The mainstream media has picked up on the current dire academic job market. Ok, the "Village Voice" isn't the mainstream media like "The New York Times" but it isn't trade journal like the Chronicle. One of the recent Ph.D.s quoted in the piece wonders if this is the "last leg for the tenure system." I think this might be a bit of a panicky thing to say, but I think it is a good indication of just what recent graduates are going through - the emotional ups and downs of a typical job market year compounded with a terrible economic environment really does make it seem like the end of the world, or at least like things will be changed irrevocably. For those of us who failed to land a tenure track job this year, next year does not look any better, in fact it will probably get worse.
Could the argument be made that this is a good thing? Perhaps the current stockpile of humanities Ph.D. will seek employment elsewhere over the next couple of years, reducing the supply. This in turn will restore market equilibrium after the recession. Perhaps, but not likely. To be sure, some will seek private sector employment over the next couple of years, but many will "wait it out" as adjuncts, visiting assistant professor, or postdocs. Also, the number of humanities Ph.D. students will probably go up over the next couple of years, as lots of people will try and wait out the recession in grad school. The cycle continues. Without serious change - a reduction in the number of universities that can offer Ph.D. programs in the humanities, more transparency from universities on job prospects for incoming graduate students, serious pressure from the government or professional organizations like the AHA on universities to stop employing cheap labor, and so on - the problem will continue.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Another Blog
My google searchings have revealed yet another blog that deals with the academic job market for humanities Ph.D.s. The author of this blog is much less cynical than I am, and has written some well thought out entries on the state of the job market. I would highly recommend the blog to anyone who is interested in pursuing a Ph.D., currently enrolled in a program, or searching for a job. The author of the blog clearly knows his stuff, and has spent a lot of time researching the current state of the academic job market.
Here's a column from the Chronicle on blogging and the job market. Part of the reason I have kept this blog anonymous is that I don't want my expressions on a silly blog to prevent me from getting a job in the future, no matter how slim the chances of actually landing a job are. My two original posts on this blog were half/joke half/rant emotional resposes to striking out on the job market. I've tried to turn the blog into something a little more serious since then. I'm still working on it.
Here's a column from the Chronicle on blogging and the job market. Part of the reason I have kept this blog anonymous is that I don't want my expressions on a silly blog to prevent me from getting a job in the future, no matter how slim the chances of actually landing a job are. My two original posts on this blog were half/joke half/rant emotional resposes to striking out on the job market. I've tried to turn the blog into something a little more serious since then. I'm still working on it.
Benton Strikes Again
About a week after I posted his original 2003 column discouraging young undergraduates from going on to a humanities Ph.D. program, Thomas Benton wrote a new one. Yes, it is very depressing to think that not much has changed in six years. I was in the early portion of my grad program in 2003. It is disquieting to think that I could have heeded his warnings back then and saved myself quite a bit of grief. The two columns should be required reading for anyone considering a Ph.D. program in the humanities. The "coming wave of retirements" has been a constant refrain in academia for well over a decade now. Here's the problem: professors may retire, but they are often not replaced with new tenure track positions. Universities have found that they can adequately replace old positions with adjuncts. On top of this, as I have stated repeatedly in this blog, supply seriously outstrips demand. Even if there is a coming wave of retirements, there is a warehouse full of recent Ph.D.s searching for permanent employment. Demand will never catch up to supply, unless people stop enrolling in Ph.D. programs for the next decade (these numbers are not scientific).
In the meantime higher education in the United States is a mess. Various news outlets have reported that over the last couple of decades the rise in the cost of tuition has seriously outpaced the rise in median household income. The middle class is being priced out of higher education. This past Sunday Bill Moyers interviewed former Brown University president Vartan Gregorian about the problems facing higher eduation. Like many other sectors of America, both private and public, higher education is looking to get its hands on some of the bailout money. As anyone who was recently on the job market can attest, state budget crises have seriously impacted the hiring of new faculty - at least three of the jobs I applied to this year were withdrawn because of hiring freezes. Prospects for landing a tenure track job are poor in a good year, recently this has been compounded by the recession (or "economic downturn" for those who prefer to speak euphamistically about the mess we're in). I don't particularly disagree with Gregorian on any of this - higher education is a crucial component to the nation's ability to compete on a global scale when we come out of the recession - and the federal government should get involved. The bailout bill passed by the House included money for higher ed - but who knows what will happen when the Senate Republicans get their hands on it. My main concern is that if Universities get bailout funds, the money should be earmarked for certain things - like, oh I don't know, hiring new faculty and not for shiny new gymnasiums or student centers or signing bonuses for assistant football coaches. Furthermore, if bailout money does, by some miracle, go towards hiring new faculty, what are the chances Universities will use it to hire new humanities faculty? The argument can be easily made that in order to compete with China and India we need to invest in computer science, engineering, bio-technologies - not new Shakespeare scholars.
