How many applications are too many? - English Reformation

[TheHessianHistorian]

5 minutes ago, psstein said:

I generally agree, but I think there's something to be said for non-R1 TT placements. It's not as though they're in adjunct hell or living hand to mouth.

If I hadn't run out of reactions for the day, I would totally like this comment. Sure tenured R1 faculty make $60-90k a year, but tenured R2 faculty make $55-75k and tenured R3 faculty make $50-65. Those are respectable salaries, especially if you're in a job you love so much that you can't believe they actually pay you to do it.

[dr. t]

9 hours ago, TheHessianHistorian said:

Those are respectable salaries, especially if you're in a job you love so much that you can't believe they actually pay you to do it.

Tenured R1 faculty often make $90-150k, but I really don't like this line of reasoning, and I can't see $50k as decent salary compensation for someone with a PhD. 

[khigh]

26 minutes ago, telkanuru said:

Tenured R1 faculty often make $90-150k, but I really don't like this line of reasoning, and I can't see $50k as decent salary compensation for someone with a PhD. 

$60k is what a high school teacher with alternative certification makes here. $70k with a masters and five years of experience. 

[TheHessianHistorian]

Keep in mind that the value of a salary is really dependent on the cost of living in an area. $60k in a Dayton or Tuscaloosa might afford a higher standard of living than $90k in a NYC or LA. Careful not to extrapolate your experiences living in metropolitan areas to the rest of the country.

[khigh]

6 minutes ago, TheHessianHistorian said:

Keep in mind that the value of a salary is really dependent on the cost of living in an area. $60k in a Dayton or Tuscaloosa might afford a higher standard of living than $90k in a NYC or LA. Careful not to extrapolate your experiences living in metropolitan areas to the rest of the country.

I looked up what my undergrad pays for Assoc. Prof....$35k a year. It's a regional in Oklahoma, so that makes a difference, but the number is a little scary.

[ltr317]

1 hour ago, TheHessianHistorian said:

Keep in mind that the value of a salary is really dependent on the cost of living in an area. $60k in a Dayton or Tuscaloosa might afford a higher standard of living than $90k in a NYC or LA. Careful not to extrapolate your experiences living in metropolitan areas to the rest of the country.

That's definitely true.  60K is barely manageable for a lower-middle-class lifestyle in the outer boroughs of NYC after taxes--without roommates.  To live in Manhattan in the same lifestyle one has to earn 80-90k, but this means very little savings.   

[TheHessianHistorian]

19 minutes ago, ltr317 said:

That's definitely true.  60K is barely manageable for a lower-middle-class lifestyle in the outer boroughs of NYC after taxes--without roommates.  To live in Manhattan in the same lifestyle one has to earn 80-90k, but this means very little savings.   

And if you can stand living in a very small town and commuting into a larger city, you can find extremely inexpensive living costs. I bought an enormous 2,000 sq. ft. Victorian home here in my little town of population 3,000 for a measly $30,000. (......Wait, what am I doing going to grad school again?)

[khigh]

11 minutes ago, TheHessianHistorian said:

And if you can stand living in a very small town and commuting into a larger city, you can find extremely inexpensive living costs. I bought an enormous 2,000 sq. ft. Victorian home here in my little town of population 3,000 for a measly $30,000. (......Wait, what am I doing going to grad school again?)

I would love that! I absolutely adore Victorians. The ones in my neighborhood go for around $500k for a two bedroom and they are usually on the market for less than a week at that price. 

[AGingeryGinger]

On 2/1/2018 at 9:22 PM, telkanuru said:

Ah, I see the issue. The University of North Alabama, Nashville State Community College, and the College of Charleston are not among the ~150 schools in the US that produce PhD students and therefore not included in the study.  Of course, the Harvard numbers have similar lacunae. 

I don't think any of this detracts from the overall point: as you go down the tiers of schools (such as they are), your job prospects get exponentially worse. And Vandy isn't in the first, second, or even third tier.

I thought vandy was in first tier? How did you find/figure out the rankings for PhD programs in History? or do you use US news?

[dr. t]

20 minutes ago, AGingeryGinger said:

How did you find/figure out the rankings for PhD programs in History?

Job reports, hiring tendencies, word of mouth, reputations of departments, prestige. In short, fluency in the field.

[psstein]

20 hours ago, AGingeryGinger said:

I thought vandy was in first tier? How did you find/figure out the rankings for PhD programs in History? or do you use US news?

Vanderbilt is assuredly not a first tier program. DO NOT RELY ON THE US NEWS AND WORLD REPORT RANKINGS (I'm very passionate about ignoring them). The only Vanderbilt grad I know of in a R1 has had a very non-traditional career path and is an exceptional scholar.

Almost every department will provide a list of recent graduates. Google them, plus the university and see what they're doing. Anything like "adjunct assistant professor," "adjunct," or "independent scholar" is bad news.

 

Edited March 15, 2018 by psstein

[OHSP]

14 hours ago, psstein said:

Vanderbilt is assuredly not a first tier program. DO NOT RELY ON THE US NEWS AND WORLD REPORT RANKINGS (I'm very passionate about ignoring them). The only Vanderbilt grad I know of in a R1 has had a very non-traditional career path and is an exceptional scholar.

