U.S. history job market

[verno80]

Those applying for US history, and especially 20C US, might be interested to look at the current academic job market. The Academic Job Wiki lists most of them : http://academicjobs.wikia.com/wiki/North_American_History_2015-16

The 20C market has been very bad since 2008. This year it is abysmal.

[mvlchicago]

...I don't understand what the point of this post is? Job markets can change in varying ways over half a decade. Is there something particular about this year you're trying to highlight? Don't come to graduate school for 20th century US History?

[ashiepoo72]

Honestly, it's bad across the board. Fields that were not impacted are starting to be. 20th century US is just the one traditionally and more significantly impacted.

Although I find the chance of this unlikely...if anyone on this board hasn't gotten the "there are no jobs and it's awful" talk from a professor--I got it from every single professor who helped me with applications, even though they supported my efforts, and even from some potential advisers--let me tell you this: there are very few jobs and it's an uphill battle to get them. Half of PhDs in history will not get TT jobs (at least). A TT job can be the ultimate goal, but I hope for everyone's sake the PhD means more to you than just a TT job. 

[verno80]

I am not pretending to making people's decisions for them over whether they should start graduate school or not. (There are also other questions data like this could impact like how long one wants to commit to a PhD program, whether one wants to develop "employable" skills on the side, etc.) MvlChicago is right that the job market can change in seven years. (In 20C US, it has only gotten worse since 2008; there's long been talk that the market would recover, but this year is the nadir--let's hope!)

In my experience, however, many students and even many advisors are unaware of just how few jobs there are. It is not merely, in 20C U.S., an "uphill battle" to get a tt job, and no where near 50% of people who have graduated in recent years in 20C U.S. history will ever get one. For many of us, for instance, there are perhaps 3 jobs we can apply for so far this year, each of which will receive several hundred applications. The backlog of people who have graduated but do not have jobs also means that ABDs are rarely hired at R1s. Certainly almost all if not all of last years R1 jobs went to people who were out several years. Last year's MIT job, for instance, went to someone who got there PhD in 2011. So time to job (for the fortunate few) is increasingly time to degree + several years out; and the number of people applying is not just ABDs and people 1 year out but several years of people blessed with cushy postdocs or (more likely in 20C) eeking out a living adjuncting.

Edited September 28, 2015 by verno80

[ashiepoo72]

I don't think anyone is arguing against you, but there are lots of reasons why people don't get TT jobs. If you aren't willing to go wherever those postdocs and 1-year visiting appointments are located for the first decade or more after you get the PhD, and instead settle for an adjunct job or drop out of academia entirely, the chance you'll ever land a TT job drops exponentially. Some people decide adjuncting is the best thing for them. I had a brilliant professor who got her PhD from an elite school and she chose to adjunct because of her family circumstances. In a decent world, she'd be teaching at an R1 and training grad students. In her world, that didn't make sense.

Obviously it IS an uphill battle, and anyone going into this should know that. Choose a program that has good placement, funds for research, etc. Make sure you network, apply for fellowships and grants, and bust your ass on the dissertation. Write something that has meaning, not just something that fills a gap. Volunteer, teach, do stuff to make your life fulfilling. Realize that the PhD is one moment in your life, and you may not (and likely won't) get all you want from it. Obviously I'm just a lowly 1st year, but I'm not going to pretend I don't know anything. I managed to get through undergrad and a MA (where I killed it, if you don't mind me bragging) as a single mom. Others may have the dream of a TT and will die without it, but most of us are practical adults who know stuff doesn't work out. I'll happily teach at a secondary school or go work at a coffee shop for the rest of my life as long as I show my daughter I tried to follow my dream, and I accomplished a huge milestone on that journey. Besides, I have a guaranteed income for 5-6 years and I get to do what I love. That's freaking sweet. Even when I worked in accounting I didn't have that security, and I certainly didn't have insurance.

Someone has to fill the positions that open up. It may, or (statistically) won't, be us. Knowledge about how dire the situation is--great. We are all armed with the same information, the statistics, the well-meant warnings from professors and also the snarky and bitter warnings from many others. But we are all very different humans with different experiences and lives and very different reasons for doing what we're doing. I won't tell anyone not to get a PhD just because of the job market. From my own experience, I know there are so many factors involved in the decision and it is not my place to project my reasons on others.

[mvlchicago]

^^^^Jesus how much truth can one post have? That is some quality knowledge dropped right there. 

