Leaving the Ph.D. Behind

Forum: Students, Faculty and Administrators Discuss "Doctor Dropout"
Thursday, January 15, 2004
1 p.m., U.S. Eastern time

Why do so many graduate students leave their Ph.D. programs without getting their degrees? And what can administrators and faculty members do to deal with the problem?

While no national statistics are available, studies suggest that the attrition rate at Ph.D. programs in the United States is as high as 40 percent to 50 percent. The conventional wisdom is that some students simply can't cut it in graduate school. But researchers say there is little academic difference between those who fail and those who succeed.

Graduate-school deans are increasingly looking to stem the departures from their Ph.D. programs. Such high attrition wastes resources and time for institutions, the federal government, and, of course, the students themselves. Why do so many graduate students leave their Ph.D. programs without getting their degrees? And what can administrators and faculty members do to deal with the problem?

Chris M. Golde is a senior scholar at the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, where she is research director of the Carnegie Initiative on the Doctorate. She has studied doctoral education, particularly the experiences of doctoral students, for the last decade. Her dissertation was on doctoral-student attrition, and she is the lead author of "At Cross Purposes: What the Experiences of Today's Doctoral Students Reveal About Doctoral Education," the 2001 report of the national Survey on Doctoral Education and Career Preparation, a project financed by the Pew Charitable Trusts (http://www.phd-survey.org).

She will respond to questions and comments about these issues on Thursday, January 15, at 1 p.m., U.S. Eastern time. Questions and comments are welcome and may be posted now.


A transcript of the chat follows.


Scott Smallwood (Moderator):

Welcome to Colloquy Live, The Chronicle's online chat forum. I'm Scott Smallwood, a reporter here. This week, we're talking about why so many graduate students end up leaving Ph.D. programs, and what institutions can do about it. Our guest is Chris M. Golde of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Ms. Golde's own dissertation focused on Ph.D. attrition, and since then she has continued to study doctoral education.


Chris M. Golde:

I am delighted to be part of this conversation. It is very exciting that attrition is garnering attention, it has been a problem for a very long time. I consider high attrition rates to be a symptom of an underlying problem, or set of problems, in a department. A conversation about attrition leads us quickly to considering what are exemplary ways to conduct a doctoral program, and what are practices that are counter productive, for those who complete and those who leave.


Scott Smallwood (Moderator):

Let's get started with your questions. We'll start with some of the many ones we received in advance. If you would like to make a comment, send that in and we will try to get it posted quickly.


Question from Karan:

In recent years, stipends -- particularly those at the NSF -- have increased dramatically but the duration (2-3 years) has remained the same. If the average time to degree completion has grown to 7 years, what role does financial support play in the decision to continue? As it now appears, many federal stipends take students to the critical half way point -- and then drops them.

Chris M. Golde:

Karan, you raise some really important points here. Federal fellowship levels have risen a lot in recent years, and in large measure this is an effort to provide students with a living wage. However, this may be exacerbating a have vs. have-not environment -- in the same department and between disciplines. I think that absence of financial support often plays a role in the decision to continue, particularly for students with heavy debt loads from their undergraduate programs. However, the debt levels (see the Survey of Earned Doctorate data) are much higher in the humanities and some of the applied social sciences than in the physical and biological sciences, where most federal research assistantship support is available. It is difficult to assess the role of finances specifically in attrition -- for most of the students I interviewed many factors converged to impel the very difficult decision to leave graduate school.


Question from Tim JHU:

I agree that there may be a glut of PhDs in some fields. Do you agree? Also, is there a way that we can make those who "settle" for a Masters instead of a PhD feel less like a loser and the degree less of a consolation prize?

Chris M. Golde:

Tim, thanks for the great question. Yes, I think we have been overproducing PhD in some fields. However, predicting job markets and demand for PhD holders is notoriously difficult, and most predictions have been wrong. I encourage prospective students to ask about what kinds of jobs the recent PhD recipients in a particular program have gotten. Every department should have that information available.

