Megan McArdle lists several possible reasons why academics are unhappy relative to members of other professions. Some of her reasons capture real downsides of academic life. But is the premise true? Are academics indeed unusually dissatisfied with their jobs? I think not.
Back in December, I wrote a series of posts challenging this premise in the specific case of law professors. The available evidence suggests that law professors are much happier with their jobs, on average, than other elite law school graduates - including those who went into "public service" and other jobs commonly associated with lifestyle benefits.
A particularly telling point is that, in most academic fields, there are far more applicants for jobs than available job openings. Indeed, the ratio of highly qualified applicants to available jobs is more lopsided in academia than any other industry I know of other than entertainment, art, and professional sports. That suggests that being a professor isn't a less satisfying life than most of the available alternatives. Perhaps the applicants are deluded, and don't realize that they would be happier working in industry or government. Maybe. But people who are already academics rarely leave academia for other careers - even those in fields like business, medicine, law, and economics who could easily obtain far more lucrative employment in the commercial sector.
As I noted above, some of the issues Megan notes are real causes of dissatisfaction among academics. For example, it is true that professors are highly status-conscious, that they make less money than they could in other fields, and that they often don't get to live in the cities they prefer. But offsetting these problems are major advantages such as 1) the opportunity to work on issues that interest you, as opposed to those that interest customers or the boss, 2) the ability to set your own schedule to a far greater extent than is possible in nearly any other professional job, and 3) the chance to influence public debate. Academics tend to be the kinds of people who care greatly about 1 and 2, and many care a lot about 3 as well. Indeed, the very fact that so many people compete for academic jobs despite the fact that they know they could make much more money elsewhere suggests that there are important benefits associated with those jobs. Those who don't find the tradeoff worth it are unlikely to enter academia in the first place or to stay very long if they do.
Not everyone would be happy as an academic. Indeed, the vast majority of people would probably hate it. But most academics and seekers of academic jobs would probably be a lot more unhappy in any other line of work.
UPDATE: I initially failed to link to Megan's post. This has now been corrected.
Related Posts (on one page):
I always get a laugh from those "could easily obtain far more lucrative employment in the commercial sector" comments.
I think law professors vastly overestimate their employability in the private sector. It's a totally different skill set.
Almost every law professor I know of had offers from major big city law firms that they turned down.
Not many. But even in the other disciplines, there is still a vast oversupply of applicants relative to jobs - despite the fact that most of the applicants could make more money elsewhere. And there are still very few professors who voluntarily leave for nonacademic employment.
You mean as first-year associates, years ago? Or more recently, as lateral partners or counsels? The former, yes, but it's hard to imagine the latter for most law profs. If your typical tenured prof needed to get a law firm job, it would be a pretty strange fit (unless the prof has specific subject matter expertise in a field with a specific practice).
Yes, but part of the former point is the myopia of college students who don't know what the options are. If you're an english major, you might not know the thousands of jobs out there but you'll certainly know all about being an english prof. And if you self-selected to spend a decade of your life trying to get a teaching job and you succeed, you're probably not the type to give up and leave given the paucity of alternative jobs that would actually use the degree.
I love teaching!
Academia is hardly some kind of default choice for college students. They all know about many other options, even if they don't know about all of them. I agree, of course, that those who self-select into academia are unlikely to leave it. But that is precisely because they would be less happy elsewhere. That is true, by the way, even in fields like engineering, law, and economics where there are plenty of jobs where they could use the degree.
You mean as first-year associates, years ago? Or more recently, as lateral partners or counsels? The former, yes, but it's hard to imagine the latter for most law profs.
Definitely the former. But the latter is not as uncommon as you think. A lawprof who seeks out law firm offers 3-4 years into an academic career could very likely get some. It might be harder if you've been in academia for many years. But 3 or 4 is surely enough time to realize taht you're unhappy with academic life and want to switch.
I sure remember a lot of college classmates going to grad school because they didn't know what else to do.
I thought we were discussing the extent to which law professors are employable in the private sector. Given that, the relevant question would seem to be whether a typical law professor who has been teaching for (say) 20 years is in fact easily employable. I think the answer varies on the prof, but it seems right to me that it would be quite hard for many profs.
Opportunity to have significant research resources available is a very big attractor for young scientists to leave the university environment, for "quasi-academic" research jobs and those with significantly greater potential for management advancement and increased pay.
My bottom line is to agree with Oren's original observation.
This is entirely speculative. You do not know you would be less happy elsewhere unless you actually experience elsewhere. People often have irrational fears of change.
I think the key point is whether the typical law professor could have gone into the private sector by the time he realizes that he is unhappy in academia and would be happier elsewhere (assuming that is indeed his situation). I agree it would be hard to leave after 20 years (or even 10). But it would not take so long to make the realization I had in mind. Indeed, I think even entry-level professors have a fairly good idea of the tradeoffs involved in the academic-nonacademic choice.
Most liberals are unhappy about everything.
Voila!
Your syllogism is a bit fallacious. The unstated conclusion seems to be that, ergo, most academics are unhappy. But logically, it's logically possible (at least given your premises) that the academics who are liberals happen to be those liberals who are not "unhappy about everything."
