Most In-Demand Field?

[lelick1234]

What is the hottest field of study for getting hired in academia? What is the coldest? My own conflict is between U.S. Foreign Policy towards the Middle East and Middle Eastern History with a focus on the growth of Islamist groups. I have more knowledge of the historiography of U.S. foreign policy. Middle Eastern history would require quite a bit of language preparation before applications, plus I am not as well-read in the field.

[mvlchicago]

Fields ebb and flow at any given point and I doubt there's a large enough dataset out there to give you the answers you want. if you're that concerned about the job at the end of the road, you should probably not be going into history academia and trying literally any other field more geared towards quantitative methods: political science, sociology, pyschology, these are all fields hiring at rates that are ridiculously high compared to history.

If you're serious about doing a historical perspective, what you need to focus on is what drives your questions and interests. What should drive this decision is what you, as the scholar, would find easier to motivate yourself to do when you get up in the morning to start your coursework and reading. This isn't from some fantastical notion of loving the craft; it'll be much easier to do your best work (and therefore get hired at the 1/2 jobs available when you graduate) if you do what you want to be doing rather than what you should be. If it really doesn't matter refer to the advice in my first paragraph. 

[lelick1234]

I was just curious about the top fields today. I am not really concerned. If my destiny is to teach high school at a private school after my PhD program, I would still be happy. It sure beats doing anything else.

[TMP]

Then, don't worry about "hot" fields.  Your focus, then, would be more on being able to teach broadly.  

[lelick1234]

LOL!!! It seems that this is touchy subject for graduate students.  

[iamincontrolhere-haig]

It's worth, I think, distinguishing between the job market for particular and still generally geographically-defined subfields, on the one hand, and "hot" themes in the historical profession, on the other.

 

The AHA publishes statistics on the number of doctorates conferred and jobs advertised in given subfields. In 2011-12, for instance, there were roughly 425 degrees conferred in North American history and roughly 150 jobs advertised. In the same year, there were roughly 60 degrees conferred in Middle East/Islamic World history and roughly 25 jobs advertised. You can do the math. 

 

My perspective on themes is more anecdotal. We inhabit a discipline suffused (perhaps determined) by academic fads. Many of us, in the past ten or fifteen years, have discovered that we are in fact historians of capitalism, or transnational historians. These fads--not to pathologize people's research interests too much--are doubtless reflections of our particular times. And as you know, fads (and the times) are fickle. It therefore strikes me as unwise to let your research interests be too greatly inflected by what you perceive as the overarching thematic interests of the historical profession.

 

Bottom line: If your proposed project could be easily overseen by either a specialist on US foreign relations or a specialist on the modern Middle East, statistics say that, all else being equal, the latter gives you a better shot at landing a tenure-track job. (Because it's the subfield I know best, I'll say there were 4-5 TT jobs in the US/World subfield last year. I would guess the figure for Middle East jobs is higher.)

Edited May 17, 2015 by iamincontrolhere-haig

[lelick1234]

Here is something that has always perplexed me.  If I was to switch to Modern Middle Eastern history and was still unable to find easy work, would it have been better to be an Americanist in order to secure community college/ private high school positions because American history is a requirement for graduation, whereas Modern Middle Eastern history is almost never offered at community colleges?  Like I said, I don't need a tenure track position at a research university, but I do need medical benefits and a modest, steady paycheck.  I am often afraid of switching to the Middle East for this reason. 

[mvlchicago]

"unable to find easy work" ? Again, I think you're not quite understanding the situation. If all you want is a steady paycheck, I can recommend any number of two year teaching programs that'll get you set in a high school to teach history and you'll have an in with the UFT and that'll be paycheck/pension/summer vacation for teaching what you want to teach.

Like... pursuing the Ph.D is not because you see easy employment at the end of the tunnel. You pursue the Ph.D because there's some fundamental question that is calling to you about the Middle East or America and the World. You spend 5-6 years buried in archives all along the world, deciphering some typist's handwriting and write while worrying about your own healthcare or where you'll find a grant to finish writing your dissertation at the end of your sixth year in order to get some part of the answer to that question. It's not about easy work, it's not about being secure labor, it's about doing something that motivates and gives you passion.