I also agree that the master's degree should have more cache. Students should not feel like they settle. In some fields like engineering and geology, students can get well-paying, interesting jobs with a master's degree, and it would be nice to see that happen in every field.


Question from University of Louisville:

How about implementing a one on one (voluntary) mentoring system with students who either have completed or near completion with a small group 2 of entering students. It helps to see the big picture and the light at the end of the tunnel.

Chris M. Golde:

It's a great idea. Many departments have formal and informal peer-mentoring systems. I think this is one reason lab-based science departments are often successful, because this mentoring system is built in. Students usually have great advice about how to navigate the system. These kinds of relationships are great collegial relationships that can last your whole career.


Comment from Cary Nederman, Texas A&M University:

When I became the director of a major social science doctoral program a couple of years ago, I was deeply concerned about the attrition question. (One students cohort had recently lost two-thirds of its members by the end of the first year.) After looking at our program admissions history, I concluded two things. First, the previous admissions procedures had adopted a "best jock" mentality--that is, bring in the students with the best test scores and GPAs from the most reputable institutions, regardless of what they wanted to study or how they had been educated.

Second, the graduate program seemed uninterested in the students once they had accepted the admission offer, and little effort was made to smooth the transition into doctoral studies. To deal with the first, we introduced a more holistic approach to admissions, downplaying quantitative measures and looking at the full record, including the student's interests and previous training. I know that when one is looking at literally dozens of application files, such a holistic approach may seem difficult to realize, but it surely makes more likely the "fit" mentioned in the Chronicle article. Second, we set up a series of professional development seminars required of students, as well as a summer workshop, to facilitate the transition to our kind of graduate curriculum and to prepare the students for their future as productive researchers and teachers. As a consequence, our latest retention rates run between 75% and 100%. We'll never be able to retain all students--there are too many personal variables for which we cannot control. But these measures offer empirical evidence that attrition is not just an "inevitable" or permanent phenomenon. In turn, this means having a clear idea of the mission of one's program--the kind of education you offer, the kind of "outcomes" you seek--and matching students carefully to that, then seeing to it that the students understand the nature of the program. "Truth in advertising" is a motto that programs need to endorse.


Question from Carrie, Drexel University:

Isolation and being tied so closely to the PI's project are two problems I commonly encounter. What do you think of stipend portability and more independence generally for the student?

Chris M. Golde:

Carrie, the two issues you raise are both factors that can exacerbate attrition. Isolation may be more common in humanities fields, where students and faculty are generally pursuing their intellectual work in a solitary and isolated way. Isolation need not be total, it is possible to create dissertation groups and student-faculty seminars in which people share their work and provide one another feedback. In the sciences, being too closely tied to a faculty member's project can adversely affect a student. Students are less likely to learn how to ask questions independently. Moreover, there is ample evidence that when their work is very tied to that of their advisor, the advisor can wield too much power; holding the sole discretion to decide when a student is ready to graduate. A doctoral committee, all of whom monitor a student's progress can be critical here.

And yes, I am in favor of strategies for giving students increased independence over the course of their program. Financially, many of the unhealthy dependencies would be dramatically changed with more portable stipends.


Comment from Bill, ABD from California:

Missing from this discussion is the possibility that many doctoral "dropouts" are highly satisfied with their experience. For students like myself who had/have no aspirations for an academic career, acquiring the knowledge and skills (advanced statistics, research methodology, etc) through coursework was sufficient to land a high paying job. "Jumping through all the hoops" of completing the dissertation and receiving the Ph.D. was seen as wasted time and largely an ego gratification exercise.


Question from Carmen Hernandez, Northeast Iowa community College:

I am among the failed Ph.D.'s you describe, and will likely be in ABD land forever. Is there not often a conflict between the real world of family, children, bills, etc. and the academic world which expects such
total immersion for grad students as to precipitate both a clash and stress? Could Universities not provide better services to students such as on-site child-care, meal preparation exchanges, even support groups?