[verno80]

Statistical knowledge is key, and the knowledge for 20C US is this: until the market changes dramatically, an individual 20C UC historian is highly unlikely to ever land a tt-job, even if they persist in research and applying well beyond their PhD. That is what applicants and PhD students need to know: there just aren't the jobs, period. It is not, in 20C, a mere "uphill battle." Yes adjudicting gives you more shots at the market, but you only have a limited window of marketability; you are competing with those few who landed cushy, resource-rich postdocs; and again, and most importantly there aren't jobs.

What to do with that information is entirely up to each of us. I don't pretend to have the answer.

Edited September 28, 2015 by verno80

[dr. t]

Do you have a study showing that 20C US deviate substantially from the figures published by the AHA? Because "50% TT after 10 years," while a rather depressing statistic, is not the same as "highly unlikely to ever land a TT job".

[red7tribe]

How does the job market for 20C US historians compare to other time periods of American history?

[mvlchicago]

No jobs. No jobs anywhere. Just monasteries and museums. 

[knp]

[Chiqui74]

Steven Hahn told me and a few of my colleagues the other day not to worry about the job market (for now).  If you enjoy what you are doing now, and you are not going into debt for it, just concentrate on that.   You'll have time to worry later.  Maybe a bit cheesy, but I did find comfort in that.

[verno80]

My statement that most 20C US historians will not land jobs is based on two data sets, both of which independently corroborate the point: 1) my familiarity with the placement of several top departments in the last few years, 2) reverse estimates based on the number of jobs posted. There are a handful of 20C jobs this year, for instance; and yet most decently sized programs are producing at least one 20C americanist a year, if not several more. And then there is the substantial backlog of postdocs, lecturers, and unemployed academics to contend with. Unless the market changes dramatically, we can say with relative certainty that most recent 20C americanists from elite programs are not going to get tt-jobs within the next few eyars. (Anecdotally, a number of professors in their 60s have also told me that this is the worst year they have ever seen.)

Complicating generalization, of course, is that the job market segments according to prestige level of program and hiring institution; non-elite programs may have better placement rates.

Be careful looking at AHA studies: They tend a) not to break out subfields within US history, b ) be many years old (one of the most cited, for instance, averages data from the completely different era of 1998-2009.)  

The question about other periods is more difficult to answer. My sense is that the job market for colonial historians, especially, but also 19C historians, has been generally better, though still not great. In addition, the subfields of African American and Gender history tend to be the healthiest. Within 20C, US & the world has been somewhat healthy, though it too is pathetic this year.

p.s. one department whose placement record I do not know is Columbia. It just so happens they haven’t updated their placements on their websites since the relatively halcyon 2012. Anyone know if they’ve placed any 20C Americanists lately?

 

 

Edited October 12, 2015 by verno80

[kotov]

Currently at 15 applications pending for this cycle...if you're wondering what it's like on the job market.

[GradSchoolTruther]

Job market isn't great, which is why you need to be one of the best in your program. The ones I see struggling to find TT jobs are the ones who struggled in coursework, exams, and at the dissertation stage, as well as failing to even present at conferences.

[dr. t]

The meritocratic argument GST makes isn't wrong, but it also isn't the full story. I know plenty of people from top-tier programs with excellent CVs who are struggling on the market. Those who do find offers are finding them at (low to mid-tier) SLCs or similar. But there's also quite a bit of luck and other unquantifiable stuff that messes any neat system. 

Individual merit might be compared to your GRE scores: you need to have a certain level to even get in the door, but once over the threshold other factors take over.

It's also very much worth noting that even within the top tier of programs, attitudes towards "professionalization" still vary widely. I chose my program in part because it had a strong, structured approach to preparing students for the market. Many others still expect their students to acquire such skills through osmosis.

[displayname]

The meritocratic argument is (mostly) wrong.  I am a student in one of the number-one ranked departments in the country. Colleagues who have won nationally prestigious fellowships, published in respected journals, and have glowing recommendations from heavyweights have worked as adjuncts for years. That group includes those who were awarded our department's prize for best dissertation. This is true at peer departments, and is true in many fields. 

Of course, if you perform terribly in grad school, you have almost no chance of getting a job.  But many superstars adjunct, and many more will apply for jobs for years before even getting a campus visit.  If you doubt this, look at the CVs of professors at top departments, or talk to them.  Most spent years on the job market while still grad students.  Many pieced together postdocs and visiting gigs before getting a job.  And those are professors at the most prestigious schools that received PhDs at the most prestigious schools.

The meritocratic argument enables graduate students, professors, and administrators to turn a blind eye to the exploitation of adjunct labor in the academy. Too many believe that they will not end up as an adjunct if they work hard, get into the right department, and publish in the right field.  Too many believe that adjuncts are less qualified than full-time faculty—in truth, they are not as lucky.

