Life After Admission

[Sappho]

I'm curious to know how many of you have thought seriously about what graduate school in Classics will mean for you after the fun of admissions, after the stress of comps, and after the trauma of the job market.

 

Have you talked with your advisors, or your friends, about how bleak the market for Classicists is?

 

Do you care?

 

Have you checked out Famae Volent, or the Classics jobs wiki, to get some sense of what is in store for you?

 

http://famaevolent.blogspot.com/

 

http://classics.wikidot.com/1-2013-2014-classics-ancient-history-archaeology-job-market

 

If so, what did you think?

 

If not, why not?

[PetroniusArbiter]

Sappho, this is an excellent post. I see that this year places such as Yale, Harvard, and Princeton are offering quite a few more offers than in previous years (or at least a few years ago when I was an applicant). Once upon a time, 3 or 4 admittances were par for the course. Does this signal renewed faith in the potential job market, 5-8 years down the track from now? Perhaps. Perhaps not. This season, two ABD candidates at our school landed tenure-track assistant professorships at very solid schools. A few years ago, even to land a VAP would have been a major win. So perhaps the job market is becoming stronger. Maybe some of our teachers will rebuild their retirement funds and feel that they can retire in another 5-10 years. Perhaps then our generation will see opportunities again.

 

But note: I never went into this process without knowledge that it would be tough, financially, and in many other ways too. Granted, if you are not in a top 10 school, then you have a much harder task ahead of you. I once had a conversation with an Emeritus Professor who told me about their hiring process (at a well known North American Classics Dept.): 1 T-T job,  400-500 applicants; cull them down to 50 by throwing out any application that was from a university they had never heard of (Ivies/top 10 to the front of the line), then create the short list for interviews, and so on. The key moment: the culling process.

Yet even though I am at an institution, a top 10 one, I am still thinking about alternate career possibilities for when I have the PhD in hand: Higher Education administration, or even working for a major consulting company. The money will be better, but I doubt the intellectual satisfaction of teaching and research will compare.

 

And so, as you can see: I do care. I care that every single person should be warned about what they are getting themselves into when they accept an offer. The DGS, the faculty, the graduate school, have an ethical responsibility to discharge such a warning to their students. Yet many graduate programs, especially the best ones, will rarely disclose their drop out rates; and you will usually only hear from them about their successful placements. 

 

Well, there's my two-cents, as incoherent as they may be.

Edited February 28, 2014 by PetroniusArbiter

[Statianus]

As I understand, Yale has offered so many places with the expectation that only four to five will accept. This is not a new practice. It has done it before. If, however, more than four accept, the school will be penalised the next year and be forced to admit fewer applicants. 

 

As an incoming Yalie, I can say that I know what the stakes are. I am fully apprised of the fact that not all graduates make tenure-track positions. This information is easily accessible on their website and the DGS and head of department also went over this with me. To be honest, I am not alarmed. I am an international student and from where I come from, very few PhD graduates obtain a senior lectureship because there is a preference for UK and US graduates. Most of our graduates continue in casual positions for years or else reapply their training to other careers - teaching, editing, curating. And I would be happy with those non-academic jobs.

[ewok]

I'm hoping to get into a program with a better job placement. Of the PhD's to come out of my current program in the last 5 years or so, the only one with tenure is at a religious university that only hires those of that religion. Others have struggled getting year-long positions, and not all have found even those. 

[Marcus_Tullius]

I don't really care: I'm not in a 'mainstream' field (Aegean Bronze Age), so didn't really apply to 'top 10' programs. I reckon I have a shot at employment if I perform well within my field, publish and network. It's one of those odd areas where otherwise not leading Programs like that at the University of Cincinnati or UT Austin are rather good.

 

Plus I rather like the field - I don't necessarily view the PhD as a means to get a job. That would be an added bonus at the end - I would be equally happy to teach in a school or do something unrelated by the end.

