next »

[historyphd]

I've read several threads where European PhDs have been discussed -- fairly or not -- and whether and how they play in the U.S. job market.

I thought it would be instructive and interesting to hear from those of you with, specifically, British PhDs (or even simply non-US PhDs) who have, in fact, landed tenure-track US jobs.  How did you do it, as there seems to be a widespread belief that British PhDs are somehow less?  What experiences did you have on the US job market that can be seen as lessons?

I hold a PhD from a major, non-Oxbridge but famous and ancient university, where I studied with big-gun scholars, and am in a tt position at a well-known US university.  On the job market, I've often thought I faced prejudice about my degree, which I chalked up to American exceptionalism.  But I think I was ultimately successful in landing my tt job for several reasons, excepting luck of course.

1. I'm American and have an American undergraduate degree and an American master's degree both from well-known universities, along with having studied with well-known scholar during my master's.  2. I have an extensive publication record.  3. Though I had grad school teaching experience in both the US & UK, I taught over several years as either an adjunct or VAP and therefore have a lot of teaching experience.  4.  As others have noted, I have both US & UK letters of reference, each which addresses my strengths differently whether research, teaching, or both.

[historyphd]

I would add that I think my main weakness on the job market was not having a minor teaching field, but I was able to carve one out during my years as a VAP.

[hegemony]

I have a British PhD and I had no trouble landing a job in the U.S.  I think it may partially depend on the field and the year you're applying.  You also need a good PhD topic and superb application materials (this is true no matter where you got your PhD).  I've seen a number of people fail to make the short list just because their applications were a little peculiar-looking.  You might ask someone knowledgeable to look over your application materials and give you their candid opinion.

[embitteredhistorian]

I have a British PhD and I had no trouble landing a job in the U.S.  I think it may partially depend on the field and the year you're applying.  You also need a good PhD topic and superb application materials (this is true no matter where you got your PhD).  I've seen a number of people fail to make the short list just because their applications were a little peculiar-looking.  You might ask someone knowledgeable to look over your application materials and give you their candid opinion.

Peculiar how?

[lorelei]

Some tips from an earlier discussion

http://chronicle.com/forums/index.php/topic,58622.msg1221208.html#msg1221208

I have no idea where this "birthdate on the CV" thing comes from, but I saw it recently on the (Online) cv of a British-educated academic working in the US.

[embitteredhistorian]

Some tips from an earlier discussion

http://chronicle.com/forums/index.php/topic,58622.msg1221208.html#msg1221208

I have no idea where this "birthdate on the CV" thing comes from, but I saw it recently on the (Online) cv of a British-educated academic working in the US.

Ah, yes, I did see that before. Birthdate, gender, driver's license status, marital status were commonly on UK CVs for years, which I found amusing when compared to the UK's move towards American-style political correctness.

Things are much worse in Asia, where employers ask for photographs in application packets--it's no surprise western professors weren't going for those jobs! Fortunately, at least Korean universities are beginning to stop this idiotic practice.

[lorelei]

Some tips from an earlier discussion

http://chronicle.com/forums/index.php/topic,58622.msg1221208.html#msg1221208

I have no idea where this "birthdate on the CV" thing comes from, but I saw it recently on the (Online) cv of a British-educated academic working in the US.

Ah, yes, I did see that before. Birthdate, gender, driver's license status, marital status were commonly on UK CVs for years, which I found amusing when compared to the UK's move towards American-style political correctness.

Things are much worse in Asia, where employers ask for photographs in application packets--it's no surprise western professors weren't going for those jobs! Fortunately, at least Korean universities are beginning to stop this idiotic practice.

Photos in applications are common in some European countries too. I always assumed the French wanted to check that you were appropriately 'bleu, blanc, rouge'...

[embitteredhistorian]

Some tips from an earlier discussion

http://chronicle.com/forums/index.php/topic,58622.msg1221208.html#msg1221208

I have no idea where this "birthdate on the CV" thing comes from, but I saw it recently on the (Online) cv of a British-educated academic working in the US.

Ah, yes, I did see that before. Birthdate, gender, driver's license status, marital status were commonly on UK CVs for years, which I found amusing when compared to the UK's move towards American-style political correctness.

