U.S. history job market

[ashiepoo72]

Haters gonna hate

[dr. t]

23 hours ago, Riotbeard said:

 

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

Edited January 28, 2016 by telkanuru

[displayname]

Riotbeard and mvlChicago: I'm sorry that you both misunderstood my intentions.  I'm not trying to "help myself" (at least in any conscious way) by sharing this information.  I think that it is the responsibility of those within the profession to acknowledge that one's performance does not simply correlate to work ethic or talent.

[mvlchicago]

If I've misunderstood your intentions, it's because of the few posts you've had on this section of the forums.

I think most people who've been around history departments and reading the posts that have come up all agree on one point: there are far more "qualified" candidates for jobs than jobs, which itself becomes even worse for over-saturated fields like "Modern US history." We get it. You can't be in history and not get it. The question in my head isn't so much whether or not we need daily reminders of this, but whether we can create advice and space to think through what the next best possible steps are. It's laudable to be realistic about the process, but are you doing this within your department (if you're in one)? If you have students, are you informing them of this reality? The very first piece of advice I give to the undergrads I have thinking about grad school is "the job market is abysmal." Once we're past that step, I'm unsure how helpful it is to harp on the point.

Finally, we're making it sound as though academia is the only job market suffering. Far from it, unless you plan on going into 1) the financial industry or 2) software, devops, or tech, the job market will be pretty bad. Given the context of the economy, I remain unconvinced that five years of fully funded grad school is really the worst path in a set of pretty bad options. On this road, you can at least be certain you aren't paying for the graduate degrees you will inevitably need, that you will have time to build the networks required because of course this isn't a meritocracy, and that you're a little happy doing what you're doing.

[Riotbeard]

18 hours ago, displayname said:

Riotbeard and mvlChicago: I'm sorry that you both misunderstood my intentions.  I'm not trying to "help myself" (at least in any conscious way) by sharing this information.  I think that it is the responsibility of those within the profession to acknowledge that one's performance does not simply correlate to work ethic or talent.

I meant you in the general sense.  I think it's easy to be cynical in a field with a lot of negatives, but I am increasingly unconvinced that it's useful to think too much about this information, unless you are advising someone who does not like history all that much.  I tend to preach positivity to the first and second years in my department.  Not to be deluded about the reality, but ultimately a positive attitude will help someone more in the long run than being angry and cynical.  If this is someone's dream job, it's better to fail trying than the alternative of giving up and you might as well enjoy the time you get in the profession even if that is just graduate school.

[Quickmick]

I was going to leave this one alone....but...

I think maybe this would benefit from being re-framed, maybe the question should be why are you doing a PhD. If PhD=Job and Job=Happy/Secure/$ whatever there are a lot of easier ways to land a lucrative job (and if you are in sales, and good, you don't even need a BA!). If you feel somehow called or compelled to go then I suppose that is our lot, maybe we just have to make ourselves as desirable as we can, try have a couple or original thoughts along the way and hope for the best. Life is full of uncertainty, there is an entire field devoted to making decisions amid uncertainty, so you have two choices. If all actions cause some ripple of uncertain consequences in the world, then the safest bet is to do absolutely nothing, or you can roll the dice and do something. I am a nontraditional student having spent 10 years on a trading floor in Chicago and another decade as an advisor. I am no spring chicken, I have a lovely wife and a wonderful daughter who I have an obligation to provide for. My point here is I am pretty sure I could pick up the phone today and have a 'good' job tomorrow, but it takes more than money to make me happy. Am I going to lose any sleep over what might or might not happen in the future when I am doing what I feel is right? Heck no. Another point to consider is how much do you need (materially) to be happy? I have found that the spending of money can be fun, but it is just a vehicle, what is far more important to me in the long run is that my work is important--that I am striving to be in a position to help the world make sound decisions regarding the impacts to my daughter's future and her daughter's future.

