|
|
Post by damastes on Sept 12, 2009 6:58:28 GMT -5
I was not on the job market last year, & am wondering what people think about this year's market. Is it worse or better than last year?
My vague sense is that listings were earlier last year, but its hard for me to tell number and quality of listings. Criminology, methods, organizations, and race & ethnic studies also seem to have a large number of open positions.
Lastly, what are thoughts about a "late market"? Through the grapevine, I have heard a couple of departments say 'We are posting later this year, due to budgets.'
|
|
|
|
Post by the way on Sept 12, 2009 10:22:34 GMT -5
My impression is that this year's is quite a bit worse, even after subtracting jobs that got cancelled from last year's count.
My casual guess - perhaps based on little data - is that this year is about half of what a normal market is. But I've also heard estimates that it's more like a third of the normal size, and that something like 100 positions are available as compared to the "usual 300." If that's true, I expect it will expand some as jobs are posted later than usual. By contrast, the (again maybe unfounded) rumor around here last year was that last year's market was only down by a third or so. I think there is a lot of ambiguity in how these numbers are calculated, though, since there are open searches as well as plenty of searches not in soc departments that sociologists can apply for. Last year the vast majority of my friends on the market got jobs - I don't expect that to be the case this year.
Two years ago, ASA did a report called "Too many PhDs or too few?" (or something) that claimed that there were 400+ job openings that year - but they seem to have been counting very generously.
What do others think?
|
|
sup
New Member
Posts: 10 
|
Post by sup on Sept 12, 2009 10:34:01 GMT -5
Doesn't really answer the question about this year, but Inside Higher Ed reported last month on an ASA study of last year's job market. 415 jobs posted with ASA ; 69% were filled. General take-away was that things might not have been as bad last year as people think. www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/08/07/socjobs |
|
|
|
Post by Anotamused on Sept 12, 2009 12:19:49 GMT -5
This year's market is definitely contracted so far -- at least for me. I'm applying to the same types of jobs this years as last year (no job last year, just a PhD). I have less than half as many schools on my list to apply to by every deadline date so far. For some weeks, about a quarter as many.
The prospect of the late posting of ads is the only thing keeping me from utter despair. :-(
|
|
|
|
Post by lagallinadiabolica on Sept 12, 2009 15:55:38 GMT -5
one major difference Ive noticed this year is a lot more positions with open specialties...
|
|
|
|
Post by splat on Sept 12, 2009 16:42:12 GMT -5
Umm, there are currently 6 positions listed as "open" specialty on the ASA job bank. I've noticed the opposite from the previous poster...it seems like more departments are assessing their needs and looking for a specific type, or types, of research expertise.
|
|
|
|
Post by lagallinadiabolica on Sept 12, 2009 18:23:24 GMT -5
Umm, there are currently 6 positions listed as "open" specialty on the ASA job bank. I've noticed the opposite from the previous poster...it seems like more departments are assessing their needs and looking for a specific type, or types, of research expertise. You are looking at it wrong. 6 positions explicitly picked "open." But a much more significant number of universities picked "any and all specialties that match the department." Just looking through the subforum here, I can also count: westminster college university of sidney university of newcastle knox college st louis u barnard college duke wheaton college kutztown rice university and this is only looking through the first 2 pages of the forum (out of 7) and not counting the 6 that show on ASA's job bank. And I didnt count the ones that said it was open if they were in specialized depts (crim., Africana, etc). In comparison to last year, there are a lot more positions that say "open specialty but preference if it strengthens our core program." |
|
|
|
Post by onionface on Sept 12, 2009 19:33:14 GMT -5
"Specialties that match the department's core strengths" is not an open search.
|
|
|
|
Post by lagallinadiabolica on Sept 12, 2009 20:27:54 GMT -5
"Specialties that match the department's core strengths" is not an open search. As much as I would like to waste my time discussing what is an open search, I will take the departments' description of the position speak for themselves. But hey, if it will make you feel better, let me amend my first statement: "there seems to be a larger number of positions that say that " The area(s) of specialization are open, but we are looking for scholars who complement the strengths of the existing faculty"" There, are you happier now? Im not going to discuss whether "open, but with preference for candidates who match the dept. strengths" is really open or not. But I think its undeniable, based on everyone, faculty and candidates alike, that a lot more places are describing their positions as open (even if sometimes going on to stipulating some preferences) than last year. |
|
anon
New Member
Posts: 1 
|
Post by anon on Sept 12, 2009 20:49:44 GMT -5
I don't see how "open" and "open, but matching dept. strengths" is any different, given that Im sure that any open position will take into account matching the dept. strengths or specialties.
I take open to mean "multiple specialties within reason."
In any case, my experience is that this year I am applying to more open positions than last year. So much so that Ive had to really work and discuss some letters of applications with my advisor. How in the world do you "sell yourself" to a place that is looking for anything?
Anyways, that is my experience. And I am fully open to the possibility that there arent more open positions this time around, but I am noticing them more as I lower my standards in my desperation for a job. So my very limited, very subjective, prone to all sorts of personal biases, opinion is there are a number of department who have defined what they need pretty broadly.
Now, as far as it being a late market, my guess is that it will depend on how many of the positions being filled right now are being filled with assistant professors from other places. If a lot of current assistant professors move around early, we could see a large number of late positions.
|
|
|
|
Post by dutyhead on Sept 13, 2009 8:21:29 GMT -5
As much as I would like to waste my time discussing what is an open search, I will take the departments' description of the position speak for themselves. But hey, if it will make you feel better, let me amend my first statement: "there seems to be a larger number of positions that say that " The area(s) of specialization are open, but we are looking for scholars who complement the strengths of the existing faculty"" There, are you happier now? Im not going to discuss whether "open, but with preference for candidates who match the dept. strengths" is really open or not. But I think its undeniable, based on everyone, faculty and candidates alike, that a lot more places are describing their positions as open (even if sometimes going on to stipulating some preferences) than last year. You sure spent a lot of time talking about something you said you weren't going to talk about. I win. |
|
