Reputation Real Talk

[unræd]

My only stipulation is to never work for a corporation again.  If I'm teaching public high school kids, or doing the day labor type work that I did in high school again, or bumming around between adjunct gigs, or working in a library, or joining the peace corps, I don't really care -- but the work you do purely for yourself, for your own edification ("cultural capital"), is something no one can take away from you except yourself.

 

I know this isn't your point, and it's not to say that it should be the case (it definitely shouldn't), but I think we greatly underestimate the enemy if we think teaching in the modern university--whether adjunct or tenure track; whether at an elite private university or a public community college--is somehow vastly different from working for a corporation.

Edited February 24, 2015 by unræd

[unræd]

And really, the main reason I'm taking issue with these discussions is because I'm imagining people reading them and getting their feelings really, really hurt because their schools aren't "good enough," when really they're just as brilliant as anyone else here. (cause we're all brilliant. yes!) 

 

 

Caroline, was it this thread where you were talking about fuck the Ivy League? Because yaasss let's be friends!

 

No, it was the Acceptances thread, but it's worth quoting here:

 

My experience has been very different. I would never apply to an Ivy. I feel I have no right to be at an Ivy. But also, I don't want to be at an Ivy for various reasons, tied to my beliefs about privilege, the beliefs I tie into my scholarship.

 

As long as we're talking about respecting people's feelings and not using language like "podunk" and "dinky," let's cool it with the Ivy bashing, yeah?

 

There are a lot of people on these fora who got into Ivy League schools this year, and presumably they're all pretty happy about that--I know I am. No, of course I don't take it as a pure measure of merit; yes, it has a lot to do with luck, and there are loads of brilliant people outside Ivies and dullards within them. But neither did I coast in on gilded wings of privilege alone; I never graduated high school, and spent the majority of my twenties working in foodservice. So yes, actually: I am damn proud of that.

 

I have no interest in returning GC to the horror days of flame wars of yore. So let me just say this: if we aren't able to critique elitism and the inappropriate ways that higher education is structured without constructing arguments that manage to abject people at both satellite campuses of state universities, and at Ivy League ones, maybe that's a sign we need to be a little more careful with the language of our critique.

Edited February 24, 2015 by unræd

[CarolineNC]

No, it was the Acceptances thread, but it's worth quoting here:

 

 

As long as we're talking about respecting people's feelings and not using language like "podunk" and "dinky," let's cool it with the Ivy bashing, yeah?

 

There are a lot of people on these fora who got into Ivy League schools this year, and presumably they're all pretty happy about that--I know I am. No, of course I don't take it as a pure measure of merit; yes, it has a lot to do with luck, and there are loads of brilliant people outside Ivies and dullards within them. But neither did I coast in on gilded wings of privilege alone; I never graduated high school, and spent the majority of my twenties working in foodservice. So yes, actually: I am damn proud of that.

 

I have no interest in returning GC to the horror days of flame wars of yore. So let me just say this: if we aren't able to critique elitism and the inappropriate ways that higher education is structured without constructing arguments that manage to abject people at both satellite campuses of state universities, and at Ivy League ones, maybe that's a sign we need to be a little more careful with the language of our critique.

you're right. sorry for offense.

[emily.rose]

All of this talk about the job market and I don't think anyone has mentioned teaching at community colleges. Seems like many positions only require an MA, but with the job market being like it is, a lot these positions are going to those who hold a PhD. I know getting a PhD probably means you're aiming for a career in research, not just teaching, but  it doesn't seem like an entirely bad gig to spend 5-7 years doing your own funded research and then teaching at a community college. It's not the TT position everyone is gunning for, but it's also not unemployment/teaching high school/being an adjunct. Any thoughts?

 

P.S. I don't have experience in this area other than what I've read, so apologies if I'm totally off base!

[ProfLorax]

I adjuncted at a community college for three years. For every tenure-track job opening, the department received 100 to 200 applications. The one full-time position that was open while I was teaching was pulled for funding reasons. This is all to say that community college tenure-track jobs are no longer a given either.

ETA: I also want to caution against the "well, there's always community college!" line of logic because there are plenty of scholar-teachers whose first choice is to teach community college, so you'll be competing against folks with extensive experience and knowledge of basic writing, FYC, and English language learners--basically, people who have been training to teach the community college student population.

