American Politics vs. The Rest - How is the Job Market?

[Quarex]

Going into this whole process, I downplayed my interest in analyzing American political systems and policy, keeping it firmly mixed in with my interest in comparative systems. I imagined Americanism as a basic death sentence when it came to either getting accepted by a program, due to heavy competition, or to ultimately finding a job. After all, I reasoned, surely studying America is far and away the most common thing for Americans to do!

Then I actually started reading about jobs, and seeing some things that made me do a double-take. For example, the "Getting What You Came For" graduate studies book, which is seemingly cited as a must-read for any graduate student, directly says that American Politics graduates are going to have a comparatively easy time finding employment. Now, this was a little over a decade ago, and I imagine plenty has changed since then--but why was/is this field lagging behind in competitiveness? Is it just because every political science department in the country needs at least one, and likely more, American specialists, whereas anything else is open to personal departmental preference? Or is it really the case that Americans studying America are less common in this field?

Even beyond this question, it would be interesting to get other good sources talking about the overall political science job market. This is something that we need to be thinking about the entire time we are in school, whether we realize it or not, as gainful employment is likely the preferred end result of finishing a doctorate. It is hard to imagine that anyone who has given the issue a lot of thought would say "eh, just kick back and take it easy for a few years, then figure out where you want to work after you graduate!"

I have been trying unsuccessfully to relocate the graph showing average numbers of job postings available in the last few years in each different field (this one showed ~200 places for American and Comparative, ~180 for International Relations, and 60 or fewer for Public Policy and Political Theory, if this helps anyone help find it). Surely this is not the only set of data out there, either.

In any case, it seems that there may well be a fair amount of good advice in this area waiting to be unearthed, but other threads are mostly focused on the application/admittance process, so it seemed logical to start this up.

[detroitfan]

Couple things off the top of my head...

There's a line to walk between "taking it easy your first couple years" and "burning yourself out." And it's something to take seriously. Everyone who went through a graduate program had those folks in their cohort that were smarter than they were and worked just as hard, but managed their time poorly. They started taking papers to conferences before they had the skills to do so, they loaded up on technical courses without the adequate prerequisites and they faked interests in subfields or topics they felt would be trendy for the job market. Most of those people don't finish and end up working in the private sector (for a good chunk of cash...but still...)

You want to be aggressive in graduate school, but you also need to be smart about it. There's a lot to learn. Always keep an eye on the job market, but keep the other solidly on your development within your program. Your letters are going to either open or keep doors shut for you, and those letters are largely determined by your performance/attitude within your program. Once that die is cast, I think the best generic job market advice is to plan on practicing that job talk non-stop for about 6 months.

Having only been on the market in one, I can't really contrast the american to comparative subfields. They're both going to be competitive. My intuition is that there's always going to be a certain level of demand across american politics subfields, whereas it may fluctuate across regions in comparative/ir (i.e. mideast is hot at the moment).

[FuzzyDunlop]

A few thoughts from somebody who has yet to have the pleasure but is close enough to be a pretty interested observer.

1.Theory is generally perceived as being the worst job market.

2. Among the other three, I think its fair to say that American is the best market right now but, as detroitfan notes, its more a question of the segmentation in the market. There are lots of jobs for Americanists because college students like to classes about American politics - they cover topics that are really close to home and some of those courses are seen as particularly useful professionally for kids that are pre-law or who want to do things like work in Washington or in public policy. These classes are not just numerous, but often Americanist scholars have a certain amount of flexibility in what they can teach, which makes hiring them a bit easier it seems. There are also a lot of jobs for comparativists given that kids, at least in aggregate, have some interest in the rest of the world. But if you study Japan and mostly can teach courses on Japan or East Asia more generally and the department already has two people who specialize in that, you're probably out of luck. That's not the case if you study behavior and the department already has two (or many more) people who do that.