[kingharvest]

I only applied to places where most of the graduates get tenure track jobs after graduating.  I don't care if it's an R1 university or a shitty one in rural Tennessee, I'll be happy either way.  I would also like to point out that a place like famae volent is going to skew pretty significantly to the negative.  Most of the people on there on the people that don't get jobs - there's not really any reason to keep on at a place like that if you get hired.  Not to say that finding an academic job isn't difficult, but my instincts (and very basic knowledge of formal statistics) say that a place like that will make things seem even bleaker than they actually are.

[ILikeWine]

Hey I just finished from a shitty school in rural Tennessee and loved it . It's not too bad... 

[Sappho]

I only applied to places where most of the graduates get tenure track jobs after graduating.  I don't care if it's an R1 university or a shitty one in rural Tennessee, I'll be happy either way.  I would also like to point out that a place like famae volent is going to skew pretty significantly to the negative.  Most of the people on there on the people that don't get jobs - there's not really any reason to keep on at a place like that if you get hired.  Not to say that finding an academic job isn't difficult, but my instincts (and very basic knowledge of formal statistics) say that a place like that will make things seem even bleaker than they actually are.

 

I wonder, which programs can claim that most of their graduates get tenure track jobs? Do you take them at their word when they tell you this? How do you find out the truth in these matters?

 

Seeing the selection of institutions to which you applied, that information right there tells me you are likely mistaken in your ability to discover data relevant to your own decision making. You have applied to three programs whose placement rates are abysmal. Criminally bad, really. Following your own logic you ought not to have applied to them.

 

FV skews negative because the experiences of most people on the job market in Classics skew negative.

 

With respect, I think you are woefully out of touch with your own likely future. But, onward and upward, as they say!

[Marcus_Tullius]

I wonder, which programs can claim that most of their graduates get tenure track jobs? Do you take them at their word when they tell you this? How do you find out the truth in these matters?

 

Seeing the selection of institutions to which you applied, that information right there tells me you are likely mistaken in your ability to discover data relevant to your own decision making. You have applied to three programs whose placement rates are abysmal. Criminally bad, really. Following your own logic you ought not to have applied to them.

 

FV skews negative because the experiences of most people on the job market in Classics skew negative.

 

With respect, I think you are woefully out of touch with your own likely future. But, onward and upward, as they say!

Did you get rejected for a job or something? You sound unhappy. As far as I'm concerned if you're good, you'll make it.

[Posidonia]

Sure, the odds in Classics (and academia generally) are stiff -- but are they really any better in other professions that are intellectually demanding and/or tend to be viewed as prestigious?  Do you imagine it's any easier becoming a journalist for a major newspaper or magazine?  Does everyone who wants to work for a bank or consulting firm end up getting a job in these industries?  And how many failed entrepreneurs do you imagine are there for every successful one?  Even in the case of law school (which, incidentally, tends to be a popular option for PhDs who find themselves stranded on the job market), a top JD program no longer guarantees gainful employment, and a precious few eventually end up becoming judges or partners at major law firms. 

 

As for top programs and their placement rates, I think it's getting things backwards to believe that a program has some binding obligation to be able to place you in a TT job.  When I look at a department's placement record (and yes, no one's is perfect -- though some of the best, like Berkeley, Stanford, Princeton etc. seem to be able to get 4 out of 5 graduates some form of employment in classics straight out of the gate), what it tells me is how strong some of their middling to best students tend to be, which is really a function of how tough their standards of admission are.  So, if I get into a dept with a strong placement record (i.e., a mixture of VAPS, postdocs and tenure-track offers for 75%+ of alums), all that allows me to be confident of is the idea that I'm *expected* to turn out to be as strong as some or most of their candidates -- but that certainly doesn't mean I'll be guaranteed something like the nice TT job last year's strongest ABD landed, etc.  

 

In the end the onus to succeed is one's own alone; a strong program can only give you a few advantages which you may or may not be able to use to the full.  Personally I've made the choice after much reflection to accept this risk and to take my chances in the profession.  Fortunately I'll have the help and support of a top program in doing that, and believe me, I wouldn't be making this gamble if I hadn't managed to get into a top program.  But now that I've given myself the strongest possible start, I'll take my chances, and enjoy the next 5-6 years doing what I'm passionate about.

