The 5+2 Solution : Is a faster doctorate a better doctorate ?

Slate | by Rebecca Schuman | July 8 2015
samedi 31 octobre 2015
par  antonin
1 vote

“You finished your doctorate really fast !” The office manager of the University of California–Irvine School of Humanities was impressed as I forked over my completed and defended dissertation for their records.

“Not really,” I said. “It’s been five years.” Five long years, if you asked me.

“Exactly,” she said. “Fast.”

Welcome to academia, where five years to finish a humanities doctorate—coursework, comprehensive exams, dissertation—is considered speedy. So speedy that a new program at my alma mater has raised hackles for encouraging graduate students to finish in a half-decade. (It also foists upon its postdocs what is possibly the worst job title in academia. More on that in a bit.)

Irvine’s program, dubbed “5+2”, begins with increased funding for five years—about $23,000 per year, including summers. (Traditional fellowships and teaching assistantships vary, but usually pay less, and do not include summer funding.) Once the student has finished the dissertation, she receives a two-year “postdoctoral” teaching position within the university while she at last casts herself into a barren, jobless hellscape with completed Ph.D. in hand. The idea, according to School of Humanities associate dean James D. Herbert, is to shorten the time to degree while lengthening the odds of securing gainful employment afterward. Students have “a three-year window of optimal employment prospects,” Herbert told Inside Higher Ed. “So they’re better off applying from a real academic position rather than being a barista at Starbucks.”

As a graduate of UC–Irvine who finished in five years, secured a prestigious postdoc, and then still failed to get an academic job, I’m torn on whether 5+2 is a great idea or a misguided one. Or, more accurately, I’m fairly sold on the five and increasingly skeptical of the two.

UC–Irvine introduced its program in response to a larger conversation about the future of graduate school in a new landscape where the Ph.D. is often both the beginning and end of an academic career. Among the findings of a 2014 Modern Language Association report on the future of graduate study : It currently takes far too long to complete a humanities Ph.D.—the median completion time is an astounding nine(!) human Earth years.

The chief misstep with 5+2 isn’t the five. It’s the two.

I understand why it works like this, but still. Come on. There is no conceivable reason that medical doctors can go from pimply little undergrads to actual brain surgeons in less time than it takes to write a dissertation on Der grüne Heinrich. Someone who agrees is my former professor David Tse-Chien Pan, who sees many advantages to 5+2. (However, my old program is not one of the two, visual studies and philosophy, that have joined up.)

The new program, Pan explains, aims to change the culture of the dissertation itself from its current stature as perfect magnum opus (the cause of many a doctoral candidate’s downfall) to “the best thing [students] can complete now.” And what about the students who fall behind ? “It’s not a tragedy,” he explains : They just go back into the old funding model—modest teaching assistantships, or if they take way too long, the cessation of funding altogether and eventual termination from the program.

That last scenario is every Ph.D. program’s nightmare, so it’s no secret that 5+2 will court students who look like they can finish in time and avoid those who seem like they can’t. However, Pan points out, “the kind of discipline that making the five-year degree standard entails is part of the discipline that we need to be providing to our students. That kind of organization, thinking through, planning—it forces you to contextualize” every step of the process within your long-term life plan. I mean, why shouldn’t Ph.D. programs self-select for students who have their shit together ? (That’s my terminology, not Pan’s.)

Well, there’s a few compelling reasons why. I spoke to a doctoral student in comparative literature at UC–Irvine who was willing to exchange frankness for anonymity. This student expressed concern that 5+2 will pressure departments to look only for “normative students,” excluding, sometimes unintentionally, a wide swath of potential scholars : those who speak English as a second language, “someone who looks like they might start a family,” anyone from an “underprivileged situation” who lacks “extra-institutional resources.” (Of course, one might argue that academia is already plenty skewed toward the wealthy and well-connected, and I’m not sure what it changes to hustle students out before they’re 40, whereupon they’ll probably have to change careers anyhow.)

