displayname

Hi pro Augustis, I share συγχίς's surprise. Admittedly, I'm in another field, and I also entered a few years back. But even this year, my department only offered group statistics (or at least, they said they were going to). They also did not account for attrition, which is sizeable (at least 30%). I'm curious about one point. You mention that the departments provided information on "all PhDs granted in the last decade or so along with the present employment of the individual, specifying whether tenure track or not." Does that mean they provided information only on academic employment? If so, I'm dubious that its "all PhDs" - I've never encountered a department in the humanities that places 100% in academic positions -- including Princeton, Yale, Harvard, etc. Completely agree. Statistics are relevant to a degree, and absolutely must be presented to elucidate the vague statements presented up from front -i.e., "the job market is tight, but most do well." But, they can also occlude a lot. For instance, a recent internal review presented statistics in my department. They showed that 100% of Medieval Historians were placed in TT jobs within a give-year period. I was shocked, as were my colleagues. But a little asking around revealed this: there was only 1 graduate from our top department during that time, and s/he had received a position by the time the review was conducted. All of the others (at least 3) had left the program before graduating. People can interpret that information as they want, but it just demonstrates how statistics hide as much as they reveal.

Ashiepoo, I agree that the trends don't look good for those hoping for TT jobs and that US is easily the most impacted field. But I also appreciate you providing stats on your East Asianist and Medievalist searches. Recent searches in my top-3 department yielded similar results, and I know many alum from fields including Latin America, Southeast Asia, East Asia, Europe (late & early modern) and Ancient that are resuming adjunct positions. I actually don't think grads should spend time freaking out. I think admits and current grads should be very well informed. Level-headed, data-driven information (not heated pleas) is the best way to lessen the emotional impact of unsuccessful job searches at the end of a 6-10 year tenure. I am 100% in agreement with you about making ourselves competitive for two job markets. But, I would probably suggest that people prepare primarily for non-TT jobs, and then professionalize academically. As you said, many with skills applicable to non-academic jobs often do well in academic searches. I'm not sure the reverse is true.

You're right about the ratio of the proportion of PhDs awarded to proportion of full-time job ads. (You're also right that US history is the most impacted field). But those are rates, not absolute numbers. There were about 1/2 as many jobs advertised as PhDs awarded. So, even though the proportion of, say, Asian history PhDs among all PhDs awarded to Asian history job ads among all job ads is more or less 1:1, the number of Asian history PhDs to Asian history job openings is, at best, 2:1. But, this probably presents an overly rosy picture, because the cohort of PhDs is also competing with previous cohorts as well as postdocs and assistant professors. (In my department, we haven't hired an ABD in five years -- all of our assistant-professors positions go to assistant professors or postdocs). The AHA has discussed this elsewhere. http://www.historians.org/publications-and-directories/perspectives-on-history/january-2014/the-2013-jobs-report-number-of-aha-ads-dip-new-experiment-offers-expanded-view

Thank you, klader, for bringing a bit of balance to this thread! There is no reason that someone casting light on these issues should be derided as comparable to an "assclown" or someone whose "bitter is showing." Every professional scholarly organization in higher education that I've looked at is addressing the same problem - including the Modern Language Association, the AAR, and the AHA (not to mention the Atlantic, PBS, the New Yorker, Slate etc.) Most of those organization are calling for diversified training, and for more information to be disseminated to new admits about the prospects of obtaining jobs in the academy. Simply put: the official voice of those organizations does not seem a whole lot different from js17981's (at least from what I've read). Humanities departments at Stanford, Harvard, and Columbia are calling into question why they're training PhD's and how they should change their programs. (Stanford convened a panel to redesign the PhD; Harvard held a conference on the aim of doctoral training, Columbia holds regular series on this). Of course, it's fair to say that you don't need to explain your personal decision to get a PhD. It's also fair to say that you don't want or expect an academic job at the end of it. It's understandable that so many reacted to js17981's "you are making a huge mistake" comment. But, does her/his entire post warrant such hostile responses? Her (his?) first question is "Just genuinely curious to know why you would pursue a PhD knowing that you won't get a tenure track job." Top R1s have recently opened up offices to ask this exact question. I have yet to see a scholarly professional society that does not concede that PhDs in the U.S. are being trained largely for academic careers and suggest that departments take a different approach. In fact, at least one president of a humanities society has presented this issue - departments training people for jobs that don't exist, only to turn around and offer precarious employment as adjuncts - as a moral crisis. It's worrisome that so many on this thread suspect that js17981 is writing out of "ulterior motives" and can't possibly be writing out of concern for her/his colleagues. As I understand it, part of the value of studying the humanities is to understand and hopefully be more humane to one another. rising_star responded while I was writing this -- he's apparently more experienced in this type of hostile conversation, and has already learned not to speak up. https://www.mla.org/Resources/Career/Career-Resources/Career-and-Job-Market-Information/Reports-from-MLA-Committee-on-Professional-Employment/Final-Report-from-the-Committee-on-Professional-Employment/Careers-outside-the-Academy http://www.historians.org/publications-and-directories/perspectives-on-history/january-2003/budget-cuts-and-history-jobs-many-problems-no-easy-solutions

