Why are you applying to grad school?

[boristhespider_1]

I'm an editor with the History News Network, and I'm working on a story about the job market and grad school applicants.

I don't know how many of the forum-goers here are members of the AHA or read the Chronicle of Higher Ed regularly, but Rob Townsend, the deputy director and all-around numbers guru, just released his latest report on the state of the job market.

http://www.historians.org/perspectives/issues/2011/1112/The-Ecology-of-the-History-Job-Shifting-Realities-in-a-Fluid-Market.cfm

The title alone ought to indicate that things aren't as unequivocally bad as they were two or three years ago.

Still, things aren't good. Tony Grafton and Jim Grossman, the president and the executive director of the AHA, respectively, have been writing up a storm recently about alternative career paths for history PhDs outside of academia.

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2011/10/03/leaders_of_history_association_call_for_new_view_of_the_job_market

I'd like to prevail upon the wisdom of this forum and talk to you (the plural you--English can be such an imprecise language) about your decision(s) to apply to grad school, your plans for grad school, and your post-PhD career. I can be reached at editor@hnn.us.

David A. Walsh

Editor HNN

http://hnn.us

(651) 270-3945

[StrangeLight]

the AHA article was a really interesting read. i think my own school's financial situation is better than many (although not great), because in the 2.5 years i've been in my program, we've hired 8 new faculty and had maybe 2-3 retirements. the average age of profs in my department is in the high 50s easily, with many of them well into their 70s and one or two in their 80s.

people said in the mid-1990s that the jobs would come back once these profs reached retirement age. they've reached it and passed it and haven't left, but funding streams will open up when they leave (either through retirement or death). my concern is (and this article doesn't mention it) that many of those retired tenure-track jobs will be replaced with 2-3 cheap adjuncts at schools with more financial difficulties than my own.

as for why i went into a PhD program, i ask myself that at least once a month. my desire was never to teach. i wanted to do research and to write about historical processes that i think are important for understanding our world today. i first pursued journalism to this end but found that i wasn't allowed to write about the things i actually thought were important (racism, structural inequality, the social construction of "identity" categories, state violence and the illusion of democracy, etc.). getting a PhD in history would presumably allow me to write about those things. i'd like a tenure-track job at the end of all of this, but i think long-term that research and writing will drive me more than teaching, so if my choices were between an NGO research position or a 4/4 teaching load in the middle of no where, i'd jump at the non-academic job.

[TMP]

I am going to e-mail you a private e-mail but I do want to write my general thoughts.

Departments still have ways to go before they can look at an applicant who wants to be an archivist or work in the historian's office in the U.S. Senate and not cringe and throw it in the REJECT pile. Departments need to be push hard, even if they have excellent job placement records in academia. How many of their students are *actually* happy to work in academia or believe that there's just only one option after getting a Ph.D. simply because of the department's professorship-driven culture? I know of one top program that I did not apply to in 2008 because the professor had said that if I didn't want to be a professor, then I shouldn't apply there. Now the same department is just beginning to make its move to join some of the cutting-edge universities that are ranked in the 20s (by USNews) and it would be a possibility at this point if I apply. FIVE YEARS and those other departments made their moves 2-3 years ago. Embarrassing that its lower-ranked peers may have better job placements in the next few years because of better prepared students?

I have seen the ups and downs of these boards and a number of applicants come through here. I have strongly encouraged new posters (mainly who have written very vague posts) to consider why they want to get a Ph.D. and be able to answer beyond "because I want to be a college professor." Sometimes they retreat, other times they use the thread to hash out why they're going through the application process. Lately, I've pushed seniors to take a year off because, with the scary economy, they need to think hard about graduate school and what it will mean for them. Ph.D. is not a place to escape the poor job market (never minding that the academic job market is worse). Also, students are less mature than they used to be so a few extra years of growing up doesn't hurt. At age 26, I feel much more mature than I used to when I entered in my MA program at 22 (about to turn 23). Since graduating with my MA, I've experienced life and my relationships with my professors have improved substantially.

My point is, if AHA, Ph.D. programs and undergraduate advisers can work together to educate undergraduates about what it means to get a Ph.D. in history and formulating personal reasons for pursuing it, undergraduates may be all in better position to make an informed decision. Ph.D. programs need to embrace the idea that the applicant may not want to go into academia after the Ph.D. but the degree will still be useful for non-academic positions, especially in think tanks and the government. Also, they need to continue developing professional workshops and training courses (like geography, statistics, editing) so that their PhD.s can come out of the program with exceptionally broad skills as teachers and researchers.

Undergraduate advisers at many, many places, especially those that do not offer Ph.D. programs, would be best served to have a panel at a AHA conference that discusses graduate admissions in depth. These kind of professors, especially older ones, are so out of touch what is needed to be a successful applicant. Too often, I think, the students wind up going to a MA program in order to make up for that lost opportunity of strong advising (get your languages early, opportunities for summer thesis research, etc). There should be DGSs from a variety of programs and fields. So the DGSs should provide examples of poor and exemplary statements of purpose (written by seniors, not MA students) and various experiences, and specifics on what is expected in terms of language training and research experience.

And continue having panels at AHA and urge some of the best Ph.D. programs to change how they approach post-Ph.D. plans. Why can't someone who wants to pursue a position at a research institution in DC or NYC or a public history job at one of the top museums in the world have an opportunity to attend a top-10 history program? Why should they have to go to a regional school that's just happy to have Ph.D. students? Money-wise, this is a better way for top programs to ensure healthy investments on their students (and make themselves look good to the higher-ups who are busy slashing funds). If their students can land jobs at these kind of places immediately after getting the Ph.D., then those half-million dollars were well-spent- much better than telling that student that they only apply to academic jobs, including CC teaching, and having to wait out a few years before it actually happens.

Just my 0.02 cents and I've always admired Robert Townsend's posts.