Intellectual History Job Market

[nerdspeak]

I am interested in political theory, comparative political economy, and economic sociology. I am, however, more inclined to qualitative research than to hardcore statistical analysis. I majored in intellectual history at a top liberal arts college and did well, and am trying to decide whether to apply to grad programs in political science or in intellectual history.

My understanding is that the political theory market is absolutely horrible. Look how many political theory candidates are still on the market coming out of UChicago: http://political-science.uchicago.edu/people/phd.shtml.

History is less transparent--at least I'm having a harder time getting placement data. Does anyone have any data on placement rates of the top history departments? I know that the market is, in general, bad, but that might not be the case for the top programs--it certainly isn't for philosophy, as Brian Leiter points out in his takedown of Pannapacker. http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2010/03/lying-about-the-academic-job-market.html.

[New England Nat]

"Political History Broadly Defined" ... that is political history not about US presidents is a growing field in part because a decade ago it was dead. It's raise had come in part from a disenchantment with the pretentions of "science" and quant. analysis in political science/theory/politics departments. I wouldn't nessecarily say that "intellectual history" is the crossover between those two and my unscientific impression is that the political historians are having an easier time getting jobs.

That said... I think we are facing a lost generation of PhDs where people who got their degrees in the year or two before the downturn until probably a year or two ago that didn't get on the tenure track aren't. The profession is not hiring in great numbers in the backlog. On the other hand, I think the ABD hire is a thing of the past.

[TMP]

From what I've seen from H-Net Job Guide, not a lot of jobs compared to other fields. I'd subscribe to that if I were you so you can see how many positions are being advertised for this year and next.

[CrazyCatLady80]

I do political history, but more social - not intellectual. I believe one

[Shep]

The job market for History (and most humanities) PhD's is rather bad and expected to stay this way for quite some time. Yes, H-Net is a decent indicator of how many positions and which fields are hiring. My advice to you is to come up with a Plan B in terms of career goals and topic areas. I've said it before and I will continue to say it. It is very important for current applicants NOT to get their hopes up in terms of landing a TT position after graduation. I was told just recently by a POI that the job market is so bad, that even students from top programs end up teaching in third tier institutions. Just because you studied at Harvard, doesn't mean that Princeton or Yale will hire you.

[CrazyCatLady80]

My post cut off. Stupid computer.

As I was saying, I do political history, but more social and I focus on African Americans and women. Both those topics are still very hot in regards to the job market. This is largely what I am interested in studying, but there is a small part of me who picked these topics, because there are jobs in this subfield. That being said, historians that study African Americans and women are a dime a dozen these days.

Here is the deal with getting a PhD in history - you do it because you love it and won't be happy doing anything else. One of my friends said becoming an historian isn't a career choice, but a calling. When I decided to go for a PhD, I knew exactly what I was getting myself into. I read every scary article from the Chronicle of Higher Education that basically said I had a better shot of becoming the next Lady Gaga than a tenured college professor. I thought about it for three very long years till I made my decision. If you are seriously considering this career path, I highly recommend you pick up a copy of Graduate Study for the 21 Century by Gregory Colon Semenza. He is bluntly honest about what is expected of you as a grad student. If you don't like what he says, you probably should look into something else.

[nerdspeak]

I really think the hysteria about the job market is a bit overblown. Unlike law school, graduate training was never a "good" career move--there's no reason why people should feel deceived. Most graduates of top 10 Ph.D. programs, at least in philosophy (the most transparent discipline), get tenure-track jobs or desirable postdocs. Personally, I think being upset that Harvard won't hire you straight out of graduate school is a bit ridiculous. So what if you're at a third-tier institution--you're still part of the discourse, and the school year is only 6 months long, so you don't necessarily have to stay in Nebraska or Mississippi all year long.

[CrazyCatLady80]

I wouldn't say it is overblown. I know a lot of history PhDs from top institutions that are either working as adjuncts (usually at several institutions) or doing something completely different. I don't know about philosophy, but in history you have around a 50/50 chance of landing a tenured track job. Yes...there are visiting professors and postdocs, but, in the end, they still don't guarentee you a tenure track job. If you want to study history, you need to look at the job placement numbers in history - not philosophy.

