Placement Rates, again.

[medicine]

I’m a bit surprised that this article hasn’t come up here, but I was struck by this comment from Peter Conn (UPenn) in the Chronicle of Higher Education:

http://chronicle.com/article/We-Need-to-Acknowledge-the/64885/

“How have humanities faculty members and their administrators responded to this cluster of threats? They haven't. In 1987, the first year for which tallies of humanities doctorates were computed according to the preferred CIP (Classification of Instructional Programs) methodology, humanities departments graduated 2,991 doctoral students. In 2007, the most recent year for which CIP data are available, that number had risen to 4,366, an increase of 1,375, or 46 percent, over 20 years in a flat or declining job market.

To cite only the most recent data, the latest jobs report from the Modern Language Association indicates that the number of positions on offer in English has dropped 44 percent in just the past two years, from 1,800 to 1,000­—the lowest number in 35 years.”

I understand why he uses these numbers: they are comprehensive. And yes, there is a job market crisis. But from our perspective as applicants, the most relevant question is this: what are my chances of getting a job from this particular school?

(By the way, see this article by Ohio State’s English DGS on the problems answering that question: http://chronicle.com/article/An-Open-Letter-From-a-Director/64882/ )

The question that I seem unable to determine a good answer for is this: how does the placement rate at the top-ranked schools differ from the rate at unranked schools like (to choose at random, no offense intended) TCU or South Dakota? I know that at my barely-ranked M.A. program (in the 80s, I think), the placement rate was invisible. The only thing anyone I knew did was to adjunct in the area.

I suspect that until we start distinguishing between the schools where the professors and students are seriously engaged in their profession (publishing often in the big journals) and those where the professors are interested mostly in teaching (or sometimes, not even that!), the conversations about whether to do to grad school at all, or about the demise of good jobs for English Ph.D.’s, seems to me unproductive. I want to know what the placement rate of (to pick an arbitrary cutoff) schools ranked in the USNews top 20 is, compared with that of schools 20-40, etc. This would tell me whether there is a point in the prestige rankings at which yes, I can plan to get a decent job from this kind of school. (I am aware of the problems with the USNews rankings, discussed ad naseum elsewhere; I’m using them as a very rough guide for what the gossip is in the profession).

In a way I’m rehashing problems that have been discussed elsewhere; but I’m wondering: how did you all answer these questions? Or are they at this point unanswerable?

[greekdaph]

A brief response, because I'm not going to get placed anywhere unless I write these papers!

Anyway:

1. A caveat: I'm fortunate enough to be in a program that has historically placed at institutions I'd be happy to work at, that has a well-structured pre-professionalization program in place, and that has professors who are knowledgeable about and, through their work, help shape, the current state of the field. As a result, I don't feel the need to think about placement all the time. Instead, I feel safe trusting that if I do what counts as quality work, I'll be well-positioned for the job market. That's a confidence I didn't have about every school, so it affected my decision.

2. Overall placement rates seem less important or valuable than specific placement rates. How do the people working in a particular field do? How do the people who've had a particular advisor or committee member do? Some schools are known for having strengths in particular time periods--such as, say, IU-Bloomington for Victorian studies--and some for having strong programs in particular methodologies--like, say, UC-Davis in ecocriticism. (And let's see if I can use "particular" a couple more times in this paragraph, shall we?) Those strengths certainly aren't reflected in the US News rankings--which are, as you point out, dubious for a whole host of other reasons.

2a. In considering schools last year, I realized that some take more of an "it takes a village to raise a graduate student" model while others are more advisor-centric. When talking to mentors about some places, the question I was asked was, "How do Professor Whosywhatsit's students do on the market?" whereas the question for other schools was, "How do people in your field at the University of Whatever do on the market?" Obviously, the committee matters at every program, both because of how they influence your work and because of the cachet that having a certain chair can bring. But it can be revealing to see which camp a school falls into--and it can help you figure out the relationship of that field-specific or advisor-specific placement rate to the overall rate.

