Uh, just out of curiosity, and not because I'm going to apply: the German job in the March 1 ads is for someone with a Habilitation. Do we have an American equivalent? Would they accept a US PhD dissertation?
Oh, and there are jobs in the March 1 ads. All 2 of them (excluding the German job and the post-doc).
Great, way to go guys. We apparently scared one of the Pornellians away judging by the erasure in the wiki. Perhaps we should refrain from even indirect discussions of the people who accept jobs? It's not exactly encouraging self-disclosure.
Who got what job is going to be public information soon, anyway. We can't all be Greta Garbos. And nothing bad has been said about Penn. Quite the opposite.
Speaking of wikis and erasures, someone above asked about the "rumor mill" sources and how reliable they were. Someone else said at least one was false. Shouldn't the known-to-be-false one be erased, if it hasn't already?
Shouldn't the known-to-be-false one be erased, if it hasn't already?
Yeah, that would kind of cramp my anonymity. And I'm not especially keen to do that after the little "ooh, ooh, look at the people erasing their names" thing above. So, just take the rumors for what they are—anonymously posted rumors that could well be incorrect. Sorry.
Any one have the slightest idea as to what's going on at Miami? They interviewed candidates in November, December, January. According to the wiki, the job has been offered (accepted? which one?), while the other job (which one?) may have been lost. I want to contact the members of the SC, but I don't want to appear meddlesome or rude. Still, after having been interviewed back in early December, I feel as if the time has come for them to let me know something.
I would e-mail the SC. Seems warranted at this point--so much time has elapsed with no updates--and it doesn't seem as though there's anything to lose, since (if the wiki is to be believed) one job has already been offered, and the other may be canceled. I actually made an inquiry myself a couple of weeks ago and got a "still working on things"-type response, neither closing the door nor offering much hope or any timeline. I'm surmising that budgetary issues are holding up/canceling the second search but that the ghost has not yet been given up completely. Perhaps there is more information by this point...so if you do inquire, please report back what you find!
I should add that I got a *genial* "still working on things"-type response from Miami, which is why I think it would be all right to e-mail the SC with a polite inquiry.
So maybe "search failed" would be a more accurate label for the wiki - considering how many searches have been canceled this year for budgetary reasons.
So some tenured professors at NYU failed to come to an agreement in this market, given what's at stake? I have no interest in the search but - if the rumor's true - that's pretty irresponsible.
"So some tenured professors at NYU failed to come to an agreement in this market, given what's at stake? I have no interest in the search but - if the rumor's true - that's pretty irresponsible."
It's disappointing for the candidates, sure, but I doubt it's irresponsible for NYU. The university is probably under a lot of financial stress and I doubt they're as willing to take on new faculty members. It's sheer speculation but I would bet on cancellation rather than impasse...
If it was a cancellation then obviously that's no one's fault. But the rumor was about failure, and I was merely commenting on the basis of that rumor. If hires are possible in this market, I do actually think faculty members have a responsibility to the broader field as well as their own institution, but I recognize I might be an outlier in thinking that.
Procedural question: if a candidate garners more phone/CAMWS interviews on the temp market, should they update the preliminary interview counter on the wiki?
NYU are notorious for doing this kind of thing. I've heard several stories of them messing candidates around in the past, and this year seems to be no exception.
I do actually think faculty members have a responsibility to the broader field as well as their own institution
When you hire someone into a t-t position, that person may be working in your department for the next 30-40 years. I don't think departments are obliged to hire someone for 40 years just to prevent the job from going unfilled for a year, or even from being canceled altogether.
Isn't the point of t-t that you can get rid of the person after 6 years if it turns out you don't like them?
Actually, no, it's a lot more complicated than that. In theory, someone should only be denied tenure because they haven't met a more or less well-defined set of expectations for tenure, and not because of the range of imaginable reasons why one might be reluctant to hire a person in the first place (departmental needs, direction of research, collegiality, etc.).
So for example, if someone shows signs of budding sabretoothness, the hiring decision is the only point at which it's possible to block her or him. You can't deny tenure because of bloodthirst.
But the real question is, how is it possible in such a buyer's market as it is this year (especially for those few schools looking for Hellenists!) that NYU--or any university--couldn't find a single person qualified to fit their needs?? I'm a Hellenist and there have already been 4 positions that I've applied to--either Hellenist or Generalist--that have been canceled; to add a failed search to that tally is just galling.
So for example, if someone shows signs of budding sabretoothness, the hiring decision is the only point at which it's possible to block her or him. You can't deny tenure because of bloodthirst.
Sadly this is true, but how given the current hiring process can schools even ID possible sabretoothyness? You get an app and a dossier, you chat for 30 minutes at the APA, then you spend tops 48 hours together on campus interacting and listening to the applicant give talks/teach classes. During all this, the intelligent sabre-tooth will be on his/her best behavior. Intelligent sabre-tooth will also have gotten letters that won't mention incipient sabretoothyness. (I should say I work at a university with a major sabre-tooth, and as far as I can tell the department really did not know.)
My point is not to argue, just to point out that on the current process you can't tell. (Sometimes you can't tell who will bomb out, be lazy and refuse to publish and not get tenure, but the CV can help with that.)
My point is not to argue, just to point out that on the current process you can't tell.
No, that doesn't follow. What your argument shows is that some sabretooths may successfully masquerade as pussycats. But the reverse doesn't follow: if someone appears a sabretooth in the course of the appointment process, they are unlikely to be a pussycat pretending to be a sabretooth. Such a person is much more likely to be a real sabretooth who is not good at concealing it.
In other words, the fact that the process is not infallible at weeding out sabretooths does not mean that it fails to weed out any.
Oh, I agree. But in my experience, those who don't hide sabretoothyness usually don't get the job.
Precisely the point I was making: that some sabretooths can be weeded out. And this (to go back to an earlier point) is an example of a case where a person might not be hired despite being tenurable.
NYU: Bottom line - si fama vera est - someone should have been both hireable and hired. And if not for the t-t then for a VAP with a view to checking them out.
Wasn't the NYU Hellenist position Open Rank? Those are a lot more likely to fail than junior searches, esp. if all the candidates were assoc/full level. And by then sabretooths have surely revealed their true colors...
don't think your saber-tooth theory for NYU candidates holds water, though, people. I know at least one of the candidates is as far from saber-tooth as can be.
don't think your saber-tooth theory for NYU candidates
I didn't propose any such theory. Here's what I said:
When you hire someone into a t-t position, that person may be working in your department for the next 30-40 years. I don't think departments are obliged to hire someone for 40 years just to prevent the job from going unfilled for a year, or even from being canceled altogether.
Isn't the point of t-t that you can get rid of the person after 6 years if it turns out you don't like them?
Actually, no, it's a lot more complicated than that. In theory, someone should only be denied tenure because they haven't met a more or less well-defined set of expectations for tenure, and not because of the range of imaginable reasons why one might be reluctant to hire a person in the first place (departmental needs, direction of research, collegiality, etc.).
So for example, if someone shows signs of budding sabretoothness, the hiring decision is the only point at which it's possible to block her or him. You can't deny tenure because of bloodthirst.
It's an abstract discussion about departments' obligations to the field, and doesn't suggest that there were wicked NYU candidates.
An abstract discussion, sure. But on this site , abstract discussion turns into accusations of impropriety quite easily (as we saw with the accusations that the Pomona candidate who turned down the job was to blame for the failed search). Better to nip it in the bud before it gets going.
abstract discussion turns into accusations of impropriety quite easily
Yes, and that happens precisely because someone does something like this: take an explanation of why departments aren't morally obliged to fill every position they're given and characterize it as "your sabretooth theory for NYU candidates." That's not nipping a rumor in the bud; that's planting, fertilizing, and watering the rumor.
