From Schools to Careers

[mvlchicago]

CN: general discussion about the difficulties obtaining Tenure Track jobs in history. 









Upon my daily reading for the morning, I saw this recent article from Slate about the relationship between the name brand of your school and your ability to stand in the TT market. Normally I ignore these sort of analyses for all sorts of conflicting variable reasons, but what piqued my interest in this article was the fact that the researchers used history PhDs as a separate case study on its own (the full research article is here.) Basic finding: having a top tier degree has mattered more than ever in attaining tenure track jobs.

Since this is a question against which many of us are or will be struggling, I was wondering what other people think about the methods they use for this sort of research and how that might influence choices for us. My couple of thoughts: it's incredibly difficult to these sort of analyses in fields like history since individual faculty members can be so key in specific fields. They use the example of someone moving from a PhD at Santa Cruz in Biology to a faculty position as Cornell, citing his advisor as a giant in the field. I feel like this has to be more common in the humanities–especially history–than in the hard sciences, since specificity is all the rage these days (my advisor in undergrad always said that coming out of a Ph.D, you should be the world's foremost expert in *Dissertation Title*.)

Second, it's difficult to rank prestige insofar as those fields are so specialized. We spoke lots about military history, as an example, of a field that is in more niche zones than simple *prestigious schools.* Similar arguments could be made for say, Reformation history at Arizona after Heiko Oberman moved there. That being said, their analyses still seems to derive at least a correlation between top tier degrees and placement for history more generally.

I'm having lots of conflicting thoughts about this article (and the data themselves are marvelous, really) so I thought I'd ask interested folks here on their thoughts. At what point should the name of your degree matter, and how would you (personally or generally) advise others to make decisions? 

Edited February 24, 2015 by mvlchicago

[Chiqui74]

I have met with a pretty sizable number of faculty throughout this whole process and the consensus is pretty much the same as the article (I read the study sometime last week and had the same thoughts as you).  Basically, I have been told you shouldn't choose a school based exclusively on prestige, obviously fit is extremely important, but that you should go to the most prestigious school that takes you.  This assumes you didn't apply to any schools that weren't a good fit.  This makes sense to me, but I also see the other side.  Unfortunately, this is the way of the world academia these days.  It's not fair, but it is what it is and I think to bury our heads in the sand is not a great idea.  This was partly the reason (fit aside) why I applied to what can only be considered "reach" schools. It's a highly personal matter, but if I'm going to spend years and years studying to become something, I want the best chance I can have at it. 

 

I have an undergrad degree from a 2nd tier, at best, university, and you should see the number of Ivy League professors we have. So, if schools like mine are hiring mostly graduates from prestigious universities, then it only follows to reason that only less prestigious universities than mine are looking to hire our graduates.  Again, I am not saying the system isn't broken, I'm just explaining what I see and what has been shared with me, which is congruent with the conclusion of the study.

 

Different people have different reasons for which they apply to any given school, and that is fine, we all have decisions to make, and if in the end your school has a placement record you are OK with, then that's what matters.

[Heimat Historian]

I wish there was an easy to way to determine the cachet of programs. I'm now rethinking my application strategy.  I think there a ways to achieve a tenure track position even at a lower T1 school it just takes a ton of work to do so. 

[Chiqui74]

I wish there was an easy to way to determine the cachet of programs. I'm now rethinking my application strategy.  I think there a ways to achieve a tenure track position even at a lower T1 school it just takes a ton of work to do so. 

The study lists the top 60 programs on basis of prestige for three different disciplines (History, Business, and Computer Science).  It also lists the range of each school, if that makes sense. 

[Heimat Historian]

Yeah it does.  I was told there'd be no maths. 

[Sigaba]

With all due respect to the OP and others who are interested in this topic, I strongly recommend that you not concern yourself too much with the job market at this point because it is entirely out of your control and liable to change greatly over the next several years. Instead, focus on what you can control -- defining more precisely your areas and topics of interest, your fields of study (including your outside field), your language skills, your relationships with your peers and your professors, and, most of all, getting ready for qualifying exams.

 

I wish there was an easy to way to determine the cachet of programs. I'm now rethinking my application strategy.  I think there a ways to achieve a tenure track position even at a lower T1 school it just takes a ton of work to do so. 

 

There are was to determine the cachet of programs but it takes time, effort, and hands-on research. Briefly, get your hands on physical copies of recent editions of the AHA guide to history departments. Look at the faculty roster for every department. Make notes of where professors with interests similar to  yours got their degrees (undergraduate and graduate). Go to the faculty rosters of those schools, and see where professors with your interests went. If you commit to looking at every department, you will start to find groupings of academics with interests similar to yours. Institutions that have such groupings probably have cachet.