Things are much worse in Asia, where employers ask for photographs in application packets--it's no surprise western professors weren't going for those jobs! Fortunately, at least Korean universities are beginning to stop this idiotic practice.

Photos in applications are common in some European countries too. I always assumed the French wanted to check that you were appropriately 'bleu, blanc, rouge'...

Wow.

I guess I need to stop chastising the Koreans for being so backwards, then.

[jerseyjay]

I am in a similar situation, having a history PhD from a good non-Oxbridge English school. I am a VAP, not TT. I would say that my PhD is an issue; not necessarilly a bad issue, not necessarilly a good issue. I won't repeat the comments I made here: http://chronicle.com/forums/index.php/topic,64578.msg1429939.html#msg1429939

In terms of photos, etc., on the CV. I am bemused every time there is this same discussion on the fora (say every three or four months). Photos, birthdays, national security numbers, marital status, etc., are a) common in many other countries b)not common in the U.S (for good reason, in my opinion). If somebody puts this data on his CV, it a sign of not being familiar with an American-style CV, not of mental derangement. When I lived in several other countries (not at once obviously), I had to put all this info on my CV.

[minira]

I hold a PhD from a major, non-Oxbridge but famous and ancient university, where I studied with big-gun scholars, and am in a tt position at a well-known US university.  On the job market, I've often thought I faced prejudice about my degree, which I chalked up to American exceptionalism.  But I think I was ultimately successful in landing my tt job for several reasons, excepting luck of course.

1. I'm American and have an American undergraduate degree and an American master's degree both from well-known universities, along with having studied with well-known scholar during my master's.  2. I have an extensive publication record.  3. Though I had grad school teaching experience in both the US & UK, I taught over several years as either an adjunct or VAP and therefore have a lot of teaching experience.  4.  As others have noted, I have both US & UK letters of reference, each which addresses my strengths differently whether research, teaching, or both.

Historyphd: this is a little eerie. My situation is basically the same as yours (in fact, based on your description I strongly suspect we came from the same PhD program), except I'm just starting my job search. My undergrad degree is from a big-name US college, Masters and PhD from ancient and well-known British university (not Oxbridge).

I just finished my PhD and landed my first job in the US, a VAP gig. The only weirdness is that I have to get my PhD and Masters 'validated' by a third agency, but the university is reimbursing me for that.  I've also had a few phone interviews with mid-tier midwestern SLACs for VAP and tenure-track posts: still waiting to hear back on two of those.

I went ahead and bought several of the 'advice for the academic job market' books and pretty much memorized them and looked at their sample documents closely.   This, and sample CVs from some very well-known American universities' career services helped shape my application materials.

My referees are British, but at least one is a big name in the US and two are familiar with the American system. I made very sure, when requesting references, to give them a summary of the 'angle' I was taking in each application (i.e. "This post is advertising for a specialty in X. My application emphasizes the role of X in my dissertation and future work, especially in cases A, B and C. I also stress my experience teaching X in History 2045, which I taught in 2005 and 2007.")

I also made a point of stating, in the cover letter, that I was planning to move back to the US very soon, and would be living there from X date (that date being about a month before any interviews would be taking place).

[historyphd]

Good luck with that!  I should add that while I'm sure my British PhD has made it difficult for me in some job hunts (quite unfairly), I do think it helped with my current job given what they were looking for.

Thankfully, with all my US jobs I've never had to use a validation agency for my PhD.  If asked I probably would have said something like: "Really?  Seriously?"  Then I would have said something to the effect that my university was older than both the US and any American university or college, and that famous X, Y, and Z Americans once went there.  And then said: You've heard of the Enlightenment, right?  Then in the back of my head I'd calling them ignorant this and that!  Ok, maybe not all to their faces!

It seems to me that institutions requiring third party validation for degrees, outside of degrees taken at places like East Uzbekistan University (I made that up), is yet another example of American exceptionalism.

[minira]

Good luck with that!  I should add that while I'm sure my British PhD has made it difficult for me in some job hunts (quite unfairly), I do think it helped with my current job given what they were looking for.