Another concern is that because departments will be “less likely to pick someone who wants to do intensive language study or theory-based work,” the 5+2 model will encourage subpar research. This might be true ; it might not. (I wrote my own dissertation in about 2½ years, and it was good enough to be published by a top university press.) Even if it is true, though, this protest is also a product of the culture Pan is talking about—one that pushes the idea of a dissertation as a brilliant, groundbreaking Gesamtkunstwerk. Demanding more time to dissertate glorifies a particular ideal of advanced study that I’m not sure deserves it : the endlessly protracted super-project that is so difficult, so important, and takes so long that by the end its writer feels both entitled to a place in its field and unfit for any other type of work.

But as I said, the chief misstep with 5+2 isn’t the five. It’s the two. Everything about this “postdoc” screams, “Danger, Will Robinson,” to me. First, the title : Participants will be known as assistant adjunct professors, a mystifyingly demeaning nomenclature that conjures images of someone who survives on the bread crusts of the regular adjuncts’ discarded bread crusts. For a position created specifically to bolster the CV, it is flabbergasting how much of a misfire that title is.

The specifics of the “+2” are also worrying. Its very existence is due to a $2.7 million grant from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, so you can see why it would be attractive to a cash-strapped public university. But everything comes with a price. In this case, it’s the creation of an adjunct factory. 5+2 is “a model of adjunctification, not one that addresses it,” argue the authors of Needs Attention, an anonymous blog critical of what many identify as an anti-humanities drive at UC–Irvine. Unlike a full-time lecturer position, an assistant adjunct’s time “is capped at two years, meaning that there is no access to even the promise of job-security through unionization. Five-plus-two increases adjunct labor, while assuming that adjunct labor doesn’t already exist.”

The Mellons have been generously trying to save the humanities through private stopgap funding for several years now. In fact, my own Mellon-co-sponsored postdoc aimed to stop me from “leaving the field” (whoops). But their palliative measures are temporary, and the cratering of the labor market is permanent. Nobody asked me, but if I had a couple billion dollars to throw at the humanities, I’d create permanent lectureships at schools like UC–Irvine instead of two years’ worth of assistant Victorian-era child chimney sweep or assistant porn booth swabber or assistant pleb positions. (An email to the Mellon Foundation for comment, and to test out this excellent theory, was not returned.)

So why should anyone outside academia even care about this fight ? They shouldn’t ! And that’s another reason to resolve it quickly. Despite the issues with the two, there are few good reasons to fight against the five. If academics want to go to the mat for the status quo—to insist on their inalienable right to take as long as they please to write the world’s most important dissertation, with no hegemonic invasion of deadlines and professionalization—they will only widen the gulf between themselves and a world that views them with increasing hostility.

We like to argue that the study of the humanities at the undergraduate level cultivates empathetic, articulate, well-rounded citizens of the world. This argument is correct. But it will become ever more difficult to believe it if doctoral study trains students to deride the utterly reasonable expectations of that world.

by Rebecca Schuman

Read on Slate

Illustration by Ulrich Leprovost










Aucun évènement à venir les 2 prochains mois


Salaire des vacataires de l’Université Paul Sabatier : ça s’arrange

samedi 25 mars

La situation semble s’arranger pour près de 600 vacataires du département des Langues vivantes et gestion (rattaché à la faculté des sciences et de l’ingénierie) de l’université Toulouse 3 Paul Sabatier, qui attendent d’être rémunérés pour le premier semestre. « Le paiement pour les 600 vacataires doit être effectif fin mars, nous a-t-on assurés à la vice-présidence de l’université, a expliqué Julie, vacataire et porte-parole. Ça doit nous être confirmé par communiqué et on espère aussi que ce sera moins compliqué pour payer le deuxième semestre. » [...] La porte-parole de ce mouvement de contestation, qui se félicite des avancées sur ce dossier par l’université Paul Sabatier, veut porter la discussion plus loin. « On demande en effet, explique Julie, des efforts sur le système de paie, peut-être faut-il aussi revoir la fréquence de paiement des vacataires, parce qu’être payé tous les six mois, c’est difficile pour beaucoup. Il est aussi peut-être temps de requalifier le métier de vacataire. J’ai bon espoir de voir les lignes bouger ». par Gérald Camier, La Dépêche, 23/03/2017

600 enseignants-vacataires de l’université Paul Sabatier attendent d’être payés

lundi 20 mars

Environ 600 vacataires de l’Université Toulouse III Paul Sabatier, soit des enseignants non titulaires, attendent toujours le versement de leur salaire pour le premier semestre qui devait intervenir en janvier dernier. La plupart des vacataires sont de nationalité anglaise, espagnole, allemande et doivent obligatoirement avoir un autre emploi à côté de l’université pour compléter leurs revenus.