[SunshineLolipops]

Just curious, but did anyone ever not get the "don't do it! The market is horrible!" speech?  I mean, I've gotten the speech followed by enthusiastic recommendation letters, but has anyone not gotten the speech at all?  Is there another speech? Having observed faculty searches as an undergraduate and now as an adjunct, I've got to agree that the market is brutal.  Search committees get to choose the pick of the litter every time. 

[ashiepoo72]

Every single one of my MA profs, including the people who wrote glowing recommendations for me, told me the market is awful and continue to tell me how many applicants they get for job searches. In fact, some of the profs I've had in the first 2 quarters at Davis have also given that speech. Lots of POIs during my application season did the same. From what I've seen, most history profs feel it's their professional and moral duty to inform aspiring historians about how hard it is.

All I can say is, I'm glad I chose a program and adviser that emphasized professionalization from day 1. Our chances are slim, but I feel good that the people training me are trying to help me have the best shot possible.

[SunshineLolipops]

As a grad student in the UK, I didn't get the same vibe at all.  Of course the system is very different, the time to degree is much shorter, and I don't know that career prospects are any better, but it was nice to be able to talk about a career in history without all of the doom and gloom.  

[pro Augustis]

Roughly half of those I talked to grad school about gave the doom and gloom speech. One other didn't say it was horrible per se but did talk about the importance of both professionalization and being willing to find an alt career if necessary, while the last didn't mention it in any form.

[Riotbeard]

On January 14, 2016 at 5:11 PM, displayname said:

The meritocratic argument is (mostly) wrong.  I am a student in one of the number-one ranked departments in the country. Colleagues who have won nationally prestigious fellowships, published in respected journals, and have glowing recommendations from heavyweights have worked as adjuncts for years. That group includes those who were awarded our department's prize for best dissertation. This is true at peer departments, and is true in many fields. 

Of course, if you perform terribly in grad school, you have almost no chance of getting a job.  But many superstars adjunct, and many more will apply for jobs for years before even getting a campus visit.  If you doubt this, look at the CVs of professors at top departments, or talk to them.  Most spent years on the job market while still grad students.  Many pieced together postdocs and visiting gigs before getting a job.  And those are professors at the most prestigious schools that received PhDs at the most prestigious schools.

The meritocratic argument enables graduate students, professors, and administrators to turn a blind eye to the exploitation of adjunct labor in the academy. Too many believe that they will not end up as an adjunct if they work hard, get into the right department, and publish in the right field.  Too many believe that adjuncts are less qualified than full-time faculty—in truth, they are not as lucky.

 

We all know this!  My girlfriend is a professor (at another school), and has been on a bunch of search committees and the reasons for rejection are complicated and from outside seem often outrageous.  At one prestigious school, for example, where she was a postdoc, they threw out all candidates who they thought might apply for tenure early, because of money issues.  Likewise, where she is now they look for people who they expect to stay so they don't go for top candidates.

 

All of that being said, this cynicism will not help you.  Do you want to be the bitter person at every conference that nobody likes?  What's the point of being so doom and gloom?  Will focusing on this knowledge ultimately help you get a job?  It is better to keep this in the back of your mind as a reality, but there is no need to let it control you consciousness. I am in my sixth year, (defending Spring 2017, what-what!), and I can see the damage this attitude does to people throughout grad school.  It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy and a reason not to try, and to become generally unpleasant. You have to have optimism in order to keep plugging away.  For example, I sent in an article this summer to the top journal in my subfield, with the knowledge that it would most likely get rejected, but figured that I already knew the worst could happen.  Happy ending, I got a revise and resubmit, and it will hopefully be accepted by the time I am on the market!  If you get too negative, you can limit the field of possibilities for yourself, and it will ultimately only hurt you.  The job market doesn't care about you, so you should not care so much about it. It's out of our control and unlikely to change.

Edited January 27, 2016 by Riotbeard

[mvlchicago]

^^^ While I agree with you, I have less-than-optimistic suspicions about the goals of such cynicism from throwaway accounts on this site. This goes both for the post to whom you respond, and the original poster of this thread.

We're all aware the job market is bad; I'm assuming that by you're being here with <50 posts, you have agreed to that term and are now figuring out ways to up the likelihood of getting a job inside (or outside!) academia. Otherwise, I have a sense that these posts are about jarring very qualified students more than it is about a reality check.

[ashiepoo72]

Congrats on the revise and resubmit, @Riotbeard!!

[Riotbeard]

33 minutes ago, ashiepoo72 said:

Congrats on the revise and resubmit, @Riotbeard!!

 

Thanks! It was exciting news, although tempered by of course the one reviewer of four that hated it.