Hey, thanks a lot for this episode. I think Daniel Bessner hit a lot of nails on their heads here. There are deep structural problems that need to be overturned to make academia even a remotely liveable field in the US - and in other places. In my experience, as a non-American, the systems overseas are better in some ways - but can also be worse in others.

Australia, for instance, has much lower rates of the equivalent to an 'adjunct' postion - note that 'adjunct over here is just what we call an honorary title - and much greater proportions of 'tenure-track' or permanent positions. History majors doing their undergrads at Australian unis will be taught mostly by permanent or near-permanent staff. The biggest difference to me, however, is that the equivalent positions in Australia to adjunct-ships pay much more than American adjunct positions - a solid, if not generous, wage from a single institution. The mates I have in America are often working for scraps from multiple institutions it seems, combine that with things like health insurance and student debt - and the whole thing looks unbelievably cruel. These people provide the value of the university in the first place - they teach the damn students, they have the expertise - yet they get basically none of the funding. These institutions charge their students fees that are unparalleled in the developed world, and they completely shaft their faculty in the same breath. At this point, it looks more like a pyramid scheme than an industry.

Australia is by no means perfect, of course, we have deep problems. There are a lot less universities here than in America, and any job is going to be fiercely competitive not just between Australians, but American, Chinese and British academics who are all extremely qualified and dedicated. It isn't at all uncommon for much of the history faculty at Australian universities to be Harvard, Berkeley or Oxford and Cambridge graduates. Many Australian historians have to go to prestigious American or British institutions to stand a remotely decent chance of getting hired. There's a cruelty behind the fact that prospective historians from bumfuck-nowhere's-ville Australia often have to fight their way into the Ivy League or equivalent just to get a fair job at a middling Australian university. It isn't easy, and very very few make it to their dream jobs.

I think history as a field, does need to unionise or at least develop some form of collective action and bargaining power. There needs to be lobbying, and industrial action from academia as a whole. In America, especially, the plain reality is that historians are getting robbed blind by a system that has no kindness or love for the academics it claims to patron.

A podcast episode that may also be of interest:

Working People: After the Academy - we talk to eight working-class scholars about loving, leaving, and being left behind by academia

Might be a silly question but what is adjunctification? Wikipedia gives me this definition:

The tendency of universities to have as many faculty members as possible be adjuncts (who recieve lower pay and/or benefits, lack tenure, etc).

But I still don’t understand what that means in this context.