Daughter doing modern history and loving it . How does she get to teaching at uni level ?

[Molly333]

As above my daughter's at UEA doing modern history loving it . She's saying she wants to teach at uni but what is the progression stages for this ? Can anyone advise ? Thank you so much

There's a bit of mis-information & hearsay on this thread, coming from posters who don't have first hand experience of working as an academic.

My comments are all qualified by "usually" and "generally" and are from the POV of an Humanities discipline.

The standard academic contract is the "three-legged" one which requires teaching, research, and administration, usually (in a standard contract) of roughly equal proportions, although the day to day balance will change depending on time of year, leave arrangements etc. At my institution, there is still the tradition of the "research day" during term time, one day a week (on a full-time contract) where you can expect not to have teaching or meetings timetabled, but often one can go at least 6 weeks without this actually being a reality.

Academic admin roles range from Head of Department (or Vice Chancellor!) to doing the orders for the Library. Admin also includes all the admin we all do to support our own teaching: I sometimes seem to be the world's most highly paid filing clerk (I'm a senior professor but still do all my own admin work + a lot of other stuff).

There are also teaching-only contracts, where the teaching load is proportionately higher, and administrative roles may also be the more time-consuming ones.

We work far more than a 35 hour week, especially during teaching terms, and especially if we're very research active in the Humanities & Social Sciences, as research is less well supported by external funding (which usually buys us out of teaching). I do tend to take annual/holiday leave at Easter & in August, simply so that I can get on with writing and can choose whether or not to attend any meetings to which I'm summoned in that time of leave.

In a social conversation with one VC, he told me that over the previous 18 months, he'd had one evening at home (and this included weekends). Not a job I'd do even for the money they pay.

My question if anyone can help is. When choosing a PhD to do does it matter which uni to go to do it? My dd also wants to become a lecturer at uni too
Good supervisor at not a reknowed uni or go to prestige uni but supervisor is fairly new to the post.

It's not an either/or.

And it is hugely discipline-dependent. In the Humanities, it will matter which university the PhD is from, but that's not the only thing that matters.

And the quality of the supervision is important, but not the only thing that matters. Most decent research-intensive universities will appoint 3 supervisors anyway, so there is aways another voice & expertise.

In making appointments. I always like to see mobility. I think that this shows a robustness of the work and a desire to put your research out there - I'm actually not that impressed by someone who does BA, MA, and PhD all at the same place (even if it's Oxbridge!). Although there can be good reason to stay - access to relevant archives/research resources, expertise etc.

But some postdoc schemes require mobility - at the very least a change from Bachelor's institution to Postdoc institution.

I think that you need a supervisor who is research-active, who has good networks in the discipline: someone who is publishing and/or winning grants and/or visibly active in the discipline.

However, it's almost impossible to predict. 3-4 years ago, in my subject area, there were still some good jobs about. Now it's really drying up. Austerity is hitting, and universities are pulling back. When undergrad fees go down to £7,500 it will get far worse (take note all you complainers about fees - you're complicit in wrecking a really world-class HE system).

But that could change when universities realise they actually do need staff to do stuff like, ummm, teaching undergrads. And post-Brexit when there's a huge skills deficit. And when we replace the lost fees income because of the fees reduction coming, with international student income. And they'll be paying he actual cost of teaching etc, so will rightly demand adequate staffing for teaching!

So in 5 to 6 years' time there may be a few more jobs about than there are now. It's cyclical, but the cycles are increasingly volatile.

There are areas in science where getting a permanent job after one research postdoc is perfectly normal - and becoming a professor on 65k+ within 10 years of PhD is also achievable.

Forgive me, because I'm not in sciences. But, while I'm sure this is true, I think it gives a slightly false impression. Yes, if you look at all UK profs in a discipline, I would imagine quite a few got to the professorship within 10 years of PhD. And if you looked at everyone with permanent jobs, a fair few of them would have done only one postdoc.

The problem is, if you look at it the other way, how many PhDs go on to get a permanent job? And how many then go on to become profs (whether in 10 years or not)? Vanishingly few.

There are probably better employment opportunities for science PhDs who don't continue to academia than there are for historians, and (as a medievalist) I think it is important to think about what you would do if you got to the end of a PhD, loved teaching and research and were eminently employable, but ended up finding you simply weren't getting the jobs. It is a big chunk of your life (and a lot of money, even if you get a scholarship for the PhD).

