When I was a first year PhD student in History, I ended up in conversation one day with a master’s student in my class. He had already shown himself to be one of those people who talks a lot but says very little (at least very little relating to the subject at hand). I asked him if he had plans after his masters (he’d gone straight from his B.A., at the same institution). He said he planned to go to one of [list of schools out in Arizona and New Mexico] and get a job as an adjunct, because they’d pay for him to get his PhD there at the same time. “That’s not really how it works,” said I, “Most places offer your funding and let your work as a T.A.” He insisted that no, at this institutions they hired adjuncts and waived tuition. I expressed my doubts, pointing out that the job market for teaching positions in history was notoriously abysmal, that this fact had been written up repeatedly in the Chronicle and in the newsletter of the main historical association journal, and that at none of the many places I had looked at over the last 4 years (time between when I finished my masters and first applied to PhD program and when I finally found a good fit) had anyone ever hired MA adjuncts and let them work on their PhD for free. None of these arguments, or the fact that I was a PhD student, dissuaded him. I was simply misinformed, probably because I had worked in public history (disdain) before starting my PhD.