My statement that most 20C US historians will not land jobs is based on two data sets, both of which independently corroborate the point: 1) my familiarity with the placement of several top departments in the last few years, 2) reverse estimates based on the number of jobs posted. There are a handful of 20C jobs this year, for instance; and yet most decently sized programs are producing at least one 20C americanist a year, if not several more. And then there is the substantial backlog of postdocs, lecturers, and unemployed academics to contend with. Unless the market changes dramatically, we can say with relative certainty that most recent 20C americanists from elite programs are not going to get tt-jobs within the next few eyars. (Anecdotally, a number of professors in their 60s have also told me that this is the worst year they have ever seen.) Complicating generalization, of course, is that the job market segments according to prestige level of program and hiring institution; non-elite programs may have better placement rates. Be careful looking at AHA studies: They tend a) not to break out subfields within US history, b ) be many years old (one of the most cited, for instance, averages data from the completely different era of 1998-2009.) The question about other periods is more difficult to answer. My sense is that the job market for colonial historians, especially, but also 19C historians, has been generally better, though still not great. In addition, the subfields of African American and Gender history tend to be the healthiest. Within 20C, US & the world has been somewhat healthy, though it too is pathetic this year. p.s. one department whose placement record I do not know is Columbia. It just so happens they haven’t updated their placements on their websites since the relatively halcyon 2012. Anyone know if they’ve placed any 20C Americanists lately?