Most of you won't get tenure-track jobs

[notcoachrjc]

That should be the baseline realization of applying to PhD programs in political science. Below are placement statistics for the past few years from the APSA. 33% of applicants in any given year get tenure-track jobs. The placement is worst for political theory, where 16% get jobs. Note that this statistic only includes those people that actually tried to go on the academic job market, not those that didn't make it through grad school or saw the writing in the wall and didn't try. So the statistic for the percentage of those starting grad school to tenure track jobs is likely 33%*50%. 16 percent. 8 percent for theory.

http://www.apsanet.org/Portals/54/APSA%20Files/Data%20Reports/Employment%20Data/2014-15.APSAGraduatePlacementReport.pdf

Now, you may say, well, people still get post-docs or "non-tenure-track" jobs, like VAPs or Lectureships, etc. Maybe they can get something tenure-track afterward. True, but the 33% rule per year applies. With each passing year, you jump into a new pool with new people that's more and more competitive. That's what the statistics show. In five years, it's likely to be far more selective. 

Think about that for a bit and then reconsider what you're getting yourselves into. I'm one of the lucky ones that got a TT. Are you going to be?

[cgfren08]

A lecturer position pays much more than my current high school teaching gig, so... not really worried about it. Don't plan on being one of the 10% not placed, either. 

Edited December 23, 2015 by cgfren08

[Eigen]

You'd have to be at a really poorly paid HS position, or be looking at exceptionally high paying lecturer positions. 

There's a reason getting a TT position is akin to winning the lottery in many fields. 

In many fields, you're also now competing against people going on the market as tenured hired from schools floundering or closing, as well as decreasing numbers f available positions for increasing numbers of graduates. 

These stats shouldn't make you decide your career path in and of themselves, but it's worth going into it knowing the facts and with open eyes. That's how we, as a profession, avoid growing numbers of adjunct disaster stories. 

[Determinedandnervous]

I'm well aware of this reality, as probably are many forum members. The anxiety over applications and acceptances at this time is probably why you're getting thumbs-down even though you are dead-on with this statistic. My personal plan of making this path a lower-risk venture is by making sure to go above and beyond in methodological training (maybe a masters in stats too depending on whether the program allows that) so that I have some sort of marketable skill if I don't do well in the academic job market.

[cooperstreet]

Prestige matters. The bottom line is: if you want a tenure track job, only go to a top-10 program.

[rising_star]

Those data are actually really interesting, especially if you think about current student protests which include calls for more diverse faculty. From these data, it's clear just how difficult that will be for political science departments!

[notcoachrjc]

19 hours ago, cgfren08 said:

A lecturer position pays much more than my current high school teaching gig, so... not really worried about it. Don't plan on being one of the 10% not placed, either. 

I would caution that a non-trivial amount of people I've come across (from both top-10 and not top-10 programs) have ended up teaching high school after graduating or otherwise leaving a program. And, that lecturer positions are notoriously poor in terms of job security, workload, benefits relative to public or private secondary school teaching positions. 

 

2 hours ago, cooperstreet said:

Prestige matters. The bottom line is: if you want a tenure track job, only go to a top-10 program.

Prestige does matter, but that's not to say that all the jobs go to people from top-10 programs OR that it is impossible to get jobs at non-top-10 programs. There will be years where places like UVA or Emory or Penn St. or Cornell or UIUC (to name a few) place multiple people into R1 TT jobs. All of those candidates tend to be very well published (think ISQ, IO, CPS, JOP, etc.), well-networked and have a promising research agenda. On the other hand, even Harvard and Princeton struggle to place more than 50% of their candidates on the job market. Prestige isn't just an Ivy name on a CV, it's often resources for grad student research and field work, easier access to closed-door conferences and networks and often, an easier time getting things published (benefit of the doubt from editors, etc.). All of this CAN be overcome at non-top-10 departments, but the hoops one has to jump through are greater, so fewer people end up succeeding. Obviously, the occasional unpublished ABD will get a job based on just potential, but this is increasingly rare and tends to be confined to your Stanfords, Harvards and Princetons, rather than the entire top 10. Ultimately, going to a top-10 will help, but is in no way a guarantee of a job. 

 

[s1994]

Hey but also, when people say "top 10", they also refer to Rochester/Wustl/Cornell/Duke/etc. For example, even for a comparatively low ranked department (compared to the school prestige), it seems that UPenn is doing a pretty good job at placing its students (https://www.sas.upenn.edu/polisci/content/recent-phd-placements)! So I guess "top 10" actually refers to all schools up to #30? Maybe all PSR stalkers (including me) should not be THAT scared by the caveat that "non-top 10 --> trash."

