next »

[comp_queen]

WTF?!?!?!?!?

Because you got lucky after EIGHT years you now all of the sudden decide that the search process ISN'T random and unfair?

WTF?!?!?!?!?

I got a FT job, and I hope and pray that I NEVER become so arrogant as to believe it was anything other than winning a lottery.

[dolljepopp]

Link?

[snape]

http://chronicle.com/weekly/v54/i22/22c00101.htm

[marcbousquet]

I've already blogged about this 3-minute video, Play Phd Casino!, over on Brainstorm, but in case you missed it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-_5o4QV2Qo

It’s actually the second installment of my interview with Monica Jacobe, which explores the substantial overlap between the categories of “contingent faculty” and “graduate student.”

Monica very much concurs that the job search is a "lottery."

[prof_tournesol]

I don't agree that the job search is a lottery at all. I was on a search at an R1 last year in a competitive field. We received about 180 applications and we asked 10 for letters of reference. It was clear to me that all 10 would receive TT jobs in the field that year, and all did. It was also clear to me that the bottom 10 would likely never receive jobs in our field. I haven't heard of any of them having success.

It's a lottery might be consoling, but it's also not true because not everyone has an equal shot. It may be true that otherwise talented people may never get what they want, but that doesn't make it a lottery.

I watched the video with Ms. Jacobe and then quickly googled her. Her CV doesn't suggest to me that, as she says, she's done "everything right". Hopefully she'll be successful in her search.

[kurejara]

I watched the video with Ms. Jacobe and then quickly googled her. Her CV doesn't suggest to me that, as she says, she's done "everything right". Hopefully she'll be successful in her search.

Interesting.  I was curious, too.  I googled her, and her CV didn't come up. 

[marcbousquet]

We received about 180 applications and we asked 10 for letters of reference. It was clear to me that all 10 would receive TT jobs in the field that year, and all did. It was also clear to me that the bottom 10 would likely never receive jobs in our field.

Actually your observation proves her point. If you can only predict what will happen to the top and bottom 7%, the vast majority--in the middle 85%--experience an unacceptable randomness for the degree of preparation represented by the PhD in most fields, certainly in English. In that sense, "lottery" makes a great deal of sense.

You're quarreling with her analogy to avoid dealing with her real arguments, I think. And the ad hominem observations--that's just lame. You're tenured at an R1 and you're stooping to googling and questioning the qualifications of a grad student? Grow up, please. She's thinking and acting at the level of system and you're telling anecdotes.

This lame "analysis" is one of the reasons so many graduate students are disaffected with their faculty.

[octoprof]

As usual, we have a lot of oversimplification and over generalization. Not all fields have the same search scenarios. Not all fields have the same over-supply and over-demand. It's not a lottery, at least in some fields.

[comp_queen]

As usual, we have a lot of oversimplification and over generalization. Not all fields have the same search scenarios. Not all fields have the same over-supply and over-demand. It's not a lottery, at least in some fields.

Octo, can you provide statistics?  I don't like to make generalizations, and I trust your word, but you also have to understand that based on every academic search of which I've ever had even fleeting knowledge (not just in my field either), the statement "Some fields are not oversupplied" sounds every bit as credible as "And then the Blue Fairy will stop by later to bring my marionette to life."

Are discipline organizations' websites with stats available?

[octoprof]

As usual, we have a lot of oversimplification and over generalization. Not all fields have the same search scenarios. Not all fields have the same over-supply and over-demand. It's not a lottery, at least in some fields.

Octo, can you provide statistics?  I don't like to make generalizations, and I trust your word, but you also have to understand that based on every academic search of which I've ever had even fleeting knowledge (not just in my field either), the statement "Some fields are not oversupplied" sounds every bit as credible as "And then the Blue Fairy will stop by later to bring my marionette to life."

Are discipline organizations' websites with stats available?