Anyway, if you want to be a quant in a HFT trading outfit then a PhD in applied stats will pay. So will engineering and working for Big Oil. I would wager that most people in this thing, while they know they need to work/earn/etc, aren't in it for the money. Besides that, the cream rises to the top.

[thedig13]

On 1/27/2016 at 10:26 AM, Riotbeard said:

 

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.

 

I've heard similar things about the admissions process. Professors at different universities will call up their buddies and be like "Yo, if you send an admit to student X, I won't, because he'd probably go to your school."

Or, "Student B is easily the best student to apply here, so we won't admit him because he'll probably accept an offer elsewhere!'

[Quickmick]

http://www.slate.com/articles/life/education/2015/02/university_hiring_if_you_didn_t_get_your_ph_d_at_an_elite_university_good.html

http://www.historians.org/jobs-and-professional-development/career-diversity-for-historians/career-diversity-resources/the-many-careers-of-history-phds

Info that is pretty easy to find, but I found it interesting and thought someone else might too.

 

 

Edited February 6, 2016 by Quickmick

[dr. t]

"The number of job postings the AHA received in 2014-15 was down 8 percent from the prior year. This is the third straight year for which the association is reporting a decline. Job listings are down 45 percent from the 1,064 that the association reported in 2011-12."

 

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/02/05/report-finds-poor-job-market-history-phds

[displayname]

Quickmick - I agree with you, except your last point: "Besides that, the cream rises to the top."  I think that it's great to get a PhD in history and any other discipline you're excited about.  I do not think its great to continue to tell students that if they're talented and hard-working, it will work out.  There is no evidence to support that claim, especially in the dominant fields. The AHA has repeatedly said as much:

http://www.historians.org/publications-and-directories/perspectives-on-history/the-troubled-academic-job-market-for-history

I think that the AHA has done a good job of responding ethically to this issue. They are doing what Prof. Anthony Grafton recommended and highlight the new Plan A for history PhDs: careers beyond the professoriate. If departments and professors want to admit students for 5-10 years of rigorous study and very low-paid, but rewarding work and make clear to students that they are unlikely to become professors, by all means, they should.  If students want to enter with the knowledge that they are being given the opportunity to write a dissertation and little else, they should.  What I object to is not the PhD, it's the inclination to paper over the job issue and advertise the idea that "the cream" will be ok. I especially object to the presentation of evidence about the job market as "negativity". The only reason that the evidence of declining jobs and increasing PhDs will read negatively is if the profession, the departments, the professors, and the students continue to think that the right outcome for doctoral students are TT jobs, and that those who are deserving will get them. It is equivalent to blaming the unemployed for being so during a recession, and then dismissing labor reports as "doom and gloom."

I think this is particularly difficult for students, unlike Quickmick, who do not have clear alternatives, access to back-up funds, or family security.  In my department, those most likely to drift into adjuncting are those without spousal support, parental support, or a previously lucrative career.  I find that problematic - and something that the profession needs to address.

[kotov]

If y'all are wondering about the European job market, I've put out somewhere between 50 and 60 applications and haven't gotten an interview. So.

[dr. t]

This is a bit of a prying question, but what's your publication record like?

[kotov]

Couple of journal articles, some entries to one of the Holocaust Museum's encyclopedia projects, and a book chapter. Not phenomenal, but not totally absent either.

[time_consume_me]

Gregory Colon Semenza's "Graduate Study for the Twenty-First Century: How to Build an Academic Career in the Humanities" should probably be required reading for anyone applying for graduate school.

 

Edited February 12, 2016 by hojoojoh

[displayname]

I'm going to respond to something that @mvlchicagosaid a while ago, now that I've spent a bit more time around this website and have seen similar responses.

On 1/28/2016 at 6:41 AM, mvlchicago said:

If I've misunderstood your intentions, it's because of the few posts you've had on this section of the forums.

I find this to be a troubling way for humanists and social scientists to deal with difficult information. On the one hand, I have learned a bit about the giving and receiving of upvotes/downvotes and see that reputation matters a great deal here.  This makes sense for an online forum trafficking advice among strangers. So, I guess it's not surprising that mvl assumed I had bad intentions because I hadn't posted a lot.