Chris M. Golde:

Carmen, you raise a really important point. Many departments and disciplines assume that students are young and single, but this is less and less likely to be true, especially as time to degree and time to career continue to extend. Some disciplines, like education, have many part-time students. And of course, programmatic strategies like child care and meal exchanges are very important. Sometimes students have to organize these themselves. I think it's important for students to raise a collective voice about these issues. Nothing will change until students demand a change.

When a discipline assumes that all the new students are straight out of undergraduate and single, they risk losing students who want to come to grad programs at other stages in their lives. There's a talent waste when programs assume that all students are the same. This issue was raised in a recent essay that's available on The Carnegie Foundation Web site at http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/cid/essays/cid_chem_stacy.pdf Many of these issues were discussed in the recent Colloquy Live with Mary Ann Mason a couple of weeks ago.


Comment from Dan Kirklin, private educational foundation:

As phrased, this begs the question: who says there is a "problem"? What percent completion of Ph.D. programs would be sufficient to ensure that there is no "problem"? It is not a law of nature that everyone who starts out for a doctorate must get it. While I'd guess that the answer to the second question is "precious little, if anything," that doesn't mean there won't be a meaningless flurry of activity in lieu of effective action. One obvious albeit less than ideal "solution" would be to make it harder for grad students to embark on the Ph.D. quest in the first place, but that only shifts the "problem" to a different level. I suspect that the likelihood that anyone can do anything to deal with this situation is approximately the same as the likelihood that this response will be seriously considered.


Comment from Melany, Keystone College (PA):

I agree with Bill. Even IF I complete the degree, it has little bearing on my current occupation, and I do not anticipate switching careers. The Ph.D. degree studies were a personal goal...


Question from Patrick Finn, St. Mary's College:

Is it possible this is a non question? Recently, there has been a great deal of talk about completion rates in PhD programs. Yet, the same venues publish countless stories about the excess number of PhDs who
cannot find jobs. Why are we assuming that the only successful outcome is one that finishes with parchment? Surely there is value in pursuing one's education; completing PhD coursework, or candidacy exams and then deciding to go in a different direction? The idea that these pursuits -- these people -- are a waste of revenue seems to be debatable. Completion rates are only one small measure of a grad program's viability.

Chris M. Golde:

Patrick, my interviews with students who left their PhD programs showed that most were in satisfying jobs, and did not regret the time they had spent in graduate school. However, it seems dishonest to admit students to a program assuming that many will not complete. Of course, people learn a lot in graduate school and that time is probably not wasted, but we live in a society that values the credential, and it can be enormously difficult to leave an educational program without receiving a degree. I agree that completion rates are only a proxy for educational quality and effectiveness, but a high attrition rate should lead us to ask critical questions about the effectiveness of a doctoral program.


Comment from Barb from Missouri:

I'm a 49 year old PhD candidate working full time. One of the reasons it took me 18 years to go from my Masters to a PhD is that I couldn't find a program that was congruent with the rest of my life. I didn't want to have to leave my job and attend school full time. I am now in a program in higher ed administration (what I do for a living) and will be able to do the residency without leaving my job. Institutions need to provide options for non-traditional students, who may end up being some of their best students because of their age and experience.


Comment from Barbara Lovitts, University of Maryland:

There is a problem to the extent that people who want the Ph.D. and are capable of completing it are prevented from doing so by circumstances beyond their control such as poor quality mentoring.


Question from Adrianne Wadewitz, Indiana University:

To what extent might attrition rates be the result of students believing they want to be an academic without really knowing what that is? That is, do too many people go to graduate school not really knowing what it entails? And, if so, how could we fix that problem?

Chris M. Golde:

Adrianne, I completely agree with you. Many students come to graduate school unaware of how the process of graduate education is very different than all of their prior years of schooling. Suddenly, they're in an environment that is unstructured and expects a great deal of independence, and that can be very disorienting for some people. I believe universities need to do a better job of explaining what graduate school is really like to prospective students, and students need to investigate the realities of
graduate school before they start.

Students report that they come to graduate school with the goal of becoming a professor, and once they're there, the realities of faculty life become more clear. That often turns people away from that career goal. Unfortunately, many students do not have the opportunity to learn about faculty life at the thousands of other colleges that are not research universities. Many students would be happy working as faculty members in these teaching-oriented institutions, but do not see this as a viable or valued career option. Programs like Preparing Future Faculty are an effort to change this culture.


