Reputation Real Talk

[lifealive]

 

Part of the reason for this is because I feel like Berkeley occupies a unique space in the hierarchies of elitism and class privilege. It's easy to get in as a transfer student, but once you're in, Berkeley's reputation has the power to catapult students much further than they would get on their own. This is true not just in terms of academic careers, though I am a prime example of that; it's also true for B.A. graduates, who are often hired outright by Google and other large companies simply because they attended Berkeley. I don't think this is unfair; in fact, I see it as nothing short of miraculous. Berkeley creates class mobility in a world where, most of the time, that simply isn't possible.

 

Now, I am well-aware that the English program at Berkeley is also ranked #1 in the nation - in choosing it, I am not making a sacrifice for others. But I think that I am doing my best to work within an innately rigged system in a way which allows for both self-preservation AND real change. The truth is that I love many things about academia, including things that make the system unfair - I love how small and familial it is, I love the deep personal connections we make with our peers. I love that mentors never really abandon their mentees - they are always behind the scenes, looking out for you. I just got here - I am not sure I want to dismantle it, to be frank. But I do want to make it sustainable, so that others can enjoy what I have enjoyed - and I do want to make it accessible, so that new perspectives continue to enrich the academic world. (I understand that many of you will disagree with me here - will say sustainability and access can't exist unless the system is dismantled. That might be true. But I remain torn between love and scruples.)

 

 

Not everyone has a Berkeley in their state. Even more distressingly, not everyone has a public university in their state that ranks in the top 100 schools to which they can transfer CC credits. That's the problem. 

 

I don't think any of us here think that people here should actually turn down top offers because the system isn't fair. It's more like: people who got top offers shouldn't automatically assume that someone who only got accepted to UC-Santa Cruz should just give up now because they will not ever become a professor. That's the real tragedy here: that we will lose valuable scholars and valuable ideas because we've bought into the rhetoric that any education outside a very narrow ring of schools is essentially worthless.

 

We do have a system in place to correct the imbalances wrought by prestige: the process of publication, which operates on a blind-review basis. Unfortunately, for a lot of people, this system isn't working very well anymore.

[hreaðemus]

Not everyone has a Berkeley in their state. Even more distressingly, not everyone has a public university in their state that ranks in the top 100 schools to which they can transfer CC credits. That's the problem. 

 

I don't think any of us here think that people here should actually turn down top offers because the system isn't fair. It's more like: people who got top offers shouldn't automatically assume that someone who only got accepted to UC-Santa Cruz should just give up now because they will not ever become a professor. That's the real tragedy here: that we will lose valuable scholars and valuable ideas because we've bought into the rhetoric that any education outside a very narrow ring of schools is essentially worthless.

 

I guess I wonder why you'd say top-10 acceptees believe there's no valuable scholarship being done at, or scholars coming out of, lower-ranked universities? That's certainly never been my assumption. I'm not attempting to devalue lower-tier schools. But I felt I couldn't afford to ignore the current job market, and its inherent biases. It was too big a risk for me as an individual. (And of course I agree that this kind of inequity is really sad - but I just don't think my [or anyone's] awareness of that inequity is reflective of a belief that non-top-10 scholarship is "worthless.")

 

And I know not every state has a Berkeley. Frankly, NO other state has a Berkeley. But I can make an impact here, however localized. That's meaningful to me.

Edited February 25, 2015 by hreaðemus

[CarolineNC]

Not everyone has a Berkeley in their state. Even more distressingly, not everyone has a public university in their state that ranks in the top 100 schools to which they can transfer CC credits. That's the problem. 

 

I don't think any of us here think that people here should actually turn down top offers because the system isn't fair. It's more like: people who got top offers shouldn't automatically assume that someone who only got accepted to UC-Santa Cruz should just give up now because they will not ever become a professor. That's the real tragedy here: that we will lose valuable scholars and valuable ideas because we've bought into the rhetoric that any education outside a very narrow ring of schools is essentially worthless.

 

We do have a system in place to correct the imbalances wrought by prestige: the process of publication, which operates on a blind-review basis. Unfortunately, for a lot of people, this system isn't working very well anymore.

BAM. You said this so well. 

