next »

[glowdart]

Not everyone ends up at a research institution.  Not everyone wants this kind of job. 

And most jobs out there are not at R1 schools either, so my advice is that all of you on the market had best plan for a number of contingencies (and realities) rather than be back here in three years wondering why you can't get hired with a ton of publications and no teaching experience. 

[the_honey_badger]

I've been on several SCs in the humanities and publications are #1 even at our teaching-heavy state U. We need to know you can earn tenure, teach grad students and the competition is *(frankly)* that accomplished. That said, you should have taught at least two solo courses---adjunct outside your school, sole instructor at your grad institution, something...  Fellowships and grants are good: they mean someone thinks your work is important enough to fund.  Outside grants are always better than internal money---the idea that you are competitive in a broader pool than that which your advisor might control is a plus.

As for committee work or other "service" or socializing? We could not care less.  In fact, when there is enough to notice on an c.v. it invariably correlates with "few to no publications outside of graduate-run journals" in my experience. A few years back I saw a cover letter that seemed to be making the argument for hire based on service---Graduate Senate, grad rep on dept or college committees, you name it: this guy was first in line to volunteer. The guy kept coming back to what a "colleagial" and "community minded" (or some variation of that idea) individual he was.  Great. But you are going to do "service" whether you enjoy it or not. What I want to know is if you can teach students and push out research. The committee in question remarked on the oddness of the "package" but quickly "round filed it" in favor of people with teaching/research credentials.

work on piling those up

[chaka]

How about working on your knowledge and skills rather than your CV for a while?

[tee_bee]

I like to see a finished or nearly finished (very nearly finished) dissertation on the CV. I don't like, as even senior scholars do, a list of every single thing you've ever thought about, tweeted, or whatever. Put what's important in the CV--mindless puffery will move you from my semi-finalist list to the round file in a heartbeat.

[the_honey_badger]

I like to see a finished or nearly finished (very nearly finished) dissertation on the CV. I don't like, as even senior scholars do, a list of every single thing you've ever thought about, tweeted, or whatever. Put what's important in the CV--mindless puffery will move you from my semi-finalist list to the round file in a heartbeat.

Oh, yes, this too. Actually, this would be first and anything else a distant second.  I understand you have a zillion future project ideas---me too! But, let's see what you've actually finished and sense of what you realistically are moving toward.

[bread_pirate_naan]

I would look for something that develops your Plan B.  This may be a summer internship or experience in a closely related institution that is not academic.  (historical society, museum, literary/publishing house)  Whichever is the natural Plan B in your discipline to keep you in the mix of people who are trained or training for that field as their Plan A and may not have a PhD.

[tee_bee]

I would look for something that develops your Plan B.  This may be a summer internship or experience in a closely related institution that is not academic.  (historical society, museum, literary/publishing house)  Whichever is the natural Plan B in your discipline to keep you in the mix of people who are trained or training for that field as their Plan A and may not have a PhD.

These might add value to what we in North American call a resume, not what we call a C.V. Of course, this is field specific. A historian might find some of these "plan B" like activities compatible with plan A. But I get a lot of PhD students who ask if they should do an internship "in case academia doesn't work out." I say, sure, go for it, after you find another advisor, because I am not wasting my time training people for jobs that require an MA. Again, YMMV. But I think PhD students should go all in, at least until they finish the dissertation, lest they be sidetracked and bail out very close to the end.

[systeme_d_]

You know what?  I would advise a current PhD candidate in the humanities to get some technical skills on their CV.  Like digital humanities, or GIS, or something like that.

It would serve both Plan A (TT position) and Plan B.

[bread_pirate_naan]

I would look for something that develops your Plan B.  This may be a summer internship or experience in a closely related institution that is not academic.  (historical society, museum, literary/publishing house)  Whichever is the natural Plan B in your discipline to keep you in the mix of people who are trained or training for that field as their Plan A and may not have a PhD.