[__________________________]

I know this isn't your point, and it's not to say that it should be the case (it definitely shouldn't), but I think we greatly underestimate the enemy if we think teaching in the modern university--whether adjunct or tenure track; whether at an elite private university or a public community college--is somehow vastly different from working for a corporation.

No, you're right.  I wouldn't say it's vastly different, but still preferable.

 

1- @mollifiedmolloy: Eileen Joy is great and does great work, but she has the impact she has also because she's a former tenured professor. If she had been an adjunct all along, I doubt she'd have the kind of audience she has (because sadly, adjuncts = nonentities in academia).

This is a good point.  What you say about adjuncts is very strange to me; I keep trying to understand the logic of the various prejudices against this and that type of Ph.D. and I just can't.

 

It's very hard to balance my abject pessimism about the state of affairs in this country and my unabashed enthusiasm for having the privilege of going to a funded graduate program in the Fall.  I suppose realizing the state of affairs will at least make us more prepared to make alternative plans and preparations while in our programs.

 

Has there been any talk on GC of placement in teaching jobs abroad?  Because I feel like on a couple places I've gotten into/looked at there are several placements in other countries (for UChicago, I'm seeing England, Korea, India...).  Anyone know the deal with that?  Is the job market abroad just as stiff?  Or is it just that most people try to stay in America for other conveniences?  I'm curious about that job market though... 

[unræd]

No, you're right.  I wouldn't say it's vastly different, but still preferable.

 

This is a good point.  What you say about adjuncts is very strange to me; I keep trying to understand the logic of the various prejudices against this and that type of Ph.D. and I just can't.

 

It's very hard to balance my abject pessimism about the state of affairs in this country and my unabashed enthusiasm for having the privilege of going to a funded graduate program in the Fall.  I suppose realizing the state of affairs will at least make us more prepared to make alternative plans and preparations while in our programs.

 

Has there been any talk on GC of placement in teaching jobs abroad?  Because I feel like on a couple places I've gotten into/looked at there are several placements in other countries (for UChicago, I'm seeing England, Korea, India...).  Anyone know the deal with that?  Is the job market abroad just as stiff?  Or is it just that most people try to stay in America for other conveniences?  I'm curious about that job market though...

My knowledge is all secondhand, and restricted to the UK, but I have a friend in a humanities field with an Oxbridge phd who's just taken himself off the market to teach secondary school after a long search. He says the market for permanent academic work there is just as bracing, with an added wrinkle: while UK PhDs tend not to do as well on on the US market and don't look for work in the US quite as often, the UK market is full of people with American phds, too. Double whammy in terms of oversupply, but it does appear that they're more comfortable importing people than many US schools.

[__________________________]

word.  Out of upvotes for you guys above, but unraed, proflorax, and chanteaulafitte -- I would give you them if I had any right now.  For the record, I agree with the people who say debt sucks and should be avoided if possible.  Also about Ivies -- I know there are plenty of cliches about them, but plenty of people go to ivies who don't fit into those cliches.  Any talk about elitism should not go so far as to take away from the intense amount of work that people put in to getting into those schools -- yes, admissions can be kind of a "crap shoot," mostly because of a lack of transparency, but hard work rewarded is never something to brush away.  We should all be happy for people who get into the programs they want -- whether those programs are in the "top 100" or "top 6."  Hard work rewarded is worth all our support and good wishes.

 

I, too, would never advise anyone to go into more debt than they need or think they can pay off, but like I said, that's an individual choice.  We're adults and can handle our own lives, and I think cases like NowMoreSerious's are very admirable.

 

I'd also be interested in learning more about job markets in other countries.  I'm not surprised by unraed's comment about England -- but what about continental Europe, or Canada, or Latin America?  Or wherever, really.  I know there are some Canadians floating around on here...

 

There's also a Plan B thread already for people who don't get into their dream programs... I would also be curious about people's thoughts on plan Bs when they are in funded Ph.D. programs.  Or in the M.A. programs they wanted, for that matter.

[toasterazzi]

The best part about that Slate post for me is where the guy talks about leaving the fact that he got his MA at Indiana State off his resumé because he's been told that he'll fare better on the market without it.

 

I got my MA from Indiana State.

 

*sigh*

[kurayamino]

Plan B information for post PhD:

 

http://versatilephd.com/

 

a book called “So What Are You Going to Do with That?”: Finding Careers Outside Academia by Susan Basalla and Maggie Debelius.

