Aside from the fact that most higher ed academics lack the license to teach k-12, too many of them also lack the training in ... actually teaching. A PhD in a subject doesn't actually mean someone has teaching skills or would be equipped to do classroom management. There are some transferrable skills, of course, but most people probably don't think a kindergarten teacher is qualified to teach a college class (other than in education, perhaps), so it is a little offensive to k-12 educators to assume higher ed faculty could do their jobs without some critical additional training, I think.
I agree that a kindergarten classroom is much different than a college one, and of course no one should expect to waltz into a classroom without the proper training or experience. But for my partner (hi, I'm the question-poser!), he went from college freshman to high school seniors with 15 years of teaching experience under his belt. He did need some help with classroom management, but luckily, the cooperative nature of secondary ed has meant that he has lots of opportunities to converse with his fellow teachers (and gets paid time off for professional development, which he didn't get working for a university). Obviously someone with a PhD in nuclear physics may not find their best job fit in a 4th grade classroom, but it *could* be a good option for a lot of people, and the crux of what I'm trying to communicate here is that no one seems to talk about it as an option even for the people who are a good fit, and I suspect there are reasons having to do with the economic realities of university reliance on contingent labor.
(And most states make it very easy to get licensed with a higher degree--in Indiana one needs only to pass the certification exam. He got certified in 2 weeks, and the school still hired him on in the meantime under a different pay rate.)
My uncle switched to teaching high school after leaving academia. He had to go back to school for a year or two to have the appropriate certification. He also had to work as an uber driver before and after school for a while in order to make ends meet. It was the right decision for him but it wasn't an easy transition either.
I personally never considered it because I don't like teaching. I appreciate that you mentioned that. There's a lot of people who go into academia just because of research.
Thank you for considering my question and taking the time to reflect on it! Your reflections do assume that academia means a real professorship, and the move to more contingent labor cannot be left out of this equation. Because the reality is that, unless you are the lucky one to land the one job that is hiring that 500 others have applied for, the chances of getting research support or any kind of stability--or even anything resembling a living wage--are nil. Most people in academia are adjuncts and lecturers on temporary contracts. And a real salary and benefits and union membership is materially better than that position. And that is what no one talks about.
My partner spent 3 years in job seeker meetings, saying the entire time that he wanted to teach and be around books, and he was told over and over again, "well, have you considered applying for these corporate copy writing positions?" As an outsider to academia, it felt completely nuts to me.
I get why it is not for everyone, especially depending on field. But for those fields that are currently being completely gutted (humanities, foreign languages, history), it should at least be a viable option for those who enjoy the teaching part. And I still suspect it's because if anyone talked about it honestly and people knew they had actual options, no one would be willing to work for $3000/semester and universities have become too reliant on contingent labor.
Thank you SO much for deepening the conversation here, let alone starting it! A few responses:
-You asked if it's a cult, not an MLM!!! (Being totally cheeky, and affectionately so, here. I hope that comes through!) Turns out, it's both. I really tried to signal in my response to #1 that my own experience is limited here, and that I hoped folks who never landed a FT job would weigh in. I still hope they do!
-I also try often, though looking back I didn't really do so here, to call attention to the reality of contingent labor being exceedingly exploited and unfair here. It's worth calling it out at every turn, so thank you for doing that here.
-I do worry that the same areas being gutted in higher ed are also the most vulnerable in what remains of public education, true before 2024 but terrifyingly so moving forward.
-Your final sentence "And I still suspect it's because if anyone talked about it honestly and people knew they had actual options, no one would be willing to work for $3000/semester and universities have become too reliant on contingent labor" is such a rich synthesis of the layered challenges folks grapple with when they transition from the academy. For that reason, I think your suspicion is wrong, EVEN AS your insistence that this *should* be high on the radar of folks leaving academia remains spot-on. There's just so much allure to the romance (read: lie) of that "real professorship" and all that we imagine it entails, alongside an attitude that a job focused only on material benefits is somehow selling out. Back to what I initially understood to be your cult v. MLM thesis, right? ....Again, ugh, it's both! 🫠
At least in my state, it would require getting certified. Academia also has more autonomy, and provides research opportunities. For many that's at least as important as teaching.
Yes, excellent addition: certification may also feel like too large a hurdle for many folks out there. And I tried to speak to your other two points in numbers 2 and 4 --appreciate you underlining them here!