For some depressing but actual data on the numbers of posts in history, direct your daughter to this blog: manyheadedmonster.wordpress.com/2019/03/07/historians-phds-and-jobs-1995-96-to-2017-18/

I'd recommend, if possible, for her to ask her lecturers about becoming a student representative or similar for her course. It'll vary depending on the university, but for me, it involved being part of regular meetings with staff in my subject. It was a good behind the scenes look at some of the admin and general working side of things. I think that might help to see whether academia is for her or - if teaching is her main interest - whether FE or similar might suit her better.

The headline figure from the blog I quote is that every year one PhD in history is awarded for each five permanent post-holders - if they all seek academic jobs, in order for the profession to absorb them, twenty per cent of the current holders would have to retire/resign/die every year. That doesn't happen, and won't.

Most historians who do PhDs aspire, at least in the beginning, to academic careers. On the numbers, most of them will fail: some will drop out, some will develop different career aspirations, many will spend up to a decade in precarious employment, teaching different courses at several institutions each year in order to earn enough to live on, while trying to maintain the research profile that is essential to landing one of the few permanent posts. And every year a new cohort of PhDs comes on the market, fresher, less jaded, less exhausted.

We all assume we will be one of the lucky ones; most of us aren't.

DS is in the first year of a PhD. Fuzzy's advice rings true. DS loved his subject so most things he did were because he was interested, but having a good network and being able to tap into other people's experience did him no harm. What he did included:

1. Be active in the subject society, including being part of some voluntary UG student research. (They came within a whisper of being invited to the US to present but just as useful was the fact that helpful academics opened their address books so they got to meet interesting people). The results of one project, which was of more general interest, got printed in the student newspaper.

1. Student rep. DS was lucky as his tenure coincided with a major departmental review. Plus there were some tricky issues that other students asked him to raise, which he then had to present in an evidenced and tactful way.

1. His department had a good programme of voluntary lectures from visiting profs and/or PhD students. He also got to attend some form of peer review session for post grads, mainly because he asked and he was the only UG to do so. They also had peer support seminars for their third year dissertations and seem to have put a lot of effort into constructive support for each other.

1. In his third year he did some voluntary teaching on a SU organised "Quants for quals" course, essentially statistics for humanities people who needed them, and put a lot of effort into lecture preparation etc. Is there anything like support for overseas or access programme students she could volunteer for.

There was very little funding available at Masters level in his subject so he had to fund himself. However because of demand for his subject he was able to do some Research Assistant work in the summer after graduating and there was lots of teaching work available for Masters students if they wanted it. In London there is also quite a lot of scope for private tutoring, either at A level or first year University level.

When applying for a PhD, references and GMAT score seemed very important. DS had had a bit of a dilemma about where he should do his Masters. Stay at the same place, which suggests a lack of mobility, or go elsewhere and be in a position of having to ask for references for a PhD application in your first term. (For this reason in his subject a post Masters gap year is quite common, though again made easier because it is relatively easy to pick up RA work.) It came down to which was the best place for his particular interests, which luckily was where he was. Class of degree, and marks in specific subjects seemed important. He took a taught Masters, and the marks in the January exams became really important for his PhD applications.

PhD applications were based entirely on the strength of each department in his subject area. University rankings came into play a bit, but it was much more about who he wanted to study under and, then once he got an offer, who would give him funding. He got help on this, and on the application process, from academics and post grads he had got to know during his UG days. Oddly his UK offer was more generous than his US one because teaching was paid for on top rather than being part of the contract, though in the US he is able to do RA work instead.

And as others have suggested, exit routes are important. In DS' subject it is normal to take 6 years over a PhD. Who knows whether he can sustain interest for 6 years, but if not he has plenty of other options that build on what he has done so far.

Not all of this will be relevant, but I hope it helps. The best advice would be to start talking to as many academics and posts grads in her field as she can.

