Geographical Perspectives - A Geographer's Thoughts on Business, Real Estate, and Education.

How to Contact a Professor and Potential Research Advisor

If you’re thinking about going to graduate school in geography and you’re a regular reader you know I promote the idea of finding the right professor to advise you rather than only looking for a good graduate program. I also suggest contacting potential research advisors as part of your admission campaign.

This passage below (an answer written by Barry Rountree on Quora) is the best advice I’ve seen for making initial contact with a Professor you’d like to work with in graduate school.

Dear Dr. Q,

I have read your papers X, Y and Z and have a few questions about how the work might be extended. Should I send these questions to one of your Ph.D. students or may I send them to you directly?

Many thanks,

Your name here.

In two sentences, you have demonstrated that:
1. You know what the professor is working on and you have a significant interest in it.
2. You have the capability to read peer-reviewed papers
3. You have the capability to think beyond what’s in the paper to what future papers might look like.
4. You understand that the professor is a busy person, and that a graduate student might be more responsive. If you impress the graduate student, the professor will hear about it.
5. You have the tact to develop a bit of a relationship first before asking about coming onboard as a Ph.D. student.

You might object that you don’t know what kind of research you want to do. If that’s the case, why would an advisor take you on?

You might object that you don’t really care what work you do, you just need admitted into a Ph.D. program. Again, why would an advisor take you on, especially if the choice was between you and someone who had a passion for their research area?

Finally, you might object that having to read and think hard about three papers just to find out that the professor doesn’t have any funding for students is not a good use of your time. As reading papers and thinking hard about them is something you’ll be spending the rest of your career doing, raising this objection might indicate that a Ph.D. is not a good fit.

To sum up all of the above: promotions are an external validation that you’re already doing the work required by your new job description. Getting accepted into a Ph.D. program is just another promotion. You don’t need to be great at research (there are further milestones to demonstrate that), but you should be able to show that you have the capability of doing research. To demonstrate that to a particular professor, read their work and comment on it intelligently.

Very few prospective students do this (perhaps because very few prospective students are able to do this). But the ones who do get noticed.

Hooray for the new AAG President

In recent battles with some of geography’s social theory gang (see Beware, Strikes Back, More Sorcery) I was reminded of the inane initiative led by Eric Sheppard to change the name of the Association of American Geographers to the American Association of Geographers. While flexing their verbosity muscles to argue against my advice to avoid social theorists, it was pointed out by one of the disgruntled social theorists that my comment on the name change suggestion was in poor taste (although one among the gang said I was “exactly right” to point out the ridiculousness of the effort). Another suggested the number of “upvotes” I received was “irrelevant” even though it did position me at the top when “Sort by Best” is the chosen option for reading the comments. I think many (at least a dozen) AAG members were happy to see refreshingly candid and direct language, long overdue in geography and throughout academia.

After re-reading the column, and shaking my head in frustration once again, I decided to peruse more recent President’s columns hoping to see something less aggravating.

I was rewarded!

The first three columns written by the AAG’s current President, Sarah Witham Bednarz, are the best I’ve read in a long time.

I was delighted to see she recognizes the disruptive environment facing Higher Education and the need to innovate rather than circle wagons to maintain status quo.

As I organized the agenda for the workshop eight actions emerged as key to healthy geography departments: teach, promote, build, innovate, nurture, manage, reflect, and envision. Departments must have a clear (and shared) vision of what and who they are and be prepared to work to build toward that vision. This may require innovation, a euphemism for change, something that is never easy. Departments need leaders who manage effectively and who are willing to nurture their colleagues, enabling them to succeed across different stages of their careers. Healthy geography departments care about teaching, learning, and the lives of the students they touch. Finally, healthy departments take the time to reflect, to assess, plan, and refocus as needed, together. It’s hard work but important to every department in every institution and thus, to the discipline.