I don't see why a reasonable (if possibly false) critical rumor about NYU failing to find someone to hire in this market turned into an assumption that the candidates, or at least some of them, were despicable. It's astonishing that we do this to ourselves.
I don't see how failure to hire in this market is any different than failure to hire in any other year. Jobs are always scarce even if they may be more scarce currently. A search failure is a failure regardless of when or why. Arguing about it here isn't going to make the committee go "Oh! maybe we haven't failed after all!"
I don't think the point was to make the committee feel better about their failure. Rather to emphasize the opprobrium that should attach to a committee that does fail. Perhaps that should be true in any market, but surely a fortiori in this one?
If the funds are withdrawn for that position next year, then what? That's simply one job lost to the field because of petty disagreement this year. Where is the pragmatism in that I ask you?
Yeah, but traditionally it has been Romanists who have given the Hellenists their jobs. So you'd think pragmatism would win out. Maybe Cato the Elder was on the SC, and that is why the search failed.
I don't see why a reasonable (if possibly false) critical rumor about NYU failing to find someone to hire in this market turned into an assumption that the candidates, or at least some of them, were despicable.
Low reading comprehension skills, hunger for controversy, and general frenzy.
If the funds are withdrawn for that position next year, then what? That's simply one job lost to the field because of petty disagreement this year.
Departments don't have a moral obligation to Classics to fill every position they're given. The consequences for a department of any given hiring decision are far greater than the consequences for the whole field, and a department should be free to consult its own interests in deciding whether and whom to hire. Now, sometimes departments will do a bad job of consulting their own interests, as may or may not have happened in this case, but that's not also a "crime against Classics" in any meaningful sense.
Now, sometimes departments will do a bad job of consulting their own interests, as may or may not have happened in this case, but that's not also a "crime against Classics" in any meaningful sense.
If it's not meaningful don't use it. I don't recall anyone else having said it in those terms. The point was that depts often look down their noses at perfectly good candidates for reasons that would elude most people. In the current climate I would have thought that there might be less of that, for pragmatic, not merely charitable, reasons. If the rumor is true, NYU must have had their pick of Hellenists and you're telling me they couldn't come up with one. Disgraceful. If it turns out they offered it and couldn't get their woman, that's another thing.
If it's not meaningful don't use it. I don't recall anyone else having said it in those terms.
Here you go:
If hires are possible in this market, I do actually think faculty members have a responsibility to the broader field as well as their own institution, but I recognize I might be an outlier in thinking that.
March 4, 2009 10:55 AM
That's simply one job lost to the field because of petty disagreement this year.
March 5, 2009 9:49 AM
The first one is pretty clear, and I don't see any way of reading the second one in such a way that it doesn't imply that NYU has selfishly harmed the larger Classics community.
If the rumor is true, NYU must have had their pick of Hellenists and you're telling me they couldn't come up with one. Disgraceful.
Maybe, maybe not. Sometimes searches fail for bad reasons, and sometimes it makes sense for them to fail. Searches are very difficult and complicated. Not knowing what happened, I wouldn't venture a judgment. But it's entirely possible that you're right, and that they screwed up. And I'd also venture that a search that doesn't find anyone to offer a job to might be a sign of a department or university that's kind of screwed up. Note: not is but might be. (But a pattern of such searches is a sign.)
I said, a responsibility to the broader field, with the acknowledgement that I might be an outlier, along with numerous other qualifications. You said "Crime against Classics". You must work on declamation!
Look the SC may have done the right thing, I don't know. But I'm raising the possibility that they did not and that they could have done things better. I could be wrong. Perhaps it's my naivety but I really don't see a failed tenured/tenure-track search at a top university as being anything other than the failure of the search committee. Senior hires, yes, they can go wrong. Hires at second tier places and below, yes, they too can wrong through no fault of the committee. But having been at a top five institution I can tell you that all administrative failures were due to the incompetence and/or arrogance of some of the faculty. As soon as someone decent is in charge things like this - shock horror! - don't happen.
I said, a responsibility to the broader field, with the acknowledgement that I might be an outlier, along with numerous other qualifications. You said "Crime against Classics". You must work on declamation!
Ha! Fair enough. But I still dispute that there is any moral obligation to the field in a hiring decision, and so no possibility of transgression of responsibility.
Look the SC may have done the right thing, I don't know. But I'm raising the possibility that they did not and that they could have done things better. I could be wrong.
I think we're all agreed that it's possible; it's just a question of whether the Classics community has any moral claim on the department's decision.
Perhaps it's my naivety but I really don't see a failed tenured/tenure-track search at a top university as being anything other than the failure of the search committee. Senior hires, yes, they can go wrong. Hires at second tier places and below, yes, they too can wrong through no fault of the committee. But having been at a top five institution I can tell you that all administrative failures were due to the incompetence and/or arrogance of some of the faculty. As soon as someone decent is in charge things like this - shock horror! - don't happen.
I've never been present for a failed search. I have however been present for searches in which, by the end of campus visits, 2 of 3 or 3 of 4 candidates had skilfully eliminated themselves from the running in various ways. Had the candidate who ended up being hired also managed to eliminate her/himself, those searches would have failed, and I can't say that that would have been the wrong outcome.
I think you're right, though, that if that had happened it would have been the fault of the SC. I think it's at least understandable, though, since so much guesswork goes into each stage of the winnowing of the applicant pool. Searches are hard.
But more often than not (and especially this year, from what I've heard about quite a few searches), none of the candidates manage to eliminate themselves. That makes the SC's job a lot harder: if everyone is really bloody good, how on earth do you choose?
My question is how a candidate gets eliminated. If one shows up and gets hammered at the dinner or ends up not speaking English, I could totally understand. The person has demonstrated a severe lack of judgment or qualifications. Now if a SC member decides to torpedo an otherwise stellar candidate because s/he mentioned in passing that Tacitus was an idiot or Brits have bad teeth, that's total bs. I know from experience and colleagues that the latter happens way too often.
I'd say that the three big things are the job talk, the fielding of questions after the job talk, and the candidate's general interactions with the community during the visit. And these don't just eliminate; they also help separate first choice from second, etc.
Basically, there's a lot of room between your "doesn't speak English" scenario and your "insults British dentistry" scenario. Someone can give a talk that's just not very good or interesting or consequential and talk her/himself out of a job. That person might still be able to perform the described duties of the job, in English, but s/he's also now behind everybody who does give a good and interesting talk.
So does that mean that person is not hirable? I suppose it depends to a degree on the school, but an elimination to me connotes a clear cut line. My feeling is that this line is way too arbitrary at times resulting in failure despite eminently qualified candidates. More than a line, it ends up like spaghetti.
So does that mean that person is not hirable? I suppose it depends to a degree on the school, but an elimination to me connotes a clear cut line.
It probably does depend on the school to a degree. But a talk that really doesn't go anywhere useful or interesting, or a candidate who really can't follow or respond to questions after a talk, usually means elimination: the calculation is that the department will be able to find a better fit for the department among the other candidates or, failing that, by searching again. And I would put that decision in a significantly different category from the arbitrary "she looked at me funny" or "he stepped on my toe" decisions of the sort that you or someone else above described.
I also have to say that this means that a department's feeling an intellectual affinity for a candidate is a significant factor: what one department thinks is a boring and pointless talk or subject might seem to another department incredibly interesting and important.
But this is the problem with the entire process. You get a feeling for a candidate's long term body of work from their CV, publications, reference letters, and interview only to throw this out the window so that you can go all-in on a somewhat artificial two-day process? This is like picking who will represent your country for the marathon by lining them up for the 100m dash. Good searches take the campus visit with a grain of salt and think long term. I've noticed that there's a general disciplinary trend as to how seriously campus visits are considered and we tend to focus on them too much, in my opinion, to our own detriment.
