How do you decide? Fall 2016

[Apogeee]

Congratulations again to everyone who has gotten good news. And now, it seems, it's time for us to make our decisions. How long will you wait before you decide? How do you weigh your options? How are the programs to which you have been accepted different?  What's going through your mind right now?

[ciistai]

The two programs I can choose between are very similar in structure, and the funding packages come out to around the same when you factor in the differences in cost of living.

As I come towards my decision, most of my thoughts have been focused on:

• best current field opportunities
• best opportunities for collaboration with other graduate students
• best fit for not only myself but for my partner - not a top factor but certainly one that holds some weight

I hope to make a final decision by the 21st.

[Apogeee]

How do their rates of PhDs awarded compare? Is that something to consider here?

[pro Augustis]

I don't know if I can be of much help here, as I haven't yet figured out how to finalize my own choice. But I can lay out the factors I am thinking of:

1. Fit, both with a prospective advisor and (ideally!) to at least some extent with a few other professors, also both in terms of offering interesting/relevant coursework for the first few years of the program and then being able to supervise the kind of dissertation I want to write.

2. Quality of Life/Vibe. By this rather vague category, I am thinking of stuff like the location and whether I already know anyone there, how well I see myself fitting in with the grad students there, how students get along with fellow students and also with faculty, and how invested the faculty seem in their students.

3. Placement.

These are not, by the way, in order. If I knew how to order them, I'd be a lot closer to having a decision...

 

Edited March 17, 2016 by pro Augustis

[ciistai]

On 3/10/2016 at 11:03 AM, Agrippina said:

How do their rates of PhDs awarded compare? Is that something to consider here?

Didn't even see this response! Yes - of course. I think Michigan's is higher!

[ClassApp]

What about ranking? I know the rankings for Classics are mostly either outdated or inaccurate, but there does seem to be a reasonable consensus in the community. 

[pro Augustis]

9 hours ago, ClassApp said:

What about ranking? I know the rankings for Classics are mostly either outdated or inaccurate, but there does seem to be a reasonable consensus in the community. 

That's definitely also something I thought of; all of the programs I applied to were pretty highly ranked. In decisions, I think for me it has been subsumed under "Placement." After all, presumably the point of the rank is that it improves placement. If one highly ranked place for some reason does not have good placement, then I no longer see what the ranking is really doing for you. 

[συγχίς-sygchis]

So, here's the problem: there is no comprehensive placement data for our field. If you ask, you typically get anecdotal data from faculty or grad students that is selectively incomplete, and that can't be compared to a discipline-wide benchmark of any type. 

With most people now spending several years in VAPs/ postdocs/ non T-T jobs before perhaps landing a T-T job, it becomes very difficult to track the actual placement rates of programs. Furthermore, the small size of cohorts means that there are not a lot of data points even for the main schools, so generalizing is difficult. And finally, many (many!) people end up not going on the academic job market at the end of their PhDs, which further complicates the picture. 

To get a better sense of the job market world though, people should check out the Classics Wiki, which lists the recipients of jobs and their PhD institutions. Names are mostly not up for this season yet, but are for last season. Of particular interest: scroll down to the bottom and look at who is getting short-term and VAP contracts: these tend to be the more recently graduated people. But to be fair, even after being on the job market, I find this data really hard to interpret. 

[pro Augustis]

4 hours ago, συγχίς said:

So, here's the problem: there is no comprehensive placement data for our field. If you ask, you typically get anecdotal data from faculty or grad students that is selectively incomplete, and that can't be compared to a discipline-wide benchmark of any type. 

With most people now spending several years in VAPs/ postdocs/ non T-T jobs before perhaps landing a T-T job, it becomes very difficult to track the actual placement rates of programs. Furthermore, the small size of cohorts means that there are not a lot of data points even for the main schools, so generalizing is difficult. And finally, many (many!) people end up not going on the academic job market at the end of their PhDs, which further complicates the picture. 

