displayname

Hi all, I did a search to no avail. It looks like no one has posted the AHA's new jobs report. https://www.historians.org/publications-and-directories/perspectives-on-history/january-2017/conflicting-signals-in-the-academic-job-market-for-history In year's past I remember this being controversial--it shouldn't be! There's a reason our professional association studies and publishes new reports every year. A few things to note: the graphs include *all* jobs for History PhDs (full-time positions, including tenure-track jobs, non-tenure-track jobs, and term-limited fellowships, as well as positions beyond the professoriate), not just tenure-track. Only 9% of jobs went to ABDs. For those entering your final years in the program, this might be helpful info to consider when deciding how to split your time between apps to postdocs/non-tt jobs/vaps vs. tt jobs. Jobs beyond the tenure track increased! No doubt, this is partly due to the incredible work of the AHA.

Crom- You might be interested in the most recent AHA jobs report, from Feb. 2016. This does some pretty detailed analysis on job trends. The one outstanding problem I see with this analysis (which compares graduating PhDs to job openings) is that it does not account for how many assistant professor jobs are filled by postdocs and assistant professors, which is the rule rather than the exception in many departments. https://www.historians.org/publications-and-directories/perspectives-on-history/february-2016/the-troubled-academic-job-market-for-history The report from 2014: https://www.historians.org/publications-and-directories/perspectives-on-history/september-2014/the-academic-job-markets-jagged-line As the first report notes, 587 full-time academic jobs had been advertised during last year's season (2015). As far as I can tell, the authors do not specify if that number includes visiting assistant professor and postdoc positions, and it *does* include senior openings (i.e., Associate and Full Professor). The 2014 report specifies that 345 positions during that year were full-time assistant professors. Thus far this year, there are 197 listings for full-time assistant professor, according to an H-Net advanced search of "Assistant Professor" in "history", limited to the U.S. There are also some stray art history jobs in that 197, maybe 20. https://www.h-net.org/jobs/job_search.php?all=history&none=art&position_id=58&country_id=209 The Chronicle lists 118 full-time faculty and research positions in History so far this year. https://chroniclevitae.com/job_search?Search=&cid=cpw_jobsearch&facetClear=1&job_search[employment_type]=Full-time&job_search[keywords]=history&job_search[position_type]=41&utf8=✓ The AHA lists 99 assistant professor positions (including visiting), but their list is less comprehensive than others. http://careers.historians.org/jobs?keywords=assistant+professor&sort= But your question is: how can you compare year to year? What do these numbers mean? I'm not entirely sure, but here's my best guest for this year vs. previous: My understanding is that the prime posting period just closed. There will be new positions posted through the rest of October and November, but much fewer than have already been posted. If we think that there are about 200 assistant professor jobs out there, my guess is by the end of the season there would be no more than 50 more. So, ~250 total. That's my best guess, if the 197 number from H-Net is relatively accurate (and also, obviously, the most generous of the available data). In truth, there are probably more jobs than are listed on H-Net, because none of these sites are comprehensive. Then again, that 197 number also includes some jobs that aren't full-time assistant professor in art history -- as I said, there are some art history, some history of nursing that are really for PhDs in nursing, etc. Hope that helps, and good luck.

I think that you'll need to provide more detail on your education and training to get specific help. What fields have you worked in thus far? What did you study, (or what are you studying), during your undergrad years? Are you wanting/willing to pursue further education or training? From the information you gave, I could think of dozens of careers -- but you seem to want to pursue something in counseling. What recommendations did you receive from the career counselors?

I'll second (and third, and fourth) this. (There is exactly one field that doesn't have academic placement problems at my institution: Africa.). But again, the point is not to scare, but to inform. Of course, people can try to approach these numbers by saying that they just need to publish that much more, present that much more, be that much more dedicated, network that much harder, etc. That's not my own takeaway, and it's a relief not to look at all of my friends and colleagues as rivals in an ever-more-frantic rat race -- a very unfortunate downside to the intense professionalization of PhD programs that has been presented as a response to the TT jobs crisis. But, I suspect that the AHA publishes job stats every year because they *do* change, it *is* expected that professors and departments reflect on them, and there *are* positive ways of addressing the info. I know the AHA is actively reconsidering what the PhD is for and how doctoral students can forge the degree in a way that best suits their professional and intellectual pursuits rather than pidgeon-holes them into an CV-inflating competition. The NEH is doing this as well, on a larger scale. I think it's great work and well worth current students' notice.