In the meantime higher education in the United States is a mess. Various news outlets have reported that over the last couple of decades the rise in the cost of tuition has seriously outpaced the rise in median household income. The middle class is being priced out of higher education. This past Sunday Bill Moyers interviewed former Brown University president Vartan Gregorian about the problems facing higher eduation. Like many other sectors of America, both private and public, higher education is looking to get its hands on some of the bailout money. As anyone who was recently on the job market can attest, state budget crises have seriously impacted the hiring of new faculty - at least three of the jobs I applied to this year were withdrawn because of hiring freezes. Prospects for landing a tenure track job are poor in a good year, recently this has been compounded by the recession (or "economic downturn" for those who prefer to speak euphamistically about the mess we're in). I don't particularly disagree with Gregorian on any of this - higher education is a crucial component to the nation's ability to compete on a global scale when we come out of the recession - and the federal government should get involved. The bailout bill passed by the House included money for higher ed - but who knows what will happen when the Senate Republicans get their hands on it. My main concern is that if Universities get bailout funds, the money should be earmarked for certain things - like, oh I don't know, hiring new faculty and not for shiny new gymnasiums or student centers or signing bonuses for assistant football coaches. Furthermore, if bailout money does, by some miracle, go towards hiring new faculty, what are the chances Universities will use it to hire new humanities faculty? The argument can be easily made that in order to compete with China and India we need to invest in computer science, engineering, bio-technologies - not new Shakespeare scholars.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Nothing New
Ok, so I figured that I was not the first embittered humanities Ph.D. to start a blog or to bitch about the job market or to be insulted by a troll. But some searching of the internet has turned up more than I could have imagined.
Here's a particualarly pertinent column from the Chronicle of Higher Ed back in 2003.
Here is some commentary on the column from an old blog called "The Invisible Adjunct" - a blog that was shut down by the blogger, mind you, because he or she decided to give up on an academic career after adjuncting for several years, determining that it was not worth the struggle and poverty. In fact, the opening post of that blog rings a familiar tone. I guess there really is nothing new under the sun, especially when it comes to regrets about this career track. I wonder what happened to the "Invisible Adjunct"? I hope things worked out for him or her.
This is my situation - it was my second year on the job market this year. I did better this year - I made the "first short list" for two jobs, two jobs I would have happily taken. My first year I got nothing. I have yet to get a campus invite. I'm not sure that it will ever happen for me.
What I find most frustrating about this process, well ok, maybe not *most* frustrating, but pretty damn frustrating, is that I have no idea why I did not make the "second short list" for these jobs. What am I missing? What did I say wrong in my phone and conference interviews that made them decide that I was not worthy of a campus invite? What did the others have that I did not? If I knew the answer to these questions, I might know how to prepare for future interviews, I might know what to say and what not to say, I might know what I need to add to my cv. As it stands right now, I have no idea.
Another frustrating thing is that I have to find out whether or not these potential employers are passing on me from the job market wiki. The potential employers themselves won't tell me. No e-mail, no letter, no nothing. It would be nice, after I spent $170 on a conference registration in order to get this stupid 30 minute interview, to get some kind of notification along the lines of "Sorry, we're passing on you. Good luck in the future! Have fun paying your student loans with no job!" But I get nothing. It just strikes me as unprofessional, or at least dickish. If they are going to reject me, at least have the courage to tell me. I mean, at least when I get an article rejected the referees tell me why. It's because I suck.
I often wonder if I am the only person who keeps their rejection letters? I keep mine in a file. I plan on making wallpaper out of them some day. I have a collection of letterhead from some of America's (and Britain's, and Australia's, and Canada's) finest and most mediocre institutions of higher learning. Things are so sad these days that I actually look forward to getting rejection letters in the mail so I can add to my collection. The worst are the schools that don't even bother to acknowledge your application or send you a rejection letter. I also hate the e-mail rejections - no letterhead in an e-mail.
Rejection letters vary. Some are terse "we are no longer considering your application." Others are very encouraging "We received over 200 applications for this position and choosing a short list was a difficult task. This is no reflection on your ability or your worth as a human being. Good luck."
