next »

[urbansasquatch]

I applied to three different grad schools and got into two.  Which one do you think would be the best choice?

1.  Traditional humanities program (i.e. English, History, etc.) at UC Riverside.  First year funded, and possible T.A. ships for the remainder of study, but no guaranteed funding.  And not a very strong placement record.

2.  Interdisciplinary humanities program (i.e. Visual Culture, Performance Studies, etc.) at a top-ranked Public University (like NYU, Michigan, Chicago).  Full funding package with generous yearly stipend for entire length of study.  But not a strong placement record.


I already have an M.A. from the University of California, so UCR will accept the credits.  However, if I choose the other program, they will only accept a few courses.

I have family and friends near both of these campuses, so the quality of life is not a problem.

I am really concerned about the job market with either choice.  In your opinion, which would be the better of the two?

Thanks in advance for your two cents!

[contemporary_]

Number two.

[sugaree]

Given the pros/cons you list here, I would think about what you want to achieve by pursuing a doctoral degree? In spite of major lip service to interdisciplinarity, most traditional humanities fields (i.e. MLA, AHA) don't always seriously consider TT applications from PhD candidates outside of a "traditional" program. OTOH, an interdisciplinary doctoral degree from a strong institution (like the examples you name here) might counter the "disapproving" attitutudes of traditionalists - who are fewer and fewer these days anyway (so time is on your side here). The humanities job market is dismal, no matter where your degree is from.

[doppelganger]

Sugaree makes good points.  If you choose #2, then be sure to arrange your classes and work in such a fashion as to allow you to counter that perception. 

I vote #2 because there is absolutely no sense whatsoever in going to grad school in the humanities without funding.  None.  Don't do it. 

[englitprof]

I vote #2 because there is absolutely no sense whatsoever in going to grad school in the humanities without funding.  None.  Don't do it. 

Yes.  Absolutely.

It *may* be worthwhile to let school #1 know about the funding at school#2 and see what they have to say.

[larryc]

Neither. You don't risk debt for a humanities doctorate, especially at a place with a weak placement record. And for all the buzz over "interdisciplinary" work, people are hired by disciplinary departments. My history department is just not going to hire someone with a degree that ends in "Studies." Hence the poor placement record of choice #2.

Sorry.

[crowie]

Does any humanities program have a 'strong' placement record?  What is 'strong' anyway?

On the face of it, #2 because of the funding package.  If you were comparing two geographical locations with identical funding packages I would suggest that you think about the stipend to cost of living ratio, but if you don't end up getting a stipend at Riverside at all it's not much of a trade off.

[doppelganger]

My program has a nearly perfect placement rate, but we also only graduate one person every year.  That's a strong placement rate in the humanities. 

[t_r_b]

First off, I know for a fact that Chicago is not a public institution, and I don't think NYU is either. Just saying.

Second off, you've left out the most important factor of all: who would be mentoring you at these programs? How enthusiastic are they about your work? How successful have they been at getting their PhD students hired? What do current grad students have to say about them?

All of these questions are far more important than any of the details you mention - even the funding package.

Does any humanities program have a 'strong' placement record?  What is 'strong' anyway?

The placement record of a program is much less relevant than the placement record of your prospective advisor and, to a lesser degree, other potential committee members. The rest of the program could be crap, but if you can find a mentor (and ideally a couple of other supportive committee members) who will have your back, will prepare you well for the job market, and have a strong track record of producing successful scholars, then that's a good place for you to be.

[crowie]

the_raised_bar is right, the questions about advisers etc. are very important  and they are more relevant for placement than generic placement figures.  The difference between the placement rate of students in certain subfields in my department compared to the general rate is vast and it is almost entirely due to excellent mentorship in those subfields. 

But money is important too.  For myself I did not even consider applying to schools that did not offer full funding for at least 4 years.  YMMV.

(Btw, NYU is also not a public university but I assumed in giving those egs. that urbansasquatch meant, essentially, that the school in question is an excellent R1 non-Ivy.)

[urbansasquatch]

Thank you for your comments.  And I apologize for designating some Privates as Public (I didn't realize that it would be such a discussion point), but Crowie is right, I meant an excellent R1 non-Ivy.

