I'm curious about the comment that something strange is going on with the Wellesley archaeology search. What is the source of the claim that they are looking for underwater archaeology? They have invited at least one finalist for a campus visit and, while s/he *is* an archaeologist, all excavation is taking place on terra firma.
Incidentally, does anyone know why the Villanova search started so late and skipped the APA?
Deans, Deans, they're good for the part, The more you meet, the more you fart, the more you fart, the more you meet, the more you sit on the toilet seat!
Wellesley inviting non-underwater archaeologists simply means that the SC has permission to bring other candidates to campus. But given the directive to hire an underwater archaeologist and the apparent unwillingness/inability of (some of) the SC to identify a qualified candidate, it is safe to say that the situations is somewhat messy.
I think the Wellesley situation has far less to do with the SC than with the donor. But let's face it, that is rank speculation on my part, so take it for what it is worth!
The wording of the call by Wellesley does not imply a "directive" to hire an underwater person. There are several other factors, like being "theoretically-informed" and able to teach languages.
I wonder about Hendrix, too, and there are quite a number of other schools for which no info is given on campus invite. I wonder how many of them have actually already made arrangements with the candidates, but the information hasn't trickled out here?
This is the weakness of the system at this late stage in the game. Some schools are inviting two candidates and many are only inviting three. I think some are reluctant to identify themselves here to the SC for whatever reason. This is why I think it's better to even go with "a friend of a friend told me" and clear up misunderstandings later on to grant some anonymity. As it stands, people want it straight from the horses and then have the chutzpah to turn around and ask those brave enough to declare for all the gory details.
At least one of the INA grads denied even a Chicago interview by Wellesley is a Late Antique person who has taught Latin and is well-versed in theory. Besides having extensive underwater experience, the person also has experience digging land sites and has no red flags. Presumably, if Wellesley stuck with their announced wishlist and they invited the usual 10-12 candidates to Chicago, such qualifications would have put them through. Moreover, you would think if the search was straightforward and open that they would have brought in toward the high end of interviewees in light of their failed search last year. Again, there is a good deal of deduction here, but enough of the "give me the source of your claim" BS. As some SC members have professionally done here, lets turn the tables on the Wellesley SC and ask THEM to prove to us otherwise.
I agree, there are relatively few underwater people period and this list is further narrowed by those who would be looking this year. Wouldn't curiosity dictate that these people would "dominate" the shortlist of Wellesley in a manner that would make even a Princetonian blush with humility? My guess is that having marine/underwater experience is down the priority list for the SC/department and it was thrown in to appease the donor. If so, shame on the school for advertising it so prominently in their ad and shame on them for misleading people for the sake of some ass kissing that benefits the ego of one person.
Ah, the old material culture position with various vaguely worded riders that allow us to torpedo the best candidates in the hopes that we can hire a philologist in disguise trick. Now in model 2.0, to torture the hopes of underwater archaeologists too. Brought to you by Dinosaur, SCC Inc.
I don't have solid rumors on Loyola-Chicago, but from past experience, they're a small dept that seems to get a bit overwhelmed by the logistics of searches, so I expect it's just a delay.
Agreed, anon. 3:51. Watching the inbred peculiarities of classics is worse than watching a train wreck. Any wagers on how long it takes before Wellesley classics gets squeezed and/or merged? They do have tradition as a SS and probably a number of fat donors waiting in the wings, but is that enough?
Well, it has kept classics alive at Bryn Mawr even though the MC people were smart enough to break away. Now the latter department does stuff like geoarchaeology while digging in the greater Islamic world. Do you think this would have been posssiblein 99% of the classics departments out there? Not unless they found an inscription in the desert or Homer mentioned it by chance, lol.
I think there is definitely hope if you've been told you're a second tier. The school may be bringing in only 1-2 people (due to money, etc.), who may not impress as much as expected. They'd be very likely to bring in 1-2 more after that. In fact, I know of a situation in which this happened and one of the second tier candidates got the job. I don't know how common this is, but at least it happens.
Of course, this also depends on how big the second tier is. Are we talking about Fordham, ooc?
Basically, there's definitely hope, but I wouldn't waste energy or time thinking about it in the meanwhile, as at best nothing would happen until after the 1st tier have their interviews.
Four. Crap. That is not the answer I wanted. I assume getting the call if two don't work out is within the realm of possibility. But the chances of all four either not wanting the job, or the job not wanting them, is slim. Thanks. Are you at NYU, or one of the lucky four (hearty congrats if the latter - and the former too, I suppose!)?
No news. This week and next are when I would expect to hear.
Assuming they were able to meet this week, then their choices would likely be with the dean, who -- not considering our sanity a high priority -- may take plenty of time to approve the campus visits.
That said, I am surprised by the campus visits arranged for the Vassar VAP; I understood that they would make their decision after reviewing the Blegen fellowship. So, my memory appears to be fallible.
Thanks, Poldy. Is it just me or does it seem like programs can be separated into two basic groups? Those, who for whatever reason, can and do move quick with their campus invites and those who take several weeks? The January vs. February gang? I would have thought that the top programs would have the luxury of falling into February, but that doesn't seem to be the case.
I think historically the very top programs have tended to move earliest - often notifying candidates while still at the APA. I suppose they want to be able to skim the perceived cream first.
I think there is some general truth to your characterization. Though my personal experience is a somewhat limited data set, I got a number of invites immediately after Chicago and now it's been quiet this week with my first visits starting next week. I'm still waiting to hear from half of my Chicago interviews. Assuming I get a number of invites from this group at the risk of some hubris (no, I'm not from Princeton), I will have to schedule them for late February and March. I have no idea whether this is a normal yearly pattern as it's only my second year on the market and I only had two campus invites last year.
Out of curiosity, how is one supposed to have learned of the ISAW fellowship? It wasn't announced through the APA, and I never saw any announcements on the handful of e-lists I'm on.
As far as I know, there are many factors that contribute to the rapidity of selecting and notifying candidates about campus visits (e.g. amount of administrative bureaucracy).
top programs have more institutional clout to expedite the administrative process?
I would not make that deduction, if only because administration is only one aspect. In questions such as these, I would suggest that it is unwise to think in terms of "sublimis"/"humilis".
In fact, I'd suggest not trying to penetrate the veil at all until you have been initiated into the mysterium of a being on a few search committees. I have been around for 4 searches, had about 7 campus visits over the last few years and just about the only thing I learned was that the process is unpredictable. But, to be honest, no one has ever offered me a job, so my knowledge is suspect.
Poldy, I assume you are still a graduate student given that you claim to have never gotten an offer. Did you observe searches as a student? My institution asks one graduate student to sit on the SC, and even attend the APA interviews. Did you have such experiences as well?
I suspect that your knowledge isn't, and I think your invocation of the mysterium is spot on. This process is much too opaque, but I don't know how to make it less so, even should the day come when I am on the other side of the table. It is frustrating.
I did participate in searches as a graduate, but only on the outside. I learned more when I was in temporary positions at Unis who were hiring. Although I was not, for obvious reasons, part of the inner circle, I was able to observe the process and discuss it with those who were involved.
The other comparison I would make would be to speed dating. You fill out a profile, have a quick chat with a bunch of people. Then get together with a select few who seem really well suited to your tastes. Then you have a big date and try to decide which of the few you will marry.
Alas, I am always the bridesmaid, never the bride.
I suppose the old method was the arranged marriage system. Your advisor calls up buddy/respectable family from Hahvahd and ensures that the deed happens.
So is the adjuncting/VAP system living in sin, or a series of random hook-ups?
This is my 4th time. 3rd time after receiving PhD. If I don't land a tenure-track position in a place both I and my husband are happy with after 5 tries, that is it. No more.
Joan Jett said... This is my 4th time. 3rd time after receiving PhD. If I don't land a tenure-track position in a place both I and my husband are happy with after 5 tries, that is it. No more.
I'm following the five-year plan, too. I'm in year two (counting the ABD year), so still somewhat sane about it.
6th year out (5 post-PhD). Fortunately after 2 other visiting positions, lucked into a renewable one - hopefully it will be renewable again this year if necessary.
Anonymous 7:43, Of course, one of the definitions of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting the results to be different, so one might argue that those of us who are well beyond grad school and still trying for a tenure-track job each year ARE insane...
So is the adjuncting/VAP system living in sin, or a series of random hook-ups?
I prefer to see myself as a hetaira, providing a quality service for those institutions who need more philology. Given my current bleak situation, it turns out that I am a porna.
The "visiting" grind (I love the euphemism - as if I had somewhere to return to) can be brutal and has many down sides both financially and emotionally, which I know too well.
On the other hand, it does provide some benefits. For example, more time before starting on the tenure sprint. I know that I was not ready to start after turning in my shinny thesis. There are other benefits as well. Of course, one can also be horribly exploited and treated like dirt (not my experience in general, but I have heard stories...)
I cannot stop laughing about this title--compassionately, of course. There are those who would say otherwise, but I adore this blog. Thus concludes my love letter to FV.
The "visiting" grind ... does provide some benefits. For example, more time before starting on the tenure sprint.
This is very true. I think the ideal would have been to get a 3-year gig at a great liberal arts college before having to worry about the tenure clock. Mind you, I am NOT complaining here! I landed a tenure track job just out of graduate school out of sheer, dumb luck. I think most people get jobs this way, and it is too bad that people mistake tenure track employment for 100% merit. But that is another conversation.
Best wishes to all of you, but especially to those who have been on the Hetaira Circuit for a few years!
LOL. I think VAPs are actually pallakes, medium-term mistresses there to fulfill the logistical needs of the department. They hope to eventually be offered marriage, but the chances are unlikely.
Hetairae have great fellowships with lavish travel funds and research money.
IMHO, the more VAP positions you take, the less attractive you look and the less mysterious, compared to the latest "virgins." The stink of the market sticks to you, and it's difficult to arrange advantageous "marriages."
**IMHO, the more VAP positions you take, the less attractive you look and the less mysterious, compared to the latest "virgins." The stink of the market sticks to you, and it's difficult to arrange advantageous "marriages.**
This is so wrong (but probably so correct, sadly enough) on so many levels. All that VAPing means that we are ready to roll when classes come. No flailing around. Syllabi done, lecture notes at the ready. And maybe our research is actually nicely seasoned. A few articles in the works. Dissertation mulled over and maybe even revised. Why, why in the world would an SC want to go with a virgin (wet-behind-the-ears graduate student)? We can perform, damnit!
The pornai analogy holds nicely in so many unfortunate ways.
Anyone heard anything about the Medieval Latin job at Notre Dame? According to the wiki they at least sent out rejections. Or the Late Antique/Medieval Latin position at UNC? Seems like a number of Med Latin jobs, but little word on what's happening.
I've heard through fairly reliable sources that UNC invited two candidates to campus for their Medieval Latin position. One of those candidates subsequently dropped out of the search. Not sure what UNC decided to do next, but presumably they invited another finalist to campus.
I have a question especially for the more experienced members reading these boards. One of the more perplexing questions for me when interviewing/visiting with a PhD-granting institution is something along the lines of "what do you think about advising graduate students"? As a very recent PhD with VAP experience at BA-only institutions, my initial internal response (which I am careful not to show) is panic. It's not that I am afraid of advising grad students - far from it - I would love the opportunity. But I would be an arrogant little twit to think that I *really* understand what advising graduate students entails. Whenever the question comes up, it's the only time in the whole interview process where I really feel like I have no idea what I'm talking about. What is it that search committees are really trying to figure out when they ask that question? Whether or not I will be a very accessible professor? Would I be very hands-on? (Who would really say otherwise in an interview - "actually, I prefer to keep the grad students as far away from me as possible")
Should I think about my own good and bad experiences with advisors, and starting with that come up with a profile? What are the qualities of a good advisor, anyway? Any thoughts?
I would like to second this request! I don't even have my dissertation in hand yet, and have no teaching experience outside my graduate institution. But I have visits to two PhD institutions approaching fast. I am more stressed out about interacting with the graduate students, and handling questions relating to them, than almost anything else.
Sorry, misread your post and thought you had said that you had no teaching experience, period.
The truth is, if you're done with a dissertation you will know far more about your topic than grads who are in their first or second years, so long as you are teaching seminars on subjects close to your work. So you shouldn't worry about that too much. As for mentoring/advising, I have no opinion.
I cannot pretend to know what women, um, interviewers what; I have always taught at PhD granting unis, taught a few graduate seminars, and done some advising (never as director - I'd never let a grad student foolish enough to ask a VAP). I'd suggest simply expressing a general interest without going into specifics. A good answer, GAW, would be what you said: "I would love the opportunity." Then you should be able to respond to any follow ups.
As far as dealing with graduate students on the visit, this aspect has always proved the easiest and most relaxing and (often) very informative. Simply treat them with respect and be interested in their work. Ask them, when you meet, "oh, nice to meet you Francesca. What do you do? Oh, a commentary on Synesius' praise of baldness? That is fascinating!"
Incidentally, you may be tossed into a room with a group of them, who may not know what to ask you. This is a good opportunity to learn about the program because you can ask them. In my experience, they can be very, VERY forthright.
I have made friends, some close, among the advanced graduate students whom I've known at these schools. The idea of dealing with them can be odd when you still see yourself as one, but it is not hard to adjust so long as you remember that they are likely to be your future colleagues and friends and deserve to be treated accordingly.
Of course, I've never actually had a tt job offer from any school, so perhaps you should do just do the opposite of what I do.
According to the wiki all of my APA interviews were for naught, and I am staring at nothing for next year. I know the spring market has already started, but I don't know how to approach it. I applied to a few one-year positions in the fall, but never heard anything, so maybe my letter was poorly phrased. For those of you who have gone through the spring market, what are some things to think about? Should I even talk about my research, or restrict myself to teaching? How about my CV, should I re-do a version just for these sorts of jobs? Thanks.
Poldy, did you snag an Arizona invite? The wiki says they sent out an email on the 17th. Alas, no email here, but good luck to those with a campus invite.
Someone mentioned that they are bringing in 5 finalists for Berkeley's medieval position. I still haven't heard back about the Nemea position. Do departments usually get decanal approval for campus visits at the same time for multiple positions? If so, it means I am not on the A-list for the Nemea position...
A glance at Berkeley's upcoming events on their website shows some talks by visitors on Greek archaeology topics. So my guess would be that they've invited people to campus, but that's just my guess.
On spring applications, of which I've weathered a few:
I would stress teaching more than research in your letter. I have never rearranged my cv for a spring job and it hasn't hurt. One thing I do do (for all jobs now, but I think it's especially good for temporary teaching positions) is a "teaching cv" listing all courses I have taught, giving the official descriptions of each, enrolment, course requirements, etc., anything else relevant like "supervised TAs." I list my teaching experience on my cv but note "see also 'teaching cv'" on the cv proper. I think it has really helped me get phone interviews in the spring.
BUT I wouldn't ignore research totally. I leave my research paragraph in, but for temp jobs I preface it with something like "While I realize this is a teaching-oriented position, I would like to take a moment to tell you about my research as well."
Frequently for temp jobs you can figure out almost exactly what a dept wants or needs, especially if it's a leave replacement. So I'd try to find that out, and be very specific about how you would teach the course(s) they need covered in your cover letter. That approach has gotten me two temp jobs without even having to go through phone interviews.
"A glance at Berkeley's upcoming events on their website shows some talks by visitors on Greek archaeology topics. So my guess would be that they've invited people to campus, but that's just my guess."
It's obvious that many positions will not be updated by the finalists for whatever reason. Would it be against the rules to use information like what was just mentioned to update the wiki?
Anyone hear from the Whitman history position? They said they were planning to notify this past week, but I haven't heard anything (probably a bad sign, eh?).
It's obvious that many positions will not be updated by the finalists for whatever reason. Would it be against the rules to use information like what was just mentioned to update the wiki?
I suppose not, as long as can you tell if it is a job talk and not a random lecture. Has anybody trolled the home-pages of hiring departments to see whom they have invited? All of the Penn invitees are now public. I really wish I had been one, but best wishes to them all!!
Does anyone know what's going on with Bryn Mawr's archaeology position? Is it me or do archaeology searches lag in issuing campus invites? All the ancient history positions I've applied to have reported back while only one of the archy positions have?!
"if that's the berkeley shortlist, the "inside" candidate everyone was so upset about isn't on it? at least i don't see it."
I would guess the insider is still a candidate. Besides, if I heard correcty, she's a finalist for the Arizona Greek archaeology position so she'll likely land on her feet somewhere.
Looks like some people have started campus visits or are about to start them. Here's a suggestion for a new thread: things you love and hate about visits.
E.g. hate: having to pay your own airfare *and* hotel (yes, I am facing this) & crossing fingers that the reimbursement will work out OK. love: info packs from the uni/college waiting in your hotel room.
Let's not name any institutions or towns/cities, or give other identifying details.
Maybe lurking SC members will learn something for this year (and we will also for the future).
E.g. hate: having to pay your own airfare *and* hotel (yes, I am facing this) & crossing fingers that the reimbursement will work out OK.
Yeah, way to go on this one, dear institution with hundreds of millions of dollars in endowment. I get to fork over about $800 for short-notice airfare and am told I will be reimbursed in "6 to 8 weeks" when I can barely scrape together next month's rent money. Get your own departmental/dean of faculty credit card out, party people!