If there is anyone reading this, what do you do with your rejection letters? Do you ball them up and throw them away? Do you keep them? Do you burn them? Also, what is the nicest rejection letter you have ever received?
I have temporary employment for the next year at least. So I have that going for me. The job market was especially bad this year, or so I am told, because of the economy. I don't think this will improve in a year. So I am going to give this a go for at least another year.
Here's a particualarly pertinent column from the Chronicle of Higher Ed back in 2003.
Here is some commentary on the column from an old blog called "The Invisible Adjunct" - a blog that was shut down by the blogger, mind you, because he or she decided to give up on an academic career after adjuncting for several years, determining that it was not worth the struggle and poverty. In fact, the opening post of that blog rings a familiar tone. I guess there really is nothing new under the sun, especially when it comes to regrets about this career track. I wonder what happened to the "Invisible Adjunct"? I hope things worked out for him or her.
This is my situation - it was my second year on the job market this year. I did better this year - I made the "first short list" for two jobs, two jobs I would have happily taken. My first year I got nothing. I have yet to get a campus invite. I'm not sure that it will ever happen for me.
What I find most frustrating about this process, well ok, maybe not *most* frustrating, but pretty damn frustrating, is that I have no idea why I did not make the "second short list" for these jobs. What am I missing? What did I say wrong in my phone and conference interviews that made them decide that I was not worthy of a campus invite? What did the others have that I did not? If I knew the answer to these questions, I might know how to prepare for future interviews, I might know what to say and what not to say, I might know what I need to add to my cv. As it stands right now, I have no idea.
Another frustrating thing is that I have to find out whether or not these potential employers are passing on me from the job market wiki. The potential employers themselves won't tell me. No e-mail, no letter, no nothing. It would be nice, after I spent $170 on a conference registration in order to get this stupid 30 minute interview, to get some kind of notification along the lines of "Sorry, we're passing on you. Good luck in the future! Have fun paying your student loans with no job!" But I get nothing. It just strikes me as unprofessional, or at least dickish. If they are going to reject me, at least have the courage to tell me. I mean, at least when I get an article rejected the referees tell me why. It's because I suck.
I often wonder if I am the only person who keeps their rejection letters? I keep mine in a file. I plan on making wallpaper out of them some day. I have a collection of letterhead from some of America's (and Britain's, and Australia's, and Canada's) finest and most mediocre institutions of higher learning. Things are so sad these days that I actually look forward to getting rejection letters in the mail so I can add to my collection. The worst are the schools that don't even bother to acknowledge your application or send you a rejection letter. I also hate the e-mail rejections - no letterhead in an e-mail.
Rejection letters vary. Some are terse "we are no longer considering your application." Others are very encouraging "We received over 200 applications for this position and choosing a short list was a difficult task. This is no reflection on your ability or your worth as a human being. Good luck."
If there is anyone reading this, what do you do with your rejection letters? Do you ball them up and throw them away? Do you keep them? Do you burn them? Also, what is the nicest rejection letter you have ever received?
I have temporary employment for the next year at least. So I have that going for me. The job market was especially bad this year, or so I am told, because of the economy. I don't think this will improve in a year. So I am going to give this a go for at least another year.
Saturday, December 13, 2008
PBS Documentary
This one is kind of old too (2005) but is pertinent. This is a PBS documentary on the state of higher education in the US - it includes some discussion of adjuncting.
Something must be done about the state of higher education if we are to compete with China and India after the recession.
http://www.decliningbydegrees.org/
Something must be done about the state of higher education if we are to compete with China and India after the recession.
http://www.decliningbydegrees.org/
Friday, December 12, 2008
A job is not just a job because some jobs are terrible jobs
As I have stated several times, most of us labor under the impression that once we get a tenure track job our life will be peachy. Of course, there are jobs and then there are jobs and lots of jobs are just plain crappy jobs. There is a good chance that if you get lucky and land a job somewhere that it could be in a terrible place that you would not even fly over, let alone live.
This is an old article (2006) but it especially pertinent for today, what with the economy in terrible condition and what not.
http://www.slate.com/id/2142489/
This is an old article (2006) but it especially pertinent for today, what with the economy in terrible condition and what not.
http://www.slate.com/id/2142489/
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
5 Reasons not to get a Ph.D.
Aside from the extremely limited job prospects, the life of poverty, the wasted years and so on, here are five more reasons you should not get a Ph.D. in a humanities field.