Lindsey, I'd defer to a past poster that complained about the "exploitation Olympics" (or whatever the phrase is). The point is not to say that PhDs are not privileged in certain respects, or that they are the most exploited. More specifically, You assume that all grad students get a living wage with full benefits. This is simply not true. Benefit packages are not always "full," depending on how you define that. You also may lose these benefits if, for instance, you need to withdraw while researching abroad due to the constraints of your funding. Finally, many schools across the "ranks" provide a salary that cannot pay the bills in the expensive cities in which the university is located. You can absolutely accept a "fully funded" offer to a grad school and, by year 2, realize that you must earn more money to continue, pay healthcare costs out-of-pocket, etc.

TakeRuk and MathCat both make good points. I certainly wouldn't decide to go to School A being dependent on the new hire. Most of the searches my department (humanities) have conducted have gone through though the schedule can, sometimes, be long. I think this might be different in the sciences. (There are very few postdocs in humanities). But, I'd second TakeRuk's advice to be skeptical until a start date is announced; I shouldn't have been so optimistic about the search working. With that in mind, a number of students in my dept were 3rd or 4th years when their would-be adviser was hired. So, the fact that a potential new prof might come in during your second year isn't really the problem, it's whether they come at all. If they do, I wouldn't worry about not working with them. MathCat -- I've never heard of the no-taking-new students at the beginning in my humanities program. If anything, its the opposite -- new hires often take more students, because they want to mentor, because it looks good for tenure requirements, and because they are filling a trendy/needy field.

That's academia for you! One other thing. You mentioned: Of course, you don't know who it is, which is a gamble. But, I'd say it's less risky. If the search is already scheduled for next year, it will probably go through. Having a new person come in your second year isn't really a problem - you still have time to take courses with them before your quals, and plenty of time to develop a relationship before starting your dissertation. But, it sounds like you have a great option with B and a possibly good option with A, if it comes through.

MollifedMolloy, Yes! You might look into AHA's new programs, one of which provides money/aid to help schools make grad student jobs in non-teaching areas (admin, tech, etc.) I believe Jim Grossman pioneered it. This enables grads to progress in their PhDs while also building a resume in non-academic/non-teaching fields. Here's a link to some similar ideas: https://www.historians.org/publications-and-directories/perspectives-on-history/november-2013/in-admin-four-history-phds-discuss-their-alt-ac-careers I've tried to take on research, admin, and volunteer roles throughout my PhD. It hasn't always worked, but oftentimes I find that I can earn some extra $$ or gain a few new skills, ease some job-related anxiety, and actually get more done on my PhD because my academic time is structured (and precious). Even work related to your PhD can help, if only because its puts you in touch with people outside your immediate circle/industry. Oftentimes, advisers' professional networks are deeply embedded in academia, where there are lots of people looking for work. But, if you take a part-time position in an archive, at a publishing house, or even tutoring, you will meet people in other industries while also adding lines to your academic CV. Depending on your field, you could: take a proofreading/copyediting exam and do freelance work in your field at your institution's academic press (yes, you could get doubly paid to read books), tutor in your field, volunteer ESL with migrant aid centers and adult learners in the area, volunteer/work to translate documents or statements for non-profits, hospitals, and law firms, volunteer for research positions in campus research centers, do part-time work in your campus's student services (if you're interested in admin) PR unit (if you're interested in media/communications) or development office (if you're interested in finance). I think these opportunities are win-wins: you get more money, more skills, more friends/contacts, with minimal injury to your progress. It has eroded my social time a bit, but I have also made new friends in these volunteer and work positions, so I think it's worth it. Best of luck!

If these are the B school choices, I'd say you're in good hands. Placing 4/5 is pretty phenomenal in most humanities fields. Even if this guy does retire while you're there, you might be able to work as his advisee. Retired profs can be primary advisers at my institution, and sometimes its ideal--they have few other responsibilities, an established name, and don't engage in the day-to-day politics of academia. Can the prof at School A really have much better than 80% placement? Even so, I'd say you'll be just fine at School B!