I haven't the slightest idea about the employment prospects of law professors outside the academy. However, I frequently hear from a few my professors--history professors--that they could easily make more money outside academe than they do now. I'm skeptical about such claims myself.
The same is true for profs in low-demand fields, who might have been postdocs for a couple of years, did the pretenure merry go around, and then landed a post at a place they thought of as a first job -- only to find out it was their last over a decade later.
This combination of high expectations, high sunk costs, and low probability of winning big is what makes for unhappy people. In this regard, academia is just like acting or singing, where hordes enter with high expectations, only to find out years later that they're barely getting by with a few small gigs a year and few marketable skills outside.
Sure, I enjoy the job itself, but I'm running myself ragged trying to hold onto the job in the first place.
I also suspect that situations are very different for engineering/applied science professors vs. professors of the humanities.
That's a dramatic supposition which, if accurate, must say something significant (and inherently negative) about the basic nature academia. Or about how academics see themselves in relation to the rest of the world. Or both. Can you spell c-h-a-s-m?
If you're saying that one cannot take the happiness of law professors as indicative of the happiness of academia as a whole, I'd say your methodology is right. However, the data shows that academics, as a whole, are very satisfied with their jobs.
From the chronicle of higher education: "A new national survey by TIAA-CREF found that 53 percent of faculty members are “very satisfied” with their jobs and another 43 percent are “somewhat satisfied.” Only 2 percent were “not at all satisfied.” By comparison, a recent national survey of Americans in all fields found that only 42 percent reported being “very satisfied,” with another 38 percent “somewhat satisfied.”"
McArdle exhibited her characteristic disdain for people who's careers aren't motivated by profit and provided fodder to her anti-academic commenters. I'm glad to see a conservative academic outlet like Volokh correct the record.
Thank god for the law school accreditation standards! (Shhh. Don't tell the libertarians about how the accreditation really works; they'd be in open revolt.)
Also, one very attractive aspect of all types of academia is tenure: a strong form of "just cause" protection. With the exception of union members and public employees covered by effective civil service laws, most folks in the U.S. don't have that sort of protection. But most workers like to have it.
Not everyone would be happy as a farmer. Indeed, I think the vast majority of people would probably hate it. (Monotonous and literally backbreaking labor, at the mercy of the weather, etc.) Does that say something significant and negative about agriculture? :)
Strongly concur!
Academia is hardly some kind of default choice for college students. They all know about many other options, even if they don't know about all of them.
They are "aware" in an abstract sense that other options exist, but they don't know what these people really do all day in the same sense that they know what academics do (because they see them doing it).
I frequently hear from a few my professors--history professors--that they could easily make more money outside academe than they do now. I'm skeptical about such claims myself.
What would they be doing? I doubt they'd be making boucoup bucks reading and writing history, which is presumably what they love. I have a history PhD and am making good money not in academia, but I'm not being paid to write history (least of all "whatever history interests me" as academics get to do).
Even if a law prof is able to get a much higher paying position in the private sector, you still have to factor in the hours. Prof's work an easy academic year, when look at hours/days of work vs. someone in the private sector professors make a lot of money.
When Great Depression 2.0, no one will be safe.
BTW, your ignorance of modern farming methods and projected personal preference is glaringly evident. I presume you have substantiating data? [end sarcasm]
[Important Note to Helpful Readers: If we have confusing typos and especially ugly formatting errors, such as an unclosed underline or bold tag, we'd love to hear from you about them -- but please e-mail the author about this, rather than leaving a comment. We often won't read the comments for a while after the post, and if there's a glaring formatting error, we'd see it quickly when we revisit the post, even without the comment; and in any event the comment likely isn't going to be that helpful to your fellow comment readers. So please e-mail us directly about glitches like this. Thanks!]
Comment Policy: We'd like the posts to be civil, of course (no profanity, personal insults, and the like), but we're also hoping that people try to be as calm, reasoned, and substantive as possible. So please, also avoid rants, invective, substantial and repeated exaggeration, and radical departures from the topic of the thread. Sticking with substance -- and staying on-topic -- will make the comments more helpful to other readers, and more pleasant.
As editors, we reserve the right to delete posts, and even to kick out posters, though we hope that both of these will be exceptional events. (We also reserve the right to be busy with other things, and therefore (1) not remove all the posts that might merit removal, and (2) ignore demands such as "You should remove A's posts, because they're just as bad as B's!")
Here's a tip: Reread your post, and think of what people would think if you said this over dinner. If you think people would view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who vastly overdoes it on the hyperbole, rewrite your post before hitting enter.
And if you think this is the other people's fault -- you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, but fools wrongly view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who overdoes it on the hyperbole -- then you should still rewrite your post before hitting enter. After all, if you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, then surely it's especially important that you frame your arguments in a way that is persuasive and as unalienating as possible, even to fools.
Our goal is to provide an interesting and pleasant environment that can help inform readers. To do that, we'll occasionally have to exercise our editorial discretion. Think of this as an in-person discussion group, where having different voices is critical to a great conversation -- but where sometimes the leader has to deal with cranks who sour the conversation more than they enliven it.
Naturally, there's always a risk that this discretion will be used erroneously, no matter how well-intentioned the editor. But discussion groups (especially on the Internet, but also off it) generally need an editor who'll occasionally make such judgments.
And, remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.