3. If you're worried about comparative, then think more about your region of focus but keep in mind that there is a cyclical nature to this. Right now Middle East, South Asia, and China are very hot, mostly because there are interesting things going on in those regions and because they have been historically underrepresented in departments and understudied by the discipline. Latin America, Western Europe, and the Post-Soviet area seem to have been slower of late. But it wasn't that long ago that Latin America and Post-Soviet were both pretty hot. They may or may not be hot again 6-8 years from now when you are worrying about these things. It does seem, however, that Western Europe might be terminally bad for a while just because it isn't yielding that many new sexy topics and because scholars specializing in Europe are historically very overrepresented in departments due to the historical development of comparative politics as a subfield.

4. One other consideration is that some of the regions that are currently hot present their own professional difficulties. The languages are difficult to learn. The available quantitative data in many of those countries is really bad, which limits some of your options and makes fieldwork vital for most academic projects. That's not such a problem for dissertations when you should be doing fieldwork anyway. But getting back into the field for extended periods is more difficult later in your career, especially with a family, and its nice to study a region for which you can pump out a few papers based on quantitative data. Finally, the topics that are most gripping in those currently hot areas often will have less obvious synergies with people in other subfields. You can write a paper on political behavior or institutions in Latin America or Europe that engages debates among other comparativists and Americanists and that speaks in terms very familiar to many of the powers-that-be that will be deciding your fate on the market and afterwards. Doing that in the Middle East or China is a bit more difficult.

5. In the abstract, picking subjects that cross subfields is not a bad strategy but is often difficult to pull off. Its hard to really mix American with comparative unless you are doing things basically on the turf of Americanists but extending those ideas to other countries (like with behavior and legislatures). There are probably more options at the nexus between IR and comparative. A lot of fairly hot subjects, like civil wars or the effect of trade or aid on domestic political dynamics like regime stability, are really pretty lodged between the two. If you concentrate in both subfields and then develop a project that allows you to sell yourself both ways, there are more jobs that you can potentially apply for and, if you get interviews, you may have more potential allies and advocates as you speak to a broader range of people. Further, in the abstract you may be better positioned as a potential "consensus" candidate. A lot of job searches involve power plays between different groups of faculty and, ceteris paribus, you're better off if hiring you might bridge a divide (this is also another reason to do multimethod research).

6. Given your particular research interest, Quarex, I think trying to bridge comparative and the security studies subfield of IR is not a bad idea. Your countries of interest have big domestic security concerns, but the ways that they approach these concerns seem to be shaped by various institutional and social variables. I'm not that familiar with the relevant IR literature, but it seems like a good fit that would leave you well positioned on the market.

[silencio1982]

Here's a link to the document from the APSA that I had posted before... it compares placement in the various subfields between 2003 and 2006.

http://www.apsanet.org/imgtest/EJobsWri ... 202006.pdf

[ampersand]

When I was on a recruitment trip, a professor told me that jobs for Americanists are more plentiful now because many of the professors who were hired in the big higher education expansion of the 1960s are now retiring. Make of that what you will.

[rollinson]

Oops...double post of Silencio's link.

[letmein...]

Very useful link - it makes me think that this may not be a crazy endeavor afterall (I am returning to school this fall from the business world). I have no source to provide, but most of what I have read also indicates that the number of students about to enter tertiary schooling will be increasing for the next decade or so because of a demographic transition. And yes, many of the baby boomers will be retiring within this coming decade, so we may be in that sweet spot for the job market....

[quasar]

Yes, the American politics market is usually more of a seller's market than the other subfields. It's simple supply and demand. Every year, just about every top department wants to hire an Americanist. But only a handful of departments are looking for Japan scholars, or Africanists, etc.

On the other hand, the PhD's produced by top departments don't reflect this imbalance -- lots of graduate students want to study civil wars, China, and other comparative topics. So there is a bit of an imbalance between what graduate students choose to specialize in, and what departments are looking to hire in.