Overall, though, campus visits are fun. A chance to meet new people, see new places, get a bigger sense of the profession.
Only one school ever made me pay my own airfare...and that got interesting, because I ran into blizzards on the way to AND from and ending up racking up extra transportation and hotel costs. It went well over $1000. And they took 3 months to reimburse me. And I didn't get the job. 90% of the faculty told me to my face they didn't want to hire me.
(bitter)
but, yes, I agree, campus visits can be fun. Everyone who has one should remember that, and try to have fun! Not drunken fun, though.
I'm so with you 11:57 AM! I'm fine either drinking or not drinking, but I'd rather not be doing either alone and feeling conspicuous in that situation.
Love: Having quiet prep time before the job talk.
Hate: Having 2+ hours of prep time where you wind up pacing the floor of your borrowed office or classroom getting more and more nervous.
Yes, I really do appreciate a bit of down-time. Building in a couple of hours during the day where the candidate can take a walk around campus, around town, etc., is very humane and thoughtful. I understand SCs want to get their money's worth, but you will get a better picture of who I actually am if I can chill a bit on my own during the course of the visit.
Don't put too much trust into dept websites when trying to figure out who has (or not) been invited where.
We are not posting our visitors on our website for precisely this reason. We can invite a few now. If these don't work, we may move down the list by one or two (who were essentially right up there with our fly outs, but dollars are limited). Our "no way" letters have been sent; there are a few people who still might be invited out—and at least one I would love to see, as I felt this person should have been on the fly back list.
So anyway: some schools advertise their visitors. But others prefer to play it closer to the chest, precisely because we know that people will try to glean info from web sites.
The first is that it protects the candidates' identities, and we feel that until the offer has been made and accepted, this identity should be protected by the hiring university. If the candidate wants to get a "I interviewed with U of X and all I got was this crummy t-shirt" shirt, she may by all means do so. She may advertise her interviews and on-campus visits. It is not, however, the right of the university to do so. This may out her to people who do not yet know of her search, and it may make things uncomfortable for her if she has other on-campus visits with people who now know where else she is visiting.
And so on. It can get very messy. We want to keep it clean.
The second, related to this and noted above, is that it protects our job search. No one wants to get into a bidding war for a candidate. It can happen, of course, but no one wants it: it's an ugly way to conduct a search. What will happen after offers are made will happen regardless. By not advertising visits, however, we hope to cut down on too much behind-the-scenes dealing prior to even the visit. It just doesn't help things.
"there are a few people who still might be invited out—and at least one I would love to see, as I felt this person should have been on the fly back list."
Excuse my ignorance, anon. 3:21, but I don't understand why the dean's office will not invest in some "insurance" by bringing this fourth person to campus. It sounds like you're invested in the search, if not the chair, and the candidate will bring something different to the table. I'm pretty green and obviously biased as a job-searcher myself, but throw us a bone! Why not call the candidate, explain the budgetary constraints, and put him/her up at a faculty member's house. I'm sure they would take it!
At this point, I'm assuming that I've been "wait-listed" by all the schools I interviewed with in Chicago that I haven't heard back from (around half). I've either gotten campus invites or a no-thanks letter from the other half. It keeps me focused this way.
If you weren't a true finalist, the last thing you want to be is a "pity f*!k" (excuse my French). Campus visits are time-consuming, and even kinda stressful for the faculty. It is like grad-school funding. If they ain't willing to pay, then they ain't willing to play. Sleeping in Professor X's guest bedroom just will not make it up.
"Excuse my ignorance, anon. 3:21, but I don't understand why the dean's office will not invest in some "insurance" by bringing this fourth person to campus."
It's very complicated. It's not really about the dean's office. It's about... Oh, hell, guys. I don't know. It's complicated. The visits are not just expensive (though they are); they are enormously time consuming for everyone involved. The candidates meet with all (or almost all) faculty in this dept; they meet with various faculty in other related depts; they meet various university bigwigs, and the dean. They are lunched; they are receptioned; they are dinnered in faculty homes. They meet grad students; they get tours. Classes are cancelled so that grads and undergrads can attend the talks (I have one once-a-week class, and it will be cancelled for two consecutive weeks due to visits, so I have now had to ask my students to agree upon a time to make up the class); university classrooms have to be booked for theirs.
I am not complaining—and I know it is far worse on the candidates' end of things: but you should all know that these visits throw everything into an uproar. They take huge planning on a dept's part—it's not like I normally just sit in my office waiting for someone to show up for half an hour so I can impress them with how terrific our department is—and huge expenses of our time.
It is fair to try to keep this uproar to a minimum. It is not only fair: it is necessary.
[QUOTE]It sounds like you're invested in the search,[/QUOTE]
Every person in the dept., and several in other related depts, is very invested in this hire.
[QUOTE] Why not call the candidate, explain the budgetary constraints, and put him/her up at a faculty member's house. I'm sure they would take it]
So, X candidates get to stay in a fancy hotel, and Y other candidate gets to stay with a faculty member?
If Y candidate is not offered the job, then this maneuver could—and would—be read as a ghettoization or worse. If Y candidate *is* offered the job, then this maneuver could—and would—be read as rank favoritism.
All candidates invited out must be treated as equally as possible. Any other path turns the whole thing into a charade.
It *is* about the money, but it's not only about the money. It's about taking a gamble with the time and resources you have to spare.
I know this sounds like hell from the candidates' end of things. Keeping people on tenterhooks is horrible. No one enjoys it. I personally feel that departments should notify "not calling you out for a visit yet" candidates (I am against calling them "B listers," as that makes more of a distinction between campus-visits and the "not off our radar" crowd than there really is) that they are not off the radar, but I have been convinced, if reluctantly, of the legitimacy of such an approach.
Ugh.
It may not be just as bad from this end, but it's still painful. I have nothing to add other than that, in my dept. at least, everyone is trying to do everything as ethically and fairly and considerately as possible.
The Rutgers position(s) has been offered and accepted? At my interview I was told that there would probably be two openings - I assumed one would be for Greek poetry and the other for the Romanist.
Yet you claim both have been filled?
I don't see how this is possible. But if you're right (and I have no reason to doubt you I guess) then it sounds like a dirty search.
I don't see how this is possible. But if you're right (and I have no reason to doubt you I guess) then it sounds like a dirty search.
Oh for cripes sake. I didn't get a campus call-back either, and if the position has been accepted, that hardly makes it a "dirty search"! Jeebus, grow up. Move on.
"The Rutgers position(s) has been offered and accepted? At my interview I was told that there would probably be two openings - I assumed one would be for Greek poetry and the other for the Romanist. "
I know only that the Greek poetry position has been offered and accepted. I do not know about the other, if there is another.
From all I hear, it was a completely valid search. It went quickly, but I knew some of the details along the way, and there was nothing to criticize.
As I've written before, they were interviewing nineteen(!) people at the conference. NO department puts itself through that sort of unpleasantness if the fix is in. So stop assuming the worst about people and search committees.
Last year, I was the one who suggested that we use the wiki to post the names of people who get jobs, since otherwise we'd all have to wait months and months for the APA newsletter to say. I think we should do the same this year. HOWEVER, one adjustment is in order. A colleague of mine this year tells me that his name was posted to the wiki before he could tell some of his friends, professors, etc., which he rightly found irksome. Therefore, I would suggest that if the person hired for a position does not post it himself/herself, whoever is thinking of doing it wait a week or so. Since for the rest of us it's a mere curiosity who got certain jobs (as opposed to knowing whether those jobs are filled), there should be no need to upstage people by reporting such "scoops." So, if you get a job please post, and if a friend of yours gets one then encourage him or her to do so, and if that doesn't work then wait a suitable amount of time before posting the information yourself.
I am the one who posted with the Rutgers information.
There is no way in hell I would post this person's name here or on the wiki. I can understand people here "really wanting to know," but the fact of the matter is that it just isn't your business.
If a person chooses to post their name with their chosen position, that is perfectly acceptable. If they choose not to, however, it is simply tacky to "out" her or him without warning (or against her or his wishes). All of this information will eventually be made public.
I would very much hope that anyone here with such information would think very carefully—and numerous times—before choosing to out a colleague's new position on a public site. These positions often deal with geographic relocations, changes of jobs for partners or spouses, changes of schools for children, and so on. There is a great deal of extenuating and possibly information tied up in what may seem to others a simple "hire."
Please do not post others' names against their will. Curiosity is not justification for such action.
I also have a very strong objection to this. At the end of a campus visit, I was asked who else I was interviewing with. Why? Institutions increasingly want to make offers to people who have already received offers (I guess it's a validation thing). So naming the winners on the wiki will mean that there'll be a small number of people getting multiple offers, while the rest of us are left with nothing. Please, please, let's have a moratorium on anyone naming winners (themselves or others) until, say, the end of March.
Anonymous 3:38, you have a bit of a point, but seem to forget that once people are hired word spreads, and not just to their friends. And the bigger the job, the farther it spreads. Just some people aren't as well tied in to the networks of gossip out there. But unless I'm badly mistaken, there's nothing secret once someone has accepted an offer officially.
Anonymous 3:39: I'm not saying that OFFERS should be reported, but ACCEPTANCES. If someone accepts a job, they're doing so after having decided against any other schools that interviewed them, or having learned that those schools don't want them. I'm just not seeing the possible harm that you envision.
I don't have a "bit of a point"; I have the whole point. All the point. Every bit of it. Mine!
You yourself say that word gets out because of "gossip"; but then you complain that because some people aren't hooked into the inner circles, we should make it democratic and publish acceptances abroad: why rely on individual discretion to keep the gossip levels down? Hell—let's just publish it on a website!
This is a selfish and thoughtless position, and if you were to step back from your desire to be in on inner-circle gossip for one moment, you would see this. Imagine for a moment that you are the person who just accepted a position, but that... that your spouse is also employed, and has not yet told her (or his) boss that she (or he) will be leaving. Now say someone stumbles across the wiki for some reason and sees your name, which you did not post, and mentions the hire to your wife's (or husband's) boss (or your kids' teacher, or whomever).
Do you not think that job hires have the reasonable right to take care of their own business and make their own notifications?
And don't go saying "oh, hey, what are the chances of the above scenario winding out? Who is going to go spreading things around like that?"
This is how rumors work: they spread. They spread, and confuse things, and damage friendships and relationships and jobs. Your desire to democratize the process whereby rumors are spread—to publish them broadly, that is, and remove the possibility of individual discretion—is base. You cannot argue it. I am sorry. You may want it, but you cannot argue for it.
Two more points as re the "harm" you cannot see (apparently your only worry about "harm" is how it might "harm" other candidates!):
1. Searches can fall through, even after offers have been made and accepted. Most hires aren't completely totally absolutely settled for a couple of months. It is very rare for an offer to follow through, but it can happen (we have seen cancelled searches this year). This is part of the reason why hires aren't posted by the APA for some time. Most appointments don't even start until Fall, and until then there are numerous things that undoubtedly won't but might possibly go wrong. Give the hire some privacy, if she or he wants it. She or he might possibly know things about the position that, say, you don't. Let her or him decide. Criminy!
2. Sometimes a person with multiple offers will accept one before telling the other schools "no" (indeed, one should always accept one position before rejecting all others!); sometimes a person will accept a position before having heard from her other options. It is not your right to reveal this person's status to these other schools. It is not your search. Stay, with all due respect, out of it. To wish to do something for the explicit purposes of democratizing the gossip cycle is ... ewww. Stinky.
Let people post their own results. I don't get how individuals here don't see this as an ethical imperative.
Sorry to be a bit late to the party here, but I have been out of town for a few days and away from the internets. But back just in time, I see.
I don't intend to be heavy-handed here (well, maybe I do, just a little bit), but I will delete any and all names posted in the comments. No exceptions. I will also delete comments that reveal the identity of an individual indirectly. Obviously this does not apply to someone mentioning that, say, Richard Thomas teaches in the Classics dept. at Harvard.
We have no business "outing" people. I posted this rule on the main page way back when. It remains there in nice red print, and I will enforce it as ruthlessly and in as timely a manner as I can.
If you are hired and want to announce it, then please feel free to do so on the wikis. But because I have no way of verifying who a commenter is, I cannot allow even potentially honest, first-person announcements.
Again, I am sorry to wade in like this, but I hope this helps clarify matters here. This space isn't about personalities, but about the process. To the extent that information-sharing democratizes it, that is good, I hope. Gossip for the sake of satisfying curiosity? Not so much.
I'm not sure what all the fuss is. Departments (many of them) are announcing finalists on their websites. Isn't that "outing" those candidates already? What is the difference between somebody saying "check out Penn's website to see their finalists" and "check out Smith, Barney, Marsh, and Mcluhan, the four Penn finalists"?
"I'm not sure what all the fuss is. Departments (many of them) are announcing finalists on their websites"
No. They aren't. They are announcing talks or colloquia. I just checked Penn, and I've checked Berkeley, and I know our site (we aren't listing any visitors—precisely because of this sort of scuttlebutt). Neither Penn nor Berkeley list "finalists" or "candidates" or anything of the kind . They list visiting speakers.
I've run an ad hoc search of some other departments on the search, and see that far from all advertise visitors, and I have found none that advertise them as candidates or "finalists."
The fuss. The fuss is that this is a tough process to begin with, and this is just making it harder. I haven't heard from a single person here who says "I'd LOVE to be outed! Go for it!" I have heard only from those who think it is their right to out others who have jobs "just because we are interested in hearing..." I have not heard from a single faculty member here who thinks this might be a justifiable move.
Those who wish to announce job acceptances whether or not the hirees themselves wish their names to be announced privilege personal curiosity over the rights of others to professional and personal privacy.
Once you are in a solid t-t job, you may know how chilling this sounds. Our dept has some folks coming out soon. If I knew that one of them was someone posting such thoughts, I have to say that such an unprofessional attitude would come close to sinking them utterly in my estimation. It is good indeed that this is anonymous. I know you are all blowing off steam and anxieties and fears and all that: but you should know also that suggestions of outing colleagues' (and by this I mean everyone in this field, hired or not) professional and personal situations, without their knowledge or willingness, is utterly anathema.
Seriously. Think this through. You are entering (or well in) a field that is incredibly small. I know frustrations are running high. Please rise to their challenge.
I am myself looking for a job but fully second what anonymous 9:48 says. I can see no potentially useful outcome coming from premature "outing," aside from satisfying personal curiosity (which is itself a useless waste of energy). I have also looked at the Penn site, and was puzzled that an campus invitee, whose identity I privately happen to know, is not listed there. It seems that they are simply listing invited speakers, not candidates for their opening.
C'mon, giving me a frickin' break. No one here is a petty yenta bent on destroying people. What you're basically asking is tantamount to calling for the dismissal of the NY Times et al. b/c the National Enquirer is out there. The fact is that all the power has resided in the hands of SCs and university administrations. This blog allows for some transparency that just would not be there if we left it in the hands of the SCs. Yes, it's inconvenient when you can't leave a bunch of b-listers in the dark and when the scrutiny here forces SCs to ask more scrupulously, but overall, none of these things (within the fair rules set by Servius) cripple a search. And you know what? Yes, it's difficult to find any sympathy from some tenured faculty member shooting for some fatter position crying for absolute privacy. IYCSTH, get out of the kitchen. I can understand now why one posting put in their fine print: Persons agreeing to be final candidates (to be interviewed) will have their identities revealed as final candidates.
Simply knowing that a place has invited finalists to campus is transparency enough. And I agree, it is quite useful. But having the names of said candidates published in an anonymous forum doesn't add any meaningful information. The use value of this forum, and of the wikis, is two pronged. First, more information related to scheduling - finding out who had, asked for additional writing, announced APA scheduling, and now campus visits, and in the future that a job has been accepted and is thus out of play. All sorts of information I am very happy to get here, since it is the only place to get it. Second, having a place to ask questions and grumble anonymously, since we can't very well do that in front of our colleagues. Sometimes said grumbling is enlightening, sometimes not. But at least we have a like-minded (mostly) community to share this process with. But I do not see how naming names adds further value to this forum. Please don't.
The information about where we stand in jobs we applied for is why this site is so useful. The grumbling is fun too, since I can make my extended analogies to dating and prostitution (there was a news item recently about increasing numbers of students in France resorting to prostitution to help finance their education).
There is one more 'prong' I would add. The amusing accusations that fly between conspiracy theorists and those hiring.
(there was a news item recently about increasing numbers of students in France resorting to prostitution to help finance their education).
So sad. When I taught at a flagship university in the south a few years ago there was a big scandal about how many of the "ladies" working at the "gentlemen's clubs" around town were undergrads putting themselves through college.
The Cal-State Sacramento job is listed as having been offered to someone. I still haven't heard from CSU and am curious if anybody around here knows if that special someone ended up accepting the job. Grazie!
I haven't heard from a single person here who says "I'd LOVE to be outed! Go for it!" I have heard only from those who think it is their right to out others who have jobs "just because we are interested in hearing..." I have not heard from a single faculty member here who thinks this might be a justifiable move.
If I get a job, please, out me. I'd love to be outed! Go for it! Please, pretty please? I just want a job. Then I can be outed. Outing will be great. If I get a job. Oh, please, job gods. A job.
