Skip navigation

Do you have a stat for that?

By MELONIE FULLICK | March 19, 2012

This weekend I was working on an essay about graduate education and decided to look up a few key statistics to add to my argument, hoping I could strengthen my point using numbers as well as words.

Little did I know what I was in for. While I’ve searched for statistics many times (not always with success), I thought I’d be able to find what I was looking for this time around. But the numbers I wanted turned out to be frustratingly elusive. I was looking for three things: the attrition rate (on average) from Canadian PhD programs; the proportion of PhD graduates who land tenure-track jobs (either immediately or within, say, five years); and the proportion of Canadian university teaching staff who have non-permanent (contract) and/or part-time positions.

While those numbers probably won’t tell a happy story, I was surprised to have so much trouble finding them. I didn’t even make it to the attrition statistic yet, because the other two took up so much time; from what I observed, attrition is not a focus in spite of the Survey of Earned Doctorates (SED) pointing out that higher enrollment has not translated into increased numbers of PhD graduates. That’s one example of how the main focus seems to be on enrollment and graduation — what went “right” — as opposed to attrition, which is considered “failure.”

The second example, that of PhDs who find tenure-track work, should have been a cinch given the heightened concern with this issue among graduate students and faculty. I had trouble believing that no-one had produced a study about this, but sure enough, there was nothing straightforward available. How this crucial research could be missing in action is something of a mystery (this was the closest thing I found so far).

Lastly, the proportion of non-tenured faculty is an important number to track in a context where academic hiring trends have been shifting for some time, and these directly affect PhD students and graduates. After a frustrating search through graduate survey results and through research reports produced by a number of different organizations, I finally turned up one Statistics Canada article that compared employment in the teaching profession between 1999 and 2005, based on data from the Labour Force Survey. There seemed to be nothing that was more recent and comprehensive, and almost all the numbers I found relating to academic hiring were focused on full-time faculty (or on one institution only).

During this process I noticed that the graduate student surveys seemed to provide a very thin snapshot — rather a grainy black-and-white photocopy — of results. Asking whether students are “satisfied” with their PhD program experiences (as the Canadian Graduate and Professional Student Survey does) seems like a rather limited way of discovering what’s going on in graduate education, considering the issues involved. The SED seems to have ended with a data set from 2007-2008; its results have been used alongside the Canadian Graduates Survey (CGS) to produce a picture of PhD career outcomes, but once again this is a surprisingly foggy image. Graduates planning to work in the “education services industry” are classified into one large group — no mention of full time, part time, university or college, permanent or contract.

This is not to say that I wouldn’t like access to qualitative research on these issues, too. I think well-designed surveys produce information that is a good start, but we also need to develop qualitative investigations to find the stories behind those numbers. For example, the SED shows up the trend that mainly young, single men in the life sciences and other STEM areas tend to be those who leave Canada after the PhD for further training and job opportunities in other countries. This tells us about the effects of gender, life circumstances, and area of research on the career paths of PhD graduates. Also worth noting is the significant amount of attention given (in the survey results) to migration of PhD graduates; this relates to the concern for building national “human capital.”

It’s disturbing to me that even given the expansion PhD enrollments, and the emphasis placed on graduate education and its role in the economy, so little information seems to be available about what is happening to PhD students and graduates. There’s also a larger point to my complaint about having a hard time finding these numbers. Statistics are a political issue. Though they can be superficial, they’re still better than nothing and they can highlight important trends. This is why it’s disturbing that the current Canadian government does not seem to place much faith in research (funding has been cut from other important surveys as well). I think we have to ask, if this is happening in education research, where else is it happening?

Melonie Fullick
Melonie Fullick is a PhD candidate at York University. The topic of her dissertation is Canadian post-secondary education policy and its effects on the institutional environment in universities.
Post a comment
University Affairs moderates all comments according to the following guidelines. If approved, comments generally appear within one business day. We may republish particularly insightful remarks in our print edition or elsewhere.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  1. Karen / March 29, 2012 at 6:24 am

    What if we tried crowd-sourcing some data? An adjunct instructor in the US recently started doing this to gather data on the working conditions of adjuncts/sessionals.

    His backgrounder is here: http://copy– along with a link to the actual Google doc he used to source the data.

  2. Zarko / March 21, 2012 at 10:11 pm

    Lise –

    I think it was Paul Martin who confessed that the NSLC was a money-printing program. Notice how appeals by CFS to Liberals during the last provincial election failed to answer some of the systemic problems (or took credit for the RAP). Your claim of keeping grad students “insulated” from the job market does indeed make job numbers look better and strengthens the neoliberal discourse of “competitiveness” (fully embraced by most admins to naturalize the event within their own managerial schemes).

    Now, if we truly wish to take issue with the false advertising of the admin, the raw data is only half the game. Plausible deniability is the convenient ruse to deflect arguments based on principles, and they will certainly win contests that involve public opinion. I’ve seen how the game works from the bargaining perspective, and no amount of facts changes central admin’s direction. There is a “tertiary” method that is possible that I do not hazard to suggest here (even though I am shielded by using a “net-o-nym” like Zarko!).

    To speak of student debt, always know that this is insecure debt (i.e., no bank would take it on), and has no collateral. The rate of interest operates at a profit for the NSLC which takes from it its operating cost plus – profit! We saw the Tory response to mounting student debt reaching the legislated max: raise the ceiling. Of course, you and I know how myopic a strategy this is in the ideology of compelling us to spend to keep an economy of rapid cycle production-consumption afloat. Alas, our elected leaders look to their reelection and not to long-term goals that are unpopular and tend towards “mission creep.”

    I remember my PhD days and my strategy: complete at all costs. To get into the ground game requires this to at least have a say in governance. It’s an archaic view of credibility, but one that we must embrace if we are to challenge the very system that enables all manner of labour-related atrocities. So, in a way, it is like mixing a bit of de Certeau tactics with a bit of Debord sensibilities.

  3. Lise Vaugeois / March 21, 2012 at 3:01 pm

    I agree with Zarko’s analysis and would like to add the following observations: encouraging people to pursue PhD’s keeps those people out of the job market, and, possibly, out of the ranks of protesters, for at least 4 years. We are too busy trying to finish before getting into even more debt to take up any serious activism. (Cudos to those who have maintained their activist engagements in addition to their PhD work.)

    Having a lot of people in school makes employment numbers look better than they are and keeps the energy of a large number of people focused on competing with each other for scare resources as they try to getting funding to finish their programs.

    In terms of “helping the economy”, I have no doubt that those of us with large student loans will be cash cows for the banks for many years to come.

  4. Gail Curry / March 21, 2012 at 2:58 pm

    Re. the academic hiring statistics, did you try the Almanacs on the CAUT site:

    See Section 2: Academic Staff in the 2011-2012 Almanac, Table 2.22.

    • Melonie Fullick / March 21, 2012 at 4:54 pm

      Thanks so much! That’s the best chart so far. I saw the almanacs but missed this. Much appreciated.

« »