Mid-career - leave academia « Political Science Rumors

1 year - 98 posts - Latest - RSS
OP: 17 Goods vs 0 No Goods
Thread: 362 Goods vs 117 No Goods

Political Science Rumors » Political Science » Political Science Discussion

Mid-career - leave academia

« Previous 1…345 Next »

Evander

Don't even know what this means. I don't pump gas. I'm a tenured college professor. I crunch numbers once in a while (because I know how to, and I'm not a gradflake about it), but not all of my publications use stats.
I don't understand your take on this. You quit a job you trained for for 6 years (plus undergrad) because you didn't like the city you were in, and wanted to make a couple extra grand a year. Do you think this is the norm for the trainees of the discipline? I don't.

You mentioned pumping gas, which no one with a PhD does. Plus a PhD was perfect training for my tech job. Companies that are dumb don't last long; these jobs aren't hiring PhDs because, "why not". Basically I do statistics, research, and supervise incoming employees (who also have advanced degrees, so it's much like mentoring grad students). Turn your question around: why would I turn down double my salary, on road to be triple, for a relatively easy work-at-home position that isn't so different from the best parts of my academic job just because it doesn't meet a narrow definition of "what I trained for"? Honestly I don't miss teaching that much lol

But that means you never loved the business. How many people do you think got a political science PhD for the marginal employment possibilities that its methods training brought about? You, apparently; but then, that's why you're in the minority. You neve GAF about the material. That much is clear on this thread.

So, sure, if you got into a good polisci PhD program because you couldn't get into a good stats program, suffered through that training, took a job at a place that you hated, and then moved to a stats industry job... then sure, your pathway makes sense.

You think that's the norm?

1 year ago # QUOTE 2 YEA 1 NAY !
Romy

Why are you even worried about what the Bureau of Labor Statistics says about salary percentiles across occupations? You went to grad school for six years because you wanted to earn?

Life priorities change. Sure, I would love to be a tenured prof of big ideas at Harvard. Maybe what I do isn't my favorite job in the world but it's still near the top of the list. Salary and location (I had an okay R1 job but hated the area and didn't want me and my family to live there forever) made the choice to leave an easy one. Again, happy if you landed the perfect job for yourself, but if you can't understand making relatively minor career tradeoffs based on your values and goals then I'm not the one who doesn't understand adulthood

"but if you can't understand making relatively minor career tradeoffs based on your values and goals then I'm not the one who doesn't understand adulthood "

exactly. works both ways, though.

Again, my anecdotal life choices are just as (in)valid as yours. They are what they are. I can point to my friend who often regrets leaving academia as a counterpoint, but it doesn't change the fact that you made the right choice for you. So...

I understand that you are happy with your life choices. No one is disputing it. But then you start making grand statements about academia vs private sector that eschew all the real nuances that these choices imply. And when called on it, you go back to "well, it was good for me." Which should have been your whole point. The rest is just shoehorning some "data" to fit your preferred choice. We all do it. Just own up to it.

1 year ago # QUOTE 2 YEA 0 NAY !
Evander

that's fine, but if you keep moving the goalposts, at some point you'll get it right.

Lol ok, still nobody with a good answer to the question of why so few compsci PhDs go into academia. They need us polisci folks to tell them what a huge mistake they're all making

No, it's because this isn't a site for computer science PhDs. I promise you that.

1 year ago # QUOTE 2 YEA 0 NAY !
Evander

Why are you even worried about what the Bureau of Labor Statistics says about salary percentiles across occupations? You went to grad school for six years because you wanted to earn?
Life priorities change. Sure, I would love to be a tenured prof of big ideas at Harvard. Maybe what I do isn't my favorite job in the world but it's still near the top of the list. Salary and location (I had an okay R1 job but hated the area and didn't want me and my family to live there forever) made the choice to leave an easy one. Again, happy if you landed the perfect job for yourself, but if you can't understand making relatively minor career tradeoffs based on your values and goals then I'm not the one who doesn't understand adulthood

"but if you can't understand making relatively minor career tradeoffs based on your values and goals then I'm not the one who doesn't understand adulthood "
exactly. works both ways, though.
Again, my anecdotal life choices are just as (in)valid as yours. They are what they are. I can point to my friend who often regrets leaving academia as a counterpoint, but it doesn't change the fact that you made the right choice for you. So...
I understand that you are happy with your life choices. No one is disputing it. But then you start making grand statements about academia vs private sector that eschew all the real nuances that these choices imply. And when called on it, you go back to "well, it was good for me." Which should have been your whole point. The rest is just shoehorning some "data" to fit your preferred choice. We all do it. Just own up to it.