MathCat, you're right. My thinking on this also has changed a bit knowing that the OP was waitlisted, that the visit day was for short-listed candidates vs. admits, and that the OP's meeting with the POI was at a talk and not a one-on-one about OP's research (some prospectives get in touch with POIs about their applications in advance). I guess I was allowing some wiggle room, for this reason: Visit Days can be a charade. Professors often go out of their way to be really kind and attentive to students, which is great, but not necessarily representative of their actual relationships with advisees. I tend to think that the romance of the Visit Days skews the picture for admits. After all, for departments, the event is about recruitment. Some grads and professors do have the best interest of the admits in mind, and place that first. But many (I'd say most) are trying to convince you to come. So, a professor that stays away from the event but has already gotten to know an admit and had personal contact with her about her research would not bother me that much. Especially if that professor's students think she's great, and her placement rates were exceptionally high. Still, fuzzylogician is also right -- it's risky to enter a department where you can only feasibly work with one person, especially if there's any risk that the person will leave. I'd say, if any prof is a flight risk, its a top prof at a top school with great placement that doesn't get along with her colleagues. Also remember, though, that advisers needn't be those with 100% research overlap. It can be someone whose work is close enough and who you get along with wonderfully. Finally -- I'd say the advice to disregard general placement rate is spot-on. The placement that matters is your adviser's, and even then its hard to project forward onto your future. I'd say: first, get in touch with the adviser and get a sense for who they are. Maybe re-contact some of their students and ask about this issue in particular, or whether her departmental conflicts have been a problem for the students. Only compare placement rates between prospective advisers and (maybe) among students in your field in both departments. One last question -- how did you get along with the profs at school B? You say that they are in your general area of interest. Did you feel like you could trust them? That's most important.

This is very important. If I could give advice to every admitted student, it would be 1) conduct one-on-one conversations, outside of Visit Day, with multiple students and former students of your adviser/field (so as to get a sense of your committee). Ideally, these students would be advanced, because they'll be able to tell you about life after coursework, when advising, funding, etc. is most critical. 2) know placement rates for your adviser & field within the department (assuming you want a TT job. I would also advise to ask about support for alternative careers, but that's another matter). You seem to know about 2, but 1 is equally important. If you can confirm with multiple students that a professor is very, even exceptionally, dedicated to students, and kind, I'd say you have a great and rare adviser on your hands. It's true that the adviser isn't everything. However, it is also true that the lack of a dedicated mentor can jeopardize your training, happiness, and career. Track down more students and try to figure out if this is just about department politics. If it is, ignore it. If its a sign of general difficulty that impacts her advising, you have another matter on your hands. FWIW, two of the faculty at my top-ranked department have issues with departmental admissions right now. This is largely because they (understandably) think fewer PhDs should be admitted due to declining job numbers. They have both stopped actively recruiting for this reason. But, they are hands-down the most supportive people on our faculty when it comes to grad students. Sometimes the faculty that have spats with other faculty are the ones that advocate for their students the most.

@AbrasaxEos, brilliant post. I also hope every admit and early-career student read's @Joseph45's post, especially this part: This realization was the turning point in my own mind. When I entered my program, even as part of a couple, it was easy enough to say: I love my field so much that I am willing to sacrifice a stable income and viable career path for the next 5 years. But about three years in, I realized that my PhD was also a significant sacrifice I was forcing my partner, family, and children to make. Of course, there are benefits: you have a flexible schedule that may allow more contributions to raising your children, and you might enable your partner to travel place they otherwise wouldn't have seen. But the pursuit of one pleasure may come at the expense of very real, very beloved, others.

Wow - I didn't know that! In that case, OP, I would put Davis at the top of your list. Having two top BL scholars, plus the resources of the UC's and the proximity to other scholars/your region of study makes it really stand out.

I'd recommend UC - Davis. There's Andres Resendez and Lorena Oropeza. Plus, if you're in Davis, you could likely have some working relationship with Brian Delay at Berkeley or Stephen Haber at Stanford.

