It's tangential to though implicit in your post that the pursuing a career in academia as a liberal arts is a reasonable endeavor for someone who has aptitude and interest in it. I would argue that it's not clear that such a pursuit is a reasonable endeavor.
I would not argue that such aspirations are ignoble. Rather, I would simply look at the numbers and trends and question the likelihood of success. As you point out, there are not many new positions open annually. There are only so many students that are in a position to learn a given subject, particularly in a subject like law in which the bar to enter is high. Faculty can teach well into their 60s and 70s, so there aren't too many leaving the field in a given year. I would expect the number of new faculty positions to only decrease over time, as education increases in efficiency - efficiencies in education have been slow to develop, but with the advent of MOOCs and the like, the number of students that can be taught per professor has been on the increase, especially for entry-level lecture-style courses.
In some ways, pursuing a career as an academic in the humanities is like pursuing a career in the NFL, with the notable differences of a longer career (leading to less turnover), less widespread fame, and fewer traumatic brain injuries. I wouldn't recommend to even a really good high school football player to pursue a career in the NFL without a *significant* Plan B. Likewise, for those considering a career in academia, I would suggest, in the least, mapping out an alternative, in the more than likely event that Plan A doesn't pan out for you.
Unless you're John Inazu, the Fletcher Cox of Constitutional law.
Good thoughts here, Dan. I agree with the general tenor of your comments, but there are some important variants to what counts as reasonable: (1) some humanities PhDs open up more non-university job possibilities than others; (2) some people just want the degree for its intrinsic value and/or don't need a Plan B (due to various personal circumstances). But you're certainly right about the typical candidate, especially at a school without an established pipeline to teaching positions (and there are fewer and fewer with established pipelines).
By the way, I think it would have been worth hiring you just to see how you’d make Wittgenstein intelligible. If you could do that, the nuances of law would be child’s play.
And it's worth noting that, at least in the social sciences and humanities, the searches are often for a very particular subset of the discipline--i.e. American history with a focus on the Gilded Age. When I went through my three rounds on the political theory job market, I think there were maybe 15 jobs a year that I could plausibly apply for, since no one was going to hire me to teach classical, feminist or post-colonial theory, etc.
After a career in Human Resources in the corporate world, I can confidently say that your advice fits well beyond academia. Most of us on the hiring side of an interview, I think, unless very experienced and trained in methods to focus on the potential match between needs of the job and skills of a candidate, can approach the interview with an attitude of “Let’s see if I like this person. Are they smart and fun to be with?” I recall sales managers talking about first impressions as paramount, including how confidently the candidate closed the door of the car after parking.
I loved Dear Committee Members.
John,
It's tangential to though implicit in your post that the pursuing a career in academia as a liberal arts is a reasonable endeavor for someone who has aptitude and interest in it. I would argue that it's not clear that such a pursuit is a reasonable endeavor.
I would not argue that such aspirations are ignoble. Rather, I would simply look at the numbers and trends and question the likelihood of success. As you point out, there are not many new positions open annually. There are only so many students that are in a position to learn a given subject, particularly in a subject like law in which the bar to enter is high. Faculty can teach well into their 60s and 70s, so there aren't too many leaving the field in a given year. I would expect the number of new faculty positions to only decrease over time, as education increases in efficiency - efficiencies in education have been slow to develop, but with the advent of MOOCs and the like, the number of students that can be taught per professor has been on the increase, especially for entry-level lecture-style courses.
In some ways, pursuing a career as an academic in the humanities is like pursuing a career in the NFL, with the notable differences of a longer career (leading to less turnover), less widespread fame, and fewer traumatic brain injuries. I wouldn't recommend to even a really good high school football player to pursue a career in the NFL without a *significant* Plan B. Likewise, for those considering a career in academia, I would suggest, in the least, mapping out an alternative, in the more than likely event that Plan A doesn't pan out for you.
Unless you're John Inazu, the Fletcher Cox of Constitutional law.
Good thoughts here, Dan. I agree with the general tenor of your comments, but there are some important variants to what counts as reasonable: (1) some humanities PhDs open up more non-university job possibilities than others; (2) some people just want the degree for its intrinsic value and/or don't need a Plan B (due to various personal circumstances). But you're certainly right about the typical candidate, especially at a school without an established pipeline to teaching positions (and there are fewer and fewer with established pipelines).
By the way, I think it would have been worth hiring you just to see how you’d make Wittgenstein intelligible. If you could do that, the nuances of law would be child’s play.
And it's worth noting that, at least in the social sciences and humanities, the searches are often for a very particular subset of the discipline--i.e. American history with a focus on the Gilded Age. When I went through my three rounds on the political theory job market, I think there were maybe 15 jobs a year that I could plausibly apply for, since no one was going to hire me to teach classical, feminist or post-colonial theory, etc.
Yes, for sure.
After a career in Human Resources in the corporate world, I can confidently say that your advice fits well beyond academia. Most of us on the hiring side of an interview, I think, unless very experienced and trained in methods to focus on the potential match between needs of the job and skills of a candidate, can approach the interview with an attitude of “Let’s see if I like this person. Are they smart and fun to be with?” I recall sales managers talking about first impressions as paramount, including how confidently the candidate closed the door of the car after parking.
Yikes!