The general point is that it's my impression that there is no single academic job market. There are several markets, and a 50-ish department is competitive in some of these and not competitive in others. This is also true for top 10 programs: these programs are highly competitive in some markets and not so competitive in others.

You know, the Cleveland States, UTEP's, and Central Michigans of the world. If you look at the faculties at these departments, their degrees run the gamut from Harvard down to unranked (or even unheard of) Ph.D. programs.

Some of those positions aren't as soul-sucking as described above, though the teaching loads can range from 2/2 to 4/4. There's a great variability in class sizes, as well, and in terms of salary (though almost always lower than R1 publics in the same state). Some political scientists have fine careers at these kinds of institutions.

Oh, and people do move from these schools to R1s or good LACs,

For these types of departments, while pedigree can be important, demonstrated teaching and research effectiveness (i.e., capacity to get tenure) are key; along with collegiality.

1. It's "What Do the Simple Folk Do?" not "How Do the Simple Folk Live?"

2. The song is from CAMELOT, not My Fair Lady!

Top 5 standards really have declined I guess...

Now, decent doesn't meant top tier. But those prima donnas who think only R1 schools are worth teaching at and everything else is "crap" have some interesting reality checks coming. I've taught on both ends of the spectrum (large public flagship R1 and mid-tier LAC). In either case, I had to teach undergraduates. At large public R1, the undergraduate students wee very very week and teaching was like pulling teeth. At mid-tier LAC, students were actually pretty good, motivated, and eager to learn.

Also, class sizes were capped so that we could do more interesting readings. For example, at my large public R1, I use a textbook and multiple-choice exams. That's all anyone does. It's extremely boring and soul sucking. I feel like I'm teaching high school, except I have 100+ students to deal with. So my 2-2 teaching load amounts to about 300+ students every semester. Yes, I get to teach a grad class, but those are also big (about 15-20 students) and they are mostly mediocre (I'm not at a top 20 R1).

At my mid-tier LAC, I taught a 3-2 with classes averaging about 20 students. So any semester I had maybe 50-60 students total. And instead of textbooks, I regularly assigned book, chapters, articles. I could treat a 200-level class like a senior-level seminar and assign about 100 pages a week to read. And they did it. I was more challenged and stimulated in that environment.

The issue isn't whether SLACs are now shifting their preferences because they're getting CHYMPS grads they couldn't attract before. That's not the case at all. SLACs are very elitist and like to hire brand names. But there were more jobs to go around, and so the CHYMPS mostly got placed wherever *THEY* wanted, and most chose to go for top tier R1 schools. The competition was never between an ABD from an unranked program an a CHYMPS ABD. It was between an ABD from a *GOOD* unranked program (that had strong mentoring, good teaching preparation, etc) and an a CHYMPS ABD who was mediocre. Under normal conditions, the unranked ABD wins out over mediocre; but mediocre can still find some job somewhere because he/she beats mediocre unranked.

Now there are previous few jobs. So only good CHYMPS graduates are winning jobs, and some stellar ABDs from lower down the food chain (and it does get harder the lower you go). Mediocre ABDs from unranked program are at a serious disadvantage. My program, for example, should close up. We fund very few of our students, give them no teaching preparation to speak of, and just toss them out. No surprise that most of them end up adjuncting HERE for 1-3 years (or longer!) before they manage to find a job somewhere (if they ever do). But since my colleagues hate teaching, they won't give up the luxury of a 2-2. And our grad program is a money maker (they almost all pay tuition). So there's that.

Bottom line: There are too many PhD programs, which drives up supply. That was always the case. It has just gotten worse now. Unranked or top 70ish programs need to realize that and work on the few advantages they have. My unranked program fully funded every single PhD candidate and gave us significant teaching opportunities. Even in this market, as our institution (as a whole) moves up, my alma matter's graduates continue to be competitive, landing some very nice LAC and SLAC jobs.

I'm particularly interested in the Pacific NW, and LACs there used to do a good share of their hires from U Washington and U Oregon, from CA schools other than the big 4, and some similar schools in the East.

Lately, though, the LACs there have gone almost strictly for top 25 schools. The better Northwest LACs like Reed or L&C hired nothing but CHYMPS+ in the last 5 years. Even lower-tier LACs in WA and OR have hired top 25 lately (e.g., Linfield, USNWR 4th tier, most recent hire from Wisconsin). Similar for 'directional' publics there: Portland State (a 3rd tier commuter school) from Princeton, Columbia, and UCSD; and Southern Oregon State College from Ohio State and UCLA.

If you look at faculty hired 10 years ago or more at such places there are plenty of profs from no-name PhD depts, but not anymore.

With the market this tight, low-ranked schools think they can snatch a top-tier candidate. So paradoxically, the top-25 Phds are not at a disadvantage there.

In one sense it is an advantage: you will be among the small group of candidates who could conceivably land an R1 job. The downside is that if you DON'T land an R1 job you are pretty much screwed. LACs and regional teaching-focused public schools aren't going to touch you with a 10 ft pole.

Get your heads out of your asses, kids. There is this whole big world out there beyond the walls of Cal and Harvard and Princeton. People at low-ranked schools are face the same job market as people at top-ranked schools; the only difference is that the low-ranked PhDs actually have to produce something before being hired - something the Harvard kids of the world would never understand.

I think the publishing wisdom assumes that many of these brilliant and well connected job applicants will lack the work ethic to stay in the game.

Do what you have to do to make yourself better than your competition (frankly, sabotaging or hospitalizing your peers sounds like a more efficient use of your marginal time than trying to get another article accepted), but let's not imagine that there's a way to make this "fine" for everyone. You make your own prospects fine by pushing someone else out of the employment lifeboat.