To get a better sense of the job market world though, people should check out the Classics Wiki, which lists the recipients of jobs and their PhD institutions. Names are mostly not up for this season yet, but are for last season. Of particular interest: scroll down to the bottom and look at who is getting short-term and VAP contracts: these tend to be the more recently graduated people. But to be fair, even after being on the job market, I find this data really hard to interpret. 

I can't speak for all schools, and as you are on the market, you definitely have a better sense of the overall contours of the Classics job market than I do. But I do want to say that some of the schools* I am deciding between have given what seems like very comprehensive information: all PhDs granted in the last decade or so along with the present employment of the individual, specifying whether tenure track or not.

 

* Admittedly, one of these programs, UT Austin, only provided the information in a packet during the visit weekend itself, so it would be of little use to someone deciding whether to apply in the first place.

[συγχίς-sygchis]

5 hours ago, pro Augustis said:

I can't speak for all schools, and as you are on the market, you definitely have a better sense of the overall contours of the Classics job market than I do. But I do want to say that some of the schools* I am deciding between have given what seems like very comprehensive information: all PhDs granted in the last decade or so along with the present employment of the individual, specifying whether tenure track or not.

This is good information for programs to be providing, and it makes me glad to hear. Nothing this specific was provided by any of the schools to which I was accepted (although that was now a fair number of years ago). At most I was given general statistics, "we've had x number of graduates, of whom y% are in TT jobs."

But, nevertheless, department-provided statistics are still not the same as a discipline-wide survey-- and there is a fair amount of wiggle room even in the seemingly straightforward numbers. For research and discussion about the German job market that reveals some of the complexities of this situation, see the series of posts here: http://zugunglueck.blogspot.com/2014/03/how-job-market-in-german-really-works.html 

I suppose the thing I've realized is this: the job market issues become less and less clear-cut, the more information you have. I'm torn, because I truly believe that we need better data about job placement for our field, and more conversation about what post-PhD life looks like in this era of contracting higher education hiring. But at the same time, the number of graduates in our discipline is and always will be so very small, and extrapolating from this data seems quite risky to me-- departments also change quite fast, so the results of a student 7 years earlier might not have much bearing at all on your own experience. In any case, I don't have any real answers, just some reflections about how my own perspective has changed over the last few years. 

[displayname]

13 hours ago, pro Augustis said:

I can't speak for all schools, and as you are on the market, you definitely have a better sense of the overall contours of the Classics job market than I do. But I do want to say that some of the schools* I am deciding between have given what seems like very comprehensive information: all PhDs granted in the last decade or so along with the present employment of the individual, specifying whether tenure track or not.

 

* Admittedly, one of these programs, UT Austin, only provided the information in a packet during the visit weekend itself, so it would be of little use to someone deciding whether to apply in the first place.

Hi pro Augustis,

I share συγχίς's surprise. Admittedly, I'm in another field, and I also entered a few years back. But even this year, my department only offered group statistics (or at least, they said they were going to).  They also did not account for attrition, which is sizeable (at least 30%).  I'm curious about one point. You mention that the departments provided information on "all PhDs granted in the last decade or so along with the present employment of the individual, specifying whether tenure track or not." Does that mean they provided information only on academic employment?  If so, I'm dubious that its "all PhDs" - I've never encountered a department in the humanities that places 100% in academic positions -- including Princeton, Yale, Harvard, etc.

7 hours ago, συγχίς said:

This is good information for programs to be providing, and it makes me glad to hear. Nothing this specific was provided by any of the schools to which I was accepted (although that was now a fair number of years ago). At most I was given general statistics, "we've had x number of graduates, of whom y% are in TT jobs."

But, nevertheless, department-provided statistics are still not the same as a discipline-wide survey-- and there is a fair amount of wiggle room even in the seemingly straightforward numbers. For research and discussion about the German job market that reveals some of the complexities of this situation, see the series of posts here: http://zugunglueck.blogspot.com/2014/03/how-job-market-in-german-really-works.html 

I suppose the thing I've realized is this: the job market issues become less and less clear-cut, the more information you have. I'm torn, because I truly believe that we need better data about job placement for our field, and more conversation about what post-PhD life looks like in this era of contracting higher education hiring. But at the same time, the number of graduates in our discipline is and always will be so very small, and extrapolating from this data seems quite risky to me-- departments also change quite fast, so the results of a student 7 years earlier might not have much bearing at all on your own experience. In any case, I don't have any real answers, just some reflections about how my own perspective has changed over the last few years. 