[lifealive]

I guess I wonder why you'd say top-10 acceptees believe there's no valuable scholarship being done at, or scholars coming out of, lower-ranked universities? That's certainly never been my assumption. I'm not attempting to devalue lower-tier schools. But there's a difference between having hope for others, or even confidence in others, and making choices for oneself. I made what I felt was a practical choice, based on the job market; it wasn't based on a judgement of the scholars coming out of other schools.

 

 

 

I didn't think you were implying that about lower-ranked programs, so I'm sorry if that's the way it came across. But frankly, a lot of people think that there's no value in going to a non-top school. The content of and comments on the Slate article underscore that much. So do hiring practices more generally.

 

Personally, I have never expected to get a job in academia, and I don't intend to be in academia long term. I had a previous professional life to fall back on, so for me academic life has never been a life-or-death prospect. I would not adjunct. But having said that, I have little patience for the rhetoric that tells people that they can't expect a good career--despite whatever they've achieved--simply because of the name on their diploma, and because they "should have known better."

 

Now, I know that no one in humanities higher ed can expect a good career for reasons that have nothing to do with prestige. But it's the casual dismissal of non-top-10 PhDs' potential contributions that I take issue with.

 

It's interesting to me that everyone expects a fair shake at the admissions process and the top schools, even if they don't come from the swankiest background. But on the other end of this thing--the job market--the rhetoric changes. Then it's: "Well, you knew before accepting that offer to the PhD program at University of Colorado that you'd never be competitive for a tenure-track job." Really? So it was okay to expect to be evaluated on "merit" when you were applying to graduate school, but apparently it's too much to ask on the job market? Think about the disconnect here: we favor the Horatio Alger narrative when we're talking about getting into a great grad program despite a less-than-ideal background. But we feel that narrative doesn't apply to grad school itself. Instead, it's considered perfectly acceptable to understand that where you get your PhD will limit where you will work. We accept that the "legwork" needs to be done during the application process.

 

Unfortunately, a lot of people don't have the resources to do the legwork before they apply because they don't come from a place where they have access to good preparation. That's all I meant about Berkeley. It's terrific if you have a school in your area where you have access to this world-class education. But many people do not have that kind of a university system in their state.

Edited February 25, 2015 by lifealive

[hreaðemus]

It's interesting to me that everyone expects a fair shake at the admissions process and the top schools, even if they don't come from the swankiest background. But on the other end of this thing--the job market--the rhetoric changes. Then it's: "Well, you knew before accepting that offer to the PhD program at University of Colorado that you'd never be competitive for a tenure-track job." Really? So it was okay to expect to be evaluated on "merit" when you were applying to graduate school, but apparently it's too much to ask on the job market? Think about the disconnect here: we favor the Horatio Alger narrative when we're talking about getting into a great grad program despite a less-than-ideal background. But we feel that narrative doesn't apply to grad school itself. Instead, it's considered perfectly acceptable to understand that where you get your PhD will limit where you will work. We accept that the "legwork" needs to be done during the application process.

 

Unfortunately, a lot of people don't have the resources to do the legwork before they apply because they don't come from a place where they have access to good preparation. That's all I meant about Berkeley. It's terrific if you have a school in your area where you have access to this world-class education. But many people do not have that.

 

Thanks for explaining your perspective a bit more. I think that's a really good point about the ceiling of entire careers being limited by something as arbitrary as the initial grad school application process; I hadn't considered the disconnect between the rhetoric of applications and the job market in that way.

Edited February 25, 2015 by hreaðemus

[heja0805]

Okay, I found a couple 2014 success stories. And you're right, CarolineKS, no more bashing my undergraduate institution. It won't happen again.

 

Instead of reading about how non-Ivy graduates never get jobs, I found Dr. Leah Schwebel, an assistant professor at Texas State University.She's a Chaucer scholar, and her MA is from McGill University. Her PhD is from the University of Connecticut. 

 

I also found Dr. Rachael Zeleny, who's the Writing Program Director and Assistant Professor of English and Communication at Alvernia University! She earned an MA from James Madison University, and her doctorate is from the University of Delaware.

 

And then Dr. Jordan Youngblood at Eastern Connecticut State University, who's interested digital rhetoric. Dr. Youngblood's MA is from the University of Mississippi, and the PhD is from the University of Florida.

 

These people's names are all public knowledge, and I found them from rapid-fire searching state university websites. Congratulations to them for coming from state schools and having TT jobs! 