3. The placement numbers you see aren't always trustworthy. At one of the schools I considered last year, for instance, I realized upon seeing a department document (one publicly available on the website, but only if you know exactly where to look) that they counted as placed students who went on to law school or high school teaching. I'd argue that seeing what types of institutions students get placed at matters more than the overall percentage--but perhaps that's because we all want to believe that we're the one person who will rise above the odds and land that hard-to-get job. It is true, though, that there can be certain trends: for instance, my program does better placing at R1 schools in our region of the country than in other geographical areas.

4. Keep in mind the role of post-docs. I've heard anecdotally that more people are seeking out these opportunities before trying to land a professorship, but I don't know enough to confirm that. Placement for post-docs, and placement post post-docs, is another wrinkle, though.

5. It can be hard to think about placement rates in the abstract. I spent a lot of time looking at them before I went on school visits, but once I met with faculty and students, I realized that other criteria--would I be comfortable here? Do I think I would produce good work? etc.--mattered far more to me than a number tied to a market and economy that might, for better or worse, look different six years down the line.

[!anonscribe!]

I agree with just about everything greekdaph wrote. I would just add that it's pretty impossible to give an absolute cutoff that isn't dangerously artificial. But, as a rule of thumb, if it's outside the top 60 and/or you've never heard of it, then odds are probably poor for academic work of any kind. This is just a common sense rule-of-thumb, obviously. Unfortunately, there just aren't adequate or reliable numbers kept about these things. Standards about what counts as "placement" vary from U to U. At my institution, if you counted only R1 and SLAC TT jobs, then our placement rate 3-5 years out is roughly 15%, maybe. but, lots of people chose before coming to the program that they wanted to work at a CC or public master's institution, so that's not necessarily a "fair" standard either.

That said, as a rough gauge, if you look through USNews, after 38 the frequency of schools that might give you even a prayer of an R1 job plummet quickly. If you then talk about general "placement" rates, meaning any academic job, including CC's and random, non-select liberal arts colleges, then it's a crap shoot. The most important issue, imho, then becomes where you'd like to live. There tend to be closer regional relationships when it comes to less prestigious schools. So, if you go to UFlorida (great school, no disrespect at all), you'll have greater odds of finding work on the east coast, especially the southeast (you can see this by reading their recent placements). This is a function of networking more than anything, I think.

But, again, this is all shoddy and somewhat random. Go to the best, most comfortable place that gives you funding. That's always good advice.

[waldorf1975]

I think that part of the issue is whether or not schools are admitting more applicants than they can actually place and whether or not they are treating grad students as cheap labor instead of hiring more assistant profs.

Also, even though there's always a story behind the numbers, it is a program's responsibility to let students know where students went after earning their degrees. That can be divided fairly easily into tenure-track, post-doc, law school, what have you. Any other backstory can be in footnotes.

Much of the burden falls on the grad student choosing among programs. You need to ask a lot of questions of potential advisors and fellow grad students to get the true story. Whether you wind up at a high-ranked school or a barely ranked school, you need to know your chances of getting a job afterwards so you can pay off your loans.

[!anonscribe!]

Waldorf, I agree with you. Unfortunately, nearly all departments use grad students as affordable labor and will let in more students than they will place into academic jobs. Unless you get internal dissertation fellowships or external funding, you'll be working for less than a lecturer (even accounting for tuition "wavers"). Also, I would urge people not to go to grad school in the humanities if it means taking on loans. Even if you get your dream job, you'll start at 50-60K. Grad school (at very least the Ph.D. portion of it) should be funded. If you didn't beat out other students for funding in grad school, the chances you'll beat them out for jobs later on isn't high either.

[foppery]

The senseless, arbitrary English Ph.D. system would stop functioning if not for the colossal egos of grad students, who believe--despite all evidence to the contrary--that they will beat out hundreds of other applicants for that elusive tenure-track spot at a nice liberal-arts college.

Ugh, I KNOW this, and yet my ego tells me I'll be one of the lucky ones.

(Tongue in cheek, of course. So many other factors come into play. But I think ego--or willful blindness, another English-major talent--is a huge factor.)

