To the editor:
In “The Doctoral Dilemma” (Feb. 3, 2025), Inside Larger Ed reporter Johanna Alonso describes profession teaching as a “cottage {industry}” of “gurus” that emerged to fill important gaps in graduate coaching. As a profession coach cited within the article, I used to be dissatisfied to see such an inaccurate and biased portrayal of my work.
Teaching is knowledgeable {industry} with confirmed strategies, instruments, and credentialing supplied by the Worldwide Teaching Federation (ICF). Teaching is distinct from “consulting,” and it’s an intentional, strategic step for anybody in search of to vary careers. That is why Johns Hopkins College employs coaches as a part of its Doctoral Life Design Studio. But, the article portrays these university-led teaching initiatives as professional, structured and holistic, whereas describing teaching exterior of the college as an opportunistic “cottage {industry}.” Why body the identical service in two very alternative ways?
From our wide-ranging, 20-minute interview, Alonso solely highlighted my hourly fee—$250/hour for a single one-to-one assembly—with none context. There isn’t a point out of the advantages of profession teaching, or whether or not universities like Johns Hopkins pay their coaches an identical fee. The financial value, introduced in isolation, suggests exploitation. The fact? As a neurodivergent particular person, I discover one-to-one conferences draining, so I’ve priced them to restrict bookings. As an alternative, I direct Ph.D.s towards my free library of on-line content material, my lower-cost group applications and my discounted teaching packages, all of which have helped Ph.D.s safe {industry} roles that double or triple their educational salaries. The article doesn’t embrace these particulars.
Essentially the most telling signal of the article’s bias is using the phrase “guru.” Why use a loaded time period like “guru” as a substitute of “knowledgeable” to explain profession coaches? As I ceaselessly remind my purchasers, language shapes notion. Ph.D.s usually tend to be seen as industry-ready professionals in the event that they use phrases like “multi-year analysis venture” as a substitute of “dissertation” or “stakeholders” as a substitute of “educational advisers.” The identical logic applies right here—calling profession coaches “gurus” trivializes our work, implying we’re self-appointed influencers reasonably than certified professionals. I’ll always remember the professor who as soon as tweeted, “If life exterior of academia is so nice, why do alt-ac gurus spend a lot time speaking about it? Don’t they’ve higher issues to do?”
My response? “I wouldn’t have to do that if professors supplied ANY skilled growth for non-academic careers.”
As a result of opposite to what the article claims, I didn’t begin my teaching enterprise as a result of I wished there have been extra assets accessible to me. I began it as a result of, after I give up my postdoctoral fellowship for an {industry} profession, I spent untold hours offering uncompensated profession help to Ph.D.s. For almost two years, I responded to hundreds of messages, created on-line assets, reviewed résumés and met one-to-one with a whole lot of Ph.D. college students, postdocs and even tenured professors—all totally free, in my leisure time. Finally, I burned out from the incessant demand. I noticed that, if I used to be going to proceed pouring my time into serving to Ph.D.s, I wanted to be compensated. That’s once I began my enterprise.
Academia situations us to see for-profit companies as unethical, whereas “nonprofit” universities push college students right into a lifetime of high-interest debt. It convinces us that charging for experience is predatory, whereas asking Ph.D.s to work for poverty wages is in some way noble. It forces us to internalize the concept that, for those who really care about one thing, it is best to sacrifice your well-being and life for it. However our time is effective. Our abilities are useful. We need to be pretty compensated for our labor, inside and outdoors of academia.
Profession teaching isn’t the issue. The actual downside is that academia nonetheless refuses to take a important look within the mirror.