Edited March 1, 2014 by Posidonia

[I Have No Idea]

Did you get rejected for a job or something? You sound unhappy. As far as I'm concerned if you're good, you'll make it.

 

Bolded that. I think that's rather...I don't wish to say naive, but at the very least certainly not the case. Look, you come from the exact same intellectual background as me just across the river. I'm pretty sure you must have seen awesome students/early career people go away and idiots promoted based on things other than academic merit. My own professors have been quite open about it. Even as undergrads, we were hardly stupid and it was quite obvious. I dare say there have been several excellent people drop out over the years, but we just didn't realise it. Often  I see some name on an amazing published thesis only to be unable to find said author anywhere in academia.

 

There aren't enough positions, the positions that exist are hardly given solely on merit, even those positions are rarely long term nowadays. I was told to think of it thus: Go in for love of the subject and try your abject best but don't be too shocked if it doesn't work out. Such thinking seems to have the right of it as far as I'm concerned.

 

The alternative is to believe that the only good Classicists come from a handful of departments working under a small group of people who happen to know one another with a few outliers here and there. 

[kingharvest]

You have applied to three programs whose placement rates are abysmal.

 

 

Well, don't play coy.

[heliogabalus]

Sappho, what's your background? Are you a PhD student, ex-PhD student?

[Marcus_Tullius]

Bolded that. I think that's rather...I don't wish to say naive, but at the very least certainly not the case. Look, you come from the exact same intellectual background as me just across the river. I'm pretty sure you must have seen awesome students/early career people go away and idiots promoted based on things other than academic merit. My own professors have been quite open about it. Even as undergrads, we were hardly stupid and it was quite obvious. I dare say there have been several excellent people drop out over the years, but we just didn't realise it. Often  I see some name on an amazing published thesis only to be unable to find said author anywhere in academia.

 

There aren't enough positions, the positions that exist are hardly given solely on merit, even those positions are rarely long term nowadays. I was told to think of it thus: Go in for love of the subject and try your abject best but don't be too shocked if it doesn't work out. Such thinking seems to have the right of it as far as I'm concerned.

 

The alternative is to believe that the only good Classicists come from a handful of departments working under a small group of people who happen to know one another with a few outliers here and there. 

I beg to differ. I don't view university, at any level, as being about a job. I'm only after a PhD out of interest. However those PhDs I have known, who have got jobs, including some out of very middling departments, have been exceptional.

[actual_entity]

a funded phd in classics at any decent department means five stable years on a guaranteed, liveable salary; health insurance and partially-subsidized insurance for dependants; subsidized accommodation; free access to a library, gym, shuttle service, etc; plus several free trips to major US metros and free holidays in europe thrown in for good measure.  that, to me, is a great job.  you don't even need to bring in the usual bromides about the life of the mind to justify it.  i can't think of anybody i know who is walking out of their BA program into a job this good.

[Sappho]

Sappho, what's your background? Are you a PhD student, ex-PhD student?

I am a current student, just now ABD.

 

Well, don't play coy.

OSU, NYU, Cornell. Ask them what their true attrition and placement rates are. I have friends who went to, are or currently at, each. It isn't pretty.

 

 

I don't really care: I'm not in a 'mainstream' field (Aegean Bronze Age), so didn't really apply to 'top 10' programs. I reckon I have a shot at employment if I perform well within my field, publish and network. It's one of those odd areas where otherwise not leading Programs like that at the University of Cincinnati or UT Austin are rather good.

 

Plus I rather like the field - I don't necessarily view the PhD as a means to get a job. That would be an added bonus at the end - I would be equally happy to teach in a school or do something unrelated by the end.

If you are being honest with yourself then this is a fine attitude. But most people, after getting a taste of the apple, will not be so happy to do something unrelated to it.

 

In the end the onus to succeed is one's own alone; a strong program can only give you a few advantages which you may or may not be able to use to the full.  Personally I've made the choice after much reflection to accept this risk and to take my chances in the profession.  Fortunately I'll have the help and support of a top program in doing that, and believe me, I wouldn't be making this gamble if I hadn't managed to get into a top program.  But now that I've given myself the strongest possible start, I'll take my chances, and enjoy the next 5-6 years doing what I'm passionate about.