Completely agree. Statistics are relevant to a degree, and absolutely must be presented to elucidate the vague statements presented up from front -i.e., "the job market is tight, but most do well." But, they can also occlude a lot.  For instance, a recent internal review presented statistics in my department. They showed that 100% of Medieval Historians were placed in TT jobs within a give-year period.  I was shocked, as were my colleagues.  But a little asking around revealed this: there was only 1 graduate from our top department during that time, and s/he had received a position by the time the review was conducted.  All of the others (at least 3) had left the program before graduating.  People can interpret that information as they want, but it just demonstrates how statistics hide as much as they reveal.

[pro Augustis]

2 minutes ago, displayname said:

Hi pro Augustis,

I share συγχίς's surprise. Admittedly, I'm in another field, and I also entered a few years back. But even this year, my department only offered group statistics (or at least, they said they were going to).  They also did not account for attrition, which is sizeable (at least 30%).  I'm curious about one point. You mention that the departments provided information on "all PhDs granted in the last decade or so along with the present employment of the individual, specifying whether tenure track or not." Does that mean they provided information only on academic employment?  If so, I'm dubious that its "all PhDs" - I've never encountered a department in the humanities that places 100% in academic positions -- including Princeton, Yale, Harvard, etc.

It was not only academic employment. One of the schools that I am thinking of, Chapel Hill, seems to list everyone, including those teaching high school and some with no current information (who I assume left academia). UT Austin's list, which I just have on paper and so unfortunately cannot link, had information for everyone, including some folk working IT outside the academy or what have you. Admittedly, neither of those lists takes into account attrition.

[displayname]

10 minutes ago, pro Augustis said:

It was not only academic employment. One of the schools that I am thinking of, Chapel Hill, seems to list everyone, including those teaching high school and some with no current information (who I assume left academia). UT Austin's list, which I just have on paper and so unfortunately cannot link, had information for everyone, including some folk working IT outside the academy or what have you. Admittedly, neither of those lists takes into account attrition.

That's great! Both of those schools should be applauded.

[συγχίς-sygchis]

Yes- I am just now looking at the UNC link you posted @pro Augustis (thanks!)- good for them for the transparency. That's a strong model for other programs. 

The attrition question is really a hard one. I mean, life happens for people in different ways, and so while high attrition can reflect underlying problems in a department, it can also be a statistical blip. It is just hard to say.  

Anyway, I didn't mean to side-track this conversation about decisions. It is just that we so often discuss 'placement' in kind of unnuanced ways that gloss over problems with discipline-wide reporting, as well as the complexities of our tiny little academic universe.

Good luck to everyone making choices, though! 

[pro Augustis]

7 hours ago, συγχίς said:

Yes- I am just now looking at the UNC link you posted @pro Augustis (thanks!)- good for them for the transparency. That's a strong model for other programs. 

The attrition question is really a hard one. I mean, life happens for people in different ways, and so while high attrition can reflect underlying problems in a department, it can also be a statistical blip. It is just hard to say.  

Anyway, I didn't mean to side-track this conversation about decisions. It is just that we so often discuss 'placement' in kind of unnuanced ways that gloss over problems with discipline-wide reporting, as well as the complexities of our tiny little academic universe.

Good luck to everyone making choices, though! 

No worries about side-tracking the discussion: the conversation about placement is an important one, and I think that having posters with more experience in programs and even on the market rather than just as applicants is invaluable.

I didn't realize that the depth of information provided by Chapel Hill and UT was so unusual. Hopefully more programs follow suit. 

In terms of understanding the field at large, the low numbers of people really does seem like a problem. One of the professors I asked for advice went so far as to say that since the total number of (job) applicants is so low compared to a field like English, and the total number of jobs is so much lower than that, he is unsure that either figure or any departmental placement record actually has much predictive value due to the vanishingly-small sample size. Then again, if one program had a placement record of 70% and one of 50% over a period of years, it is hard to chalk that all up to chance, and in a market so dismal how can you not take every advantage? 