Comment from Adam Fagen, National Research Council:

As Bill and a few others have mentioned, attrition itself isn't necessarily bad. It depends why the student left. You can get some idea by when they left. A student who leaves in their first year is more likely to be "good attrition" (decides they want to do something else, grad school isn't what they expected, etc.). One who leaves in year 5 or 10 is more likely to be "bad" and that the program or institution has failed to meet their needs, even after the student has devoted a long time to the program and completed generals.


Comment from jherrera, Small Research Institution:

The last couple of comments, regarding the satisfaction of students who do leave, leaves out the major issue I encountered: Having 50K in students loans and no degree to show for it.


Question from Thomas Linney, consultant, AIEA:

I have two questions. 1. Is there any data to suggest that the rate of Ph.D. success has changed at a more than nominal rate in the last decade?
2. Some proposed responses as described in the article at, for example Duke and Washington University are excellent, so long as one's institution is committed to full support of those accepted and small incoming numbers; what do large public institutions do with declining resources?

Chris M. Golde:

Thomas, I don't know of any recent attrition data. With long time to degree, most attrition data is time-lagged. However, attrition rates have been quite stable across the last half century, so it wouldn't surprise me if they stayed the same in the last decade.

Large public institutions can focus their efforts on insuring that students are admitted who are likely to fit with the mission and goals of the department. They can undertake many efforts to integrate students into the intellectual community of the department throughout their careers. For example, starting students early in research helps students determine if they're suited to the work of the discipline. Providing annual reviews of progress and setting realistic goals also helps.


Comment from John Melville PhD, University of Oregon:

The majority of students leave PhD programs for two reasons. 1) Most graduate students are treated as third class citizens, graduate school is in fact the last vestige of indentured-servitude. Living the life of a pauper and being treated like scum is not conducive to finishing a 6-8 year thesis project. 2) When you realize how little money you will ever make, how hard it is to get a job, and how in debt you will become over the course of that time - most intelligent people seem to leave, they go get jobs in industry, where they make much more money and can actually have a 'life'.

Until academia changes its tune - the best and brightest will prefer to seek there fortunes where they actually have some promise. Outside academe.


Question from S. Kendall, Claremont Graduate University:

Two Questions: What is the relation between PhD dropouts and tuition driven institutions?

What is the correlary between candidates who stay in the community to complete their dissertations and those who leave the area?

Chris M. Golde:

How students are funded is an important factor in student progress. It's difficult to balance providing adequate funding and providing adequate time for students to do their own work. Funding strategies that keep students integrated into the work of the department also help increase completion rates. As Carmen suggested (see earlier question), students with family responsibilities are more financially stressed. We have all seen how difficult it is for students who are not able to spend time regularly in the department to complete the degree. Being physically and intellectually isolated makes completion much more difficult. Of course, there are students who do it every year.


Comment from Erika Whitney, Emory:

Also, isn't graduate school a good way to figure how what you want to do and how bad you want to do it? Some people just come to the conclusion that they don't want to do it that badly, or they want to do something else Ph.D.-independent. So the exposure is ultimately helpful and clarifying. And these people probably would end up in less traditional jobs even if they did finish their respective programs.


Comment from Jan Martuscelli, University of California, Riverside:

Departments might care more about attrition when their performance is a matter of public record. Perhaps The Chronicle or a major journal in each discipline could publish annually the stats for all Universities in terms of attempted and completed Ph.D. degrees? Thank you.


Question from Linda Suzanne Wing, Ph.D., Faculty Director, Capella University:

What are the patterns of attrition in Ph.D. programs as a whole? Do students drop in the early stages of their education or after coursework ends, between courses and comps/dissertation? What actions are being taken at these various stages of the academic development of students to encourage learner persistence?