I -- and presumably others -- have now received a rejection from Northwestern in which the recipient of their Mellon post-doc, who has accepted the offer, is actually NAMED by the search committee chair. Is anyone seriously going to say that in this case it's still some sort of secret, and if the recipient does not post her name no one else can? (Personally, I don't particularly care about this position, since I wasn't even interviewed at the APA. I'm just saying, is all.)
I have always found that type of letter particularly odd. I know that several months from now some job that I applied for but never heard from will send me a letter in which they congratulate themselves on successfully hiring Dr. B. Wooster (PhD, Wodehouse Univ.).
Incidentally, Anonymous 9:48, there is at least one school who does list speakers as "search candidate."
Obviously it is wrong dicere nomen here, but the whole process is so fraught with inconsistency that I can easily forgive the confusion.
It isn't at all odd for a rejection letter to name the hire, because, despite the absurd objections of some of the hand-wringers on this board, with their specious arguments about privacy, once someone signs a contract and accepts a position at a university it is public information.
I do indeed find it odd (as is lustig) for a rejection letter to name the hired candidate, but not for the reasons you seem to suppose.
I am not so sure that the arguments made were specious, although you can frame it that way by focusing on the time after the acceptance. Where privacy might be less of a specious reason is before that.
I think Rutgers had issues with a search last year, so they were probably under pressure to wrap this one up and bag a top candidate. But what do I know?
The names/no names/privacy debate here is interesting. As a point of comparison look at Brian Leiter's blog, which devotes an entire post to "outing" hires. Leiter is himself a tenured professor at Texas (soon to be Chicago), and does this sort of thing every year (not up yet, but will be soon I imagine). Here is the link:
If this is the custom in Philosophy, why should Classics be any different? Both are small communities, and have the same issues of tenure and collegiality, etc. I understand a major difference is that posters cannot be anonymous, and it seems like Leiter limits acceptable sources. But it is still "outing", no matter the source.
I checked a bag that didn't make the connection, which was kind of scary and sad, but I was sure to wear something interview-acceptable on the plane and had all the important stuff in my hand luggage. I had to borrow some winter gear from a faculty member. Turns out that the missing bag and borrowed stuff were sources of easy conversation when all other topics seemed exhausted. It wasn't so bad in the end.
I know at some public universities, candidates are automatically "outed" and put into the public record the minute they agree to a campus interview. Like it has been said - all part of the territory.
Hah! Tonight's fortune cookie: "Your talents will be recognized and rewarded." I guess that despite their ancientmost wisdom, the Chinese don't truly understand the classics job market...
I am sympathetic to the concerns about respecting a candidate's privacy. That said, it's the sad but true fact that, once you agree to be interviewed for a position, any privacy you are accorded is a gift rather than an expectation. For this reason, it is always a good idea to assume that everyone knows everything about you (esp. if you are trying to look for a job sub rosa). The more high-profile the job is, the less likely you are to be accorded any privacy. It sucks, but it's how it is.
In addition, this lack of privacy will be the case for the rest of your professional life, to some degree or another (esp. if you are in PhD granting department). I despise it and do everything I can to protect my privacy. Still...
So, all this to say that, once someone has accepted a job, the news is out there and will spread, sometimes quickly and sometimes slowly. I see no reason not to democratize the access to that information. Candidates who accept offers should realize that word will spread and act accordingly.
As the one who raised this whole can of worms and then opened it, I want to respond. First, I should say that I personally care about the outcomes of a small number of searches -- either places with which I've interviewed, or programs in which I have some sort of interest. Which is why I've not been spending the past few days going back and forth on this subject. I will state that some of the arguments against that I've seen have made sense (and hadn't occurred to me), others make no sense. Of the latter, I'll only single out the implicit suggestion that it's okay for a job candidate to accept an offer and not tell other search committees in a timely manner, and that somehow anyone else who posts this information would be doing that person a disservice. Anyone who accepts an offer but doesn't notify other places considering him/her deserves a torrent of abuse, not our collective protection. (And I know of one person who has done this, so it does happen.)
I'll admit that I can see how it's possible for someone to accept an offer and then suffer some sort of unforeseen damage when someone else (e.g., their spouse's employer) finds out. Though unlikely, it's a bit of a concern, especially since Google picks up anything posted on the original wiki. But since Google can't penetrate our passworded wiki, that wouldn't be a concern if we ONLY posted names there. And since more than enough people have (rightly) argued that new hires are hardly a secret in our field, I don't see how any harm can come from this information being posted in a place accessed only by classicists/archaeologists. As I see it, this would just be doing the work of the APA newsletter, but in a more timely manner.
With that having been said, and having satisfied the argumentative facet of my personality, I'll say that I do think that "outing" candidates who have not themselves posted their good news should be delayed longer than a week (which was my original suggestion). And of course, if a department outs them in its rejection letters, then that information can go up right away.
Finally, I'll point out that for all the concerns over "outing," last year it was happening on the wiki to some extent, and no one (to my knowledge) complained, and this year no one has entered this argument to cite an example of how it hurt them. In other words, people are arguing hypotheticals, but the system appears to have worked without problem last year. So long as we now act more courteously by giving people a significant amount of time to notify other search committees and their friends, colleagues, and former professors, this probably isn't as big a deal as some think it is.
No one seems to be arguing for naming people at anytime before an offer is accepted - so that issue seems to be closed.
The naming of the candidate who accepted the offer seems to offer fewer ethical problems, but I will still argue that we not do it here.
1. As far as I can see, it serves no useful purpose. Knowing that an offer was accepted is sufficient and surely we can wait until it is published in the APA newsletter.
2. There is a chance of error, which may may or may not cause harm. A harmless error may even now be there: Univ. of Toronto hires for last year appear to be inverted, going by the publications I have read.
If no real benefit comes from naming hires here, why take even a small risk of doing harm?
tinkerty-tonk,
Poldy (who has no campus visits and so too much time)
1. As far as I can see, it serves no useful purpose. Knowing that an offer was accepted is sufficient and surely we can wait until it is published in the APA newsletter.
Actually, I think it can be very useful to know who has accepted an offer. If you are competing against the same relatively small pool of candidates in a particular sub-specialization, the choices made by other candidates can very much affect your options. Do I take the soon-to-expire offer for a two-year job or do I hold out for the tenure-track job at Princeton that I know has been offered to Dr. Joe J. Shmoe? In that case, it's very helpful to me to know as soon as possible that Dr. Shmoe (and not someone else) has accepted a tenure-track position at Harvard instead.
That said, I do also very much see the wisdom of erring on the side of caution in terms of naming names.
So, after having four interviews for tenure-track jobs at the conference, it appears that I’m not in the running for any of them at this point. As one who is 3+ years out of grad school – I just typed “grade school” by mistake – I would like to crystallize some of my thoughts, several of which tie in with what others in a similar situation have posted. I would be curious to see what people have to say, especially some of those who are already tenured faculty but have been hanging around here.
Essentially, I think that the people in hiring positions need to think about the good of the field, and not just their own programs, when they decide on their finalists, because it is clear that there are several of us out there still without tenure-track jobs despite being several years out (and being good enough to merit permanent positions!), and there is a danger that some will leave the field – if not this year, then next year, or the year after. (One of us recently posted something along those lines; I doubt that she’s the only one contemplating another career.) And presumably, some of those people would have made valuable contributions. We all know or know of people who left academia because they were unable to find permanent positions, and some of these people were pretty damn good. A major cause of this problem, it seems to me, is not that there are too few jobs, but that departments tend to get star-struck and pass over proven, experienced candidates in order to hire the latest shiny, new products emerging from the topmost grad programs, some of whom have spent little or no time in the classroom.
I understand why search committees like to go after these rookies, but I question the soundness of this policy, since I know of times when departments have gotten burned in doing so. I myself witnessed this as a grad student, when my department hired someone from a top-tier program who turned out to be a mediocre teacher: he/she often lazily relied on grad students to teach his/her undergrad lecture courses (something that was completely atypical for our department), and apparently – I was ABD when he/she was hired but heard this from my fellow grads – would routinely show up to his/her grad seminars unprepared. Had this person had to take one or two VAP positions first, his/her deficiencies might have been known before he/she was hired for a tenure-track position. Another example: I have taught at a place where someone with a degree from an even more prestigious school was not fully competent to handle certain aspects of the teaching of grad students, leaving many of them with serious gaps in their training (which I myself tried to rectify!). And this year, I have heard from a reliable source about someone from one top program being interviewed for a rather good tenure-track position, and that person has very serious deficiencies that are unlikely to come out until after he/she has been hired – deficiencies that if known would most definitely disqualify the person from a job at that institution.
It is cases like these that make me think that our field needs to act more like Republicans and less like Democrats. (Please resist the temptation to make obvious jokes.) Remember, the conventional wisdom is that in years when they don’t have an incumbent Republicans tend to nominate as their presidential candidate the person whose “turn” it is (Dole 1996, Bush Sr. 1988, Reagan 1980, Nixon 1968, Nixon 1960, and probably McCain this year), whereas Democrats often are bedazzled by someone new and relatively unknown, who often electrifies them with hope even if he is less experienced than his opponents (Clinton 1992, Carter 1976, McGovern 1972, Kennedy 1960, and this year at least two of the three who are still running are far less experienced than Biden, Dodd or Richardson). Our field needs to find a way to make sure that some people who have been out for a while don’t fall through the cracks and end up leaving academia altogether, and the way to do this is to make more of an effort to hire people whose “turn” it is to get a tenure-track job. Those unproven but potentially outstanding Obama-types will do just fine if they end up having to settle for a year or two of seasoning in visiting positions before landing a tenure-track job – and future search committees will benefit by knowing the track-records of these candidates. Moreover, we have had a discussion on this blog about how certain schools (I think Princeton was a prime offender, allegedly) are notorious for their inflationary letters of recommendation – and this approach of only hiring proven candidates for tenure-track positions would certainly help to reduce the long-term harm that can be done by such misleading letters.
So, where am I wrong in thinking this? I know enough about Game Theory to recognize that this will probably never happen, because departments won’t be able to help themselves and will fall for the next pretty young thing to come along. But shouldn’t it work as I suggest?
To Anon. 10:15 (Anon. 10:36, sorry, but that answer was undignified for a serious post):
I agree with almost everything you say. I will say this: I have been out 4+ years. After one campus interview (for a job advertised in the spring) a very long time ago, I didn't start getting campus invites regularly from APA interviews until last year. I managed more this year. This, I think is for several reasons: there were some weaknesses I needed to address, my degree is not from a school known for my particular specialty, but now I get the sense I have finally filled up a great many of those gaps, which encourages me enough to keep trying, at least another year, if nothing happens this year.
I also don't think people need to fall between the cracks; I think the temporary market is well-suited to the more experienced candidates. The past three years I have had multiple temporary job offers. I think for any good teacher and good colleague who is willing to keep trying, something will happen someday. The question most who leave have to decide if that is worth it to them and their families. Just now, it's worth it to me; it might not be in a year or two.
As for Princeton, yes, they have that rep of inflating letters. But I have a friend graduating from there and they have been wonderful and supportive at every moment of the job search: mock interviews, extra teaching experience, practice job talks attended by a significant number of faculty, etc. They even have a section on their website: "meet our students on the market this year." That's a pretty fair commitment to getting grads jobs, one which other top schools don't always do. Perhaps lesser programs would be well-advised to follow suit. It might make a difference.
are there more details on the Lafayette news posted on the wiki (search committee still deciding)? was this sent in response to a personal communication, or to people on a post-apa shortlist (but not yet a finalist shortlist)?
"but that departments tend to get star-struck and pass over proven, experienced candidates in order to hire the latest shiny, new products emerging from the topmost grad programs, some of whom have spent little or no time in the classroom."
I think there's even a deeper problem than robbing-the-cradle syndrome. It's incest - simple as that. I know it's impractical, but there should be a SC member who is not a Classics Ph.D. As it stands now, it's not so much that SCs purposely pass over candidates who are superb academics but I honestly believe they cannot recognize them. In a strange twist, the more innovative you are in Classics, the less appealing you are due to unfamiliarity. Classics has gone down a small path and needs to take a step back before it can get reinvigorated. Alas, I fear for its future.
Dear 10:15, I, too, agree with almost everything you say. I, however, WAS one of those freshly-made baubles that never had to go through the VAP circuit. I managed to land a very good tenure-track job while still ABD. I am now in my third year in that position, and while I am quite happy, I think that having a few years of visiting appointments under my belt would have helped me immensely. I wouldn't have this particular job, but presumably I would have a similarly decent job. However, I would be in a much better position for re-appointment and, eventually, tenure.
I also think that some sort of system that recognizes service and experience ought to be in play. I suspect it never will be, but that is to our field's discredit. Expecting all newly minted PhDs to work at least 3 years in visiting positions (or, one 3-year position) would help everybody. Like you said, candidates could be measured in real-world terms. Presumably letters of recommendation from faculty where one has taught are more trustworthy than from one's PhD institution, since they have no vested interest in "placement". Deficiencies in training and teaching experience can be rectified, or exposed as show-stoppers. I think these "visiting" years post-PhD would demonstrate that institutional pedigree is not a good predictor of professional success. Over time this might then flatten out the disparity in hiring practices so that candidates from "name brand" places won't dominate the hiring cycle. And like I noted above, better to learn how to balance the teaching and research while off the tenure clock. Finally, one would have the benefit of seeing how a few different institutions work from the perspective of a faculty member, and the simple good of expanding your network of colleagues.
I could go on. But I did want to voice my support for your posting. I realize I am VERY fortunate, and that my current position has much more to do with luck than my own scholarly virtues. My good fortune has not blinded me to the fact that some sort of structural modifications are in order.
I would actually go one step further. Based upon my own experience of adjuncting and VAPing at everything from community colleges to R1 universities for nearly ten years before landing my first full-time job (I am now happily tenured), I have long argued that it should be mandatory for all newly-minted PhDs in Classics, Archaeology, and Ancient History to teach for two years at a community college before landing a TT job at a four-year college or university. That may seem a bit extreme to some, but it does two things: 1) It deflates your ego immediately and allows you to become grateful for the later positions that may come your way, rather than feeling that it is your right; and 2) More importantly, you will learn how to teach. If you can teach effectively at the community college level, where many of your students are the first in their family to have attended college, you can subsequently teach anywhere, and do it well, whether you are teaching undergraduates or graduate students. I can think of numerous examples where teaching for a few years at a community college would have done an insufferable (and incompetent) colleague a world of good. And, there are tons of FT and PT jobs at community colleges, frequently with excellent colleagues, if you are willing to teach basic introductory-level courses (which will, by the way, come in handy later).
First, it's not Absurdistan. Comments like that are attempts to detract from considering a serious problem.
It would be entirely possible for SCs to do what Anon. 7:39 suggests. All they have to do in the job description is to specify "PhD and two (or however many they want) years teaching experience beyond the PhD." I'm sure this would run into all kinds of administrative and departmental objections, but other professions - business, libraries - do it, so why not academia? (Of course, they'd also have to stick to it, and job descriptions are not gospel.)
On the links on the right of the main page of Famae Volent, there are several on topics like "Why No One Deserves the Job They Get." Let's try to remember that as jobs are offered and the gap between haves and have-nots becomes clearer. Those of us with jobs should realize how fortunate we are, not go on an ego trip.
I agree that all newly minted PhDs should have to teach in CC for at least two years before getting a TT.
At the end of two years, however, they should be assured a TT. They should be guaranteed the TT position of their choice, and if one has not opened at their institution of choice, then ... then the candidates should get to choose one tenured faculty from that department who will be removed from that position. And shot. Yes! Shot!
We can repopulate entire departments this way. It is for the good of the field.
Actually, I think CC is too easy on them. I think that new PhDs should have to teach high school for a decade before getting a University job. They will become good teachers and top-ranked scholars in the process. It is a really great idea.
I think we should discard any concerns of research potential or productivity. It's really about everyone getting a chance at the top job. Everyone's equally deserving of everything. And it should mainly be about service. Food service. Stuff like that.
Enjoy your stay in Absurdistan. The weather is unpredictable, and the people hilarious!
Come on, guys. This is a highly competitive scholarly field. That doesn't mean it's always pleasant, this job process. But to argue that hiring the candidates who have the top potential (and most impressive output) is not for the good of the field is ludicrous.
Fine, I'll bite, because absurd doesn't even begin to describe it.
First, I doubt most SCs would even concede there is a "problem". Most SCs are interested in hiring the best candidate they can get. To suggest that this is not in the overall interests of the field because they are often getting bad teachers is a) unproven (even by anecdote: for every freshly minted Harvard PHD that can't teach I can point to someone with ten years experience who is even worse) and b) beside the point. SCs that hire candidates w/out teaching experience are clearly weighing other factors, such as the potential to generate new and compelling research. At R1 institutions a low departmental research profile means the guillotine, even for departments with high enrollments and teaching awards.
And the proposed solutions are preposterous. Make all recent PHDs teach for two years at a community college? Really? You think that will attract the talented and ambitious young scholars that the field needs to survive? Require two years of post-PHD teaching to be considered for TT jobs? That might establish a pecking order that allows long-time VAPs to slide into TTs, but guess what, it would provide relief for all of two years, after which the exact same biases would reassert themselves (the Harvard/Princeton PHDs with strong/inflated recommendations and a 2 years in a VAP would be right back at the front of the line). And it would likelier lead to even more inside TT hires.