L’université, dont le service des ressources humaines invoque un bug informatique sur le nouveau logiciel de paie, indique que le retard serait « de deux à trois mois » selon les cas, « voire six mois », selon une vacataire. Pour Jean-Pierre Vinel, le président de l’université, « il n’a jamais été question de ne pas payer les vacataires, c’est juste une question de retard de paiement ».

[La Dépêche, par Gérald Camier, 17/03/2017]

Sur le Web : Lire sur

C. Villani : "on arrive à se sentir étouffé"

dimanche 5 février

[Interview de C. Villani, The Conversation, 30/01/2017]
Revenons en France avec une question beaucoup plus terre à terre : un jeune docteur en mathématique qui vient d’enchaîner un ou deux postdoc à l’étranger décroche un poste de chargé de recherche ou de maître de conférence. Il débute alors sa carrière avec un salaire de 1 800 euros net par mois. Comment qualifier cette situation et comment l’améliorer pour créer des vocations ?

C.V. : Malgré ce salaire peu reluisant, le statut du CNRS reste attractif pour sa grande liberté. Si l’on veut garder son attrait à la profession, il est important de travailler sur le reste : en premier lieu, limiter les règles, les contraintes, les rapports. Je donnerai un exemple parmi quantité : le CNRS vient de décider qu’il refuse tout remboursement des missions effectuées dans un contexte d’économie partagée : pas de remboursement de logement Airbnb, ni de trajet BlaBlaCar… De petites contraintes en petites contraintes, on arrive à se sentir étouffé. Le simple sentiment d’être respecté et de ne pas avoir à lutter pour son budget, par ailleurs, pourra jouer beaucoup. Par ailleurs, il est certain qu’une revalorisation salariale ou d’autres avantages pour les débuts de carrière seront bienvenus.

Les universités vont continuer à geler des postes en 2017

lundi 28 novembre 2016

La crise budgétaire des universités françaises continue depuis leur passage à l’ "autonomie" avec comme conséquence directe l’utilisation de la masse comme variable d’ajustement. Comment diminuer la masse salarial ? Embaucher des contractuels au lieu de titulaires, demander et ne pas payer des heures supplémentaires aux enseignants-chercheurs titulaires, supprimer des postes d’ATER et des contrats doctoraux ou encore geler des postes. Mais que signifie "geler des postes" ? Il s’agit de ne pas ouvrir à candidature des postes de titulaires ouverts par le ministères. Depuis 2009, 11.000 postes ont été gelés dans les universités dont 1200 les cinq dernières années. En 2017, ce processus continuera dans de nombreuses universités : Paris 1, Toulouse Paul Sabatier, Reims, Paris-Est Créteil, Dijon, Orléans, Brest, Paris 8, Bordeaux 3, Artois, Bretagne-Sud, Lyon 3, Limoges, Pau, Paris-Est Marne-la-Vallée.

New Analysis of Employment Outcomes for Ph.D.s in Canada

Thursday 5 February 2015

An analysis of where Canada’s Ph.D.-holders are employed finds that just 18.6 percent are employed as full-time university professors. The analysis from the Conference Board of Canada finds that nearly 40 percent of Ph.D.s are employed in higher education in some capacity, but many are in temporary or transitional positions. The other three-fifths are employed in diverse careers in industry, government and non-governmental organizations: “Indeed, employment in diverse, non-academic careers is the norm, not the exception, for Ph.D.s in Canada.” - Inside Higher Edu, January 8, 2015

Soutenir par un don