 

Simultaneously, find hard copies of the academic journals related to your areas of interest. Go through at least ten years' worth of back issues. Focus on the shorter book reviews. Look at the institutional affiliations of both authors and reviewers. Cross reference the institutions with your findings from the AHA guides.

 

Pick two or three historians whose books are very well received (and/or who write especially helpful reviews) and do intense biographical/bibliographic research on them. To the extent possible, do this research using hard copies of articles, papers, and books. Find all you can about their institutional affiliations as well as the affiliations of other historians who they acknowledge or frequently cite.

 

If you do the three steps with a certain amount of intensity, you will be able to develop a very good list of programs that specialize in your areas of interest and you will also increase your familiarity with the relevant historiography.

 

(The reason why I recommend using hard copies is so that you maximize your opportunities for serendipitous discoveries. Sometimes the book you need is two books over and one shelf down from the book you want.)

Edited February 24, 2015 by Sigaba

[Heimat Historian]

That's excellent advice Sigaba. I feel pretty good about some of my school choices (including the ones I've been accepted to) but this is a great way to get a potential outside adviser for my dissertation. 

[Sigaba]

That's excellent advice Sigaba. I feel pretty good about some of my school choices (including the ones I've been accepted to) but this is a great way to get a potential outside adviser for my dissertation. 

 

When you research potential committee members, please pay very close attention to how potential POIs are discussed in the acknowledgements of published works. Did the POI just read a draft of a chapter or the entire manuscript? Did she/he share research notes? Provide emotional support? Provide food and housing during research trips? Or is the "thank you" more of a professional courtesy/ crossing of a t ? (Or even a "F you very much / thanks for nothing.") 

[Heimat Historian]

Do you suggest searching by name in some fashion? 

[Sigaba]

Do you suggest searching by name in some fashion? 

 

I suggest finding the ponds with the big fish first and then going fishing. 

[fopdandyhomo]

Sigaba, thank you so much for your comments. I'm trying not to focus on the job market at this point, but I have to admit it's the biggest nagging concern at the back of my mind when I look at my slate of schools.

 

When I was researching programs to apply to, I noticed that roughly 70% of the professors got their PhDs at Harvard, Princeton, or UC Berkeley. Perhaps these programs all had strengths in my field for the past few decades, but more recently, their programs aren't as dynamic as programs roughly ranked 10-20. I focused my applications on programs where I thought I'd receive the best training in my field and where I would be able to become the historian I am capable of becoming.

 

Now, as I try to decide between three excellent programs with placement rates that make me nervous, I wonder if I made a mistake. I keep reminding myself that the placement rate for professors I would have worked with at Princeton is just as dismal as the schools where I've been accepted. 

 

How much are your job prospects (assuming that all candidates are equal, which they're definitely not) dictated by the "prestige" of your dissertation committee vs. the department as a whole?

Edited February 24, 2015 by fopdandyhomo

[gsc]

When you research potential committee members, please pay very close attention to how potential POIs are discussed in the acknowledgements of published works. Did the POI just read a draft of a chapter or the entire manuscript? Did she/he share research notes? Provide emotional support? Provide food and housing during research trips? Or is the "thank you" more of a professional courtesy/ crossing of a t ? (Or even a "F you very much / thanks for nothing.") 

 

The acknowledgements section is always a fascinating read. You really do learn a lot from just two or three pages -- who studied with who, what grants they got, what faculty members like to work together, etc. (Sometimes, it's the most interesting part of the whole book.)

[Sigaba]

 

 

How much are your job prospects (assuming that all candidates are equal, which they're definitely not) dictated by the "prestige" of your dissertation committee vs. the department as a whole?

 

In the short term, I recommend that you take a look at many of New England Nat's posts on this topic. 

 

To NEN's observations, I would add that, IME (that is based upon my discussions with professors and observations of "job talks"), that it comes down to how motivated a search committee is to define the type of historian they want to fill a position and how hard the committee's members are willing to work. Some professors will make a first cut based purely on the academic pedigree of the applicants. Some professors, especially if they know a field, may be more inclined to look at the names on an applicant's dissertation committee. Others will be willing to put another K-cup in the Keurig, roll up their sleeves, and drill down a bit deeper into an applicant's materials.

[Chiqui74]

The acknowledgements section is always a fascinating read. You really do learn a lot from just two or three pages -- who studied with who, what grants they got, what faculty members like to work together, etc. (Sometimes, it's the most interesting part of the whole book.)

Truth!  I have looked up the dissertations of a lot of people I know or I'm interested in working with and read their acknowledgements.  It's fascinating.

[Professor Plum]

 

How much are your job prospects (assuming that all candidates are equal, which they're definitely not) dictated by the "prestige" of your dissertation committee vs. the department as a whole?

 

This is probably a question better addressed by one of the forums at the Chronicle of Higher Ed. I'm not sure there's enough experience on this board to provide much more than anecdotal evidence. A graduate student can only get so close to the search process--to understand how the committees make their decisions you really need to listen in on the process as it unfolds behind closed doors. 