 

 

14 hours ago, notcoachrjc said:

I would caution that a non-trivial amount of people I've come across (from both top-10 and not top-10 programs) have ended up teaching high school after graduating or otherwise leaving a program. And, that lecturer positions are notoriously poor in terms of job security, workload, benefits relative to public or private secondary school teaching positions. 

 

Prestige does matter, but that's not to say that all the jobs go to people from top-10 programs OR that it is impossible to get jobs at non-top-10 programs. There will be years where places like UVA or Emory or Penn St. or Cornell or UIUC (to name a few) place multiple people into R1 TT jobs. All of those candidates tend to be very well published (think ISQ, IO, CPS, JOP, etc.), well-networked and have a promising research agenda. On the other hand, even Harvard and Princeton struggle to place more than 50% of their candidates on the job market. Prestige isn't just an Ivy name on a CV, it's often resources for grad student research and field work, easier access to closed-door conferences and networks and often, an easier time getting things published (benefit of the doubt from editors, etc.). All of this CAN be overcome at non-top-10 departments, but the hoops one has to jump through are greater, so fewer people end up succeeding. Obviously, the occasional unpublished ABD will get a job based on just potential, but this is increasingly rare and tends to be confined to your Stanfords, Harvards and Princetons, rather than the entire top 10. Ultimately, going to a top-10 will help, but is in no way a guarantee of a job. 

 

 

[kafcat]

The bottom line is that education is what you make of it. You may go to a top 10 school but not get really well connected. Top schools are great and open tons of doors, but if you really push yourself in lower tier schools, I think there's a possibility to get a tenured track position. Personally, I'm more interested in post-doc positions after graduation since I would like to go to England or Germany for a while before settling down in the US (or I might not come back at all if people like Donald Trump get elected). 

[s1994]

7 hours ago, japaniia said:

The bottom line is that education is what you make of it. You may go to a top 10 school but not get really well connected. Top schools are great and open tons of doors, but if you really push yourself in lower tier schools, I think there's a possibility to get a tenured track position. Personally, I'm more interested in post-doc positions after graduation since I would like to go to England or Germany for a while before settling down in the US (or I might not come back at all if people like Donald Trump get elected). 

But ... he's making America great again! 

[notcoachrjc]

On 12/25/2015 at 4:19 AM, shane94 said:

Hey but also, when people say "top 10", they also refer to Rochester/Wustl/Cornell/Duke/etc. For example, even for a comparatively low ranked department (compared to the school prestige), it seems that UPenn is doing a pretty good job at placing its students (https://www.sas.upenn.edu/polisci/content/recent-phd-placements)! So I guess "top 10" actually refers to all schools up to #30? Maybe all PSR stalkers (including me) should not be THAT scared by the caveat that "non-top 10 --> trash."

 

 

 

The top 10 is generally the departments ranked in the top 10 on the US News rankings: Harvard through Duke/UCLA. So there are 11. Programs outside of that range certainly place well in some areas, but do poorly in others (i.e. WashU outside of American and formal theory). As I said, these rankings are reputational, so all else equal, you are more likely to be hired from Princeton than UCLA than Cornell, etc. Remember, every job you will apply for gets a hundred or more applicants. Some places will trash any file regardless of how stacked the CV is if the program is considered too low ranked. Sometimes that cut-off is within the "top-30." It's not fair, but it's true.

Penn's placement page is also a good cautionary tale. First, the most impressive placement: Michigan, appears to be an outright lie. The person has a lectureship disguised as a post-doc, not a tenure-track job. I otherwise count 12 R1 placements in 11 years, which is fine for that kind of program, but about 1 per cohort, so you have to be the absolute best out of who-knows-how many in your year to get that. Penn is also a bit of an outlier because its Ivy league pedigree gives it a leg up in placement at LACs, post-docs and think tanks. From what I hear, the training is quite poor.

This probably warrants a separate post, but it's always good to get comprehensive placement records from schools (how many entered, how many made it to the job market, how many got TT jobs, where did they get TT jobs). What's listed on the website selects on the people who got jobs and intentionally removes the context of how many people didn't get jobs. 

[s1994]

1 hour ago, notcoachrjc said:

The top 10 is generally the departments ranked in the top 10 on the US News rankings: Harvard through Duke/UCLA. So there are 11. Programs outside of that range certainly place well in some areas, but do poorly in others (i.e. WashU outside of American and formal theory). As I said, these rankings are reputational, so all else equal, you are more likely to be hired from Princeton than UCLA than Cornell, etc. Remember, every job you will apply for gets a hundred or more applicants. Some places will trash any file regardless of how stacked the CV is if the program is considered too low ranked. Sometimes that cut-off is within the "top-30." It's not fair, but it's true.

