|
Post by homogenous indeed on Jan 12, 2014 14:43:19 GMT -5
If you are from a top 10 school you'll definitely do well on the job market. If you are not from a top 10 school but you are American, White, middle or upper class, you'll also do well. While we study and teach about social inequality this entire system perpetuates it with their hiring practices even more. We see this when people talk about being a fit in the department ... well, most faculty is American, White, middle or upper class, and they don't necessarily want somebody who rocks the boat. As others already noted teaching experiences is not that important at the top schools because you won't be teaching much anyways and if so it will be grad students.
... that said there is hope. my first time on the job market, ABD, from a top 25 school, none of SES characteristics listed above, some pubs, and I got a job at a SLAC in a top geographic destination. (Yes for me geography was more important than anything.)
|
|
|
Post by Huh? on Jan 12, 2014 15:12:02 GMT -5
If you are from a top 10 school you'll definitely do well on the job market. If you are not from a top 10 school but you are American, White, middle or upper class, you'll also do well. While we study and teach about social inequality this entire system perpetuates it with their hiring practices even more. We see this when people talk about being a fit in the department ... well, most faculty is American, White, middle or upper class, and they don't necessarily want somebody who rocks the boat. As others already noted teaching experiences is not that important at the top schools because you won't be teaching much anyways and if so it will be grad students. ... that said there is hope. my first time on the job market, ABD, from a top 25 school, none of SES characteristics listed above, some pubs, and I got a job at a SLAC in a top geographic destination. (Yes for me geography was more important than anything.) I'm seriously trying to get my head around this. First, it doesn't follow that since many people who get jobs are from top 10s and demographically white, male, america, upper-middle class, etc., that "you'll do well" with these characteristics. To know that, you'd have to know the denominator of that equation. How many people ALSO had those characteristics but didn't get jobs. Maybe it's true, but my point is that that kind of blanket statement sounds ignorant. Second, have at least some direct knowledge of the job market in the last few years at its elite levels, the statement about women and minorities being excluded seems incorrect--there have been several very good hires of brilliant and deserving women and minority scholars at top institutions. Third, well, what lesson are we to draw from "you will do well UNLESS you're a woman, low-SES, and minority...but I got a good job in my first year on the market!"? More broadly, I'm happy to see a thread about how bad this market seems, but I also hope that we can keep from trying to hypothesize in the dark about the causes of some of these factors, especially when everyone's feeling pretty fragile.
|
|
|
Post by Duke on Jan 12, 2014 15:12:45 GMT -5
Johns Hopkins is going to actually try and do something about it. Basically they are dramatically cutting back on their grad programs, in particular the numbers in programs. They are going to a model of a small number of grads and investing heavily in them. The Irony is that Grad students and faculty have strongly protested the changes. I've heard that Duke is going to (has already?) done something similar.
|
|
|
Post by dumb statement on Jan 12, 2014 15:15:42 GMT -5
If you are from a top 10 school you'll definitely do well on the job market. If you are not from a top 10 school but you are American, White, middle or upper class, you'll also do well. While we study and teach about social inequality this entire system perpetuates it with their hiring practices even more. We see this when people talk about being a fit in the department ... well, most faculty is American, White, middle or upper class, and they don't necessarily want somebody who rocks the boat. As others already noted teaching experiences is not that important at the top schools because you won't be teaching much anyways and if so it will be grad students. ... that said there is hope. my first time on the job market, ABD, from a top 25 school, none of SES characteristics listed above, some pubs, and I got a job at a SLAC in a top geographic destination. (Yes for me geography was more important than anything.) This is an incredible over-simplification of what things are like for graduates from top 10 schools and graduates who are "American, White, middle or upper class." Get your head out of your ass.
|
|
|
Post by two paths on Jan 12, 2014 16:13:33 GMT -5
I don't about that the market for tenure track positions is overwhelmed by the number of PhDs granted each year. And I also don't doubt that the publications/qualifications arms race has continued so that many of the new PhDs are just as qualified CV-wise as the others, and superstars of decades past.
So the solution to market saturation is either to reduce supply (PhDs) or increase demand (more positions). The discipline can't do the latter in terms of tenure track positions but could work to better train and place PhDs outside of academia. In terms of the former, it's merely a question of shifting where the gatekeeping takes place--at the time of job or at the time of matriculation. If all programs sharply reduced cohort size then these threads would move to GradCafe and undergrads would complain about how the grad program market is over-saturated with applicants. Not that I have a problem with that outcome.
|
|
|
Post by stepback2 on Jan 12, 2014 16:25:40 GMT -5
This is exactly right. In other countries, particularly northwestern Europe, the gatekeeping and selection take place at an earlier stage, meaning far fewer slots for PhD students, but also far less competition for professorships at the end stage of the process. But in the US we have instituted a system where it is possible for many more people to obtain a PhD, even if they cannot secure a professorship. This is necessarily a wasteful process if most of these individuals cannot use their skills fully outside the academy.
|
|
|
Post by not so dumb maybe on Jan 12, 2014 16:27:22 GMT -5
I tend to agree with the poster about the homogeneity. Look at the hires.