Correct.

1 year ago # QUOTE 0 YEA 0 NAY !
Romy

Associate professors making over 100k at a LAC are those who have been there for 35 years. Same principle at play with the majority of R1 fulls making over 150k a year before any add ons.
Gen x and millennial faculty will never see the types of ending salaries that boomers did. Also for the gradflakes who look up salaries, remember that to reach those kinds of numbers, you usually need to have gone admin or chaired before returning to normal faculty status to be getting above 150k at all but the top 20 or 30 depts.
What, like all 15 full profs at UW? Or all seven fulls making more than 150k at Oregon? Cut me a break, huh?
I'm willing to bet that half of them have been chairs, or DGS.
Uh, no, they haven't. And even if they have, so what? That would mean that temporary service assignments are part of the job, and increase your salary. Why's that a thing?

I don't doubt for second you're faculty, since only an academic could be this obtuse. It means that after sinking in 15-20 years, you're able to get some admin position that you later take back with you for a salary that you could've had in a few years or immediately after grad school. That's what it means. It means that just because faculty who got hired in the 80s or 90s got somewhat regular COLA that boosted them to $140k a year it doesn't mean that younger folks are ever going to get those. There's also a lot of summer teaching that goes into what you read online as salaries.
For any grad students reading this thread, the types you see trying to refute that it's oftentimes better in the private sector are the same ones that need to stay in academia because they could never act like a human being working in a corporation. They're also the ones who unintentionally make academia such a toxic work environment. So, if you feel yourself nodding along with them, stay in academia. If you feel yourself questioning their ability to see the forest for trees, remember that if you stay in academia these are your colleagues. These are the khaki wearers you'll see at palmer house.

And, to the grad students here, please note: oftentimes the ones who tout the virtues of the private sector are the ones who couldn't make it in academia. The fact that they could only get lower ranked job was the market telling them about the value of their work. So, they made the right choice for their skill sets, which weren't being rewarded in academia.

See how easy this is?

1 year ago # QUOTE 1 YEA 1 NAY !
Haylie

But that means you never loved the business. How many people do you think got a political science PhD for the marginal employment possibilities that its methods training brought about? You, apparently; but then, that's why you're in the minority. You neve GAF about the material. That much is clear on this thread.
So, sure, if you got into a good polisci PhD program because you couldn't get into a good stats program, suffered through that training, took a job at a place that you hated, and then moved to a stats industry job... then sure, your pathway makes sense.
You think that's the norm?

I went for a PhD the same reason many do, I enjoyed research. (I suppose there's also the insufferable 'i want to inspire the youth' crowd). I did fine in academia and liked it, but found something I like almost as much for much more money. Don't know, if that seems unbelievable or sinful I can't believe I'm talking to an adult. Glad you're happy with the tenure tho

1 year ago # QUOTE 1 YEA 1 NAY !
Romy

oh and the fact that you think that a stint as DGS increases your salary down the road indicates you don't know what you're talking about. Chair? Yes. Dean? Of course. But DGS doesn't come with a permanent bump (and no, your anecdote from so and so at Stanford doesn't obviate this more general point).

lol "he must have been DGS" so that somehow makes his high salary not comparable to anything lolwut

1 year ago # QUOTE 0 YEA 1 NAY !
Romy

that's fine, but if you keep moving the goalposts, at some point you'll get it right.