I still don't get how you can weed through one hundred applications, ten interviewees, however many visitors, and then arrive at nothing. What was the principle of selection? SV? Hell I love denigrating Hellenists, but under the cover of anonymity I feel I can admit that some of them are actually quite smart. Just give one of them a damn job. I bet they'll do you proud.
Naw, it's like making someone run a marathon with the first five finishers advancing to a talent routine in a bathing suit. Seriously, I think it's why VAP to TT is so attractive. It makes much sense but we have to go through the routine of doing an official search, which then results in cries of foul play when the VAP gets chosen.
Yeah, I know, it's not a very good gauge of what you're going to do for the rest of your career. Campus visits leave much to be desired as a means of evaluation.
But all hiring is like this or (usually) worse, federal political office excepted. You don't get to see enough of a person really to know. You learn what you can, and go with that.
And I should say that it's easily possible to survive a mediocre talk, or mediocre answers to questions. It's not as though the rest of one's record goes out the window at the campus visit stage.
One difficulty with the process is that the candidates often never know why they didn't get the job.
It is obvious why search committees rarely say anything about their decisions at any stage. However, this makes it difficult for the candidates and can easily lead to paranoia (as this blog attests). - poldy
The questions are, why do searches fail, and what do candidates do that gets them eliminated.
Speaking from experience, I cannot possibly stress enough how important a job talk is. The chief reason candidates get eliminated (and entire searches fail) is because they come to campus and are affable enough, but they then present a stupid/incompetent/naive/unoriginal job talk. From the SC's perspective, you've just had 2-3 years to work up all sorts of original, highly competent thoughts about your author, field, text, whatever. That means we expect to hear an expert show us something that (1) isn't perfectly obvious to a casual observer, and (2) doesn't feature an argument so riddled with holes that even people who know nothing about your field can see the problems. So the talk speaks volumes to your promise of future achievement.
Advising profs in grad school aren't communicating clearly how important this part of the hiring process is. It's absolutely essential. Your clothes, comments about national dentistry of others, etc. etc., - none of that foolishness matters. Intellectual promise does.
One piece of advice that folks aren't getting is that your job talk SHOULD come from your dissertation. ABDs and recent grads often think it looks unoriginal to present something from their dissertations and they often try to work up new stuff specifically for the job talk. That seems like a good idea in theory, but it doesn't often work in practice. If you aren't sure, you should absolutely ask the head of the SC which sort of talk s/he would prefer...
Here's the hole in your argument: if it's a common error of green candidates to present a talk that is not drawn directly from their dissertation, how can it speak volumes about their future potential?
You can call it a 'hole' in my argument if you like, but I'm simply saying it's a reality, not an argument, like it or not.
Future promise is best shown by your best work, not something cobbled together in the three months since you graduated. SCs are looking for the long haul and want to see polish, not work in progress that you haven't had a chance to discuss with other experts before.
if it's a common error of green candidates to present a talk that is not drawn directly from their dissertation, how can it speak volumes about their future potential?
Don't think of it as a talk drawn directly from your completed first dissertation. Think of it as a talk adapted from your ongoing first book project—which is very much about the future, not the past.
Agreed. But I don't know if it's fair to blame failed searches on the candidates' job talk performances, as Anon 7:44 did. It takes two to tango, and at least three campus visits to do a job search.
Hey, whoever posted Concordia on the wiki - has this been advertised via the APA? If not, could you cut and paste the ad into the Job Announcements thread? We should do this as standard procedure for any jobs we hear of NOT through the APA.
(And as a Hellenist, I'm not even applying to Concordia.)
I'm not the one who posted it to the wiki, but I think this is Concordia in Canada, not Texas, right? http://artsandscience1.concordia.ca/employmentopportunities/limited-termappointments/?f=detail<A=273&PHPSESSID=6051bfcd8f23b8eca734f634fce4e3d9
They also suggested in another piece last week that Humanities needs to start justifying its existence in the new economy. Because it was all those Humanities PhDs who caused our economy to collapse. More like all those MBAs with no ethics.
Is it bad form to insert names into the wiki of candidates who have accepted jobs if we learned about it through word of mouth? I see at least one example of this but I wanted to hear a consensus before possibly doing it.
Is it bad form to insert names into the wiki of candidates who have accepted jobs if we learned about it through word of mouth? I see at least one example of this but I wanted to hear a consensus before possibly doing it.
This was discussed quite a bit last year. There was definite consensus that this should not be done in the immediate aftermath of a job's being accepted. After all, the person should be given the opportunity to inform other schools where he/she was a candidate, not to mention friends, professors, etc. So you should not "out" someone in this manner early on. There was, however, some sentiment that after at least 3-4 weeks have passed it's fine. After all, the APA itself publishes this information a few months later, and the only reason they wait so long is that it's in the newsletter after they've had a chance to collect all that info.
I haven't added names, but a quick check tells me that several of the names posted on the wiki can be found by going to the department's home pages and looking at course listings for the fall - or in one case, a big banner headline: "X shall be joining us!" Right after the hire, I would only add a name under those circumstances - i.e., anyone with Google and curiosity can find this out. But if it's word-of-mouth only, I think I'd wait a bit.
And frankly a candidate who's decided to take another job offer doesn't need more than a day or two to notify other schools at which they're under consideration. If they delay that notification longer, they're being unprofessional.
I agree with the previous comments - if a name has been posted by the hiring institution, I have no qualms about posting it on the wiki. If it's word of mouth, I would wait at least a week or two.
One caveat: my name was posted on department course listings when I had been offered, but not yet actually accepted the job. It seems possible that a number of schools do this, for reasons discussed earlier in this thread.
U Michigan is doing pretty well (as usual) -- there are several hired Michigan PhDs that are still not posted on the wiki....
Oh, do tell! If they are IPCAA students, I'm not surprised. If they are philologists, well, last I heard only one of eleven ABDs or recent PhDs had a job lined up for next year.
If you're confident that the position has been accepted for at least a couple weeks or it has been posted on the internet, update the wiki already instead of being so defensive.
For that matter, what's going on with some of the other gigs that have been offered weeks ago, but are not yet listed as accepted on the wiki? This list includes Columbia, Gallatin, Middlebury, Sweet Briar, Michigan, and Texas Tech. Have some (or all) of these jobs, in fact, been accepted already? Some of us would like to know for sure, so we can move on with our lives.
Re: Michigan - At the risk of upsetting the Michigan prude from a few weeks back, I think it's safe to say that the senior offer won't be resolved for some time as possible counteroffers and other attendant considerations play out. Since it's now known not to be a junior position I guess it doesn't really concern most of us in any practical sense.
OK, what is with the latest name erasures on the wiki? I understand the desire for privacy, but a) the names can be found out anyway, even when erased, and b) so long as it's correct, why remove it?
(b) happened to me last year, only a day after taking the job. I let it stay because it was correct.
I agree with A 10:11. I have a friend listed this year who does not frequent FV or the wiki. While he was surprised when I informed him about the listing, he didn't see the harm in it being there.
As someone who has been offered a job verbally and accepted it verbally (but not named myself on the wiki), I feel very strongly about the matter of publishing candidates' names.
Until the contract has at least been received, some of us hesitate to announce our being hired. Until contact has been made by the dean of the hiring institution, until the appointment has been approved, unfortunately one cannot be absolutely certain the deal is set. In the current climate, any candidate is replaceable; let's all do our best, please, to avoid vitium.
Rumors will flitter around, but no one should be "outed" before a contract is signed. And if you do want to or (for whatever reason) feel the absolute need to "out" someone you know, why not ask him first?