[chateaulafitte]

 

 

Has there been any talk on GC of placement in teaching jobs abroad?  Because I feel like on a couple places I've gotten into/looked at there are several placements in other countries (for UChicago, I'm seeing England, Korea, India...).  Anyone know the deal with that?  Is the job market abroad just as stiff?  Or is it just that most people try to stay in America for other conveniences?  I'm curious about that job market though... 

 

I have a few friends from grad school who got placed in the UK or in Asia. The UK market is brutal, requiring many more publications and grant seeking than the US market (google "Research Excellence Framework"). Those who got placed in Asia were natives of the countries.

 

Continental Europe is terrible. There are few positions in Italy, Germany, France, Spain, and Switzerland and "nepotism" is the name of the game. In comparison, the US is the land of plenty.

[SilasWegg]

Just some brief thoughts on the stigma of loan debt.... I've noticed that if you lease a brand new kick ass mercedes with a brutal interest rate and exorbitant monthly payment all your friends will love you. If you refinance your house to buy it all the better because that means you have equity. If you take out a twenty year mortgage on a new condo everybody congratulates you. These forms of debt are equated with a kind of status.

 

Many people, including many on this board, stigmatize borrowing for education. I suppose this comes from the right place: the ideological belief that education should be free. However the cost/benefit analyses here are sort of a no-brainer. The career and social outcomes resulting from a graduate degree far exceed those of a new car or a new home, require far less capital, and have far more forgiving repayment terms. I honestly believe that many of those who decry the state of the job market in academia have never had to navigate the job market outside of academia. If they had, they would probably realize that most jobs are far more competitive than 40% placement rates and will crush your spirit and exploit you with impunity.

 

The fact is most Americans carry some form of debt (except of course the very rich, which I am not). Even the spendiest of borrowers for education rarely top out 100k. That's a fraction of what you would take out on a mortgage. In any event, a lot of the judgment on borrowers and on programs that ask students to borrow pretty misguided to me....

[kurayamino]

Just some brief thoughts on the stigma of loan debt.... I've noticed that if you lease a brand new kick ass mercedes with a brutal interest rate and exorbitant monthly payment all your friends will love you. If you refinance your house to buy it all the better because that means you have equity. If you take out a twenty year mortgage on a new condo everybody congratulates you. These forms of debt are equated with a kind of status.

 

Many people, including many on this board, stigmatize borrowing for education. I suppose this comes from the right place: the ideological belief that education should be free. However the cost/benefit analyses here are sort of a no-brainer. The career and social outcomes resulting from a graduate degree far exceed those of a new car or a new home, require far less capital, and have far more forgiving repayment terms. I honestly believe that many of those who decry the state of the job market in academia have never had to navigate the job market outside of academia. If they had, they would probably realize that most jobs are far more competitive than 40% placement rates and will crush your spirit and exploit you with impunity.

 

The fact is most Americans carry some form of debt (except of course the very rich, which I am not). Even the spendiest of borrowers for education rarely top out 100k. That's a fraction of what you would take out on a mortgage. In any event, a lot of the judgment on borrowers and on programs that ask students to borrow pretty misguided to me....

I think the stigma against borrowing for education is also based on this fact: When you finance a home or a car and find yourself out of work with too much debt you can file for bankruptcy. When you finance your education and find yourself out of work there is absolutely NOTHING you can do except extend the term of your loan. You will be in debt for your education for the rest of your life and if you have kids, the rest of their lives. The loan industry for education is one of the sharkiest businesses out there and while some debt may be unavoidable or even worth the risk taking on massive loads of debt (beyond say, the price of said Mercedes) can be a huge risk.

[hypervodka]

This is mentioned in the Professor is In link someone posted awhile ago, but going into debt for an education was considered "good debt" until fairly recently, when people began to realize that many jobs graduates can expect to receive don't actually allow debtors the financial stability to pay off the substantial debts that often come from student loans, and there's no reprieve for those unable to pay these loans off. It used to be considered an "investment," but the pay-off just isn't worth the buy-in.

[SilasWegg]

I think the stigma against borrowing for education is also based on this fact: When you finance a home or a car and find yourself out of work with too much debt you can file for bankruptcy. When you finance your education and find yourself out of work there is absolutely NOTHING you can do except extend the term of your loan. You will be in debt for your education for the rest of your life and if you have kids, the rest of their lives. The loan industry for education is one of the sharkiest businesses out there and while some debt may be unavoidable or even worth the risk taking on massive loads of debt (beyond say, the price of said Mercedes) can be a huge risk.