Chris M. Golde:

Linda, there are relatively little data about the patterns of attrition by stage. A study at Berkeley suggested that attrition was patterned roughly 1/3 in the first year, 1/3 pre-dissertation, and 1/3 ABD. The patterns probably vary by department, and these would be extremely useful data to look at. I believe that early attrition is far preferable to late attrition. Departments should consider how to help
students make the decision within the first year about whether or not to leave. It helps if students can learn what it means to be a disciplinary professional during that time, rather than simply taking courses as they did when they were undergraduates.


Scott Smallwood (Moderator):

We're about half-way through the chat. Keep those questions and comments coming.


Comment from Jim, Arizona Community College:

I also left two doctoral programs in the early 80's. I guess I had to see with my own eyes, but I really regret the waste of my time on this. Neither program was particularly helpful and could really care less about me. Instead, I went on to complete an Ed.S. and MBA. Frankly, I think we have way too many Ph.D.'s and Ph.D. programs. Why do we need so many Ph.D.'s again???


Comment from Ellen Bara Stolzenberg, UCLA:

I think part of the problem is that faculty don't even know what their attrition rates are. For some reason this doesn't come up in self-reviews. Probably because these students are hard to track (or such is the belief).


Question from Eric, unaffiliated:

Do there seem to be certain characteristics of PhD programs that predict higher non-completion rates? For instance - size of program, type of school?

Chris M. Golde:

Eric, in their 1992 book, In Pursuit of the PhD, Bowen and Rudenstine, found that attrition was higher in large programs and at public universities. We can speculate that this is related to opportunities to become integrated into the life of the department, and probably also related to funding and admissions policies.


Comment from Ellen Bara Stolzenberg, UCLA:

To follow-up what I said earlier...I was the advisor/coordinator of a Basic Science PhD program for 3 years. Granted, it was a small program, but I tracked every student to make sure they were enrolled. That part of it was not that difficult. Now I'm a full-time PhD student (third year) and I have done research with the Graduate Division on completion and other issues across all of the PhD programs here. The fact that this information is not public (and not even known by the administrators, faculty, and students most directly involved) is a big problem.


Question from P.D. Lesko, Executive Editor, the Adjunct Advocate magazine:

The overuse of contingent faculty (both full- and part-time) is due in part to the overproduction of Master's degree and Ph.D. holders. If we are serious about dealing with the issue of the overuse and impact of temporary teaching labor in our industry, this attrition rate can only be seen as a step in the right direction, don't you think? Next, according to the U.S. Department of Education, the attrition rate for undergraduates currently stands 62 percent. Shouldn't faculty and administrators focus on this rate of attrition given that it impacts, exponentially, more Americans?

Chris M. Golde:

P.D., university financing is very complicated. Certainly, theqavailability of many PhD holders is one factor that helps explain the rise in contingent faculty, but probably not the only one. If one wants to be very Darwinian, high attrition rates help keep down the numbers of PhD holders, but I'm not sure that's educationally responsible. Moreover, PhD holders make contributions in American society in many ways besides as faculty members.

It is certainly appropriate to focus on undergraduate attrition. I believe that many students transfer among institutions and ultimately receive degrees. If undergraduate attrition disproportionately affects some segments of the U.S. population, such as low-income students, we should be particularly concerned.


Comment from Melany, Keystone College (PA):

The "amenities" are an important key for sure...Once classmates and I attempted to locate a place to find a cup of coffee, simple thing, and could not. These small things add up, and add to the bigger frustrations of the experience. I smile when my undergards complain about lack of parking, for example, but now that I've lived it, I understand much better that it's not an issue of being able to keep up with the work, or doing stellar work at that, it's the whole choice of "jumping through hoops" as someone else mentioned. "Hoops" should not be the most obvious obstacle in academic success, and in many Ph. D. programs (according to personal experience as well as reports from colleagues), it sometimes is.



Comment from Anon, adjunct university:

I finished my program in less than five years partly because finding funding after the fourth year was difficult. But, more importantly, I felt I had to finish to justify the 15,000 worth of debt (even with a stipend and tuition waiver) I accumulated. I doubt that I would enter a doctoral program even with a guarantee of full funding again.