I think this is the the healthiest attitude, FWIW. I am just surprised more applicants and current students don't understand what the real risks are. They don't know how much the odds are stacked against them finding a full-time job.

 

a funded phd in classics at any decent department means five stable years on a guaranteed, liveable salary; health insurance and partially-subsidized insurance for dependants; subsidized accommodation; free access to a library, gym, shuttle service, etc; plus several free trips to major US metros and free holidays in europe thrown in for good measure.  that, to me, is a great job.  you don't even need to bring in the usual bromides about the life of the mind to justify it.  i can't think of anybody i know who is walking out of their BA program into a job this good.

Yes, but. We tend to discount the opportunity costs far too much. This is a paying job with benefits, true. Keep in mind how much it pays varies school to school. I am lucky to have a stipend that comes close to 30K/year. Most classics programs do not offer that kind of support. Even with this stipend I am not able to save much, and many of my friends at other schools must take out student loans because their stipend is too small. Also, none of your trips are free, they are part of your job. You are working for them, even though it might not feel like it.

 

Compare notes with those of your intellectual peers from undergrad at age 30. They will be in much better condition financially, and are on course for a well-paying, secure career (though not at all, the economy being what it is). We classicists tend to be among the best of our class wherever we went to college, so therefore the opportunity costs of not taking advantage of our academic excellence are, in fact, quite large.

 

I like being a graduate student, and I hope I can find a tenure track job. But seeing friends in my own program who were superstars in undergrad and superstars in grad school come up with zilch on the market is sobering. Some of them are piecing together adjunct work. One has left for law school, which seems equally risky now. Others are exploring non-academic possibilities. Not a single one of them would have thought these results possible five or six years ago since our program has always been considered in the top five, and even number one by many people in the field.

 

That is why it is so important that all of you try to get accurate information from the programs you are looking at. Unless they can show you a break-down of every result for every student who enrolled, beginning in 2000, then they are being dishonest. How many drop out at year one, two, three, four, etc. How many go on the market? How many find a tenure track job within three years of graduating? If you don't know the answers to these questions then you have failed your first research assignment. I failed mine. I'm trying to help you avoid that failure.

 

 

I beg to differ. I don't view university, at any level, as being about a job. I'm only after a PhD out of interest. However those PhDs I have known, who have got jobs, including some out of very middling departments, have been exceptional.

Well, that lines up nicely with the interests of any institution. If you are after a PhD only out of interest then you will have no problem acknowledging that your PhD is the "waste product" of graduate education.

 

How about this idea? We all read the following and then come back here and say whether these articles have made a difference in our thinking about our own graduate education, and what we think departments and professors owe us when they accept us. Perhaps I will not seem quite so crazy to some of you after you've engaged with the ideas below.

 

http://www.theminnesotareview.org/journal/ns58/bousquet.htm

 

http://socialtext.dukejournals.org/content/20/1_70/81.full.pdf+html

 

http://www.theminnesotareview.org/journal/ns7172/interview_bousquet.shtml

 

I still want to get my PhD and try my hand at the market. But I am glad that the scales have been lifted from my eyes now, rather than two or three years from now.

[Marcus_Tullius]

I am a current student, just now ABD.

 

OSU, NYU, Cornell. Ask them what their true attrition and placement rates are. I have friends who went to, are or currently at, each. It isn't pretty.

 

 

If you are being honest with yourself then this is a fine attitude. But most people, after getting a taste of the apple, will not be so happy to do something unrelated to it.

 

I think this is the the healthiest attitude, FWIW. I am just surprised more applicants and current students don't understand what the real risks are. They don't know how much the odds are stacked against them finding a full-time job.

 

Yes, but. We tend to discount the opportunity costs far too much. This is a paying job with benefits, true. Keep in mind how much it pays varies school to school. I am lucky to have a stipend that comes close to 30K/year. Most classics programs do not offer that kind of support. Even with this stipend I am not able to save much, and many of my friends at other schools must take out student loans because their stipend is too small. Also, none of your trips are free, they are part of your job. You are working for them, even though it might not feel like it.

