The job market for historians is tough? As if those in the field do not already know this. It is not going to get better in the near future. This information needs to be force fed to all academic advisors in institutions at all levels for some have really no idea of what the job market today is as they were hired decades ago and they stopped updating (both their notes and employment information)upon gaining tenure.

A few key issues need to be addressed: How to slow the tide of new Ph.D's for as long as there are more Ph.D's than jobs, there will be little, if any, improvement in the overall job market. Second, if tenured professors had a mandatory retirement age, then that would open some positions. Before anyone uses the "they will be replaced with adjuncts" argument, there will still be a need for full time faculty due to, if nothing else, accreditation purposes. Third, abolish tenure. It is outmoded and if a thorough annual review (or bi-annual) review of each faculty members performance was required, there is a good chance that many of those that stopped producing quality research upon gaining tenure, would be dismissed as they should be.

Nevertheless, higher education is now a business. There simply are too many doctoral program in history, too many naive students that think "everything will work out" despite the harsh realities, and too many faculty members urging their better students to continue on in a field that is hurting. Students need mentors that will, even if it hurts their feelings, tell them the truth. But, like almost everything in higher education, change is slow and resistance to change is strong amongst the entrenched tenured faculty.

Logistics first: Mandatory retirement is illegal under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (except for a few job categories in which physical strength or stamina is a requirement for safe performance of the job). The only way to impose mandatory retirement is to amend the law.

Demographics: as much as younger faculty and graduate students might like to have mandatory retirment at 65, the fact is that people are living longer than they used to and the financial strains on Social Security and Medicare are mounting. People in all occupations are going to have to keep working into their 70s. So, how is the still competent professor, forced out at 65, supposed to earn a living during the next 10+ years? There are very few openings in professional jobs for people in their mid-60s.

I'm not arguing that older faculty are entitled to their paychecks, but if they are still earning their paychecks, why should they be forced to leave?

Question: how do today's graduate students and young faculty plan to earn a living when they are 65 and forced to retire, but they still need to earn a paycheck because Social Security and Medicare aren't enough to live off of?

Tenure has nothing to do with the pipeline problem. If all faculty are on 3 or 5 year contracts, but the supply of faculty is greater than the demand, there are still going to be plenty of people left without a position when the music stops.

As an analogy to the general supply/demand imbalance, virtually every D1 football player in the BCS division wants to get drafted into the NFL, but most seem to understand the odds are not in their favor and find employment doing other things than playing professional football. It seems to me undergraduate advisers (in disciplines where there is a shortage of jobs) need to explain to their advisees that the chances of getting a tenure-track job are about as good as their football buddy's chance of getting drafted into the NFL.

Ok people, where and how is it that infighting over the supply/demand idea allow for coalition building? History tells us academics are a competitive field even with tenor. The legislature will fund this as long as society deems “History has Value.” Education only has value as long as the general public agrees. Lars Osberg, Economic Inequality and Poverty: International Perspectives, M.E. Sharpe, Inc., Armonk, New York, London, England, 1991. A macro perspective on the direction of the field associated with public funded education is offered. Let us be honest, teaching is not the only occupation available for a “Historian!”

#2, Let me be more precise since nothing near what I say is going to happen, especially in my lifetime. When I say "forced retirement" I am thinking along the lines of the military in that one cannot serve more than 30 years without special permission. Of course, if someone has specialized knowledge that few others have then any type of forced retirement would not be useful in such a situation. And, I am aware that the law would have to be amended as it would be age discrimination to force someone to retire. But, when has discrimination been unpopular in state universities. I am completely against it in all forms but it happens all the time! Case in point: The blatant violation of federal hiring policies against an astronomer at the university of Kentucky due to his being a Christian. I'm using this only as an analogy but my point is that discrimation happens in higher education not just in hiring but also in tenure appointments (you know there is a bias against conservative Republicans and, especially in history departments, it is highly unlikely that one would get tenured if the powers that be knew you were a Conservative...as if you carry the Scarlet Letter or something akin to that).
So, discrimination in all forms should not happen. Yet, the law should be amended. Getting rid of tenure goes beyond job creation. It is simply outmoded.
Probably the most important point which I didn't make and #3 did, is that our society simply doesn't value the humanities as it once did. If any field is deemed valuable, then there will be more demand for those knowledgeable in that subject. But, this is a techno-mad society and if it isn't "practical" (which we know history and the humanities are but many do not connect the dots), then it is not going to lead to a job.
History departments are slowly changing with the times and adding archival administration and more technology courses into their program. However, such programs are few.