This is real talk. The mechanisms for educational debt relief are super cruel and sharky. You are right to point this out as the major risk for educational borrowing. It seems that these lending practices should be safer and better regulated. There are so many bad actors in the college loan world that borrowing can become a very dicey proposition!

[1Q84]

1Q, that depends on what life choices you are talking about.  For example, I took on debt to get an MA because I felt it was the only chance I had to further my studies to the point where I could put together a good Ph.D. application.  

 

For me it was a choice between debt, or continue my career as an industrial factory worker. I made a decision. I'm not sure if it was the right one but I did it, and I know it will have consequences because I will have to pay back that debt in the future, and having to pay back that debt might obviously affect my standard of living (especially if I am only able to get low-paying jobs) for the rest of my life.  

 

But so would have 20-30+ more years of factory work.  Do you know what I'm saying?

 

I made a calculated decision and luckily, it paid off, so far, in that I am fully funded in a Ph.D. program.  

 

It sounds like you have a family to support and are in a different situation.  I don't see accumulating debt as an automatic death sentence or automatic hinderance to supporting a family, however.  

 

But everyone makes their own decisions about debt.  For me it was my absolute only hope--I had no other choice if I wanted to pursue an academic career.   

 

All this being said, though, I am sincerely, and in good faith, interested in how this thread in the conversation is making you re-think privilege and non-privilege.  That sounds like an interesting conversation waiting to happen. 

 

I think there's a difference between the type of debt accrual I'm talking about and the type which you undertook. The advice I'm seeing around here is not based on making that one last shot to get out of a lifetime of manual labor, which, as others have said, is admirable, but is based on really wanting to go to a school. So sorry if I lumped you into that crowd but I wasn't getting any context for your previous comment of "If I get debt, I get debt." Anyway, I'm obviously not one to judge your situation because... who the hell tries to support a family by becoming an English professor?

 

As for privilege, I guess it's not a groundbreaking observation to note that some folks think that having a safety net but not using it means that they're slumming it when it fact it is still insane privilege.

 

 

Just some brief thoughts on the stigma of loan debt.... I've noticed that if you lease a brand new kick ass mercedes with a brutal interest rate and exorbitant monthly payment all your friends will love you. If you refinance your house to buy it all the better because that means you have equity. If you take out a twenty year mortgage on a new condo everybody congratulates you. These forms of debt are equated with a kind of status.

 

Many people, including many on this board, stigmatize borrowing for education. I suppose this comes from the right place: the ideological belief that education should be free. However the cost/benefit analyses here are sort of a no-brainer. The career and social outcomes resulting from a graduate degree far exceed those of a new car or a new home, require far less capital, and have far more forgiving repayment terms. I honestly believe that many of those who decry the state of the job market in academia have never had to navigate the job market outside of academia. If they had, they would probably realize that most jobs are far more competitive than 40% placement rates and will crush your spirit and exploit you with impunity.

 

The fact is most Americans carry some form of debt (except of course the very rich, which I am not). Even the spendiest of borrowers for education rarely top out 100k. That's a fraction of what you would take out on a mortgage. In any event, a lot of the judgment on borrowers and on programs that ask students to borrow pretty misguided to me....

 

hypervodka is right on the money. Not only must you distinguish between good debt and bad debt, you have to realize that debt is only "good" when you have a job that pays enough to pay it down (Thus, it helps you build equity. There are plenty of other ways to do this, by the way, which include using a credit card and paying it off in full every month). No one "admires" a person who leases a kick ass Mercedes if they work a minimum wage job and can't make the payments. That's ridiculous and no one equates that kind of debt with status. The same can be said of educational debt: I don't think any of us can be guaranteed a job that will adequately help us pay down six figures of educational debt. 

 

I know all sorts of people who go on credit card or no-money-down spending sprees at Best Buy. Do I admire them? Hell no because obviously I know that they don't have the means to pay it off and are just digging themselves a hole.

 

If a medical student wants to lease a Mercedes, hey, go for it buddy... you've got so much educational debt, a car won't make a difference. And the important thing--they'll have the means to pay it off when they're done schooling. 

Edited February 24, 2015 by 1Q84

[allplaideverything]

No, it was the Acceptances thread, but it's worth quoting here:

 

 

As long as we're talking about respecting people's feelings and not using language like "podunk" and "dinky," let's cool it with the Ivy bashing, yeah?