@cath thanks for your post. My dd has had 1 rejection so far 2 offers which have some aspects that' are slightly in where she's kind of unsure. But the one she really wants she still waiting for a reply from. She had a video type interview at short notice. Literally the day after she applied. But felt it went horribly wrong. She felt she was pushed to the point till she felt she had to say she didnt know to alot of answers. Which made her feel very exposed as though she didnt know her stuff that she is speacliasing in .. and needed more experience. All she could say was that she would be happy to learn those things . Shebwasnrather KO'd by that point . But did towards the last 15 minutes pick herself up again when they gave her a sheet that tested her methodology, stats skills and things she felt that particular research lacked and could be improved upon. Ideally she would love to be given that PhD. But sods law have it. She feels this was the one that went the worse of all the interviews she has had so far and is waiting for a big fat rejection . Which she says she would be very gutted about.
The other thing is I suppose she could wait until she has her Masters grades in hand. She's so far has a average of 78%. Do some research jobs for a year and then reapply to PhD then, with better experience.

Interview tips for PhD would be great if anyone has them.

We tend to advise our MA students to take a gap year between Masters & PhD. It gives them time to focus on writing a really good application, and to digest & process the findings of their MA thesis. Often ideas that develop in the MA are the starting point for the PhD, but ideas need time to cook. Particularly in the Humanities.

It also means students aren't writing PhD proposals only 6 months into their MAs.

With the next round of the Arts & Humanities Research Council (AHRC) funded PhD studentships, via the Doctoral Training Partnerships (DTPs) there may (only may) be some provision for 1 + 3 studentships, where the first year is an MA or MA equivalent.

cat she's doing a taught Msc at the moment. So might be a bit different. By the sounds of it theyre hot on wanting research and lab experience which she does have but maybe not enough by the probing type questions. So I guess she needs to up thise skills. She doesn't mind learning new skills . She felt ready to take on PhD studies but the knock backs are making her feel doubtful that maybe she isn't. I think shes going to have her talk with her current supervisor for some advice.

I think a lot of advice on this thread has been for the Humanities, as the OP's DC is studying History.

As many of us repeatedly advise, from all our different disciplines, answers to these kinds of questions are very discipline-specific.

You might get more useful answers if you started your own thread, and indicate it's a STEM query/area.

*You forget to mention that the teaching/marking/designing new modules/covering for colleagues/admin is also likely to take up far more than 40% of a 35 hour week

Teaching plus admin is usually counted as 60% of a working week, not 40%*

Yes admin should not have been in that list. The other ones I listed were teaching tasks: the admin tasks- such as admissions officer, director of programmes, senior tutor, academic integrity officer etc will be on top of those.

"I know very few academics who actually work more than that on teaching and admin, spread over the year -- the summer is still a much quieter period for teaching and management, so even if one spends time developing new courses in that period one is unlikely to work as much as 60% of a 35 hour week on teaching/management in the summer months."

That will depend on which admin post you fill and how often you are expected to take teaching modules that are far out of your own field of expertise because they are required by a specific programme. Also other teaching that your university may be doing during the summer.

Next academic year I will be taking on at least 2 new modules which are from a (now departed) colleague's area of expertise (different country/different historical period), as well as developing a new module of my own (again, not the period or country of my own research) on top of teaching modules I have previously taught. I am expecting to spend most of the summer reading up. This is not the first time this has happened to me.

@Titchy
That depends on the university. Some of the new ones are happy to have teaching only academics and I think that is fine for many people. Obviously research is incredibly important and DHs research is rated pretty highly ( Some 4s in his REF submission this time round ) .

However DH is in a humanities area so the amount of funding he brings is is limited due to.the fact that funding is generally much lower than for STEM subjects. Also his/my institution does not have brilliant research overall. This means that they are happy to have teaching only roles and they have a route up to professor role through the teaching route. The criteria is different than for the research route and you need to show that you are transforming teaching and be innovative in that area rather than show innovation through other research.
I personally hate what is happening to academic roles and the pressure on academics to hit ' targets' along with the commdification of education but DH is more upbeat ( being generally more of an optimist than.me) so I felt obliged to give his view. After all I am an administrator, he is the academic

The problem is, if you look at it the other way, how many PhDs go on to get a permanent job? And how many then go on to become profs (whether in 10 years or not)? Vanishingly few.

In many areas of research, yes. But in areas like e.g. statistics or computer science the pool of PhD students is fairly small, and the number wanting to become academics is even smaller - hence much faster progression.

I get that people are wanting to put across a 'balanced' view here in terms of the prospects in different sectors of academia, but the OP's question was specifically about history and I'm not sure how balanced it is to focus on the very few sectors and niches where funding and jobs are relatively plentiful.