True Story: Union is hiring two people though they have only advertised so far for one. The other position was authorized after the first position had been announced.
The wiki lists 11 canceled searches and 2 failed searches for this year's market. That is astronomical, especially given that only 2 of those have been transformed into a temporary position.
I'm all in favor of more jobs, but I don't think it's a good idea to list the second Union position on the wiki before seeing an ad, a statement from the department or whatever else we can be put in the job announcement thread.
I am going to write a happy post. Three of my friends have gotten tenure-track jobs. One of the three got a really amazing job. I am happy for them. All three are very nice people, hard workers, and they deserve it. Congratulations guys.
The Baylor job has been offered (and presumably accepted). Faculty listed as teaching in the fall are the same as are currently listed as being there. Stands to reason it was offered to one of the lecturers there already. Who didn't see that coming?
5:26 here. All three of them did their degrees at the same school (incidentally, not my school), but their dates of graduation and subsequent work experiences vary.
"The Baylor job has been offered (and presumably accepted). Faculty listed as teaching in the fall are the same as are currently listed as being there. Stands to reason it was offered to one of the lecturers there already. Who didn't see that coming?"
Unless you are operating from information beyond what is posted in the wiki, why do you say the job has been "presumably accepted"? And why does it "stand to reason" that it was offered to one of the lecturers, simply because faculty listed as teaching there in the fall don't include a new name? The job was JUST offered; I realize that some universities put their new hire's name up on fall course listings right away, but by no means does this happen across the board. I don't care either way (whether Baylor hired someone from the inside or the outside), but it seems unfair to jump to these conclusions in a sarcastic tone based on the information that we currently have.
I don't get this animosity thing against internal candidates. Well, I do from an irrational standpoint - people are pissed for not getting a job. But if you think about it objectively, this is a good thing (assuming that the insider wasn't hired nepotistically in the first place). We should be celebrating someone getting hired because of their proven abilities and how they fit in, not because they are the latest and greatest or their advisor knows someone on the faculty. I've never been an insider, but I have friends who went through hell during the process before getting offered the job. Cut them some slack and congratulate them for staying the course and proving themselves over many months, and not several days.
I don't get this animosity thing against internal candidates.
OK, let's just have this whole conversation right now and get it over with.
Anti-internal candidate position: "I resent having to apply for a position and getting my hopes up when really it was all a charade and the inside candidate must have been guaranteed to get the job all along."
Pro-internal candidate position: "well, sometimes the internal gets the job, and sometimes s/he doesn't, and sometimes the internal candidate wants to go elsewhere, so a department has to have a search no matter what."
Then there's some more arguing back and forth, and nobody changes their mind, and then it starts all over again next year.
Actually I don't recall a discussion about internal candidates anything like last year's. Looking at the wiki, I see like two, and I know for sure there were more searches with internal candidates than two, suggesting that not all internals get the jobs. Plus it's a little late for this discussion, unless we want to apply it to the temp market...
Since we seem to be fishing around for a subject of controversy, how about floating this one up the flagpole?
Should classics be doing anything, as a discipline, to adapt to the changing educational/economic/political climate, or is it important that we (like the GOP!) return to first principles?
And if a change in course is needed, should this be reflected in what gets emphasized and valued in graduate training? That is to say, is the traditional emphasis on philological expertise ultimately counterproductive to the field as a whole?
And when this is all over, I'd be interested in knowing who was the person with 14 interviews (see wiki). What did s/he have to offer, and how can we learn from him/her? Was s/he finished? Adjuncting? What field with what subdisciplines? What kind of letter-writers (did the writers personalize each letter for each school - as per the wishes of the grumpy prof at HWSC?) How many job offers did s/he get in the end? We could all definitely learn from him/her! And I am eager to do so.
Not the Princeford villain - but someone who quietly goes about his/her business and doesn't bother much with FV or the wiki.
(At least, if this is the person I know with that many interviews. Who, yes, is finished, and who has the specialties one might expect to be popular this year.)
In my final semester of grad school I got a VAP job at a large state school, teaching three courses. As what they thought was a favor to me -- to improve my resume -- they give me the opportunity to teach a graduate seminar on top of two other courses. I somehow manage to ship off my 900-page dissertation on the last possible day, and did survive that and the teaching load. And in retrospect, teaching the grad course was a good thing.
I've since forgotten how to manage my time, but I once had that down!
What kind of school has a 5-4? I'm contemplating a 4-4 with three preps. It seems doable (if tough) at a regional U with a small publishing requirement for tenure. But 5-4? Wow.
Queensborough CC (ancient history gig listed on the wiki) has a 5-4. They do say, however, that the faculty only do 2-3 preps per semester, so essentially you are just teaching the same class over and over and over and over...
Its not the load, its the preps, and what kinds of preps, that matter.
A 3/3 or even a 2/3 at a good SLAC, where you teach different kinds of things, languages and lectures included, would be more difficult than a 5/4 at a CC. This is assuming lots of contact hours with students, lots of writing assignments (and grading!), different courses each semester, and high expectations for both teaching and research.
Not to say that a 5/4 is a walk in the park, but simple course loads are not a good measure of what to expect.
In this environment, though, we should all be happy to get a 5/5 with two books for tenure. Pretty soon, unfortunately, that won't be a joke......
5/4 does sound horrific, so does 4/4. But the brass ring of 2/2 at a big research u with a grad program or prestigious college isn't necessarily as great as it sounds. My first VAP position was at one such place, and in addition to teaching my regular courses I had to read endless drafts of dissertations, senior theses, article drafts that grad students wanted to send out, etc. And there was no BSing any of it the way one might in an undergraduate lecture course, because these students were good.
I've done 5/4 (with only one doubled prep in the 5 semester, so 4/4) and 2/2. I much prefer 2/2. It might be harder intellectually, but I had time to breathe.
I just can't see any scenario where 5/4 can be better than 2/2, except maybe if two sabretooths are knawing at your shins daily while pointing out how superior the Princeford colleague who came in at the same time at you is. Even then, it's not like the ONLY thing negative about a 5/4 job is the teaching load. You'll surely have bs to deal with like at every school. That said, I can think of many scenarios where a 3/3 or even a VAP gig can be better than the 2/2 job from hell. I know it's just luck of the draw, but I have enough friends in 2/2 jobs from hell that I sometimes wonder whether it's the norm for 2/2 positions.
I am SO sick and bloody tired of hearing from 2-2 tenure-track or tenured colleagues how hard their lives are professionally. (And, in one shining case, repeatedly telling me how much easier I have it than you do.) Jesus. Here I am, a VAP teaching 3-3, having to spend six months each year looking for a job, and my existence makes it possible for you to teach 2-2 so you can do the stuff you're supposed to do professionally. Christ. There's one big difference between you and me: job security. Unless you've totally blown your chance at tenure by being lazy and wasting your sabbaticals and free time (which I don't have, btw), the person who doesn't know where their income is coming from next academic year has it worse.
(Sorry for the rant, I've just heard this much too often.)
I just wanted to say that I have a 2-2 job and completely agree with the previous post. I'm sorry, I really am. I can only promise that I'll try not to screw this up so that I don't scream wasted opportunity to people who might have done a better job. I'll teach language classes, lecture classes, anything, I won't shirk or delegate any admin, I won't invite you to meetings that aren't important for you. And I'll wish you the best of luck at every available opportunity, and not complain about any of the irritants bothering my pampered ass. Having just re-read this I'm not quite sure how to vouch for its lack of irony, you'll just have to take my word for it. Some of us have it good and we really shouldn't lecture anyone else about anything. Ever.
I have to ask, why would anyone seriously take a 5-4 job?
That sounds really, really obnoxious, so let me immediately clarify.