 

There are a lot of people on these fora who got into Ivy League schools this year, and presumably they're all pretty happy about that--I know I am. No, of course I don't take it as a pure measure of merit; yes, it has a lot to do with luck, and there are loads of brilliant people outside Ivies and dullards within them. But neither did I coast in on gilded wings of privilege alone; I never graduated high school, and spent the majority of my twenties working in foodservice. So yes, actually: I am damn proud of that.

 

I have no interest in returning GC to the horror days of flame wars of yore. So let me just say this: if we aren't able to critique elitism and the inappropriate ways that higher education is structured without constructing arguments that manage to abject people at both satellite campuses of state universities, and at Ivy League ones, maybe that's a sign we need to be a little more careful with the language of our critique.

 

Admittedly, my "talking about fuck the Ivy League" was regrettable shorthand for a more substantive critique. I definitely don't mean to make people feel bad for where they choose to attend school. I apologize for that.

 

Of course there are plenty of amazing people who attend (and work at) Ivy League schools--that's not really a question. And of course there are plenty of great reasons for pursuing a PhD (or other degree) at an Ivy League school.

 

The problem, though, is that many of the great reasons for going to an Ivy have to do with the way in which prestige reinforces inequitable systems of power and privilege. I don't begrudge anybody for deciding to go to what is most likely an amazing program with great resources--I do, however, begrudge the basic concept of the Ivy League. If we're opposed to inequitable systems of power and privilege, then we must critique a small network of colleges that, due to massive endowments, exclusionary practices, and a long tradition of elitist networking, purport to be better than other colleges and work to maintain the imbalance of resources and power in higher education.

[lyonessrampant]

^Yes, this.  I have a lot of thoughts on this conversation, but I've been using grad cafe to distract me from finishing my second diss chapter, so I'll not weigh in, especially as allplaid has expressed many of my own thoughts.  I would have just upvoted, but out of those somehow.  

 

I think it's great to have and keep having these conversations.  Sadly, adjuncts and those on the margins aren't being very effective at forcing change, mainly because the supply is far too great to force change from the institutional leviathans.  Unionization can help, but the institutions have ways of getting graduate students and adjuncts to stay quiet.  The push to unionization has failed twice since I've been at my university.  Have you followed along with the strike at U of Oregon this year?  If not, google it.  It helps to have tenured voices, especially those at prestigious universities, support these movements, but those voices are almost entirely absent.  Hopefully more of our generation of scholars will replace those voices and speak out, but too often people forget the difficulties once they're isolated in tenure, especially at a prestigious university, and the academy in general so easily talks activism but doesn't follow through.  I may be jaded, but I think change is going to mostly have to come from the inside (short of some sort of legislative fix, which, let's face it, won't come), but so many of those on the inside aren't invested in making that change happen.

 

Anyway, great thread, and the last thing I'll say is on the subject of debt.  It's hard to be inspired, creative, and motivated when you're stressed about paying your rent, buying medicine for a sick kid, or just frustrated with being an adult and still living like an undergrad.  No matter how great the stipend is, you'll feel that way at some point.  For people with compressed packages and carrying a 2-1 or 2-2 teaching load (I have NO idea how people do that; they're super heroes, I assume), the awesomeness of being paid to read and write about what you like gets lost under the drudgery of subsisting.  There's a reason most of the great writers and artists historically have come from situations of privilege and money. It's a lot easier to express your creativity when not worrying about necessities.  You'll meet people in these situations at conferences or at universities and colleges where they are adjuncting.  Definitely think about Plan B (or C) to avoid getting trapped in adjuncting, but not everyone does or can, and they are used up by the educational institution.  Imagine adding a massive debt burden to that situation.  Some adjuncts make as little as $2000-2500 per course, and even teaching four or five courses a semester (if they can get them), they're likely around the 20k mark after taxes (if fortunate).  Stretch that over 12 months and think about a $600/month student loan bill (ballpark for 60-70k debt) subtracted off the top each month.  That's a pretty compelling reason to try to minimize debt.  The logic of exceptionalism helps us all think we won't be in that position, but statistically, we're a lot more likely to be there than TT.

 

ETA that not commenting obviously turned into a comment . . . yay paralipsis!

Edited February 24, 2015 by lyonessrampant

[lifealive]

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! 