Caveat: The flip side of all this is that the American politics job market is very competitive and very top-heavy. Every department is always looking to hire Americanists, but there are also lots of Americanist PhD's on the market, and every department wants to hire only the very best of these PhD's. The result is that usually, a small number of superstar PhD's are getting most of the top job offers, and everyone else scrambles for the scraps.

Bottom line: If you're a superstar, then being in the Americanist job market is sweet. But if you're not a star, then you might be better off being in one of the "niche" markets, like China, Africa, Japan, and so on.

Of course, it's impossible to know at the outset of graduate school whether you'll become one of the superstars...

[UndraftedFreeAgent]

I know I'm a superstar because a fortune cookie told me so.

If fortune smiles upon us, maybe all of the senior profs will retire collectively in 5 years.

[sacmutt]

I have a serious question (for quasar or anyone else). How does the job market decide who the "superstars" are going to be? What causes all these departments to agree to go after only a small number of job candidates?

Not being facetious here, I'm genuinely curious about what makes someone a "superstar"?

[UndraftedFreeAgent]

I have a serious question (for quasar or anyone else). How does the job market decide who the "superstars" are going to be? What causes all these departments to agree to go after only a small number of job candidates?

Not being facetious here, I'm genuinely curious about what makes someone a "superstar"?

It's not an easily quantifiable, but you'll know them when you see them. Superstars are generally students with several publications, conference presentations, and top marks, doing research in some ultra-trendy topic. This is where coming up with a brilliant research proposal and being able to market yourself pays off. The way (in my opinion) to become a superstar is to do an absolutely thorough job on an interesting research question and then present it in a way that gets others excited about your topic. Think about the movie "A Beautiful Mind". John Nash, the father of modern game theory, was incredibly intelligent, but wasn't a superstar until he came up with a brilliant research topic and was able to convince others of its importance. I hope this is being helpful. You don't have to be a superstar to get a great job, but it would certainly help. I'm sure some of the others on this board could list a few superstars (I seem to recall, from several months ago, some mention of work being done at Stanford).

[FuzzyDunlop]

I have only followed the job market for the last couple years, so my perspective may be limited in this respect.

As far as I can see, "superstars" come in various forms but the common denominators are at least two and usually all three of the following: (a) an impressive publication record ( a great dissertation and © coming out of a top program and being heavily pushed by powerful people.

Sometimes a candidate is just so heads-and-shoulders above his or her peers in terms of their publication record that their superstardom is obvious. The most absurd example of this that I have seen is a guy from Stanford this year (google Neil Malhotra) who has an astounding thirteen peer-reviewed publications on his CV, including at several top journals. Given that having one or two is often seen as quite impressive, that's a record that is really, really off-the-charts.

Other times a candidate might have a CV that is quite impressive but not necessarily heads and shoulders above other high quality candidates, yet this person gets a huge number of interviews and offers. These people probably have very good dissertations and really great letters of recommendation. This is just pure speculation, but to me it also sometimes appears to be the case that top schools coordinate on the same candidates out of the logic that "Hey, Yale and Harvard are interviewing this person and all the chatter is that they are the hot candidate, so since we are XXXX then we should be interviewing him or her too."

In the end, just work hard, cultivate relationships with good faculty, don't burn bridges, and try to publish.

[sacmutt]

I believe this is the Stanford discussion everyone is referring to? I found this thread at: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/poli ... message/23

RE: [polisciapps] Re: Stanford PoliSci Admissions?

No. Search committees will be more impressed with solo work than research done with a faculty member (especially if said faculty member is an advisor or senior scholar). They're likely to attribute the majority of the credit to the professor rather than the grad student.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To: polisciapps@yahoogroups.com

From: beccafspace@...

Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 08:20:15 +0000

Subject: [polisciapps] Re: Stanford PoliSci Admissions?

