next »

[twofingers]

Facing a dilemma, I'm turned to this board for suggestions. There are a lot of other boards out there, but this is the only one I've seen where well-informed people offer serious advice.

Everything else being equal (prestige of program, etc.), which one is better for job prospects and employability -- an area studies degree (language and literature) in a "hot" region (like the Middle East or China) or an anthro degree with said geographic specialization?

Of course, I know the "everything else being equal" caveat makes the question general to the point of meaningless, but please bear with me...

Removed from academia, I have very little sense of the job market. Of course, I'm trying to google answers and I'll try to speak with grad students and even interview prospective mentors when the time comes, but now I'm just trying to get a sense...

So is the job market more dismal in anthro or area studies? With an interdisciplinary focus, can area studies people appeal to a broader market, i.e. literature, history, etc. departments? Obviously anthro people as "social scientists" might have a better chance getting employed outside academia...

There are other issues I'm concerned about but I'll just throw this one out first.

Thanks in advance for any feedback. Really appreciated.

Twofingers

[tenured_feminist]

Depends a lot on what kind of research you want to do and what kind of job you want to get, I would say, but finding the right program is probably more important than being on the right side of the studies/discipline line. All else being equal, you probably have a marginally better shot at landing a TT job coming out with an anthro degree and an area studies certificate or second MA, but there are probably many exceptions to this rule in any given area.

[magistra]

It's fairly dismal across the humanities, though.  And there's no guarantee that what's hot now will be hot in 5 years or so when you're on the market.

And honestly, you'll never make it through.  To a large extent this decision should be made because you love the subject.  You're bouncing between anthro and the languages, Middle East and China.  Which are you passionate about?  Which one can you slog through a dissertation on?  You also have to think about your background; you may not even be qualified for certain programs. 

Of course having as much diversity as possible will be useful when job hunting; not only anthro and languages, but e.g. a different subfield.

Are you looking for an MA or a PhD?  What's your background?  What languages do you have?

[titania]

Disciplinary lines are still very important in academia and area studies isn't a discipline.  It was more of a field decades ago I believe, but less so now.  (One of my profs always complains about the decline of area studies and its relationship to the Cold War.)  I know people with interdisciplinary degrees (from programs such as 'liberal arts' broadly defined) that have gotten jobs in similar programs so it is possible, but the pool of jobs is small and unpredictable.  Mind you, the job market is also pretty dismal in anthropology.  Having a 'hot' area focus will help.  Don't know that you will get solid numbers on which route is better though.

[twofingers]

Thanks for the replies. They were very thoughtful and useful, especially considering how little I gave you to go on.

Basically, I am in the position of being able to go to either type of program (PhD). For the time being I don't want to post any personally identifying information, such as even the languages I have studied. But I can add this: If I go the area studies route, I will probably have to spend longer getting the degree because I will most likely need to learn an important secondary research language almost from scratch. If I go the anthro route, I'm pretty sure I have the languages already covered (though I will certainly need to spend some time learning local dialects). So the language factor in time to degree is definitely a consideration. I'm passionate about both fields -- I feel that they are complementary and that the best research is done by people who cross the lines.

Thanks again for the replies. This dialog has helped me focus my thoughts a little, and it's also confirmed my suspicions, though I'm indeed having very little luck getting anything like hard numbers on the job market.

[expatinuk]

And honestly, you'll never make it through.  To a large extent this decision should be made because you love the subject.  You're bouncing between anthro and the languages, Middle East and China.  Which are you passionate about?  Which one can you slog through a dissertation on?  You also have to think about your background; you may not even be qualified for certain programs. 

I have to disagree with some of this. Being passionate about a subject doesn't mean that one will 'make it through'. Slogging through a dissertation isn't about passion, it's about the ability to sustain interest. Most of the people I've met who are passionate about their subject actually have difficulties because they can't 'let go' enough to listen to a dissertation committee.

Sure, you have to have an interest. But I understood from the OP that there was an interest and he was trying to figure out the best way to position himself in the market. To my way of thinking that's the SMART way to approach something as life changing as a Ph.D.

As you can tell from reading these boards, there are plenty of people out there who are/were passionate about their subjects.... and can't get a job.

[titania]

I have to disagree with some of this. Being passionate about a subject doesn't mean that one will 'make it through'. Slogging through a dissertation isn't about passion, it's about the ability to sustain interest. Most of the people I've met who are passionate about their subject actually have difficulties because they can't 'let go' enough to listen to a dissertation committee.

I don't know expatinuk, this is such a broad generalization.  To make one in the opposite direction, in anthropology the ones who are 'passionate' often have a clear idea of location and topic and go and do the very difficult fieldwork that is required of the discipline.  On the other hand I have seen those who don't come in with a clear sense of passion about a place and a topic wander around and change continents and subfields multiple times, and try and get a thesis from their research advisor and generally have difficulty making it through.  I say, let the OP have his or her passion.