I strongly support the idea that tenured professors should not stay on past normal retirement age, and since I will be 64 next month, it's hard to accuse me of discriminating against old folks.
In my discipline in the humanities, promising young scholars are forced into penury (or non-academic fields) because of the lack of tenure-track openings. I worry about how that will harm the profession. The question is not, as 19682010 would have it, whether one is still earning one's paycheck, but whether we value our own profession enough to enable it to benefit from new energy and ideas from rising generations of scholars. As I enter my final semester of teaching, I feel that I can continue contributing to my discipline while in an emeritus status, and unlike 19682010, I have no plans to die in situ.

I personally know of several faculty members who planned on retirement, but when the economy went south (taking their investments with it), they abandoned such plans.

I also think that there are, sadly, a small percentage of faculty who stay on long past their usefulness, and because they are tenured, they are untouchable. Which again underscores the need for tenure reform.

professormiller

You make good points, but I hope you are wrong when you say that "...you know there is a bias against conservative Republicans and, especially in history departments, it is highly unlikely that one would get tenured if the powers that be knew you were a Conservative...as if you carry the Scarlet Letter or something akin to that"

I hope that's wrong. In the business school, we are actually mostly conservatives. But we have one or two liberal faculty in my department, and they are still treated in a very friendly, supportive manner. We would never discriminate against anyone or deny them tenure (or stop inviting them to lunch!) just because they are liberal. I get into shouting matches with my liberal colleagues, then we head out to have lunch together, or we help each other out in our teaching.

I always suspect that actually the conservatives are really the more open minded and less vindictive group. I see where the Democrats are talking about trying to shut down Fox News, which I watch regularly. But I hope it is not as bad in academia as you suggest.

Miller, you clearly have a lot of injustices on your mind that don't have anything to do with the history job market and I am sympathetic to that, but try to reason more clearly.

Please provide any evidence that tenure is "outmoded." Further, please address why tenure is not needed without the "continued productivity" argument.

In your arguments, note that tenure guarantees due, public process for dismissal, not a job-for-life.

Well, Ms. Ghost, I was only expressing my opinion and never claimed it to be holy writ. Yet, tenure leads to an outmoded academy through excessive faculty retention. Today's academic climate of cutting-edge, cooperative research compels professors to keep up with current practice, while tenure largely protects those whose best efforts lie in the past. Institutions are continually having to modify and accomodate tenured faculty. It's pure nonsense and I'm not the only one that thinks this. There are many across the nation that think that tenure is no longer necessary. And, whether anyone likes to believe it or not, tenure is about as close to a guarantee of lifetime employment as anything and everyone knows it.

Mandatory retirement would be a mistake. In my university there are several professors well over 70 years of age who earn huge salaries and are extremely productive. And they teach well. If that means we can't hire an assistant professor this year (or next), so be it. Anyone who thinks he's bright enough to become a history (or physics) professor ought to be bright enough to assess his chances against a very competitive job market. Hmm. there are as many PhDs graduating in my field from my university alone as there are job postings nationwide. Oops. Should orchestra conductors or concert pianists (Horowitz comes to mind) be forced to retire at 65 too? Burn all the Rembrandts because young artists are being "forced into penury"?

There are people that are quite productive beyond the traditional retirement age. However, there are far more that are not productive and never publish anything of quality after gaining tenure than the few you speak of. Again, I think the miliary analogy is applicaple. One cannot serve more than thirty years without special permission (hence, you do have high ranking officers and some important NCO's that serve beyond 30 years)even if you are "extremely productive." You can be extremely productive writing and researching in retirement. Everyone barks about "budgets" but hang on to crusty old men that will probably (and literally) die in their office. And, regarding the idiotic "burn all the Rembrandts" remark, grow up.
I think, truly, despite my disdain of tenure that it isn't the main problem. That would be rather silly. The biggest problem, as alluded to earlier, is that when a society stops valuing a field of study (i.e. philosophy--how many, other than the few in academe really appreciate its value? Certainly not society at large though we must make ethical choices each day of our lives), such as history, then it is only a matter of time before jobs begin drying up.
What concerns me is how to get graduate programs up to date and integrate courses that will help historians obtain non-academic employment. There are some but not many. Most graduate programs are stuck far in the past and simply aim to prepare their graduates for positions in higher education. There are several ways to integrate history with skills that are in demand. But, then, many starry-eyed graduate students still believe that everything will just work out for them despite the statistics and no matter how much they were told otherwise, they would dive in head first into a field that will lead to nowhere (at least in the short term). I do think all first year MA students should have some type of seminar (1 credit perhaps) regarding future employment possibilities and how to integrate their love of history with something else that will help them be gainfully employed.
It's the students I think about. Those past retirement age and tenured are my least concern except insofar as they need to step aside, forced if you may, and allow some fresh ideas into certain departments.