I hope her leadership does indeed facilitate a discussion about “what and who geographers are” before (what I see as inevitable) creative destruction pounds the shores of the academy. If geography is not better positioned when the tsunami comes in I fear the discipline is in danger of being swept further from its rightful place in the academy, wedged prominently between the humanities and pure science. For this reason it is my contention that Social Theorists should play a far less “critical” (pun intended) role in the discipline while geography departments and their curricula should conform to some standard whereby all students receiving a bachelors, masters or doctoral degree know something about each of the 3 pillars of geography: human, physical and technical. As it stands, too many graduates with a degree in geography are familiar with only one or two of these pillars. This has a negative impact on our ability to promote the applicable workplace talents of recent geography graduates. And, as a result, increasingly career-minded students are less likely to choose geography. Ask anyone in the private sector: uncertainty is the best way to chase off a potential paying customer.

Correcting this deficiency should be a top priority before enrollment numbers force the hands of Deans who won’t have many options aside from initiating far less pleasant forms of change.

In addition, the entire academy needs to begin recognizing the value of outstanding classroom instruction as well as the value of alternative, more accessible forms of scholarship having an important impact on society. A good example of the latter is the work being done by Anthony Leiserowitz at the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication. Along with traditional peer-review research, Tony’s work includes videos, downloadable reports sans paywall, outreach on social media, and televised appearances with Bill Moyers and Bill Maher. Geography departments around the world ought to be clamoring for Dr. Leiserowitz to bring his work under the disciplinary umbrella. Way to go, Tony! And Go Ducks!

To me, this multi-channel approach to research dissemination is the future of scholarship. In contrast, publications in obscure academic journals with readership numbers equivalent to the editorial board population should be largely deprecated. The sooner the better.

What’s absolutely clear, at least to me, is the reality that Universities are not adequately preparing students for short-term or long-term career success despite asking, in parallel, for more tuition dollars. Part of the problem is the rapidly changing conditions of the job market and disappearing State funding but I think much of the problem is due to the monopoly held by the academic publishing oligarchy. This cabal may as well be headed by Vladimir Putin or El Chapo Guzman as its grip on the academy is equally thorough and far reaching. Somehow the incentive for teaching professors to remain active, productive and relevant in their chosen field has morphed, in part, into a game of Balderdash where those who make up the fanciest words are rewarded with tenure and promotion while only lip service is paid to those with outstanding teaching records, accessible scholarship on salient contemporary issues and the ability to advise students as they embark upon a variety of career paths.

In short, I think the new AAG President is on the right track. Keep it up, President Bednarz!

And let me know if you need any help battling against the Social Theorists who, I believe, are more likely than anyone within the AAG to filibuster proposed innovation attempting to enhance the clarity of disciplinary focus.

Uncle Owen: “Do you speak Bocce?”

Social Theorist: “Of course I do. It’s like a second language to me. I’m also fluent in postmodernism and poststructuralism.”

Uncle Owen: “What I really need is a Professor who will help me succeed in my career, even if I don’t become an academic scholar.”

Social Theorist: “I’m afraid I’m not terribly familiar with careers outside the academy. But if you learn to speak my gibberish I will sign off on your Master’s degree and you’ll be able to find a decent job even though you’ll need to retrain yourself to speak with normal humans.”

You may have noticed I’m battling with the Social Theorists who’ve over-populated the discipline of geography for far too long, preventing true geographers from being seen as useful in the workplace. Here are a few more of their efforts to argue for their own relevance, along with my replies.

“We need people to work through new ways of thinking and practicing and making sense of a changing, complex world.” and “First, whatever the workplace all students enhance their employment prospects and the quality of their work by being able to think critically and philosophically and to be able to apply that to their endeavours. The whole point of the University is that it educates, it challenges, it stimulates, it facilitates critical reasoning and reflection, it enables independent *thinking*; it is not simply training for rote employment.”

I agree. There should be a Department of Philosophy and a Department of Sociology in every University. There should also be a Department of Geography in every University. And the geography department should be composed of geographers, not philosophers and/or sociologists.

“…some professors might be more theoretically, rather than applied, orientated, but their role is an important complement to more practical skills and knowledge because it engages and produces independent, critical thinking.”

Again, I agree. Every grad student should take at least one, preferably two semesters of Theory in Geography. Most of it is boring as hell, but necessary. That said, social theory is not a legitimate sub-discipline of geography, it’s a different discipline altogether. You can be a geographer who also contributes to philosophy or sociology but you are not a geographer if all you do is philosophy or sociology.