Wow, what any of us wouldn't give to be in either Chen or Malhotra's

shoes right now. I'm curious though about their decision to not

publish this paper with a prof. There are so many famous profs at

Stanford, wouldn't you want to work with one of them if you're going

to publish in such a high-profile journal? It seems like the article

would be better received that way, no?

--- In polisciapps@yahoogroups.com, Jason Wojciechowski

wrote:

>

> Of course, JSTOR's moving wall makes it useless in this scenario.

Luckily, two

> minutes on Google answered the question.

>

> The Law of k/n: The Effect of Chamber Size on Government Spending

in Bicameral Legislatures

> JOWEI CHEN and NEIL MALHOTRA

> American Political Science Review, Volume 101, Issue 04, November

2007, pp 657-676

>

> Chen and Malhotra are listed as current students on Stanford's web

page.

>

> Given Malhotra's (lengthy) list of publications, I'd clamor to go

to Stanford

> to work with *him*.

>

> beccafspace (beccafspace@...) wrote:

> > Does anyone have any background on this development? The APSR is

the

> > top political science journal, and I really don't think they

publish

> > graduate student solo work. In any case, what matters here is if

> > these papers were written together with profs at Stanford. If so,

> > then yes, I'd think there will be a hoard of this year's

applicants

> > wanting to work with those profs. Who's got JSTOR to look up this

> > information?

> >

[just_me]

One of the things also to remember is the privileged spot American National Government is given in the core curriculum of most colleges (especially public ones). For example, Georgia and Texas require students in every major at state institutions to take ANG. And even at most non-elite schools without a legislative mandate, it is more likely to be the primary (or only) pol sci option in the core.

There is always going to be a need out there for faculty out there who can teach two sections of ANG a semester. I think that is why the job market differential between American and theory is so noticeable at the non-doctoral level especially. At schools with graduate programs, it is easy enough to pawn those classes off on grad students. However at schools without grad programs, faculty teaching ANG provide a good chunk of a typical department

[just_me]

I was also looking a few days ago at the job wiki as a very rough guide for this year's job market: 66 accepted positions (not counting post-docs) in American, 50 in IR, 34 in comparative, and 28 in theory at that time. It doesn't mean that one field is "better" than the others. However it is something to notice.

The vast majority of the theory job-finders btw came from a few institutions: three or four Ivy League schools, Minnesota, Michigan, Hopkins, UNC and WashU.

http://bluwiki.com/go/Polisci0708

[FuzzyDunlop]

Quote

The vast majority of the theory job-finders btw came from a few institutions: three or four Ivy League schools, Minnesota, Michigan, Hopkins, UNC and WashU.

The job market is really bad in theory, without a doubt. I would recommend that anybody applying for theory take a look at the relevant threads on the theory job market blog. In particular, there is a whole thread devoted to questions from prospective grad students that may be interesting. Interspersed among this and the various job market threads, there are also several quite candid discussions about the job market and whether it is responsible for people in the profession to encourage students to go to schools that don't have great placement records. Just go in with your eyes open.

http://politicaltheoryrumormill.blogspot.com/

[AllFiredUp]

Who thinks there is a practical aspect to this. Seems the job market in the natural sciences is good, as are positions in math/economics. In social sciences, it seems political science jobs in American Politics and Const. Law/courts (everyone needs a pre-law advisor) top non-empirical approaches (theory, some comparative politics) by a sizable margin. Then you have fields like philosophy and English which are perhaps even worse in terms of available TT positions.

[silencio1982]

5. In the abstract, picking subjects that cross subfields is not a bad strategy but is often difficult to pull off. Its hard to really mix American with comparative unless you are doing things basically on the turf of Americanists but extending those ideas to other countries (like with behavior and legislatures). There are probably more options at the nexus between IR and comparative. A lot of fairly hot subjects, like civil wars or the effect of trade or aid on domestic political dynamics like regime stability, are really pretty lodged between the two. If you concentrate in both subfields and then develop a project that allows you to sell yourself both ways, there are more jobs that you can potentially apply for and, if you get interviews, you may have more potential allies and advocates as you speak to a broader range of people. Further, in the abstract you may be better positioned as a potential "consensus" candidate. A lot of job searches involve power plays between different groups of faculty and, ceteris paribus, you're better off if hiring you might bridge a divide (this is also another reason to do multimethod research).