In response to some of the questions:

What do I hope to achieve in pursuing a PhD?: 
I hope to get out of the CC that I’ve been teaching at since my M.A.  I have taught the same Humanities 101/102 courses for the last few years and I don't want the zombie-stare that afflicts some of the long-term CC adjuncts.  I would like to be considered for a TT position at decent R1 or SLAC, preferably on one of the coasts.  And, if I don't get an interview during the recruiting season, then I would hope to get a job in the non-profit sector.  That's the reasoning behind applying to an interdisciplinary program: an English PhD might have a little more explaining to do in applying for a museum job vs. a Visual Studies PhD.

Placement:
I've noticed that some departments (like the History Dept at Stanford) have their PhD placement list posted on their website.  Just looking at the placement list shows a rather “strong” record.  The programs that have accepted me do not have a placement list nor can I get a definitive answer on placement.  In fact, here is a summary of their responses to placement questions:

UCR: The grad students & faculty members said that most graduates adjunct in the CalState system or get a TT job in one of the many California CCs.  The grad students also said that there wasn't really a lot of networking (unless you did it yourself by going to a conference).  My prospective advisor said that most people got post-docs or "a job somewhere" but that Hu "didn't really keep up with all the former students."

R1:  In speaking with the graduate advisor, Hu told me that the faculty are from so many different disciplines (Anthro, Sociology, Art Hist, English, History, Dance) that placement is dependent on one’s specific field and one’s own personal goals upon leaving.  For example, a history of dance person is now managing a non-profit program for dance, while a folklore specialist is now on TT at a SLAC.   Basically, the department and its “affiliated” faculty are not necessarily out there selling the students as much as the students come in knowing exactly what route they plan to take and use the faculty mostly for referrals.

I would be interested to know if anyone knows (or is) a graduate of an interdisciplinary program and if they are gainfully employed.

[t_r_b]

Placement:
I've noticed that some departments (like the History Dept at Stanford) have their PhD placement list posted on their website.  Just looking at the placement list shows a rather “strong” record. 

A list of where people have ended up can be deceiving if it doesn't tell you how many people finished the program (and therefore how many people didn't get jobs) or how many people started the program (but never finished). Actual percentages on placement and attrition are harder to calculate than you'd think, so most departments don't even keep track of them much less publicize them, which means it's up to the individual applicant to collect anecdotal evidence. It sounds like you're doing that.

UCR: ... My prospective advisor said that most people got post-docs or "a job somewhere" but that Hu "didn't really keep up with all the former students."

Run away! Run away!

R1:  In speaking with the graduate advisor, Hu told me that the faculty are from so many different disciplines (Anthro, Sociology, Art Hist, English, History, Dance) that placement is dependent on one’s specific field and one’s own personal goals upon leaving. 

That's exactly what I'd expect the graduate advisor to say. You need to talk to your own prospective faculty advisor (as you did at UCR) or else with the faculty and grad students within your particular subfield, which may or may not correspond with a particular department (if you're interested in visual culture, talk to the visual culture people).

In the meantime, it would be good to clarify further your personal goals upon leaving. You say you want to teach at a coastal R1 or SLAC. Don't we all. But what kind of jobs do you envision applying for? As has been mentioned, if you want to teach in a history department then you should scratch the interdisciplinary program off your list. If you want to teach in some sort of "studies" department, then browse the websites of a few departments you'd consider desirable and see where (and in what field) their recent hires got their PhDs. If you're interested in museum work, ditto. Network a bit and get in touch with people who currently hold the kind of jobs you'd like to end up with, and ask them for advice.

I'd scratch UCR off your list based on the attitude of your prospective advisor toward hu's former students. It may well be that the other program is not a good fit for your goals. In that case, you'll probably be better off waiting another year and applying again. A more precise sense of your objectives will probably make for a stronger application next year, and you may end up with much better options. Better to put off the PhD program for another year than to spend many more years getting a PhD that won't actually help you get where you want to be.

[shakie]

For the record - my interdisciplinary program has a 90% placement rate for graduates into tt jobs.  Not all interdisciplinary programs are the same - and mine is one of the olderst in the country.

Either sounds good - but make sure you can get a job!  Look at the jon ads... are they asking for what you are going to be doing?  If not, maybe wait a year and find a program that meets your needs and gets its graduates jobs!  I am not in for the PhD just to better myself.

Good luckl!