Is there anyway you could do both (are they in the same city)? Is the Admin program full-time? If not, I think its reasonable to do a part-time professional program and the first year of your PhD at the same time. It'll be busy, but I know some people that did something similar. Then, you could re-assess at the end of the year. Alternatively, you could ask the PhD program if its possible to defer one year (this is sometimes done for really prestigious fellowships like the Rhodes & Marshall). Having professional training or experience in Higher Ed Administration would be a very good compliment to your PhD and could make you desirable for part-admin/ part-faculty jobs in research centers on campus. I think these are actually some of the best gigs in academia today.

@tabletop25 I think you're smart to have done these internships. I didn't see your blog link, but I'd be interested in reading it. I've researched Humanities/Social Science PhDs who have transitioned into non-academic careers. I generally find that the transition is difficult, but much less so if you've been proactive throughout your academic training, as you have. I also find that almost invariably, the professionals are happy, make good money, and don't regret leaving academia a bit -- so you're in good company. I have very actively thought of leaving and am working on a transition as we speak. I've been researching alternatives since my 1st year of grad school, have reached out to alum who took non-academic positions, took classes in more applied fields, and hope to do an internship this summer and in my last year. I've thought a lot about this and have gotten some great tips from other professionals and online sources.

@ Ashiepoo and mvl -- I understand that both of you are frustrated by what you see as redundant posts that have nothing to offer. Ashiepoo, on alternative careers, I talked about this on other threads and am happy to post more, drawing upon advice I've received from others. My guess is that's best reserved for another forum. On this point, I couldn't agree more, and its why I think that knee-jerk suspicion is problematic: "We should be supporting each other by building a network that helps all of us survive this reality, and the first part of that is accepting it IS reality then figuring out how to navigate it." mvl, again, I appreciate your frustration with what you feel are redundant posts. I guess I think a few things, and I imagine you're referring to my other topic, where I did post the AHA jobs report. 1) the job report was new, and it had new information in it, so linking to it isn't really kicking up the same old dust. 2) Did you ever not know about the jobs situation? Is it possible that some grads or admits will find out here by reading recent rather than old posts? 3) I'm happy to share advice, but I'm not going to give it unsolicited. That's why I said "there are plenty of ways to respond to this." Not "Don't go to grad school." or "Drop out" or "We're all doomed." All I did was linked to our central professional organization's most recent report --- which members, grads, and professors are thought (expected?) to read, and quoted it. I don't think I implied doomsday, but perhaps you're referring to another post.

@Sigaba - I would upvote this if I could. I was lucky enough to consult Sigaba years ago about my own career plans. Thanks for your continued good advice! (Though I'm not worried about drones yet

I'm late to this thread, so apologies if this isn't helpful anymore. My department's grad students recently agitated to get more professors involved with professional development and, specifically, job search documents. The effort was successful, and my colleagues told me that their documents were eviscerated (to their delight -- it was very useful). The reason that grads did this was because it became apparent that there was very lopsided advising on this level -- some dedicated profs were very committed, others completely disengaged. So, the grad chair created an event for people on the market where 3-4 students were paired wiht one prof to go over their cover letter. It was sent in advance, and then all 4-5 people, prof included, met for the review. Interestingly, the profs were not from the fields of the students. The students were grouped (say, all the medievalists) with one prof far afield - (a contemporary East Asianist). Like I said, my friends said they were absolutely torn apart, but in a good way. Given that grads have no money, I think its worth asking your home department for this type of service if your prof isn't doing enough, or even if he is but you want other opinions. But I do agree with Eigen that this is definitely your adviser's job. I also think that this is best if you're applying for an institution similar to the one you're attending. In other cases: you could also just go to a professor that has a good reputation among students for a second opinion. In my department, these reputations are hard-earned: the professors are kind, committed, and place students more often than other professors because they put mentoring first. As a tweak to above advice: Perhaps you could go through your department's placement list, and see where was the most recent placement in a similar institution (and then, field) -- like the most recent grad to get a position in a SLAC. Contact that alum or their adviser and ask for assistance or a sample letter. They might turn you down, but they might be happy to share their success story. This might be more helpful than asking your R1 search chair to advise on how to place you in a very different institution - @Eigen is right that it's likely to not be much help.