Nobody should be working that much. It's awful. I assume people only do it because they hope or expect to get out of such a job pretty soon and move on to better things.
So, an empirical question: does anyone know anyone who actually has moved on to a 2-2 from a 5-4 or even a 4-4? Does such a move happen in practice (obviously it can and could in the abstract)? What about 5-4 to 3-3 or 3-2?
"Here I am, a VAP teaching 3-3, having to spend six months each year looking for a job, and my existence makes it possible for you to teach 2-2 so you can do the stuff you're supposed to do professionally. Christ. There's one big difference between you and me: job security."
You're making a totally different point from the one to which you purportedly respond. You're talking about a temporary teaching gig vs. a permanent teaching gig; you're comparing apples to oranges. I reiterate that a tenure track 2-2 sounds totally great and dreamy, but if compared to a tenure track 3-3, I doubt it's less work and in many ways probably quite a bit more. The itinerant moving every year is certainly an awful experience, but it's a separate concern.
So, an empirical question: does anyone know anyone who actually has moved on to a 2-2 from a 5-4 or even a 4-4? Does such a move happen in practice (obviously it can and could in the abstract)? What about 5-4 to 3-3 or 3-2?
I've moved from a 5-4 to a 3-3 to a 3-2 to a 2-2, all VAPs...yes, it's possible. If you're asking if there's hope for people to move up from a 5-4, yeah, there is.
You're making a totally different point from the one to which you purportedly respond.
Au contraire: I wasn't responding to anything, but going off on a rant on something that vexes me and a number of other VAPs. My point holds even if the tenured/t-t person is 3-3, and the VAP 2-2 or 4-4 or 3-2 or 5-4 or 5-5. And that point was not so much which job is worse, but that some collegiality and sensitivity in not complaining to the possibly-imminently jobless would be appropriate.
Why is it that when I think of the many grads and untenured-faculty in the field (i.e., people who are at roughly my level) whom I've met and know either casually or well it seems to me that there is about a 4:1 ratio of smart people to idiots, but on this blog that ratio flips to 1:4?
I find this discussion useful - what a nice surprise.
I am the one who posted upthread about contemplating a 4-4 with 3 preps (of which 2 per year would always be the same introductory survey). I have a Princefordian background and this is the first time I've contemplated seriously moving to a "teaching position" that's not an elite SLAC.
As I mentioned, it's a regional U with no grad students and no majors (yet?) in my sub-discipline. Admin work is important but not heavy as the department is a good size and is not looking for major structural changes anywhere - except, perhaps, in my area of expertise.
The place seems very sane and understands that this teaching load means that tenure should focus on what takes most of your time: teaching, then service (a distant second), then research (quite far behind the other two). I can continue to research in the summer as I've always had to do, but I won't get much done writing- and research- wise during the year. Isn't this okay?
I also think with relief about how I won't be balancing a 2-2 (which I've been doing for awhile now) with finishing a dissertation/article/book chapter AND applying wildly to jobs AND interviewing, etc. It looks . . . kind of good.
"I also think with relief about how I won't be balancing a 2-2 (which I've been doing for awhile now) with finishing a dissertation/article/book chapter AND applying wildly to jobs AND interviewing, etc. It looks . . . kind of good."
This is exactly the point. It's a job, not an identity. The seemingly brass ring jobs aren't always what they're cracked up to be; unless you really are ambitious to research, and expect to remain so for many years, these other kinds of jobs are normal and afford probably a healthier lifestyle overall. I can't figure out why they're considered so undesirable around here.
As someone pointed out, the 5-4 is at a Community College. There are typically ZERO publication requirements for tenure. It is pure teaching. If you want to teach and don't care about publishing, then there is nothing wrong with a 5-4 and a CC. If you were being asked to teach 5-4 with 3-5 articles or a book for tenure, then the whining could commence. This is different. many people on this blog seem to not know the difference between a CC, an R1 and everything in between.
OK, let's look at this from a slightly different perspective. VAPs/lecturers with their 5-4, 3-3, 2-2, what have you, loads, are expected to teach - and do a good job of it, so their chair can write them a good reference - plus they are expected to at least show some enterprise in the field of research, in order to improve their CV as they spend a lot of other time looking for jobs. To me, anything t-t offers more security than VAPing. It even lets you have a bad semester where you lie around on the couch feeling sorry for yourself, watching Real Housewives of Orange County, and eat HoHos and corn dogs when you're not in the classroom, and you won't suffer for it professionally. It gives a little relief, I think the ranter is trying to say. VAPs don't have that. It's hardly a question of which kind of job is "better," but a question of the quality of life that each job allows one to enjoy.
To the person contemplating a 4-4, if what you want is regularity, I'd say go for it. To the people under consideration at QCC, I'd say the same - but with the added proviso that at a CC you are way out of the loop academically, even further than if you went to a small SLAC with a 4-4 load.
BTW, a friend of mine can top 5-4; he did 5-5 as a temp at Ball State University.
A bunch of related questions: if you're in a 2-2 or 2-3 at an R1 or selective LAC, how much time do you spend per day/week/whatever doing research? And when? Weekends? Sabbaticals? Are you getting as much research time as you'd like? If not, what's taking it up?
I hope there are some t-t types willing to contribute their experiences to the discussion.
First of all, let's be clear not to compare permanent and impermanent positions. To me relative security is everything. I'd rather have a 4/4 TT than even a 2/2 VAP. In this environment a permanent job is huge. It just is, and we all need to be aware of that. The psychological cost (let alone the practical, time-suck costs) of having no idea where you might be next year sucks, big time. I did that for two years, at good places. I can't imagine being in that position with the current market. I wish I was a billionaire so I could sponsor every unemployed classicist out there. But I'm not, I can't, and the whole situation blows.
Anyway, to get to the question. I get no research done during the year. Nada, zip. I teach five different courses each year, three of these are lecture course, two are language courses. I work between 60 and 70 hours/week. Teaching, college and departmental service, independent studies, senior theses, and random "my door is always open so come in" meetings with students takes it out of me. It is exhausting. I need to be better at limiting my prep and grading time because the research expectations here are also high. But the teaching expectations are very high as well, and I haven't figured out the balance. I try to write and research during the summer, but it is tough because I constantly have to come up with new lecture courses.
I have friends who teach 2/2, and even a couple who teach 2/1, at larger places. We've compared notes, and we all agree that I definitely put more time into the job. Also, some of their courses and advising have some bearing upon their research interests. For me that just doesn't happen.
The problem is that institutions recognize that they can demand more and more research, even while maintaining high teaching expectations. Now we have SLACs expecting a book and articles for tenure, the same as R1s. This is ridiculous. But what are we going to do? It is either accept the deal or get out of the field.
There are too many eager young (and now starving) beavers out there willing to accept jobs that, quite frankly, ask too much of people. I fear that this economy will only make it worse, and what used to be a humane profession and pursuit is becoming unsustainable.
I'm the person above who went from a 5/4 to a 2/2 VAP with stops at 3/3 and 3/2. The 2/2 is current. It is a very cushy job: no administrative expectations at all, for instance. I do have a grad seminar, but that is the toughest thing on my plate. So my 2/2 or 2/1 colleagues actually do have it worse than I do, workload-wise. But the big difference for me from previous jobs is that this year I have finally had time for research. Before, on 3/3, even on 3/2, the best I could do was maybe ONE of the following during term: some proofs, edit an already-written article, or do a book review. This year my production has been much higher: haven't written anything new, but have edited an submitted/am currently editing 4 articles and a book (all but one of which have been sitting around for years waiting for me to finish them). I'd guess I'm working 45-50 hours a week in terms of class time and preparation and student-related activities. But that is very much on the easy end of the scale for VAPing...I know, I've had it the other way around too. And if I were tenure-track, I know I'd be working another 10-20 hours a week on administrative stuff. That said, it is job security that makes all the difference. I would rather have a tenure-track job than all the 2/2 VAPs in succession.