I am as critical of the APA and many features of the hiring process as the rest of you, but trying to take the power out of the hands of SCs to evaluate their own needs then pick the best candidates and instead instituting rules or rigid hierarchies in the interests of 'fairness' is, in my view, absurd.
I, for one, do not advocate any rigid rules, especially the community colleges option. But I do think that committees need to be cognizant of which candidates have been hanging in there for several years and seriously consider the fact that these people might be lost to the field if not hired.
And what one or two of you appear to be missing is that these candidates from the top programs who are brimming with potential don't need to be hired right away -- no one is so good that they MUST begin the tenure-track process right away. If departments held to a policy of only hiring people with 1+ years of experience, then they would be just as capable of stocking up on grads from top programs, they would just get the ones who were a year or two out. But in that time, some of the ones who don't merit the top jobs will be weeded out, creating more opportunities for candidates of demonstrated excellence who have been around longer and proven themselves in the classroom and in their research. How would that be a bad thing?
Anyway, if I'm ever on a SC all candidates coming right out of grad school will start off with two strikes on them in my eyes. And you know what? There will still be some damn fine candidates left.
The problem or the difficulty, if there is one, seems to me this; you need to have just the right mixture of research skill/potential, teaching ability, and collegiality/affability to get ahead. I have known a number of brilliant researchers as well as charismatic teachers who languish in CC's, high schools and low-paying foreign universities while mediocre people seem to dominate the field. But I guess departments have the right to decide whom they want, because their prosperity and survival depends on it. Still, it is sad e.g. to hear a dep. chair at a prominent research univ. openly say (as I was witness) that they don't need brilliant people, just someone who can help the department do its job.
I think that part of the problem is that the "brilliance" of the newly minted people often rests on what their advisor says about them and, maybe, an article or two. Everything else is potential. Yes, many, perhaps most Bright Young Things fulfill that potential and go on to be outstanding scholars and teachers. But as we all know, some do not.
The advantage of weighting postdoctoral experience more is largely that it gives more chance for the candidate to show that, in fact, they will get their book published (and their diss. successfully defended, before that!), they can teach a variety of courses, and they can work with colleagues from a variety of backgrounds and approaches. I don't think this will hurt the truly good candidates at all; it will just give them even more advantages. But it weeds out the folks who 3 years post-Ph.D. still haven't published anything and have mediocre teaching evaluations. In many ways, it would help the top-tier places, because they'd be less likely to have to deny someone tenure, which no one wants to do.
A major problem with the system is the overall subjectivity and process. It's not just the over-inflated letters. The fact is the skills needed to land a job are largely learned and have little bearing on a successful academic career. In essence, it's a beauty contest. Go over the checklist that people have written about interviewing successfully. Will these skills ever be life and death again? It's a crapshoot and I'm fairly sick of the tired old excuse that "it's the best we have."
" But it weeds out the folks who 3 years post-Ph.D. still haven't published anything and have mediocre teaching evaluations."
If anything, I think there's a problem on both ends of the academic timeline - the fascination with newly-minted Ph.D.s with a sparkling letter from Dr. Bigshot AND these same people 7 years later with little to no publications getting denied tenure yet getting another chance elsewhere. The process favors and continues to favor those who somehow won the TT lottery. The latter part is even more disturbing.
Isn't getting a top TT job straight out of grad school, the dream of every grad student? I can see the number (and quality) of incoming grad students plunging if any of the proposals suggested here come to be. Some people are less willing than others to endure several years of temporary teaching, especially when their education and achievement gives them better non-academic alternatives. A bias against the highly ambitious is going to drive more talented people out of the field than a bias against the ultra-dedicated.
No one (other than a fool or egomaniac) enters grad school these days with the assumption that he or she will be guaranteed a tenure-track job right away. If more departments made it a policy not to hire candidates with no post-graduate teaching experience that should not reduce the number of people seeking Ph.D.'s. (That community college idea, of course, would have such an effect.)
What's the likelihood that universities will start to offer better VAP and post-doc opportunities? (Medium-term as opposed to one-year, reasonable teaching load, etc.) I wouldn't want this to result in fewer t-t jobs, but it would seem to be in the interests of all--people tired of moving, bright young things, depts tired of turnover, admins worried about tenuring the untried--if there were more (any?) medium-term positions. I can only think of Vassar this year, and that situation was unique. The Societies of Fellows and other lottery-like opportunities just don't cut it.
What's the likelihood that universities will start to offer better VAP and post-doc opportunities?
Slim. I have heard of universities getting rid of the VAP altogether and opting for more temporary positions. I expect temporary faculty will have to teach more courses with less support and precious little security.
My sources do not cover the whole spectrum, of course, but there does seem to be a general trend towards short term, fixed contract teaching.
[Princeton] has been wonderful and supportive at every moment of the job search: mock interviews, extra teaching experience, practice job talks . . . Perhaps lesser programs would be well-advised to follow suit.
Perhaps equal programs would, too! I like guidance.
Dead Man Walking (et al.):
You mentioned "deficiencies", and I wonder what, exactly, you mean (without giving it all away)? (Disclosure: I'm about to hop on a plane, so my curiosity is powered by nerves.)
I continue to be astounded by reading the opinions here.
A TT job is not "the lottery." That would be insulting if it weren't just so idiotic. Some candidates are stronger, kiddos, and some have obviously more potential in the field, and some write much better than others, and some think much better than others, and some you'd love to have as a colleague and others—eh; you'd rather not.
Do you all really think there are not incredibly strong differences between candidates? Yes, yes: in the top five or so (your campus visits plus your alternates), things might be close. But even among those interviewed, the sheep-goat distinction is pretty clear. Hell: add to that the 100 or so applicants, of which you could interview only 13? Those who ended up at the top of the list are there because they are the stronger candidates.
I know this is hard to hear, but there are in fact stronger and weaker candidates out there. This is obvious to everyone on a SC. And you want the strong ones, of course, and it doesn't matter if they are freshly minted or out for a bit, save that the strongest new PhDs tend to land jobs first or second year out (and so not get stuck in endless VAPs), so by the time you are considering folks who are four or five years out but still on VAPs, you are not—probably—looking at the people who were the strongest when they finished. And you wonder: if they weren't a hot ticket when they first came out, what has made them hotter in the interim?
Those of you who speak of using your VAP time to publish lots—not quite as easy as it sounds. Just ask someone on her third VAP.
For the one who asked if depts might initiate more (or longer) VAP positions—why in the hell would we want to? Job searches suck. We want tenure lines. A VAP position is up for yearly approval by the University. Too risky. We settle when we have to, but tenure lines give the dept (and scholar) security. *No one* wants to get rid of that.
Anon 7.35pm--what makes you think you can get more tenure lines? If your dept is in such a strong bargaining position, good for you. I was rather thinking of the possibility of compromise with central funding administrators who *aren't going to grant you another tenured colleague*. Are you saying you'd rather hang on optimistically for the largesse of the provost? What I want to know is: are such negotiations possible? And would such compromises be desirable if the alternative is no new t-t hires? Also, perhaps medium-term jobs / postdocs wouldn't even require annual review?
"so by the time you are considering folks who are four or five years out but still on VAPs, you are not—probably—looking at the people who were the strongest when they finished. And you wonder: if they weren't a hot ticket when they first came out, what has made them hotter in the interim?"
And this is the true measure of my ability. It is so accurate for me personally, that I hope the ignorance of it doesn't apply to the rest of you.
Anonymous 7:35, Even though I've never been on a search committee and you have, I'm going to be a bit arrogant and point out why I think you're not fully correct in your viewpoint. My claim is based both on knowing people who have been on SC's and having heard more than enough for me to have a pretty good feel for what goes on.
First, you are only partly right when you say that a department gets 100 applications, interviews a dozen or so, and then invites up to five, and those five are clearly the best candidates. What I believe you meant to say is those five are clearly the best FOR THAT JOB. There will undoubtedly be several other equally good candidates who weren't interviewed because they weren't a good fit. Say that a department is conducting a search for a Greek Lit person but already has a drama person -- there will be excellent candidates who don't even get interviewed because they do drama. Sometimes very good candidates are excluded for much less reasonable motives. So your statement that the ones who end up coming to campus are stronger candidates is incomplete: they are stronger for the department's particular needs and/or appeal to the whims of particular faculty members, but might be no different in terms of overall quality and promise from the candidates who do make the cut.
What that means is that for every job there will be a good number of good-to-outstanding candidates who don't get considered. And because each year there are only so many tenure-track openings in a given sub-discipline it is possible through sheer randomness for some very good people to miss out on making the cut for tenure-track consideration. Usually this situation rights itself within 2-3 years, but sometimes it takes longer. When talking about a field with so few overall openings, and then only a fraction of those suitable for the given candidate -- whether he/she do Greek Lit, Roman Lit, Greek history, Roman history, or Other -- it's just a mathematical fact that because of the randomness inherent in the market there will always be some who year after year don't find a tenure-track job.
@7:46 Anon 7.35pm--what makes you think you can get more tenure lines? If your dept is in such a strong bargaining position, good for you.
It's not quite about getting more, but about keeping the ones we have. Say someone leaves. We don't have time to get approved for a TT replacement search, but we get a one year VAP; next year we can run the TT search. We are no likely to lose the TT line in the interim.
But if the VAP is, say, 3 or 4 years, then by the time we come back to the dean and say "Ok, we'd like that TT position now," we are apt to hear "what TT position? You've been doing fine with the VAP. Let's keep it at that."
There are a great many things, departmentally, that a VAP can't do. It's not a good position for anyone. It is a necessary one for many, but it's not really good for anyone.
And no, we can't just to and ask for a VAP. The only way we get a VAP is if we suddenly lose someone we have and have to cover the teaching.
While I understand the bitterness of those with many visiting jobs under the belt, you may be consoled by the idea that not getting a TT-job is not the only way the field loses people. Many who are denied tenure leave the field. Many who are hired out of grad school may not have enough time to do what their institutions expect of them by the time they come up. Many then leave, and much of the time, it's a real loss. But if you want something to feel better about, imagine the agony of being denied tenure and out of options that some of the people you so resent may face.
"But if you want something to feel better about, imagine the agony of being denied tenure and out of options that some of the people you so resent may face."
Give me a freaking break. The vast majority of the time, someone getting denied tenure can blame themselves. This person had a chance to produce and just plain did not. Thanks for playing - see ya. The graver injustice is the highly qualified Ph.D. from University of Big State who is doing innovative research who bounces around and possibly leaves the field b/c Dr. Princeton got plumb letters but published one article in 7 years. Boo-hoo. For those saying that the system works superbly in picking the "best," why then is there so many Associate Profs in Classics who are 60+ years old? I've never experienced a field where so many unqualified people get tenure with a mythical "book" based on their diss and maybe an article or two. Deans know this and that's why classics has such a stench to most of them. Classics' saving grace is that it's a relatively cheap department to maintain, but even that is wearing thin.
I've been interviewed by so many losers at the APA that I've lost count. Associate professor? Full professor? You've published 75 pages? In 25 years? Or maybe (and I've talked to these too) you've never published anything?
Wow.
I'm underwhelmed.
In three years I've published more than you...and my book isn't even out yet. (But it's under contract!) Yet I'm not the right candidate for the job?
In three years I've published more than you...and my book isn't even out yet. (But it's under contract!) Yet I'm not the right candidate for the job?
And you have done this, like the rest of us VAPs in our 3rd or 4th year out, while teaching 6-8 courses per year with little to no institutional support for research unlike the shiny PhDs who get the TT and teach a 2/2 with course releases, pre-review sabbaticals and research funds. This, my friends, is why many VAPs do not succeed. We are required after the first year or so to be tenurable upon hire though having worked under ridiculously difficult conditions for those years while the ABD is all potential without having the extra burden of "proving" why they aren't "good enough" for a TT after so many years on the VAP circuit. The biases some posters here have expressed against VAPs is really sad. Many VAPs have as many if not more publications (and even more important ones) than tenured faculty and have more teaching skills and experience than the new PhDs but it means nothing if you can't get past a prejudice that a VAP is somehow no good if they haven't been hired to a TT after the first year or 2 out.
First, you are only partly right when you say that a department gets 100 applications, interviews a dozen or so, and then invites up to five, and those five are clearly the best candidates. What I believe you meant to say is those five are clearly the best FOR THAT JOB.
I did not think I needed to specify that if I am speaking of a particular search, I am speaking of a particular job. Yes: clear the best for that job. The one for which we are interviewing. The job we wish to have filled. Yes, the one advertised on the APA website. That job.
This is rocket science?
There will undoubtedly be several other equally good candidates who weren't interviewed because they weren't a good fit.
In which case they were not the best candidates—for the search in which the SC is engaged.
I really had to make this clear?
but might be no different in terms of overall quality and promise from the candidates who do make the cut.
It is true that if a dept needs a Greek poetry person, and an excellent Greek historian would "could teach poetry" very well applies, this excellent person may not get an interview (then again, if they are really that excellent, they very may well).
But the fact is that most people who apply probably do fall more or less into the basic category of appropriate candidates. But some are simply much better than others.
Yes, good people end up without TT jobs. It's true. We all know it. But it's not totally random. It's not a lottery.
753 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 753 Newer› Newest»I'm curious about the comment that something strange is going on with the Wellesley archaeology search. What is the source of the claim that they are looking for underwater archaeology? They have invited at least one finalist for a campus visit and, while s/he *is* an archaeologist, all excavation is taking place on terra firma.
Texas A&M position
Has anyone heard anything yet?
I think Texas A&M invited people to campus, but I wasn't one of them, so I cannot be 100% positive.
I know someone invited to A&M.
Has anyone heard from Rutgers?
Incidentally, does anyone know why the Villanova search started so late and skipped the APA?
Incidentally, does anyone know why the Villanova search started so late and skipped the APA?
Deans, Deans, they're good for the part, The more you meet, the more you fart, the more you fart, the more you meet, the more you sit on the toilet seat!
Wellesley inviting non-underwater archaeologists simply means that the SC has permission to bring other candidates to campus. But given the directive to hire an underwater archaeologist and the apparent unwillingness/inability of (some of) the SC to identify a qualified candidate, it is safe to say that the situations is somewhat messy.
I think the Wellesley situation has far less to do with the SC than with the donor. But let's face it, that is rank speculation on my part, so take it for what it is worth!
If the wishes of a donor do not align with the wishes of the SC how does that have any less to do with the SC?
Has anyone heard from Hendrix College?
The wording of the call by Wellesley does not imply a "directive" to hire an underwater person. There are several other factors, like being "theoretically-informed" and able to teach languages.
Any rumors about Loyola-Chicago? If they've invited candidates, someone must know one of these people.
Obviously they're not from Princeton, or else we would have heard all about it.
I wonder about Hendrix, too, and there are quite a number of other schools for which no info is given on campus invite. I wonder how many of them have actually already made arrangements with the candidates, but the information hasn't trickled out here?
This is the weakness of the system at this late stage in the game. Some schools are inviting two candidates and many are only inviting three. I think some are reluctant to identify themselves here to the SC for whatever reason. This is why I think it's better to even go with "a friend of a friend told me" and clear up misunderstandings later on to grant some anonymity. As it stands, people want it straight from the horses and then have the chutzpah to turn around and ask those brave enough to declare for all the gory details.
Has anyone heard from Buffalo (the Greek history search) since the APA?
At least one of the INA grads denied even a Chicago interview by Wellesley is a Late Antique person who has taught Latin and is well-versed in theory. Besides having extensive underwater experience, the person also has experience digging land sites and has no red flags. Presumably, if Wellesley stuck with their announced wishlist and they invited the usual 10-12 candidates to Chicago, such qualifications would have put them through. Moreover, you would think if the search was straightforward and open that they would have brought in toward the high end of interviewees in light of their failed search last year. Again, there is a good deal of deduction here, but enough of the "give me the source of your claim" BS. As some SC members have professionally done here, lets turn the tables on the Wellesley SC and ask THEM to prove to us otherwise.
I agree, there are relatively few underwater people period and this list is further narrowed by those who would be looking this year. Wouldn't curiosity dictate that these people would "dominate" the shortlist of Wellesley in a manner that would make even a Princetonian blush with humility? My guess is that having marine/underwater experience is down the priority list for the SC/department and it was thrown in to appease the donor. If so, shame on the school for advertising it so prominently in their ad and shame on them for misleading people for the sake of some ass kissing that benefits the ego of one person.
Ah, the old material culture position with various vaguely worded riders that allow us to torpedo the best candidates in the hopes that we can hire a philologist in disguise trick. Now in model 2.0, to torture the hopes of underwater archaeologists too. Brought to you by Dinosaur, SCC Inc.
Phone interview with U. Illinois Springfield, Ancient History, scheduled for 1/28.
I don't have solid rumors on Loyola-Chicago, but from past experience, they're a small dept that seems to get a bit overwhelmed by the logistics of searches, so I expect it's just a delay.
Agreed, anon. 3:51. Watching the inbred peculiarities of classics is worse than watching a train wreck. Any wagers on how long it takes before Wellesley classics gets squeezed and/or merged? They do have tradition as a SS and probably a number of fat donors waiting in the wings, but is that enough?