ProfessorMiller

You write that "...there are far more that are not productive and never publish anything of quality after gaining tenure than the few you speak of" but don't seem to understand that often that is because once tenured faculty members usually find their time increasingly taken up by administrative tasks and committee work without which universities can't function. As a result, their research productivity necessarily declines. That doesn't by any means indicate that they are no longer worthy of retaining their current positions. Are there tenured folks who have essentially checked out and are milking the system? I'm sure that there are, but in my experience they are not the norm.

@11 (Professor Miller) "The biggest problem, as alluded to earlier, is that when a society stops valuing a field of study [such as] philosophy..."

First of all sorry about the Rembrandt crack ... that was a bit much, no?

I agree the devaluation of humanities disciplines is a serious problem, but *why* does it happen?

The overwhelming majority of the general population does not have the time, inclination, or reading comprehension skill to absorb philosophy from primary texts any better than they can teach themselves physics or chemistry. Yet they recognize that chemistry is important, whereas they think philosophy is somewhere between tedious and pointless. Why?

The job of Professor of (Discipline) includes helping the public understand why that discipline is interesting and important to society. When scientists talk to the public, they talk about what's new -- a new drug molecule or a substance that can be used to make a flexible TV screen or a supernova. When philosophers talk to the public, they talk about Plato and Whitehead and Kant. It is often said that philosophy, mathematics, and even fundamental scientific research does not need a short-term practical application to have value. Okay fine, but increasingly the lay public will need help understanding why this is so. Perhaps a combination of fundamental and applied knowledge is called for. And has there been any interesting new philosophy published within the last ten years that might grab a lay person's interest? There is plenty of new science that can. What has philosophy done for us lately?

If a lay person picks up a scientific text (journal article or even a textbook), he's likely to be repelled by the dense jargon or mathematical notation. The book is put away and the individual recognizes that this is something for "experts." Yet, students taking science courses see that the authors of the book have gone out of their way to make the content as clear and unambiguous as possible, and that in fact this is the whole point of the jargon (chemical nomenclature). Their inability to understand some material is recognized (except in the case of lazy denialists) as their own fault, not the fault of the textbook authors.

In contrast, philosophy texts are not written in technical jargon but rather (usually) in plain English (albeit sometimes in translation). A person reading a book about philosophy (whether a primary or secondary text) will tell himself, "Gee, I can read this ... it's written in my native tongue ... so why can't I understand it?" And there will be an element of resentment toward the author for making the subject matter of the book intentionally impenetrable. Philosophy professors can condense and explain the most challenging primary texts and help students understand how the concepts apply to modern questions. But there is still the lingering annoyance: If the concepts can be put into such simple terms, how come Hegel couldn't explain this himself in simpler terms if he was so darn smart? Call it a stereotype, but the lay person can come away with the impression that obfuscation was intentional -- perhaps as a method of keeping their pearls of wisdom from falling into the hands of uneducated swine.

After thinking about what I just wrote, I made an observation. Science students, as undergraduate underclassmen anyway, are not generally expected to read anything in the primary literature (i.e., journal articles). They learn these subjects from textbooks. But if you take an Ancient Philosophy course you're expect to read the primary texts of Aristotle, Plato, etc. Maybe students would take more of a shine to philosophy if they were asked only to read a summary of the ideas of Kant rather than Kant himself.

It is easy to understand why their is a shortage of history teaching jobs in the US. Aside from older history faculty holding on to their tenure, revisionist history is obsoleting their knowledge. In other words, the older faculty have archaic knowledge based on western culture and are just holding on till they are booted out. Meanwhile the revisionists are in the limelight as history changes to meet the views of special interest groups.

I am in a business school. In the business disciplines there is no excess, and in some disciplines there is a shortage, of tenure track qualified faculty. We pay well over a hundred thousand for fresh Ph.D.'s, and we are begging people to come in to interview - and getting turned down in most cases - by new Ph.D's or ABD's who already have multiple job offers.

I sympathize with Prof. Wilson's views about retirement and tenure abuse, especially about tenure abuse, which I have seen very graphically.