5-Year Trajectories (or, Predicting the Future)

[Dr. Old Bill]

I suspect that most of us who are applying to Ph.D. programs are doing so more because our interests dictate the need, rather than out of the idea that there are jobs aplenty in the academic marketplace. The "no jobs" rhetoric has been discussed to death at GradCafe in the past -- often with obnoxious or ad hominem results -- but I do have a slightly related question/thought. Given that the landscape is what it is, how many of you have tried to gear your academic interests to the market? Part of the reason I ask is because I've seen a surprising uptick in the number of rhet/comp applicants here on GC in the last couple of application cycles, and I can't help but wonder if it has to do with the fact that it is the biggest growth sector within English right now. If so, it makes me wonder how possible it is to predict market shifts five-plus years in advance. In other words, there are [some] jobs in rhet/comp now, but will that hold true in five years? Seven?

I hasten to add that I do not bring this up to be alarmist -- I'm a HUGE proponent of rhet/comp, and I firmly believe that getting a Ph.D. in almost any field is a productive endeavor in its own right. I also think that rhet/comp has a lot more growth potential than most literature fields. Given that the end goal of a Ph.D. is typically future employment, however, do most of you generally dive in to your interests (whether those are rhet/comp, literature, or something else) and hope for the best, or do you try to "ride the wave," so to speak, focusing on the area that you think will make you the most marketable / employable in the future?

 

[FeetInTheSky]

I've been down with the idea of a Ph.D. in rhet/comp when I figured out the following: 
1) I like serious intellectual engagement, especially when it's used to solve problems. 
2) I like writing and I like teaching people writing. The days I spent in college at my writing center and TAing an intro to lit class (which was doubling as intro to comp) were among my most satisfying. 

Therefore, Ph.D. programs in Rhet/Comp sound like the best idea possible. Not only do I get to prepare for a career that involves helping people become better writers in my own classroom, but I also get to research how to make other people better writers. So basically what you're telling me is that I get to do #1 for the sake of #2, not only in my classroom but in classrooms around the world, if I can come up with some interesting research question that other people read? Sign me up. 

The other angle that's been really important to me was realizing that even if I don't come out of this whole extravaganza gainfully employed, I will at least have had six or however many years to study something I really care about. Still seems like a pretty good deal. 

In terms of the "wave" of Rhet/Comp applications, I'm not really sure. I went to a small liberal arts college where none of the faculty studied composition. The whole English department is in Lit. I was eating lunch with one of the deans (perks of the small liberal arts college...) and he mentioned the idea of Rhet/Comp kind of off-handedly as an idea I should look at, and I went home to check it out and was blown away. It wasn't necessarily a calculated decision about the job market or economics or anything like that, but I will admit that finding out that it's the more job-friendly field was certainly an important point in actually pulling the trigger and going into application mode. 

But that's just one person's story...

Edited September 6, 2016 by JeremyWrites

[Romanista]

I'm really against tailoring your research needs to the market. Partly because, as has been mentioned before, the market is fickle. But also because I believe that you can't specialize in a subject without a pressing interest in it that goes beyond economics. You have to love your subject matter even if few people outside of academia care about it, otherwise you simply will not finish your dissertation, or get your article published, or make the connections needed to succeed in academia. Maybe there are exceptions to this, but I believe that you can only devote yourself fully to one area because you're consistently interested in it, and not because you hope to find a job in that field afterwards. It's like being a fan of multiple teams in the same sport...you will never be a diehard fan of multiple teams, so it's best to concentrate on one at the expense of the others, so that you are a knowledgeable fan of that one team who can watch other games as a neutral without forgetting where your allegiance lies.

When I switched to this field, I had to convince myself that I wasn't doing it because the jobs situation is better, and I tell myself that that is still true. I'm in comp rhet because the research can (sometimes) be rooted in praxis more so than theory, at least as compared to literature. Comprhet at least attempts to answer the "who cares about this research besides other people in the same tiny subfield as me?" question. Often it's a stretch to think that whatever you publish will later be used in the pedagogy of your reader, but it's nice to believe that it could happen. 

I'm not saying that the job market is to be ignored. Rather, PhD students should focus on selling themselves as non-academic labor after they graduate, assuming that they don't get that TT job in their field of choice. I think it's better to have a firm scholarly identity that may go against the labor market (more like probably it will considering how bad it is), but also to be ready to take the general skills relevant to any humanities PhD and apply them in the non-academic world. 

Edited September 6, 2016 by Romanista

[__________________________]

Hey y'all. Haven't been on here in a minute but good to see familiar names! I totally agree with Romanista on this question: in short, no, it doesn't seem to be at all worth it to try and predict what jobs, if any, will be around in 6 or 8 or 10 years from now in English.

