Saturated Market

[Yikes]

Jan 13, 2014 0:28:06 GMT -5 Guilty said:

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.

Wow, what a position to be in. What becomes of your graduates? Do they get jobs in academia? What sorts of jobs?

If you have tenure, I'd make a point of raising this with your department. If you don't have tenure, there's probably not much you can do until you're in a secure position to raise these types of issues. At the very least it seems like your department might be able to train graduates to get positions outside of academia, specializing in quantitative analysis and connecting with government agencies and the like. Alternately or additionally, your department could specialize in training PhDs to teach, which might set them up for TT jobs at lower ranked departments or community colleges. The problem, however, is that I predict even those jobs will be taken up by PhDs from the top 20-30 departments within the next decade or two. It's already happening. Finally, there are opportunities to teach overseas, although that comes with a huge set of issues and is not possible for everyone -- and even those jobs are increasingly competitive these days.

[Myths Take II]

The learning curve seems steep for some, so let us add Myth 4 and Myth 5:

Myth 4: "the sociology job market is heavily slanted in favor of white females." (Charming. Please tell me how to find this market. I want to go there.)
Myth 5: "White women who acquire academic positions seem to have weaker records than other hires on average." (My CV must be some kind of hallucination.)

So let's try again: the grass is not always greener for someone else (aka some "other" group of people).

Truth: There are not enough jobs for any of us!
Truth: Enough of the knee jerk reactions--we are all suffering!

SOLIDARITY!!!

[foxxy]

I am a little surprised at the way this discussion is unfolding. Just to set the record straight and using a bit of sociology here:

Middle class U.S. white men have significant advantages in sociology. This does not mean that white men are given jobs automatically or that none of them are unemployed. It means that, in general terms, they are awarded significant privileges within the profession (as elsewhere). This also doesn't mean that hiring committees will automatically discard minorities and women. Hiring disparities could still occur and be driving by sc's evaluations of "merit" e.g. how "professional", well spoken, confident a candidate is judged to be, perceptions of “fit,” etc. The evaluations of these so-called personal traits could be shaped by candidates’ social backgrounds (and those of current faculty members). Disparities could also be driven by more “objective” assessments of cv's, which brings the stratification process back to graduate school: who got opportunities to co-author with faculty, who was nominated for special prizes and recognitions, who was given positive reinforcement, etc. This also does not mean that no minorities and women are ever offered jobs (though often times they are hired through 'diversity hires'). What it means is that the sociology job market is not exempt from the same stratification processes that we study and that class, gender, and race shape the job search experiences and outcomes of sociology job market candidates.

[sh!tty advisers too]

I've also gotten the sense that not too many faculty were prepared for the market, and thus did not prepare their students well. When a naive grad student enters the program, it's largely the adviser's job to inform the student about how the academic world works. Other avenues for obtaining this information of course exist, but some of the blame needs to be placed on crummy advisers. Some faculty have let their grad students down and have not guided them to keep pace with the new environment.

[houndy]

Jan 13, 2014 10:39:58 GMT -5 foxxy said:

I am a little surprised at the way this discussion is unfolding. Just to set the record straight and using a bit of sociology here:

Middle class U.S. white men have significant advantages in sociology. 

Do you have any sort of evidence to back this up, particularly for today's graduating PhDs?

[anonym]

Jan 11, 2014 20:13:07 GMT -5 another fool here said:

Thanks for starting this thread. I think it's irresponsible for lower-tier programs to keep producing so many PhDs. It's bad enough that the top programs have giant cohorts and are cranking out sometimes a dozen or more new PhDs each year. Most of those folks will get some sort of job, although perhaps not the cushy R1 gig they envisioned/were promised. But at the lower level, it just seems morally wrong to tell people they'll have a good shot at employment. It's too many years, too much money, too much sacrifice to fool people like that.

The only thing I do to help is discourage all of my students from getting a PhD in sociology. Undgrad, fine, but I try to steer them into graduate training that will help them get a job someday, usually various MA programs, rather than PhDs. The only exceptions are students who can get into top 20 programs. And even then, it's a huge gamble with no promises.

