Yesterday, I accepted a tenure-track history professorship. I'm grateful and excited to work in my field! With that said, History is in trouble. For my wargaming/reenacting followers who might not know, prospects are bleak for #twitterstorians . History needs help. 1/24
Re: my job, I don't have the space here to thank everyone who helped me along the way. Pride of place has to go to my supportive parents and my loving wife. I couldn't have done it without you. I'm grateful for my professors, fellow students, and friends for their support. 2/24
I have benefitted from having two truly great mentors and inspirations in my life: Katherine B. Aaslestad (my Doktormutter) and Christopher Duffy. Both aren't with us anymore, but I've done my best to make them proud. 3/24
I'm obviously OVERJOYED to have this position. But I am also determined to not let survivorship bias influence me too much here. For those who aren't carefully watching this, ~ 1 in 4 people who do the hard work of getting a Ph.D. in History get an academic position. 4/24
I didn't beat the system: I got lucky. History PhDs who go to top programs: Harvard, Yale, Wisconsin-Madison, etc (I didn't) have a 14% chance of getting a TT job right after graduation. People like me, who went to a "below top thirty" school have a 7% chance. 5/24
If you stay on the market, as I did, that chance eventually rises to about 25%. And every year you are on the market after graduation, you know your chances are slowly diminishing. 3 years after graduation, they are pretty low. 6/24
But here is the rub: what do you do while you wait? You can adjunct: there is always a market for intensive low-wage contract work, but you can't support yourself on that. Do you get another job? Will that look bad on your CV (resume)? 7/24
You can apply for visiting positions (what I did) and postdocs. These positions are almost as competitive as tenure track jobs. The amount of time they require to apply is also not much less than a TT job. More on that later. 8/24
At every level of my education, there were students who were more gifted and successful than me who didn't make it. People who gained entrance to more prestigious programs than I did: who still didn't make it, or are still on the market. Many of my friends didn't make it. 9/24
Over the last four years (I graduated in 2021, but was on the market since 2019) I applied to 300+ jobs. Applying for these jobs is not a simple process, either. You don't just send in your resume. Each application requires a cover letter, and 2-4 specific statements. 10/24
Sometimes they require a writing sample, sometimes a teaching statement, sometimes a diversity statement, sometimes a teaching portfolio. So imagine writing a small grant, dozens of times a year, for years. You need 3,4, or 5 letters of recommendation from your professors. 11/24
That is what it is like to be on the job market: to be writing a small grant dozens of times a year for years on end. And the crushing part is, for ~250 of the 300+ jobs I applied to, I didn't even get a rejection letter. You are just left waiting, permanently. 12/24
In 4 out of the 300+ applications, I got a phone interview. This means doing hours of follow-on research on who is in the department, what they might be looking for, what classes they might need filled, etc. 13/24
In 3 cases after my phone interview, I moved on to the on-campus stage. This is a 1-2 day long interview process in which you are interviewing with faculty, administration and students at a university. In one on-campus visit, I interviewed with administrators of 5 hours. 14/24
You perform both an hour-long research presentation, and a class-length teaching demonstration, in addition to 6-12 hours of interviews. Bring a red bull. Knowing people can be a blessing and a curse: I was rejected by a committee with members who had known me for 8+ years. 15/24
Obviously, this is a hard process for people getting History PhDs. A economist might say: well, you choose this field, and so you are suffering the consequences of your actions. That might even be true, but all of this has darker consequences for the discipline. 16/24
History is a wide subject: you have all of human history to select a topic from. Practically fewer PhDs are being granted to scholars who focus before 1900. In my sub-field, in the whole of the 18,000+ history faculty in the USA, it is basically me and 3 other people. 17/24
If trends continue as they are now, and departments continue to shrink, entire fields of historical inquiry will be in jeopardy having no scholars working in them. The Civil War will be ok, so will WW2, (and these are important fields!!), but there are areas that won't be. 18/24
Again, an economist might say: study what is popular and in demand. I do believe, though, that the human past is worth studying beyond what is trendy and popular. Christopher Duffy did too. 19/24
So what do we need? We need @BretDevereaux to be president of the AHA. In all seriousness (not that I'm seriously opposed), we need younger and more aware faculty to say, "enough is enough. We are cancelling the apocalypse in the humanities."
20/24
We need a generation of historians who are able to make the case to millennials (of which I am one) and generation Z (who I love in my classes) that History, as a profession, is worth saving. I've written two public-facing articles this year, one in War on the Rocks... 21/24
and one in The National Interest. I have another, fingers crossed, under review. I'm looking into grant writing at my uni. Let's come together as a discipline and try to save this thing that we love.
22/24
I know this was a heavy and profession-specific thread. Many of my followers are wargamers, reenactors, and military history enthusiasts: this impacts you too. Professional historians are doing the leg-work that makes your rigorous enjoyment of the past possible. 23/24
I promise a lighter (not that history of battle is a light subject) thread on firepower tomorrow. Please, share this around. I've been lucky and fortunate, but so many haven't. History needs help. #Historyneedshelp 24/24

