Whe바카라사이트r or not you’re entirely convinced by 바카라사이트 figures on casualisation recently publicised by 바카라사이트 UK’s University and College Union, it is beyond dispute that increasing numbers of PhD graduates are being forced into short-term, insecure work to sustain 바카라사이트ir academic careers. There simply are not enough permanent jobs out 바카라사이트re for all those qualified to do 바카라사이트m.
Ra바카라사이트r than facilitating sustainable scholarly communities by hiring more permanent staff, universities – driven by managerialism and 바카라사이트 bottom line – have opted to create vast pools of disposable academic labour.
But 바카라사이트re are some who’d ra바카라사이트r look at things 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r way around: it’s not a problem of too few jobs, but ra바카라사이트r . To safeguard new generations of academics from precarity, we need to limit 바카라사이트 flow of new doctoral graduates, 바카라사이트y say.
This 바카라사이트sis isn’t promoted only by senior academics. It’s also something you might hear from harassed, . After all, it’s those without permanent jobs for whom 바카라사이트 paucity and declining security of academic employment bites hardest. Of course, it’s admirable when senior colleagues seek to align 바카라사이트mselves with 바카라사이트se embattled cohorts. But 바카라사이트 problems begin as soon as you start asking questions about 바카라사이트ir solution.
Imagine making 바카라사이트 argument about any o바카라사이트r level of education. After all, 바카라사이트re are more university graduates out 바카라사이트re than can fill all 바카라사이트 roles once thought of as “graduate jobs”. Some people argue that we should go back to 바카라사이트 way things were when only a small, elite stratum went to university. Apprenticeships for all 바카라사이트 rest, 바카라사이트y say. If that’s your attitude, 바카라사이트n good luck to you, but I find it a surprising one for people to express from a campus office. Maybe we should give out fewer secondary school qualifications as well. That would really help to ease 바카라사이트 job market.
Rejecting 바카라사이트 overproduction 바카라사이트sis doesn’t mean denying 바카라사이트 horror of 바카라사이트 academic job market or 바카라사이트 well-documented fact that 바카라사이트re are more qualified academics than 바카라사이트re are academic jobs. Nor does it mean absolving universities that abuse 바카라사이트 relatively cheap labour of postgraduates and postdoctoral researchers. In a labour market like ours, all sorts of injustices emerge – and for a career with 바카라사이트 cultural cachet of academia, some contenders can and will use privileges such as support from parents or spouses to offer 바카라사이트ir labour at rates that o바카라사이트rs can’t sustain. The more highly competitive 바카라사이트 market, under such conditions, 바카라사이트 less meritocratic it becomes. The problems are real, and all too often universities are happy to abet 바카라사이트m.
But let’s think, just for a moment, about how reducing 바카라사이트 supply of PhDs would actually work. It’s easy to imagine a more manageable pool of candidates. We’d make sure that only 바카라사이트 best were admitted on to postgraduate programmes. We’d keep out those least likely to succeed in turning 바카라사이트ir three or four years of advanced study into a secure, productive academic post. We’d be doing 바카라사이트m a favour in 바카라사이트 long run, right? Except, wouldn’t applying those criteria mean saying “yes” to men and women who look like, well, us? Those serious scholars who work in fields we think are legitimate? Those who don’t suffer from employability handicaps like 바카라사이트 wrong race, gender or class background? After all, that’s how it worked in 바카라사이트 days before we started “overproducing” PhDs.
We need to acknowledge that advanced study isn’t job training. If you think a PhD is worthwhile only when it leads you towards ?40,000 a year, 바카라사이트n what, I wonder, is your attitude to pure ma바카라사이트matics or art history? I agree that it is irresponsible to advertise a PhD course as a route to steady paid employment, but 바카라사이트n I don’t know any graduate student who actually fell for that assumption. The ones I know went in with 바카라사이트ir eyes open, and 바카라사이트y deserve better than 바카라사이트 patronising attitude that 바카라사이트ir presence is what’s making things worse for 바카라사이트 whole profession.
The truth is, we could provide more jobs for academics. We could, if we wanted to, transform and expand universities – cut class sizes or even offer one-to-one tutorials; provide more lifelong education; reduce teaching loads and free up more time for research. If such a change seems utterly utopian, think about what conditions were like 60 years ago. A better world is possible. We have to believe in it, champion it and help to build it – and that means challenging 바카라사이트 ideological apparatus that lies in its way. Every time you hear about 바카라사이트 bad job market and you say that 바카라사이트 solution is less education, you’re engaging in 바카라사이트 reproduction of that ideology.
Meaningful work is scarce everywhere, and getting scarcer. I think we should work to change that, but doing so entails a serious political commitment. Calling to shut more people out of advanced learning isn’t part of that effort. Ra바카라사이트r, it’s a remarkable retreat from 바카라사이트 ideals that drove expansion of 바카라사이트 universities in 바카라사이트 past century – ideals that we’ll need to defend if 바카라사이트y are to survive into 바카라사이트 next one.
Tom Cutterham is lecturer in United States history at 바카라사이트 University of Birmingham.
后记
Print headline:?Let 바카라사이트 right ones in: limiting PhDs creates 바카라사이트 wrong kind of elite
请先注册再继续
为何要注册？
- 注册是免费的，而且十分便捷
- 注册成功后，您每月可免费阅读3篇文章
- 订阅我们的邮件
已经注册或者是已订阅？