I realize this reply is a bit dated, but I'm sorry @Eigen and @my_muse and @enpi for the trouble you've been having. I have some close friends going through this now, and it's not easy. I tend to agree with @rising_star that the number of job market cycles to put yourself through is a really personal decision. About your decision to consider non-academic careers: perhaps it doesn't have to be all or nothing? Why not consider other positions while also pursuing another round? Granted, I know it's very time consuming to apply. But, perhaps participating in just one weekly activity that might elucidate another professional path will be helpful and make this situation a bit more tolerable. I read a post a long time ago in Versatile PhD about one woman who decided to divide her time 80/20 -- 80 percent to securing TT positions, 20 to other routes. That 20 percent could be a number of different things: reconnecting with friends in other industries to learn more about them, developing a new skill, volunteering, or a part-time gig or internship position. My guess is that this arrangement was valuable, regardless of the outcome. For one, the job market can cut down the strongest, most self-assured people (as far as I've seen). So, I imagine it might reinforce a recent grad's confidence to consider the value of her/his training outside of academia.

I'm going to respond to something that @mvlchicagosaid a while ago, now that I've spent a bit more time around this website and have seen similar responses. I find this to be a troubling way for humanists and social scientists to deal with difficult information. On the one hand, I have learned a bit about the giving and receiving of upvotes/downvotes and see that reputation matters a great deal here. This makes sense for an online forum trafficking advice among strangers. So, I guess it's not surprising that mvl assumed I had bad intentions because I hadn't posted a lot. On the other hand, I'm disappointed that so many are so quick to make assumptions about malicious intentions on the part of posters. In one similar forum, someone said this: "Your concern for my (our?) well-being is admirable, if a bit odd. If you aspire to be the voice in the wilderness, then kudos for your selflessness. Short of that, or perhaps directly because of it, I'm not sure why you're at all concerned with what I do with my life. Surely it can't matter to you that you could save another soul, could it? It's not a question I plan to ponder. Take care, and good luck." This shocked me. First, these posters are all grad students and recent PhDs, the same people that each of us have talked to when we were looking for advice about entering a certain program or pursuing a certain degree. So, in some situations, we do trust that they have "concern for our well-being." It seems that trust only breaks down when the information being communicated-- like job market stats--is undesirable. This trust also appears to hinge on the status of the messenger. Ashiepoo said something interesting earlier in this thread about arming ourselves with information, "the well-meant warnings from professors and also the snarky and bitter warnings from many others." This repeats an idea that's been presented here many times: we all know this, our professors told us, we don't need to hear it repeated here. To do so is, simply, cynical, negative, or (most oddly) driven by ulterior motives. Oftentimes, when the information comes from professors, the professors are celebrated for being honest. When it comes from others (current students and adjuncts/postdocs), they are derided. Does this trouble anyone else? Finally (with apologies for repeating something I said elsewhere): I understand that the value of the humanities is, in part, to learn how to treat one another more humanely. So, why, I wonder, are grad students all-too-quick to dismiss the idea that one PhD might simply be concerned for his/her colleagues?

@unraed: We do agree. For what it's worth, I wouldn't advise taking the Digital Humanities route as an attempt to professionalize. Of course, people should follow their intellectual interests -- so if it's in DH, then by all means! I actually meant to argue for the opposite approach to the TT jobs shortage. I wonder how much the humanities and individual scholars have to gain from disentangling their scholarship from a tight job market (academic or non-academic). So, why not maintain and celebrate the "traditionally literary modes of knowing and researching," as the object of the PhD and, in off-hours, cultivate another professional interest? Then scholarship doesn't have to be a means to wrack up CV lines, and nor does the individual scholar need to single-mindely pursue an often impossible career, with potential injury to their labors-of-love. In any case, thanks for the chat, and good night!