“Just because you do not understand it does not make it a fairy tale – as your post details itself, you barely tried to learn the language whilst a student, but nonetheless dismiss it because you don’t understand it “

I understand social theory. I understand it well enough to know 80% of it is a pile of shit. I probably understand its role and relevance to society better than most who claim to specialize in it. I say this because I learned theory in geography from a true master, Alec Murphy. He brought it to life and inspired me to take it seriously (and I did indeed do the reading in his class). But then I was forced to endure, in other far less inspiring human geography seminar rooms, how it can be utilized to create alternate fantasy worlds and to serve no purpose aside from verbal/written ammunition in unproductive semantic disputes.

The claim that others don’t understand social theory is always the line of defense. And, this attitude of superiority is part of the problem. I think it comes from a feeling of insecurity because, deep down, you realize you’re enjoying the luxury of being a paid scholar without, in turn, making a sufficiently meaningful contribution to society’s priorities. So you hide behind absurd jargon and the ridiculous notion that you’re smarter than everyone else. If you are a practicing geographer and, in parallel, also contributing to social theory research – more power to you. But, let’s stop producing so many social theorists in geography departments. In doing so, we’re diluting the discipline and paying too little attention to far more pressing problems we are well-equipped to address.

“The accusation about no-one understanding, caring about or reading social theory simply is a statement without empirical evidence.”

There’s easily obtainable empirical evidence. Why not survey every student of geography and ask them what they want from their geography degree? Put various outcomes on the list along with “understanding social theory” to see what students value. Or, ask parents/taxpayers (the people paying your salary) where they want their money and your time invested. Or ask employers who hire geographers for their input.

I’ll go out on a limb and predict all three groups will plead with geography departments to spend less time on social theory and more time on spatial/geographical/environmental problem solving.

I’m not saying do away with social theory. I’m saying geographers need to do a better job of clarifying what we do and I’m saying the non-academic population is begging the entire academy, not just geography, to become more relevant.

It’s time to listen.

The Social Theorist Strikes Back

Last week I wrote a post warning my GIS-inclined readership to Beware of Social Theorists in Geography. Apparently this struck a nerve with some who fit the description and don’t want me to express such an opinion. Here’s the text of the primary voice in opposition to the contents of my post:

I’ll encourage you to (1) read or re-read Nadine Schuurman (2000), a GIScientist, on the unnecessary, if well-trod, distraction created by precisely the line of thinking your advice advances — to divide the discipline (http://phg.sagepub.com/content/24/4/569.short), and (2) to help your audience by reflecting on the philosophical training/reading that composed your own **Ph**D, however spatial scientific it might be, which likely would be a much more productive point of commonality in the discipline.

Schuurman (2000, 587) writes in her conclusion after a brilliant re-telling of the story of 1990s hair-splitting and nasty name calling (of which your post seems somewhat nostalgic), “The greatest danger is that critique of GIS will develop its own vocabulary and references. … Social theory can, by definition, only tangentially engage a technology which is written in the language of computational algebra and constructed through the laws of physics. The present danger is that sociotheoretical critics of GIS will create a self-reinforcing world framed in a discourse unrecognizable by practitioners and scholars of GIS.” Indeed, a real pickle — and one that has been discussed for decades now. HOWEVER, she continues to pinpoint the problem that your post illustrates well: “GIS scholars are apt to respond by discounting critical attention to implications of their work in favor of attention to theory and practice situated within the technology.” The point was to recognize that we benefit when we are actually speaking with one another, not to gloss over the potential irreducibles in our various epistemologies, but to trace and understand their various departures, to build stronger interpretations and claims.

Since these dark times, there have been incredibly productive engagements between spatial scientists and critical/social theorists within the discipline. Dismissing these engagements (see here: http://criticalgis.blogspot.com/p/critical-gis-bibliography.html) is to fan the flames of a science war that you seem ill-prepared to address. Of course, I could be misreading your advice.

Here, dear Readers, is my response.