 

 

I'm not sure what to think about this. No Ivy League institutions offer doctoral degrees in my discipline (writing studies). While a small handful of private institutions offer PhD programs in rhetoric, composition, or technical communication, many more of them are public, land-grant institutions. And while the job market isn't awesome, it's more favorable than other disciplines in the humanities. Graduates secure TT positions in both public and private institutions across the country, every year; placement rates are usually at least 90%, with the best programs coming in around 100%. Of course, securing *any* TT job in the humanities is becoming a feat, but I guess I'm just resistant to referring to any rhet/comp or writing studies TT faculty member as a success story--that narrative just doesn't match up with our context. 

[Appppplication]

For me, this thread has provoked mostly annoyance. Sorry.

 

There are many reasons people can't get into Ivy League schools--structural racism, low-income background, late start, bad luck, 7,000,000 other applicants in your area of specialization, etc. But the logic or even suggestions that only Ivy grads are going to get good TT jobs is simply crazy. If you're sad or angry you didn't get into an Ivy I understand, and I feel for you, but that's a different issue from there's no good jobs for anyone except Ivy grads. If you really feel that if you don't go to an Ivy you won't get a good job then you should bow out of academia now (or try to reapply next year), because you've already set your path and you will not be happy. The Ivy PhD and the state school PhD are probably both going to be adjuncting for awhile (or forever???) anyway. 

 

And yes I've seen a lot of the research and no I don't want to attend an Ivy.

Edited February 25, 2015 by Appppplication

[fancypants09]

 

There are many reasons people can't get into Ivy League schools--structural racism, low-income background, late start, bad luck, 7,000,000 other applicants in your area of specialization, etc. 

 

I've mostly been a reader on this thread, but the sentence above does capture one thing I did want to bring attention to those who have kept the conversation going here. 

 

Privilege isn't some monolithic, unitary thing. Most of the focus on the lack of privilege in the discussion has been on socio-economic background. Yes, I understand that having or not having money is related to whether someone is privileged. And besides the whole concern regarding privilege, I understand that not having money has very real and concrete impact on what we can or cannot do.

 

But so does race. And gender/sexual orientation. And geographical location. To name just a few. 

 

I also want to respond to a comment earlier about how everyone shouldn't go into academia thinking that they will end up being professors. I think the problem pointed out by the recent Slate article is that there are people who do very much want to become professors coming out of "less prestigious" programs. It's one thing for those amongst us who are going to "prestigious" programs or have other options for income/career advancement to make the case that there is a choice, or for those entering academia with the goal of not staying in academia (which begs the question of why enter at all, but that I feel is another discussion altogether), but aren't we simply averting our eyes away from those who are really affected by the problem? If there are indeed viable alternatives to becoming a professor, I think now is a good time as any to begin discussing what they may be. 

[1Q84]

But the logic or even suggestions that only Ivy grads are going to get good TT jobs is simply crazy. If you're sad or angry you didn't get into an Ivy I understand, and I feel for you, but that's a different issue from there's no good jobs for anyone except Ivy grads. 

 

I don't recall reading such a simplistic point of view in this thread. It was pretty much established from the get-go that top-tier graduates tend to find TT jobs within those same top-tier schools (which generally bar graduates from outside that tier), whereas those from lower-tier schools have some success finding TT jobs in non-Top 20 schools (where top-tier graduates tend to have a little more difficulty because of so-called "anti-prestige bias"). You're right to call out the unjustified Ivy-hate flowing through some arguments here but that and the availability of TT jobs are two separate debates that you seem to be conflating.

 

It's one thing for those amongst us who are going to "prestigious" programs or have other options for income/career advancement to make the case that there is a choice, or for those entering academia with the goal of not staying in academia (which begs the question of why enter at all, but that I feel is another discussion altogether), but aren't we simply averting our eyes away from those who are really affected by the problem? If there are indeed viable alternatives to becoming a professor, I think now is a good time as any to begin discussing what they may be. 

 

Yes. This.

[Appppplication]

If the major worry in this thread is that PhD from school "ranked number 3" is going to get the Cornell job over PhD from school "ranked number 8" or even "ranked number 25" then I'm truly saddened (and if it is about that then there's a reality check in order). There are bigger worries about the state of higher education and about the job market.