 

My experience sitting on a half-dozen searches is that the dissertation committee is more important, but only if the members can write compelling letters for the candidate. Most search committees will use the prestige of the program as some sort of proxy for a candidate's overall competitiveness, but it is only one of a number of factors. (In my experience, search committees use the prestige of the program to gauge applicants not because the committee members are lazy but because the quality of the program is usually a good, if rough, indicator of candidates' preparation.) My department makes a concerted effort to find overlooked stars from mid-tier programs. Still, of the ten candidates we interview for a given position, seven or eight will be from top-10 programs. The last search I sat on drew 208 applications, and more than half of them were extremely competitive. That is one reason I would think very, very carefully before accepting an offer from a program outside the top 24.

[Rogue856]

The last search I sat on drew 208 applications, and more than half of them were extremely competitive. That is one reason I would think very, very carefully before accepting an offer from a program outside the top 24.

 

Forgive me if this is a rookie question, but when you say "outside the top 24" are you referencing NRC rankings or...? Thanks!

[TMP]

I did a data analysis of the faculty in my department.  The result is on par with the article.  50% of the faculty received their PhDs from the top 10.  Approximately 30% got their PhDs from 10-25 according to USNEWS rankings.  The remaining 20% are from foreign universities or ranked lower than 25.

 

Does it make make me nervous?  Slightly.  However, I have noticed two things.  As Sigaba and Professor Plum pointed out, who sat on your dissertation committee matters (because everyone is aware of the "trickle-down" factor).  Another thing is the term you forumites use-- "tenure track jobs"-- is too vague.  You need to be more specific as to what is it you want.  My program is excellent for placing students in tenure track positions in TEACHING institutions (where the courseload is more like 3-4 courses per semester).  Public universities are decent about placing their students in teaching positions within the region/state.  

 

I've long accepted the fact that I am not interested in teaching more than 5 courses a year because research is a strong part of my academic identity and will be aiming for elite SLACs/R1s where I can be hired as a scholar-teacher (not "teacher") or simply quit academia and move into a NGO.  I am methodical about my dissertation committee and my adviser as I am in a small field where the university name will not matter as much as the adviser.

 

The picture is much, much more complicated than what that article presents.

[Sigaba]

the forums at the Chronicle of Higher Ed. 

 

 

No disrespect, Professor Plum, but I would not recommend the CHE fora to history graduate students who have not had considerable "seasoning" before hand.

 

(GradSecretary's most controversial posts on this BB are cheerful, upbeat, and positive in comparison to what can be found "down the street" at the CHE BB.) 

 

YMMV.

[dr. t]

With all due respect to the OP and others who are interested in this topic, I strongly recommend that you not concern yourself too much with the job market at this point because it is entirely out of your control and liable to change greatly over the next several years. Instead, focus on what you can control -- defining more precisely your areas and topics of interest, your fields of study (including your outside field), your language skills, your relationships with your peers and your professors, and, most of all, getting ready for qualifying exams.

 

This isn't entirely fair, as there's one big thing we can do with this information: choose a school. Once April 15th passes, it's best not to think about this for the next 5 to 8 years, as you rightly say, but before that date - and for anyone browsing this board looking to apply next year - the topic remains quite relevant.

 

Yes, the job market may undergo a radical shift in the next decade, but then again it may not.

[RevolutionBlues]

I highly recommend taking a look at The Professor Is In. While her posts are somewhat doom and gloom about the academic job market, the silver lining is that she provides thorough and targeted information on how exactly to shape your behaviors now in a way that will maximize your competitiveness on the job market a few years from now. I.e, how to structure your CV, what you should be doing at conferences, how to dress, etc. While it is true that after starting a program the shape of the job market over the next 5-8 years is out of your control, what your application looks like at the end of that time is entirely up to you (with help and luck, of course). Once you're committed to the path, you have to let the horrendous job market motivate you, not discourage you.

 

I also second the notion that it is not just a matter of getting a job, but where you want to get a job. Although the market is still tight all the way down and prestige certainly helps, if you primarily want to teach a top-tier degree isn't necessarily required. 

[Professor Plum]

No disrespect, Professor Plum, but I would not recommend the CHE fora to history graduate students who have not had considerable "seasoning" before hand.

 

 

While it's true that the CHE forums have little patience for stupid quetions (and poor grammar, refusal to use standard punctuation, and text shorthand...), the participants generally provide polite if terse responses to serious questions. There's nothing wrong with a straightforward question like "I'm a prospective PhD student choosing between two programs: program X is ranked more highly, but doesn't have anyone working in my field, while program Y is not ranked as highly but my advisor is someone generally considered a star in the field. Does anyone have any advice about the things I ought to take into account when making my decision? I'm particularly concerned about how the prestige of my program will factor in the minds of search committees six years down the road." If you're really concerned about taking grief for breaking the forum norms, spend an hour surfing the threads before you post. I'd recommend that anyone considering a doctoral program be perusing those threads regularly, anyway.