A top 10 PhD program guarentees you nothing. A member of our junior faculty here at CSUN graudated from Columbia around five years ago. He told me that he felt lucky to have landed a job at CSUN, a third-tier commuter school. He said he knows plenty of Columbia graduates that haven't gotten any jobs at all. The majority of newly minted PhDs in history just want a tenured-track job. It doesn't matter if it is at Harvard or some third-tier school in the middle of nowhere. A top 10 program helps you just a little bit in the job market. One of my advisors told me not to go to UCLA, a top ten school. UCLA seems like a perfect choice for my field. However, he feels that their grad students are just not prepared for the job market. I know several current students there that feel the same way. He also says that a lot of top 10 programs just don't teach you how to teach. This is especially true of the Ivies. Now OSU seems to have an excellent teaching program and a pretty good job placement rate, but it ranks at twenty-four. UW also produces really good teachers and it ranks twenty-six. Remember universities are looking at three things when they hire - research, teaching, and service. Don't get too caught up in the rankings. It doesn't really mean much.

Edited September 14, 2012 by CrazyCatLady80

[Shep]

Yes, but jobs in third year institutions are quite hard to come by let alone post-docs. This is not the sciences. The past few years, admission to programs has been quite competitve (I'm not saying it was easy to begin with). Funding is down, spots are dwindling, and it appears as though this year will be the same. I intend to keep trying as well, but I am extremely realistic that my chances of getting into a choice program and finding a TT position are both slim. Also, I think that a students area of emphasis is something to take into consideration. Please consider that last year, some universities let in far more students than they had funding for. Most departments are deferring students to extra-departmental funding, such as FLAS or independent scholarship opportunties that pay much less than the cost of tuition and living expenses. As TMP keeps saying, have a plan B. What else can you do with a PhD in history? Sure, you might love the subject and want to pursue it with every core of your being, but there comes a time when you need to make a living. I know I sound like a broken record, but I think many applicants and current students have unrealistic expectations.

CrazyCatLady80 also makes some very valid points!

Edited September 14, 2012 by Shep

[CrazyCatLady80]

I totally agree with Shep. I also think a lot of students have no idea what they know what they are getting themselves into. I am not saying this is the case with people on Grad Cafe. Most people here are very well informed. I know several students in my program that want to go for a PhD, but haven't done any conferences, networked with anyone outside the school, etc. In fact, one student who is applying this year hasn't even started working on his application. He told me that his personal statement will just take a day or two to write. His first choice is Berkeley. Good luck with that.

[Riotbeard]

I agree with nerdspeak. People talk about the job market as if its like making it big in hollywood. Is it competitive? Sure. But 50/50 odds actually arent that bad for the way people talk about it as if like 1 in 10 people get jobs. I think there is also a way to do intellectual history that allows you to call it cultural history, which would at least help your position on the job market, but there is a huge calling for old school political theory history anymore, although some people do it like David Armitage (at least to an extant).

[Simple Twist of Fate]

I totally agree with Shep. I also think a lot of students have no idea what they know what they are getting themselves into. I am not saying this is the case with people on Grad Cafe. Most people here are very well informed. I know several students in my program that want to go for a PhD, but haven't done any conferences, networked with anyone outside the school, etc. In fact, one student who is applying this year hasn't even started working on his application. He told me that his personal statement will just take a day or two to write. His first choice is Berkeley. Good luck with that.

While it's undoubtedly true that some students thinking about grad school neither understand its rigors nor the competitiveness of admissions and the job market, I would caution against this kind of attitude (I don't mean to single you out, CCL, but this has been something on my mind lately). Cynicism and realism aren't what gets you into good programs. Lots of people who aren't as obsessed with admissions as we are get into great programs. I'm attending a fairly decent program, and from my interactions with many of my cohort-mates over the past few weeks, I can guarantee that most of them were more akin to the people who haven't started their applications by this point or who wrote their SOPs in one draft. Seriously. It's not that they're not as invested in the process or that they're less passionate, it's that they aren't as obsessive. I firmly believe that gradcafe denizens (and the like) are the exception, rather than the rule, among top students. The truth is that chance decides admissions far more than we're willing to admit. It's comforting to think that by following all the unwritten rules, getting tons of feedback and doing everything the "right" way, we'll have a greater measure of control over our destinies - and there's some truth to that. But the overwhelming reality is that your friend might get into Berkeley simply because they happen to be looking for someone who does what he is interested in.

Sorry to get further off track. I also do quite a bit of intellectual and political history - but more of the "social history of ideas" variety. I consciously choose not to identify as an intellectual or political historian, for the reasons others mentioned. I know at least one other "closet" intellectual historian who tends to identify as a cultural historian more often than not (but who isn't a cultural historian now?). So, OP, any placement data for intellectual/political historians might not tell the whole story.

[CrazyCatLady80]

STF has a good point. I do tend to be a realist and a cynic. I also know several people who decided to apply for PhD programs for the hell of it and managed to get into some top schools. However, I still say those are the exceptions.