Well, it has kept classics alive at Bryn Mawr even though the MC people were smart enough to break away. Now the latter department does stuff like geoarchaeology while digging in the greater Islamic world. Do you think this would have been posssiblein 99% of the classics departments out there? Not unless they found an inscription in the desert or Homer mentioned it by chance, lol.
FYI, UCLA is not bringing an all-Princeton short list.
-a UCLA faculty member
FYI, UCLA is not bringing an all-Princeton short list.
-a UCLA faculty member
Georgetown must have left a horse's head in the SC Chair's bed, then. That Gtown PhD is cleaning up!
Has Tulane invited their finalists to campus for the Greek History search?
Has Tulane invited their finalists to campus for the Greek History search?
Yep. See post:
Tulane University (Greek history)
Campus Visit Request 1/10/08 (em)
January 10, 2008 5:15 PM
Crud.
Thanks for pointing it out, though. Better to know now, I suppose.
I know someone who was invited to Washington University. So that's one less school to wonder about.
How much hope is there for those who have been told that they are second-tier candidates? How often does the first round of campus visits go wrong?
Depends whether you can hire a good enough assassin.
Just what I was thinking, although I didn't want to phrase it that way.
I think there is definitely hope if you've been told you're a second tier. The school may be bringing in only 1-2 people (due to money, etc.), who may not impress as much as expected. They'd be very likely to bring in 1-2 more after that. In fact, I know of a situation in which this happened and one of the second tier candidates got the job. I don't know how common this is, but at least it happens.
Of course, this also depends on how big the second tier is. Are we talking about Fordham, ooc?
Basically, there's definitely hope, but I wouldn't waste energy or time thinking about it in the meanwhile, as at best nothing would happen until after the 1st tier have their interviews.
If it's Fordham that's too bad -- you'll never find a killer in New York City!
Does anyone happen to know, and is willing to share, how many candidates NYU and Toronto are bringing in for their Greek History searches?
This talk of B-list call-ins has gotten my hopes up.
We should be providing hope, Melian Dialogue be damned. NYU has invited 4.
Four. Crap. That is not the answer I wanted. I assume getting the call if two don't work out is within the realm of possibility. But the chances of all four either not wanting the job, or the job not wanting them, is slim.
Thanks. Are you at NYU, or one of the lucky four (hearty congrats if the latter - and the former too, I suppose!)?
Poldy, if you're still out there, have you heard any more about the Arizona Latinist position?
Re: U. Arizona Latinist position
No news. This week and next are when I would expect to hear.
Assuming they were able to meet this week, then their choices would likely be with the dean, who -- not considering our sanity a high priority -- may take plenty of time to approve the campus visits.
That said, I am surprised by the campus visits arranged for the Vassar VAP; I understood that they would make their decision after reviewing the Blegen fellowship. So, my memory appears to be fallible.
Thanks, Poldy. Is it just me or does it seem like programs can be separated into two basic groups? Those, who for whatever reason, can and do move quick with their campus invites and those who take several weeks? The January vs. February gang? I would have thought that the top programs would have the luxury of falling into February, but that doesn't seem to be the case.
I think historically the very top programs have tended to move earliest - often notifying candidates while still at the APA. I suppose they want to be able to skim the perceived cream first.
I think there is some general truth to your characterization. Though my personal experience is a somewhat limited data set, I got a number of invites immediately after Chicago and now it's been quiet this week with my first visits starting next week. I'm still waiting to hear from half of my Chicago interviews. Assuming I get a number of invites from this group at the risk of some hubris (no, I'm not from Princeton), I will have to schedule them for late February and March. I have no idea whether this is a normal yearly pattern as it's only my second year on the market and I only had two campus invites last year.
Has anybody heard from Hendrix College, by any chance? They interviewed at the APA, but I have received no word since.
Thank you!
My favorite name of the day: Dr. Boozer, who just sent out the ISAW acknowledgment email....
Out of curiosity, how is one supposed to have learned of the ISAW fellowship? It wasn't announced through the APA, and I never saw any announcements on the handful of e-lists I'm on.
quick/quicker decisions
As far as I know, there are many factors that contribute to the rapidity of selecting and notifying candidates about campus visits (e.g. amount of administrative bureaucracy).
What about Wake Forest? Any word?
Thanks!
So piecing it all together, it sounds like top programs have more institutional clout to expedite the administrative process?
I've received no word from Hendrix either. Waiting, waiting, waiting.
Magdalen College Oxford (University Lectureship)
'Campus' visit notification
top programs have more institutional clout to expedite the administrative process?
I would not make that deduction, if only because administration is only one aspect. In questions such as these, I would suggest that it is unwise to think in terms of "sublimis"/"humilis".
In fact, I'd suggest not trying to penetrate the veil at all until you have been initiated into the mysterium of a being on a few search committees. I have been around for 4 searches, had about 7 campus visits over the last few years and just about the only thing I learned was that the process is unpredictable. But, to be honest, no one has ever offered me a job, so my knowledge is suspect.
Poldy,
I assume you are still a graduate student given that you claim to have never gotten an offer. Did you observe searches as a student? My institution asks one graduate student to sit on the SC, and even attend the APA interviews. Did you have such experiences as well?
I suspect that your knowledge isn't, and I think your invocation of the mysterium is spot on. This process is much too opaque, but I don't know how to make it less so, even should the day come when I am on the other side of the table. It is frustrating.
Dear Moldy,
No, a few years post PhD.
I did participate in searches as a graduate, but only on the outside. I learned more when I was in temporary positions at Unis who were hiring. Although I was not, for obvious reasons, part of the inner circle, I was able to observe the process and discuss it with those who were involved.
The other comparison I would make would be to speed dating. You fill out a profile, have a quick chat with a bunch of people. Then get together with a select few who seem really well suited to your tastes. Then you have a big date and try to decide which of the few you will marry.
Alas, I am always the bridesmaid, never the bride.
I think I just had an idea for a new hit reality show....
I love the speed-dating analogy.
I suppose the old method was the arranged marriage system. Your advisor calls up buddy/respectable family from Hahvahd and ensures that the deed happens.
So is the adjuncting/VAP system living in sin, or a series of random hook-ups?
The adjuncting/VAP circuit is the umpteenth circle of hell.
Just curious, how long have people been out there on the market? Are most of us 2-3 years post-PhD? Or more?
Where is JDate when you need them?!
This is my 4th time. 3rd time after receiving PhD. If I don't land a tenure-track position in a place both I and my husband are happy with after 5 tries, that is it. No more.
2 years post-PhD here. Third time on the market. Two one year VAPs under my belt.
I have known people who went through 10-15 years of VAP purgatory before getting into TT. They were really happy to get into TT at last.
Joan Jett said...
This is my 4th time. 3rd time after receiving PhD. If I don't land a tenure-track position in a place both I and my husband are happy with after 5 tries, that is it. No more.
I'm following the five-year plan, too. I'm in year two (counting the ABD year), so still somewhat sane about it.
This is my 7th year of APA interviews, 6 after my Ph.D.
20 interviews in all, 4 campus visits ... and counting.
6 + years as a VAP.
More than four years out (won't be specific). Perhaps that explains my grumpiness.
"I have known people who went through 10-15 years of VAP purgatory before getting into TT."
OH MY F!^&@*G GOD!!!
puts it all into perspective.
6th year out (5 post-PhD). Fortunately after 2 other visiting positions, lucked into a renewable one - hopefully it will be renewable again this year if necessary.
You either have to be single with a college lifestyle or be married to a sugar-spousy to do that and have any chance of retaining your sanity.
Anonymous 7:43,
Of course, one of the definitions of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting the results to be different, so one might argue that those of us who are well beyond grad school and still trying for a tenure-track job each year ARE insane...
So is the adjuncting/VAP system living in sin, or a series of random hook-ups?
I prefer to see myself as a hetaira, providing a quality service for those institutions who need more philology. Given my current bleak situation, it turns out that I am a porna.
The "visiting" grind (I love the euphemism - as if I had somewhere to return to) can be brutal and has many down sides both financially and emotionally, which I know too well.
On the other hand, it does provide some benefits. For example, more time before starting on the tenure sprint. I know that I was not ready to start after turning in my shinny thesis. There are other benefits as well. Of course, one can also be horribly exploited and treated like dirt (not my experience in general, but I have heard stories...)
"poldy, le grand horizontal"
I cannot stop laughing about this title--compassionately, of course. There are those who would say otherwise, but I adore this blog. Thus concludes my love letter to FV.
The "visiting" grind ... does provide some benefits. For example, more time before starting on the tenure sprint.
This is very true. I think the ideal would have been to get a 3-year gig at a great liberal arts college before having to worry about the tenure clock. Mind you, I am NOT complaining here! I landed a tenure track job just out of graduate school out of sheer, dumb luck. I think most people get jobs this way, and it is too bad that people mistake tenure track employment for 100% merit. But that is another conversation.
Best wishes to all of you, but especially to those who have been on the Hetaira Circuit for a few years!
LOL. I think VAPs are actually pallakes, medium-term mistresses there to fulfill the logistical needs of the department. They hope to eventually be offered marriage, but the chances are unlikely.
Hetairae have great fellowships with lavish travel funds and research money.
Best of luck, folks.
U-Buffalo Campus Visits Scheduled
at least so i've heard. i'm not one of them, darnit! )-%
IMHO, the more VAP positions you take, the less attractive you look and the less mysterious, compared to the latest "virgins." The stink of the market sticks to you, and it's difficult to arrange advantageous "marriages."
**IMHO, the more VAP positions you take, the less attractive you look and the less mysterious, compared to the latest "virgins." The stink of the market sticks to you, and it's difficult to arrange advantageous "marriages.**
This is so wrong (but probably so correct, sadly enough) on so many levels. All that VAPing means that we are ready to roll when classes come. No flailing around. Syllabi done, lecture notes at the ready. And maybe our research is actually nicely seasoned. A few articles in the works. Dissertation mulled over and maybe even revised. Why, why in the world would an SC want to go with a virgin (wet-behind-the-ears graduate student)? We can perform, damnit!
The pornai analogy holds nicely in so many unfortunate ways.
Anyone heard anything about the Medieval Latin job at Notre Dame? According to the wiki they at least sent out rejections. Or the Late Antique/Medieval Latin position at UNC? Seems like a number of Med Latin jobs, but little word on what's happening.
Notre Dame.
They held APA interviews but that's all I know..
Second time - any news about Rutgers?
Perhaps they offered it to that Georgetown PhD on the spot?
I think that I heard that Rutgers had issued campus visit invites, but I don't know where I heard this. Sic cum grano.
I've heard through fairly reliable sources that UNC invited two candidates to campus for their Medieval Latin position. One of those candidates subsequently dropped out of the search. Not sure what UNC decided to do next, but presumably they invited another finalist to campus.
Does anyone know what's going on with Cal's Greek archaeology position?
No idea. But they are bringing in five finalists for the Medieval Latin position. I would suspect a similar number for the Nemea job.
Good luck!
I have a question especially for the more experienced members reading these boards. One of the more perplexing questions for me when interviewing/visiting with a PhD-granting institution is something along the lines of "what do you think about advising graduate students"? As a very recent PhD with VAP experience at BA-only institutions, my initial internal response (which I am careful not to show) is panic. It's not that I am afraid of advising grad students - far from it - I would love the opportunity. But I would be an arrogant little twit to think that I *really* understand what advising graduate students entails. Whenever the question comes up, it's the only time in the whole interview process where I really feel like I have no idea what I'm talking about. What is it that search committees are really trying to figure out when they ask that question? Whether or not I will be a very accessible professor? Would I be very hands-on? (Who would really say otherwise in an interview - "actually, I prefer to keep the grad students as far away from me as possible")
Should I think about my own good and bad experiences with advisors, and starting with that come up with a profile? What are the qualities of a good advisor, anyway? Any thoughts?
Thanks in advance for any feedback.
I would like to second this request! I don't even have my dissertation in hand yet, and have no teaching experience outside my graduate institution. But I have visits to two PhD institutions approaching fast. I am more stressed out about interacting with the graduate students, and handling questions relating to them, than almost anything else.
Sounds like you must be one of those Princtonians I keep reading about...
Sorry, misread your post and thought you had said that you had no teaching experience, period.
The truth is, if you're done with a dissertation you will know far more about your topic than grads who are in their first or second years, so long as you are teaching seminars on subjects close to your work. So you shouldn't worry about that too much. As for mentoring/advising, I have no opinion.
Sounds like you must be one of those Princtonians I keep reading about...
Hardly.
But presumably I need to be able to talk about more than my dissertation topic on the campus interview.
lions, tigers, graduate students! Oh no!
I cannot pretend to know what women, um, interviewers what; I have always taught at PhD granting unis, taught a few graduate seminars, and done some advising (never as director - I'd never let a grad student foolish enough to ask a VAP). I'd suggest simply expressing a general interest without going into specifics. A good answer, GAW, would be what you said: "I would love the opportunity." Then you should be able to respond to any follow ups.
As far as dealing with graduate students on the visit, this aspect has always proved the easiest and most relaxing and (often) very informative. Simply treat them with respect and be interested in their work. Ask them, when you meet, "oh, nice to meet you Francesca. What do you do? Oh, a commentary on Synesius' praise of baldness? That is fascinating!"
Incidentally, you may be tossed into a room with a group of them, who may not know what to ask you. This is a good opportunity to learn about the program because you can ask them. In my experience, they can be very, VERY forthright.
I have made friends, some close, among the advanced graduate students whom I've known at these schools. The idea of dealing with them can be odd when you still see yourself as one, but it is not hard to adjust so long as you remember that they are likely to be your future colleagues and friends and deserve to be treated accordingly.
Of course, I've never actually had a tt job offer from any school, so perhaps you should do just do the opposite of what I do.
As far as dealing with graduate students on the visit, this aspect has always proved the easiest and most relaxing and (often) very informative.
Great to hear! Thanks Poldy!
And don't forget to ask about the university's policy on dating graduate students.
According to the wiki all of my APA interviews were for naught, and I am staring at nothing for next year. I know the spring market has already started, but I don't know how to approach it. I applied to a few one-year positions in the fall, but never heard anything, so maybe my letter was poorly phrased. For those of you who have gone through the spring market, what are some things to think about? Should I even talk about my research, or restrict myself to teaching? How about my CV, should I re-do a version just for these sorts of jobs? Thanks.
Poldy, did you snag an Arizona invite? The wiki says they sent out an email on the 17th. Alas, no email here, but good luck to those with a campus invite.
Someone mentioned that they are bringing in 5 finalists for Berkeley's medieval position. I still haven't heard back about the Nemea position. Do departments usually get decanal approval for campus visits at the same time for multiple positions? If so, it means I am not on the A-list for the Nemea position...
No, sadly, I did not get any campus visits this year. I am, without doubt, the ugly stepsister of the 2007-8 job market.
Scoldy, what an odd name!
Scoldy,
A glance at Berkeley's upcoming events on their website shows some talks by visitors on Greek archaeology topics. So my guess would be that they've invited people to campus, but that's just my guess.
Anyone heard anything about the Pomona Greek History position?
On spring applications, of which I've weathered a few:
I would stress teaching more than research in your letter. I have never rearranged my cv for a spring job and it hasn't hurt. One thing I do do (for all jobs now, but I think it's especially good for temporary teaching positions) is a "teaching cv" listing all courses I have taught, giving the official descriptions of each, enrolment, course requirements, etc., anything else relevant like "supervised TAs." I list my teaching experience on my cv but note "see also 'teaching cv'" on the cv proper. I think it has really helped me get phone interviews in the spring.
BUT I wouldn't ignore research totally. I leave my research paragraph in, but for temp jobs I preface it with something like "While I realize this is a teaching-oriented position, I would like to take a moment to tell you about my research as well."
Frequently for temp jobs you can figure out almost exactly what a dept wants or needs, especially if it's a leave replacement. So I'd try to find that out, and be very specific about how you would teach the course(s) they need covered in your cover letter. That approach has gotten me two temp jobs without even having to go through phone interviews.
"A glance at Berkeley's upcoming events on their website shows some talks by visitors on Greek archaeology topics. So my guess would be that they've invited people to campus, but that's just my guess."
It's obvious that many positions will not be updated by the finalists for whatever reason. Would it be against the rules to use information like what was just mentioned to update the wiki?
if that's the berkeley shortlist, the "inside" candidate everyone was so upset about isn't on it? at least i don't see it.
Pomona?
Nada.
Anybody else?
Anyone hear from the Whitman history position? They said they were planning to notify this past week, but I haven't heard anything (probably a bad sign, eh?).
It's obvious that many positions will not be updated by the finalists for whatever reason. Would it be against the rules to use information like what was just mentioned to update the wiki?
I suppose not, as long as can you tell if it is a job talk and not a random lecture. Has anybody trolled the home-pages of hiring departments to see whom they have invited? All of the Penn invitees are now public. I really wish I had been one, but best wishes to them all!!
Those interviewing at Princeton are on the dept.'s website. Appears to be five total. I'm conspicuously absent.
Yeah, No Dr. Anonymous from U. of BuckeyesSuck, either, so I guess I didn't make the cut myself.
Does anyone know what's going on with Bryn Mawr's archaeology position? Is it me or do archaeology searches lag in issuing campus invites? All the ancient history positions I've applied to have reported back while only one of the archy positions have?!
"if that's the berkeley shortlist, the "inside" candidate everyone was so upset about isn't on it? at least i don't see it."