 

Asking for advice about how a search committee will weigh various factors in a hiring decision on a forum populated by grad students and prospective grad students just isn't going to produce much in the way of useful insights. These threads are extremely supportive, which is nice, but a lot of the suggestions and encouragement aren't based in reality. On the "Fall 2015 applicants" thread, there's a lot of cheerleading along the lines of Hey, it only takes one acceptance! Well, if your goal is a reasonable shot a employment on the other side, that's not necessarily true.

[Sigaba]

This isn't entirely fair, as there's one big thing we can do with this information: choose a school. Once April 15th passes, it's best not to think about this for the next 5 to 8 years, as you rightly say, but before that date - and for anyone browsing this board looking to apply next year - the topic remains quite relevant.

 

Yes, the job market may undergo a radical shift in the next decade, but then again it may not.

 

Your point is well made and taken.  Please accept my apology for being unfair. Hopefully, the following suggestion is useful.

 

Here's what I suggest. Use a spreadsheet to develop an alternatives analysis matrix. Build a matrix that specifically addresses the question "How will attending school A position me in the job market?" Brainstorm and make a provisional list of factors that strike you as important insofar as being a strong candidate for a tenure track position at school Z down the line. Allow yourself time to develop, revisit, and revise the list. 

 

Arrange the list into categories and sub categories. An example of a category could be geography. Sub categories of geography could be "distance to other departments" in case you want to make a trip to talk to professors and graduate students about the job market and/or watch "job talks". Another example of a sub category of geography could be "similarity between school A's setting [urban/suburban] compared to where you see yourself teaching down the line." Another category could be "emphasis on teaching." Subcategories of "emphasis on teaching" could include "training for T.A.s" and "opportunities for graduate students to teach upper division courses for undergraduates."

 

Once you've got your categories and sub categories set up to your satisfaction, assign point values between 1 and 10 to the sub categories and then assign to the categories values that rank their overall importance. Set up simple formulas that weigh the subcategory point values based upon the importance of their respective master categories. Once you have set up your formulas, hide the column that spits out the calculations.

 

Now, for each of your options, develop a list of questions that will allow you to assign point values for each of the subcategories. Some of the questions are clear cut -- what is Department A's job placement rate for recent graduates ? Other questions could be off the beaten path. For example, how many job searches has Department A conducted in the last four years and how many positions is it seeking to fill in the next five years? Along the same lines, are graduate students allowed to attend "job talks?" Do graduate students get to sit on search committees? Does the department have funds to subsidize travel to conferences or interviews? Do the professors at Department A like to teach/mentor graduate students?

 

Upon developing and refining the list of questions, consult different sources for answers. Google Earth Pro may indicate that the distance between two schools isn't that big of a deal, but graduate students who have made that journey may have a different take. Professors may think they prepare graduate students for the job market, but graduate students in the pipeline may have different views.

 

If you reach out to current graduate students, try to talk to as many ABD's as you can. If you do talk to ABDs, make sure you find out how long ago they took their qualifying exams. (As many of you will find out, it takes time to recover from quals and until one does, one can be a bit batty, if not bitter.) If possible, find a way to get the ABDs to answer touchy questions like "If you knew then what you know now about this department, would you have enrolled here?" and "Do you feel like you've been adequately prepared to enter the job market?"

 

Please also keep in mind that every relationship between a graduate student and his/her professors is different and,often, very fluid. Joe Campus may think Professor Q is a douchebag while Jane Doe thinks Q is the bee's knees. By the following semester, the views could very well switch.

 

Based upon the answers you gather, start populating the matrix with scores. When the matrix is entirely filled in, unhide the column that spits out the results of the calculations. The highest scoring school may be your best choice, all things considered, for positioning yourself in the job market down the line. If choice A and choice B have similar scores, consider developing additional categories and subcategories first; try to avoid changing scores if you can.

 

 

 

HTH.

[Heimat Historian]

Do you have an example of such a spreadsheet?  I'm not very nimble with my excel.  

[kotov]

At this point, I'm banking on being able to say "hi, I'm 25 so you'll get 50 years out of me before I keel over in front of some poor freshmen" to win them over.

[amye720]

Hi,

 

I haven't seen a lot posted on this school here, so I thought I would throw it out for comment: Does anyone know about the prestige of UC Santa Cruz's History program, and how it might be seen to future hiring committees? It is part of the UC system, which I think is always a plus, but I know it doesn't rank anywhere near Berkeley or even UCLA. But If I want to teach at the state college level, is this a good program for that?

 

Thanks!