I think it's an oversimplification to say that Top 20 programs should keep churning out Ph.D.'s (because they'll get jobs) and non-20's shouldn't.  I went to a non-Top-30 Ph.D. program and, if you look at our Ph.D. graduates over the last 10 years or so, 95% have tenure-track jobs.   Most are at SLAC's or small state universities.  In other words, there are some lower-ranked PH.D. programs that do great in placement.  Probably better than the Top 10's.  Realistically, Top 10's do great for placing Ph.D.'s in Top 10 departments.  But, especially for SLAC hiring, it's a free-for-all where grad program prestige doesn't mean much.   In fact, I work at a SLAC and have served on search committees, and trust me, what program you went to (and who you worked with) is fairly meaningless.  We're just as likely to hire someone from Iowa, Virginia, or Colorado State as we are someone from Wisconsin or Berkeley.   Every time we hire, I see apps from Berkeley get passed over for apps from LSU (for instance).  We want a jack-of-all-trades, not a hyper-specialist, and the top programs seem to crank out hyper-specialists.    

Quite honestly, we just care less about where you came from and who you worked with than a research department would.  But, some of it is also the perception that the person from Berkeley either will be an elitist asshole or will be unhappy in our milieu (both are probably unfair, but I know both cross people's minds).

What I'm trying to say is that going to a non-Top-20 Ph.D. program isn't necessarily a disadvantage unless you want a job at a Top-20.  If small state universities, SLAC's, or community colleges are OK with you, then I'd say you're fine if you get lots of teaching experience, a few good publications (where you publish doesn't matter much), and put together an interesting and diverse CV.  

Given market saturation, I think there should be an across-the-board decrease in the number of Ph.D. students admitted.  But, I don't think that South Carolina should take a bigger hit than Wisconsin, just because they're lower ranked.  

Plus, imagine the intellectual incest if all our Ph.D.'s came from the same 10 places.  Horrible. 

[Looky Looky]

www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/01/13/speakers-mla-generally-are-skeptical-idea-shrinking-phd-programs

[Another fool]

Jan 13, 2014 12:40:26 GMT -5 anonym said:

I think it's an oversimplification to say that Top 20 programs should keep churning out Ph.D.'s (because they'll get jobs) and non-20's shouldn't.  I went to a non-Top-30 Ph.D. program and, if you look at our Ph.D. graduates over the last 10 years or so, 95% have tenure-track jobs.   Most are at SLAC's or small state universities.  In other words, there are some lower-ranked PH.D. programs that do great in placement.  Probably better than the Top 10's.  Realistically, Top 10's do great for placing Ph.D.'s in Top 10 departments.  But, especially for SLAC hiring, it's a free-for-all where grad program prestige doesn't mean much.   In fact, I work at a SLAC and have served on search committees, and trust me, what program you went to (and who you worked with) is fairly meaningless.  We're just as likely to hire someone from Iowa, Virginia, or Colorado State as we are someone from Wisconsin or Berkeley.   Every time we hire, I see apps from Berkeley get passed over for apps from LSU (for instance).  We want a jack-of-all-trades, not a hyper-specialist, and the top programs seem to crank out hyper-specialists.    

Quite honestly, we just care less about where you came from and who you worked with than a research department would.  But, some of it is also the perception that the person from Berkeley either will be an elitist asshole or will be unhappy in our milieu (both are probably unfair, but I know both cross people's minds).

What I'm trying to say is that going to a non-Top-20 Ph.D. program isn't necessarily a disadvantage unless you want a job at a Top-20.  If small state universities, SLAC's, or community colleges are OK with you, then I'd say you're fine if you get lots of teaching experience, a few good publications (where you publish doesn't matter much), and put together an interesting and diverse CV.  

Given market saturation, I think there should be an across-the-board decrease in the number of Ph.D. students admitted.  But, I don't think that South Carolina should take a bigger hit than Wisconsin, just because they're lower ranked.  

Plus, imagine the intellectual incest if all our Ph.D.'s came from the same 10 places.  Horrible. 