I would guess the insider is still a candidate. Besides, if I heard correcty, she's a finalist for the Arizona Greek archaeology position so she'll likely land on her feet somewhere.
Looks like some people have started campus visits or are about to start them. Here's a suggestion for a new thread: things you love and hate about visits.
E.g. hate: having to pay your own airfare *and* hotel (yes, I am facing this) & crossing fingers that the reimbursement will work out OK.
love: info packs from the uni/college waiting in your hotel room.
Let's not name any institutions or towns/cities, or give other identifying details.
Maybe lurking SC members will learn something for this year (and we will also for the future).
E.g. hate: having to pay your own airfare *and* hotel (yes, I am facing this) & crossing fingers that the reimbursement will work out OK.
Yeah, way to go on this one, dear institution with hundreds of millions of dollars in endowment. I get to fork over about $800 for short-notice airfare and am told I will be reimbursed in "6 to 8 weeks" when I can barely scrape together next month's rent money. Get your own departmental/dean of faculty credit card out, party people!
Overall, though, campus visits are fun. A chance to meet new people, see new places, get a bigger sense of the profession.
Only one school ever made me pay my own airfare...and that got interesting, because I ran into blizzards on the way to AND from and ending up racking up extra transportation and hotel costs. It went well over $1000. And they took 3 months to reimburse me. And I didn't get the job. 90% of the faculty told me to my face they didn't want to hire me.
(bitter)
but, yes, I agree, campus visits can be fun. Everyone who has one should remember that, and try to have fun! Not drunken fun, though.
Hate: at dinner, being asked first whether I would like wine. I say yes and then find out that no one else wants to drink.
Love: the most senior person at dinner orders a bottle for the table so that I can see who's drinking and how much.
Hate: Watching the senior members of the SC take out their own sweet, Humboldt spliffs, and then offer me a half-pack of dried-out American Spirits.
Love: The grad students who brought the hash brownies and jungle juice to my post-job-talk reception.
I'm so with you 11:57 AM! I'm fine either drinking or not drinking, but I'd rather not be doing either alone and feeling conspicuous in that situation.
Love: Having quiet prep time before the job talk.
Hate: Having 2+ hours of prep time where you wind up pacing the floor of your borrowed office or classroom getting more and more nervous.
Yes, I really do appreciate a bit of down-time. Building in a couple of hours during the day where the candidate can take a walk around campus, around town, etc., is very humane and thoughtful. I understand SCs want to get their money's worth, but you will get a better picture of who I actually am if I can chill a bit on my own during the course of the visit.
Don't put too much trust into dept websites when trying to figure out who has (or not) been invited where.
We are not posting our visitors on our website for precisely this reason. We can invite a few now. If these don't work, we may move down the list by one or two (who were essentially right up there with our fly outs, but dollars are limited). Our "no way" letters have been sent; there are a few people who still might be invited out—and at least one I would love to see, as I felt this person should have been on the fly back list.
So anyway: some schools advertise their visitors. But others prefer to play it closer to the chest, precisely because we know that people will try to glean info from web sites.
Anon 3:21
Do you not put job-talks on your website for the candidates' sake, for yours, or a bit of both?
Pomona College (Roman History)
Any news on campus visits yet?
@ 1.22 3:37
As far as I can tell, there are two main reasons.
The first is that it protects the candidates' identities, and we feel that until the offer has been made and accepted, this identity should be protected by the hiring university. If the candidate wants to get a "I interviewed with U of X and all I got was this crummy t-shirt" shirt, she may by all means do so. She may advertise her interviews and on-campus visits. It is not, however, the right of the university to do so. This may out her to people who do not yet know of her search, and it may make things uncomfortable for her if she has other on-campus visits with people who now know where else she is visiting.
And so on. It can get very messy. We want to keep it clean.
The second, related to this and noted above, is that it protects our job search. No one wants to get into a bidding war for a candidate. It can happen, of course, but no one wants it: it's an ugly way to conduct a search. What will happen after offers are made will happen regardless. By not advertising visits, however, we hope to cut down on too much behind-the-scenes dealing prior to even the visit. It just doesn't help things.
I hope that makes sense.
Presumably the same goes for male candidates?
"there are a few people who still might be invited out—and at least one I would love to see, as I felt this person should have been on the fly back list."
Excuse my ignorance, anon. 3:21, but I don't understand why the dean's office will not invest in some "insurance" by bringing this fourth person to campus. It sounds like you're invested in the search, if not the chair, and the candidate will bring something different to the table. I'm pretty green and obviously biased as a job-searcher myself, but throw us a bone! Why not call the candidate, explain the budgetary constraints, and put him/her up at a faculty member's house. I'm sure they would take it!
Can anyone confirm or deny the rumor that Rutgers has invited candidates to campus?
I have heard nothing from them since the APA.
There was apparently a Rutgers grad student trolling the wiki in the weeks leading up the APA. Where is s/he now?
At this point, I'm assuming that I've been "wait-listed" by all the schools I interviewed with in Chicago that I haven't heard back from (around half). I've either gotten campus invites or a no-thanks letter from the other half. It keeps me focused this way.
Anon 7:33
If you weren't a true finalist, the last thing you want to be is a "pity f*!k" (excuse my French). Campus visits are time-consuming, and even kinda stressful for the faculty. It is like grad-school funding. If they ain't willing to pay, then they ain't willing to play. Sleeping in Professor X's guest bedroom just will not make it up.
Re Rutgers:
I haven't heard from them either, and I would be curious to find out too.
@7:33
"Excuse my ignorance, anon. 3:21, but I don't understand why the dean's office will not invest in some "insurance" by bringing this fourth person to campus."
It's very complicated. It's not really about the dean's office. It's about... Oh, hell, guys. I don't know. It's complicated. The visits are not just expensive (though they are); they are enormously time consuming for everyone involved. The candidates meet with all (or almost all) faculty in this dept; they meet with various faculty in other related depts; they meet various university bigwigs, and the dean. They are lunched; they are receptioned; they are dinnered in faculty homes. They meet grad students; they get tours. Classes are cancelled so that grads and undergrads can attend the talks (I have one once-a-week class, and it will be cancelled for two consecutive weeks due to visits, so I have now had to ask my students to agree upon a time to make up the class); university classrooms have to be booked for theirs.
I am not complaining—and I know it is far worse on the candidates' end of things: but you should all know that these visits throw everything into an uproar. They take huge planning on a dept's part—it's not like I normally just sit in my office waiting for someone to show up for half an hour so I can impress them with how terrific our department is—and huge expenses of our time.
It is fair to try to keep this uproar to a minimum. It is not only fair: it is necessary.
[QUOTE]It sounds like you're invested in the search,[/QUOTE]
Every person in the dept., and several in other related depts, is very invested in this hire.
[QUOTE] Why not call the candidate, explain the budgetary constraints, and put him/her up at a faculty member's house. I'm sure they would take it]
So, X candidates get to stay in a fancy hotel, and Y other candidate gets to stay with a faculty member?
If Y candidate is not offered the job, then this maneuver could—and would—be read as a ghettoization or worse. If Y candidate *is* offered the job, then this maneuver could—and would—be read as rank favoritism.
All candidates invited out must be treated as equally as possible. Any other path turns the whole thing into a charade.
It *is* about the money, but it's not only about the money. It's about taking a gamble with the time and resources you have to spare.
I know this sounds like hell from the candidates' end of things. Keeping people on tenterhooks is horrible. No one enjoys it. I personally feel that departments should notify "not calling you out for a visit yet" candidates (I am against calling them "B listers," as that makes more of a distinction between campus-visits and the "not off our radar" crowd than there really is) that they are not off the radar, but I have been convinced, if reluctantly, of the legitimacy of such an approach.
Ugh.
It may not be just as bad from this end, but it's still painful. I have nothing to add other than that, in my dept. at least, everyone is trying to do everything as ethically and fairly and considerately as possible.
If it is the Rutgers position in Greek poetry or the "literature ad culture of Rome" in question, that offer has been made and accepted.
The Rutgers position(s) has been offered and accepted? At my interview I was told that there would probably be two openings - I assumed one would be for Greek poetry and the other for the Romanist.
Yet you claim both have been filled?
I don't see how this is possible. But if you're right (and I have no reason to doubt you I guess) then it sounds like a dirty search.
I refuse to believe that Putin is not a class act.
I don't see how this is possible. But if you're right (and I have no reason to doubt you I guess) then it sounds like a dirty search.
Oh for cripes sake. I didn't get a campus call-back either, and if the position has been accepted, that hardly makes it a "dirty search"! Jeebus, grow up. Move on.
@1.23.8:19
"The Rutgers position(s) has been offered and accepted? At my interview I was told that there would probably be two openings - I assumed one would be for Greek poetry and the other for the Romanist. "
I know only that the Greek poetry position has been offered and accepted. I do not know about the other, if there is another.
From all I hear, it was a completely valid search. It went quickly, but I knew some of the details along the way, and there was nothing to criticize.
As I've written before, they were interviewing nineteen(!) people at the conference. NO department puts itself through that sort of unpleasantness if the fix is in. So stop assuming the worst about people and search committees.
If it has been offered and accepted can we find out who the lucky winner is? Is it official yet?
Last year, I was the one who suggested that we use the wiki to post the names of people who get jobs, since otherwise we'd all have to wait months and months for the APA newsletter to say. I think we should do the same this year. HOWEVER, one adjustment is in order. A colleague of mine this year tells me that his name was posted to the wiki before he could tell some of his friends, professors, etc., which he rightly found irksome. Therefore, I would suggest that if the person hired for a position does not post it himself/herself, whoever is thinking of doing it wait a week or so. Since for the rest of us it's a mere curiosity who got certain jobs (as opposed to knowing whether those jobs are filled), there should be no need to upstage people by reporting such "scoops." So, if you get a job please post, and if a friend of yours gets one then encourage him or her to do so, and if that doesn't work then wait a suitable amount of time before posting the information yourself.
I am the one who posted with the Rutgers information.
There is no way in hell I would post this person's name here or on the wiki. I can understand people here "really wanting to know," but the fact of the matter is that it just isn't your business.
If a person chooses to post their name with their chosen position, that is perfectly acceptable. If they choose not to, however, it is simply tacky to "out" her or him without warning (or against her or his wishes). All of this information will eventually be made public.
I would very much hope that anyone here with such information would think very carefully—and numerous times—before choosing to out a colleague's new position on a public site. These positions often deal with geographic relocations, changes of jobs for partners or spouses, changes of schools for children, and so on. There is a great deal of extenuating and possibly information tied up in what may seem to others a simple "hire."
Please do not post others' names against their will. Curiosity is not justification for such action.
Posting winners' names:
I also have a very strong objection to this. At the end of a campus visit, I was asked who else I was interviewing with. Why? Institutions increasingly want to make offers to people who have already received offers (I guess it's a validation thing). So naming the winners on the wiki will mean that there'll be a small number of people getting multiple offers, while the rest of us are left with nothing. Please, please, let's have a moratorium on anyone naming winners (themselves or others) until, say, the end of March.
What? Names posted on the wiki are of people who have accepted offers. This can hardly have any real effect on other searches.
Anonymous 3:38, you have a bit of a point, but seem to forget that once people are hired word spreads, and not just to their friends. And the bigger the job, the farther it spreads. Just some people aren't as well tied in to the networks of gossip out there. But unless I'm badly mistaken, there's nothing secret once someone has accepted an offer officially.
Anonymous 3:39: I'm not saying that OFFERS should be reported, but ACCEPTANCES. If someone accepts a job, they're doing so after having decided against any other schools that interviewed them, or having learned that those schools don't want them. I'm just not seeing the possible harm that you envision.
OK yes, acceptances should be posted. Let's just not get into posting hints as to who has received (but not yet accepted) an offer.
Anon 3:18 @1.22.3:52 (or something)—
I don't have a "bit of a point"; I have the whole point. All the point. Every bit of it. Mine!
You yourself say that word gets out because of "gossip"; but then you complain that because some people aren't hooked into the inner circles, we should make it democratic and publish acceptances abroad: why rely on individual discretion to keep the gossip levels down? Hell—let's just publish it on a website!
This is a selfish and thoughtless position, and if you were to step back from your desire to be in on inner-circle gossip for one moment, you would see this. Imagine for a moment that you are the person who just accepted a position, but that... that your spouse is also employed, and has not yet told her (or his) boss that she (or he) will be leaving. Now say someone stumbles across the wiki for some reason and sees your name, which you did not post, and mentions the hire to your wife's (or husband's) boss (or your kids' teacher, or whomever).
Do you not think that job hires have the reasonable right to take care of their own business and make their own notifications?
And don't go saying "oh, hey, what are the chances of the above scenario winding out? Who is going to go spreading things around like that?"
This is how rumors work: they spread. They spread, and confuse things, and damage friendships and relationships and jobs. Your desire to democratize the process whereby rumors are spread—to publish them broadly, that is, and remove the possibility of individual discretion—is base. You cannot argue it. I am sorry. You may want it, but you cannot argue for it.
Two more points as re the "harm" you cannot see (apparently your only worry about "harm" is how it might "harm" other candidates!):
1. Searches can fall through, even after offers have been made and accepted. Most hires aren't completely totally absolutely settled for a couple of months. It is very rare for an offer to follow through, but it can happen (we have seen cancelled searches this year). This is part of the reason why hires aren't posted by the APA for some time. Most appointments don't even start until Fall, and until then there are numerous things that undoubtedly won't but might possibly go wrong. Give the hire some privacy, if she or he wants it. She or he might possibly know things about the position that, say, you don't. Let her or him decide. Criminy!
2. Sometimes a person with multiple offers will accept one before telling the other schools "no" (indeed, one should always accept one position before rejecting all others!); sometimes a person will accept a position before having heard from her other options. It is not your right to reveal this person's status to these other schools. It is not your search. Stay, with all due respect, out of it. To wish to do something for the explicit purposes of democratizing the gossip cycle is ... ewww. Stinky.
Let people post their own results. I don't get how individuals here don't see this as an ethical imperative.
Sorry to be a bit late to the party here, but I have been out of town for a few days and away from the internets. But back just in time, I see.
I don't intend to be heavy-handed here (well, maybe I do, just a little bit), but I will delete any and all names posted in the comments. No exceptions. I will also delete comments that reveal the identity of an individual indirectly. Obviously this does not apply to someone mentioning that, say, Richard Thomas teaches in the Classics dept. at Harvard.
We have no business "outing" people. I posted this rule on the main page way back when. It remains there in nice red print, and I will enforce it as ruthlessly and in as timely a manner as I can.
If you are hired and want to announce it, then please feel free to do so on the wikis. But because I have no way of verifying who a commenter is, I cannot allow even potentially honest, first-person announcements.
Again, I am sorry to wade in like this, but I hope this helps clarify matters here. This space isn't about personalities, but about the process. To the extent that information-sharing democratizes it, that is good, I hope. Gossip for the sake of satisfying curiosity? Not so much.
I'm not sure what all the fuss is. Departments (many of them) are announcing finalists on their websites. Isn't that "outing" those candidates already? What is the difference between somebody saying "check out Penn's website to see their finalists" and "check out Smith, Barney, Marsh, and Mcluhan, the four Penn finalists"?
@9:16
"I'm not sure what all the fuss is. Departments (many of them) are announcing finalists on their websites"
No. They aren't. They are announcing talks or colloquia. I just checked Penn, and I've checked Berkeley, and I know our site (we aren't listing any visitors—precisely because of this sort of scuttlebutt). Neither Penn nor Berkeley list "finalists" or "candidates" or anything of the kind . They list visiting speakers.
I've run an ad hoc search of some other departments on the search, and see that far from all advertise visitors, and I have found none that advertise them as candidates or "finalists."
The fuss. The fuss is that this is a tough process to begin with, and this is just making it harder. I haven't heard from a single person here who says "I'd LOVE to be outed! Go for it!" I have heard only from those who think it is their right to out others who have jobs "just because we are interested in hearing..." I have not heard from a single faculty member here who thinks this might be a justifiable move.
Those who wish to announce job acceptances whether or not the hirees themselves wish their names to be announced privilege personal curiosity over the rights of others to professional and personal privacy.
Once you are in a solid t-t job, you may know how chilling this sounds. Our dept has some folks coming out soon. If I knew that one of them was someone posting such thoughts, I have to say that such an unprofessional attitude would come close to sinking them utterly in my estimation. It is good indeed that this is anonymous. I know you are all blowing off steam and anxieties and fears and all that: but you should know also that suggestions of outing colleagues' (and by this I mean everyone in this field, hired or not) professional and personal situations, without their knowledge or willingness, is utterly anathema.
Seriously. Think this through. You are entering (or well in) a field that is incredibly small. I know frustrations are running high. Please rise to their challenge.
I am myself looking for a job but fully second what anonymous 9:48 says. I can see no potentially useful outcome coming from premature "outing," aside from satisfying personal curiosity (which is itself a useless waste of energy).
I have also looked at the Penn site, and was puzzled that an campus invitee, whose identity I privately happen to know, is not listed there. It seems that they are simply listing invited speakers, not candidates for their opening.