 

I also think you're missing my point: EVERYONE should be worried about the possibility of getting ANY TT job. To worry about being barred from the Harvard position that gets 999 applicants because you went to Emory or whatever non-Ivy school is silly. Chances are, no matter what school you went to, you won't get the job anyway (simply based on statistics). Let's be real.

 

I'm not only calling out the Ivy hate on this thread, but I'm also calling out the ridiculousness involved in thinking that your ability to get hired at Brown depends on you going to Yale, and that would be considered a "good job". Or to think that you can't teach more than 1 course per semester and do research, or to think that if you get hired at State School Z that you won't be able to do research, or to think that if you go to Harvard you'll get a job at Yale! Or to think that if you don't work at a "top 50" institution you have failed.

 

If the academic job market has taught us anything it should be that there is great work being done at every university, now much more than in the past, because people from all institutions will line up for any available TT job. And if you or me or anyone else get ANY of those TT jobs, we should all feel lucky (because everyone is talented and well educated on the job market).

Edited February 25, 2015 by Appppplication

[unræd]

I also think you're missing my point: EVERYONE should be worried about the possibility of getting ANY TT job. To worry about being barred from the Harvard position that gets 999 applicants because you went to Emory or whatever non-Ivy school is silly. Chances are, no matter what school you went to, you won't get the job anyway (simply based on statistics). Let's be real.

 

Yes. A lot of this discussion has assumed that going to a top ten school somehow magically means the doors of the job market are flung wide for you. I don't mean to imply that the effects of prestige aren't real and pernicious, or that it doesn't replicate other systemic, structural inequalities, but the Slate article especially makes it seem as though all these top ten grads are getting jobs by sitting on their laurels. First of all, not all the grads from those schools are getting jobs, at all, and secondly, those few that do get jobs are having to bust their ass and hustle and sweat and go through years of postdoc-ing/adjuncting to do that--just like everybody else who's getting jobs, from any sort of institution.

 

And Ap(howevermanyps)lication brings up a vitally important point: in a statistical sense, none (okay, very, very few) of us are going to get jobs. Once again, I'm obviously not saying that to discourage anyone from going to graduate school in the humanities. I'm going to go to graduate school in the humanities. But to pretend that that's not the case, or to go in thinking you'll be an exception and without considering any other career option besides being a TT prof at an R1, or to blame that on nepotism within graduate programs and not consider the vanishing scarcity of jobs, period, caused by large-scale changes in university hiring, misses how awful it is out there.

 

ETA: I probably shouldn't even have posted this; I'm not sure how constructive this discussion is at this point. It seems like there's an awful lot of talking past each other, and a lot of our discussions about privilege--and I didn't mean to imply with my comment on my own background that I haven't been the beneficiary of enormous amounts of privilege in my life, and continue to be--ignore the fact that this whole conversation, on all sides, is positively marinating in it, as is any of us with the ability--in terms of intellect, prior education, time, or loan worthy credit--to go off and read books for six years. I think that the idea that people going to a small state school instead of a top ten to get their PhDs in literature are somehow necessarily engaged in a revolutionary project that fucks the system is a particularly hard sell.

Edited February 25, 2015 by unræd

[greenmt]

I've mostly been a reader on this thread, but the sentence above does capture one thing I did want to bring attention to those who have kept the conversation going here. 

 

Privilege isn't some monolithic, unitary thing. Most of the focus on the lack of privilege in the discussion has been on socio-economic background. Yes, I understand that having or not having money is related to whether someone is privileged. And besides the whole concern regarding privilege, I understand that not having money has very real and concrete impact on what we can or cannot do.

 

But so does race. And gender/sexual orientation. And geographical location. To name just a few. 

 

I also want to respond to a comment earlier about how everyone shouldn't go into academia thinking that they will end up being professors. I think the problem pointed out by the recent Slate article is that there are people who do very much want to become professors coming out of "less prestigious" programs. It's one thing for those amongst us who are going to "prestigious" programs or have other options for income/career advancement to make the case that there is a choice, or for those entering academia with the goal of not staying in academia (which begs the question of why enter at all, but that I feel is another discussion altogether), but aren't we simply averting our eyes away from those who are really affected by the problem? If there are indeed viable alternatives to becoming a professor, I think now is a good time as any to begin discussing what they may be. 