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Dr. Alexander S. Burns

Dr. Alexander S. Burns Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @KKriegeBlog

Mar 10
As promised, a firepower Friday thread. How many rounds could 18th cent. troops fire a minute? Military history enthusiasts have a strong views on this, and its a pretty contentious topic. TL;DR, in combat troops fired 2-3 rounds a minute. 1/28 Image
From the sequence in the (in?)famous Sharpe series depicting the training of the South Essex Regiment, to many reenactors demonstrating their own skills, the desire to show that musket-armed troops could fire quickly dominates media produced regarding the era. 2/28 Image
The best Sharpe bit is: "The trick is, to keep the muzzle up to stop the bloody bullet falling out. Of course, the muzzle needs to point up anyway, the frog coming towards you is high up on a horse." Since, you know, the French only sent cavalry to fight in the Peninsula. 3/28
Read 28 tweets
Mar 8
After my thread earlier in the week about women following Central European armies, I was asked to gather some images of women associated with the British army. Here is that thread. The picture below is an example of the work by Molly Picture Studio. facebook.com/mollypicturest… 1/11
David Morier's image of a woman with the British army in the low countries in the 1740s 2/11
A woman in a British camp during the Seven Years War (c. 1760) 3/11
Read 10 tweets
Mar 7
A thread on the social background of 18th cent. soldiers. Was the average soldier, "the scum of the earth", in the 18th century? TL;DR, these men usually came from working backgrounds, some even held specialist careers before enlisting. Most were not criminal fringe elements 1/20 Image
If the average soldier did not enlist until between 21 and 25, what did he do before enlistment? In eighteenth-century armies, before enlistment, as many as 50% of men were unskilled day-laborers, or agricultural workers who did not own land. 2/20
While not moving in the highest circles of society, these men were not necessarily criminals or untrustworthy characters: they simply sold their labor and owned no land. Indeed, in most European, or American societies of the 18th cent, most people fell into this category. 3/20
Read 20 tweets
Mar 4
Don't worry, we'll have a poll this afternoon (as soon as I can think of something), but something to tide your eighteenth-century needs over.
I got a talking to about making memes this week, so here are a some more.
Professional historians can have a chuckle too, you'll find. Image
Image
Image
Read 16 tweets
Mar 3
A firepower-Friday thread. Did eighteenth-century soldiers run out of ammunition? TL;DR, ammunition problems marked 18th cent. warfare, and even helped to decide the course of battles. The Continental army, for example, was chronically short of small arms ammunition.
In the era of Frederick II, the Prussian army developed new strategies for the rapid consumption of ammunition. At the Battle of Mollwitz in 1741, the Prussian troops quickly fired away their 30 issued rounds, and attempted to gather ammunition from wounded men nearby.
After the battle, the standard ammunition load in the Prussian army was increased from 30 to 60 rounds, but even this proved insufficient. Two independent sources affirm that the Prussian infantry used all of their ammunition at Lobositz in 1756
Read 24 tweets
Feb 26
A poll results thread. Frederick the Great won, despite a large number of votes for John Churchill, and A. Suvorov. There was a lot of criticism of Frederick: is this fair? TL;DR, Frederick's reputation has been rightly dinged in recent years, but he still deserves respect. 1/17
As I said in the poll: this is a bit ridiculous. How you define success will lead to different answers. Any of men included in the poll, or the honorable mentions could have taken this. What is always interesting though, is the amount of pushback Frederick gets in 2023. 2/17
In popular/internet historian circles it has become quite fashionable to dismiss Frederick as average. Internet comment sections are full of comparisons arguing that Prussia was just an early modern "spartan mirage." 3/17
Read 17 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(