Allow me to apologize for the strange collection of obscure syllables above. Despite this man’s advanced education it’s clear he’s lost the ability to communicate in plain English. I’ll do my best to help you wade through the jargon and parse his syntax. It’s a path fraught with peril. So, follow along as I boldly go where very few plain spoken humans have gone before.

But first let me expose the skeletons in my academic closet. I do have a Ph.D. in geography but I lack any noteworthy scholarly production. After finishing grad school I went into the private sector so my business resume better illustrates my professional accomplishments than my curriculum vitae. I also must admit I was a below average graduate student. I didn’t read everything assigned, relying primarily on abstracts alone to complete my understanding of various topics in the discipline. I was far more interested in computational approaches to applied geography problems. I also had a job outside of grad school so I could support my family and thus I had to be efficient with my time. I never really figured out how to include the term postmodernism in a sentence and I was often admonished for failing to properly cite key figures whose work I found too boring to endure. My dissertation research wasn’t even published except for the copy collecting dust in Knight Library. I teach now. But only as a lowly Statistics Lecturer in the Business School at Colorado State University in Pueblo (where?). In short, I’m an academic failure (sorry, Bart).

Despite my failings, I have a unique perspective on the discipline of geography. I understand how the academic game is played and I successfully mastered the art of identifying skills used by top research geographers that are actually applicable in the “real world” (for the social theorists, this is a different sort of universe where problems must be solved rather than discussed endlessly). I also served on an admission committee while I was a Master’s student so I know more than average about what it takes to gain admission to a good graduate school and a good geography department. In addition, I’ve hired several geographers and coached many more on this blog and elsewhere.

As it turns out, and this may come as a shock, most students of geography don’t become tenure track professors. In fact, almost none of them do. Instead, the overwhelming majority of geography students enter this unfamiliar real world where jobs are not handed out to those whose primary talent involves speaking in tongues and publishing fairy tale ideas in obscure academic journals.

Sadly the discipline of geography has few representatives from the real world who are in position to help aspiring geography majors, geography graduate students or job hunters with a degree in geography. There were certainly very few helpful resources for me when I decided to pursue a geography education in the early 1990s. One of my goals with this blog is to provide a third party perspective to help aspiring geographers reach their career goals. I don’t know if I’m succeeding, obviously I have detractors, but I’m certainly trying my best.

Now, let’s move on to translation of the hieroglyphics written above.

First, the social theorist says I should read a 15-year old paper explaining why people like him shouldn’t criticize research involving GIS technology and vice-versa. He states this as if GIScience has remained stagnant since 2000 and as if the world knows or cares about the ongoing debate and navel gazing within geography. Also note the holier-than-thou tone where he speaks down to me as if I’m a student in a seminar where he presides over his unworthy minions.

Second, he says I’m trying to divide the discipline of geography. Here’s a news flash, pal – the discipline is already divided. There are two camps. One camp does research on salient topics that are important to contemporary society. The other camp writes a pile of drivel no one understands, no one cares about and no one will ever read. One camp has driven the growth of geography by becoming relevant while the other camp has continued to obscure the discipline and prevent it from being looked upon as useful to the private sector (the place where the vast majority of geographers make a living now and will make a living in the future). So, while this Kumbaya peace accord might help faculty coexist at AAG conferences, it does nothing for students of geography or the standing of the discipline as it relates to the value of a geography degree.

Third, he says the discipline benefits when we speak to each other. Well, sure, I’m all in favor of cross-disciplinary communication, research and problem solving. But, I don’t care about pandering to members of the discipline whose work doesn’t resemble anything even remotely geographical in nature. I think the discipline benefits when we have clarity about what it means to study and practice geography. This would suggest a more consistent curriculum and a more coherent and cohesive explanation of what geographers do. At the moment, although it has changed for the better in the past 20 years, the average professional who might be in position to hire a geographer thinks we study States and Capitals.

Fourth, he says I’m “fanning the flames of a science war”. Whatever. If we’ve been at war no one has died and no one has really noticed. I don’t like to tip-toe around issues. I prefer candor. I find candor far more effective than the passive-aggressive style of someone who implies I’m not worthy because I forgot, heaven forbid, the critical contribution of someone who wrote a friendly paper helping her stay in good stead with her unproductive colleagues who might otherwise have denied her tenure and ruined her career. In my experience debate is a highly effective process that often produces important insights even if it also results in bruised egos.