Seriously, look at the stats cited above: the Middle East PhD guarantees you a 1/3 shot at a TT/postdoc/private school advertisement. That's not like... great odds for having spent 5-6 years pursuing a subject. It's not about being touchy, it's about wondering whether you quite understand the stakes or reasoning for doing a PhD

Edited May 17, 2015 by mvlchicago

[lelick1234]

Yes, yes, I understand a PhD means producing meaningful research because of your own passion for a topic.  But I also believe that there is nothing wrong with exploring the possibility of trying to find work afterwords.  I am not trying to sound somehow uncommitted to the academic world and academic endeavors.  My whole approach to applying to graduate school is that if I don't get into a top-20 program, or am at least comfortably supported by a 20-40th ranked program, I will not invest my time and money on such a journey.  I also understand that even getting into a top-20 program does not offer guarantees.  I was just asking that if I have passions for both fields, which might procure employment given the certain trends in employment.  I was by no means trying to diminish the hard work that current graduate students are currently engaged in.  I think it is important to have a Plan C and D.  Plan C was community college and Plan D was teaching at a private high school.  I was merely trying to ask whether having a PhD in Middle Eastern History would make it more difficult to earn employment versus an American history specialty for community college and private high schools. 

[TMP]

Most PhD programs make students choose multiple fields.  You'll have a major field and a minor field (or two or three, depending).  The minor fields are intended to supplement your training for dissertation research and/or teaching.  Most people in my program will choose World History or a non-Western field to enhance their teaching ability.  The folks working in Ottoman Empire/Middle East in my program usually choose World History (which they can teach through the lens of Islamic world).  The American historians will usually pick up Latin America or a thematic field (like women's history) to expand their teaching breadth.

 

Most programs will want you have some sense of focus but will not push you to choose a field upon entering.  Your adviser will expect you  to have chosen a major field by the end of your first year.

 

As for job placement, community colleges want to see LOADS of teaching experience, mainly in survey courses.  Your best bet for such a CC job is to rack up world history and/or US history and/or Western Civilization courses regardless of your actual research specialty.  That's my understanding at least.

[lelick1234]

Most PhD programs make students choose multiple fields.  You'll have a major field and a minor field (or two or three, depending).  The minor fields are intended to supplement your training for dissertation research and/or teaching.  Most people in my program will choose World History or a non-Western field to enhance their teaching ability.  The folks working in Ottoman Empire/Middle East in my program usually choose World History (which they can teach through the lens of Islamic world).  The American historians will usually pick up Latin America or a thematic field (like women's history) to expand their teaching breadth.

 

Most programs will want you have some sense of focus but will not push you to choose a field upon entering.  Your adviser will expect you  to have chosen a major field by the end of your first year.

 

As for job placement, community colleges want to see LOADS of teaching experience, mainly in survey courses.  Your best bet for such a CC job is to rack up world history and/or US history and/or Western Civilization courses regardless of your actual research specialty.  That's my understanding at least.

Thanks for advice.  I have been in contact with a prospective advisor.  He thinks that American foreign policy should be my major field, while Middle Eastern History should be my minor.   I have about four years teaching American and world history at an Egyptian secondary school.  I know its not college-level, but it's better than nothing.  But you bring up an interesting point.  If I am aiming for community colleges, I should see what sort of teaching positions a graduate program might offer its graduate students.  

[RevolutionBlues]

I don't have the figures on hand, but each year the AHA publishes PhDs granted and jobs posted by geographic subfield. If I remember correctly, there are about 450 PhDs granted each year in American history and about 200 jobs. For Middle Easter history, while a decade ago there were, say, 30 PhDs granted versus about 60 jobs, by now this has reversed to about 45 PhDs and 30 jobs. Fields like East Asian history are now starting to pick up with something like 90 jobs for 60 PhDs, African and Latin American history are on par with about 30 PhDs and jobs each, while European history has something like 150 PhDs and 100 jobs. So, it basically all depends on your preferences. There are certainly fields with much better PhD:job ratios; in your case this would be Middle Eastern history. On the other hand, if you want to have more selectivity in where you would like to end up, although the grad:job ratio is the hardest, American history has about as many job openings each year as all other fields combined. But I do second the advice that if you're looking for a CC-type job, teaching experience is probably more important than field.