Thanks for this advice- very helpful and makes me feel better about my plans to bridge comparative and IR

[Quarex]

Wow, looks like this information was bursting at the seams waiting to come out. Thanks, everybody, for all this excellent advice, thanks Silencio for posting that survey again, thanks Sacmutt for that enlightening discussion, and thanks Just_Me for reminding me that wikis do indeed exist for every possible thing anyone wants to know. I do not want to post a five-page-long message responding to everything, particularly since some things were already covered in others' responses, but a few things seem like they should be addressed again:

There's a line to walk between "taking it easy your first couple years" and "burning yourself out." And it's something to take seriously. Everyone who went through a graduate program had those folks in their cohort that were smarter than they were and worked just as hard, but managed their time poorly. They started taking papers to conferences before they had the skills to do so, they loaded up on technical courses without thIe adequate prerequisites and they faked interests in subfields or topics they felt would be trendy for the job market. Most of those people don't finish and end up working in the private sector (for a good chunk of cash...but still...)

...

Having only been on the market in one, I can't really contrast the american to comparative subfields. They're both going to be competitive. My intuition is that there's always going to be a certain level of demand across american politics subfields, whereas it may fluctuate across regions in comparative/ir (i.e. mideast is hot at the moment).

You make excellent points about trying to dive in head-first without adequate preparation. All the drive and desire to achieve at the top of your field in the world will not get you respect if you do not know what you are doing yet. It sounds like avoiding the temptation to take all the hardest courses at once, as well as to study whatever seems like the surest path to success, probably could help a lot of people avoid burning out.

Also, I suspect the Middle East is going to be the hot topic in comparative/international relations for the foreseeable future. Those without solid research goals yet, take note! Might be a good time to start becoming an expert on the new Cuba, too. And do not discount the Association of SouthEastern Asian Nations!

1.Theory is generally perceived as being the worst job market.

Reading that "Penn State Cuts Theory" thing on the Political Theory blog link you posted did make me shudder. Someone might worry about being laid off at work, but what did the students half way through their dissertations do when their program ceased to exist? That is something seemingly unexpected for a student. It does sound like Political Theory is feeling the pain of political science's shift to quantitative studies, and the always-present general societal mistrust of anything too overly, or overtly, intellectual.

It does seem, however, that Western Europe might be terminally bad for a while just because it isn't yielding that many new sexy topics and because scholars specializing in Europe are historically very overrepresented in departments due to the historical development of comparative politics as a subfield.

Yeah, I started worrying about my intents to focus on Western Europe when I kept noticing that having even one faculty who primarily focused on those regions would be unusual (though there were exceptions, as always). On the plus side, as we discussed in the other thread:

But if you study Japan and mostly can teach courses on Japan or East Asia more generally and the department already has two people who specialize in that, you're probably out of luck. That's not the case if you study behavior and the department already has two (or many more) people who do that.

...

5. In the abstract, picking subjects that cross subfields is not a bad strategy but is often difficult to pull off. Its hard to really mix American with comparative unless you are doing things basically on the turf of Americanists but extending those ideas to other countries (like with behavior and legislatures). There are probably more options at the nexus between IR and comparative. A lot of fairly hot subjects, like civil wars or the effect of trade or aid on domestic political dynamics like regime stability, are really pretty lodged between the two. If you concentrate in both subfields and then develop a project that allows you to sell yourself both ways, there are more jobs that you can potentially apply for and, if you get interviews, you may have more potential allies and advocates as you speak to a broader range of people. Further, in the abstract you may be better positioned as a potential "consensus" candidate. A lot of job searches involve power plays between different groups of faculty and, ceteris paribus, you're better off if hiring you might bridge a divide (this is also another reason to do multimethod research).

