|
|
Post by IHE on Feb 17, 2012 10:27:30 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by silentbub on Feb 17, 2012 11:30:09 GMT -5
I'm not sure if this statement is based on an earlier ASA report (the beginning of this academic year?), but I'm curious about whether the higher amount of job ads in our field is good thing. To what extent is this due to departmental (residential ;D ) instability? If there are significant numbers of assistant professors moving around from department to department (at a higher rate than other fields), I'm not sure if you can say that it's a rebound for our field. Are there more sociologists being denied tenure and moving from being assistant professors to being unemployed? That's scary thought  It would help to explain why sociology might be more friendly to new PhDs than other fields. I'm sure I'm just being a pessimist but it would be really interesting to research. I don't specialize in labor market stuff but would love to read about it  |
|
|
|
Post by anon visitor on Feb 17, 2012 11:46:42 GMT -5
Yes, I agree with the above post. "New PhDs" are not the only group within which we compete. ABDs, visitors, adjuncts, postdocs, and advanced assistants on the move, all compete on the same market.
I will also add that quantity of jobs is not the same as quality of jobs. How many of us end up with heavy teaching loads, with crummy starting salaries, and in undesirable locations?
I don't want to be a downer. I am happy to hear that the sociology market is improving. But I do think it is important to call attention to these issues as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by unclekarl on Feb 17, 2012 14:59:07 GMT -5
It is definitely rebounding. But as the 'anon visitor' points out, there is a LOT of competition. Years of cohorts are stacked up and vying for positions. Do not forget that those who took two postdocs or started adjuncting are getting passed over for more recent grads. Losing a few hundred sociology Ph.D.s to the 'market' from 2008-2010 will, in part, help the recovery of the market. In a way, it is very similar to unemployment going down because so many people have, in fact, moved more-or-less permanently out of work. I am waiting to see if a 'cohort effect' will emerge in the data.
|
|
new PhDs disadvantaged
Guest
|
Post by new PhDs disadvantaged on Feb 18, 2012 10:28:06 GMT -5
It is definitely rebounding. But as the 'anon visitor' points out, there is a LOT of competition. Years of cohorts are stacked up and vying for positions. Do not forget that those who took two postdocs or started adjuncting are getting passed over for more recent grads. Losing a few hundred sociology Ph.D.s to the 'market' from 2008-2010 will, in part, help the recovery of the market. In a way, it is very similar to unemployment going down because so many people have, in fact, moved more-or-less permanently out of work. I am waiting to see if a 'cohort effect' will emerge in the data. I don't see how the market would be worse for those who graduated a few years prior than for those who are graduating this year. It is a myth that people are being "passed over for more recent grads"; they are in the same candidate pool, and quite a number of postdocs are winning placements that in previous years would have gone to newly-minted PhDs. We also see movement from underplaced positions to more desirable ones amongst people who did secure jobs in years past, leaving only the open abandoned positions in their wake if the department is even given freedom to replace them. Since we can assume that the market is comprised mostly of new PhDs, a 50/50 split in terms of hiring is a less positive sign for the newbies, especially since most of the jobs that are considered highly desirable are not going to new PhDs and certainly are not going to new PhDs outside of the Top 20 or 30. |
|
styles
Junior Member
Posts: 61
|
Post by styles on Feb 18, 2012 17:36:36 GMT -5
"new PhDs disadvantaged" is correct that postdocs are not being passed over for more recent grads, generally. I think it is important to contextualize the candidate, postdoc or new phd, and their record. Naturally this varies by teaching/research orientation of the college/university but the point is still the same -- simply having a postdoc means nothing if you don't produce. In fact, it can hurt you if you are in a postdoc and don't produce (whether it's teaching or research). Postdocs that don't produce might very well be passed over for a new phd because depts are estimating your trajectory based on what you've done during your postdoc tenure. If you are on a postdoc for two years then the amount of work (pubs, etc) will be used as an indicator of your likely trajectory as a junior faculty. The addition of a teaching load as a junior faculty is also considered when estimating your publication productivity by the time you go up for tenure.
|
|
|
|
Post by journalsanity on Feb 18, 2012 18:15:52 GMT -5
postdoc here - yes to all of the above. but it's still hard to "produce" in a year long postdoc when journal turnaround times get longer and R&R's more involved. My manuscript's been sitting at a journal since way before I started the postdoc, and I know a friend on her 3rd R&R at a different one. Guess I'm just trying to figure out how getting jobs/tenure requirements with lots of pubs are supposed to happen - even for postdocs who have an extra year or two - when pubs happen at a snail's pace!
|
|
It would help to explain why sociology might be more friendly to new PhDs than other fields. I'm sure I'm just being a pessimist but it would be really interesting to research. I don't specialize in labor market stuff but would love to read about it 