Septerra -- Unfortunately, I'm not so sure you'll find academia sheltered from "capitalism and the commercialization of society." Student debt & adjunctification are just a few signs of how similar the academy is to other industries and institutions.

I agree with TMP and Katzenmusik - there is no jobs crisis unless the point of the PhD is to get a TT job. Unfortunately, most programs are still designed that way (especially the top four or eight or 20 that seem "safest"). For admits, I think it is so important to accept that non-academic work is likely at the end of the PhD. (Septerra, you might be working in the "corporate world" after your PhD. I wonder why it is so repulsive to you?). As many scholars have pointed out, non-academic careers should be Plan A for PhDs. TMP, you're very lucky your adviser is supportive. I hope that everyone finds such an adviser, and regardless, spends as much or more time cultivating a non-academic career as a they do in professional development for the TT. It's not easy to transition into other fields after 6+ years in academia, but it could be much easier if advisers, departments, and doctoral students embraced the reality. Ashiepoo: I agree that its hard to know what will happen in 5-10 years. But, I'm skeptical that the reasons you cite (i.e., some programs reducing cohort size) will make a difference. For one, some departments did that in the early 2000s and it didn't help. Unless all departments got on board in a systematic way, it seems like it might just slightly change lottery odds. Again, though, I don't think this is a crisis -- unless as Katzenmusik said, "PhDs work hard with the tenure-track in mind only to fall flat and then feel like they have been cut off from their entire lives."

http://www.historians.org/publications-and-directories/perspectives-on-history/february-2016/the-troubled-academic-job-market-for-history Every grad student and applicant should read this. There are plenty of ways to respond, but everyone should read it. One important remark: "The recent drop in the share of faculty at the assistant professor level points to a larger shift in demographics, which suggests deeper challenges for new PhDs looking to enter academia in the near future. From the late 1990s to 2008, job advertisements listed with the AHA reached unprecedented heights as a result of a significant wave of retirements....But as of 2015, that wave has largely passed...."

Hi Storia, I PM'ed you, but I thought I should copy part of my reply for everyone. The first reason you should seek out students beyond Visit Day events is that anyone is bound to be more candid when they are not at official department events, in front of faculty and other students. The visit days are, after all, intended to convince you to go to the institution. So, talking to people on the phone or off-campus on coffee often elicits different perspectives. Even about the great things, students can't share (I'm not going to say in front of other faculty that I think my adviser is the most committed one in the department, even though he is). The other reason is that oftentimes, students participating in visit day are in the first few years of the program. They can tell you a lot about coursework, advising, even quals -- but they are unlikely to be able to say much about the job market, funding for final years, dissertation advising, etc. Dissertation advising, research, funding, etc. can be very different than advising, research, and funding is in early-grad school -- so you want to talk to people at all stages. It's best to contact several students of your adviser's and/or in your field, and make sure to talk to those on the job market and/or prepping for it -- that will be you in a few years, after all! The more people you talk to, the better - and the more varied perspectives you hear, the more complete picture of a department you'll have.

I'd second ashiepoo72's recommendation to seek out the general mood of grad students. In particular, it's important to talk to grad students beyond the ones volunteering for events -- those are often early in the program and cherry-picked for the task. To get a real sense of how the whole program is going to work, it's really important to talk to students at all stages of the program and seek out some that aren't selected to participate. I did this with some top schools as an admit (Princeton, Berkeley, Chicago), and I was somewhat stunned by the differences of opinion and experience.