 

This seems just right.  My take: the Ivies are brand-names.  It's assumed that if you make it through the program, you've had to work hard, but there's more to it.  If you're a small college in the hills, it's impressive to have a Harvard PhD on your faculty roster.  If you're a big research university, it's expected that you'll have a (lot of) Harvard PhD(s) on your faculty roster.  The administrators are complicit in this system.  So are the faculty, and so are we. It doesn't mean that people shouldn't gladly (and without guilt) apply to and attend Harvard.  I'd love to have access to the Widener Library.  But if all of us looking their way continue to look their way, we'll miss out on other interesting options, whether as prospective students, as future faculty hiring committee members, or as future administrators.  My hope is that, 10 years from now, those on this thread who snag tenure-track jobs will remember this conversation when digging through the frightening pile of resumes that is taking their attention away from the work they "really" should be doing, and give the candidate from USSC or UConn another look.  As with most things, change begins with us.

 

My experience: I grew up 20 miles south of Boston (i.e. practically surrounded by colleges) but no one in my extended family had ever attended college, and one adult in my neighborhood had a BA.  No one needed a college degree to make an ok living, so higher education was for other people.  That led to a kind of mindset in which people who chose education more or less isolated themselves, or moved into a different social structure.  So, from my perspective, there's an ephemeral kind of privilege that often coexists with and reinforces the others identified here, and that's an assumption that education is worth your time, that it's intended for you.  This, it seems to me, is the hardest kind of privilege to address.  I have a friend whose work is to engage and support first-generation college students in the relatively impoverished Northeast Kingdom of Vermont. These kids are largely white, they have access to college nearby, there's financial support for those who need it; and they still struggle.  They struggle because no one in their world every showed them how to assume that they had a right to higher education.  I've lived my adult life among people who were born (with parents) assuming they would go to college, and they never doubt that, if they want / need a PhD, that's their right, too.  

 

My experience has shown me that education is transformative: its power is in how it changes the way we think and move through the world.  The experience itself is rewarding and life-changing, because (in addition to your nominal study subject), you learn to think with greater nuance, you realize that maybe there are other assumptions that are up for debate, and maybe you won't stand for what was unacceptable before.  That's why people like Scott Walker want to take it away, why Ronald Reagan's first act as Governor of California was to go after the great UC system.

 

So for me, a PhD in the humanities has value in itself, and I didn't want to pursue it until I was hungry for it.  In terms of work outside the academy: I was hired into my first nonprofit job by a person (Yale Sociology PhD) who left a tenure track job to run a little nonprofit association of social-justice funders.  It let her do research in her field and continue to publish. A humanities PhD can be a useful asset in looking for a job in federal and state funding agencies, museums, humanities centers, historic houses, libraries, archives, private foundations, college administration, and independent research agencies or advocacy groups, some related to academia. Most of these don't offer some of the best perquisites of a tenured big U gig - though some do offer sabbaticals and such - but you can make a decent living, doing interesting work among smart people.  You might even be able to continue researching and publishing in your field.  Since many research universities have - or have relationships with - these places, it's baffling to me that PhD programs still focus solely on teaching as professional development for their students, to prepare them for a job market that everyone seems to assume no longer exists.  (As I noted yesterday, I'm not sure that's the case.)  I'm sure there are other useful and fun things you can do with an English PhD besides teaching, but this at least starts the conversation.  

[__________________________]

On 2/25/2015 at 12:27 AM, fancypants09 said:

I've mostly been a reader on this thread, but the sentence above does capture one thing I did want to bring attention to those who have kept the conversation going here. 

 

Privilege isn't some monolithic, unitary thing. Most of the focus on the lack of privilege in the discussion has been on socio-economic background. Yes, I understand that having or not having money is related to whether someone is privileged. And besides the whole concern regarding privilege, I understand that not having money has very real and concrete impact on what we can or cannot do.

 

But so does race. And gender/sexual orientation. And geographical location. To name just a few. 

 

I also want to respond to a comment earlier about how everyone shouldn't go into academia thinking that they will end up being professors. I think the problem pointed out by the recent Slate article is that there are people who do very much want to become professors coming out of "less prestigious" programs. It's one thing for those amongst us who are going to "prestigious" programs or have other options for income/career advancement to make the case that there is a choice, or for those entering academia with the goal of not staying in academia (which begs the question of why enter at all, but that I feel is another discussion altogether), but aren't we simply averting our eyes away from those who are really affected by the problem? If there are indeed viable alternatives to becoming a professor, I think now is a good time as any to begin discussing what they may be. 

