I suspect people downvoted you because of the tone and your use of a rhetorical question—if you'd just said, "I don't pity highly educated people who don't understand supply and demand in their chosen job market."

And you know what? You're right. I'm in English Lit grad school, and the number one thing I tell other people who are contemplating it is not to go. Then I tell them to read Louis Menand's The Marketplace of Ideas and Thomas Benton's articles: http://chronicle.com/article/The-Big-Lie-About-the-Life-of/6... .

I think the problem is more complicated than basic supply and demand. There is a lot of demand for college education. Enrollment is higher than it has ever been, and the people profiled in this article have jobs. The problem is that in order to cut cost colleges are hiring more and more adjunct professors as opposed to full-time, tenure track professors. It's not uncommon for these adjunct professors to take on jobs at multiple community colleges in order to make enough. The end result is that they are doing as much or more work than a full time professor but for less pay.

It is still over supplied. If it weren't then colleges would be forced to hire tenure track professors to fill the positions since there wouldn't be enough people to teach.

Oversupplied compared to what? Just because there's no immediate industrial benefit to medieval studies doesn't mean that there's no overall societal benefit from liberal arts programs.

If you took a strict Econ 101 view of this, there would be no medieval studies professors in the whole country.

"If you took a strict Econ 101 view of this, there would be no medieval studies professors in the whole country."

I don't believe that. (note that I am the guy who originally made the "zero pity" comment) Knowing how society developed from medieval times into the Renaissance is very valuable, especially from the point of view of someone who studies history of technology, markets, and means of production. Within that context, there is most definitely demand for professors of medieval studies.

The conversation really is about how there isn't enough demand for dozens of medieval studies experts every year. Perhaps there would be demand for a dozen every five years or so.

Ok, so a dozen every 5 years, according to who? Nobody pays specifically for medieval history education, it's usually part of a larger liberal arts program, so there's pretty much zero Econ 101 factors in play as far as the employment of medieval history experts.

Your contention that we're producing a couple too many, ok, I can buy that. But the people in the article have jobs -- and it doesn't seem to stand that the depts in question would pay more for medieval history experts if there was a smaller pool of talent.

There is some demand, that is why they exist at all. Most likely from people who want to study it and don't care about the financial repercussions later. Not all demand is created by rational buyers.

The bottom line is that if the price is low there is high supply relative to low demand. Econ 101 factors are always "at play". While a more advanced econ class may explain more complex pricing concepts, it really isn't necessarily here since this basically a classic econ 101 example.

What is even more interesting is that every time someone graduates with a history PhD they are in a position where they either go in to the field where their low paid professors already work or go to a different job. The ones that don't want food stamps take the second choice.

Those people who decide to sacrifice for the first 3 or 4 years out of the program and take jobs to get experience in a new field which can yield higher pay later will make more than those that stay in low demand history PhD positions in academia.

Why would colleges want to hire tenure-track professors if adjuncts can teach the same number of students for less money?

The full-time vs. adjunct debate has nothing to do with whether college is over- or under-supplied. It's a problem with how colleges supply whatever it is that they supply.

"Why would colleges want to hire tenure-track professors if adjuncts can teach the same number of students for less money?" That is precisely the point. There is an oversupply of people willing to do the job and thus people are willing to do it for less money (teaching adjunct). If there were a shortage, then the university would be forced to pay more and give more benefits (hire tenure track).

There seems to be a lot of confusion in this thread about what one another is saying. sparsevector said that colleges are not oversupplied, because there's a lot of demand for them. wtvanhest replied with a comment that sounds as if colleges are oversupplied, when in fact his evidence suggests that teachers are oversupplied. That's off-topic. So I was trying to point that out, and now you're repeating wtvanhest's argument that teachers are oversupplied. That's not a bad argument in itself, and I'm not downvoting you (HN doesn't allow me to downvote replies to my own comment) but it's still off-topic in the context of sparsevector's argument above.

I downvoted his comment while trying to upvote it. (android phone is hard to use hn on) which is probably why it went grey.

I am talking about professors since that is what the article is about and completely not worrying about colleges since that is off topic.

The entire point of the article is that a person who decides to get a PhD in history should be paid because they went to school for 4 years. To me, that concept is ridiculous and people don't get to be paid a lot for what they want to do in the absence of basic economic theory.

Too many professors, not enough demand = low pay. It sucks that person made that choice, but there are plenty of secretarial jobs which pay above poverty level which someone with a PhD in history could get.

Well as a matter of fact, the colleges really can't get enough people to teach. This is why there is such movement towards online super-sized lectures: they want to teach an order of magnitude more people (charging them for the service).

The problem is that university administrations have tried to transform their institutions into profit-making businesses, and have insisted on cutting corners. They are hell-bent on the notion of teaching an order of magnitude more students without hiring any more tenure-track professors.

Medieval History, English, & Film Studies. I shouldn't throw stones, because my chosen discipline of Political Theory is not exactly a bustling field. But: what did they think they were getting into? Education for the sake of education is fine, but it is incredibly difficult to take care of a family when you completely ignore economics.

Study what you love, sure, but don't expect that it will lead you to financial success.

They do exactly what people outside of academia do: look at those who came before. They see their advisors doing fine. Academia is weirdly deceptive in that way.

This is a silly excuse for anyone who started grad school after google was invented.

It's also a silly excuse for anyone in their 2nd year who ever spoke to a 5-6th year.

Since you ask: Yes, actually, it does.

By what moral standard?

By one different than your own? Not being snarky, and I'll assume your original question was asked in good faith. However, logical arguments, no matter how well crafted, tend not change people's minds about moral issues.

If you don't care, then you don't care. And there's probably nothing that can be said in this thread that will change your position on the matter.