The points you mentioned, @συγχίς, about the relatively rapid change in departments and also how, with so few numbers, personal factors in terms of attrition could notably alter the picture are interesting. I've no idea how to really take them into account, or if it is possible to do so. 

Edited March 27, 2016 by pro Augustis

[ClassApp]

Placement is definitely an important issue that, unfortunately, doesn't seem like it will be easy to decipher anytime soon. (which is why I asked! I'm not quite sure how to evaluate placement information...)

How important is a sense of community within a cohort? I found that one of the schools I looked at had a remarkable sense of community (trivia nights, lots of support for younger students teaching for the first time, etc.) and that the other one had a cohort that was friendly, but not friends. I typically don't have too much of a problem making friends, but I am somewhat social so I'm worried that a lack of community in the program will mean an insular life in grad school. What do you guys think? How does that factor into your decisions?

[pro Augustis]

9 hours ago, ClassApp said:

Placement is definitely an important issue that, unfortunately, doesn't seem like it will be easy to decipher anytime soon. (which is why I asked! I'm not quite sure how to evaluate placement information...)

How important is a sense of community within a cohort? I found that one of the schools I looked at had a remarkable sense of community (trivia nights, lots of support for younger students teaching for the first time, etc.) and that the other one had a cohort that was friendly, but not friends. I typically don't have too much of a problem making friends, but I am somewhat social so I'm worried that a lack of community in the program will mean an insular life in grad school. What do you guys think? How does that factor into your decisions?

I think that one depends a lot on you and on the kind of environment you think that you could thrive in. For me, a sense of community is important, because I don't make friends easily and so could imagine being very isolated in grad school if the cohort doesn't bond. But I know other people like to make their friendships outside of school. 

[rjyjate]

9 hours ago, ClassApp said:

How important is a sense of community within a cohort? I found that one of the schools I looked at had a remarkable sense of community (trivia nights, lots of support for younger students teaching for the first time, etc.) and that the other one had a cohort that was friendly, but not friends. I typically don't have too much of a problem making friends, but I am somewhat social so I'm worried that a lack of community in the program will mean an insular life in grad school. What do you guys think? How does that factor into your decisions?

For me, community is mostly important as a proxy for other aspects that I find important. If a cohort gets along really well, it probably means that they're not constantly having to compete with each other for funding, or good TA assignments, or faculty attention, etc. 

 

[συγχίς-sygchis]

When I was picking a grad program, I was very much interested in community tone, and it played an important role in my final choice. That said, with hindsight I'd probably try to break down the issue a bit. 

I think I'd try to distinguish between parts of the 'sense of community' that are related to structural components/ issues of the program, and those that are purely a product of the personalities of the group of grad students. (Of course, the two are in many ways inseparable.) But the parts directly related to structural factors (like: people fighting over funding; or conversely, a robust program-run mentorship program for new TAs) are probably more lasting than those related to individual personalities.

Because-- and here's the hindsight part-- the social tone of a grad program can (and in my experience did) change from year to year. It's because the people who set the tone for the program are usually those in coursework, and if you figure three years of coursework, it means that 1/3 of the department is new each year. When I'm around in my department now, there are lots and lots of people I don't really know-- and the group dynamic feels pretty different to me than it did in my first year. The people who were most important in my grad experience, furthermore, were those in my specific cohort. But of course, it is often impossible to know ahead of time who's going to be in your cohort. So, that also complicates things. 

I also think that a grad program's community is sort of an "l'État, c'est moi" situation: once you get into a program, you actually have a tremendous power to shape the social community, because it pretty much depends on you-- so even if the current grad students aren't organizing group happy hours or trivia nights, that doesn't mean that you can't. Of course, I don't mean to ignore the possibility of walking into a situation that is truly an uncomfortable fit-- but just to say that my own observations about program climate during interviews and visits assumed a greater degree of diachronic stability than I have actually experienced.