Penn's placement page is also a good cautionary tale. First, the most impressive placement: Michigan, appears to be an outright lie. The person has a lectureship disguised as a post-doc, not a tenure-track job. I otherwise count 12 R1 placements in 11 years, which is fine for that kind of program, but about 1 per cohort, so you have to be the absolute best out of who-knows-how many in your year to get that. Penn is also a bit of an outlier because its Ivy league pedigree gives it a leg up in placement at LACs, post-docs and think tanks. From what I hear, the training is quite poor.

This probably warrants a separate post, but it's always good to get comprehensive placement records from schools (how many entered, how many made it to the job market, how many got TT jobs, where did they get TT jobs). What's listed on the website selects on the people who got jobs and intentionally removes the context of how many people didn't get jobs. 

I'm convinced. My original issue with "one should only go to top-10" is that certain schools outside of that range do have good placement in a few subfields (like Rochester and WashU in methods, and hopefully Cornell in China (with JCW and JW), etc).  But yeah, a degree from a top-10 program (or a really strong subfield/area from a top 25) could be a good rule-of-thumb to determine the likelihood of a TT position after one graduates  

Edited December 28, 2015 by shane94

[ZajoncSays]

21 hours ago, notcoachrjc said:

Penn's placement page is also a good cautionary tale. First, the most impressive placement: Michigan, appears to be an outright lie. The person has a lectureship disguised as a post-doc, not a tenure-track job.

Actually, this person is currently finishing a post-doc and is starting next fall as a TT assistant professor. I don't know where you're getting your information, but you're off. 

[cooperstreet]

1 hour ago, ZajoncSays said:

Actually, this person is currently finishing a post-doc and is starting next fall as a TT assistant professor. I don't know where you're getting your information, but you're off. 

At Michigan?

[CarefreeWritingsontheWall]

I've had the unique opportunity to sit on three hiring committees for my department in the last three years. Mind you, this is coming from a person at a top Canadian institution, but I feel that there are some aspects of the process that apply across schools both in Canada and the US. This year we had a pool of ~350 applicants for one TT position. Of that, 100 were full well and qualified. A significant portion were ABD, looking to defend in the next 3-6 months, while some had been doing post-docs for 2-4 years, and another chunk were assistant professors already looking to transition elsewhere. When it came to drawing the top 5 to be flown out for a job talk, it was reducible to two things: research potential, and networks, the latter being the most important means to get to the in-person interview process. One even confessed that they were only there because their supervisor was well connected to a number of high profile people in our department - something said faculty later confirmed. Of the five we chose, 2 came from top 10 programs, 3 from top 10-30. The two people who stood out the most were exactly the type of people to make the most of their degree, and they were not from your top 3 programs. Networking landed all but one candidate at the job talk phase, at which point their qualifications and research potential was the selling point. How well they spoke, meshed with existing faculty and what they could provide as a professor determined who got the job offer. Fit is crucial. I know a lot of departments are shifting, depending on whether they prioritize quantitative or qualitative studies, or the analytically eclectic approach. There's a lot of infighting in particular places as newer faculty are fighting to change things too. New hires can be extremely contentious. These are all good things to be aware of in the course of doing a PhD in political science/government, particularly given how much the field is changing with the advent of big data and machine learning.

I would definitely encourage those who can sit in as a student rep on these opportunities to certainly do so. I know I've learned a lot from the process, especially since I've had the chance to start getting in on this as an undergraduate. Now as an MA student it's even more enlightening.

Side note: I'm personally looking into American PhD programs with the intention of moving back to Canada when I finish, so my ambitions for teaching positions may not be as high as others here. If there's anything I've come to realize in the last two years of finishing my BA and now doing my MA, it's that knowing people matters, and having the right support from well networked faculty can certainly get you places.

 

 

[Penelope Higgins]

11 hours ago, cooperstreet said:

At Michigan?

Yes.

[GradSchoolTruther]

Even coming from low-ranked or unranked programs, you can get a TT job. It won't be in a Ph.D-granting department, and probably a stretch for a department with any type of graduate program.

The real question is are you going to be one of the top students in a low or unranked program who will succeed? Are you a go-getter and willing to find information on your own, or do you need everything spoon-fed to you? Are you willing to take some risks? Do you need an advisor who researches exactly the same topic you want to, or do you just need general guidance? Are you afraid of attending conferences, presenting your work to your peers and faculty, and tentative about teaching? 