Hi Unraed, On the whole, I agree with you, with some qualifications. (I'd also quickly note that I added the descriptor "the chair of my top-ranked department" only because much of the dialogue I've read on gradcafe concerns rank, and much of the discussion on jobs has been dismissed as the murmurs of unsuccessful, marginal students. I don't put much stock in these rankings as indicators of quality, but they do indicate influence.) I wrote my post in response to an admit, who claimed that she was advised to prepare for alternative careers, and reassured that those "with cool skills often performed better on the TT market" (or something similar). In my own limited experience, this point seems accurate. Those that have desirable language skills, solid programming skills, or managerial experience do often perform well on both markets. I guess I would say this: I am as convinced that a scholar in the humanities will help themselves get a TT job as much by knowing how to administer a budget or fund-raise or program as they will having another conference paper or publication. The budget/fund-raising/programming skills will help them in any market, the latter, only their TT market. Is that fair? As to your second point: "that much of the discourse surrounding the rethinking of the humanities PhD is just as focused on professionalization at the expense of doing good scholarship as programs focused on traditional preparation for the academy; it's simply neglecting careful research and thought in the service of professionalization for a different kind of of job." I agree that the discourse is, indeed, geared towards employment and not towards scholarship. But I'm not sure about the results. I did find Jan Goldstein's essay on this point convincing. I suppose that I'd need to see more students focused on their work for its own sake vs. those professionalizing for the academy from day one before I could judge. My sense is this: if you're treating your scholarship as your passion rather than a career path, it's possible you'd take more risks and be more creative. But, you may be right that someone treating their dissertation as a labor of love while taking night-classes in programming produces subpar scholarship. I'm just not sure. On the publications issue -- I take it we're not in the same field, but your argument may hold in yours better than mine. The recent placements in my department that got R1 positions did not have publications beyond book reviews. I've met a number of assistant professors without publications. But again, this is field-specific.

Hi all, Thanks for these thoughtful responses. @greenmt I think your ideas are commendable, and if I were in a discipline involved with MLA, I'd definitely meet you there. I was the one who posted about preparing for "alt-ac" jobs (although I would simply call them jobs) throughout your PhD. I say this for a number of reasons. First, in response to the OP and many other threads, many (most?) new PhDs asserted that they are not expecting or planning on getting a TT position. I believed them, and consider non-academic professional development a wise move in that scenario. Second, I am echoing the advice of the MLA, the AHA, and departments that have recently studied the issues of adjunctification, attrition, and employment difficulties among PhDs. Stanford created a task force on this issue with strong recommendations for PhDs to train for non-academic careers. Harvard held a conference on this point. Individual faculty have called upon their colleagues to support their students' pursuit of non-academic work - here's one, and here's another for English PhDs. My guess is that these organizations and departments and faculty support this training because they do not consider it a detriment to the chances of securing TT employment or their scholarly fields. Third, I'm not convinced that professionalization helps scholars produce quality academic work or (significantly) helps them secure TT jobs. The latter point is probably too difficult to make, but its informed by studies like this, and anecdotal knowledge on the importance of advisers or committee's relationship with those conducting a search, and the luck of writing the right dissertation at the right time in the right field. I also tend to think that the number of PhDs who get academic jobs will be determined by the number of jobs advertised in their field, not the number of articles or conferences each candidate produced. On the former point, I've heard a number of scholars -- including the chair of my top-ranked department- lament how many empty articles and conference presentations saturate scholarly fields. More publicly, at least one scholar has claimed that it narrows students' interests and scopes of inquiry (though I've heard this argument made elsewhere). If I understand correctly, Abrasax's argument, and unraed's, too is that getting a humanities phd is professional training for a TT position. That is not necessarily in line with the goal of cultivating the most original contributions to the community of scholars, present and future. These are distinct aims. While they might sometimes be commensurate, they aren't always. Perhaps I would ask: would [insert incredible scholar here] have achieved what they did when they did if they were preoccupied with professionalization during their first decade in the field (I'm thinking of Natalie Zemon Davis, but this will be field-specific)? Finally, I suggested that option because it's really rough to see so many friends struggling, and I think their struggle would have been lessened if they had cultivated outside interests, networks, or professional tracks. I take it from previous posts that everyone knows that the numbers of academic jobs in their field, and they are fully prepared to weather it. What really troubled me about the academic job market was not my own run--(I'm not yet scheduled to go on). It was seeing so many really hardworking, accomplished, committed, and intelligent friends in cohorts above me go through a really hard time.

That's great! Both of those schools should be applauded.