As dissertations near completion and thoughts turn with resolution toward employment, a new batch of graduate students begins to mine the classified advertising columns (EIB) of this newsletter. The EIB is the most complete register of academic openings in history; it is, as one recently appointed assistant professor observes, “indispensable” to the aspiring academic.
This indispensability means the EIB is the most reliable measure of the academic job market for all historians, and particularly for recent doctorates. The advertisements themselves, however, are not consistent, sometimes soliciting applicants at more than one rank and occasionally omitting rank altogether. To exploit the information they contain to the fullest, we have examined the data from two perspectives. Table 1 provides data on the net number of positions open by rank and by duration, with adjustments to offset the distortion caused by advertisements that solicit applicants at more than one rank. Table 2 differentiates between advertisements that specify one rank for a position and those specifying more than one rank per position, together providing a measure of opportunities for applicants at each rank.
As Table 1—comparing 1984–85 with 1985–86—demonstrates, the number of positions advertised increased by 8 percent and the number of positions for which new PhDs would be eligible fellowships and the ranks of assistant professor, instructor, and lecturer-in creased by 16 percent (from 330 to 393). The number of tenured and tenure track positions also rose (by 12 percent), although nontenured positions did so too (8 percent). The net increase in the total number of positions advertised is more modest than these figures would suggest primarily because of a welcome 80 percent decrease in the number of advertisements not specifying rank.
By showing the number of times a rank was specified between September 1985 and May/June 1986 (whether alone or with other ranks and excluding repeat ads), Table 2 provides an index of opportunities in history. This table indicates the number of advertisements to which someone aspiring to a particular rank could have responded (excluding such undeniably important variable as field and duration). From this it can be seen that the rank of assistant professor was specified about one-and-a-half as many times as the other five ranks combined (401 against 250). And as Table 3 shows, 70 percent of the advertisements listing the rank of assistant professor were for tenured or tenure track openings compared to 69 percent overall.
What all this means is that the EIB is of the greatest utility to graduate students seeking their first jobs or recent doctorates pursuing more permanent positions. Overall, these figures point to a slow expansion of the job market for historians during the past two years, expansion at a time when the number of new history doctorates is shrinking. The number of PhDs in history fell 12 per cent between 1983–84 and 1984–85 (the last year for which figures are available, see Table 4), a reflection of declining enrollments in history programs over the past decade and, perhaps, of a lengthening of the period of doctoral study. This decline—the largest annual drop since 1976—means doctorate production has been halved since 1975–76. With demand improving as the supply, of new PhDs dwindles, employment prospects look better for those individuals now entering the job market.
But what about the many doctoral recipients of the last decade who remain in “nonacademic” or temporary aca demic jobs instead of the permanent academic positions they aspire to? Stephen Greenberg, who wrote “Life in the Adjunct Jungle” in the March 1985 Perspectives and continues to exist in that ‘Jungle,” acknowledges that “It does get harder [to find a permanent position and to conduct research] because there are only a few fellowships and research opportunities for very recent PhDs and nothing for those [in temporary positions] five years or more beyond their doctoral studies.” In Dr. Greenberg’s view, adjunct and other part-time academic positions will not only continue to be commonplace but, because they constitute a cheap labor supply, could be come the norm for history departments. Indeed, the increase in nontenured positions is the one troublesome finding in this survey-the opportunities are welcome, but what are the long-term implications for both individuals and institutions? And, as was evident at the annual meeting this past December, the pressure on those in the job market remains intense. Noting the large number of candidates applying for a temporary position, one interviewer at the Job Register commented “it is good for us, of course, but, I suspect, not so good for them.”
In short, the signs for the future are mixed. Although more positions are becoming available and the number of candidates for those positions is falling, there are still many qualified historians searching for full-time, permanent aca demic positions.
The chair of a large state university sums up the situation bluntly: “There is a lot of lipservice paid to the importance of the humanities and the broad liberal arts, but much less solid support in terms of staffing and curriculum development. If higher education is to be come what people increasingly say it should become, there has to be a dramatic increase in jobs for historians to enable them to teach small classes and to emphasize the writing and thinking skills everyone is saying are so important.”
Next month: “Nonacademic” historians and “alternative” careers for history doctorates.
