American Historical Association Jobs Report

[RageoftheMonkey]

45 minutes ago, NoirFemme said:

I've long been curious about the statements that US History is an extremely poor market. My undergrad has no "pure" Americanists on the faculty, and they don't even bother hiring adjuncts on a consistent basis for upper division US history courses. Instead, they have "peripheral" Americanists (immigration, Civil War, Native American, etc) who also work in other areas (like Asian American history, or digital history).

I wonder about this too. If I end up at the program I think I'll end up at, I would see myself doing my major field in US History with minor fields in (subsets of) Latin American and European History, all with a general focus on history of the transnational Left. Would this make me more attractive ("he can do more!") or less attractive ("we want someone with specialties in several areas of US History")?

[TMP]

3 hours ago, RageoftheMonkey said:

I wonder about this too. If I end up at the program I think I'll end up at, I would see myself doing my major field in US History with minor fields in (subsets of) Latin American and European History, all with a general focus on history of the transnational Left. Would this make me more attractive ("he can do more!") or less attractive ("we want someone with specialties in several areas of US History")?

When my department had searches for American historians, we were definitely drawn to candidates with solid research in thematic field (race, urban) or transnational.  You may be speaking of old-school, white male, political U.S. history.  No matter what, U.S. history still has it worse than other geographical areas.  

What made these job candidates  really stand out for my department was their ability to teach interesting courses and fill the needs of the department (i.e. we had lost a Latin Americanist and we asked a U.S. historian with transnational focus on Latin America if she could do a survey course if needed to, she said yes). The key for our U.S. historians to be able to teach a full survey of U.S. history (pre-1877 and post-1877) and something way out of the field (i.e. non-Western focus or world history).  If all of your fields/teaching abilities are focus on the West, then getting a job will be an uphill battle.

[JKL]

So in light of these numbers, why are we still pursuing graduate school? Seriously. Why? Are we delusional? What is it?

[nhhistorynut]

12 hours ago, JKL said:

So in light of these numbers, why are we still pursuing graduate school? Seriously. Why? Are we delusional? What is it?

Passion? The desire to get to work in the field for at least 4-5 years as a grad student? Those would be my guesses, and they're the reasons I'm doing it. Idk why people think it's a waste of time, especially when PhD programs waive tuition and offer a stipend. It isn't a lot of money, but it's something.

Honestly, another reason I opted to apply and will begin my PhD this fall is because I think I can do it. I believe that I am capable of earning my PhD. So I'm going to give it a go. Plus, as I said above, at least I will be able to work/research/teach in a field I am passionate about for 4-5 years.

[AfricanusCrowther]

Nothing will stop most PhD students from enrolling. But you should Know before you Go.

[JKL]

12 hours ago, nhhistorynut said:

Passion? The desire to get to work in the field for at least 4-5 years as a grad student? Those would be my guesses, and they're the reasons I'm doing it. Idk why people think it's a waste of time, especially when PhD programs waive tuition and offer a stipend. It isn't a lot of money, but it's something.

Honestly, another reason I opted to apply and will begin my PhD this fall is because I think I can do it. I believe that I am capable of earning my PhD. So I'm going to give it a go. Plus, as I said above, at least I will be able to work/research/teach in a field I am passionate about for 4-5 years.

Passion seems to be the common answer. Still, it's an interesting thing. We don't like the idea of giving up on a passion, but at what point does reason override passion? These numbers suggest that after 4-5 years writing a 250+ page dissertation with stomach ulcers and empty Ramen noodle packages piled in the trash can, you're going to end up with an adjust gig making $20k/year. All reason, logic, and nearly every Nobel-winning economist would say don't pursue a PhD in History. Yet here we are, pursuing a PhD in History. It just baffles me how we're willing to ignore reality in favor of passion. Then again, who knows? You might actually land your dream job after graduation. Academia is certainly a fickle world.

[Glasperlenspieler]

7 hours ago, JKL said:

Passion seems to be the common answer. Still, it's an interesting thing. We don't like the idea of giving up on a passion, but at what point does reason override passion? These numbers suggest that after 4-5 years writing a 250+ page dissertation with stomach ulcers and empty Ramen noodle packages piled in the trash can, you're going to end up with an adjust gig making $20k/year. All reason, logic, and nearly every Nobel-winning economist would say don't pursue a PhD in History. Yet here we are, pursuing a PhD in History. It just baffles me how we're willing to ignore reality in favor of passion. Then again, who knows? You might actually land your dream job after graduation. Academia is certainly a fickle world.