[southerngent]

^ Yea, Grad-SchoolTruther is correct. This whole thread is ridiculous without some clarification. It entirely has to do with the fight for top research university jobs by those people in top (and middling, which is where more of the angst actually comes from) programs and says nothing about the reality of the job market for other (read: most) universities (R2s, LACs, some SLACs, directionals, professional schools, public policy schools, and even some low-end R1s).

To clarify, I just graduated from a US program ranked 55-65 (last May). I just had my first semester as a TT AP at a regional R2 (meaning one of a couple of large state universities in this state, 2-3 load, some funding, reasonable tenure requirements, etc.). It was great. I came out of my program with a well-balanced portfolio of two courses taught as instructor (and a bunch of TAing), 8 peer-reviewed articles (mostly second tier, only one in a "top" journal) and an interesting dissertation project. 

I just wanted to find a good professorial TT job at a university that was solid in a place I actually might want to live. I reached out to some department chairs in my final year because of personal interest in regional schools. Got positive responses even when there was no opening. People appreciate your interest. Tailored my letters everywhere else to demonstrate my fit potential and flexibility to be a good scholar-teacher that would be invested in the department/students. Got 6 interviews, 4 fly-outs, 2 offers. The other was an R1 (public policy PhD program), but in a place my spouse couldn't really deal with. Also got a VAP offer early on that I declined.

The bottom line is that you can do absolutely fine from a lower (or possibly even unranked) program. I know my article count was high coming out of grad school....and I planned on it being that way. Seriously, my profile was 3 years of planning and executing to the best of my ability. Another graduate colleague of mine performed similarly with much less under his/her belt and is at a great LAC in his/her hometown now.

Just realize that if you want a job at a decent university (i.e. your priorities are different from these chest-blowers obsessed with prestige) you need to be a self-starter and build the profile that sells! 

[cgfren08]

12 minutes ago, southerngent said:

^ Yea, Grad-SchoolTruther is correct. This whole thread is ridiculous without some clarification. It entirely has to do with the fight for top research university jobs by those people in top (and middling, which is where more of the angst actually comes from) programs and says nothing about the reality of the job market for other (read: most) universities (R2s, LACs, some SLACs, directionals, professional schools, public policy schools, and even some low-end R1s).

To clarify, I just graduated from a US program ranked 55-65 (last May). I just had my first semester as a TT AP at a regional R2 (meaning one of a couple of large state universities in this state, 2-3 load, some funding, reasonable tenure requirements, etc.). It was great. I came out of my program with a well-balanced portfolio of two courses taught as instructor (and a bunch of TAing), 8 peer-reviewed articles (mostly second tier, only one in a "top" journal) and an interesting dissertation project. 

I just wanted to find a good professorial TT job at a university that was solid in a place I actually might want to live. I reached out to some department chairs in my final year because of personal interest in regional schools. Got positive responses even when there was no opening. People appreciate your interest. Tailored my letters everywhere else to demonstrate my fit potential and flexibility to be a good scholar-teacher that would be invested in the department/students. Got 6 interviews, 4 fly-outs, 2 offers. The other was an R1 (public policy PhD program), but in a place my spouse couldn't really deal with. Also got a VAP offer early on that I declined.

The bottom line is that you can do absolutely fine from a lower (or possibly even unranked) program. I know my article count was high coming out of grad school....and I planned on it being that way. Seriously, my profile was 3 years of planning and executing to the best of my ability. Another graduate colleague of mine performed similarly with much less under his/her belt and is at a great LAC in his/her hometown now.

Just realize that if you want a job at a decent university (i.e. your priorities are different from these chest-blowers obsessed with prestige) you need to be a self-starter and build the profile that sells! 

Thank you. As someone who loves teaching and is looking at a mid-to-lower ranked programs (besides dream schools) that's a huge weight off my mind.

Edited December 29, 2015 by cgfren08

[southerngent]

5 minutes ago, cgfren08 said:

Thank you. As someone who loves teaching and is looking at a mid-to-lower ranked programs (besides dream schools) that's a huge weight off my mind.

Sure thing. And, though perhaps another thread would be a better forum for this, I'm happy if you want to AMA.

Don't get me wrong, going to a top program and wanting a top job is a legitimate thing to do. Maybe even a slight majority of the people that find this part of GradCafe are in that vein. But it isn't representative of the job market in its entirety and it doesn't mean that you can't be an awesome contributor to the field at a good university through teaching and research. Yes, the job market is hard, but discipline and hard work can get you where you want to go from almost any program (which is ultimately that awesome professorial lifestyle/career, right?). Just be strategic.

[GradSchoolTruther]

2 hours ago, cgfren08 said:

Thank you. As someone who loves teaching and is looking at a mid-to-lower ranked programs (besides dream schools) that's a huge weight off my mind.