Thankfully, with all my US jobs I've never had to use a validation agency for my PhD.  If asked I probably would have said something like: "Really?  Seriously?"  Then I would have said something to the effect that my university was older than both the US and any American university or college, and that famous X, Y, and Z Americans once went there.  And then said: You've heard of the Enlightenment, right?  Then in the back of my head I'd calling them ignorant this and that!  Ok, maybe not all to their faces!

It seems to me that institutions requiring third party validation for degrees, outside of degrees taken at places like East Uzbekistan University (I made that up), is yet another example of American exceptionalism.

I would agree, but apparently it's their accreditation org that requires all overseas degrees go through this process (doubtless instituted to assess people with degrees from sketchy places, or just from newer universities without an overseas rep. It doesn't help that so many UK universities are simply named for their location: makes it harder to distinguish between the old and the new or ex-vocational places). But yeah. Seriously?!

[monita]

I don't think questions about European PhDs are always cases of American exceptionalism, or come from any doubts about accreditation or quality of education; I think the process is just very different and leads to different sets of skills.  In my field (in the US), it's standard to do a 4-year BA or BS, 2-year MA/MS, 2 years of coursework, then comps, then at least 1 year in the field, and then write a 200+ page dissertation.  In many research institutions, it's also typical for MA and PhD students to teach from the MA level through completion.  I've always heard that the British system is much more specialized, with a 3-year bachelors, a 1-year masters, and no course work before starting the PhD research, which is often under a scholar on an existing project.  That leads me to believe that UK PhDs come out of grad school with much better research skills and a tighter specialization, while US PhDs have more experience teaching and developing new projects from the ground-up.

That is based on my experience in the US, and friends/family who've studied in Britain.  I could be way off.

[embitteredhistorian]

I don't think questions about European PhDs are always cases of American exceptionalism, or come from any doubts about accreditation or quality of education; I think the process is just very different and leads to different sets of skills.  In my field (in the US), it's standard to do a 4-year BA or BS, 2-year MA/MS, 2 years of coursework, then comps, then at least 1 year in the field, and then write a 200+ page dissertation.  In many research institutions, it's also typical for MA and PhD students to teach from the MA level through completion.  I've always heard that the British system is much more specialized, with a 3-year bachelors, a 1-year masters, and no course work before starting the PhD research, which is often under a scholar on an existing project.  That leads me to believe that UK PhDs come out of grad school with much better research skills and a tighter specialization, while US PhDs have more experience teaching and developing new projects from the ground-up.

That is based on my experience in the US, and friends/family who've studied in Britain.  I could be way off.

I'd agree with this, to a certain extent. But it should also be pointed out that a lot of European Ph.d.s involve a great deal of teaching, coursework, and stuff more comparable to U.S. degrees. I still think a lot of SCs will look at applications and ask "well, why didn't he do his Ph.D. here?"

[wet_blanket]

I don't think questions about European PhDs are always cases of American exceptionalism, or come from any doubts about accreditation or quality of education; I think the process is just very different and leads to different sets of skills.  In my field (in the US), it's standard to do a 4-year BA or BS, 2-year MA/MS, 2 years of coursework, then comps, then at least 1 year in the field, and then write a 200+ page dissertation.  In many research institutions, it's also typical for MA and PhD students to teach from the MA level through completion.  I've always heard that the British system is much more specialized, with a 3-year bachelors, a 1-year masters, and no course work before starting the PhD research, which is often under a scholar on an existing project.  That leads me to believe that UK PhDs come out of grad school with much better research skills and a tighter specialization, while US PhDs have more experience teaching and developing new projects from the ground-up.

That is based on my experience in the US, and friends/family who've studied in Britain.  I could be way off.

Presumably US PhDs aren't inadequately prepared for research, though?  I wonder if these other models might be excessive?  I did a year abroad in a Commonwealth country. My friends' Masters theses approached the 200+ pages you mention, while the PhDs were about double that.

I dunno, maybe that does mean people will be far better researchers.  It seemed like overkill to me.  Moreso when, as this thread highlights, US institutions assume that these degrees are sub-standard.