next »

[carebearstare]

My SO asked me a relatively straightforward question that I couldn't answer today, so I thought I'd turn to the wise forumites for a response.

Why are fields like English and history so oversupplied? That is, what makes people continue to want to enter these disciplines, even though the prospects for getting into graduate programs and getting jobs afterward are often described here and elsewhere as dismal? What is it about these disciplines that makes them attractive to so many people?

I mean this as a sincere question. I studied English as an undergrad myself, mostly because I went to a liberal arts college, liked to read and write, and wasn't sure what else to study. But I'd hesitate to extrapolate my own experience out to others. So what gives?

[larryc]

Great question. The obvious answer is overproduction--grad programs turning out too many PhDs for too few positions. But why does this happen in history and not (to my knowledge) physics?

Two other factors are that 1) the private industry options for a PhD in the humanities are not as obvious as they are in other fields, and 2) the oversupply of applicants is a characteristic of a lot of dream jobs--playing in the NFL, serving in the US Senate, being a full-time Park Ranger at Yellowstone.

[scheherazade]

Because the humanities are cooler.  Duh.

[pink_]

In English, there is a need for bodies to teach the lower level composition classes, so the grad programs are kept fairly large to supply that demand (or at least that was the case at the large public schools where I got my degrees--private schools that do not have entering classes of 7000 don't have these kinds of issues).

Not everyone is so upfront about the dismal reality of the job market with prospective grad students either because they have had their job for decades and are not in touch with the current market or because they don't want to discourage their students or for whatever other reason.  When I started my MA, at least half the entering class had no idea how bad the market was.  Most of them did not continue on to the Ph.D.

What Larryc said--most people entering Ph.D. programs figure that they'll be the exception not the rule . . .

And, of course, what Scheherazade said.

[carebearstare]

The idea of being a history of English prof as a kind of "dream job" is interesting to me. Where does that belief come from? And does it follow that it's got something to do with a poverty of imagination--that is, people (sometimes? often?) go into the humanities because they don't know what else they could or should study, but only that they simply like to study?

And possibly, does it have something to do with the fact that we don't value the contributions that learning in those disciplines can create, thereby lessening the career horizons for people with those degrees? Again, I think of myself as pretty typical, but I don't want to overgeneralize. I certainly wanted to be a writer but, barring that, ended up being a "teacher." Or some approximation of such.

[sir_lancelot]

Great question. The obvious answer is overproduction--grad programs turning out too many PhDs for too few positions. But why does this happen in history and not (to my knowledge) physics?

You would need the ability to do Physics.....

[scheherazade]

The idea of being a history of English prof as a kind of "dream job" is interesting to me. Where does that belief come from? And does it follow that it's got something to do with a poverty of imagination--that is, people (sometimes? often?) go into the humanities because they don't know what else they could or should study, but only that they simply like to study?

Somehow, I don't think that will hold true for a person with a PhD.  As an undergrad, maybe.  But you have to really love history or English a whole lot to get through a dissertation.

[carebearstare]

The idea of being a history of English prof as a kind of "dream job" is interesting to me. Where does that belief come from? And does it follow that it's got something to do with a poverty of imagination--that is, people (sometimes? often?) go into the humanities because they don't know what else they could or should study, but only that they simply like to study?

Somehow, I don't think that will hold true for a person with a PhD.  As an undergrad, maybe.  But you have to really love history or English a whole lot to get through a dissertation.

Great point--so maybe that explanation only goes far enough to explain why so many people apply to these graduate programs, but not why so many people (relatively speaking) finish them.

[dr_strangelove]

I suspect that the "oversupply" of PhDs in physics is just as great as it is in history, if not greater, but that it's not as obvious. Larry gives one reason: that there are more (and more obvious) alternative avenues for physics PhDs than history PhDs. I would also guess that the prevalence of postdocs and other temporary post-PhD positions helps mask the oversupply in physics, because a much higher fraction of newly-minted PhDs apply for faculty positions in history than in physics. This makes the history pool of applicants bigger, because some physics PhDs are essentially voluntarily sitting out the TT application process for a few years.

As to the original question, many people (especially young people) have the "I'll beat the odds" mindset, so even if they know what the statistics are, they think they're immune.

[msparticularity]

The idea of being a history of English prof as a kind of "dream job" is interesting to me. Where does that belief come from? And does it follow that it's got something to do with a poverty of imagination--that is, people (sometimes? often?) go into the humanities because they don't know what else they could or should study, but only that they simply like to study?

Somehow, I don't think that will hold true for a person with a PhD.  As an undergrad, maybe.  But you have to really love history or English a whole lot to get through a dissertation.

Great point--so maybe that explanation only goes far enough to explain why so many people apply to these graduate programs, but not why so many people (relatively speaking) finish them.

Well, I'll grant that the ability to complete a dissertation is testimony to love of a field, but mostly what it pays tribute to is dogged determination and a degree of ability to finish what one has started. What it doesn't convey, unfortunately, is the ability to actually do interesting and timely research in an ongoing way, without the guidance of one's advisor and committee.