Question from Rebecca:

In several Canadian doctoral programs in education, I've seen widespread attempts for feedback from doctoral students on their experience working with their advisors. What accountability and assessment exists in American programs of doctoral study? Why have I not seen more attempts to interview doctoral student who have left specific programs? Aside from compiling a research report or statistics, does this information ever get back to the programs and what is the motivation for more accountability within the programs for high level of attrition?

Chris M. Golde:

Rebecca, unfortunately there is insufficient accountability in most American doctoral programs for inappropriate or unsound behavior by advisers. Too often, faculty members can wield extraordinary power over the life of a student. Departments that take collective responsibility for their students and build in mechanisms for many faculty members to advise each student mitigate these problems.

Today we see graduate deans asking tougher questions and trying to hold departments accountable, which is laudable. It would be great if departments interviewed students who were leaving the program. Unfortunately, many of these students leave quietly, and we lose the opportunity to learn from their experiences. Changing conditions that lead to attrition can benefit all students, including those who complete.


Question from Bob Pozos, San Diego State University:

Do minority graduate students leave Ph.D. programs at the same/different rates as majority students? Do the factors that influence majority students also affect minority students in the same/greater/less degree?

Chris M. Golde:

Bob, you ask a very important question. Yes, the data say that, among US nationals, minority student leave at higher rates than majority students. Likewise, attrition rates have been higher for women, although the difference in rates seems to have narrowed a great deal. Women and minorities are clustered in some disciplines, and conspicuously absent in others. They tend to be in fields, like education and the humanities, with higher attrition rates. But that is not the whole story. As with many issues, attrition probably relates in some measure to issues of "critical mass," and being a fully integrated member of the academic community.

There is also evidence that students who are funded largely on fellowships, rather than on assistantships that require work (a very important way of learning skills and developing relationships within the department) may actually leave graduate school at higher rates. Many universities have used fellowships as ways to attracted mi! nority students, but this may inadvertently disadvantage them in their quest to become full fledged professionals and members of a disciplinary community. In addition, students who come from families who are familiar with graduate education (I did a survey in which 20% of the doctoral student respondents reported that one parent had a graduate degree), will have a greater understanding of what the process entails and how to navigate it successfully.


Comment from Anon, doctorate student:

After $50,000 of debt at a private university and a year of battles with my advisor, I left my doctorate program as one of the many A.B.D.'s. Now in my second doctorate program at another institution and about to complete coursework again, I have doubts as to whether finishing will allow me to pay off the debt and earn what my efforts should command in the field (higher education)


Question from Ken SRI:

Why is the attrition data not available? Are universities afraid to collect or publish, or do they have to be pushed by the government to get them to do it? Would it really be useful? How would change take place?

Chris M. Golde:

Ken, when I started doing research on attrition, I had a lot of conspiracy theories. I came to learn how difficult attrition data are to compute. I think the problem is more about ignorance about how useful these data are, rather than an effort to cover up problems. Many faculty are surprised and interested to learn about the attrition rates in their departments. I'm glad to see that graduate deans and students are pushing to make these data widely available. I think this movement toward transparency is a helpful way to focus on departmental practices that are educationally sound or unsound.


Question from Phil Katz, American Historical Association:

The AHA has just published a major study of doctoral education for historians. One thing we discovered during our research is that (history) departments do not collect enough data about attrition, which contributes to some very faulty notions among faculty members about the REASON(S) that students depart without earning their degrees. How can we make such data-collection a normal part of the administration of every graduate program? And do you think that a greater awareness of the statistics about attrition (in the aggregate, but also in the particularities of why every individual student departs) will actually make a difference?

Chris M. Golde:

Phil, thank you for giving me the opportunity to strongly recommend the AHA report, "The Education of Historians for the 21st century," recently published by University of Illinois Press. This report sets the standard for evidence based reports; it is beautifully written as well. I strongly recommend the book to people in any discipline: the recommendations are useful, and there are an excellent set of questions to guide departments in analyzing their programs. I would strongly argue for the premise of the report: that faculty members should examine their doctoral programs and be able to clearly articulate the rationale for every element of it.