C'mon, giving me a frickin' break. No one here is a petty yenta bent on destroying people. What you're basically asking is tantamount to calling for the dismissal of the NY Times et al. b/c the National Enquirer is out there. The fact is that all the power has resided in the hands of SCs and university administrations. This blog allows for some transparency that just would not be there if we left it in the hands of the SCs. Yes, it's inconvenient when you can't leave a bunch of b-listers in the dark and when the scrutiny here forces SCs to ask more scrupulously, but overall, none of these things (within the fair rules set by Servius) cripple a search. And you know what? Yes, it's difficult to find any sympathy from some tenured faculty member shooting for some fatter position crying for absolute privacy. IYCSTH, get out of the kitchen. I can understand now why one posting put in their fine print: Persons agreeing to be final candidates (to be interviewed) will have their identities revealed as final candidates.
Simply knowing that a place has invited finalists to campus is transparency enough. And I agree, it is quite useful. But having the names of said candidates published in an anonymous forum doesn't add any meaningful information.
The use value of this forum, and of the wikis, is two pronged. First, more information related to scheduling - finding out who had, asked for additional writing, announced APA scheduling, and now campus visits, and in the future that a job has been accepted and is thus out of play. All sorts of information I am very happy to get here, since it is the only place to get it. Second, having a place to ask questions and grumble anonymously, since we can't very well do that in front of our colleagues. Sometimes said grumbling is enlightening, sometimes not. But at least we have a like-minded (mostly) community to share this process with.
But I do not see how naming names adds further value to this forum. Please don't.
Jane, you beat me to it
The information about where we stand in jobs we applied for is why this site is so useful. The grumbling is fun too, since I can make my extended analogies to dating and prostitution (there was a news item recently about increasing numbers of students in France resorting to prostitution to help finance their education).
There is one more 'prong' I would add. The amusing accusations that fly between conspiracy theorists and those hiring.
(there was a news item recently about increasing numbers of students in France resorting to prostitution to help finance their education).
So sad. When I taught at a flagship university in the south a few years ago there was a big scandal about how many of the "ladies" working at the "gentlemen's clubs" around town were undergrads putting themselves through college.
The Cal-State Sacramento job is listed as having been offered to someone. I still haven't heard from CSU and am curious if anybody around here knows if that special someone ended up accepting the job.
Grazie!
I haven't heard from a single person here who says "I'd LOVE to be outed! Go for it!" I have heard only from those who think it is their right to out others who have jobs "just because we are interested in hearing..." I have not heard from a single faculty member here who thinks this might be a justifiable move.
If I get a job, please, out me. I'd love to be outed! Go for it! Please, pretty please? I just want a job. Then I can be outed. Outing will be great. If I get a job. Oh, please, job gods. A job.
I -- and presumably others -- have now received a rejection from Northwestern in which the recipient of their Mellon post-doc, who has accepted the offer, is actually NAMED by the search committee chair. Is anyone seriously going to say that in this case it's still some sort of secret, and if the recipient does not post her name no one else can? (Personally, I don't particularly care about this position, since I wasn't even interviewed at the APA. I'm just saying, is all.)
The rejection letter that names the hire.
I have always found that type of letter particularly odd. I know that several months from now some job that I applied for but never heard from will send me a letter in which they congratulate themselves on successfully hiring Dr. B. Wooster (PhD, Wodehouse Univ.).
Incidentally, Anonymous 9:48, there is at least one school who does list speakers as "search candidate."
Obviously it is wrong dicere nomen here, but the whole process is so fraught with inconsistency that I can easily forgive the confusion.
It isn't at all odd for a rejection letter to name the hire, because, despite the absurd objections of some of the hand-wringers on this board, with their specious arguments about privacy, once someone signs a contract and accepts a position at a university it is public information.
Rumor confirmed.
Rutgers has made a job offer.
Dear Anonymous 9:01,
I do indeed find it odd (as is lustig) for a rejection letter to name the hired candidate, but not for the reasons you seem to suppose.
I am not so sure that the arguments made were specious, although you can frame it that way by focusing on the time after the acceptance. Where privacy might be less of a specious reason is before that.
XOXOX
Poldy
Wow. Rutgers moved fast. On-campus visits and job talks in the two weeks after the APA?
I think Rutgers had issues with a search last year, so they were probably under pressure to wrap this one up and bag a top candidate. But what do I know?
For a flyback, can I check a bag, or will the person picking me up at the airport decide right then and there that I'm not a good candidate?
The names/no names/privacy debate here is interesting. As a point of comparison look at Brian Leiter's blog, which devotes an entire post to "outing" hires. Leiter is himself a tenured professor at Texas (soon to be Chicago), and does this sort of thing every year (not up yet, but will be soon I imagine). Here is the link:
Philosophy Hires
If this is the custom in Philosophy, why should Classics be any different? Both are small communities, and have the same issues of tenure and collegiality, etc. I understand a major difference is that posters cannot be anonymous, and it seems like Leiter limits acceptable sources. But it is still "outing", no matter the source.
Any further thoughts, given this?
Tryphaena, if I am the one picking you up at the airport and I see that you have checked a bag I will simply turn around and leave you there.
8-)
Tryphaena: to check or not to check?
I checked a bag that didn't make the connection, which was kind of scary and sad, but I was sure to wear something interview-acceptable on the plane and had all the important stuff in my hand luggage. I had to borrow some winter gear from a faculty member. Turns out that the missing bag and borrowed stuff were sources of easy conversation when all other topics seemed exhausted. It wasn't so bad in the end.
I know at some public universities, candidates are automatically "outed" and put into the public record the minute they agree to a campus interview. Like it has been said - all part of the territory.
Hah! Tonight's fortune cookie: "Your talents will be recognized and rewarded." I guess that despite their ancientmost wisdom, the Chinese don't truly understand the classics job market...
I am sympathetic to the concerns about respecting a candidate's privacy. That said, it's the sad but true fact that, once you agree to be interviewed for a position, any privacy you are accorded is a gift rather than an expectation. For this reason, it is always a good idea to assume that everyone knows everything about you (esp. if you are trying to look for a job sub rosa). The more high-profile the job is, the less likely you are to be accorded any privacy. It sucks, but it's how it is.
In addition, this lack of privacy will be the case for the rest of your professional life, to some degree or another (esp. if you are in PhD granting department). I despise it and do everything I can to protect my privacy. Still...
So, all this to say that, once someone has accepted a job, the news is out there and will spread, sometimes quickly and sometimes slowly. I see no reason not to democratize the access to that information. Candidates who accept offers should realize that word will spread and act accordingly.
As the one who raised this whole can of worms and then opened it, I want to respond. First, I should say that I personally care about the outcomes of a small number of searches -- either places with which I've interviewed, or programs in which I have some sort of interest. Which is why I've not been spending the past few days going back and forth on this subject. I will state that some of the arguments against that I've seen have made sense (and hadn't occurred to me), others make no sense. Of the latter, I'll only single out the implicit suggestion that it's okay for a job candidate to accept an offer and not tell other search committees in a timely manner, and that somehow anyone else who posts this information would be doing that person a disservice. Anyone who accepts an offer but doesn't notify other places considering him/her deserves a torrent of abuse, not our collective protection. (And I know of one person who has done this, so it does happen.)
I'll admit that I can see how it's possible for someone to accept an offer and then suffer some sort of unforeseen damage when someone else (e.g., their spouse's employer) finds out. Though unlikely, it's a bit of a concern, especially since Google picks up anything posted on the original wiki. But since Google can't penetrate our passworded wiki, that wouldn't be a concern if we ONLY posted names there. And since more than enough people have (rightly) argued that new hires are hardly a secret in our field, I don't see how any harm can come from this information being posted in a place accessed only by classicists/archaeologists. As I see it, this would just be doing the work of the APA newsletter, but in a more timely manner.
With that having been said, and having satisfied the argumentative facet of my personality, I'll say that I do think that "outing" candidates who have not themselves posted their good news should be delayed longer than a week (which was my original suggestion). And of course, if a department outs them in its rejection letters, then that information can go up right away.
Finally, I'll point out that for all the concerns over "outing," last year it was happening on the wiki to some extent, and no one (to my knowledge) complained, and this year no one has entered this argument to cite an example of how it hurt them. In other words, people are arguing hypotheticals, but the system appears to have worked without problem last year. So long as we now act more courteously by giving people a significant amount of time to notify other search committees and their friends, colleagues, and former professors, this probably isn't as big a deal as some think it is.
outing
No one seems to be arguing for naming people at anytime before an offer is accepted - so that issue seems to be closed.
The naming of the candidate who accepted the offer seems to offer fewer ethical problems, but I will still argue that we not do it here.
1. As far as I can see, it serves no useful purpose. Knowing that an offer was accepted is sufficient and surely we can wait until it is published in the APA newsletter.
2. There is a chance of error, which may may or may not cause harm. A harmless error may even now be there: Univ. of Toronto hires for last year appear to be inverted, going by the publications I have read.
If no real benefit comes from naming hires here, why take even a small risk of doing harm?
tinkerty-tonk,
Poldy (who has no campus visits and so too much time)
1. As far as I can see, it serves no useful purpose. Knowing that an offer was accepted is sufficient and surely we can wait until it is published in the APA newsletter.
Actually, I think it can be very useful to know who has accepted an offer. If you are competing against the same relatively small pool of candidates in a particular sub-specialization, the choices made by other candidates can very much affect your options. Do I take the soon-to-expire offer for a two-year job or do I hold out for the tenure-track job at Princeton that I know has been offered to Dr. Joe J. Shmoe? In that case, it's very helpful to me to know as soon as possible that Dr. Shmoe (and not someone else) has accepted a tenure-track position at Harvard instead.
That said, I do also very much see the wisdom of erring on the side of caution in terms of naming names.
So, after having four interviews for tenure-track jobs at the conference, it appears that I’m not in the running for any of them at this point. As one who is 3+ years out of grad school – I just typed “grade school” by mistake – I would like to crystallize some of my thoughts, several of which tie in with what others in a similar situation have posted. I would be curious to see what people have to say, especially some of those who are already tenured faculty but have been hanging around here.
Essentially, I think that the people in hiring positions need to think about the good of the field, and not just their own programs, when they decide on their finalists, because it is clear that there are several of us out there still without tenure-track jobs despite being several years out (and being good enough to merit permanent positions!), and there is a danger that some will leave the field – if not this year, then next year, or the year after. (One of us recently posted something along those lines; I doubt that she’s the only one contemplating another career.) And presumably, some of those people would have made valuable contributions. We all know or know of people who left academia because they were unable to find permanent positions, and some of these people were pretty damn good. A major cause of this problem, it seems to me, is not that there are too few jobs, but that departments tend to get star-struck and pass over proven, experienced candidates in order to hire the latest shiny, new products emerging from the topmost grad programs, some of whom have spent little or no time in the classroom.
I understand why search committees like to go after these rookies, but I question the soundness of this policy, since I know of times when departments have gotten burned in doing so. I myself witnessed this as a grad student, when my department hired someone from a top-tier program who turned out to be a mediocre teacher: he/she often lazily relied on grad students to teach his/her undergrad lecture courses (something that was completely atypical for our department), and apparently – I was ABD when he/she was hired but heard this from my fellow grads – would routinely show up to his/her grad seminars unprepared. Had this person had to take one or two VAP positions first, his/her deficiencies might have been known before he/she was hired for a tenure-track position. Another example: I have taught at a place where someone with a degree from an even more prestigious school was not fully competent to handle certain aspects of the teaching of grad students, leaving many of them with serious gaps in their training (which I myself tried to rectify!). And this year, I have heard from a reliable source about someone from one top program being interviewed for a rather good tenure-track position, and that person has very serious deficiencies that are unlikely to come out until after he/she has been hired – deficiencies that if known would most definitely disqualify the person from a job at that institution.
It is cases like these that make me think that our field needs to act more like Republicans and less like Democrats. (Please resist the temptation to make obvious jokes.) Remember, the conventional wisdom is that in years when they don’t have an incumbent Republicans tend to nominate as their presidential candidate the person whose “turn” it is (Dole 1996, Bush Sr. 1988, Reagan 1980, Nixon 1968, Nixon 1960, and probably McCain this year), whereas Democrats often are bedazzled by someone new and relatively unknown, who often electrifies them with hope even if he is less experienced than his opponents (Clinton 1992, Carter 1976, McGovern 1972, Kennedy 1960, and this year at least two of the three who are still running are far less experienced than Biden, Dodd or Richardson). Our field needs to find a way to make sure that some people who have been out for a while don’t fall through the cracks and end up leaving academia altogether, and the way to do this is to make more of an effort to hire people whose “turn” it is to get a tenure-track job. Those unproven but potentially outstanding Obama-types will do just fine if they end up having to settle for a year or two of seasoning in visiting positions before landing a tenure-track job – and future search committees will benefit by knowing the track-records of these candidates. Moreover, we have had a discussion on this blog about how certain schools (I think Princeton was a prime offender, allegedly) are notorious for their inflationary letters of recommendation – and this approach of only hiring proven candidates for tenure-track positions would certainly help to reduce the long-term harm that can be done by such misleading letters.
So, where am I wrong in thinking this? I know enough about Game Theory to recognize that this will probably never happen, because departments won’t be able to help themselves and will fall for the next pretty young thing to come along. But shouldn’t it work as I suggest?
No.
To Anon. 10:15 (Anon. 10:36, sorry, but that answer was undignified for a serious post):
I agree with almost everything you say. I will say this: I have been out 4+ years. After one campus interview (for a job advertised in the spring) a very long time ago, I didn't start getting campus invites regularly from APA interviews until last year. I managed more this year. This, I think is for several reasons: there were some weaknesses I needed to address, my degree is not from a school known for my particular specialty, but now I get the sense I have finally filled up a great many of those gaps, which encourages me enough to keep trying, at least another year, if nothing happens this year.
I also don't think people need to fall between the cracks; I think the temporary market is well-suited to the more experienced candidates. The past three years I have had multiple temporary job offers. I think for any good teacher and good colleague who is willing to keep trying, something will happen someday. The question most who leave have to decide if that is worth it to them and their families. Just now, it's worth it to me; it might not be in a year or two.
As for Princeton, yes, they have that rep of inflating letters. But I have a friend graduating from there and they have been wonderful and supportive at every moment of the job search: mock interviews, extra teaching experience, practice job talks attended by a significant number of faculty, etc. They even have a section on their website: "meet our students on the market this year." That's a pretty fair commitment to getting grads jobs, one which other top schools don't always do. Perhaps lesser programs would be well-advised to follow suit. It might make a difference.
are there more details on the Lafayette news posted on the wiki (search committee still deciding)? was this sent in response to a personal communication, or to people on a post-apa shortlist (but not yet a finalist shortlist)?
"but that departments tend to get star-struck and pass over proven, experienced candidates in order to hire the latest shiny, new products emerging from the topmost grad programs, some of whom have spent little or no time in the classroom."
I think there's even a deeper problem than robbing-the-cradle syndrome. It's incest - simple as that. I know it's impractical, but there should be a SC member who is not a Classics Ph.D. As it stands now, it's not so much that SCs purposely pass over candidates who are superb academics but I honestly believe they cannot recognize them. In a strange twist, the more innovative you are in Classics, the less appealing you are due to unfamiliarity. Classics has gone down a small path and needs to take a step back before it can get reinvigorated. Alas, I fear for its future.
Dear 10:15,
I, too, agree with almost everything you say. I, however, WAS one of those freshly-made baubles that never had to go through the VAP circuit. I managed to land a very good tenure-track job while still ABD. I am now in my third year in that position, and while I am quite happy, I think that having a few years of visiting appointments under my belt would have helped me immensely. I wouldn't have this particular job, but presumably I would have a similarly decent job. However, I would be in a much better position for re-appointment and, eventually, tenure.
I also think that some sort of system that recognizes service and experience ought to be in play. I suspect it never will be, but that is to our field's discredit. Expecting all newly minted PhDs to work at least 3 years in visiting positions (or, one 3-year position) would help everybody. Like you said, candidates could be measured in real-world terms. Presumably letters of recommendation from faculty where one has taught are more trustworthy than from one's PhD institution, since they have no vested interest in "placement". Deficiencies in training and teaching experience can be rectified, or exposed as show-stoppers. I think these "visiting" years post-PhD would demonstrate that institutional pedigree is not a good predictor of professional success. Over time this might then flatten out the disparity in hiring practices so that candidates from "name brand" places won't dominate the hiring cycle. And like I noted above, better to learn how to balance the teaching and research while off the tenure clock. Finally, one would have the benefit of seeing how a few different institutions work from the perspective of a faculty member, and the simple good of expanding your network of colleagues.
I could go on. But I did want to voice my support for your posting. I realize I am VERY fortunate, and that my current position has much more to do with luck than my own scholarly virtues. My good fortune has not blinded me to the fact that some sort of structural modifications are in order.
I would actually go one step further. Based upon my own experience of adjuncting and VAPing at everything from community colleges to R1 universities for nearly ten years before landing my first full-time job (I am now happily tenured), I have long argued that it should be mandatory for all newly-minted PhDs in Classics, Archaeology, and Ancient History to teach for two years at a community college before landing a TT job at a four-year college or university. That may seem a bit extreme to some, but it does two things: 1) It deflates your ego immediately and allows you to become grateful for the later positions that may come your way, rather than feeling that it is your right; and 2) More importantly, you will learn how to teach. If you can teach effectively at the community college level, where many of your students are the first in their family to have attended college, you can subsequently teach anywhere, and do it well, whether you are teaching undergraduates or graduate students. I can think of numerous examples where teaching for a few years at a community college would have done an insufferable (and incompetent) colleague a world of good. And, there are tons of FT and PT jobs at community colleges, frequently with excellent colleagues, if you are willing to teach basic introductory-level courses (which will, by the way, come in handy later).