Finally, he says I am “ill-prepared” for this debate. This is his way of declaring I’m not qualified to contribute to the discussion of what geography should be.

Thankfully, I live in the real world. Here, I’m allowed to say what I believe about geography and its role in society and my voice isn’t required to survive a gauntlet of sanitizing journal reviewers. My opinion matters to my small readership because I tell them the sort of truth they rarely hear from professors. My opinion matters because I’ve figured out how to make geography training valuable in an increasingly competitive and tech-driven global marketplace. And, my opinion matters because I represent the overwhelming majority of geography students and geography graduates who’ve never published in the Annals and never read it because most issues provide limited yield in the way of useful knowledge.

So, I stand by my advice to avoid social theorists in geography. Unless you plan to become a stuffy elitist academic who dwells on the ethereal, these well-meaning but misguided wanna-be philosophers won’t help your career and they might just do long term damage to your prospects for earning a living … at least on this planet.

Dear Justin,

I spoke with the Human Geography department because that was where I assumed my interests led. But then, while they didn’t explicitly state it, they seemed to imply that a lot of Human Geography is theory based, and I got the impression that the use of mapping/statistics and analyzing using the technologies of Geography wasn’t a big focus.

I honestly don’t know enough about Geography to articulate my question well — but I’m curious. Is all Geography at a Master’s level going to use some forms of visual analysis, in various ways, maybe GIS, maybe remote sensing, maybe GPS, etc? Or can there be programs that are based on intellectual theory without the technology side of things? If so, is that common? Should I specifically be asking about that in order to find a department that melds both? Is that just something that you don’t find in Human Geography?

I know I like the human studies side of things. Why are societal aspects of the world affected by space? Things like nationalism within the study of borders, or even linguistic differences across areas of space, these are all fascinating. I just assumed they naturally would be something you could study by using technology to better visualize, represent, express, predict, and understand. So that’s my current confusion, I really want to learn about that and study it from a statistical and spatial viewpoint. Can you not fold this sort of social science aspect into the technical side of things? Is it really just with things like mapping rainforests to find better habitats for endangered animals or oil excavation that you get to focus on the physical/spatial analysis and representation of Geography?

Thanks,

M.

Hi M.,

Well, you’re starting to learn about key divisions within geography. There are a large number of human geographers who are really, in my opinion, more social theorists than they are geographers. My advice is to avoid them. Not because they don’t have value to offer you or the discipline, but because many of them tend to have a bias against the technological and quantitative driven sub-fields within the discipline. You’ll hear them use words like “positivism” or “positivist” if you’re stuck listening to them long enough.

You do need to expect to study the theory and history of geographic thought in a grad program. It’s important. And you’ll need to have some understanding of theory salient to your research theme (e.g., core-periphery or similar). But that doesn’t mean your focus can’t be empirical. The key is to find an advisor who will encourage and facilitate your research interests rather than trying to indoctrinate you into the School of David Harvey.

Depending on the department you may be better off talking to the GIS/Cartography/Spatial faculty rather than the Human Geography folks. There are certainly plenty of human geographers who understand and value visual/analytical approaches. Finding one of them to serve as a mentor would be great; but a “spatial” professor willing to mentor your efforts will do the trick. You can tap a more traditional human geographer for thematic expertise as a second committee member. Some departments are more theoretical than others but the best programs typically have some representation or a balance of both factions. You should be able to figure out who’s who by reading research interest descriptions.

This is a problem for the discipline because it creates confusion regarding what it means to be a geographer or to have majored in geography. But that’s a topic for another post.

Hope this helps.

Best,
Justin

Colorado Ranks 49th in State Higher Education Funding

I was on campus at Colorado State University in Pueblo yesterday and had the privilege of listening to President Lesley DiMare and Provost Rick Kreminski describe and explain the University’s budget environment. As part of the discussion Dr. Kreminski shared data on higher education funding by State.