I really don't want to detract from one of our rare productive discussions in which we actually listen to one another and help one another out, but did anyone else notice the last lines of the U-Wisconsin job just posted under job announcements?
"Unless confidentiality is requested in writing, information regarding the names of applicants must be released upon request. Finalists cannot be guaranteed confidentiality."
Yes, they did. This was, unfortunately, a malicious move by a fellow classicist. Access to the wiki is now back up. Same username and password.
And, verb. sap. to the vandal-classicist: Don't bother. You can't shut down a wiki as long as there are users for it. We have an endless supply of usernames and passwords which we will post here in order to keep the flow of information going. If you don't like the wiki, find a strong shoulder to cry on and try to forget that it exists.
If you persist we will formally request that Wikidot trace your IP, figure out who you are, and then out you on this site.
This was, unfortunately, a malicious move by a fellow classicist.
No, it wasn't. It was an inadvertent mistake by someone who hadn't used the wiki before and thought each individual had to create his or her own account. A vandal would be unlikely to self-identify by name.
Obviously I feel awful about mistakenly resetting the account, and I'm sorry. But please let's not jump to conclusions.
RE:WISC "Do other places have policies like this?"
Many state institutions, following generous interpretations of freedom of information laws and fearing litigious individuals, are now moving in this 'completely transparent direction'.
In the Lone Star State (and I have personal knowledge about this) referee letters for tenure packages are now being stripped of all protections. So, anyone in their tenure year can get access not only to the letters themselves but also to the names and addresses of their referees.
In the psychology department at my institution, a few professors denied tenure have contacted and hassled their referees. As a result, there is concern among department chairs that they will encounter a dwindling pool of referees.
So, Wisconsin's strange disclaimer may be just the beginning
If you are really that clueless, then why did you go and CHANGE the password? It is one thing to create a new account, a completely different thing to actually change the password.
And what do you mean by "self-identify by name"? I see no self-identifying going on here, Doctor Anonymous! :-)
In order to show your bona fides, why don't you change the password for the "hungry classicists" account BACK to what it once was so we can all return to normal and use the old account?
I don't know about you all, but I'm feeling more optimistic about the spring market, with ads from Colgate, another Union position, and Wisconsin over the past few days. Of course, Monday's ads may have just those three, plunging us all into pessimism again.
And on "vandalism," why not also yell at the folks who changed the username to "gina" or "Hungry Classicist" instead of a newbie who thought we needed individual accounts? Perfectly understandable mistake (given parallels like Wikipedia), whereas the others knew what they were doing.
I don't know. Player might have done us a favor by changing the password. My productivity has doubled from what it was: now I only check FV ten times a day, instead of FV and the wiki!
If you are really that clueless, then why did you go and CHANGE the password? It is one thing to create a new account, a completely different thing to actually change the password.
I thought "Hungry Classicist" was a default ID for a newly created account. It sounded like a phrase designating a generic job seeker in this field.
And what do you mean by "self-identify by name"? I see no self-identifying going on here, Doctor Anonymous! :-)
That part was addressed to Servius; he knows my name because I didn't try to hide it when I thought I was creating a new account. That's presumably what enabled him to attribute my actions to "a fellow classicist."
In order to show your bona fides, why don't you change the password for the "hungry classicists" account BACK to what it once was so we can all return to normal and use the old account?
I have sent an email to Servius asking if I need to do this. At this point, I'm hesitant to touch anything without making absolutely sure I know what I'm doing.
I don't know. Player might have done us a favor by changing the password. My productivity has doubled from what it was: now I only check FV ten times a day, instead of FV and the wiki!
Yeah, now that the chills, shaking, vomiting and cramps have stopped I can deal with the constant yawning, dilated pupils and goose bumps.
I'm not having problems logging onto the wiki...why are others? (But then, I selected the perpetual login option last time I logged in or something. ;-)
So, on the U-Wisconsin confidentiality thing (not quite the same as Texas, which affected people not even in Texas, sounds like)...does anyone think it would be BAD to request confidentiality?
To go back even further away from the berating of the new user, here are some thoughts about workload brought on by SLACker's comments:
The advice I have heard multiple times about balancing research and teaching (several new faculty orientations and specialized faculty enrichment workshops) is that you must MAKE time for research. Just as you schedule class or office hours, schedule research time. Otherwise it is easy to let the immediacy of teaching deadlines take over completely (especially when you are new to a full time teaching load). It has also been said that we have to learn to work in small bites (even 15 minutes here and there) and stop hoping for large unbroken, uninterrupted stretches. I can say from experience (one VAP and a TT I left by choice for another TT) that those are both easier said than done, but worthwhile to attempt.
The piece of advice I have to give to those of you lucky enough to get the TT is to inform yourself about the expectations of your department and college/university ASAP and in writing if possible. Don’t fall prey to mere lip service about what you should be doing. Often schools say a lot of nice things about caring about teaching, but in reality, they actually weigh research more heavily. And most places that tell you service counts are full of shit (it matters if you don’t do any, but rewards for excelling in that category are not at all proportionate). At one new faculty orientation, they brought in the recent teacher of the year to give us advice. He told us not to take up our time doing university-level service until after tenure, and to make research our priority (this was a place that sells itself as a SLAC to undergrads, but also has a med and business school). It was amusing to watch the administrators go white as all their lip-service about teaching and community-building was undermined.
Learn to say no: this is difficult, since we are all led to believe that tenure (and a job in the first place) is given to those who obey. But if you can’t complete projects that you know will count because you are stuck doing things that don’t count – or don’t count as much – speak up. I know someone who was let go after their 2nd-year review because they had followed their department’s request (command?) to revamp the curriculum and created and taught multiple courses from scratch – turns out what they really wanted was a couple completed articles (the university in that case actually ruled against the department and the faculty member was given an extra year to prepare for a new review, which went much better once the REAL expectations were clear). It is true that you will be stuck doing things that are less helpful for yourself than they should be, but look for areas that you can control. Don’t take every book review offer that’s thrown at you if you’re not at a place where reviews “count.” Don’t waste time and money delivering a paper at a conference that you know you are not going to turn into an article if delivered papers are not considered evidence of a scholarly program. Don’t assign long papers in a class of 75 students if you don’t have a TA.
The teacher-scholar model is espoused by more and more SLACS, but very few actually give you the necessary resources and support (time, money, equipment) to make it possible to be the best you can be at both. I feel for you, SLACker, and a lot of us are there with you. I hope that the effort you are putting in will be acknowledged, and there won’t be a bait-and-switch come tenure time. It’s one thing not to be able to meet really high (often impossible) standards, but another to think you are meeting them, only to find out you were playing by a different set of rules than the referees.
I heartily agree with the comments of the last poster, Anon 1:58. I work at a fairly prestigious SLAC and was tenured last year. If I had listened to the advice of many of my seniors about service and teaching, I never would have gotten here. Sure, at a SLAC teaching is important, and you should work at it and do a good job at it. But, as the previous poster said, do not let it take over your life. One thing that is is easy not to understand when you are fresh out of grad school is really how much undergrads, even at pretty selective places, don't know. So, when you are prepping for a class at a SLAC, it is not the same as prepping for a grad seminar, and you should try not to make it so. In other words, prep only as much as you have to, and save the rest of your time for your own work. The advice of RESERVING time for your research is a good one. I am not good at this, but I have had to learn the hard way that this is the ONLY way I can get time for research. I also make it a point on the first day of class to explain to students in a diplomatic way what it is that I actually do when I am not teaching. When students begin to see how much work I do outside of class on my own stuff, they are less likely to come and interrupt me outside my office hours for every little thing. It is not that I don't want to see them; it is that I am not only trying to protect my time but that I am also trying to teach them a very real life-lesson in respect for others' work and time -- not to mention a willingness to alter their own schedules to fit someone else's. Anyway, so, yes, absolutely try to set some time for yourself for research. it may not happen every day, and it may never happen in huge chunks of hours at a stretch, but if you can manage to work on your own stuff 1-2 hours every or every other day during the semester while prepping for new classes and doing your admin stuff, then you are doing it and you are doing it right. Just my 2cents.