This board has quickly detoured into Absurdistan.
First, it's not Absurdistan. Comments like that are attempts to detract from considering a serious problem.
It would be entirely possible for SCs to do what Anon. 7:39 suggests. All they have to do in the job description is to specify "PhD and two (or however many they want) years teaching experience beyond the PhD." I'm sure this would run into all kinds of administrative and departmental objections, but other professions - business, libraries - do it, so why not academia? (Of course, they'd also have to stick to it, and job descriptions are not gospel.)
On the links on the right of the main page of Famae Volent, there are several on topics like "Why No One Deserves the Job They Get." Let's try to remember that as jobs are offered and the gap between haves and have-nots becomes clearer. Those of us with jobs should realize how fortunate we are, not go on an ego trip.
I agree that all newly minted PhDs should have to teach in CC for at least two years before getting a TT.
At the end of two years, however, they should be assured a TT. They should be guaranteed the TT position of their choice, and if one has not opened at their institution of choice, then ... then the candidates should get to choose one tenured faculty from that department who will be removed from that position. And shot. Yes! Shot!
We can repopulate entire departments this way. It is for the good of the field.
Actually, I think CC is too easy on them. I think that new PhDs should have to teach high school for a decade before getting a University job. They will become good teachers and top-ranked scholars in the process. It is a really great idea.
I think we should discard any concerns of research potential or productivity. It's really about everyone getting a chance at the top job. Everyone's equally deserving of everything. And it should mainly be about service. Food service. Stuff like that.
Enjoy your stay in Absurdistan. The weather is unpredictable, and the people hilarious!
Come on, guys. This is a highly competitive scholarly field. That doesn't mean it's always pleasant, this job process. But to argue that hiring the candidates who have the top potential (and most impressive output) is not for the good of the field is ludicrous.
Fine, I'll bite, because absurd doesn't even begin to describe it.
First, I doubt most SCs would even concede there is a "problem". Most SCs are interested in hiring the best candidate they can get. To suggest that this is not in the overall interests of the field because they are often getting bad teachers is a) unproven (even by anecdote: for every freshly minted Harvard PHD that can't teach I can point to someone with ten years experience who is even worse) and b) beside the point. SCs that hire candidates w/out teaching experience are clearly weighing other factors, such as the potential to generate new and compelling research. At R1 institutions a low departmental research profile means the guillotine, even for departments with high enrollments and teaching awards.
And the proposed solutions are preposterous. Make all recent PHDs teach for two years at a community college? Really? You think that will attract the talented and ambitious young scholars that the field needs to survive? Require two years of post-PHD teaching to be considered for TT jobs? That might establish a pecking order that allows long-time VAPs to slide into TTs, but guess what, it would provide relief for all of two years, after which the exact same biases would reassert themselves (the Harvard/Princeton PHDs with strong/inflated recommendations and a 2 years in a VAP would be right back at the front of the line). And it would likelier lead to even more inside TT hires.
I am as critical of the APA and many features of the hiring process as the rest of you, but trying to take the power out of the hands of SCs to evaluate their own needs then pick the best candidates and instead instituting rules or rigid hierarchies in the interests of 'fairness' is, in my view, absurd.
Yeah... I keep scratching my head (fleas) and wondering, "who said anything about fair?"
I, for one, do not advocate any rigid rules, especially the community colleges option. But I do think that committees need to be cognizant of which candidates have been hanging in there for several years and seriously consider the fact that these people might be lost to the field if not hired.
And what one or two of you appear to be missing is that these candidates from the top programs who are brimming with potential don't need to be hired right away -- no one is so good that they MUST begin the tenure-track process right away. If departments held to a policy of only hiring people with 1+ years of experience, then they would be just as capable of stocking up on grads from top programs, they would just get the ones who were a year or two out. But in that time, some of the ones who don't merit the top jobs will be weeded out, creating more opportunities for candidates of demonstrated excellence who have been around longer and proven themselves in the classroom and in their research. How would that be a bad thing?
Anyway, if I'm ever on a SC all candidates coming right out of grad school will start off with two strikes on them in my eyes. And you know what? There will still be some damn fine candidates left.
fair, who said anything about fair?
But why can't it be unfair in my favor?
In fact, the process seems fair enough to me, although too random to be susceptible to generalizations.
Claims of top potential or proven teaching or comely appearance are simply catchphrases masking subjective (which does not mean bad) choices.
But since my potential, teaching, and looks are far below the average, I need unfairness if I am ever to land a job.
toodle-pip,
poldy
(ps. anonymous with head fleas, they make shampoo for that).
The problem or the difficulty, if there is one, seems to me this; you need to have just the right mixture of research skill/potential, teaching ability, and collegiality/affability to get ahead. I have known a number of brilliant researchers as well as charismatic teachers who languish in CC's, high schools and low-paying foreign universities while mediocre people seem to dominate the field. But I guess departments have the right to decide whom they want, because their prosperity and survival depends on it. Still, it is sad e.g. to hear a dep. chair at a prominent research univ. openly say (as I was witness) that they don't need brilliant people, just someone who can help the department do its job.
I think that part of the problem is that the "brilliance" of the newly minted people often rests on what their advisor says about them and, maybe, an article or two. Everything else is potential. Yes, many, perhaps most Bright Young Things fulfill that potential and go on to be outstanding scholars and teachers. But as we all know, some do not.
The advantage of weighting postdoctoral experience more is largely that it gives more chance for the candidate to show that, in fact, they will get their book published (and their diss. successfully defended, before that!), they can teach a variety of courses, and they can work with colleagues from a variety of backgrounds and approaches. I don't think this will hurt the truly good candidates at all; it will just give them even more advantages. But it weeds out the folks who 3 years post-Ph.D. still haven't published anything and have mediocre teaching evaluations. In many ways, it would help the top-tier places, because they'd be less likely to have to deny someone tenure, which no one wants to do.
A major problem with the system is the overall subjectivity and process. It's not just the over-inflated letters. The fact is the skills needed to land a job are largely learned and have little bearing on a successful academic career. In essence, it's a beauty contest. Go over the checklist that people have written about interviewing successfully. Will these skills ever be life and death again? It's a crapshoot and I'm fairly sick of the tired old excuse that "it's the best we have."
" But it weeds out the folks who 3 years post-Ph.D. still haven't published anything and have mediocre teaching evaluations."
If anything, I think there's a problem on both ends of the academic timeline - the fascination with newly-minted Ph.D.s with a sparkling letter from Dr. Bigshot AND these same people 7 years later with little to no publications getting denied tenure yet getting another chance elsewhere. The process favors and continues to favor those who somehow won the TT lottery. The latter part is even more disturbing.
Isn't getting a top TT job straight out of grad school, the dream of every grad student? I can see the number (and quality) of incoming grad students plunging if any of the proposals suggested here come to be. Some people are less willing than others to endure several years of temporary teaching, especially when their education and achievement gives them better non-academic alternatives. A bias against the highly ambitious is going to drive more talented people out of the field than a bias against the ultra-dedicated.
No one (other than a fool or egomaniac) enters grad school these days with the assumption that he or she will be guaranteed a tenure-track job right away. If more departments made it a policy not to hire candidates with no post-graduate teaching experience that should not reduce the number of people seeking Ph.D.'s. (That community college idea, of course, would have such an effect.)
Question for someone in the know:
What's the likelihood that universities will start to offer better VAP and post-doc opportunities? (Medium-term as opposed to one-year, reasonable teaching load, etc.) I wouldn't want this to result in fewer t-t jobs, but it would seem to be in the interests of all--people tired of moving, bright young things, depts tired of turnover, admins worried about tenuring the untried--if there were more (any?) medium-term positions. I can only think of Vassar this year, and that situation was unique. The Societies of Fellows and other lottery-like opportunities just don't cut it.
What's the likelihood that universities will start to offer better VAP and post-doc opportunities?
Slim. I have heard of universities getting rid of the VAP altogether and opting for more temporary positions. I expect temporary faculty will have to teach more courses with less support and precious little security.
My sources do not cover the whole spectrum, of course, but there does seem to be a general trend towards short term, fixed contract teaching.
toodle-pip,
Poldy
Comment and question:
[Princeton] has been wonderful and supportive at every moment of the job search: mock interviews, extra teaching experience, practice job talks . . . Perhaps lesser programs would be well-advised to follow suit.
Perhaps equal programs would, too! I like guidance.
Dead Man Walking (et al.):
You mentioned "deficiencies", and I wonder what, exactly, you mean (without giving it all away)? (Disclosure: I'm about to hop on a plane, so my curiosity is powered by nerves.)
Thanks.
I continue to be astounded by reading the opinions here.
A TT job is not "the lottery." That would be insulting if it weren't just so idiotic. Some candidates are stronger, kiddos, and some have obviously more potential in the field, and some write much better than others, and some think much better than others, and some you'd love to have as a colleague and others—eh; you'd rather not.
Do you all really think there are not incredibly strong differences between candidates? Yes, yes: in the top five or so (your campus visits plus your alternates), things might be close. But even among those interviewed, the sheep-goat distinction is pretty clear. Hell: add to that the 100 or so applicants, of which you could interview only 13? Those who ended up at the top of the list are there because they are the stronger candidates.
I know this is hard to hear, but there are in fact stronger and weaker candidates out there. This is obvious to everyone on a SC. And you want the strong ones, of course, and it doesn't matter if they are freshly minted or out for a bit, save that the strongest new PhDs tend to land jobs first or second year out (and so not get stuck in endless VAPs), so by the time you are considering folks who are four or five years out but still on VAPs, you are not—probably—looking at the people who were the strongest when they finished. And you wonder: if they weren't a hot ticket when they first came out, what has made them hotter in the interim?
Those of you who speak of using your VAP time to publish lots—not quite as easy as it sounds. Just ask someone on her third VAP.
For the one who asked if depts might initiate more (or longer) VAP positions—why in the hell would we want to? Job searches suck. We want tenure lines. A VAP position is up for yearly approval by the University. Too risky. We settle when we have to, but tenure lines give the dept (and scholar) security. *No one* wants to get rid of that.
Dear Anon 6.56pm,
If, like me, you think you're up against this year's Ivan Drago, I recommend wearing Stars and Stripes pants. That should do it.
Best of luck,
R
Anon 7.35pm--what makes you think you can get more tenure lines? If your dept is in such a strong bargaining position, good for you. I was rather thinking of the possibility of compromise with central funding administrators who *aren't going to grant you another tenured colleague*. Are you saying you'd rather hang on optimistically for the largesse of the provost? What I want to know is: are such negotiations possible? And would such compromises be desirable if the alternative is no new t-t hires? Also, perhaps medium-term jobs / postdocs wouldn't even require annual review?
"so by the time you are considering folks who are four or five years out but still on VAPs, you are not—probably—looking at the people who were the strongest when they finished. And you wonder: if they weren't a hot ticket when they first came out, what has made them hotter in the interim?"
And this is the true measure of my ability. It is so accurate for me personally, that I hope the ignorance of it doesn't apply to the rest of you.
tinkerty-tonk,
poldy
Anonymous 7:35,
Even though I've never been on a search committee and you have, I'm going to be a bit arrogant and point out why I think you're not fully correct in your viewpoint. My claim is based both on knowing people who have been on SC's and having heard more than enough for me to have a pretty good feel for what goes on.
First, you are only partly right when you say that a department gets 100 applications, interviews a dozen or so, and then invites up to five, and those five are clearly the best candidates. What I believe you meant to say is those five are clearly the best FOR THAT JOB. There will undoubtedly be several other equally good candidates who weren't interviewed because they weren't a good fit. Say that a department is conducting a search for a Greek Lit person but already has a drama person -- there will be excellent candidates who don't even get interviewed because they do drama. Sometimes very good candidates are excluded for much less reasonable motives. So your statement that the ones who end up coming to campus are stronger candidates is incomplete: they are stronger for the department's particular needs and/or appeal to the whims of particular faculty members, but might be no different in terms of overall quality and promise from the candidates who do make the cut.
What that means is that for every job there will be a good number of good-to-outstanding candidates who don't get considered. And because each year there are only so many tenure-track openings in a given sub-discipline it is possible through sheer randomness for some very good people to miss out on making the cut for tenure-track consideration. Usually this situation rights itself within 2-3 years, but sometimes it takes longer. When talking about a field with so few overall openings, and then only a fraction of those suitable for the given candidate -- whether he/she do Greek Lit, Roman Lit, Greek history, Roman history, or Other -- it's just a mathematical fact that because of the randomness inherent in the market there will always be some who year after year don't find a tenure-track job.
@7:46 Anon 7.35pm--what makes you think you can get more tenure lines? If your dept is in such a strong bargaining position, good for you.
It's not quite about getting more, but about keeping the ones we have. Say someone leaves. We don't have time to get approved for a TT replacement search, but we get a one year VAP; next year we can run the TT search. We are no likely to lose the TT line in the interim.
But if the VAP is, say, 3 or 4 years, then by the time we come back to the dean and say "Ok, we'd like that TT position now," we are apt to hear "what TT position? You've been doing fine with the VAP. Let's keep it at that."
There are a great many things, departmentally, that a VAP can't do. It's not a good position for anyone. It is a necessary one for many, but it's not really good for anyone.
And no, we can't just to and ask for a VAP. The only way we get a VAP is if we suddenly lose someone we have and have to cover the teaching.
It ain't pretty.
While I understand the bitterness of those with many visiting jobs under the belt, you may be consoled by the idea that not getting a TT-job is not the only way the field loses people. Many who are denied tenure leave the field. Many who are hired out of grad school may not have enough time to do what their institutions expect of them by the time they come up. Many then leave, and much of the time, it's a real loss. But if you want something to feel better about, imagine the agony of being denied tenure and out of options that some of the people you so resent may face.
r:
Best of luck and just remember:
You're not human. You're like a piece of iron.
"But if you want something to feel better about, imagine the agony of being denied tenure and out of options that some of the people you so resent may face."
Give me a freaking break. The vast majority of the time, someone getting denied tenure can blame themselves. This person had a chance to produce and just plain did not. Thanks for playing - see ya. The graver injustice is the highly qualified Ph.D. from University of Big State who is doing innovative research who bounces around and possibly leaves the field b/c Dr. Princeton got plumb letters but published one article in 7 years. Boo-hoo. For those saying that the system works superbly in picking the "best," why then is there so many Associate Profs in Classics who are 60+ years old? I've never experienced a field where so many unqualified people get tenure with a mythical "book" based on their diss and maybe an article or two. Deans know this and that's why classics has such a stench to most of them. Classics' saving grace is that it's a relatively cheap department to maintain, but even that is wearing thin.
I love the last post!
I've been interviewed by so many losers at the APA that I've lost count. Associate professor? Full professor? You've published 75 pages? In 25 years? Or maybe (and I've talked to these too) you've never published anything?
Wow.
I'm underwhelmed.
In three years I've published more than you...and my book isn't even out yet. (But it's under contract!) Yet I'm not the right candidate for the job?
Shame on you.
In three years I've published more than you...and my book isn't even out yet. (But it's under contract!) Yet I'm not the right candidate for the job?
And you have done this, like the rest of us VAPs in our 3rd or 4th year out, while teaching 6-8 courses per year with little to no institutional support for research unlike the shiny PhDs who get the TT and teach a 2/2 with course releases, pre-review sabbaticals and research funds. This, my friends, is why many VAPs do not succeed. We are required after the first year or so to be tenurable upon hire though having worked under ridiculously difficult conditions for those years while the ABD is all potential without having the extra burden of "proving" why they aren't "good enough" for a TT after so many years on the VAP circuit. The biases some posters here have expressed against VAPs is really sad. Many VAPs have as many if not more publications (and even more important ones) than tenured faculty and have more teaching skills and experience than the new PhDs but it means nothing if you can't get past a prejudice that a VAP is somehow no good if they haven't been hired to a TT after the first year or 2 out.
@8:02:
First, you are only partly right when you say that a department gets 100 applications, interviews a dozen or so, and then invites up to five, and those five are clearly the best candidates. What I believe you meant to say is those five are clearly the best FOR THAT JOB.
I did not think I needed to specify that if I am speaking of a particular search, I am speaking of a particular job. Yes: clear the best for that job. The one for which we are interviewing. The job we wish to have filled. Yes, the one advertised on the APA website. That job.
This is rocket science?
There will undoubtedly be several other equally good candidates who weren't interviewed because they weren't a good fit.
In which case they were not the best candidates—for the search in which the SC is engaged.
I really had to make this clear?
but might be no different in terms of overall quality and promise from the candidates who do make the cut.
It is true that if a dept needs a Greek poetry person, and an excellent Greek historian would "could teach poetry" very well applies, this excellent person may not get an interview (then again, if they are really that excellent, they very may well).
But the fact is that most people who apply probably do fall more or less into the basic category of appropriate candidates. But some are simply much better than others.
Yes, good people end up without TT jobs. It's true. We all know it. But it's not totally random. It's not a lottery.
Post a Comment