On the other hand, I'm disappointed that so many are so quick to make assumptions about malicious intentions on the part of posters. In one similar forum, someone said this: "Your concern for my (our?) well-being is admirable, if a bit odd. If you aspire to be the voice in the wilderness, then kudos for your selflessness. Short of that, or perhaps directly because of it, I'm not sure why you're at all concerned with what I do with my life. Surely it can't matter to you that you could save another soul, could it? It's not a question I plan to ponder. Take care, and good luck."  This shocked me.

First, these posters are all grad students and recent PhDs, the same people that each of us have talked to when we were looking for advice about entering a certain program or pursuing a certain degree. So, in some situations, we do trust that they have "concern for our well-being." It seems that trust only breaks down when the information being communicated-- like job market stats--is undesirable. This trust also appears to hinge on the status of the messenger. Ashiepoo said something interesting earlier in this thread about arming ourselves with information, "the well-meant warnings from professors and also the snarky and bitter warnings from many others." This repeats an idea that's been presented here many times: we all know this, our professors told us, we don't need to hear it repeated here. To do so is, simply, cynical, negative, or (most oddly) driven by ulterior motives. Oftentimes, when the information comes from professors, the professors are celebrated for being honest. When it comes from others (current students and adjuncts/postdocs), they are derided. Does this trouble anyone else?

Finally (with apologies for repeating something I said elsewhere): I understand that the value of the humanities is, in part, to learn how to treat one another more humanely. So, why, I wonder, are grad students all-too-quick to dismiss the idea that one PhD might simply be concerned for his/her colleagues?
 

 

[mvlchicago]

2 hours ago, displayname said:

First, these posters are all grad students and recent PhDs, the same people that each of us have talked to when we were looking for advice about entering a certain program or pursuing a certain degree. So, in some situations, we do trust that they have "concern for our well-being." It seems that trust only breaks down when the information being communicated-- like job market stats--is undesirable. This trust also appears to hinge on the status of the messenger. Ashiepoo said something interesting earlier in this thread about arming ourselves with information, "the well-meant warnings from professors and also the snarky and bitter warnings from many others." This repeats an idea that's been presented here many times: we all know this, our professors told us, we don't need to hear it repeated here. To do so is, simply, cynical, negative, or (most oddly) driven by ulterior motives. Oftentimes, when the information comes from professors, the professors are celebrated for being honest. When it comes from others (current students and adjuncts/postdocs), they are derided. Does this trouble anyone else?

Finally (with apologies for repeating something I said elsewhere): I understand that the value of the humanities is, in part, to learn how to treat one another more humanely. So, why, I wonder, are grad students all-too-quick to dismiss the idea that one PhD might simply be concerned for his/her colleagues?
 

 

We don't actually know who these people are, that's how anonymity works. I'm open about my identity because frankly, I find the politics of negotiating departments tedious and a poison pill (do I really want to be tenure track in a department that hates either my views or how I express them?) I know other people who, after a few messages, are also open about who they are. These are exceptional. The majority of posters on this forum come here expecting us to have answers for all their problems or to vent about their anxieties and frustrations with the system, after which they go on their ways. This is fine. People find anonymity helpful for easing their concerns that potential advisors and colleagues would judge them for personal or social perspectives. (This also says nothing about the people who don't have accounts and lurk for whatever intel they can find.)

However, lackluster anonymity also has its drawbacks, namely in one's credibility. When five-post people create threads with titles like "RECENT AHA RESULTS WE ARE ALL DOOMED," many times they do so as though it wasn't a discussion that has happened about twelve times in the past year. Newsflash: It has. And many of the threads that I respond to with these types of comments are the threads that offer nothing new.