Aside from the fact that most higher ed academics lack the license to teach k-12, too many of them also lack the training in ... actually teaching. A PhD in a subject doesn't actually mean someone has teaching skills or would be equipped to do classroom management. There are some transferrable skills, of course, but most people probably don't think a kindergarten teacher is qualified to teach a college class (other than in education, perhaps), so it is a little offensive to k-12 educators to assume higher ed faculty could do their jobs without some critical additional training, I think.
This is so important to consider!! Thank you, Wendy!
I agree that a kindergarten classroom is much different than a college one, and of course no one should expect to waltz into a classroom without the proper training or experience. But for my partner (hi, I'm the question-poser!), he went from college freshman to high school seniors with 15 years of teaching experience under his belt. He did need some help with classroom management, but luckily, the cooperative nature of secondary ed has meant that he has lots of opportunities to converse with his fellow teachers (and gets paid time off for professional development, which he didn't get working for a university). Obviously someone with a PhD in nuclear physics may not find their best job fit in a 4th grade classroom, but it *could* be a good option for a lot of people, and the crux of what I'm trying to communicate here is that no one seems to talk about it as an option even for the people who are a good fit, and I suspect there are reasons having to do with the economic realities of university reliance on contingent labor.
(And most states make it very easy to get licensed with a higher degree--in Indiana one needs only to pass the certification exam. He got certified in 2 weeks, and the school still hired him on in the meantime under a different pay rate.)
My uncle switched to teaching high school after leaving academia. He had to go back to school for a year or two to have the appropriate certification. He also had to work as an uber driver before and after school for a while in order to make ends meet. It was the right decision for him but it wasn't an easy transition either.
I personally never considered it because I don't like teaching. I appreciate that you mentioned that. There's a lot of people who go into academia just because of research.
Thank you for considering my question and taking the time to reflect on it! Your reflections do assume that academia means a real professorship, and the move to more contingent labor cannot be left out of this equation. Because the reality is that, unless you are the lucky one to land the one job that is hiring that 500 others have applied for, the chances of getting research support or any kind of stability--or even anything resembling a living wage--are nil. Most people in academia are adjuncts and lecturers on temporary contracts. And a real salary and benefits and union membership is materially better than that position. And that is what no one talks about.
My partner spent 3 years in job seeker meetings, saying the entire time that he wanted to teach and be around books, and he was told over and over again, "well, have you considered applying for these corporate copy writing positions?" As an outsider to academia, it felt completely nuts to me.
I get why it is not for everyone, especially depending on field. But for those fields that are currently being completely gutted (humanities, foreign languages, history), it should at least be a viable option for those who enjoy the teaching part. And I still suspect it's because if anyone talked about it honestly and people knew they had actual options, no one would be willing to work for $3000/semester and universities have become too reliant on contingent labor.
Thank you SO much for deepening the conversation here, let alone starting it! A few responses:
-You asked if it's a cult, not an MLM!!! (Being totally cheeky, and affectionately so, here. I hope that comes through!) Turns out, it's both. I really tried to signal in my response to #1 that my own experience is limited here, and that I hoped folks who never landed a FT job would weigh in. I still hope they do!
-I also try often, though looking back I didn't really do so here, to call attention to the reality of contingent labor being exceedingly exploited and unfair here. It's worth calling it out at every turn, so thank you for doing that here.
-I do worry that the same areas being gutted in higher ed are also the most vulnerable in what remains of public education, true before 2024 but terrifyingly so moving forward.
-Your final sentence "And I still suspect it's because if anyone talked about it honestly and people knew they had actual options, no one would be willing to work for $3000/semester and universities have become too reliant on contingent labor" is such a rich synthesis of the layered challenges folks grapple with when they transition from the academy. For that reason, I think your suspicion is wrong, EVEN AS your insistence that this *should* be high on the radar of folks leaving academia remains spot-on. There's just so much allure to the romance (read: lie) of that "real professorship" and all that we imagine it entails, alongside an attitude that a job focused only on material benefits is somehow selling out. Back to what I initially understood to be your cult v. MLM thesis, right? ....Again, ugh, it's both! 🫠
At least in my state, it would require getting certified. Academia also has more autonomy, and provides research opportunities. For many that's at least as important as teaching.
Yes, excellent addition: certification may also feel like too large a hurdle for many folks out there. And I tried to speak to your other two points in numbers 2 and 4 --appreciate you underlining them here!