1. Ph.D. students are a cheap source of labor for universities and nothing more.
You may be asking yourself "If universities know that job prospects for their Ph.D. graduates are limited why do they keep producing so many?" The answer is that Ph.D. students are an extremely cheap source of labor. Almost all Ph.D. students serve as Teaching Assistants in very large classes. This makes them extremely cheap wage slaves who do a lot of the heavy lifting in courses - grading, running discussion sections and so on. Ph.D. students endure this humiliation because they are told that serving as a TA is good experience and will help you on the job market. It does not. Most search committees could not care less about your experience as a TA because they know that all you did was the grunt work and that you had little to do with actual instruction. TA experience is meaningless - it is experience as an actual instructor that search committess look for. This is a dirty secret that most universities will not tell their Ph.D. students.
2. The vast majority of Ph.D. programs do not prepare you for jobs outside of academia.
The fact of the matter is that you spend your time in grad school preparing for prelims (or comps) and researching and writing your dissertation. These are not real world skills. These are skills for academics. Once again, the problem is that there are not enough academic jobs, so these skills are worthless. After 6 or 7 or 8 years of honing this worthless skills you may find yourself without any academic job prospects. What do you do now? Take your worthless skills into the real world? While you were honing these worthless skills your friends were going to law school, getting an MBA, or going to dentistry school. They are much smarter than you. Some universities have begun to discuss "transferable skills" - but the problem is the skills you learn in a humanities Ph.D. program are not transerable. They are worthless outside of academia.
3. Ph.D. programs do not prepare you for the realities of academia.
Yes, a Ph.D. program will help you to hone some important skills - reading, writing, analyzing and so on. But the fact of the matter is academia is a nasty, nasty place, full of cronyism, territorial pissing, petty jealousies, mindless gossip, needlessly inflated egos, and assholes. Your time as a grad student, for the most part, isolates you from this. Your Ph.D. supervisor typically likes you as a person and wants you to succeed. They will not be as hard on you as the rest of acadmia will. Your supervisor will tell you that your work is very good and that you have an important contribution to make to the world. The rest of academia will not give a shit about you personally and will tell you that work work is not worth pissing on. Your Ph.D. program will try to scare you by telling you that you must pass comps in order to continue in the program, but the truth is that no one fails. It is no skin off anyone's back in your Ph.D. program if you are allowed to skate through unscathed. The rest of academia wants you to fail and most will go out of their way to ensure it. They will do this by ducking behind the "blind review" process where they will say nasty things about your work - but at conferences they will say nice things to your face. Academics are cowards because most of them have spent their lives avoiding the real world. Your typical academic does not want anyone challenging the little fief they have accumulated their whole career. They will see you as a threat and treat you accordingly. Academics are dicks. Don't become one of them.
4. If you are a white male, the deck is stacked against you.
This is a very un-PC thing to say and it will make many people angry. But it is the truth. Look at the world around us. Pretty fucked up, right? The reason it is fucked up is because the so-called "Greatest Generation" and the Baby Boomers made it this way. This extends to academia as well. The World War II generation and their vapid spawn (the Baby Boomers) stacked humanties departments with white males, believing that women made better elementary school teachers than academics. This began to change over time and white men came to be seen as the most evil entity in the world. Perhaps this is correct. Look at how much they fucked the world up. But the fact of the matter is humanties departments now have a mandate to make their departments more diverse. The problem is that academics never retire, and most of these departments are still full of old white dudes. They do not want to hire you if you are a white male. Sorry, but it's the truth.
5. A job in academia is not worth the struggle, humiliation, and heartbreak.
This is the worst part. Most of us spend our years in grad school laboring under the (false) belief that once we get a tenure track job life will be swell. It won't. An academic job is still a job. A very low paying job. Remember, academia is full of inflated egos, petty jealousies, and assholes. These people are now your co-workers! You will now spend the rest of your life arguing with these people about trivial things. You will also spend the rest of your life teaching spoiled students who send text messages during your lectures and would rather be anywhere else in the world than listening to your lecture. Then they will complain about their grades. Oh how they will complain. And make excuses. Some of them will have 6 different grandparents die and they will break up with 5 different "longtime girlfriends." So congratulations, you spent your 20s in poverty, your 30s suffering the humiliations of the job market, blind-reviewed journal submissions, conferences where you were surrounded by blowhards and dickheads, and several moves because each job only offered you 1 or 2 year contracts, only to land a crappy job that pays shit. Nice work. Way to think things through.