Popping in from elsewhere in the humanities, where the job market is similar (or worse?).

By this logic, it's equally irrational to pursue a career in the NBA, MLB, NFL, etc. You're odds are probably even worse if you want to be a fighter pilot. And major positions of elected office in competitive districts? Forget it! By the way, have you looked at the success rate for start-ups lately? Then there's acting, the music industry, or creative writing. Are all of these (and many other) career pursuits irrational? I don't know, maybe. That doesn't mean they're not worth pursuing though. Obviously, people should go in with their eyes open, lots of information, and realistic expectations, plus a plan B and maybe a plan C and D too. But I think it's not unreasonable that for the right sort of people, the calculus works out such that pursuing academia is a real option. (Whether that's the case for everyone in graduate school is another question.)

For what it's worth I really like the baseball-academia analogy. Most TT jobs are the equivalent of the numerous no name players in big leagues. The handful of R1 or equivalent positions are the Derek Jeters and Randy Johnsons of academia (I know my baseball references are outdated; I haven't really followed the sport for a while). Most baseball players, however, wash out after careers in minors or college ball of varying degrees of success. These are the adjuncts of the world. The disanalogy here is that I suspect most baseball players are better at determining when to cut their losses.

[nhhistorynut]

10 hours ago, JKL said:

Passion seems to be the common answer. Still, it's an interesting thing. We don't like the idea of giving up on a passion, but at what point does reason override passion? These numbers suggest that after 4-5 years writing a 250+ page dissertation with stomach ulcers and empty Ramen noodle packages piled in the trash can, you're going to end up with an adjust gig making $20k/year. All reason, logic, and nearly every Nobel-winning economist would say don't pursue a PhD in History. Yet here we are, pursuing a PhD in History. It just baffles me how we're willing to ignore reality in favor of passion. Then again, who knows? You might actually land your dream job after graduation. Academia is certainly a fickle world.

I think I come a place of both passion and reason. There are a few reasons for this. First, 2 cousins work in academia, and they warned me sternly about the struggles. One has her MFA and worked as an adjunct art professor for something ridiculous like 15 years before getting a TT job last fall. The other has her PhD in fisheries (basically marine biology) and she essentially just does research work now as it's hard to find teaching jobs.

Another reason is sort of my personal life experience. 6 years ago my husband was diagnosed with acute leukemia at the age of 24. I was 23, pregnant (we found out when i was 12 weeks along), and a college drop out. He underwent a stem cell transplant, our daughter was born, and I had an epiphany. I went back to school and got my BA. And then I went back and am almost done with my MA. To me, life is something that should be lived for happiness and with hope. I don't want to not do something just because I'm scared I won't be able to make a lot of money doing it.

Here's an anecdote for you: my dad got his BA in urban forestry (it was the 70s...) and then worked at the same seafood restaurant for 32 years, eventually becoming director of operations. He wasn't passionate about it and didn't even really like it, but it paid well and was stable. Or so he thought. Ten years ago he got laid off (along with 200 other employees) when the owner's son overhauled the business. He was 55 years old and had never done anything else. There went the stable, "safe" career. He works at the post office now. Anyways, the point is nothing is ever a given, so why not go for it if you're capable?

3 hours ago, Glasperlenspieler said:

For what it's worth I really like the baseball-academia analogy. Most TT jobs are the equivalent of the numerous no name players in big leagues. The handful of R1 or equivalent positions are the Derek Jeters and Randy Johnsons of academia (I know my baseball references are outdated; I haven't really followed the sport for a while). Most baseball players, however, wash out after careers in minors or college ball of varying degrees of success. These are the adjuncts of the world. The disanalogy here is that I suspect most baseball players are better at determining when to cut their losses.

I like the baseball analogy here (as well as the others). It's all true.

And like I said before, at least we'll get 4-5 or more years doing something we love. To me, that means it isn't a waste.

Edited April 20, 2017 by nhhistorynut

[lelepat]

I am currently a junior majoring in history and political science. I initially wanted to do PhD on post-WWII American foreign policy. However, all the professors I have talked with discouraged me from doing so. The jobs report exactly proves what they have said.