Does anyone have any intel on the UT searches (not the Toronto one :-) ? Both have been listed as offered for weeks. Has either position been accepted/turned down? Is anything stirring in that pot?
Seriously, may the gods grant those poor 15 UT philologists a reprieve from teaching language classes. Some have to sacrifice 50% of their teaching load teaching languages. Oh, the humanity.
I have heard that both positions were offered and declined. This is super-super-FAMISSIMA, however (my source is usually reliable but did not hear this from anyone associated with UT - it's kind of a 6 degrees of separation thing).
Re: UT. This is only slightly better than six degrees of separation but I hear the Roman lit/hist position is likely to be accepted. I didn't hear anything about it or the Greek position being declined by anyone, but I could be wrong.
One of UT's finalists took another position before the campus visit stage, and two others, I've heard, have accepted positions elsewhere - 2 Hellenists and 1 Latinist gone from the pool, total.
I know, it's like asking a mathematician to teach algebra - the audacity! And those damn physicists refuse to teach it! Arumph!
Actually, I'd say that it's like asking a roofer if every once in a while, instead of tarring roofs, they'd like to get paid for just splashing around in a swimming pool. The amazing thing is if the roofer says "No! Roofing is my passion, I have been honing my roofing skills for many years, and I refuse to spend a single day doing anything that isn't roofing!"
Of course, it makes a lot more sense if you assume that the roofer doesn't really know how to swim.
Sounds a wee bit embarrassing for UT in this seller's market. As someone pointed out weeks ago, which of the high-caliber candidates would choose this program when other options are available? You can just smell the sabretooth drool and language courses waiting for you. I personally like teaching language courses, but don't find the thought of being the low person on the totem pole, and having little option but to teach them every semester, very attractive.
The various mathematics and contracting similes are confusing me. Are people saying that teaching languages every semester is a bad thing? Or just for MCers? I thought that the UT jobs were for philologists - wouldn't they WANT to teach languages all the time?
On some other thread, back in the fall, there was a big discussion on the place of civ courses in Classics, and UT was used as an example where the philologists teach half languages, half civ courses. But the MCers and historians perceived this as a big attack on them, and things went downhill from there...
(The UT jobs do seem to be for philologists/Roman historians.)
The various mathematics and contracting similes are confusing me. Are people saying that teaching languages every semester is a bad thing? Or just for MCers? I thought that the UT jobs were for philologists - wouldn't they WANT to teach languages all the time?
There was an earlier episode in which some MC people were complaining about having to teach languages, and (I believe) someone from Texas remarked that current Texas MC faculty are not inclined to teach languages.
Then someone said, "Why should they have to teach languages? They teach all the big lecture courses! And archaeologists don't train to teach languages, even though they can do it as well as any philologists, so why should they have to?"
Then someone determined that all the big lecture classes at Texas this year are being taught by philologists.
Then there was some grumbling, and the subject changed.
In the parable of the roofer I was suggesting that since language teaching is easy and fun, anybody should like getting the occasional language teaching instead of the big, tiring lecture courses that MC people are often called on to do, and that that subset of MC people who object to the occasional language teaching are likelier to be doing so because they don't feel comfortable teaching the languages than because they really feel strongly about only teaching MC courses.
In the parable of the roofer I was suggesting that since language teaching is easy and fun, anybody should like getting the occasional language teaching instead of the big, tiring lecture courses that MC people are often called on to do, and that that subset of MC people who object to the occasional language teaching are likelier to be doing so because they don't feel comfortable teaching the languages than because they really feel strongly about only teaching MC courses.
Ah, now this is all clear (I am late to this conversation). I heartily agree. As a historian I would actually prefer a full slate of language classes (I've often kicked myself for not being a Greek Lit person). They are much easier and MUCH less time consuming than the lecture classes.
MCers need to realize that departments that ask them to teach languages are actually doing them a favor. Teach a couple of years of beginning Latin and/or Greek. After that you'll be ready to teach everything else, and then you're research projects will thank you. Nothing easier than middle- and upper-level language classes in my book!
The name was erased at the same time as the name of a Rutgers alum who got another job (that second name has now been restored). I'm assuming some Rutgers-ite is just being oversensitive or something...
I'm assuming some Rutgers-ite is just being oversensitive or something...
As a job candidate myself, and not a Rutgers student, I am pretty certain that the person who erased his/her name from the wiki had his/her own reasons, which may have included issues of contract, negotiation, information flow, and so on. Getting a job is a protracted process, and there are, at times, reasons a candidate, who otherwise has (at best) very little control of the process may want to control the circulation of certain information. Read previous posts from this year and last about being "outed" if you require further explanation.
It was TWO people...both affiliated with Rutgers...conspiracy theory, anyone?
Yeah, a mutual friend of both of theirs, probably also a Rutgers alum or prof, heard of their good fortune and in his/her enthusiasm prematurely published the news on the wiki. The two candidates, outted, were then flooded with congratulations from eagle-eyed wiki-readers, and independently removed their names.
Let's not create scandal where there isn't any. If you're that hungry for intrigue, may I suggest some Suetonius or a couple of episodes of HBO's Rome?
Might I suggest that if you are actually checking on ISP addresses to see whether the changes to the Rutgers info were made there or elsewhere on the planet you are either bored or neurotically obsessed, or possibly fulfilling your childhood dreams of being like Nancy Drew and/or the Hardy Boys?
And did it never occur to you that the changes could have been made by person or persons using an ISP randomizer, and that this is all just a coincidence?
Correct me if I'm wrong, Anon. 2:41, but it's a no-IP address wiki, at least it was last year. (I tried to find out who posted my name on the wiki less than 24 hours after I took a job, no dice.)
Might I suggest that if you are actually checking on ISP addresses to see whether the changes to the Rutgers info were made there or elsewhere on the planet you are either bored or neurotically obsessed, or possibly fulfilling your childhood dreams of being like Nancy Drew and/or the Hardy Boys?
No one checked IP addresses. It's perfectly clear in the history section. The two Rutgers changes were made at the same time - they were both highlighted when the versions were compared.
Anyhoo, to change the subject, do y'all think the APA is waiting to send out the 3/15 ads till we're all slightly buzzed on St. Patty's day and don't care if they're thin or not?
Anyhoo, to change the subject, do y'all think the APA is waiting to send out the 3/15 ads till we're all slightly buzzed on St. Patty's day and don't care if they're thin or not?
1,771 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 1201 – 1400 of 1771 Newer› Newest»Anyone wanna bet that there won't be an early-March placement service announcement because there aren't any jobs?
I'll wager my OCT of Vergil, which I probably won't be needing.
Even RP usually sends an email out saying: "no jobs now."
That Vergil OCT will get you a few bucks used, you should hang on to it...
Get with it people, it's Pornell around here, not Penn. And yes, those Pornos, even the ABDs, are mensches.
Uh, just out of curiosity, and not because I'm going to apply: the German job in the March 1 ads is for someone with a Habilitation. Do we have an American equivalent? Would they accept a US PhD dissertation?
Oh, and there are jobs in the March 1 ads. All 2 of them (excluding the German job and the post-doc).
The early March listings make me want to crap in my hat (if only I could afford a hat to crap in).