 

Okay, I really don't want to be the biggest Debbie Downer in the world here, but these are often the kind of jobs that people from "non-elite" institutions get, with the exception of Dr. Schwebel. And her MA was from McGill--and yes, having gone to an elite school, even if you didn't get a PhD there, can help on the job market.

 

The other two jobs--okay, they have to do with Writing Centers and digital rhetoric. And those are great jobs, don't get me wrong, but they are geared more toward people who work in rhet/comp. Rhet/comp does not really exist at the top literary studies programs. Therefore, you will often see people from state schools doing rhet/comp jobs.

 

The problem is for people who go to public universities and want to teach purely in literary studies. That's where things get dicier. Often times, these people have to far, far out-publish their elite peers just to get a very small piece of the pie, or they have to develop a rhet/comp skill set on the side in order to have any kind of job.( Zelany and Youngblood both have PhDs in English but marketed their dissertations as "multimodal" and "rhetoric-based." --I'm assuming they understood the market value of doing so.) But then they have to complete with people who have rhet/comp PhDs, and that can also be dicey.

 

I also wonder about the teaching load that these people are doing. I don't know, but I'm just guessing that ECSU and Alvernia require a lot of teaching. Maybe 4/4. So that, unfortunately, often spells the end of whatever "research life" a scholar wants to have. And this is another way that academia ultimately screws over a lot of promising people. Delaware and Florida aren't even bad programs--they're actually really GOOD schools--and I'm guessing they produce great research scholars. But the job market has gotten so tight that these once-good programs are just not able to place their students anymore in traditional literary studies jobs. Those who do get jobs get jobs with heavy teaching loads; as a result, they take longer to publish books, if they publish them at all. Those who are funneled into 2/2 positions are able to publish and to participate in scholarly discourse at a higher rate. This fact once again cements the perception that the good schools just produce better scholars who are therefore more worthy of jobs and research fellowships.

 

I have tons of stories I could tell about this stuff--some of them super personal--but I think I'll keep quiet for now. And once again, I don't mean this information to be discouraging for people who were accepted to state schools, and more encouragement for people to maintain a "top 10 or nothing" attitude. I went to a state school for PhD and I don't regret it. Despite my "state school" background, I feel I was able to make a contribution, and such a thing is invaluable to me. But it is very irritating to see your accomplishments devalued based on a system of prestige that was put in place before any of our grandparents were even conceived. I also know that these systems of currency/prestige are inevitable in a capitalist economy, but academia should really try to rise above that.

[greenmt]

Drat.  I was writing a long post, with links, etc., and CRASH!  The gist was that I've felt increasingly skeptical about the panicked, fear-driven rhetoric around the job market.  A caveat: the Ivies and other elite institutions are disproportionately represented in *every* field that requires at least a BA.  Look at a list of Presidents and marvel at the percentage of Harvard and Yale grads.  So, I'm not being Pollyanna here.  I don't have any great interest in switching from what I do to the TT teaching world, anyway.  But the articles I see on the subject are very anecdotal, with any data cited dealing with the current or recent job market... the ones the writers are facing, recently faced, or have seen diminishing during their working lives.  So, lots of unexamined assumptions, based on personal experience... surprising in a profession that exists to examine assumptions and rely on published sources.

 

An analogue: my daughter's elementary school saw declining enrollments for 15-20 years, and so the local school board has found it difficult to face up to the fact that enrollments have actually been increasing for the last five years.  I mean, they know, but they're not hiring more teachers, planning for adequate classroom space, etc.

 

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.

Edited February 24, 2015 by greenmt

[kurayamino]

Drat.  I was writing a long post, with links, etc., and CRASH!  The gist was that I've felt increasingly skeptical about the panicked, fear-driven rhetoric around the job market.  A caveat: the Ivies and other elite institutions are disproportionately represented in *every* field that requires at least a BA.  Look at a list of Presidents and marvel at the percentage of Harvard and Yale grads.  So, I'm not being Pollyanna here.  I don't have any great interest in switching from what I do to the TT teaching world, anyway.  But the articles I see on the subject are very anecdotal, with any data cited dealing with the current or recent job market... the ones the writers are facing, recently faced, or have seen diminishing during their working lives.  So, lots of unexamined assumptions, based on personal experience... surprising in a profession that exists to examine assumptions and rely on published sources.