I don't know how many times people have to say this but, seriously, you cannot use the US News rankings, they are not based on the actually important data i.e. placement in your field. Relying on the US News ratings to make decisions about where to apply, where to go etc is just a terrible idea.

[AGingeryGinger]

3 hours ago, OHSP said:

I don't know how many times people have to say this but, seriously, you cannot use the US News rankings, they are not based on the actually important data i.e. placement in your field. Relying on the US News ratings to make decisions about where to apply, where to go etc is just a terrible idea.

Is there a better ranking system that actually works for History, or a smaller one based on fields?

[AGingeryGinger]

I was honestly surprised by Vanderbilt's placement rate, or lack thereof. 

A conversation that stuck with me was U of Miami having an excellent scholar in my field but not placing a tt job since 2008. But I was surprised (pleasantly) about Purdue, who, at least in Early Modern History, has a pretty good placement rate considering how scarce the market is for British historians. 

[VAZ]

6 minutes ago, AGingeryGinger said:

Is there a better ranking system that actually works for History, or a smaller one based on fields?

You do the research, ask around, and make your own ranking. 

[psstein]

4 hours ago, OHSP said:

I don't know how many times people have to say this but, seriously, you cannot use the US News rankings, they are not based on the actually important data i.e. placement in your field. Relying on the US News ratings to make decisions about where to apply, where to go etc is just a terrible idea.

They don't take placement into account, don't care about advisor reputation, don't really care about sub-fields (I realize there's a "sub-field" category, but it's functionally useless). The only thing they're good for is department self-praise.  They're also horrifically out of date. My department is ranked #2 for Latin America. Half the Latin America faculty have retired in the last 2/3 years. The program is currently being rebuilt. The "European History" category is so broad as to be useless. There's a huge difference in top programs for, say, medieval and early modern Europe and a top program in 20th century Europe.

 

43 minutes ago, AGingeryGinger said:

Is there a better ranking system that actually works for History, or a smaller one based on fields?

Yes, though it requires more legwork. Go to the department websites, look up the recent graduate list, and figure out what they're doing.

Some departments (Hopkins HoS, for one) are kind enough to put their placement up.

[ashiepoo72]

34 minutes ago, psstein said:

Yes, though it requires more legwork. Go to the department websites, look up the recent graduate list, and figure out what they're doing.

Some departments (Hopkins HoS, for one) are kind enough to put their placement up.

I'd also recommend looking closely at the publication records of faculty, what sorts of fellowships and prizes their work is winning, are they still active (i.e. relevant) etc. Someone mentioned hiring, and I think this is an underappreciated factor as well. Is the department shoring up weaker subfields with new and exciting professors? Are they maintaining strong subfields by replacing the profs who retire?

Always be suspicious of programs that either do not put up their placements or fudge them (as in, only include a list of the places their grad students end up, but do not specify which students ended up where and when. One program I was looking at had a long list of illustrious placements sans specific names and years; in reality, it had only placed a handful of people in the past 10-15 years--something grad students, not faculty, admitted to me).

[AfricanusCrowther]

You’ll never know for sure — the field changes, people move around, new networks get established, the sample size for small fields is too meager to make reliable judgments, and the job market can differ radically by type of school. This is why a PhD in history is always a risky endeavor.

Edited March 15, 2018 by AfricanusCrowther

[Guest564]

On 3/15/2018 at 1:25 AM, psstein said:

Vanderbilt is assuredly not a first tier program. DO NOT RELY ON THE US NEWS AND WORLD REPORT RANKINGS (I'm very passionate about ignoring them). The only Vanderbilt grad I know of in a R1 has had a very non-traditional career path and is an exceptional scholar.

Vanderbilt may well not be a first tier program (however one defines "first tier"), but they have had graduates able of landing tenured positions at R1 institutions. In addition to Pablo Gomez at UWM, I know of three scholars who had obtained their PhDs at Vandy and have been tt-ed at Texas Arlington, Michigan State, and Colorado Boulder. 

[psstein]

5 hours ago, LV0991 said:

Vanderbilt may well not be a first tier program (however one defines "first tier"), but they have had graduates able of landing tenured positions at R1 institutions. In addition to Pablo Gomez at UWM, I know of three scholars who had obtained their PhDs at Vandy and have been tt-ed at Texas Arlington, Michigan State, and Colorado Boulder. 

On the whole, their placement isn't good. They seem to average about 2/3 TT placements of any kind a year. 

[dr. t]

On 3/16/2018 at 1:39 PM, LV0991 said:

Vanderbilt may well not be a first tier program (however one defines "first tier"), but they have had graduates able of landing tenured positions at R1 institutions. In addition to Pablo Gomez at UWM, I know of three scholars who had obtained their PhDs at Vandy and have been tt-ed at Texas Arlington, Michigan State, and Colorado Boulder. 

Are we going to have to do this thing again where we confuse the possibility of something happening as an argument for the probability that it will? Because it's getting really, really tiring. 

Edited March 18, 2018 by telkanuru