 

Compare notes with those of your intellectual peers from undergrad at age 30. They will be in much better condition financially, and are on course for a well-paying, secure career (though not at all, the economy being what it is). We classicists tend to be among the best of our class wherever we went to college, so therefore the opportunity costs of not taking advantage of our academic excellence are, in fact, quite large.

 

I like being a graduate student, and I hope I can find a tenure track job. But seeing friends in my own program who were superstars in undergrad and superstars in grad school come up with zilch on the market is sobering. Some of them are piecing together adjunct work. One has left for law school, which seems equally risky now. Others are exploring non-academic possibilities. Not a single one of them would have thought these results possible five or six years ago since our program has always been considered in the top five, and even number one by many people in the field.

 

That is why it is so important that all of you try to get accurate information from the programs you are looking at. Unless they can show you a break-down of every result for every student who enrolled, beginning in 2000, then they are being dishonest. How many drop out at year one, two, three, four, etc. How many go on the market? How many find a tenure track job within three years of graduating? If you don't know the answers to these questions then you have failed your first research assignment. I failed mine. I'm trying to help you avoid that failure.

 

 

Well, that lines up nicely with the interests of any institution. If you are after a PhD only out of interest then you will have no problem acknowledging that your PhD is the "waste product" of graduate education.

 

How about this idea? We all read the following and then come back here and say whether these articles have made a difference in our thinking about our own graduate education, and what we think departments and professors owe us when they accept us. Perhaps I will not seem quite so crazy to some of you after you've engaged with the ideas below.

 

http://www.theminnesotareview.org/journal/ns58/bousquet.htm

 

http://socialtext.dukejournals.org/content/20/1_70/81.full.pdf+html

 

http://www.theminnesotareview.org/journal/ns7172/interview_bousquet.shtml

 

I still want to get my PhD and try my hand at the market. But I am glad that the scales have been lifted from my eyes now, rather than two or three years from now.

My attitude is exactly as I said. However I suppose my perspective, working in a 'marginal' field is different to most: I come from one of the strongest departments for both my Undergrad and Master's but didn't even really consider it for a PhD - nor did I consider a lot of 'top' programs. Instead I'm applying to places like UT Austin and the University of Cincinnati and the University of Toronto. Your 'conventional' wisdom my state that coming out of those programs I would have little chance of a job, yet I suggest that is not the full picture - if I want to work on the Bronze Age, to my eyes these are the best Programs and the ones which leave me with the best chance of landing a job in that area.

As to your last articles - I'm not sure anyone is unaware that it's tough, but I don't see why one should not try at the very least. Nothing stops us changing career direction post-phd.

[heliogabalus]

It's been a while since I was around the Classics scene, but UT used to do pretty well with placement. Has that changed? (And yeah, for Bronze Age there and Cincinnati are where you would want to be.)

[wintry_grey]

Possibly a stupid question, but is there somewhere reliable that gives the statistical breakdown of retention rates and job placement for top programs? Or is it on you to ask the department? I'm assuming you should only do this once they give you an offer, considering how reticent (reasonably so, given the bleak picture) departments are in handing out information like this.

[Sappho]

I am sorry for being away and not replying. I would suggest all of you read the following, including the comments. It is sobering:

 

http://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2014/03/10/essay-about-inability-find-tenure-track-job-academe

 

http://www.slate.com/articles/life/inside_higher_ed/2014/03/quitting_the_academic_job_market_should_i_give_up_on_trying_to_be_a_professor.html

 

Same article, but different comments.

 

Also, read this in order to see just how little power you will have when negotiating for that tenure-track job (which of course you have very little chance of getting in the first place!):

 

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/03/13/lost-faculty-job-offer-raises-questions-about-negotiation-strategy

 

http://philosophysmoker.blogspot.com/2014/03/a-new-kind-of-pfo-mid-negotiating-post.html

 

Not Classics, but applicable. Think about this, all of you, please!

