Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
In history, that gap only goes back really to 2008, but in some other humanities disciplines, hiring has been underwater since the 90s. The terrifying thing about the history graph is that for the humanities, history is relatively *better* than most. 14/25
All of that then runs into this year. Obvious there's no data for this year, but signs point to a year probably not meaningfully better than 2019 or 2020. But we know one thing that is likely to be higher: PhDs granted. 15/25
Most departments I have knowledge of either formally or informally did the same thing: they extended all of their PhDs an extra year. Which means both the classes of 2020 and 2021 are going to be on the market this year. Along with a *decade's* worth of job debt. 16/25
Of course everyone thinks they have it hard! We are humans and so we can feel our own hardships but can only observe the hardships of others. But, my friends, this is why we have data. And the data tells us that, yes indeed the current situation is *different.* 17/25
I understand why it seems like so many academics off of the job market want to believe that current conditions aren't *that* different from what they experienced. It's comforting, it lets them believe that they got their jobs from merit and not luck... 18/25
...that if they were on this job market today, they'd succeed there too. Those kids, they think, just need to stick it out a year or two, like I did! There's comfort there. But just because something is comforting doesn't make it true. 19/25
Worse yet, that vision provides an excuse not to do anything, to tell one's self that, with a bit of (someone else's) elbow grease, at least the 'worthy' candidates will all find jobs. 20/25
But a system with this much of a mismatch stops being able to detect the best candidates. Given so many candidates and so few hires, departments hire 'for promise' accepting sight-unseen candidates with good pedigrees. You can see it here: 21/25pic.twitter.com/6qnpetrJbT
It sure seems to me that most departments have at least one disaster hired 'for promise' so this is hardly good for departments either. Meanwhile good candidates with great CVs languish because they were unlucky in that crucial first year...22/25
...and hiring committees that don't understand what has changed don't give them a second look because they assume that if you've been on the market for 3-4 years you must be bad. But that's just *normal* now - those candidates are fine! 23/25
Solutions? 1) Jobs-having academics need to abandon the comforting lies for the uncomfortable, data-driven truth. Yes, the job market is different now. 2) Stop 'hiring for promise.' It's a bad strategy that is all about delaying compromises by accepting risk. 24/25
And finally: 3) The market is never coming back. Given that, grad programs need to cut slots, probably by about half. Keeping current numbers is actively perpetuating a system of academic exploitation - and we all know what we think about labor exploiters. end/25
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