I was absolutely shocked to learn that Colorado is one of the very stingiest states in the US when it comes to funding for public colleges and universities. Dr. Kreminski said Colorado ranked behind 47 States with only New Hampshire and Massachusetts contributing less per student. I Googled “higher education funding by state” and found this page on the collegeboard.org website:

State Funding for Higher Education per Student and per $1,000 in Personal Income, by State, 2013-14

This page contains similar data (maybe it’s a year older) but Colorado fares even worse here, ranking 49th out of 50 states in higher ed funding. And it’s not that all states contribute about the same with Colorado just a bit below the others. Colorado spends a fraction of what most States spend per student. It’s ridiculous and shameful.

Let’s look at our neighborhood in the Mountain West/Southwest/Plains region. Colorado borders six states: Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah and Wyoming. Here are data for these six states and Colorado.

State	Funding Per Public FTE Student	Funding Per $1,000 in Personal Income
Wyoming	$14,045	$11.92
New Mexico	$8,751	$11.51
Nebraska	$8,821	$8.07
Utah	$6,535	$7.63
Oklahoma	$7,164	$6.52
Kansas	$5,690	$6.06
Colorado	$3,494	$2.78

Can you believe that? Dead last. And not even close.

For every dollar the State of Wyoming gives to higher ed per student, in Colorado we contribute a pathetic $0.25.

Why is this? What political force has lobbied for budget policy whereby we contribute less than half per student than the citizens of Alabama or Mississippi? Do we really consider higher education to be so unimportant in Colorado?

I don’t think so. I don’t think Colorado residents are aware of this disparity. And if voters became aware, I think they’d be outraged. I am.

Hi,
I would like to inquire about Master program in Geography. have been accepted into a graduate program in Geography at South Dakota State University and Miami University at Ohio. My question is which is the best South Dakota State OR Miami University at Ohio in Master of geography especially in GIS ? -A.

Dear A.,

Neither one is necessarily better than the other, but the two programs are completely different.

South Dakota State is affiliated with the USGS and its EROS Data Center which means a strong focus on satellite imagery data processing, analysis and visualization. I see the Department Chair is a fellow Oregon geography PhD specializing in Political Geography (I remember reading his dissertation as part of seminar on “Ethnoterritorial Conflict” taught by Ron Wixman) so you don’t need to be a remote sensing person. But, interest in remote sensing is the best reason to pursue a grad degree at South Dakota State.

Miami University of Ohio is a more traditional geography department with an emphasis on urban and regional planning. It’s also a smaller university with no PhD programs and that means fewer research-focused faculty and more teaching-oriented faculty. That can be really good or bad depending on your objectives.

The decision for you should be based on your interests and career aspirations. If you want to be a remote sensing guru or focus more on physical environment data go to South Dakota. If you’re interested in Urban Planning and want to focus more on human/cultural issues go to Miami. If you just want general GIS training, choose the program with a professor you really want to learn from. Or, flip a coin.

Good luck with the decision!

Hi Justin,

I am probably not your typical follower. I am seriously thinking about pursuing a career in GIS, but do not have the degree or experience to start a career so easily. I graduated with a political science degree in 2014 and am currently working as a paralegal at a law firm specializing in real estate. I am still not sold on the idea of law school and have been actively exploring other options, some of which I realize are completely different than law or politics, like GIS.

But I love maps — always have — and I took numerous history and political science classes where studying and interpreting maps were integral parts of the class. I honestly never knew much about the GIS field until recently and from what I have read from a variety of sources, it is an exciting and growing field.

For time and financial reasons, however, I have only given an online GIS certificate from Penn State’s World Campus Program any consideration at the moment in order to start learning the basics and get a future GIS career started. However, I am skeptical of pursuing the certificate. I have heard some say it helps, but very little, and I also need to gain the programming experience you spoke about in a recent post. A master’s program is not something I am considering at the moment, especially since I lack the basic education and skills.

Pursuing GIS would be a major career move, one I think could be very rewarding, but want to know if it’s too late to pursue such an option and what is/are the best way(s) of going about gaining the education, skills and experience for a GIS career for someone in my position. Looking forward to hearing from you.

Thanks,
J.