These might add value to what we in North American call a resume, not what we call a C.V. Of course, this is field specific. A historian might find some of these "plan B" like activities compatible with plan A. But I get a lot of PhD students who ask if they should do an internship "in case academia doesn't work out." I say, sure, go for it, after you find another advisor, because I am not wasting my time training people for jobs that require an MA. Again, YMMV. But I think PhD students should go all in, at least until they finish the dissertation, lest they be sidetracked and bail out very close to the end.

If you consider training academics with diverse skill sets a waste of time, I am fairly certain your experience of the humanities is different than mine.  Your cultural formation in a geographic sense is not.  Most of the senior scholars I know who have diverse skill sets related to the field get to enjoy prominent positions leading prestige projects that include a variety of institutions and funding sources.  Their reduced courseloads look good to me, and the publications that such activities produce are T&P material. 

For people who like the idea of broad-based big dollar(or your preferred currency here) funding, knowing how these institutions work and having contacts in one's network is a boon.  The is doubly true at extra-academic institutions where a PhD is a credential for leadership positions.   So, what you are considering a resume builder for MAs may actually be a context where there are a number of PhD students or exclusively PhD students in a competitive pool of applicants who will have an opportunity to have MAs as support.  I am not suggesting a development or fundraising position in an institution related to one's discipline is desirable, but one where the skills that are being acquired early on are valued and expanded.  IMO, this is not something to do ABD or when in a position to compete for juicy postdocs.    If it doesn't support your research or pedagogical interests, don't do it.

If you are suggesting your students are ripe for internships after they defend, I can't say I envy their trajectories.  As you refuse to advise students who choose portable professionalization, it would be probably be pretty hard to gauge its use value from direct experience.  YMMV. 

You know what?  I would advise a current PhD candidate in the humanities to get some technical skills on their CV.  Like digital humanities, or GIS, or something like that.

It would serve both Plan A (TT position) and Plan B.

You don't say.  The USA is actually falling behind technologically in these areas with regard to the humanities in a few ways (but only from the perspective of the leading edge, which is de-centered and networked--surprise!), but the grant money for international projects with affiliated foreign academic institutions and governments more invested in digital infrastructures and information economies is quite substantial (domestically and transnationally).  The six figure grant won by a lit postdoc and a wayward terminal degree I know with digital media expertise (not sideline) is better than most traditional, archive-bound humanities scholars will ever even think to dream of.  Of course, as the archive goes digital, knowing how to navigate those seas as an end-user position might be even more interesting from the position of those who create the currents.  An idea worth mulling over. 

Anyhoo, depending on one's institution, some of these things may be available through internal sources. This may allow for research and writing or even theory-driving experience in locales where the scholar is less isolated from practitioners with related interests at the forefront of other specializations.  This is a different sort of network which the collaborative environs you are alluding to may require. 

[the_hanged_man]

I have a question for the forumites:

Would having worked several years as a secondary teacher (including AP and IB courses) be an acceptable substitute for teaching experience? Or do you really need to have taught a couple of college courses solo in your field in order to be competitive?

[cgfunmathguy]

I have a question for the forumites:

Would having worked several years as a secondary teacher (including AP and IB courses) be an acceptable substitute for teaching experience? Or do you really need to have taught a couple of college courses solo in your field in order to be competitive?

It depends on where you're applying. CCs seem to mostly view secondary teaching and TAing on the same (mostly positive) plane. SLACs and R1s don't. These are not hard and fast rules, but they give you an idea of what's sought. In all cases, teaching college courses solo (and successfully) makes you much more competitive than someone with only secondary teaching and TAing.

[pink_]

I have a question for the forumites:

Would having worked several years as a secondary teacher (including AP and IB courses) be an acceptable substitute for teaching experience? Or do you really need to have taught a couple of college courses solo in your field in order to be competitive?