I agree with everything you've written, and I certainly don't think it would be good to have all PhDs coming out of the same few programs. That's wonderful that your program has been able to place so many graduates -- it sounds like your department knows what it's doing. My point is that there seems to be an encroachment from the top 20/30 programs into the small state university and SLAC jobs. And while pedigree may not be important to all of these places, it certainly is in many instances. I suspect this encroachment will continue and even grow over the next couple of decades, to the point where someone who wants ANY TT job in sociology is going to have to have the sorts of CVs that you see from folks getting interviews at places like Austin and Berkeley this year. Maybe I'm wrong and I hope so, but it's a worrisome trend.

I'm coming out of a top ten program and no one from the big schools wants to talk to me. But I've had tons of interest from small state schools and SLACs. Although some of my peers would find these types of jobs "beneath" them, I will take one happily, if offered. I imagine down the road, we'll see more folks in the same position.

[Unsustainable Academia]

I agree with the comment above this and many others that point to the structural problems facing academics today. I actually don't encourage my undergrads to go into graduate school, unless it's clear that they are really meant for it. Many students, especially in sociology, are very analytical, critical, and have a passion for social and environmental justice issues. But, like me, aren't always that great at much else! As educators we need to think about what knowledge and skills were are passing on to them at the undergrad level. But then in grad school, the focus must change from the cloister of the sociological canon to policy, activist, or business applicability. I say business, because most people get jobs in the private sector. In the coming years, we are going to see many people that are highly intelligent, but too specialized for the jobs that are out there. This is a shame and a waste of their abilities. Was spending years on the intricacies of Foucault, or symbolic interactionism, Marx, ethnic boundaries, or whatever it many be, the best use of their time? The department's time? I also agree with a post above that advisors have generally not given grad students much training or guidance on what they are doing. Many advisors also don't realize how much more competitive the job market is than back in the hiring booms of the 1990s, and times earlier.

Besides, sociological thought is not keeping up with the most dramatic trends changing the world such as social media, climate change, the dramatically changing energy landscape, cognitive neuroscience, spatial science etc. I'm often amazed at how little sociologists incorporate these dramatic new areas of inquiry into their own. As more and more disgruntled, sociologically trained PhDs fall through the cracks of the academic job market they may begin to acknowledge the inherent inadequacies in the current "publish or perish/ positive results only" models that privilege group think in sociological research. We could see private foundations suck up this vacuum of creative thinkers into research institutes that rival publicly funded institutions. Just some thoughts.

In any event, given that these discussions are happening on every job forum in every discipline, this is an important sociological trend to be cognizant of, beyond our own job searches. (I've got no interviews or positive feedback despite an impeccable CV, which I know we probably all have.)

[Research the world]

This is an interesting discussion. There are a lot of things to be said about the brute force of the declining job market. Also note that many universities are on 3 year averaged revenue cycles, so it is natural that the pull-back from the financial crisis would linger for a while.

Conspiracy theories about who is "taking all the jobs" aside, I do wonder how many applications people are putting in and how widely they are searching. I had 3 years on the market and did a global search. I had very little advising from my department, but found that more than half of my interviews were from outside of the US and most interviews were in disciplines outside of sociology. That told me I needed to shift gears, so I directed my applications to where I was getting interest. That did the trick and landed me an excellent job, although there's zero chance I could have imagined I'd end up where I did.

Now the disciplinary issue was from my subfield, which fortunately bridges several fields, but the decision to apply for global jobs was my choice. So I do wonder whether those who are fretting about getting jobs are indeed applying enough and widely enough, as commentators above have noted. I wonder if you have applied for jobs outside of your preferred state, region, teaching area, type of university and country? As with publishing something, I do think that anyone could get an academic job, but it might have to involve more compromises. You might have to move away from family or your region, you might have to be in a smaller town, etc. Yes, that is sad that you have to compromise on some things to stay an academic, but that's really the one thing that you can control in this job market - how widely you apply and to which jobs.