Quickmick - I agree with you, except your last point: "Besides that, the cream rises to the top." I think that it's great to get a PhD in history and any other discipline you're excited about. I do not think its great to continue to tell students that if they're talented and hard-working, it will work out. There is no evidence to support that claim, especially in the dominant fields. The AHA has repeatedly said as much: http://www.historians.org/publications-and-directories/perspectives-on-history/the-troubled-academic-job-market-for-history I think that the AHA has done a good job of responding ethically to this issue. They are doing what Prof. Anthony Grafton recommended and highlight the new Plan A for history PhDs: careers beyond the professoriate. If departments and professors want to admit students for 5-10 years of rigorous study and very low-paid, but rewarding work and make clear to students that they are unlikely to become professors, by all means, they should. If students want to enter with the knowledge that they are being given the opportunity to write a dissertation and little else, they should. What I object to is not the PhD, it's the inclination to paper over the job issue and advertise the idea that "the cream" will be ok. I especially object to the presentation of evidence about the job market as "negativity". The only reason that the evidence of declining jobs and increasing PhDs will read negatively is if the profession, the departments, the professors, and the students continue to think that the right outcome for doctoral students are TT jobs, and that those who are deserving will get them. It is equivalent to blaming the unemployed for being so during a recession, and then dismissing labor reports as "doom and gloom." I think this is particularly difficult for students, unlike Quickmick, who do not have clear alternatives, access to back-up funds, or family security. In my department, those most likely to drift into adjuncting are those without spousal support, parental support, or a previously lucrative career. I find that problematic - and something that the profession needs to address.

Riotbeard and mvlChicago: I'm sorry that you both misunderstood my intentions. I'm not trying to "help myself" (at least in any conscious way) by sharing this information. I think that it is the responsibility of those within the profession to acknowledge that one's performance does not simply correlate to work ethic or talent.

The meritocratic argument is (mostly) wrong. I am a student in one of the number-one ranked departments in the country. Colleagues who have won nationally prestigious fellowships, published in respected journals, and have glowing recommendations from heavyweights have worked as adjuncts for years. That group includes those who were awarded our department's prize for best dissertation. This is true at peer departments, and is true in many fields. Of course, if you perform terribly in grad school, you have almost no chance of getting a job. But many superstars adjunct, and many more will apply for jobs for years before even getting a campus visit. If you doubt this, look at the CVs of professors at top departments, or talk to them. Most spent years on the job market while still grad students. Many pieced together postdocs and visiting gigs before getting a job. And those are professors at the most prestigious schools that received PhDs at the most prestigious schools. The meritocratic argument enables graduate students, professors, and administrators to turn a blind eye to the exploitation of adjunct labor in the academy. Too many believe that they will not end up as an adjunct if they work hard, get into the right department, and publish in the right field. Too many believe that adjuncts are less qualified than full-time faculty—in truth, they are not as lucky.

[apologies for cross-posting - I posted in "Research" but realized the general grad community might have good insights.] Hi, I am wrapping up about 9 months of dissertation research, and I am really struggling. I realize that everyone struggles to an extent with research, but I find it difficult to put aside my concerns at this point. I jumped through all of the hoops my department put in place to prepare students for research, and received feedback and encouragement from my advisers on my proposal. Since then, however, my research has felt very disorganized. I meet and write my advisers regularly with updates and have recently explicitly asked for help. In response, I usually receive encouragement and/or fairly general advice that temporarily alleviates my anxiety but does not help with the substantive problems. I feel like I am making uninformed research decisions and continually starting anew in an attempt to keep motivated. I am expected to begin writing soon, and I am completely unprepared for this phase - in fact, I don't feel much closer to having a defined project than I did before I went into the field. As a result of these problems and more generalized doubts, my morale is low, and I'm finding it difficult to believe that I'm making real progress. I sometimes wonder if I should commit myself to more serious changes - like designing a new project, or committing my energies to training myself for a non-academic path. Other times, I feel like my modest attempts to do so are distracting from progress with my research. I'd appreciate any advice or thoughts. Thank you.