[kotov]

I've seen a ton of Subsaharan Africa and South/Southeast Asia postings this past year. I did a minor field in Modern Middle East (my major was Modern Europe, specifically central/southeastern Europe + Holocaust studies), so hopefully I can catch a couple of those postings that are "Europe but we'd like it if you could teach non-Western too". Maybe someone somewhere will post a Southeastern Europe job, someone out there somewhere has to care, right?

[Cpt Jo]

I don't have the figures on hand, but each year the AHA publishes PhDs granted and jobs posted by geographic subfield. If I remember correctly, there are about 450 PhDs granted each year in American history and about 200 jobs. For Middle Easter history, while a decade ago there were, say, 30 PhDs granted versus about 60 jobs, by now this has reversed to about 45 PhDs and 30 jobs. Fields like East Asian history are now starting to pick up with something like 90 jobs for 60 PhDs, African and Latin American history are on par with about 30 PhDs and jobs each, while European history has something like 150 PhDs and 100 jobs. So, it basically all depends on your preferences. There are certainly fields with much better PhD:job ratios; in your case this would be Middle Eastern history. On the other hand, if you want to have more selectivity in where you would like to end up, although the grad:job ratio is the hardest, American history has about as many job openings each year as all other fields combined. But I do second the advice that if you're looking for a CC-type job, teaching experience is probably more important than field.

I found this: http://www.historians.org/publications-and-directories/perspectives-on-history/september-2014/the-academic-job-markets-jagged-line

 

Positions Advertised with the AHA

 

 

 

Early Career Openings by Geographic Speciality

 

 

 

Number of Entry-level Positions Advertised in Geographic Subject Field, 1991–92 to 2011–12

https://www.historians.org/publications-and-directories/perspectives-on-history/january-2013/the-2012-jobs-report

 

"The number of applications for positions in the history of the U.S., for instance, increased to an average of 118 per opening, very near the high of 120 recorded in the 1995–96 academic year. And the average number of applications to European history positions reached an unprecedented level, at just over 100 per position.

Applications for positions in Asian history also increased to an average of 70.4 per position, while applications for African history fell slightly to an average of 53.2. Applications for openings in Latin American history and the history of the Middle East and Islamic world were essentially unchanged, at an average of 87.1 and 64.3 applications respectively."

[lelick1234]

Like what everyone was trying to explain, we don't do this for the big bucks.  

[modern]

It's pretty funny how it seems so hard to get an answer a question like this without having colleagues feeling compelled to give advice such as "you shouldn't care about it". It's something everyone thinks about and cares about. Doesn't mean anyone will decide their fates based on it. And it's interesting, and could generate interesting discussions. 

 

Besides the regional "hot" fields, there's of course also thematic ones, like fellow forum momeber I'm-ina-control suggested: 

 

Some hot fields (in nor particular order and without necessarily meaning I appreciate all of them or even really find them to be meaningful as fields -- but some people clearly do), or buzz terms:

 

 

- History of Capitalism

- Science and Technology Studies-related approaches, histories of knowledge

- Environmental History, including animals, climate change
- Transnational/"Global" Topics and Approaches

- Spatial History

- Digital Approaches/Methods
- Drugs
- Memory stuff (though less than a few years ago)

- Big Data- related (both as topic and as method)

- Not-Only-Female Gender Topics

Edited June 15, 2015 by modern

[L13]

It's pretty funny how it seems so hard to get an answer a question like this without having colleagues feeling compelled to give advice such as "you shouldn't care about it". It's something everyone thinks about and cares about. Doesn't mean anyone will decide their fates based on it. And it's interesting, and could generate interesting discussions. 