 

-- Sappho

Possibly a stupid question, but is there somewhere reliable that gives the statistical breakdown of retention rates and job placement for top programs? Or is it on you to ask the department? I'm assuming you should only do this once they give you an offer, considering how reticent (reasonably so, given the bleak picture) departments are in handing out information like this.

 

No, there is nowhere. You must rely on individual departments, who have every incentive to gloss over uncomfortable facts about their program.

 

It's been a while since I was around the Classics scene, but UT used to do pretty well with placement. Has that changed? (And yeah, for Bronze Age there and Cincinnati are where you would want to be.)

 

I really think you need to get in touch with some recent UT and UC archaeology PhDs and have them give you a straight account of their experiences, and the experiences of the many who didn't. This is one of the most difficult areas to get a job in, period. You aren't considered a Classicist by Classicists, and you aren't considered an Archaeologist by non-Classical Archaeologists.

[Statianus]

Also, read this in order to see just how little power you will have when negotiating for that tenure-track job (which of course you have very little chance of getting in the first place!):

 

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/03/13/lost-faculty-job-offer-raises-questions-about-negotiation-strategy

 

http://philosophysmoker.blogspot.com/2014/03/a-new-kind-of-pfo-mid-negotiating-post.html

 

 

 

Reading this article, it seems that US graduates have a lot of power negotiating their offers. One of the people interviewed actually said they allow ten days for negotiation. The issue here seemed to be twofold: 1. the accepted candidate did not negotiate in an appropriate way; 2. the college rescinded the offer rather than reply to queries. It seems that the accepted candidate did not understand that this was primarily a teaching institution (wanting a research sabbatical, deferred commencement to complete post-doc, capped teaching load, etc)

 

I really think you need to get in touch with some recent UT and UC archaeology PhDs and have them give you a straight account of their experiences, and the experiences of the many who didn't. This is one of the most difficult areas to get a job in, period. You aren't considered a Classicist by Classicists, and you aren't considered an Archaeologist by non-Classical Archaeologists.

 

It seems that your issue is related to the discipline rather than UT and UC themselves. Sure, there simply aren't many jobs available in bronze-age archaeology, but if a graduate student does decide to pursue this area, these are probably the best institutions to attend. (And why wouldn't a Bronze-age archaeologist be considered an archaeologist? There are many dig-sites directed by Bronze-age archaeologists. Why would you even say that?)

[Sappho]

It seems that your issue is related to the discipline rather than UT and UC themselves. Sure, there simply aren't many jobs available in bronze-age archaeology, but if a graduate student does decide to pursue this area, these are probably the best institutions to attend. (And why wouldn't a Bronze-age archaeologist be considered an archaeologist? There are many dig-sites directed by Bronze-age archaeologists. Why would you even say that?)

 

Yes, absolutely, UT and UC are indeed top programs in BAA! I was simply pointing out that choosing that particular sub-field means facing an extraordinarily difficult job-hunt, far harder than almost any other sub-field in Classics.

 

If you don't understand my point about Archaeologists not considering Classical Archaeologists (that is archaeologists trained in Classics departments, so Bronze Age, Classical, Roman, etc.) "real" Archaeologists then you need to give this whole thing a re-think. Archaeologists trained in Classics departments have a very hard time getting hired in Physical Anthropology/Anthropology/Archaeology departments because many if not most of those faculty don't think the Classicist's training is appropriate to their discipline.

 

This means that Bronze Age Archaeologists suffer from a doubly hard problem: they are considered suspect by Classicists because they aren't primarily text-based, and they are considered suspect by Archaeologists because they don't have the cutting-edge archaeology training (so the prejudice goes) that a "real" Archaeology program would provide. They slip through the cracks and suffer unemployment as a result.

 

*That* is why anybody considering any type of Classical Archaeology really needs to talk to recent graduates or those currently ABD, who have had to deal with the job market first hand. Things have changed dramatically in the last few years, so much so that many faculty do not understand the brave new world their own students have to live in.