What number of posts tells us in a nutshell is how much an account belongs to this community. If someone with one hundred posts makes a similar thread here, it is likely because they are aware of the discussions that have happened in the past and have something new to offer. This system is irrelevant to the position of the person offline (which is one of the glories of anonymity.) Prof. Plum, if I recall correctly, has something like 1k+ posts and a very high reputation from the quality of those posts. If someone with the account "FULLPROFESSORATCOOLSCHOOL" and three posts wants to offer something, I don't actually care until they've done the work of being part of this forum or they're willing to show their hand (Which field? What school?). This is how Internet communities function. This is even how most offline communities function.

This isn't trying to create some community of elite posters. It's just asking you to put in some modicum of effort prior to asking us for a discussion. 

[ashiepoo72]

I'm sorry for not listing out all the people who have given well-meant warnings in my earlier post. In the process of writing an informal post on a semi-anonymous forum, I didn't think my oversight would be read as a critique of other grad students and their intentions. I should've said well-intentioned warnings by professors, adjuncts, administrators, graduate students, family, friends, my friends' friends and significant others, strangers on the street who ask what I do, among others.

My point was that most grad students get the speech from professors when they're asking for recommendations, then professors when they're contacting potential POIs, then more professors when they're in their PhD. If students here are anything like me and my MA and PhD cohorts, they talk about the job market with each other too. They tell their families that the job market is rough, that even if their hope is for a TT job they're looking at or open to other things because of the shitty job market. They ask their advisers what minors to do that'll be most marketable, what external fellowships to aim for in order to have a good looking CV. So excuse me for being sick of people with only 5 posts, all relating to how shit the job market is, coming on here, dropping a flaming pile and vanishing from the face of the universe. If any history PhDs or applicants don't know how hard it is, they're living under a rock. 

Now let's talk about alternative careers, how to boost CVs, how to be a competitive applicant for prestigious fellowships, how to write a dissertation with the publishable book in mind, what non-academic connections we should be making, how to find postdocs, or something that's actually useful.

I'm just going to add--all these "omg the job market" posts symbolize to me a fundamental issue in our thinking. That this is new, that it's a radical change and we are still coming to grips with it. We should be over this hump by now and focusing on how to live with the new normal. I refuse to sit here and stew in my own juices, waiting for my second round of rejection letters post-PhD. We should be supporting each other by building a network that helps all of us survive this reality, and the first part of that is accepting it IS reality then figuring out how to navigate it.

The job market stinks. That area of the timeline has long passed us, now let's try to catch up.

Edited March 27, 2016 by ashiepoo72

[TMP]

I actually needed to mention other graduate appointment opportunities to the prospective students on a panel the other day.  Not that these opportunities aren't bad or anything but... that's how pathetic the academic job market is that one might want to consider developing skills through non-teaching graduate appointments....  The ones who I did talk to directly were delighted to hear about them.

And our advisers are totally on board for grad students to develop skills in non-teaching graduate appointments.

 

[displayname]

@ Ashiepoo and mvl -- I understand that both of you are frustrated by what you see as redundant posts that have nothing to offer.  Ashiepoo, on alternative careers, I talked about this on other threads and am happy to post more, drawing upon advice I've received from others. My guess is that's best reserved for another forum.  On this point, I couldn't agree more, and its why I think that knee-jerk suspicion is problematic: "We should be supporting each other by building a network that helps all of us survive this reality, and the first part of that is accepting it IS reality then figuring out how to navigate it."

mvl, again, I appreciate your frustration with what you feel are redundant posts. I guess I think a few things, and I imagine you're referring to my other topic, where I did post the AHA jobs report. 1) the job report was new, and it had new information in it, so linking to it isn't really kicking up the same old dust. 2) Did you ever not know about the jobs situation? Is it possible that some grads or admits will find out here by reading recent rather than old posts? 3) I'm happy to share advice, but I'm not going to give it unsolicited. That's why I said "there are plenty of ways to respond to this." Not "Don't go to grad school." or "Drop out" or "We're all doomed." All I did was linked to our central professional organization's most recent report --- which members, grads, and professors are thought (expected?) to read, and quoted it. I don't think I implied doomsday, but perhaps you're referring to another post.