Lol ok, still nobody with a good answer to the question of why so few compsci PhDs go into academia. They need us polisci folks to tell them what a huge mistake they're all making
lolwut

1 year ago # QUOTE 0 YEA 0 NAY !
Evander

But that means you never loved the business. How many people do you think got a political science PhD for the marginal employment possibilities that its methods training brought about? You, apparently; but then, that's why you're in the minority. You neve GAF about the material. That much is clear on this thread.
So, sure, if you got into a good polisci PhD program because you couldn't get into a good stats program, suffered through that training, took a job at a place that you hated, and then moved to a stats industry job... then sure, your pathway makes sense.
You think that's the norm?

I went for a PhD the same reason many do, I enjoyed research. (I suppose there's also the insufferable 'i want to inspire the youth' crowd). I did fine in academia and liked it, but found something I like almost as much for much more money. Don't know, if that seems unbelievable or sinful I can't believe I'm talking to an adult. Glad you're happy with the tenure tho

Right. So you are where you're supposed to be: unsatisfied and searching for an extra $5K.

Thanks for taking a grad program spot from someone who believed.

1 year ago # QUOTE 1 YEA 2 NAY !
Haylie

Right. So you are where you're supposed to be: unsatisfied and searching for an extra $5K.
Thanks for taking a grad program spot from someone who believed.

Lol ok, serves me right for not spot the troll earier

1 year ago # QUOTE 0 YEA 1 NAY !
Evander

Associate professors making over 100k at a LAC are those who have been there for 35 years. Same principle at play with the majority of R1 fulls making over 150k a year before any add ons.
Gen x and millennial faculty will never see the types of ending salaries that boomers did. Also for the gradflakes who look up salaries, remember that to reach those kinds of numbers, you usually need to have gone admin or chaired before returning to normal faculty status to be getting above 150k at all but the top 20 or 30 depts.
What, like all 15 full profs at UW? Or all seven fulls making more than 150k at Oregon? Cut me a break, huh?
I'm willing to bet that half of them have been chairs, or DGS.
Uh, no, they haven't. And even if they have, so what? That would mean that temporary service assignments are part of the job, and increase your salary. Why's that a thing?
I don't doubt for second you're faculty, since only an academic could be this obtuse. It means that after sinking in 15-20 years, you're able to get some admin position that you later take back with you for a salary that you could've had in a few years or immediately after grad school. That's what it means. It means that just because faculty who got hired in the 80s or 90s got somewhat regular COLA that boosted them to $140k a year it doesn't mean that younger folks are ever going to get those. There's also a lot of summer teaching that goes into what you read online as salaries.
For any grad students reading this thread, the types you see trying to refute that it's oftentimes better in the private sector are the same ones that need to stay in academia because they could never act like a human being working in a corporation. They're also the ones who unintentionally make academia such a toxic work environment. So, if you feel yourself nodding along with them, stay in academia. If you feel yourself questioning their ability to see the forest for trees, remember that if you stay in academia these are your colleagues. These are the khaki wearers you'll see at palmer house.
And, to the grad students here, please note: oftentimes the ones who tout the virtues of the private sector are the ones who couldn't make it in academia. The fact that they could only get lower ranked job was the market telling them about the value of their work. So, they made the right choice for their skill sets, which weren't being rewarded in academia.
See how easy this is?

Man, ain't this the truth. Had a guy in our grad program twenty years ago who insisted on working with a huge name in his field, but never modifying his research question to align. Made a huge stink about it. Dropped out, told all of us how silly we are. Just saw a YouTube presentation with him in it from last year, fat as a hamster, giving a baby stats lecture to a bunch of accounting, telling everyone how silly they were.

I don't think it's us.

1 year ago # QUOTE 3 YEA 1 NAY !
Evander

Right. So you are where you're supposed to be: unsatisfied and searching for an extra $5K.
Thanks for taking a grad program spot from someone who believed.

Lol ok, serves me right for not spot the troll earier

The tenured political scientist troll on site for political scientists?

You're doing a bang-up job, brother.

1 year ago # QUOTE 3 YEA 0 NAY !
Romy

At my above-average LAC (not the "hottest" location), the mean salary for associate professors of political science is about $105K.
If you have that, with tenure (as OP indicated he might), and want to move away from that to take a 9-to-5 of any variety, either you're either inexplicably burnt out or you need to have your head examined.