It really depends both on the job and on your competition.  If you are in a saturated field, then you need experience in the college classroom.  If you think that you want to end up at an SLAC or teaching intensive position, then generally the SC will prefer to see more experience.  Generally, I think it is a good idea to build on your secondary ed experience while in grad school even if you think you might want a job at a research-instensive institution.  

[tee_bee]

I would look for something that develops your Plan B.  This may be a summer internship or experience in a closely related institution that is not academic.  (historical society, museum, literary/publishing house)  Whichever is the natural Plan B in your discipline to keep you in the mix of people who are trained or training for that field as their Plan A and may not have a PhD.

These might add value to what we in North American call a resume, not what we call a C.V. Of course, this is field specific. A historian might find some of these "plan B" like activities compatible with plan A. But I get a lot of PhD students who ask if they should do an internship "in case academia doesn't work out." I say, sure, go for it, after you find another advisor, because I am not wasting my time training people for jobs that require an MA. Again, YMMV. But I think PhD students should go all in, at least until they finish the dissertation, lest they be sidetracked and bail out very close to the end.

If you consider training academics with diverse skill sets a waste of time, I am fairly certain your experience of the humanities is different than mine.  Your cultural formation in a geographic sense is not.  Most of the senior scholars I know who have diverse skill sets related to the field get to enjoy prominent positions leading prestige projects that include a variety of institutions and funding sources.  Their reduced courseloads look good to me, and the publications that such activities produce are T&P material. 

For people who like the idea of broad-based big dollar(or your preferred currency here) funding, knowing how these institutions work and having contacts in one's network is a boon.  The is doubly true at extra-academic institutions where a PhD is a credential for leadership positions.   So, what you are considering a resume builder for MAs may actually be a context where there are a number of PhD students or exclusively PhD students in a competitive pool of applicants who will have an opportunity to have MAs as support.  I am not suggesting a development or fundraising position in an institution related to one's discipline is desirable, but one where the skills that are being acquired early on are valued and expanded.  IMO, this is not something to do ABD or when in a position to compete for juicy postdocs.    If it doesn't support your research or pedagogical interests, don't do it.

If you are suggesting your students are ripe for internships after they defend, I can't say I envy their trajectories.  As you refuse to advise students who choose portable professionalization, it would be probably be pretty hard to gauge its use value from direct experience.  YMMV. 

You know what?  I would advise a current PhD candidate in the humanities to get some technical skills on their CV.  Like digital humanities, or GIS, or something like that.

It would serve both Plan A (TT position) and Plan B.

You don't say.  The USA is actually falling behind technologically in these areas with regard to the humanities in a few ways (but only from the perspective of the leading edge, which is de-centered and networked--surprise!), but the grant money for international projects with affiliated foreign academic institutions and governments more invested in digital infrastructures and information economies is quite substantial (domestically and transnationally).  The six figure grant won by a lit postdoc and a wayward terminal degree I know with digital media expertise (not sideline) is better than most traditional, archive-bound humanities scholars will ever even think to dream of.  Of course, as the archive goes digital, knowing how to navigate those seas as an end-user position might be even more interesting from the position of those who create the currents.  An idea worth mulling over. 

Anyhoo, depending on one's institution, some of these things may be available through internal sources. This may allow for research and writing or even theory-driving experience in locales where the scholar is less isolated from practitioners with related interests at the forefront of other specializations.  This is a different sort of network which the collaborative environs you are alluding to may require. 

First, a disclaimer--I am a social scientist. But I do deal with history students who sometimes identify as social scientists, others who identify with the humanities.

My point is straightforward--it's important to me and my department to train qualified academics. Learning skills is not a problem for me--learning GIS, or advanced methods, or database management systems, or what-have-you are great things for advancing one's cause on the job market, no doubt. But I interpreted this discussion as something along the lines of "pick up some other skills in case you have to get a non-academic job." This, to me, is a distraction. But if the skills enhance the student's skill set (sorry for the HR lingo) then, by all means, go for it.