So, question from the peanut gallery:

how is this different than saying if folks don't get a job it's just because they "weren't qualified"?

And isn't that just a tautology?

Isn't the point that we might think that getting a terminal degree would qualify a person for some kind of job in their field?

I mean, "I'm not too poor to eat, I just can't find anyone to sell me food at a price I can afford" is -a- take, but maybe not a helpful one.

It's not a qualification, it's a competition. It's not like there is a minimum bar to meet and everyone who meets it gets to go in. It's like "We have 10 seats, so we take the 10 best people who apply". Your qualification is that you have to be one of the 10 best people, however good they are.

> And isn't that just a tautology?

I don't think what I said is tautological, so let me rephrase.

I think it's a mistake to leave a field early solely because there are fewer jobs than people with the relevant degree. Not all jobs are created equal, and not all degree-holders are equally competitive for all jobs. Some positions have a hiring bar far above having a qualifying degree. It also helps to realize that programs graduate C and D students all the time.

So it can both be true that there aren't enough jobs for everyone with the degree, and also that the market is not saturated with qualified candidates for particular jobs.

> Isn't the point that we might think that getting a terminal degree would qualify a person for some kind of job in their field?

As you climb the ladder, competition gets fiercer. At the terminal-degree level, having the degree is the baseline expectation. Not having it may be enough to disqualify you, but having it is not enough to make you competitive, because your peers also have terminal degrees. A terminal degree may qualify you in the credentialing sense, but it does not guarantee that you meet the hiring bar for a particular position, or that there is sufficient demand for your specialization at the wages, locations, and conditions you want.

its a different relationship entirely. you're hiring someone to mentor grad students, get grants, and teach. and while you aren't given tenure right away, that's certainly the goal, which can be a multi-decade commitment. everyone is trying to raise the bar with their program, and a couple 'meh' hires can really change that trajectory for quite a while. there are only like 20 faculty in your department, its not like development a giant tech co where there are tens of thousands and they are constantly moving in and out - each of these hires has a dramatic impact on your culture.

so yes, it absolutely makes sense to leave slots empty if you don't find candidates that you're excited about.