A former student of mine, now on the anthropology job market, shared a link to one of those end-of-year stories. This one, on Forbes, reports on the "Best Jobs for Women in 2012". Author Jenna Goudreau discusses a list compiled by Laurence Shatkin in the book Best Jobs for the 21st Century.
According to her reporting, I currently have the best job of the 21st century for a woman: post-secondary educator. And, since anthropologist comes in second on the list she cites, I have spots #1 and #2 covered.
(Actually, because of skills I have had to learn and practice as an archaeologist, I think I could make a fair run at job #6 as well: surveyor.)
A couple of caveats are in order: the book Goudreau is reporting on was first published in 2006, so it is unclear to what extent the latest edition (which I assume Goudreau is citing) accounts for all the effects of the global economic crises that really got underway in 2008.
Shatkin himself, on the Huffington Post, says that
The most rewarding jobs in the coming years will focus on high tech, health care, and business efficiency.
That description, needless to say, doesn't really track with either being a college professor or being an anthropologist (unless you are one of the small number of anthropologists who consult for business). Neither career is included in the top 10 list posted by Shatkin's publisher to promote the latest edition of his book.
Goudreau tells us is that the list she is discussing ranks jobs women "feel most satisfied and successful in", compiled by Shatkin
based on women's high satisfaction levels, from the National Survey of College Graduates conducted by the Census Bureau; median annual earnings for salaried workers, from the Department of Labor (DOL); and the job outlook through 2018, based on projections from the DOL.
The results, Goudreau notes, "may surprise you".
And they surely should; in order, the list counts down from college professor, anthropologist, oceanographer, natural sciences manager, clergy, surveyor, CEO, geoscientist, medical professionals, to aerospace engineer.
So what would explain why these jobs should be the "best" for women in 2012? Remember that these jobs are being ranked based on reported satisfaction, earnings, and job outlook over the next few years.
Goudreau writes that
Shatkin believes women likely value post-secondary teaching for its high earnings, prestige and stimulating environments. The National Survey of College Graduates found that women appreciate a job's location and environment more than men, and Shatkin points out that college students are generally excited to learn, colleagues are of high caliber and college campuses provide comfortable amenities. At the same time, post-secondary teachers have a high degree of independence and autonomy, which Shatkin says almost all workers prize.
At the end of a semester, it is hard for me to take these generalizations entirely seriously. My autonomy seems relatively limited after plowing through dissertation drafts, end of term papers, not to mention the constant stream of administrative memos. But I do recognize that I get to set a lot of the parameters of my own job, and I do definitely value that.
And I am lucky: the students I teach are eager to learn. So, maybe this is not an inaccurate characterization of some of the pluses of the job.
But I wish a little more attention had been paid to what are called "amenities" (sounds like an up-scale resort) that colleges provide, because I don't really believe the underlying gender ideology, which would imply that women are less motivated by the basic compensation package a job provides. Unpacking "amenities" a little we might find that colleges have, as a result of changes in the last quarter of the 20th century, more routine provision for life events, including parenting, that make them pragmatically better employers for women.
I don't have any data on this. But I just don't buy the idea that women rate college teaching higher because locations are better. And to quote an old slogan from an Ivy League staff unionization effort, "You Can't Eat Prestige".
Then there is anthropology.
A slide show accompanying the article pictures a blond woman sitting somewhere in the Andes talking to indigenous women dressed in colorful costume. The image, from Getty Images, is actually titled "Peru, Huilco, female tourist sitting with woman holding baby, smiling". So, not actually what ethnography is like in practice, but probably a fair window into the imagined reality that "anthropologist" conjures up-- even though fieldwork like this would be a tiny part of the job of even an ethnographer working in the Andes, let alone the typical anthropologist today.
Shatkin's proposed explanation of the allure of anthropology (and some of the other unlikely science fields on the list) seems pretty questionable to me. Goudreau cites Shatkin citing survey data that show women rank job security over salary and advancement opportunities, explaining that
It may be hard to land a job as a post-secondary teacher, anthropologist (No. 2), oceanographer (No. 3) or natural sciences manager (No. 4), but once in the position turnover is low..."If you're caring for a family," [Shatkin] says, "job security is a top priority."
Now, that linkage seems pretty weak to me. Not only is it hard to "land a job" as a college professor (and many anthropologists continue to work primarily as faculty, so this applies to both): earning tenure is a multi-year project, not guaranteed. And if you find yourself seven years into a college teaching career and don't earn tenure, the number of positions you will be considered for are drastically reduced. Not to mention that the trend nationwide is away from tenured faculty, with adjunct (never-to-be-secure) lecturers and instructors increasing in proportions of faculty.
If we were actually dealing with security-seeking behaviors, I would suggest that clergy and medical professionals, #5 and #9 on this list, would be better bets. And while clergy earn less, there are far more projected job openings than there are for anthropologists: 21,800, compared to 450! Only positions as oceanographers are projected as less common than anthropologists: if you want to be the next Jacques Cousteau, there are only 100 positions expected to open up between now and 2018.
Really, there is no question: women should be flocking to the 36,000 job openings projected in the medical professions, second only in number to college faculty. The average earnings at the low end of the medical professionals job hierarchy equal the average for college professors at the higher end (in a scale that runs from language instructors to law school faculty).
According to this list, the 450 lucky individuals who can expect to be hired as anthropologists will see income at the bottom of the scale for college faculty, with only clergy paid less.
But then there is that question of satisfaction. Trying to track down sources for these generalizations proved frustrating.
To understand what I expected to find, let me offer an historical aside.
Back in 1994, the Society for American Archaeology published results of a path-breaking survey of archaeological employment. There was a lot of information about shifting employment sectors, about women's participation in employment, and the like. One thing that stuck with me was a finding, summarized by Melinda Zeder:
Not only is there a general preference for museum employment, there are also relatively high levels of job satisfaction among both men and women in museum positions, despite their generally lower salaries. Job satisfaction among academics, however, is not as high as would be expected from the stated preferences of most respondents for employment in academic settings. This is especially true of women in academia..
