As Stephen Milder crisply points out in a review of yet another new book about the (unfortunate) state of doctoral education and the job market, "[t]he obvious conclusion to draw is that the PhD survives, on the one hand, for the benefit of universities that depend on graduate students’ cheap labor to teach undergraduates, and, on the other, for the benefit of professors who want to continue teaching graduate seminars." None of the arguments in favor of maintaining doctoral programs at their current size have convinced me, at least, that they would provide useful training that could not be better acquired elsewhere. One does a doctorate in Victorian literature in order to develop specialized knowledge in the field and master the skills necessary in order to contribute to the scholarly conversation. And one may go on to do something else, either by choice or by necessity. But someone with a doctorate in Victorian literature who winds up in grants writing, public relations work, publishing, online punditry, business, or goodness knows what else did not need that doctorate in order to do it. A doctorate is a professional degree! It is training for a specific profession! Someone who wants to go into publishing would probably be better served with an MA and professional training via workshops; someone who wants to found their own company would probably be better served with some combination of on-the-job training and an MBA; someone who wants to go into any number of nonprofit careers would probably be better off with relevant internships; etc. On what planet does it make any sense to spend five, six, seven years--or more--working on one degree when another degree or professional training program would be much more useful? Certainly, someone who happens to have an interest in Victorian literature and wants to pursue a doctorate in the subject for its own sake should feel free to do so, but that doesn't mean celebrating doctorates in Victorian literature for all and sundry, whether or not said doctorates are the best tool for the job, is a good idea. Again, most academic departments do not need people with doctorates in Victorian studies; they need people who can teach freshman composition and lower-division introductory courses, which is where adjunct instructors tend to be concentrated. This point would hold true even if all adjunct/non-TT positions were magically converted into TT positions with a wave of the assistant to the associate vice provost's wand. New universities are not springing from the earth, mushroom-like, to provide employment for all the Victorianists currently seeking jobs.