This is important because it seems like the secret of getting an academic job is having an academic job, so if you can get your foot in the door somewhere, then you at least have the potential to move up in the future. I do understand that it might not be possible to go wherever if you're supporting a family or have other reasons, but we're not so unique that we don't see these location constraints in other specialized fields. That said, as far as I'm concerned, there's no shame in taking your soc degree to work in a think tank in a good city or in market research or business analytics or social work or city government or nonprofit or somewhere else that they appreciate people with analytical skills.

[widening my search]

Thanks for your reflections, "Research the world." I was wondering if you might be able to share some of the resources you used for finding opportunities outside the US. I'd also be very curious to hear any information about how you, or anyone else, has navigated this issue with a non-academic spouse/partner. I'm fortunate to have a supportive and adventurous spouse, but I worry about finding opportunities for us both.

[Careful]

Although I think it's wise to consider international options, know that leaving academia in the U.S. (and, okay, maybe Canada) is almost the same thing as leaving academia altogether. Once you're out, it's far more difficult to get back in. I write from personal experience. There is a lot to be said for taking an international job, but most of them do not come with tenure, meaning that when you leave, you may find it harder than ever to get a TT job in the U.S.

As for being flexible, yeah, of course. You might have to be willing to make lots of compromises to land that first TT job in the U.S. and those unwilling to do so are going to have a tougher time.

[Working a bit too far abroad]

Jan 14, 2014 21:40:56 GMT -5 widening my search said:

Thanks for your reflections, "Research the world." I was wondering if you might be able to share some of the resources you used for finding opportunities outside the US. I'd also be very curious to hear any information about how you, or anyone else, has navigated this issue with a non-academic spouse/partner. I'm fortunate to have a supportive and adventurous spouse, but I worry about finding opportunities for us both.

For widening your search, Jobs.ac.uk is a good place to start.

I too have been searching internationally, but with no success. I've applied for jobs in most countries that aren't a warzone - the rejection letters from a university in Zimbabwe and from one in Australia were the kindest ones I've ever received. I'm from a top UK university, and haven't even had a nibble in the Western world. I'm currently working in a place where sexual harassment is funny and being physically assault is considered a basic part of my work experience! So I can empathise with everyone who is having problems and thinking about searching abroad.

My advice is to look carefully at the overseas university (I'm speaking about the global south, BRICs, Eastern Europe and Russia, not the UK, France, Germany or Central Europe) where you apply to see if they have mid-level and senior faculty from abroad in your desired department. If there are no people who could become mentors for you, approach with caution. One of the most important parts of early career jobs is developing good networks through your new department and getting good advice from senior colleagues after all.

[what I don't get]

I'm sure I'll probably just be labelled a hater for this but whatever.

If this market is so glutted with excellent candidates why do we continue to see hires with less than impressive records. I'm not going to name people or institutions specifically but both this year and last year there have been a handful of people with no real publications (i.e. no peer-reviewed articles) and several others with just one or two (I don't mean AJS/ASR/SF etc).

Oh job market you make so little sense.

[beware]

Jan 15, 2014 16:00:38 GMT -5 what I don't get said:

I'm sure I'll probably just be labelled a hater for this but whatever.

If this market is so glutted with excellent candidates why do we continue to see hires with less than impressive records. I'm not going to name people or institutions specifically but both this year and last year there have been a handful of people with no real publications (i.e. no peer-reviewed articles) and several others with just one or two (I don't mean AJS/ASR/SF etc).

Oh job market you make so little sense.

I don't want to be seen as defending the status quo, but I would just like to point out that frequently the publicly available CVs don't tell the whole story. There have been one or two cases where I knew there was more to a person's record than what was in the publicly available CV: I've known people to keep books under contract or publications that are conditional acceptances out of their CVs until the work is actually published.

Additionally, keep in mind that some areas will have different standards with regards to publications and about what counts as a good record. That is, in a number of subfields ASR and AJS are not the be all/end all of publications. Finally, early in a person's career their record may not reflect the quality of their work: there's been cases of people who has stuff in progress but not actually published, but word of mouth about the quality of their work has raised their profile.

Again, this isn't to defend the market, but counting publications isn't the be all, end all of qualifications.