History departments and the search for truth

[SteveMetz]

Ugh.

Of course, the number reference immediately created the image of a satirical redo of "The 300," except instead of fearsome warriors, it's historians.

Based on my observation, historians aren't nearly as buff as Spartan warriors. Or as oily.

To tell the truth, after grad school I applied to several hundred places (in political science) and never got a tenure track job at a place I wanted to be (and I had degree completed, several refereed publications, teaching awards, etc.). I sort of stumbled into the military professional education system and found it significantly more rewarding.

[Sargent]

Based on my observation, historians aren't nearly as buff as Spartan warriors. Or as oily.

To tell the truth, after grad school I applied to several hundred places (in political science) and never got a tenure track job at a place I wanted to be (and I had degree completed, several refereed publications, teaching awards, etc.). I sort of stumbled into the military professional education system and found it significantly more rewarding.

As to the first... After a few drinks at the bar at the conference they like to think they are!

As to the second... I would be happy to stumble, trip, get shoved into, skip, sprint, crawl, or otherwise end up in the military professional education system. While there are things that I find appealing about traditional public/private colleges/universities, I think that contemporary military affairs jones will always be there, and working in the military schools offers the opportunity to satisfy it within the bounds of my actual job.

Oh, and please tell me that "several hundred" is an exaggeration!

[marct]

Hi Sargent,

Oh, and please tell me that "several hundred" is an exaggeration!

It wasn't for me. I think I applied to about 200 positions in the first couple of years around getting my Ph.D. In my case, I suspect that one of the things that turned a lot of commitees off was that they couldn't categorize me neatly into a pidgeon hole. Canadian PhD's often have the reverse problem when applying for US positions from Euro Ph.D.'s; most of the time we have a 2 year MA along with a 6 year Ph.D., so we frequently appear to be over-qualified. We also tend to be trained more in theory that US Ph.D.'s, at least in Soc and Anthro. I know that in my case, one of the problems was having degrees in three different disciplines <shrug>.

As to the second... I would be happy to stumble, trip, get shoved into, skip, sprint, crawl, or otherwise end up in the military professional education system. While there are things that I find appealing about traditional public/private colleges/universities, I think that contemporary military affairs jones will always be there, and working in the military schools offers the opportunity to satisfy it within the bounds of my actual job.

It's odd where we end up. I've had to reconstruct myself as an "applied Anthropologist" (I'm really a theoretcian) and now I find my home in an Interdisicplinary Studies program (along with consulting work). I'd also be happy to "stumble" into a position that would let me pursue my own research, teach and have some applied value more than how to market new widgets .

Marc

[selil]

It wasn't for me. I think I applied to about 200 positions in the first couple of years around getting my Ph.D.

I applied to five universities and got offers from three.

With only a masters degree in computer science.

I'll finish my PhD course work at a top 10 University this fall or next spring, and I'm already writing on my dissertation. I'm scheduled to be up for tenure review and finishing/defending my dissertation the same semester (can't you seem my enthusiasm?)

[120mm]

My brother-in-law is an EE professor at a Big Ten university. The typical professor there makes about $48,000 - 52,000 per annum, according to the last state employee wage summary. HE makes significantly more than $100,000.

Sometimes, it's good to be a tech guy.

[lysander6]

I think it is rather silly to assume that objective history is possible due to the inherent tendency to think within the confines of your nascent philosophical or social framework. I would simply like to know the political bent of any writer so I know what to expect. Even though I can usually divine the unacknowledged bias, there are practitioners among the neocons and lefty enviruses, for instance, that coat their prognostications in scientific certitude or leave out important observations or facts that may color their conclusions.

Whether the Grand Old Politburo or the Demosocialists, my political demarcations are between collectivists and individualists or interventionists and non-interventionists. Once that marker is established, it is pretty clear that either party disagrees on much of anything.

[selil]

I
Whether the Grand Old Politburo or the Demosocialists, my political demarcations are between collectivists and individualists or interventionists and non-interventionists. Once that marker is established, it is pretty clear that either party disagrees on much of anything.

So your bias is polarization and don't bother with shades of gray?