First of all, re: job market anxieties at large and the "humanities phd problem," this is the best article I've read recently on the subject (which I admit has become a rather stale one for me): https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/phd-students-irrational/#! . 

What it helps speak to is the fact that these problems are structural and need to be addressed through structural change. The recent NLRB ruling is helpful for that and the reconceptualization of academic labor and expansion of adjunct and grad student unionization are ways of working towards that change.

I say all this because I think that's what's worth spending energy on in a grad program rather than trying to speculate on how to make your life's work more profitable in a fundamentally unstable and unpredictable market and economic reality. I don't think it's wise to do rhet/comp if it's because you think that -- in 6-8 years (or more) from now, mind you -- you'll have a 10% or whatever better chance of getting a TT-job. First of all, because... why? I feel like grad school is too grueling already to be doing something you're not 100% into and genuinely humbled/excited by the prospect dedicating your professional life to it. You're already going to feel inadequate all the time, it makes the most sense to have that be the kind of inadequacy that's motivating rather than shutting down. If you're not *really* into comp/rhet and are only doing it because of a contingent market condition, I can't imagine making it through a dissertation, to be honest, at which point the whole TT thing is sort of moot. I think rhet/comp is fascinating and has so much to offer, but I really, honestly feel like it's different enough from what I do as a literature scholar that I can't imagine doing a PhD in it.

Really, given how things are right now, I think the best way to "gear oneself towards the market" is two things. (1) Find a field to be as badass at as you can, which is, realistically, going to be a field in which you love doing research. (2) Do what you can while you work as a graduate student to be aware of the shifting nature of academic labor and the academic economy and do what you can to organize with your colleagues to make those conditions as serviceable to you and to others around you as can be managed. Two cents.

 

[klader]

Honestly, I don't think I'd be able to survive my classical rhetorical theory seminar if I didn't love this field so much. I'm an MA student, but I'm definitely not in comp/rhet because I think the job market will be better - I'm in it because I believe in what the field is doing for composition and for rhetoric itself and because I want to be a part of it. I think we have more to do and accomplish.

Other people might only be studying it because they think it's more marketable, though, but I feel like those people won't be as extra competitive as they think they are if their hearts aren't in it. As others said, you shouldn't study something unless you love doing research in that area, and a clear disconnect can only hinder one's progress.

[Bumblebea]

As someone who's been on the market a few times ... yeah. I really want to sign on to the idea that you can't predict the market. Having said that, you always have to be aware that rare specializations--and fields that seem especially overpopulated--are not going to get easier. But these days, it's just ALL looking bad. There's really no golden-ticket specialization anymore. I was told that my particular area was secure because "every department will always need a blankety blank"--flash forward five or six years and blankety blank has become ridiculously competitive, and departments have found ways to combine blankety blank with other adjacent periods.

Even if you're in literature and not inclined toward rhet/comp (and I was not), I would recommend trying to do something, anything, that relates to the writing studies side of your department, whether that's working for the writing center, training new TAs, or taking additional classes in writing pedagogy. I'm convinced that's how I got my current job. I was also offered a teaching postdoc that was more rhet/comp than literature, and getting that offer had everything to do with being able to imagine my work as intersecting with current debates in writing studies. And it really did not take THAT much effort on my part. 

[klader]

40 minutes ago, Bumblebea said:

I'm convinced that's how I got my current job. I was also offered a teaching postdoc that was more rhet/comp than literature, and getting that offer had everything to do with being able to imagine my work as intersecting with current debates in writing studies. And it really did not take THAT much effort on my part. 

While I understand where you're coming from with your statements, I just want to point out that, at least to me, this feels a bit like a slap in the face - doing "something" or "anything" related to writing studies that doesn't "really... take THAT much effort" when some people devote 6+ years of their lives studying this stuff and striving to make improvements in the field.

Perhaps I am just being overly sensitive here, but I feel like this is the kind of attitude that undercuts rhet/comp studies. It's "just a thing on the side to do" in order to get a coveted literature job; it's something you don't need to have studied since you were in undergrad to attempt to break into. Of course you are no doubt qualified for your job and probably were hired for reasons far beyond your ability to sell yourself as someone who could do rhet/comp stuff, but I sense in parts of your response flecks of the general, dismissive attitude toward rhet/comp that makes me feel sad for my field.

Again, I know I am most likely just being overly sensitive, and I don't mean to personally attack you in this comment. I think it's just worth mentioning that this kind of attitude - whether you really expressed it or not - can still easily find its way into conversations such as this.