[lilac in fingers]

But I think ego--or willful blindness, another English-major talent--is a huge factor.

Ah, we might even call it suspension of disbelief...!

Edited April 13, 2010 by lilac in fingers

[americana]

Maybe some of us would be perfectly happy teaching at community colleges or regional state schools or even high schools. And perhaps there will be a lot of students who will come through our classes at those places and learn a great deal. And maybe they'll go on to build beautiful lives and families and careers.

Would that be a professional failure on our parts? Would that be a reason not to apply to graduate school?

Let's keep things in perspective. The best jobs are not necessarily at the best schools.

[poco_puffs]

Maybe some of us would be perfectly happy teaching at community colleges or regional state schools or even high schools. And perhaps there will be a lot of students who will come through our classes at those places and learn a great deal. And maybe they'll go on to build beautiful lives and families and careers.

Would that be a professional failure on our parts? Would that be a reason not to apply to graduate school?

Let's keep things in perspective. The best jobs are not necessarily at the best schools.

I know of two anecdotes that support this.

First of all, I had a professor at my undergrad (a state school focused on agriculture, not literature) who had previously worked at a very highly ranked English program on the East coast. When I asked him how the two compared, he preferred the smaller and less prestigious department for a few reasons: the relationships between students and professors were more personal, and the environment in general was more collegial and relaxed because the pressure on both students and professors was less intense. I know the teaching/learning environment differs at every school, but it has already formed my professional opinion somewhat. I would be perfectly happy to come back and teach at a smaller department, to not make the most money in my field, and to not be some sort of America's Next Top Scholar. I'm okay with that.

The other heartening anecdoate is this: I've spoken to several professors at a local community college who ultimately preferred to teach at these schools than larger state and private schools. I'll admit none of them were English professors, but their observations seemed to go beyond something specific to a discipline. At this community college, the majority of the students were non-traditional and returning to work towards their associates or a transfer to a bachelor's program elsewhere. They WANTED to be there-- they weren't some aimless, hungover kid straight out of high school who got in because of money and connections. A community college seems like a less than ideal environment for good scholarship, but I guess the students completed their work and had lively discussions with heartfelt input-- far moreso than the professors' students at the actual universities they had taught at before the CC. I imagine the pay was lower, but a job is a job. A job where you can be happy to show up? Even better.

I'll be happy to have a stable, family-supportable, position at an institution where attending work doesn't make me want to run my car off the highway every morning during the commute.

[cesada]

I am with Americana. I love to study, I love to write, and I love to teach. Someone is going to pay me to study, write, and teach for six years. If after these six years I can only find a job at a high school, I will still be glad I had this opportunity. Would I rather spend my twenties working a 9 to 5?

Also, I am not too keen on the "publish or perish" cut-throat atmosphere at some of the top schools. My ideal would be a small, private Christian school... lots of community, lots of enthusiastic students, and overall a really positive atmosphere. My undergrad was like this, and the professors also still got time and money to pursue their own research interests. I would definitely prefer a community college with faculty who can get along over an Ivy with intrigue and backstabbing. Life is too short for those shenanigans.

Of course, believing that I will "at least" be able to find a job at a community college or small Christian school is probably another example of English major suspension of disbelief. This year even top ten English schools had trouble their students. Some schools outside the top 20 did a better job of placing their students.

[soxpuppet]

Maybe some of us would be perfectly happy teaching at community colleges or regional state schools or even high schools. And perhaps there will be a lot of students who will come through our classes at those places and learn a great deal. And maybe they'll go on to build beautiful lives and families and careers.

Would that be a professional failure on our parts? Would that be a reason not to apply to graduate school?

Let's keep things in perspective. The best jobs are not necessarily at the best schools.

I can't see the whole article, but.... http://chronicle.com/article/Memorandum-to-Graduate/65066/

[!anonscribe!]

amen to this conversation. i sometimes wonder: is it just english ph.d. students who act like the sky is falling because they may end up making a middle-class salary to read books and teach? i echo everyone's sentiments here: give me a CC job with a little security, and you'll find me grading papers in a park on the weekend, happy as can be.