Invoking Kuhnian models as well as some of Donald Campbell's thought here, I think the sciences do a better job of weeding out potential researchers who aren't actually quite up to a continuing life of compelling research before they reach the tenure track. This is because, exactly as Dr_Strangelove says, most PhDs in the sciences are putting in substantial time as postdocs before they get to TT. This more clearly differentiates between those who are just reasonable competent lab managers, and those who actually have something new and interesting to say. Lacking a similar "test drive" in the humanities, we have an applicant pool that is obscured by a whole lot of people who have come out of "good" programs but who can't actually cut it in the "real world" of academia. (Or, actually, they can cut it in a very warped sense - they've been able to trade on name and reputation rather than actual work.)

[yellowtractor]

The idea of an English professorship being a "dream job" comes from (a) the idea of making a living working in an area you feel passionate about, coupled with (b) mistaken ideals about both the availability of such jobs and the sheer amount of work they require.

And, yes, by the time they get to graduate school, most humanities students are used to being large-ish fish in comparatively smaller ponds.  They don't think for a moment they'll have problems on the job market.

In fact, based on my last several years of working at SLAC's, they don't think about the job market at all.  Those whose mindset is resolutely, or even explicitly, pre-professional tend to plan for careers in law, business, medicine, etc.  Those who plan for graduate study in the humanities tend not to be thinking about future employment at all.  They want to pursue something they feel passionate about.

Which would be fine, if not for the economic/career train wrecks that follow.

I find it interesting that my current school has decided to count the study of literature, history, creative writing, and art (studio and art history) as intrinsic parts of its newish pre-law curriculum--I think to justify its SLACness to parents of potential students while guiding humanities students in directions other than a traditional Ph.D.

*

I have a specific question, also arising from my years at SLACs:  is it possible that grade inflation has something to do with this?  In the harder sciences, not only does industry compete with academia for the best students, it is also nearly impossible to remain competitive (earning A's or B's as an undergrad, for instance) without having mastered an extreme amount of specific content.  In the humanities, it is quite possible to earn a continuous stream of A's or B's without mastering any obvious skills (beyond a basic ability in expository prose).  I've watched a number of students recently switch from the hard sciences into the humanities because frankly the sciences were taking too large a toll on their GPA's.  Has anyone else seen this?

[watermarkup]

It's not quite the case that scholars in the humanities don't get a trial run comparable to postdocs in the sciences. It seems increasingly common, to the point of being the rule rather than the exception, that TT hires have spent some time in a visiting position. However--

(1) There are still programs that only want to hire squeaky fresh Ph.D.s, leading to the problems Ms. Particularly mentions.

(2) All those people in visiting positions create yet another pool of (over)qualified applicants for tenure-track jobs. Even if no more Ph.D.s were awarded each year than the number of TT jobs, there would still be hundreds of applicants for good positions.

(3) The odds aren't that bad, in the range of 50% +/- 10%, for a lot of fields in the humanities. Compared to the vast amount of time and effort spent by young people dreaming of an NBA or NFL career, all those extra Ph.D.s are peanuts.

(4) It really is a great job compared to the alternatives. No, really, it is. Is a college basketball player who never makes it in the NBA a failure? Should he have quit at 12 and focused on vocational skills instead? Being able to live a dream is a rare and wonderful thing, and if it only lasts 6 or 10 years instead of 40, a lot of people will still take the 6 or 10.

[the_myth]

I have a specific question, also arising from my years at SLACs:  is it possible that grade inflation has something to do with this?  In the harder sciences, not only does industry compete with academia for the best students, it is also nearly impossible to remain competitive (earning A's or B's as an undergrad, for instance) without having mastered an extreme amount of specific content.  In the humanities, it is quite possible to earn a continuous stream of A's or B's without mastering any obvious skills (beyond a basic ability in expository prose).  I've watched a number of students recently switch from the hard sciences into the humanities because frankly the sciences were taking too large a toll on their GPA's.  Has anyone else seen this?

This was my experience in grad school!  *Many* of my classmates did not know how to perform a basic literature review or use proper citations for term papers.  We, their peers and competitors, often had to tutor them on the side or sit in class while the instructor took a session to teach remedial skills.  Many of these people went on to get lucrative TT and adjunct jobs where some of us who had entered with basic grad-level skills (and acquired an equivalent mastery of the material on the way) were left with their scraps.

It really made me wonder about how well any of us was vetted before entry into the program(s).  Some of them did little more than suck up to the profs, complete the profs' pet projects for them, and then move on with their blessing.  In a way, I guess that's how grad school is supposed to work [at least in the apprenticeship model].

[dr_dre]

Because too many low-end graduate programs are allowed to continue cranking out graduates, IMHO. Everyone who finished a degree at my respectable but not an Ivy program (yes, in American Studies, even) and went on the national job market got a TT job eventually in History/English/Art History/American Studies. Some folks opted for private high schools or CCs, but we're all working FT in the field. A few did choose to stay local and work as curators. I don't know why folks attend low-ranked schools, frankly. I interviewed for a job with a place that was bragging about placing its star Ph.D. graduate at Something You've Never Heard of Regional State, and I wondered what advising doctoral students there would really feel like as a day-to-day job. What would I say when the rest, the non-stars, the average others asked me about the field?

[iomhaigh]

Echoing many of the problems notes below, plus we have the added problem of MFAs, PhDs and people with decades of professional experience all vying for a lot of the same jobs.