I do think that every program should compute an attrition figure and publicize it. These can be technically tricky to calculate, but every program or university should simply decide how they want to make the calculation and do so. One way to encourage departments is to set disciplinary standards, as the AHA is trying to do. Another is for prospective students to ask for this information. I understand that this is now much more common than it was. The Internet has made gathering information about doctoral programs much simpler than it was a decade ago, and I believe that prospective students are asking a lot more questions before they select a program. I hope that undergraduate advisors guide students to ask tough questions about the climate for doctoral study, and the extent to which a department can demonstrate that students will learn a lot and be likely to succeed, as students and as professionals.


Comment from Lisa, state college prof.:

When I applied to graduate programs in history, I professed a strong interest in teaching at the college level and a broad array of interests in American history. I was surprised that although my test scores and undergraduate record were high, I was accepted to few institutions. (Admittedly, where I ended up was a wonderful fit.) I was one of three people out of fifty to complete a terminal master's degree program in the stated nine months. Going on for a PhD, I knew I would last out the race. I read in my dossier early on that my professors thought so too. They said, "She is bright, and doing good work, like the rest of them, but this one will make it." My advice for graduate admissions committees--DO look for students who are well-rounded and look forward to the WORK of being a professor, and don't just have some interest in an obscure research topic. Also, don't discount the student who is coming straight out of undergraduate study to graduate work. We are there because something clicked for us early on--we didn't turn away from another attempted field already.


Question from Invisible Adjunct:

In his article "The Waste Product of Graduate Education" (Social Text 20.1, Spring 2002) Marc Bousquet argues that the purpose of PhD production is not to produce PhD-holders for tenure-track jobs but to provide cheap non-degreed teaching labor. That's putting it rather starkly. But when attrition rates are as high as 50 percent, or even higher, I think it's worth asking whether the purpose of these programs is really to see people through to completion of the degree. It seems clear that such programs are taking in more people than they can reasonably handle. And one needn't believe that this is a conscious policy (let's bring in more candidates than we can handle because we need more TAs) in order to ask whether there's some sort of relationship between grad. student enrollment and the need for TAs and instructors. Have you found any relationship between attrition rates and reliance on graduate students to fulfill departmental teaching needs?

Chris M. Golde:

I believe that the incentives structures facing departments are very complicated. There's a mismatch between the market for PhD holders and PhD students. We have a system that requires teaching and research assistants that we've developed over past 50 years. We have created a complicated ecosystem. Many departments find themselves in this bind. Some departments also start PhD programs in an effort to enhance their prestige and to help recruit faculty. All participants in this system have responsibility to keep attention on sound educational practice. But we need to recognize that this is difficult.


Question from Holly, Harvard U. Grad School of Education:

What role does the lack of social contact that accompanies the final portion of degree programs--writing--contribute to attrition? I think that the isolation, lack of regular faculty guidance, and minimal contact with fellow students that advanced graduate students experience is powerfully discouraging. Just over a year ago I listened to an NPR report that showed that the attrition rates are highest in those disciplines where there is the least social contact. Natural science Ph.D. candidates who spend most of their time in the lab were said to have the highest completion rates.

Chris M. Golde:

Holly, I completely agree. In disciplines that tend toward isolation, like the humanities, it is helpful to figure out strategies to combat isolation. Writing groups and seminars are very useful for this. Pushing
to see your adviser on a very regular basis is also very helpful.


Scott Smallwood (Moderator):

That's all the time we've got today. Thanks for all the questions and comments. I'm sorry we weren't able to get to all of them. For more on this subject, read this post and the lengthy discussion it prompted at the Invisible Adjunct. Other recent posts in the blogosphere on this included one by Erin O'Connor at Critical Mass. I'd also like to thank Chris Golde for being our guest today.


Chris M. Golde:

Thank you, everyone. I really enjoyed this. I'm glad that national attention is focusing on the structural and policy factors that unneccesarily increase attrition.

Copyright 2004 by The Chronicle of Higher Education