The vast majority of academic disciplines are churning out far more PhD students than there will ever be lectureships for. This is less of an acute problem in STEM, of course, because the prospects in the commercial world are much better, but it doesn't change the fact that most PhD students are not going to end up as lecturers.

pqgh, the OP's DD is studying modern history. I'm a medievalist, so not in the same field, but close enough that I know it is not like computer science.

Sarah, the thread has two posters asking for advice. OP and a scientist, who seems dispirited by a rejection. DS (Social Scientist) was really expecting to apply to about 15 places post Masters but decided to have a bit of a trial run during his Masters applying to 7 (effectively ones which were neither stretch nor fall back) as well as a couple of RA positions, an internship and a graduate training scheme. There was no certainty at all he would get anything, even though he is in the sort of field pqgh04 would include as one of the easier ones. Luckily he got something he was happy with. Science will be different but I understand applying post Masters is also common. I assume it is early days,and she should not be dispirited.

I'm so sorry! I had lost track of that - too many threads. Apologies pqgh.

But Need - you should add that your DS was applying primarily to the very top places in the world. Had also he been applying for econometrics at more RG universities in the UK (outside the top ones) he would have gotten many offers for PhDs. As you know also, if he decides to stay in academia post PhD, then jobs will be easier in economics than they would be in history. But obviously academic jobs at the very top places (Harvard, LSE etc) will still be in very high demand.

I did not mean to be disingenuous. I was posting as a mum who watched her child go through the process a year ago and in the hope there was some commonality. I certainly benefitted from some experience a friend who son was studying chemistry shared with me.

I think I made three main points, possibly not very well, which were to engage in the subject beyond your degree, ask advice from PGs and academics and to consider a post Masters gap year.

My understanding is that PhD places are relatively to come by. Funding is much more tricky outside sciences. However with sciences, places will often be linked to existing research projects so it depends on where your interests lie. DS was offered funding in the UK, which in all honesty he was not expecting. A very brilliant friend of his only got it through a wait list.

My assumption, partly informed by a quick read of GradCafe (quite a scary place) as well as what DS told me, is that 15 or so applications are the norm. Then a lot of waiting as people with multiple offers make up their minds and funding becomes available.

But I accept that this may be because he was applying to the US (where the big name private Universities can afford to be much more generous than State Universities) and perhaps specific to his subject. And perhaps to add that in his subject, US experience apparently counts for a lot when applying for academic jobs in the UK. (Or again that is what he was being told.)

The thing is, as this thread has proved, there isn't a clear route into becoming an academic.
It varies drastically between subjects and university.
The bare minimum you will need is a Masters - some universities insist on a PhD others don't. Some will employ academic staff without a doctorate but insist that you get one asap.
Some subjects will insist on industry experience ( although not so much in history!)

It's a tough job but can be incredibly rewarding.....and flexible!

need I think you describe dd well at the moment 'dispirited' I guess the route to academia the experience that is, can be one of battling disspointemnets and dead ends and be okay with that. The learning curve is steep and with what they can put up with. But ultimately they feel its still worth it. Dd is just dispirited with feeling a bit defeated. Has exemplar grades in her modules. Last week she got 98% in a maths exam module and then 1 hour later a rejection from a PhD app without interview. Yep its pretty much up and down journey.

PhD (if she can find one). Then at least one or two post-docs (if she can find one). Then a lecturing job (if she can find one). Then ridiculously long working hours that wipe out any chance of having a private life.

The last time I applied there were roughly 50-60 applicants for every position. And you’re competing with candidates from around the world, not just from the UK. You have to be flexible on location and willing to relocate repeatedly. Your application will be judged on your research and publications not on your teaching ability. If you can’t relocate you may as well forget it - most places are only within driving distance of 2-3 universities and there’s virtually no chance of a job conveniently coming up near where you live and you actually getting it.

Sosig That wasn't my experience at all. It depends on institution.

PhD (if she can find one) I did my PhD while working as a lecturer on a permanent contract. I was promoted to senior lecturer before completion.

Then ridiculously long working hours that wipe out any chance of having a private life. This is the most flexible job I've ever had. Yes it's highly pressured but the flexibility and autonomy more than makes up for it.

I've never had to relocate (I live within commuting distance of at least 8 universities) and my application was judged on my teaching ability and my research potential.

How old are you though? Now (and for the last ten years at least) it’s ridiculously competitive and there is zero chance of getting a lecturing job without multiple post docs and publications.