Edited September 8, 2016 by klader

[empress-marmot]

When I began my MA, I didn't have any set research interests, so I looked around the field and guided my interests towards PTC and rhetoric of science. At the time, I was definitely being careerist. Now, though, I've realized that these are conversations I want to be part of. And in the end if there are no academic jobs for someone like me, the things I've learned from PTC are transferable to the non-academic job market as well.

While I agree that scholars shouldn't choose a research topic just because it will lead (maybe) to a job, I think all research is valuable (or perhaps, has to be valued). I've spoken with professors who were steered into certain fields because tenure committees told them to do it--or else. Is their contribution to knowledge less valuable just because it wasn't their passion at the time? 

I just came from a seminar where the teacher pointed out the dangers of ranking paradigms, so I'm sorry if this comes off as moralizing.

[Bumblebea]

12 hours ago, klader said:

While I understand where you're coming from with your statements, I just want to point out that, at least to me, this feels a bit like a slap in the face - doing "something" or "anything" related to writing studies that doesn't "really... take THAT much effort" when some people devote 6+ years of their lives studying this stuff and striving to make improvements in the field.

 

I meant it didn't take much effort to reimagine how my dissertation could relate to writing studies/pedagogical theory. Not that rhet/comp doesn't take much effort or isn't challenging. I wouldn't presume to call myself a rhet/comp specialist because that wouldn't be right. But for me, this "marketing strategy" wasn't difficult *because* I attended a program at a public university that has a reputable and well-developed rhet/comp program. I taught constantly throughout my program and took classes in rhet/comp and pedagogy. For this reason, I was familiar with some of the debates in the field and was familiar with certain theorists. Obviously, this is not possible for those who attend programs that don't have rhet/comp or that don't make TAs teach rhetoric-based classes in first-year English.

That was all. I was not implying that rhet/comp isn't challenging. Obviously my dabbling doesn't make me appropriate to take on a rhet/comp job, and I wouldn't presume to apply for one. I did not study it for 6+ years or write articles/a dissertation in that field. 

But frankly, there *are* a lot of jobs out there these days that want to hire literature professors who have familiarity with rhet/comp. It's "two birds with one stone" issue that has become very prevalent on the job market. It's not right, but it's happening, and you see the same sort of things when you review job ads that want someone who can teach "Asian-American literature and multiple genres of creative writing." It's not right--these schools oftentimes have the money to hire three people but the department can only get approval for one--but it's the system we're living in. The schools where I got interviews were very enthusiastic about being able to hire someone who could teach in the first-year writing program while also bringing knowledge of a very specific literary field.

Honestly, doing rhet/comp is a matter of survival for literature PhDs who come out of public universities. Almost every literature PhD I know from a public university got a job because they had basic knowledge and experience teaching comp or running a writing center/first-year writing program. They were hired by small departments that didn't want to hire someone who just did rhet/comp but someone who could also jump in and teach classes on Irish literature. This is the new and unfair reality of the job market--we're all sort of crowding into each other's fields. So I didn't mean to denigrate rhet/comp at all ... but I was trying to drive home the reality that it's absolutely essential for lit PhDs to be able to market themselves very flexibly. 

[Glasperlenspieler]

13 hours ago, klader said:

Perhaps I am just being overly sensitive here, but I feel like this is the kind of attitude that undercuts rhet/comp studies. It's "just a thing on the side to do" in order to get a coveted literature job; it's something you don't need to have studied since you were in undergrad to attempt to break into. Of course you are no doubt qualified for your job and probably were hired for reasons far beyond your ability to sell yourself as someone who could do rhet/comp stuff, but I sense in parts of your response flecks of the general, dismissive attitude toward rhet/comp that makes me feel sad for my field.

 

39 minutes ago, Bumblebea said:

Honestly, doing rhet/comp is a matter of survival for literature PhDs who come out of public universities. Almost every literature PhD I know from a public university got a job because they had basic knowledge and experience teaching comp or running a writing center/first-year writing program. They were hired by small departments that didn't want to hire someone who just did rhet/comp but someone who could also jump in and teach classes on Irish literature. This is the new and unfair reality of the job market--we're all sort of crowding into each other's fields. So I didn't mean to denigrate rhet/comp at all ... but I was trying to drive home the reality that it's absolutely essential for lit PhDs to be able to market themselves very flexibly. 

To be honest, I would *hope* that most literature professors have at least a passing familiarity with issues in rhet/comp. They're of course not going to have the same level of expertise as a rhet/comp specialist, but presumably their students will still be writing essays in their literature classes. And while a course focused on writing composition clearly allows a greater opportunity to hone student writing skills, if a literature professor is completely unable to teach writing at all, it seems that he or she is not doing her job very well. Literary studies and rhet/comp are sufficiently intertwined that you can't (or at least shouldn't) try to separate them completely. That's fully compatible with recognizing that the two fields are sufficiently complex to necessitate specializing in one or the other.