Dear J.,

No, it’s not too late. In fact, I was in a very similar situation in the early 1990s.

I had a degree in Philosophy and Mathematics. I had a job at a public school as a teaching assistant and planned to get a Master’s in Education so I could become a math teacher. But I didn’t like my job and the prospect of the “How to be a Teacher” curriculum followed by a job as a classroom police officer sounded more like a prison sentence than the beginning of an exciting career. In researching alternatives I stumbled upon geography. I recognized an opportunity to use my quantitative skills in a meaningful way. And, like you, I loved maps.

So I began the long, slow climb. I found a part-time job and took geography classes at a community college. I read everything I could get my hands on and began preparing grad school applications. I emailed and cold-called professors trying to convince them I could make the transition and prove useful in their research programs. I got a huge break when a professor with grant funding asked me to join him as a research assistant at the University of Oregon. Free tuition and a $600 per month stipend. I thought I had hit the jackpot. And I had.

But it took sacrifice. I had friends pulling down big salaries as lawyers and bankers. If we met at a restaurant they’d eat anything they wanted. I drank ice water. I couldn’t afford much beyond rent and groceries. My wife and I lived on a shoestring. Our weekend entertainment was a hike up Spencer Butte and a rousing game of Nerf ping pong. We ate a lot of spaghetti.

I guess I’m trying to say it won’t be easy. And there aren’t really any good shortcuts. If you want a career in geography and/or GIS you have to start at the beginning. That doesn’t mean you have to follow the same path I did. Rather than grad school maybe the beginning is a low-paying job with a company doing GIS type work and a lot of self-study on the side. Maybe it’s the certificate program at Penn State (although I think you’re wise to proceed cautiously as certificates are sort of a dime a dozen). Maybe it means keeping your gig as a paralegal and working your tail off every evening to learn programming and GIS on your own time. Maybe you can parlay your political science degree and some basic on-your-own GIS training to volunteer to do spatial data analysis for a political campaign. The 2008 and 2012 Obama campaigns utilized GIS extensively and I suspect there is someone somewhere already looking at voter data in preparation for primaries in Iowa and New Hampshire.

In any case, you will have to blaze your own trail. But, it’s certainly not too late to begin.

You might want to read this blog post I wrote a couple years ago about how to launch a GIS career. It’s intended for people with an undergraduate degree in geography/GIS who are struggling to find their first job. But, it may have some applicability to your situation as well.

Wishing you the very best,

Justin

Justin,

I see programming is an integral part of GIS but it is not currently in my programs’ curriculum, and I haven’t been able to add it in with my other classes as of yet. Is it an absolute must as an undergraduate? And how far into it should I delve into (intro?, intermediate?)

Harel

Dear Harel,

Programming is an important 21st Century skill. If you aspire to a career in GIS you should at least be familiar with basic programming concepts and ideally you would know how to build simple programs.

It’s difficult to advise you how to acquire these skills. Computer Science departments in most Universities tend to do a sub-par job of teaching practical programming skills. Most computer science grads that I know say they didn’t learn anything relevant until their first real job. I think that may be an exaggeration but the reality is that programming is an applied skill and most computer science professors are more inclined to teach theory. Furthermore, and I’m sure there are many exceptions, in my experience academia is typically at least one technology generation behind the private sector. If you want to be a software developer, GIS or otherwise, you must be ahead of the curve in terms of knowing the latest and greatest frameworks and technology stacks.

As such, my suggestion for learning programming is to seek out an intro class at a local community college or online. In addition, I think your best bet is to find a class teaching Python. If the class is taught in Java, for example, you’ll spend an inordinate amount of time trying to figure out the formatting complexities of the syntax. Python keeps things simple so you can focus more on the programming concepts and less on figuring out where you’re missing a semicolon.

Ideally, you’d get the best of both worlds by taking computer science classes while also reading and hacking away on your own. But, of course, it’s difficult to find time to do everything.

Clear as mud?

Unfortunately, there’s no simple solution. You really do need to learn programming if you want a stellar GIS career but CS courses in your college or University may require a lot of effort with insufficient payoff in terms of practical knowledge. So you have to be independently tenacious to come away with the right skill set.