Sure, I can give you statistics for the past 20 years in my field (accounting), if you want me to send a spreadsheet. Here's the past 3 years, supply is defined as the number of new PhDs. Demand is the number of positions advertised in the major journal of the field.  This is a conservative estimate of demand as some schools do not spend the money to advertise in this journal (which includes advertising on the national association website simultaneously), but prefer to advertise in the Chronicle or elsewhere such as HigherEdJobs.com or AcademicKeys.com.

        demand  supply
2004    186      137
2005    192      133
2006    261      136

The last time supply and demand (when demand is defined as above) were similar or demand was a bit more) was more than a dozen years ago.  My PhD is nearly 20 years old and only once or twice in that period have new PhDs been at all concerned about not getting a TT position (and I don't personally know any who haven't, even in a thin year).

Finance is a similar story. A few other areas of business are also having trouble hiring enough PhDs.  Thus, this (questionable) program has been created.

I am not making this up. I have the data to prove it and much of it is freely available online.  Some recent journal articles back up this data as well.  I'll post some cites for you in a moment.

[octoprof]

Supply can be clearly measured here:

Hasselback, James R. (2007). Listing of doctoral graduates by school. Available online: http://www.jrhasselback.com/AtgDoct/XSchDoct.pdf

To get an idea for demand, have a look at the job ads at the AAA, CHE, HigherEdJobs or AcademicKeys.  You'll want to consider these job advert numbers in light of the relatively small "supply" numbers above.


The current shortage is documented in an academic journal here:

Plumlee, R. David, Steven J. Kachelmeier, Silvia A. Madeo, Jamie H. Pratt and George Krull. 2006.  Assessing the Shortage of Accounting Faculty.   Issues in Accounting Education 21 (2:May) 113-125.


The current shortage is documented in a practitioner journal here.

Noland, Thomas G., Bill Francisco, and Debra Sinclair. 2007. Pursuing a PhD in Accounting: What to Expect. CPA Journal 77 (3:March) 66-68.


Accounting isn't the only field with a shortage, of course. It just happens to be the one that I know the most about.  If you believe this "job" advert, then most business disciplines have shortages.  My personal experience with shortages confirms this problem in accounting, finance and marketing, at the very least (and I was really surprised about marketing, but it seems to be a fact).

[octoprof]

Are discipline organizations' websites with stats available?

According to this [BizEd, November/December 2007] on the AACSB website (AACSB is the top accreditor of business schools), the shortage of business faculty (all disciplines combined) is projected to be 2,500 by the year 2012. That's just four years from now.

[mountain_ivy]

Do you think the shortage in business is related to current research findings that suggest that conservatives are less likely to enter the academy, and more likely to be interested in making money,and they make money in business.  Us liberal arts folks live for poverty!!!!   I'm not being critical ..........

[comp_queen]

If this turns out to be real shortage, unlike the shortage that was supposed to develop across the academy around 1995--we all know how that turned out--then this may be good news indeed for some friends of mine.

Thanks for the hope!

[octoprof]

Do you think the shortage in business is related to current research findings that suggest that conservatives are less likely to enter the academy, and more likely to be interested in making money,and they make money in business.  Us liberal arts folks live for poverty!!!!   I'm not being critical ..........

I think the shortage is more the result of market forces and alternative options (other markets for their skills) rather than political beliefs.  Why would a successful accountant (or financial analyst, or marketing guru, or businesss owner or whatever) who's already making a six figure salary, quit the lucrative job at which he or she is very successful and go to graduate school for 5 years (living off a fraction of the previous salary) to become a professor making less than he used to make and with only modest salary increases likely over an entire career?  It's not about politics, it's about making decisions that appear best for you and/or your family and it's future.

The people who are both capable of getting a PhD in a business field and interested in a business field, have so many other very viable options that getting a PhD doesn't look that attractive to most, unfortunately. The good news for those who do go the PhD route is that, because of this shortage, salaries are very good relative to most other PhD fields.

The only folks in my field I can think of who have had trouble getting a TT jobs (just a handful in 2 decades) are those with severe geographical limitations due to family circumstances/spouse issues, etc.

If this turns out to be real shortage, unlike the shortage that was supposed to develop across the academy around 1995--we all know how that turned out--then this may be good news indeed for some friends of mine.

Thanks for the hope!

In accounting, it's been a real shortage for over a decade.  In other business fields, the relative shortage is more recent. No idea if it will pan out to be as large as the AACSB predicts. Their interest in starting that very odd program they call a "post doc" shows they believe it's a huge problem.