The first 2009 drop is because universities got conservative in their finances and a lot of job lines, even whole departments/programs, disappeared. At the time this was very apparent — a lot of tenure-track jobs suddenly turned into short-term fellowships, for example.
-
-
Replying to @wellerstein @Ippus21
The more interesting question is why the market started to recover and crash again. Previous analysis by AHA has indicated that this may be because of demographic changes wrought by the reaction to the 2008 crash.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @wellerstein @Ippus21
One strategy universities used to decrease their costs was to encourage many faculty to embrace early retirement (buy outs). This is because senior faculty cost much more $$ per year than junior ones. But apparently that has significantly decreased the age of the profession.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @wellerstein @Ippus21
By knocking the mean age down a decade or so, it means the number of retirements per year has dropped quite a bit. Which means new lines aren't opening up as quickly. Other economic rearrangements seem to imply that lines aren't always being re-filled even if they do open up.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @wellerstein @Ippus21
In the meantime, the number of PhDs seems to just go up. Keep in mind there is a 6-8 year "lag" in people starting grad school and finishing it in history. But even with the bad market, people seem to be signing up, staying in programs, etc.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @wellerstein @Ippus21
That does produce a kind of "overproduction" of the market, IF you assume those people are trying to get tenure-track academic jobs. (In my anecdotal experience, most of them do aspire to that, though most give some bitter acknowledgment of the probability it won't happen.)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @wellerstein @Ippus21
Grad programs are incentivized to keep their rosters full because at most universities grad students are absolutely essential as a cheap labor force (in history that is mostly for teaching, in the sciences it is for research, etc.).
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @wellerstein @Ippus21
Arguably there is no real disincentive to encourage students to start grad programs — students who don't find much job success just sort of "disappear" from the view of their senior faculty, and that's that. It creates a perverse labor system IMO.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @wellerstein @Ippus21
Anyway — that's my take on the numbers and the situation. Others will have different takes, for sure. To your original question —"demand" is a tricky term to use here. Whose demand? There is high demand for grad students in History. But there are not many tenure-track jobs in it.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @wellerstein @Ippus21
There are some who don't like the language of "overproduction" because it implies that tenure-track jobs are the only reason to get a PhD, that it makes the job situation seem toxic, etc.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
My sense is that only the people who already have secure jobs (often tenure-track ones!) tend to make that argument and find it compelling, though. I received my PhD in the dark year of 2010, for what it is worth, so that might bias my analysis.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.