 

An analogue: my daughter's elementary school saw declining enrollments for 15-20 years, and so the local school board has found it difficult to face up to the fact that enrollments have actually been increasing for the last five years.  I mean, they know, but they're not hiring more teachers, planning for adequate classroom space, etc.

 

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.

Yeah, I agree that it sounds encouraging, but... it doesn't mean it'll open up TT positions. Schools have found that adjuncts can do a great job at filling all those gaps for one quarter the cost of a TT professor. Or, at my school they hire new faculty but they're now hired under "no advancement TT" meaning, they'll never rise above assistant prof pay, no matter how much they publish. I hope I'm wrong, but I'm afraid I won't be.

[greenmt]

PS, kinda jokey tone.  But doublecheck me. Am I misreading?  Or is the panic misplaced?

[greenmt]

Yeah, I agree that it sounds encouraging, but... it doesn't mean it'll open up TT positions. Schools have found that adjuncts can do a great job at filling all those gaps for one quarter the cost of a TT professor. Or, at my school they hire new faculty but they're now hired under "no advancement TT" meaning, they'll never rise above assistant prof pay, no matter how much they publish. I hope I'm wrong, but I'm afraid I won't be.

True, though the tighter the market, the stronger the workers in the system.  

[lyonessrampant]

On positions opening up: http://chronicle.com/article/A-Letter-to-Full-Time-Faculty/190085/?cid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en

[hreaðemus]

I have been thinking a lot about this thread. Y'all have engaged in what is, by all accounts, a complicated conversation... and ultimately I feel like I'm not qualified to comment on the purpose of higher education, the weight of crippling debt, or the problem of elitism in the Academy. These are Big Things, thing in which we all, to greater or lesser extents, participate - and frankly I don't know how to solve systems of class privilege, here or anywhere else. 

 

What I do want to share, perhaps foolishly, are my choices as a participant in this system, and my thoughts on those choices.

 

I have been involved in academia for about a year and a half. I transferred from a community college, one of five institutions I had attended over the past ten years; during those ten years I worked mainly minimum-wage jobs, some very physically demanding. My family is working class, so this was not unusual. I was not expecting to apply to grad school when I transferred to Berkeley; in fact, I was really bored and disillusioned with my experiences at CC. I just wanted to get a degree and get out. I hoped that having a B.A. would allow me to apply to less physically exhausting jobs, where I might make a bit more money, and have some leisure time.

 

Instead, I fell in love with the experience of a rigorous academic community. I found good mentors; those mentors made me aware of scholastic opportunities, which I applied for and (usually) won. I was good at being a scholar, better than I had ever expected myself to be - and about six months in, I started thinking about grad school. I decided I would only apply to fully funded, top-10 programs. I had no idea if I would be accepted, but if I wasn't, I felt I couldn't justify a Ph.D. (I say this not to disparage state schools, but to point out that there is a self-preservational aspect to working within an elitist system. I knew there would be no security either way, but if I couldn't get into an elite program, I felt the risks were too great for ME. I needed to go big or go home.)

 

I see the opportunity to be in academia as a huge privilege, not least because we serve very little functional purpose in society. We are not emptying garbage bins or mopping floors or frying fish; the world could get by just fine without scholars, on a day-to-day basis, but WE could not get by without the world. I am deeply aware of this. I am both grateful that I am not frying fish, and concerned about living in a system where, if it were possible, most people would choose to be professors before they would choose to be fish-fryers. I often doubt the validity of my participation in white-collar work, while simultaneously enjoying and being grateful for it. 

 

I have been accepted to three of the four schools I applied to: Harvard, Berkeley, and Yale. I will most likely choose Berkeley. 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.)

 

I do NOT think we should all be professors. In fact, I think most of us shouldn't be, for purely practical reasons, and if I don't get a job at the end of this, I will count myself lucky to have had the six years of the Ph.D. But I think we should all have the opportunity to TRY. Not by buying into illusions of a meritocracy, but by investing in the genuine boost that schools like Berkeley can offer - a wardrobe into Narnia, a portal to another world. Here, if you can defeat the White Witch, you really CAN be a princess.

 

It's not the rule - I understand that. The USA is not the "land of opportunity" it claims to be. But it happened to me. And I, in all of my hesitant and conflicted glory, believe it can happen to others. I love academia. I want to survive in academia. But in surviving, I am also doing my best to make choices that will ensure that I am not the ONLY person who benefits from my good fortune.

 

I don't know if that's good enough - but at the moment, it's all I've got.