[twofingers]

As a pre-pre-grad student I am certainly an outsider and thus not really entitled to an opinion on these matters, but here's my reaction to your posts: From the point of view of "good practices" (i.e., how to become a successful academic), it seems likely to me that both your comments (Titania's, Expatnuk's) are true; the difference probably lies in their providing correctives to opposing tendencies, right?

Good practices are what I am interested in learning about. Gratefully, I have picked up a lot of useful information from this board.

When I draw up the balance sheet, the scales tip towards anthropology. Another reason is the ability to maintain a comparative perspective. I am focused on my main region, but I have broader interests and language knowledge. Eventually, it would be great to have the opportunity to indulge those interests.

On the other side, I find that (most of) the most interesting work in my region comes from the humanities, where scholars may not have as much theoretical sophistication but do have a deep knowledge of the region, language, and history (past and modern). As an anthropologist, I think it would be very challenging to balance depth of area knowledge with depth of discipline knowledge.

[figee]

On the other side, I find that (most of) the most interesting work in my region comes from the humanities, where scholars may not have as much theoretical sophistication but do have a deep knowledge of the region, language, and history (past and modern). As an anthropologist, I think it would be very challenging to balance depth of area knowledge with depth of discipline knowledge.

Interesting, and quite a bold statement.  What do you mean here by theoretical sophistication?

[titania]

On the other side, I find that (most of) the most interesting work in my region comes from the humanities, where scholars may not have as much theoretical sophistication but do have a deep knowledge of the region, language, and history (past and modern). As an anthropologist, I think it would be very challenging to balance depth of area knowledge with depth of discipline knowledge.

Interesting, and quite a bold statement.  What do you mean here by theoretical sophistication?

Yeah, most anthropologists I know and many other humanities folks do a lot more theory than the non-humanities people, who tend more towards quantitative analysis.  I think you will actually find it goes the other way with the theory.

[monkfish]

There is absolutely no reason why you couldn't obtain a significant area studies depth as an anthropologist (or vice versa)--unless, i assume, you are in a graduate program where every single course is mapped out for you in advance. I know anthropologists with really extraordinary language/area studies knowledge, and other anthropologists who barely speak the local language, have limited understanding of the region, and do work more along the lines of "the history of the discipline" or "theory." Both are fine, and conceivably, a top program will be able to train you either way depending a little bit on who you are working with.

In terms of the job market, area studies PhDs very seldom get jobs in anthropology department, though it is not all that uncommon for anthro PhDs to get jobs in area studies departments. So I would definitely go with anthropology. Of course, if you really want to be "useful" working in a hot area, you should probably just go into political science.

[twofingers]

On the other side, I find that (most of) the most interesting work in my region comes from the humanities, where scholars may not have as much theoretical sophistication but do have a deep knowledge of the region, language, and history (past and modern). As an anthropologist, I think it would be very challenging to balance depth of area knowledge with depth of discipline knowledge.

Interesting, and quite a bold statement.  What do you mean here by theoretical sophistication?

Well, note that I was being tentative with this statement ("may not...") because I am not really qualified to make any kind of judgment. But, one thing I meant when I said "theoretical sophistication" is something like disciplinary resonance -- I've been reading a lot of anthropology papers, and they generally build on and develop current themes and debates in the field. And it is a field and intellectual tradition that I greatly admire and would love to get training in. The area studies work I read, on the other hand, tend to fall into two types: those that borrow and synthesize theory "out of dialog," but are thematically deep (i.e., treating a topic in great depth); and those that are written by film scholars / historians / literary critics etc. in disguise.

Honestly, though, one of the area study scholars I admire most has developed what to my eyes is a really amazing theoretical lens; however, though they (gender neutral) seem to get cited more than most such scholars, I'm surprised their work has not reached a wider audience.  It seems as though (stating the obvious) that it's very challenging to position oneself effectively in area studies.

[twofingers]

There is absolutely no reason why you couldn't obtain a significant area studies depth as an anthropologist (or vice versa)--unless, i assume, you are in a graduate program where every single course is mapped out for you in advance... So I would definitely go with anthropology. Of course, if you really want to be "useful" working in a hot area, you should probably just go into political science.

Thanks again everyone for the thoughts and advice. Yes, I've decided to go with anthropology.

[wanderer]

Having picked a field you may not want any more advice.  However, I do think strategy helps here.

Some time back I chose between History and Area Studies and applied in History.  Most of my apps that time were rejected.  I learned later that almost all of the people in my region (East Asia) applied through EAS.  Basically you could not be admitted in History to study my country.  And EAS was where the school had the money.  This was also the department (even in the History field) out of which  people were most likely to be hired. 

What I wish I had done, and others did, was simply to write the people in the programs and ask them: "Dear Dr. ____, I'm interested in applying to ____.  I am curious whether you recommend applicants to apply through the Anthropology Dept. or the ?AS Dept."  My hunch is that most of the faculty you'll want to work with teach in Anthro and Area Studies and can advise you on this.

[twofingers]

Thanks, that's very good advice. Thanks again for the feedback everybody!