Maybe I need to have my head examined. I was TT at a lower ranked R1 for two years and would've probably hit 100k after being an associate professor for 3-5 years (so in about 10 years). My record was good enough that tenure was likely. Quitting is the best professional move I made. I disliked the city and wanted to make more money now while still not working very much. Took three months to find a position like that, had multiple offers, and moved a couple months after (though job was remote). But the 9-5 thing is mostly based on what non-PhDs do in the private sector. Yes, sometimes you have to work, but again I probably pull 25 hours a week, with good flexibility in when those hours are. Have friends at places like Google who take months off at a time on the clock, etc. YOu can't compare to your banker or Big Law buddies

Just to be clear, since you are making claims about academia based on general trends vs your own choices outside academia.

You made some claims earlier about % of profs making 150K, etc.

Can you enlighten us: what % of folks do you think can easily make 150K, with 40+ paid days, for 25 hours a week of work, almost all remotely, in the private sector? Would you say it's the majority? All? Some? Almost none?

I have a lot of friends in the private sector and none of them have those conditions, so they probably need to be looking for better conditions. (150K, yes. the rest, no).

1 year ago # QUOTE 2 YEA 0 NAY !
Ninette

What an extraordinarily ignorant/arrogant/clueless thing to write. Clearly comes from someone who has not interacted with work in a meaningful way outside the academy. There are some extraordinary people working outside universities: smart & mission-driven.

And, to the grad students here, please note: oftentimes the ones who tout the virtues of the private sector are the ones who couldn't make it in academia. The fact that they could only get lower ranked job was the market telling them about the value of their work. So, they made the right choice for their skill sets, which weren't being rewarded in academia.
See how easy this is?

1 year ago # QUOTE 0 YEA 2 NAY !
Evander

What an extraordinarily ignorant/arrogant/clueless thing to write. Clearly comes from someone who has not interacted with work in a meaningful way outside the academy. There are some extraordinary people working outside universities: smart & mission-driven.

And, to the grad students here, please note: oftentimes the ones who tout the virtues of the private sector are the ones who couldn't make it in academia. The fact that they could only get lower ranked job was the market telling them about the value of their work. So, they made the right choice for their skill sets, which weren't being rewarded in academia.
See how easy this is?

So you're not an academic. This seems clear from your various posts. Is that correct?

1 year ago # QUOTE 1 YEA 0 NAY !
Jacquelyn

What an extraordinarily ignorant/arrogant/clueless thing to write. Clearly comes from someone who has not interacted with work in a meaningful way outside the academy. There are some extraordinary people working outside universities: smart & mission-driven.

Imagine thinking that the entire upper middle class is miserable or can't hack the notoriously rigorous (yet somehow also most flexible and stress-free) academic life. And shame on you from taking a grad school slot from a true believer. Not fieckers level but quality trolling nonetheless

1 year ago # QUOTE 0 YEA 1 NAY !
Ninette

Read the original post. I am: 1) mid-career academic (approx. 80% of time); 2) consulting services out (approx. 20% of time). Tenured. Good city.

So you're not an academic. This seems clear from your various posts. Is that correct?

1 year ago # QUOTE 1 YEA 0 NAY !
Jacqueline

Is Little Rock, AR considered "good"?

Read the original post. I am: 1) mid-career academic (approx. 80% of time); 2) consulting services out (approx. 20% of time). Tenured. Good city.

So you're not an academic. This seems clear from your various posts. Is that correct?

1 year ago # QUOTE 0 YEA 0 NAY !
Ninette

A little advice: usually when you attempt to troll someone you have to write something that is witty but also cutting. Absent one of these elements it doesn't really work. Absent both...

Is Little Rock, AR considered "good"?

1 year ago # QUOTE 0 YEA 0 NAY !
Nevaeh

I’ve never understood why people take this s/h/i/t personally. Some like this gig, some don’t. Are all of your egos seriously so fragile you can’t handle it if someone does, or doesn’t, want to be in academia? Give it a rest. It’s a great job - it’s not for everyone.

1 year ago # QUOTE 8 YEA 0 NAY !

« Previous 1…345 Next »

Mid-career - leave academia

Reply »