Hi, I am wrapping up about 9 months of dissertation research, and I am really struggling. I realize that everyone struggles to an extent with research, but I find it difficult to put aside my concerns at this point. I jumped through all of the hoops my department put in place to prepare students for research, and received feedback and encouragement from my advisers on my proposal. Since then, however, my research has felt very disorganized. I meet and write my advisers regularly with updates and have recently explicitly asked for help. In response, I usually receive encouragement and/or fairly general advice that temporarily alleviates my anxiety but does not help with the substantive problems. I feel like I am making uninformed research decisions and continually starting anew in an attempt to keep motivated. I am expected to begin writing soon, and I am completely unprepared for this phase - in fact, I don't feel much closer to having a defined project than I did before I went into the field. As a result of these problems and more generalized doubts, my morale is low, and I'm finding it difficult to believe that I'm making real progress. I sometimes wonder if I should commit myself to more serious changes - like designing a new project, or committing my energies to training myself for a non-academic path. Other times, I feel like my modest attempts to do so are distracting from progress with my research. I'd appreciate any advice or thoughts. Thank you.

Curious if any of the continuing fellows have heard about 2013-2014 funding. I'd be infinitely grateful for any news! Thanks

Thank you for all of the great advice! I will look into the aforementioned program, and I think that OregonGal is right about proving that you can speak about contemporary issues. Does anyone else have thoughts, or know someone that made a similar transition?

Hi all, I am currently enrolled in a PhD program in history at a very well-respected institution. I am increasingly interested in non-academic jobs, but I don't have much interest in becoming an archivist or working for a museum, which seems to often be the default jobs for non-academic history Phds. I am much more interested in policy analysis and/or government work, but I haven't been able to find too many examples of people that have made that transition. Does anyone know of some examples of this, or is anyone in the policy world aware of how a historian's knowledge of political development, public policy, etc. might be put to good use (or, conversely, laughed at in the government/policy world?).

Hi all, I was wondering if any Javits fellows received any news about continuing awards for students who won the fellowship in previous years. Is there any word on whether such students will be funded in 2012-2013 or beyond? Thanks!

That's really unfortunate. I started to fear for the Javits when I found out about the Fulbright-Hays being canceled. I guess that doesn't leave much hope for the 2011 alternates, either.

Any of the alternates hear anything yet?

Agreed! I wonder how many people realize that funding for anything other than the hard sciences is quickly retreating in all directions: state budget cuts are curtailing it in public schools, federal funding for independent fellows is vulnerable, and private grants and fellowships are disappearing, at least those that I'm familiar with and that are highlighted by my graduate school. The CR FY 2011 even cut funding for critical foreign languages!

I really can't imagine that they would stop supporting continuing fellows except in the most dire of circumstances. They would close down future application seasons long before doing something that drastic. My grad program accepted fewer people this year and cut entire fields, but its not like they started turning us away! So, the fact that they started new awards this year means you're probably safe. BUT: this is what I found out (as if we need anything more to worry about!) from U Syracus, http://gcr.syr.edu/shared/studaid1112.html Graduate Education. The Javits Fellowship Program is cut by $1.6 million plus the 0.2 percent ATB reduction, reducing its funding to $8.07 million. The GAANN program is cut by the 0.2 percent ATB reduction, reducing its funding to $31 million. I don't know where Syracuse got that, though, because the CR FY 2011 bill itself doesn't mention the javits.

Gradstudenthistory, Thanks for this--it is very helpful Given that no one seems to know how many alternates are named, I thought I would ask the forum: does anyone know anyone that was made an alternate, and *did not* get the fellowship? I don't mean to get anyone's hopes up, but I am curious if anyone would be able to speak to such a situation. Also, to those alternates that heard by email: did you email DOE first and heard about the alternate status in your reply? Or did the DOE just email you? Thanks!

My guess is that the new message is referring to the date by which both primary candidates (who were notified last week) and alternates (who are supposed to hear by the end of the month) have been notified. Several people have said that Carmen confirmed that she finished notifying primary candidates last week.

Transnational- You should consider applying for Critical Language Scholarships, FLASes, and Fulbrights during the dissertation stage. The big, multi-tiered fellowships are great, but if your field demands that you travel and learn languages, it is much easier to get the summer/AY publicly-sponsored grants. And yes, the SSRC--but its for dissertation research, not predoctoral (which is what I think you're interested in).