Huh?, note that OP did not say "male"
|
|
|
Post by lackofdata on Jan 12, 2014 16:43:55 GMT -5
I tend to agree that the claim about race and SES translating to automatic success/failure is something of a gross over-simplification.
I also don't see how looking at an admittedly partial list of hires clarifies anything. You can probably figure out racial background but nationality and SES in particular are trickier to identify. Also even if all of this information was readily available no one has yet to actually analyze and interpret the data that's available- just offer their knee-jerk reactions.
One thing I think we can agree on is that the job market is stressful and taxing for everyone involved.
|
|
|
Post by Anony on Jan 12, 2014 16:46:25 GMT -5
If you are from a top 10 school you'll definitely do well on the job market. If you are not from a top 10 school but you are American, White, middle or upper class, you'll also do well. While we study and teach about social inequality this entire system perpetuates it with their hiring practices even more. We see this when people talk about being a fit in the department ... well, most faculty is American, White, middle or upper class, and they don't necessarily want somebody who rocks the boat. As others already noted teaching experiences is not that important at the top schools because you won't be teaching much anyways and if so it will be grad students. ... that said there is hope. my first time on the job market, ABD, from a top 25 school, none of SES characteristics listed above, some pubs, and I got a job at a SLAC in a top geographic destination. (Yes for me geography was more important than anything.) This is just not true. For instance, say there are anywhere from 5-10 PhD candidates from the top 10 schools on the job market this year. That is 50-100 people who are just ABD - not to mention postdocs, early asst professors etc - all competing for the same jobs. And that's just the number from the top 10. I'm at a top 10 school and while a couple did well this year, most people did not. And the 5-10 number is conservative because presumably that's just from one cohort, let alone the others from cohorts above them, who didn't get any hits.
|
|
|
Post by possible reason? on Jan 12, 2014 16:57:01 GMT -5
Another factor is the number of schools one applies to.
|
|
|
Post by Myths on Jan 12, 2014 18:07:47 GMT -5
Myth 1: if you have top publications you will get a job (ha ha this is a good one) Myth 2: if you are white, male, middle class, etc. (so 1950) you will get a job (all those white boys I know must be lying about being unemployed) Myth 3: If you are NOT white, male, middle class, etc. you will get a job (plenty of good people shut out of the market)
Truth: There are not enough jobs for any of us! Truth: Enough of the knee jerk reactions--we are all suffering!
|
|
|
Post by Thank you^ on Jan 12, 2014 19:00:18 GMT -5
Bizarre that this even needed to be said. Lots of people in the top 10 don't get jobs. Lots of white males don't get jobs.
|
|
|
Post by Taboo to say? on Jan 12, 2014 23:18:46 GMT -5
It might be taboo to say but my sense is that the sociology job market is heavily slanted in favor of white females. White women who acquire academic positions seem to have weaker records than other hires on average.
|
|
|
Post by Guilty on Jan 13, 2014 0:28:06 GMT -5
I work at a lower-ranked department where we have PhD cohorts every year, and recruitment of prospectives is the hardest thing for me to participate in. I feel so complicit in railroading people if I encourage them to pursue a PhD in our department, and there have been some prospective students whom I have been asked to help close the deal with, so I have to put on the most enthusiastic face that I can muster or betray my employer. Even once we have good ones who decide to enroll, part of me would really like to ask them why they are here as opposed to one of the more reputable programs, and what went into the thought process of choosing us. Honestly, I have no clue what to do about this.
|
|
|
Post by Tabs on Jan 13, 2014 1:52:31 GMT -5
It might be taboo to say but my sense is that the sociology job market is heavily slanted in favor of white females. White women who acquire academic positions seem to have weaker records than other hires on average. I'm sure you'll be flamed for your opinion. I have no sense of this either way, but it is a fact that there are far more women in the discipline, so it might make sense that there are more women getting jobs (IF that's true). I have an interview coming up in a department comprised solely of women. I have reservations about a) my chances of getting the job and b) how well I would fit in were I to get an offer. That may come across as odd to some, but put the shoe on the other foot and consider how you would feel if you were the only X in a department consisting solely of Y.
|
|