 

On 2/25/2015 at 6:04 AM, greenmt said:

 

So for me, a PhD in the humanities has value in itself, and I didn't want to pursue it until I was hungry for it.  In terms of work outside the academy: I was hired into my first nonprofit job by a person (Yale Sociology PhD) who left a tenure track job to run a little nonprofit association of social-justice funders.  It let her do research in her field and continue to publish. A humanities PhD can be a useful asset in looking for a job in federal and state funding agencies, museums, humanities centers, historic houses, libraries, archives, private foundations, college administration, and independent research agencies or advocacy groups, some related to academia. Most of these don't offer some of the best perquisites of a tenured big U gig - though some do offer sabbaticals and such - but you can make a decent living, doing interesting work among smart people.  You might even be able to continue researching and publishing in your field.  Since many research universities have - or have relationships with - these places, it's baffling to me that PhD programs still focus solely on teaching as professional development for their students, to prepare them for a job market that everyone seems to assume no longer exists.  (As I noted yesterday, I'm not sure that's the case.)  I'm sure there are other useful and fun things you can do with an English PhD besides teaching, but this at least starts the conversation.  

 

So on point, thank you for your comments!  One thing that gets ignored in these discussions about "oh lord, if I don't go to an Ivy I'm screwed" (mostly based on articles in the Chronicle and oftentimes, Slate, the latter of which tends to be particularly melodramatic) -- you can go to a top-10 (or whatever) school and still have as difficult time getting a job as anyone else if that school's emphases make it perceived as "weak" for whatever field you're trying to specialize in.  If you go to Yale to study ComeBackZinc's field of Posthuman Cyborg Novels of the Long 17th Century (please exist, please exist, please exist), and they only have one person doing that while that field happens to be dominated by Florida State, GWU, WUSTL, Brandeis, and UC Santa Cruz (completely random examples) -- if there are jobs in that field, maybe you'd be better off going to one of those (comparatively) "lesser ranked" schools.  So yeah, like fancypants said -- it ain't some monolith or "all or nothing" kind of deal.  We're talking about statistics, which are easily skewed and never individualized for special circumstances (and specializations and uber niche fields are a huge part of academia).

 

But yes, do let's actually talk about things (besides teaching) one can do with a lit Ph.D.!  I'm currently a teacher, but before this gig I did a bunch of library work (everything from Reference and research assistance to uber-dry library science and cataloging projects).  One of the things I'm looking into is being able to find work during my program getting summer work/internships at research libraries as well as finding lectureship/adjunct gigs too -- one  of the reasons why I want to study in a big city is the increased opportunities for such work.  One thing I'm looking forward to being able to do in a funded Ph.D. program is to actually be able to take potentially unpaid internships that interest me -- I was never able to do that in undergrad because I was always working and couldn't afford to do internships or take summer classes and things like that.  My program will give me that opportunity.

 

Just a personal example of my current thought process -- I'd be very much interested in hearing what other people are thinking too!  

 

ETA: I'm sorry -- I don't mean to make assumptions about where people have gotten in and what kind of opportunities people will have.  My case will be different -- I happen to have gotten at least one funding offer that will allow me to do what I said and I don't want to make it look like I assume everyone has that same situation.  I'm very fortunate.  But I do think it would be productive for us to brainstorm what sorts of opportunities for work besides teaching university that can be presented in a Ph.D. program, realizing that each situation will have different variables.

[allplaideverything]

  My hope is that, 10 years from now, those on this thread who snag tenure-track jobs will remember this conversation when digging through the frightening pile of resumes that is taking their attention away from the work they "really" should be doing, and give the candidate from USSC or UConn another look.  As with most things, change begins with us.

 Yupp!!!

[echo449]

http://gawker.com/happy-national-adjunct-walkout-day-1687939328

Just wanted to post this and remind people to get involved in organizing if possible! Even if tenure-track jobs are truly unattainable for many of us, there's no reason that adjunct faculty HAVE to live like they currently do on poverty level wages. 