That’s not a bad thing. Tenacity is a good skill and mindset to acquire. In fact, you’ll need tenacity in your career more than you’ll need any particular technology skill.

Best wishes,

Justin

Hi Justin,

First of all, I would like to thank you for sharing such good articles that help us a lot in our decision making process.

I am from Brazil and when I was an undergrad I studied for a year in the US where I took a course on the foundations of GIS and after that I spent a semester learning more about the applications of GIS in natural resources.

I went on to earn an M.S. on Forest Engineering in Brazil with focus on hydrology, water quality, remote sensing and GIS. Now I am looking for a PhD program in the US that would allow me to better understand how GIS works, how to program and develop an open source GIS-based water resources management system that I could implement in my country later on.

Do you know any program that would contain the research line that I have mentioned?

Thank you so much in advance,

Maciel

Dear Maciel,

Applying to PhD programs is an exercise in finding a compatible research mentor. Rather than looking for the best program/department or University you should be searching for a professor who shares your research interests and, ideally, has the ability to support your research with grant funding. At the very least you need to receive a teaching assistant appointment that covers tuition and pays a modest stipend. If you’re paying tuition in pursuit of a PhD you’re doing it wrong.

Here are seven steps to follow:

Decide on a research focus area and, preferably, a specific research question/topic you intend to pursue. If you don’t know for sure you’re probably not ready for a PhD campaign.
Read the salient literature in your chosen sub-field. You can begin by simply doing a keyword search in Google Scholar. Try searching for “water resources management” and “GIS” or similar. Find the most interesting articles and read them. Then look for more recent articles to learn about current research threads. By the way, if you find yourself hating this exercise in exploring the research literature you may want to rethink your decision to go after a PhD.
Once you’ve waded far enough into the literature you should be able to identify some of the key researchers in your field (if not, keep reading). Find out where these researchers work. Many will not be in Departments of Geography. They may be Civil Engineers or Earth Scientists. The interdisciplinary nature of most research in geography means there will be contributors from a variety of disciplines. If you’re set on a geography PhD then list the key researchers who are faculty in Departments of Geography. Capture their contact info.
Prepare a brief statement of research interests and a cv. Keep it short and simple. Think business card rather than autobiography. Send an email to the professors you have identified in step #3. The email should also be very brief. These are busy people. If you write them a novel they won’t read it. Your goal in the email is to capture their attention and ask about opportunities to work with them. If they aren’t looking for students they may know who is looking. If you don’t hear back from them right away don’t be put off. Like I said, these are busy people. You may have to be a squeaky wheel to get their attention. Be polite but persistent.
Hopefully you will be able to have a productive dialogue to help point you in the right direction. If you’re lucky you’ll make a connection with a good researcher and begin to form an idea where you’d like to study. Apply to these programs. Don’t put all your eggs in one basket. Apply to multiple programs.
If at all possible try to visit the programs that interest you most. Call the Department in advance and see if you can schedule a meeting. Visit the professor(s) you’ve contacted. Remind them who you are and what you’re interested in doing. Express your enthusiasm. Don’t waste their time. This is a golden opportunity to learn more about where to apply, who is working on the latest and greatest, who would be good to work for and who wouldn’t. Listen carefully. If you can’t afford to visit in person then try a few phone calls. You might catch them at their desk in a good mood.
If you’ve done the legwork, aced the GRE and submitted strong applications articulating your fit with the department then you should be in good position to receive an offer. If you have more than one offer, congratulations! Choose the best fit. Select the best offer with the program where you think you can be successful. This will take several years and you don’t want to be miserable. Don’t be distracted by my rankings or by ideas of prestige or notoriety. Choose the place where you think you’ll be happy.

That’s it! Hope this helps some of the prospective PhDs out there … especially Maciel.

How to Contact a Professor and Potential Research Advisor

Hooray for the new AAG President

Colorado Ranks 49th in State Higher Education Funding

Graduate Studies at South Dakota or Miami of Ohio?

Is it Too Late to Pursue a Career in Geography and GIS?

Is Programming an Absolute Must for GIS Undergrads?

Seven Steps to Finding the Right Geography PhD Program