To be honest, you'll probably have to outwork almost everyone in your cohort. That's a huge weight. You're not competing over grades, as law school students do, but you do compete for faculty attbetion. You'll likely need to start presenting in your second year. Do not think of seminar papers as one-time projects. Even a mediocre one can be revised hopefully land at some journal. You'll have to deal with rejection.

As for TT jobs, many smaller schools, especially public ones, are hesitant to hire those coming from top-ranked programs. Departments want faculty who will stick around, especially as there aren't guarantees that TT lines can be replaced.

 

Edited December 29, 2015 by GradSchoolTruther

[cooperstreet]

4 hours ago, southerngent said:

^ Yea, Grad-SchoolTruther is correct. This whole thread is ridiculous without some clarification. It entirely has to do with the fight for top research university jobs by those people in top (and middling, which is where more of the angst actually comes from) programs and says nothing about the reality of the job market for other (read: most) universities (R2s, LACs, some SLACs, directionals, professional schools, public policy schools, and even some low-end R1s).

To clarify, I just graduated from a US program ranked 55-65 (last May). I just had my first semester as a TT AP at a regional R2 (meaning one of a couple of large state universities in this state, 2-3 load, some funding, reasonable tenure requirements, etc.). It was great. I came out of my program with a well-balanced portfolio of two courses taught as instructor (and a bunch of TAing), 8 peer-reviewed articles (mostly second tier, only one in a "top" journal) and an interesting dissertation project. 

I just wanted to find a good professorial TT job at a university that was solid in a place I actually might want to live. I reached out to some department chairs in my final year because of personal interest in regional schools. Got positive responses even when there was no opening. People appreciate your interest. Tailored my letters everywhere else to demonstrate my fit potential and flexibility to be a good scholar-teacher that would be invested in the department/students. Got 6 interviews, 4 fly-outs, 2 offers. The other was an R1 (public policy PhD program), but in a place my spouse couldn't really deal with. Also got a VAP offer early on that I declined.

The bottom line is that you can do absolutely fine from a lower (or possibly even unranked) program. I know my article count was high coming out of grad school....and I planned on it being that way. Seriously, my profile was 3 years of planning and executing to the best of my ability. Another graduate colleague of mine performed similarly with much less under his/her belt and is at a great LAC in his/her hometown now.

Just realize that if you want a job at a decent university (i.e. your priorities are different from these chest-blowers obsessed with prestige) you need to be a self-starter and build the profile that sells! 

Mentioning the massive amount of luck you had seems appropriate.  The data do not lie: the chances of getting a TT job coming out of a low ranked PhD program are very slim. Which is fine, but people need to know that going into it.

[ultraultra]

As others in this thread have said and from everything I've read, if you want a professorship at a school that focuses on research rather than teaching, it really seems to be about research potential/productivity. People at top programs have an advantage because of prestige, because their pedigree signals that they have potential, and because the increased resources at top schools (among other attributes) give them a better shot at publishing widely/in good journals before going on the market (+ networks give them opportunities to co-author with and schmooze top scholars in their subfield). For the first two reasons, a poorly published CHYMPS grad will still do better than a poorly published grad from an unranked program, but it's all relative. If you go to a lower-tier program and publish in reputable journals, you'll still have a good shot. (Not at every school but) the chances are good that your application will get a second look if you have, among other pubs, a solo-authored APSR or JOP at the time of application. These things aren't easy of course. And not everyone is cut out for them. But they aren't impossible. 

[Eigen]

4 hours ago, cooperstreet said:

Mentioning the massive amount of luck you had seems appropriate.  The data do not lie: the chances of getting a TT job coming out of a low ranked PhD program are very slim. Which is fine, but people need to know that going into it.

This is a really tricky line to draw between correlation and causation. 

Many of those who will eventually land TT jobs tend to go disproportionately to high ranked programs, so there's no wonder they skew towards having more graduates on the TT. 

That doesn't, however, mean that the fact they went to the school made their chances very slim. It certainly doesn't hurt, nor does it hurt that those schools have a reputation for attracting good students who in turn make good faculty. 

But you can do quite well going to a lower ranked program and shining, and I don't think I'd attribute it to luck. 

[GradSchoolTruther]

Traits that won't help you land a TT job

- Lacking self confidence (Chance me threads scream no self confidence)

- Lack of self reliance and research skills (Google is your friend)

- Lack of work ethic (You need to actually do your coursework and RA/TA work)

- Lack of ambition (Turn seminar papers into conference/journal submissions)

- Lack of collegiality (Need to play nice with others)