[chateaulafitte]

 

I've thought for a while now that the boomers are glutting the TT job market, as they have for years, in this and other job markets.  This 2011 article from TIAA-CREF (the nonprofit that manages retirement funds for many universities) confirms that many professors in their 60s (and there are a lot of them) have been putting off retirement.  https://www.tiaa-crefinstitute.org/public/pdf/institute/research/trends_issues/ti_facultyretirement1211a.pdf That said, they have to retire some time.  I decided to look into future prospects.  And in fact, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (which has no reason to pad the numbers) projects growth in our specific field through 2022: http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_102.htm - scroll down to "English Language and Literature teachers, postsecondary."  Not only that, but the percentage of growth (14.8) is almost half-again the total for all occupations (10.8).  Since, by all accounts, there hasn't been a rush to hire English Language and Literature teachers, postsecondary, in recent years, there's every possibility that those boomer-profs *will* start retiring soon and need to be replaced, resulting in 14.8% or higher growth in the job market for English Language and Literature teachers, postsecondary.  Which means us.  

 

Happy to oblige.

 

They actually do not have to retire and many do not intend to: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/06/17/data-suggest-baby-boomer-faculty-are-putting-retirement

 

 

Some 74 percent of professors aged 49-67 plan to delay retirement past age 65 or never retire at all, according to a new Fidelity Investments study of higher education faculty. While 69 percent of those surveyed cited financial concerns, an even higher percentage of professors said love of their careers factored into their decision.

 

They'll die in the classroom. And when that happens, adjuncts will pick up the corpses.

[lifealive]

 

 

 The Ivy PhD and the state school PhD are probably both going to be adjuncting for awhile (or forever???) anyway. 

 

 

You don't ever have to adjunct.

[1Q84]

If the major worry in this thread is that PhD from school "ranked number 3" is going to get the Cornell job over PhD from school "ranked number 8" or even "ranked number 25" then I'm truly saddened (and if it is about that then there's a reality check in order). There are bigger worries about the state of higher education and about the job market.

 

I also think you're missing my point: EVERYONE should be worried about the possibility of getting ANY TT job. To worry about being barred from the Harvard position that gets 999 applicants because you went to Emory or whatever non-Ivy school is silly. Chances are, no matter what school you went to, you won't get the job anyway (simply based on statistics). Let's be real.

 

I'm not only calling out the Ivy hate on this thread, but I'm also calling out the ridiculousness involved in thinking that your ability to get hired at Brown depends on you going to Yale, and that would be considered a "good job". Or to think that you can't teach more than 1 course per semester and do research, or to think that if you get hired at State School Z that you won't be able to do research, or to think that if you go to Harvard you'll get a job at Yale! Or to think that if you don't work at a "top 50" institution you have failed.

 

I think you kind of missed my point. Yes, all job candidates, regardless of alma mater, will have difficulty finding a TT job simply because of the shrinking number of positions. I don't think anyone is denying that and that's an obvious fact. Does that mean that we should ignore the inequalities that rank and reputation create? No. The point that upper-tier schools hire within themselves only is a real and concerning issue because it reinforces and reproduces the exact types of concerns that you find ridiculous.

 

So I agree that the things that you point out are ridiculous in theory. They shouldn't exist as concerns for anyone. Nonetheless, they do exist because of real material conditions in the hierarchical, reputation, networking-based job market out there and I don't really get why you're so invested in flattening the distinction between all candidates when it's undeniable that those distinctions exist. I don't think it actually helps anyone, least of all in changing the system in some way, to simply declare, "NONE OF US WILL GET JOBS! HURRAY!"

 

You seem to think that just ignoring these inequalities and "not worrying" about them will make them go away.

 

 

 

If the academic job market has taught us anything it should be that there is great work being done at every university, now much more than in the past, because people from all institutions will line up for any available TT job. And if you or me or anyone else get ANY of those TT jobs, we should all feel lucky (because everyone is talented and well educated on the job market).

 

This is stating the obvious and something that I'm pretty sure every single person in this thread would cosign. Talking about reputational hiring biases is not mutually exclusive to this statement. Again, it seems like you're hoping that that will become a performative statement--just by acknowledging that all universities do great work (which, I believe we all do already), and by stating that ANY TT job would be great, it shall be so. Unfortunately, that's not how systemic discrimination and inequality go about being fixed.

 

Edit to add: And yes, in case this wall of text did not make it clear: I'm well-aware that candidates from Ivies and top-tier schools don't simply sweep gloriously into TT jobs. I, nor anyone in this thread, is making that ridiculous claim.

