by Jon Lackman | 14 September 2010 | Career
In The Guardian, art historian Marianne M Gilchrist writes:
In December 1993, I got my PhD. I was 28 and passionate about art and history. I found it impossible to gain a toehold in academia: no one wanted my specialism and my first degree was in a different subject. Interviews for lectureships dried up after I turned 30. I took courses in IT and cultural management to make myself more employable … I did freelance research and writing. I volunteered in museums – a catalogue raisonné here, an exhibition there – only to be rejected for basic posts because I “might be bored” and for curatorial posts because I was “too research orientated” … I lowered my sights to entry-level clerical and administration posts, for which I was rejected as “over qualified” … “We have to find ways of hiding the fact you’ve got a PhD,” an unemployment advisor said. I wondered how she would explain away six years. I told her that I had been applying for jobs to which I was suited in skills. She replied: “If you were suited to them, you’d be getting them, wouldn’t you? Try cleaning or call centres.”
Wow.. this is not only terribly depressing, but a perfect example of the many things that are wrong with the way some universities are handling the arts these days.
I really hope some more forward thinking people start to make changes in the way courses are structured and designing them with careers in mind. This was definitely what prevented me from pursing a career in the arts.
H
I got rejected from every Ph.D. program I applied to. Looking at the job market now, that’s one of the best things that has ever happened to me.
This is depressing, although forewarned is forearmed. Wonder if unis should start shunting would-be art historians to a museology career track.
Only one Ph.D. program accepted me, but did not have the funds to offer any financial aid. Although my dream is to work in museums, I am so fortunate that I was able to find ANY job in the art market. Luckily, the gallery where I currently work is very historical centered. While I do want to try applying to Ph.D. programs again, I wonder now if it’s even worth it (in terms of a career).
I too was rejected from virtually every PhD program I applied to, and am glad about that now. The PhD would have over-qualified me for the job I have (teaching Art History at a 2 year design school) and qualified me for jobs that don’t exist. It seems clear that there is a large surplus of Art History PhDs, particularly in Britain.
So it’s almost better to stick to a B.A. or M.A. so you can avoid being overqualified for the jobs that are actually around.
Its a very sad story, but more depressing are the comments on the Guardian’s thread. I’m afraid that an arts degree, let alone a Phd, is the equivalent of wiping your nose on your sleeve in public these days.
As for the advice to hide your Phd, that just says it all.
Commentary from the Twitterverse: “sO_izAYEE: i love my art history klass. too bad they dont get paid enuff kuz id be an art historian LOL”
[...] dass man einen Titel hat, um nicht überqualifiziert zu sein, wie eine aktuelle Diskussion im Art History Newsletter zeigt. In der Wissenschaftslandschaft wird man in Deutschland ohne Promotion in den seltensten [...]