6. Given your particular research interest, Quarex, I think trying to bridge comparative and the security studies subfield of IR is not a bad idea. Your countries of interest have big domestic security concerns, but the ways that they approach these concerns seem to be shaped by various institutional and social variables. I'm not that familiar with the relevant IR literature, but it seems like a good fit that would leave you well positioned on the market.

This was actually my problem figuring out my field in the first place. I wanted to study very specific issues, and my research into them thus far focused on American politics, but primarily through comparing the political climate of the U.S.A. to other Western democracies. I kept staring at the drop-boxes saying "American Politics / Comparative Politics / International Relations" and wishing they were check boxes instead. Maybe I would have gotten into a few more programs if I had played up how much of my work was about America. At least I can start doing that now. Or not, as you suggest--my primary conversations with the professors in my life these days are about two things. 1: What you said in your point #6, that maybe working as a comparative/IR line-straddler could be as professionally useful as focusing just on America. 2: Do I really want to live in Texas?

When I was on a recruitment trip, a professor told me that jobs for Americanists are more plentiful now because many of the professors who were hired in the big higher education expansion of the 1960s are now retiring. Make of that what you will.

I have certainly seen that; half the ~25 faculty in my alma mater's political science department retired in the last five years, and a few more are definitely going to leave soon. Then, after that, it seems like everyone is like ~35-40. Of course, that could mean the wave is cresting right now, and WE HAVE TO GET TO THE JOB MARKET THIS MOMENT!

Bottom line: If you're a superstar, then being in the Americanist job market is sweet. But if you're not a star, then you might be better off being in one of the "niche" markets, like China, Africa, Japan, and so on.

This advice is good since it basically reminds all of us to just focus on what we truly love. "Faking it" to focus on American Politics might get you somewhere, but the guy or gal who has been fascinated with bicameral legislative bodies in New Hampshire since age 16 is still going to out-publish you no matter what you do. Could be better to be one of five people studying Madagascar and South African environmental politics for the two jobs available in that field!

Also, I believe I speak for everyone when I say that, if I had a name like "Malhotra," I would automatically feel like I would be taken more seriously. I mean, honestly: Malhotra. That is about 100 times more professional sounding than the average name. It instantly conjures up images of mysterious long-forgotten dynastic regimes, the sweltering desert sun, and naturally, elephant riders.

This is probably why I have been considering using my initials (I have two middle names!) for publishing purposes, since Amazon's book search has already informed me that my full name is not going to be unique. I realize "how your name looks in print" is likely one of those things we are not supposed to worry about, but it could make a difference. If my name were (this is not my name if you were wondering) Jonathan Steven Thomas Smith, then "John Smith" would not exactly be a catchy name to write under. But "J.S.T. Smith," now that sounds like someone I trust to tell me about the effects of exit polls on voting patterns! The "first name/initial/last name" pattern always seemed to be born of desperation, but just abandoning the other names entirely seems intentional. This is clearly a point we must debate at great length.

[just_me]

This advice is good since it basically reminds all of us to just focus on what we truly love. "Faking it" to focus on American Politics might get you somewhere, but the guy or gal who has been fascinated with bicameral legislative bodies in New Hampshire since age 16 is still going to out-publish you no matter what you do. Could be better to be one of five people studying Madagascar and South African environmental politics for the two jobs available in that field!

I think that is good advice. If you don't truly love what you are doing, getting a Ph.D. just isn't worth it. The opportunity costs are just too great. I wouldn't suggest doing Public Administration if Foucault is what you love.

On the other hand, sometimes it isn't bad to be strategic if you are somewhat indifferent between fields. When I started grad school, I wanted to do European and American but the American job market seemed better so that became my focus. Ironically my first job out of grad school as an Americanist was also at a place where they needed someone to teach one section of Western European Politics a year.