next »

[erzuliefreda]

This story sounds fascinating: Historians Face New Pressures to Track Ph.D.'s

I know that most doctoral programs in the humanities have long blurred placement data by selectively ignoring folks who drop out, those who never apply for FT positions, etc., and simply reporting on a few of their most successful graduates. Is the tide turning?

[Free link added. -moderator]

[weathered]

Can we request CHE to release (open up) this article to public? I don't want to pay $40 to read one article!

[watermarkup]

It's a good article (that I read through an institutional license), and I hope the mods provide a free link.

Best quote, from a Rutgers history professor:

"History faculty, along with the humanities generally, always resist controls over whether what they are doing is worth anything," says Mr. Bell. "If you look at some of the numbers published on department Web sites, they range from dishonest to incompetent."

And remember, part of the recent NRC rankings of grad programs was based on these self-reported dishonest and/or incompetent numbers. It's too easy to leave out of the equation John, who went back to his own country and hasn't been heard from since, and Anna, who was geographically constrained and found a good staff job at the university, and Larry, who was already working in the software industry when he defended, and Tina, who adjuncted somewhere but who hasn't been heard from for a while. Except for them (and dozens more just like them), we have a perfect placement rate!

At least the historians are talking about this. My MLA discipline lost its only semi-accurate listing of completed dissertations a few years ago, with nothing to replace it yet, and our annual "Faculty in Etruscan Studies" list is horribly inaccurate in reporting new hires. The grad programs have no incentive to make their placement rates public or transparent, and the disciplinary organizations have no interest in it, either.

Octoprof's comment on the article is pretty good. Hopefully she'll repeat it here.

Does anyone know if it's possible to search within the "Survey of Earned Doctorates" data to see, for example, who completed a dissertation in Basketweaving in 2007, or at least how many people did? I've tried to do that before, but never been able to figure out how. Do you have to pay for access to the data?

[weathered]

Thanks for the summary!

[larryc]

I have requested a free link and it will probably be along shortly.

[weathered]

Nice!

I have requested a free link and it will probably be along shortly.

[moderator]

Hi all,

I've added a free link above.

Best wishes,

moderator

[erzuliefreda]

Thanks for the free link, CHE!

This is, I think, the real issue:

""Historians are a very conservative bunch, and there's a real looking down your nose at alternative careers for Ph.D.'s," says Mr. Bell of Rutgers. He and others say this attitude, which extends to Ph.D.'s who choose to teach at community colleges and at four-year colleges that primarily emphasize teaching, may be hampering departments' ability to keep track of Ph.D.'s who might feel embarrassed about not landing a job on the tenure track and don't report their career status.""

Historians aren't actually stupid. They are masters of both qualitative and quantitative data analysis and could have tracked placement all along quite well. They didn't want to because:

1) Why track data that may not make you look good? What is the incentive?
2) They wanted to convey that Ph.D. History programs are not trade schools and have never guaranteed employment. I understand this concept--your success depends on you and what you do, and the job market has been rough for decades. But it is also a way to evade any analysis of who is succeeding and when.
3) Top Ph.D. programs know that they will not be as successful at recruiting grad students if they post that their recent grads are working at Community Colleges and regional universities of which you have never heard.

[bacardiandlime]

I agree with erzuliefrieda. In addition, there is the effort involved in keeping track of graduates. When I finished my PhD, I was asked to complete a survey which included what (if any) job I was going to. But the university doesn't have my contact details now (since my grad school email was cut off after graduation), and they wouldn't have a clue what any of us are doing down the line.

That's the problem with placement data on department websites that tend to list where a PhD graduate went first, but not where they ended up (as well as the practice of listing someone as being employed at University of Wherever, when they are only adjuncting there).

My PhD department graduates 50 PhDs in history every year. From the year I finished (2007-2008), I decided to track for myself where people ended up. It isn't pretty. Four years out (which would be the time by which most people would have found a tenure-track job, if they're going to find one at all):

10 in a T-T, or permanent position
10 in postdoc, or limited-term teaching position, adjunct or research assistant
2 in university admin
2 teaching at secondary schools
4 working outside academia

The rest, no idea - but no trace of them on any university websites.
(to add - I am tracking 45 people in this cohort)

[weathered]

Well, they are being ostriches. If students spent 6-10 years below poverty line and in their 30s or 40s when they hit the market and there is no way to earn their bread, it's not something their departments can ignore. I am sure many of them used to work in libraries, as TAs, RAs, and adjunct lecturers while in grad school. So they already spent some 10 years as super cheap labor in their own universities. Now they have grown old and finally qualified to get a job, they are out?

2) They wanted to convey that Ph.D. History programs are not trade schools and have never guaranteed employment. I understand this concept--your success depends on you and what you do, and the job market has been rough for decades. But it is also a way to evade any analysis of who is succeeding and when.