Edited February 25, 2015 by 1Q84

[Appppplication]

you do realize that in our world sometimes transgender people get murdered or beaten for walking down the street? You're right, I'm not worried about whether you will get the Harvard job if you don't go to Yale!

I'm baffled how this concern somehow stands in for the systematic economic, racial, gender, and sexual orientation discrimination that we face in getting diversity in higher education, whether in TT jobs or in PhD programs. Further it's such a miniscule concern to focus on the Ivies in this situation.

So flattening I am not, I just think the energy is totally misplaced. It's a little too Ivory Tower for me.

[1Q84]

you do realize that in our world sometimes transgender people get murdered or beaten for walking down the street? You're right, I'm not worried about whether you will get the Harvard job if you don't go to Yale!

I'm baffled how this concern somehow stands in for the systematic economic, racial, gender, and sexual orientation discrimination that we face in getting diversity in higher education, whether in TT jobs or in PhD programs. Further it's such a miniscule concern to focus on the Ivies in this situation.

So flattening I am not, I just think the energy is totally misplaced. It's a little too Ivory Tower for me.

 

Well, you're resorting to strawman arguments and fallacious comparisons ("Hey you can't complain about your broken down car because people are getting bombed in Syria!") now, so I'm not really sure where you want to head with this. I'll take it as a sign to drop the debate.

[Dr. Old Bill]

you do realize that in our world sometimes transgender people get murdered or beaten for walking down the street? You're right, I'm not worried about whether you will get the Harvard job if you don't go to Yale!

 

[hypervodka]

I can't believe anyone would be concerned about diversity in higher education without acknowledging the accumulation of disadvantage figured from the potential myopia of hiring decisions. If there's bias toward degrees from particular institutions, that bias extends out beyond the Ivory Tower, and deserves to be addressed.

[Appppplication]

Myopic hiring practices in ALL academic jobs. Yes. that focus can reflect larger problems. Focusing on whether you will get hired at Harvard if you didn't go to Yale does NOT.

[hypervodka]

Except that hasn't been the dominant focus of this thread at all. Who on this thread has been preoccupied with their chances at teaching at Harvard? Several people on this thread, lifealive for example, have been vigorously pushing against the narrative that non-elite PhDs lack value. Several people have pointed out the potential TT hiring opportunities for  graduates from non-elite institutions. From what I understand, empress-marmot in particular was concerned about getting a job period, and  Who has been complaining about the fact that their degree from Emory won't land them that job at Cornell?

 

One of the Slate articles posted here, about the dominance of graduates from specific universities in  TT/tenured placements at ALL institutions (though it's focused on a couple of different non-humanist disciplines), does a great job of illustrating the significance of this discussion. Myopic hiring practices at certain institutions (which, again, I honestly don't think was ever the focus of this thread) are indicative of myopic hiring decisions at ALL institutions, so I'm really not understanding the distinction you're making here.

[allplaideverything]

I think Apppp...'s point is a good one, or at least clarifies that discussions of power and privilege aren't limited to what kind of TT position a humanities PhD can hope to be hired for based on their grad institution's prestige. Indeed, if that was what anybody was saying, that'd obviously be lacking in vision.

 

Instead, the problem with the Ivy League isn't limited to humanities PhDs, or professorial hiring, or graduate school at all: the problem is that all sectors of our society, both economic and political, reify the prestige of a small network of massively wealthy institutions, and the institutions combined with their networks work hard at maintaining their exclusive power. That's a social problem at large which isn't at all limited to "the Ivory Tower." And indeed, while the main benefits conferred upon students of elite institutions are largely socioeconomic, the problem is exacerbated and compounded by the fact that Ivies and other elite institutions (and, really, most 4-year universities across the country regardless of prestige) make admissions decisions which adversely affect people of color, trans* folks, working class immigrants, and other already marginalized groups.

 

So, yeah, I think "trans* people get killed so fuck your TT position conundrum" is maybe not the best articulation of the argument, but Appp is right to expand the conversation beyond the woes of professional academia.

 

EDIT: and this is indeed what I mean when I talk about "fuck the Ivy League"--not that the folks who do their English PhDs there are bad people, but that the very nature of such a "League" is grounded in systematic inequality based on prestige and inheritance.

Edited February 25, 2015 by allplaideverything