 

Besides the regional "hot" fields, there's of course also thematic ones, like fellow forum momeber I'm-ina-control suggested: 

 

Some hot fields (in nor particular order and without necessarily meaning I appreciate all of them or even really find them to be meaningful as fields -- but some people clearly do), or buzz terms:

 

 

- History of Capitalism

- Science and Technology Studies-related approaches, histories of knowledge

- Environmental History, including animals, climate change

- Transnational/"Global" Topics and Approaches

- Spatial History

- Digital Approaches/Methods

- Drugs

- Memory stuff (though less than a few years ago)

- Big Data- related (both as topic and as method)

- Not-Only-Female Gender Topics

I agree with all of this, including the remark about the responses to this thread. I find it weird that people are trying to 1) avoid a discussion of this perfectly mundane topic, and 2) imbue the pursuit/avoidance of information about in-demand subfields with some sort of moral value.

 

In any case, I'd add ~sonic history~ to your list, and specify medical history as a subfield of history of science that is getting traction. I'd say there's a push to make ~big history~/deep history/various long-view historical narratives popular, but it's coming out of a few specific (and very prestigious) universities rather than the profession as a whole.

 

[mvlchicago]

...no one is trying to avoid a discussion of a perfectly mundane topic? If one started a conversation like "I want to become a lawyer, what are the hot fields in law right now" or even something more beyond school like "I want to play baseball, what are the best positions to play" it seems a perfectly reasonable place to point out that, regardless of the field in which you are trying to break, that one's qualifications and capabilities to perform the job will do far more for one's job prospects than whether or not one can put hot buzzwords on their CV. If one even looks at the data posted here, there are few actual conclusions one can draw about whether or not a field is "hot." As this topic started, it figured into an intimate aspect of the OP's thinking. As that got de-coupled, more information came out.

 

Beyond that, I'm not even sure what an interesting discussion on "hot topics" is; are you evaluating from where the trends came? Or why anyone cares about the salience of topics that have little meaning? This topic didn't really give much reason to think about the idea of hottest fields besides a listicle: "10 Hot Fields Your Qualification Exams Should Be On!"

[tingdeh]

...no one is trying to avoid a discussion of a perfectly mundane topic? If one started a conversation like "I want to become a lawyer, what are the hot fields in law right now" or even something more beyond school like "I want to play baseball, what are the best positions to play" it seems a perfectly reasonable place to point out that, regardless of the field in which you are trying to break, that one's qualifications and capabilities to perform the job will do far more for one's job prospects than whether or not one can put hot buzzwords on their CV. If one even looks at the data posted here, there are few actual conclusions one can draw about whether or not a field is "hot." As this topic started, it figured into an intimate aspect of the OP's thinking. As that got de-coupled, more information came out.

 

Beyond that, I'm not even sure what an interesting discussion on "hot topics" is; are you evaluating from where the trends came? Or why anyone cares about the salience of topics that have little meaning? This topic didn't really give much reason to think about the idea of hottest fields besides a listicle: "10 Hot Fields Your Qualification Exams Should Be On!"

 

A BuzzFeed community post listicle is in order(?) That's exactly what I pictured in my head with this post! With nice, relevant gifs for each hot field. 

 

It's less "hot topics" than it is "contemporary scholarly debates and conversations." Things get published because journals exist for all those things. It's the modes of debate that are relevant.

[ashiepoo72]

I think OP's question is valid, but I also think everyone who responded that 1. you can't just jerry-rig yourself to suit a trendy topic and 2. the trends today are likely to not be trends in a decade when we are all on the job search, have even more valid points. They provided OP with great advice--do something you enjoy and are prepared to do because you will have to live with it throughout a career that oversees many changing trends.

[modern]

Of course it's great advice to tell people to do what motivates them, to let them know that trends change, and that perhaps they shouldn't get into history at all if they are primarily concerned about getting a job. However, if someone asks what are the most in demand fields in history in a grad student history online forum, there's a chance that they might also want answers to that particular question from the perspective of grad students, or access to the kind of data that posters here have added. 

 

While the approach to studying history and getting a job in history that OP is seemingly adopting is not necessarily one that I have taken (or one I would recommend), I don't doubt that, like in any line of work, it might be useful to try to get a grasp of different perspectives about what is "in demand". 

[knp]

Did posts #12 and #14 not answer that question? I don't understand what other information you're looking for.