MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4239376754 · doi:10.1353/esc.2009.0034

Career Opportunities

2009· article· en· W4239376754 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nicholas Bradley

Bibliographic record

VenueEnglish studies in Canada · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicCommunity Development and Social Impact
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)InterimInstitutionScheduleJob marketIncentiveSociologyPublic relationsPsychologyWork (physics)ManagementLawPolitical scienceEngineeringHistoryEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Career Opportunities Nicholas Bradley (bio) The paradigmatic academic career seems so straightforward: get the degree, get a job, get promoted through the ranks. Actual careers seldom follow the model; in particular, the move from graduate school to a permanent position rarely happens without interim steps, if at all. But if that job appears, adapting to it (and the paycheque) is not hard. Certain obvious differences exist between graduate school and tenure-stream work, but none is unusually burdensome. Teaching a full course load is time-consuming, but the shock soon dissipates. The schedule lends structure to weeks and terms, a not unwelcome change from the relatively unstructured and solitary days of thesis writing. Committee work is sometimes onerous, but such obligations are not always unpleasant, nor are they unfamiliar to those who have performed university service at earlier stages of their careers. My own recent entry into the profession—I’ve been teaching full-time for three years—has been relatively uncomplicated. But one thorny issue, which places the transition from graduate school to the workplace in the broader context of the academic job market, has been consistently taxing: dealing with students who want to become academics themselves. [End Page 23] I find the material elements of the job easier to manage than the less tangible aspects of the shift from cloistered student to professor with a public role. I don’t mean that the job confers celebrity (if only!) but, rather, that faculty members represent to students the profession and the institution. New professors find themselves sudden authorities and gatekeepers, embedded in a system that, when it comes to graduate school, is evidently failing. To put it bluntly, the basic requirements of teaching—to generate excitement about the humanities, to make literary studies seem vital and intellectual life attractive—conflict with the need to counsel students about job prospects for those with graduate degrees in English, especially the phd. The details of the employment crisis in the humanities don’t need to be rehashed.1 It is a truth universally acknowledged, after all, that the profession is scarcely in want of more supremely qualified graduates of excellent doctoral programs who cannot find satisfactory work. And everyone agrees that getting a job requires good fortune—although it is a fiction widely entertained that those who do not secure permanent jobs are somehow less suitable than those who do. The infamous articles in the Chronicle of Higher Education denouncing graduate school as a cult and the life of the mind as a “big lie” have said all that can be said from the pessimist’s perspective.2 But our collective hand-wringings are unknown to each new cohort of students who want to pursue a higher degree: that an employment crisis exists must be explained anew to successive waves of students. In my experience, virtually all graduate students arrive unaware of hiring trends and the differences among types of academic appointment. The others typically fail to grasp the seriousness of the situation. Nor should we expect otherwise—students are justly excited by their recent achievements of convocation and matriculation. Moreover, it seems duplicitous to temper students’ enthusiasm immediately: Welcome to grad school! Too bad you came. How then to encourage students without perpetuating false expectations? And how to treat students candidly while meeting departmental needs, particularly when programs aspire to attract top candidates and therefore cannot advise students impartially? Considerable capital, figurative [End Page 24] and actual, is at stake in sending students to master’s and doctoral programs; departments and individual professors profit from the prestige. Graduate students early in their studies can deflect anxiety about future employment into a gallows humour that fosters camaraderie; into blind faith—many students have only ever known academic success, so ultimate failure, or only partly satisfactory outcomes, can hardly be imagined; or into hard work on research and teaching, the ostensible keys to the lock of employment. But those of us with recent experience of searching for work know that options may well not materialize. It becomes apparent, on the job market, that publications and awards do not guarantee success. And the consequences of a failed search come into view, perhaps for the...

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.270
Threshold uncertainty score0.432

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.224
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.047 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnglish studies in CanadaSame topicCommunity Development and Social ImpactFrench-language works237,207