1. Ph.D. students are a cheap source of labor for universities and nothing more.
You may be asking yourself "If universities know that job prospects for their Ph.D. graduates are limited why do they keep producing so many?" The answer is that Ph.D. students are an extremely cheap source of labor. Almost all Ph.D. students serve as Teaching Assistants in very large classes. This makes them extremely cheap wage slaves who do a lot of the heavy lifting in courses - grading, running discussion sections and so on. Ph.D. students endure this humiliation because they are told that serving as a TA is good experience and will help you on the job market. It does not. Most search committees could not care less about your experience as a TA because they know that all you did was the grunt work and that you had little to do with actual instruction. TA experience is meaningless - it is experience as an actual instructor that search committess look for. This is a dirty secret that most universities will not tell their Ph.D. students.
2. The vast majority of Ph.D. programs do not prepare you for jobs outside of academia.
The fact of the matter is that you spend your time in grad school preparing for prelims (or comps) and researching and writing your dissertation. These are not real world skills. These are skills for academics. Once again, the problem is that there are not enough academic jobs, so these skills are worthless. After 6 or 7 or 8 years of honing this worthless skills you may find yourself without any academic job prospects. What do you do now? Take your worthless skills into the real world? While you were honing these worthless skills your friends were going to law school, getting an MBA, or going to dentistry school. They are much smarter than you. Some universities have begun to discuss "transferable skills" - but the problem is the skills you learn in a humanities Ph.D. program are not transerable. They are worthless outside of academia.
3. Ph.D. programs do not prepare you for the realities of academia.
Yes, a Ph.D. program will help you to hone some important skills - reading, writing, analyzing and so on. But the fact of the matter is academia is a nasty, nasty place, full of cronyism, territorial pissing, petty jealousies, mindless gossip, needlessly inflated egos, and assholes. Your time as a grad student, for the most part, isolates you from this. Your Ph.D. supervisor typically likes you as a person and wants you to succeed. They will not be as hard on you as the rest of acadmia will. Your supervisor will tell you that your work is very good and that you have an important contribution to make to the world. The rest of academia will not give a shit about you personally and will tell you that work work is not worth pissing on. Your Ph.D. program will try to scare you by telling you that you must pass comps in order to continue in the program, but the truth is that no one fails. It is no skin off anyone's back in your Ph.D. program if you are allowed to skate through unscathed. The rest of academia wants you to fail and most will go out of their way to ensure it. They will do this by ducking behind the "blind review" process where they will say nasty things about your work - but at conferences they will say nice things to your face. Academics are cowards because most of them have spent their lives avoiding the real world. Your typical academic does not want anyone challenging the little fief they have accumulated their whole career. They will see you as a threat and treat you accordingly. Academics are dicks. Don't become one of them.
4. If you are a white male, the deck is stacked against you.
This is a very un-PC thing to say and it will make many people angry. But it is the truth. Look at the world around us. Pretty fucked up, right? The reason it is fucked up is because the so-called "Greatest Generation" and the Baby Boomers made it this way. This extends to academia as well. The World War II generation and their vapid spawn (the Baby Boomers) stacked humanties departments with white males, believing that women made better elementary school teachers than academics. This began to change over time and white men came to be seen as the most evil entity in the world. Perhaps this is correct. Look at how much they fucked the world up. But the fact of the matter is humanties departments now have a mandate to make their departments more diverse. The problem is that academics never retire, and most of these departments are still full of old white dudes. They do not want to hire you if you are a white male. Sorry, but it's the truth.
5. A job in academia is not worth the struggle, humiliation, and heartbreak.
This is the worst part. Most of us spend our years in grad school laboring under the (false) belief that once we get a tenure track job life will be swell. It won't. An academic job is still a job. A very low paying job. Remember, academia is full of inflated egos, petty jealousies, and assholes. These people are now your co-workers! You will now spend the rest of your life arguing with these people about trivial things. You will also spend the rest of your life teaching spoiled students who send text messages during your lectures and would rather be anywhere else in the world than listening to your lecture. Then they will complain about their grades. Oh how they will complain. And make excuses. Some of them will have 6 different grandparents die and they will break up with 5 different "longtime girlfriends." So congratulations, you spent your 20s in poverty, your 30s suffering the humiliations of the job market, blind-reviewed journal submissions, conferences where you were surrounded by blowhards and dickheads, and several moves because each job only offered you 1 or 2 year contracts, only to land a crappy job that pays shit. Nice work. Way to think things through.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)