[συγχίς-sygchis]

Hi everyone, I just wanted to jump in on this- I'm an advanced ABD student at a strong program. I'd argue that the situation really is as rough as some are suggesting, and I feel that it is incumbent on current ABD students to speak up and offer our perspectives, although I'm not doom-and-gloom all the way. 

 

I'm quite happy with my choices up to this point. I am in a pleasant department, have supportive faculty, a dissertation that I have enjoyed working on, and great financial support. But I also know that the hard part is yet to come-- the job market. I want to second what Sappho said about watching friends who have been superstars all through grad school crash on the job market. It is absolutely frightening- and I've seen it happen every year that I've been here. 

 

There are, of course, people who are successful on the market. But there are many who aren't, and the difference between the two groups is not always clear from my point of view (so, grad students who are, as far as I can tell, good scholars, respected and collegial members of the community, and who have significant research output and teaching experience nevertheless fail to find TT jobs even after applying widely 3 or 4 years in a row). What distinguishes the successful from the not-successful seems to be luck, as much as anything else. Maybe, of course, there's some quality that hiring committees can see that I can't-- it is totally possible-- but I have no idea what that may be, or whether I myself have it. I think that this is a very important point to emphasize, because it speaks against the narrative that things will work out if you're a strong student. They might work out, but it's far from a sure thing. And, we're still shy/ embarrassed about discussing alt-ac careers, so there's a lack of open communication about these opportunities. 

 

As I am about to embark on my first year on the market next season, all of this is deeply sobering. While I understand that some people are pursuing a PhD out of personal interest, I entered hoping that I'd be able to make a career doing this, since I enjoy it and have  spent the last n years getting quite good at it. 

 

When I applied to PhD programs, I was aware of the bad job market, as I can see that many of you are. But I'm not sure that I really appreciated how random the whole process is, or how very low the success rates are, even in a great program. Furthermore, in today's world, VAPs and post-docs are now the norm. But I'm not sure how often these lead to TT jobs, because it gets hard to keep track of people after they've been gone for 3 or 4 years (I mean, obviously I know where my close friends are, but I don't have a good grasp on the wider field). 

 

I am, however, completely certain that we're all working without real data, since statistics about post-graduation careers are so opaque-- this is really something that our field needs to address. For the time being, ABD students usually have the clearest sense of departmental track records in recent years (since we've been around longer than other students). Reach out and talk to us, even if we might not be around during interviews or visiting weekends as much as the grad students in earlier stages. 

 

Like I said at the beginning, I'm not wholly (or even mostly) negative about grad school- I've had a somewhat low-paying but stable job for the last years (low-paying relative to national statistics for college graduates, but comfortable to live on in the city where I am). And, it is a job that I've really enjoyed, which is worth a lot. But, what comes next-- the transition to a long-term career-- is really brutal, and we do our fields no favors by sugar-coating it.

[Statianus]

Yes, absolutely, UT and UC are indeed top programs in BAA! I was simply pointing out that choosing that particular sub-field means facing an extraordinarily difficult job-hunt, far harder than almost any other sub-field in Classics.

 

 

Right, so your problem is more with the discipline than the departments themselves. It seems that those who chose UT and UC, irrespective of final placement outcomes for this programs, have made a good choice for their area of interest. 

 

If you don't understand my point about Archaeologists not considering Classical Archaeologists (that is archaeologists trained in Classics departments, so Bronze Age, Classical, Roman, etc.) "real" Archaeologists then you need to give this whole thing a re-think. Archaeologists trained in Classics departments have a very hard time getting hired in Physical Anthropology/Anthropology/Archaeology departments because many if not most of those faculty don't think the Classicist's training is appropriate to their discipline.

 

 

This is probably a issue of translation-failure. In my country, classics and archaeology are generally grouped together as 'the school of classics and archaeology'. Archaeology students may complete their training with minimal classical background (I would never have called a Bronze age archaeologist a classical archaeologist). Undergraduates go on digs in Israel as well as in their own region. The archaeology school generally has little relationship with the school of anthropology, but has a happy friendship with classics. The problem you describe seems more of a US problem. I have no idea why a Bronze age archaeologist would be suspect to classicists.