practically
all of the 50 states have one, focused on local issues. There are
numerous national and even international ones. (This
listing includes many, but somehow manages to ignore my favorite,
the Mises Institute. Here
is a somewhat more inclusive listing.) These organizations have
done yeoman work in publicizing libertarian analyses, op eds, books,
studies. Many, such as the Mises Institute, have over the decades
promoted the careers of numerous libertarian scholars and activists.
4. Gary North’s
own Remnant
policy. I support this, too. Here, the concern is not so much for
achieving liberty in our time – deemed an all but impossible task
– as much as it is an effort to keep that flickering light of liberty
alive, so that it can be better utilized in the future when perhaps
the likelihood of its success will be greater. And, the more Austro-libertarian
professors there are in academia, the better the prospects for success
in this regard.
5. Libertarian
"special interest" groups. By all means, let us try to
legalize drugs, gold, prostitution, promote free speech on campus
and elsewhere, support free trade, get rid of patents, attack critics
of the Second Amendment, move in the direction of secession, peace,
etc., etc. But none of these efforts have so far even come close
to succeeding. And again, the more Austro-libertarian professors
there are in academia, the better the prospects for success in this
regard.
6. Libertarian
efforts to make "common cause" with other initiatives,
where there is some overlap in interests: one the basis of religion,
environmentalism, anti-imperialism, etc. Again, applause from this
quarter. But, to repeat, the more Austro-libertarian professors
there are in academia, the better the prospects for success in this
regard.
7. Last but
not least, promoting the careers of those in the academic world,
and encouraging young people to enter this field. There are now
hundreds of free-market-oriented economics professors teaching in
colleges and universities in the U.S. and around the world. They,
too, have not yet succeeded in bringing about the free society,
any more than the initiatives listed above. But, surely, these free
enterprise academics have all together moved us that one small part
of an inch closer in this direction. Why oh why single out this
one avenue for opprobrium, as does North, is beyond me. Yes, there
are pitfalls and problems in university life; there is dirty dealing
and back stabbing in academia. But that is the human condition.
It applies, also, to political action, think tanks, etc.
I follow "Uncle"
Mao in this regard: "Let 1,000 flowers bloom." And, surely,
encouraging young libertarians to take up careers in higher education
is one such. Let us not trample it down.
A lot of Gary’s
comments seem to be based upon his own experiences, not on objective
data; this being the case, perhaps my own story in academia will
be of interest in this context.
 I
received the Ph.D. degree in 1972. From that time until 1979, I
taught at Rutgers University (Newark), and the City College of New
York (Baruch). I didn’t get tenure at either place; this, for the
most part was my own fault: I did not publish in refereed journals
with any regularity. From 1979 to 1991 I left academia for the think
tank work, working at the Fraser Institute in Canada. No students,
just writing and editing. One would think that this would be nirvana
for a person such as myself who wants to publish, but it was not.
I couldn’t write about anything really radical, except rarely, and
in obscure journals; my work for the FI mainly concerned very basic
issues where my extremism wouldn’t arise to the fore: support of
free trade; anti–rent control, and minimum wage; critiques
of unions, socialism; calculations of economic freedom; privatization.
But, even here there were problems: I favored unilateral declarations
of free trade with all countries, not Nafta. I wanted to not only
get rid of minimum wages, but incarcerate those responsible for
this economic outrage. Privatization did not extend to schools;
there, Milton Friedman’s voucher plan was as radical a proposition
as could be entertained. Plus, my boss wanted to put his name on
my work, and in other such ways take credit for my thoughts. Not
too pleasant. I was fired in 1991: I was asked to write a book about
the benefits of government; when I looked for another job, seeing
the handwriting on the wall, I was fired for seeking employment
elsewhere.
 Off
to Holy Cross it was for me, from 1991–1997. I was denied tenure
on the grounds that my publications and teaching were not good enough.
But I published more than anyone else in my department (in some
years, almost as much as all of them put together) and in many of
the same journals as my colleagues. Out of some 700 student evaluations,
there were a half dozen that were highly critical; I asked that
my student evaluations be compared with those of the tenured members
of the department, and/or with all those from any department who
were being tenured that year; this request was denied. My department
voted in my favor by a 7–4 majority, which is like a damning with
faint praise; the interdisciplinary committee on tenure voted against
me 13–0.
I then spent
1997–2001 as an untenured department chairman at the University
of Central Arkansas, charged with getting the department (which
was underperforming in terms of refereed journal publication) past
the scrutiny of the AACSB evaluation committee. I did so, but made
more than a few enemies while cracking the whip. I was offered tenure
there, over the vociferous protests of my department, by the University
president, with whom I was on good terms. I turned this down in
2001 for an offer of an endowed chair, with tenure at Loyola University
New Orleans. So, finally, at age 60, I had a tenured faculty position.
 All
of this, I hate to admit but I must, is entirely compatible with
Gary North’s pessimistic outlook on academia. But, my story is one
of the worst that I know about, of all my colleagues. Many of them
are they who obtained their Ph.D. without too much trouble, landed
an acceptable academic job, and were awarded tenure after six years
of satisfactory service. Also, there are many non-Austrian, non-libertarians
who had more than an aliquot share of disappointment. No, everything
is not wonderful in academia; but, in the business world, no one
at all has anything like tenure; you can be let go on a few hours
notice. In the university, contracts are typically for an entire
year. And, how many lawyers failed to make partner in their law
firms, and had to seek employment elsewhere?
In any case,
there is a happy end to my oft-times bumpy career. I now have wonderful
colleagues. I am publishing up a storm. My teaching load is three
courses per year, not per semester. That works out to a total of
3 courses x 15 weeks each x 3 hours per week = 135 teaching hours
per year. At an approximate salary of $150k, that means for each
class hour, where I plunk myself down and talk about things I love
dearly, I earn a truly amazing (at least to me) $1,111.11. And that
ignores a sabbatical every seven years. Wow. Sometimes I have to
pinch myself to ensure myself that this is all real.
So, young students:
Should you get your Ph.D. and become a professor of economics? You
betcha. There’s no heavy lifting, the pay is excellent (on
a per hour worked basis), there are long, long vacations (did I
mention long?), the work is meaningful, you are promoting
liberty and good (Austrian) economics, you will inspire generations
of students, some of them will follow you into the professoriate
and that will increase your satisfaction even more, you will have
plenty of time to publish, and, in general, to make of yourself
a pain in the neck to the bad guys. What more could anyone want
from a profession? (Potential grad students are advised to seek
my advice on an academic career here.)
June
28, 2008
Dr.
Block [send him mail] is a
professor of economics at Loyola University New Orleans, and a senior
fellow of the Ludwig von Mises Institute. He is the author of Defending
the Undefendable and the newly released Labor
Economics From A Free Market Perspective.
Walter
Block Archives
|