[Bumblebea]

50 minutes ago, Glasperlenspieler said:

 

To be honest, I would *hope* that most literature professors have at least a passing familiarity with issues in rhet/comp. They're of course not going to have the same level of expertise as a rhet/comp specialist, but presumably their students will still be writing essays in their literature classes. And while a course focused on writing composition clearly allows a greater opportunity to hone student writing skills, if a literature professor is completely unable to teach writing at all, it seems that he or she is not doing her job very well. Literary studies and rhet/comp are sufficiently intertwined that you can't (or at least shouldn't) try to separate them completely. That's fully compatible with recognizing that the two fields are sufficiently complex to necessitate specializing in one or the other.

Totally agree. It's indispensable for teaching college English at any level, and another reason I would never intentionally denigrate it.

However, there are a lot of programs out there that don't have rhet/comp specialists, and that don't stress teaching. I do know people who graduated without really having taught a writing seminar. Heck, a person on my committee graduated from a (very, very top) program only having taught one class--a literature class--and a few recitation sections of a very large intro to lit class. I don't know if this made this person "completely unable" to teach writing--they weren't hired at our university to teach first-year classes (as is often the case with hires at R1 schools) but upper-level undergrad and grad classes--but it does indeed happen that people get literature PhDs without teaching or knowing much about composition. For those who are lucky enough to walk into a career as a research scholar at an R1 or a very top SLAC, that's maybe more acceptable. But the rest of us need to be able to teach a few other things, and first-year writing is usually high on the list of priorities at a great many universities. 

[__________________________]

On 9/8/2016 at 1:05 PM, Bumblebea said:

Totally agree. It's indispensable for teaching college English at any level, and another reason I would never intentionally denigrate it.

However, there are a lot of programs out there that don't have rhet/comp specialists, and that don't stress teaching. I do know people who graduated without really having taught a writing seminar. Heck, a person on my committee graduated from a (very, very top) program only having taught one class--a literature class--and a few recitation sections of a very large intro to lit class. I don't know if this made this person "completely unable" to teach writing--they weren't hired at our university to teach first-year classes (as is often the case with hires at R1 schools) but upper-level undergrad and grad classes--but it does indeed happen that people get literature PhDs without teaching or knowing much about composition. For those who are lucky enough to walk into a career as a research scholar at an R1 or a very top SLAC, that's maybe more acceptable. But the rest of us need to be able to teach a few other things, and first-year writing is usually high on the list of priorities at a great many universities. 

This is a becoming an issue too. I'm at a private university that has no rhet/comp and the lack of teaching experience in this program (compared to state schools anyway) combined with upcoming budget cuts is one of my biggest concerns looking forward to the job market. The program is notorious for its grueling academics but a result of that is that it also has a reputation for producing people who can't teach "regular" people. This is one of those problems that more traditionally "prestigious" programs haven't really figured out and actually why, I think, some schools with lower rankings than this one outperformed us on the job market this last year. This category of PhDs who can just waltz into R1 jobs out of their top-10 or top-15 programs is simply becoming a fantasy. My program is structured with that entitlement in mind and it kind of adds kinds of pressure that aren't accounted for in the way PhDs are trained here, which is, essentially, one that places writing a field-changing dissertation over and above practical concerns like developing a pedagogical philosophy and teaching writing that are developed from the very beginning in most state programs. 

So the points being made on here about being familiar with these discourses and with *teaching experience* is really well taken and important, I think. That might seem so obvious to a lot of y'all at state schools, but here that sort of thing kind of feels like an afterthought, or even an inconvenience, a lot of the time. And it's really hurting our job placements too.

[klader]

@Bumblebea, I'm sorry to have taken it that way! A part of me knew you probably didn't mean anything like that, but I think I was just riled up from some heated debates on the topic from one of my seminars 

On 9/8/2016 at 0:14 PM, Bumblebea said:

Honestly, doing rhet/comp is a matter of survival for literature PhDs who come out of public universities. Almost every literature PhD I know from a public university got a job because they had basic knowledge and experience teaching comp or running a writing center/first-year writing program. They were hired by small departments that didn't want to hire someone who just did rhet/comp but someone who could also jump in and teach classes on Irish literature. This is the new and unfair reality of the job market--we're all sort of crowding into each other's fields. So I didn't mean to denigrate rhet/comp at all ... but I was trying to drive home the reality that it's absolutely essential for lit PhDs to be able to market themselves very flexibly. 

Yes, PhDs do need to be able to market themselves flexibly, and I think it's awful how people have to try and learn basically two fields in order to get a job. In an ideal world, they would hire enough people to do each job, but I think we all know that's probably never going to happen. It's only going to get worse, unfortunately.