We have no equivalent to a Habilitation - the closest thing would be to have a book out I guess.
Yeah, the ads suck. But at least Berea College welcomes "all peoples of the earth"! I feel better already.
Remind me not to lend my hat to Anonymous 12:38.
Great, way to go guys. We apparently scared one of the Pornellians away judging by the erasure in the wiki. Perhaps we should refrain from even indirect discussions of the people who accept jobs? It's not exactly encouraging self-disclosure.
Who got what job is going to be public information soon, anyway. We can't all be Greta Garbos. And nothing bad has been said about Penn. Quite the opposite.
Hatin' on UT(Austin), lovin' on Penn.
who erased what?
Why not look at the history of the wiki to find out?
Two erasures, in fact, one of our UK-trained overlords, and a shy penn ABD.
You can't fool an obsessive wiki-checker, no sir. I'm looking at YOU.
Speaking of wikis and erasures, someone above asked about the "rumor mill" sources and how reliable they were. Someone else said at least one was false. Shouldn't the known-to-be-false one be erased, if it hasn't already?
Shouldn't the known-to-be-false one be erased, if it hasn't already?
Yeah, that would kind of cramp my anonymity. And I'm not especially keen to do that after the little "ooh, ooh, look at the people erasing their names" thing above. So, just take the rumors for what they are—anonymously posted rumors that could well be incorrect. Sorry.
Does anyone know anything more about the cancellation of the NYU Hellenist search that was just posted on the wiki?
Miami?
Any one have the slightest idea as to what's going on at Miami? They interviewed candidates in November, December, January. According to the wiki, the job has been offered (accepted? which one?), while the other job (which one?) may have been lost. I want to contact the members of the SC, but I don't want to appear meddlesome or rude. Still, after having been interviewed back in early December, I feel as if the time has come for them to let me know something.
People, please. UT = Texas. U of T = Toronto. I don't know where that leaves Tennessee.
I would e-mail the SC. Seems warranted at this point--so much time has elapsed with no updates--and it doesn't seem as though there's anything to lose, since (if the wiki is to be believed) one job has already been offered, and the other may be canceled. I actually made an inquiry myself a couple of weeks ago and got a "still working on things"-type response, neither closing the door nor offering much hope or any timeline. I'm surmising that budgetary issues are holding up/canceling the second search but that the ghost has not yet been given up completely. Perhaps there is more information by this point...so if you do inquire, please report back what you find!
I should add that I got a *genial* "still working on things"-type response from Miami, which is why I think it would be all right to e-mail the SC with a polite inquiry.
RE: NYU cancellation
This is fama, but it hails from a good source.
The NYU SC was split terribly regarding candidates. An impasse was reached. The search was canceled.
Miami made an offer to someone at the advanced assistant/associate level, but the person turned it down. This was fairly recent, I understand.
RE: NYU cancellation
So maybe "search failed" would be a more accurate label for the wiki - considering how many searches have been canceled this year for budgetary reasons.
So some tenured professors at NYU failed to come to an agreement in this market, given what's at stake? I have no interest in the search but - if the rumor's true - that's pretty irresponsible.
"So some tenured professors at NYU failed to come to an agreement in this market, given what's at stake? I have no interest in the search but - if the rumor's true - that's pretty irresponsible."
It's disappointing for the candidates, sure, but I doubt it's irresponsible for NYU. The university is probably under a lot of financial stress and I doubt they're as willing to take on new faculty members. It's sheer speculation but I would bet on cancellation rather than impasse...
If it was a cancellation then obviously that's no one's fault. But the rumor was about failure, and I was merely commenting on the basis of that rumor. If hires are possible in this market, I do actually think faculty members have a responsibility to the broader field as well as their own institution, but I recognize I might be an outlier in thinking that.
Procedural question: if a candidate garners more phone/CAMWS interviews on the temp market, should they update the preliminary interview counter on the wiki?
NYU are notorious for doing this kind of thing. I've heard several stories of them messing candidates around in the past, and this year seems to be no exception.
I do actually think faculty members have a responsibility to the broader field as well as their own institution
When you hire someone into a t-t position, that person may be working in your department for the next 30-40 years. I don't think departments are obliged to hire someone for 40 years just to prevent the job from going unfilled for a year, or even from being canceled altogether.
Isn't the point of t-t that you can get rid of the person after 6 years if it turns out you don't like them?
Isn't the point of t-t that you can get rid of the person after 6 years if it turns out you don't like them?
Actually, no, it's a lot more complicated than that. In theory, someone should only be denied tenure because they haven't met a more or less well-defined set of expectations for tenure, and not because of the range of imaginable reasons why one might be reluctant to hire a person in the first place (departmental needs, direction of research, collegiality, etc.).
So for example, if someone shows signs of budding sabretoothness, the hiring decision is the only point at which it's possible to block her or him. You can't deny tenure because of bloodthirst.
But the real question is, how is it possible in such a buyer's market as it is this year (especially for those few schools looking for Hellenists!) that NYU--or any university--couldn't find a single person qualified to fit their needs?? I'm a Hellenist and there have already been 4 positions that I've applied to--either Hellenist or Generalist--that have been canceled; to add a failed search to that tally is just galling.
So for example, if someone shows signs of budding sabretoothness, the hiring decision is the only point at which it's possible to block her or him. You can't deny tenure because of bloodthirst.
Sadly this is true, but how given the current hiring process can schools even ID possible sabretoothyness? You get an app and a dossier, you chat for 30 minutes at the APA, then you spend tops 48 hours together on campus interacting and listening to the applicant give talks/teach classes. During all this, the intelligent sabre-tooth will be on his/her best behavior. Intelligent sabre-tooth will also have gotten letters that won't mention incipient sabretoothyness. (I should say I work at a university with a major sabre-tooth, and as far as I can tell the department really did not know.)
My point is not to argue, just to point out that on the current process you can't tell. (Sometimes you can't tell who will bomb out, be lazy and refuse to publish and not get tenure, but the CV can help with that.)
My point is not to argue, just to point out that on the current process you can't tell.
No, that doesn't follow. What your argument shows is that some sabretooths may successfully masquerade as pussycats. But the reverse doesn't follow: if someone appears a sabretooth in the course of the appointment process, they are unlikely to be a pussycat pretending to be a sabretooth. Such a person is much more likely to be a real sabretooth who is not good at concealing it.
In other words, the fact that the process is not infallible at weeding out sabretooths does not mean that it fails to weed out any.
Oh, I agree. But in my experience, those who don't hide sabretoothyness usually don't get the job.
And intelligent sabretooths are at least preferable to dumb ones.
Oh, I agree. But in my experience, those who don't hide sabretoothyness usually don't get the job.
Precisely the point I was making: that some sabretooths can be weeded out. And this (to go back to an earlier point) is an example of a case where a person might not be hired despite being tenurable.
NYU: Bottom line - si fama vera est - someone should have been both hireable and hired. And if not for the t-t then for a VAP with a view to checking them out.
Wasn't the NYU Hellenist position Open Rank? Those are a lot more likely to fail than junior searches, esp. if all the candidates were assoc/full level. And by then sabretooths have surely revealed their true colors...
don't think your saber-tooth theory for NYU candidates holds water, though, people. I know at least one of the candidates is as far from saber-tooth as can be.
don't think your saber-tooth theory for NYU candidates
I didn't propose any such theory. Here's what I said:
When you hire someone into a t-t position, that person may be working in your department for the next 30-40 years. I don't think departments are obliged to hire someone for 40 years just to prevent the job from going unfilled for a year, or even from being canceled altogether.
Isn't the point of t-t that you can get rid of the person after 6 years if it turns out you don't like them?
Actually, no, it's a lot more complicated than that. In theory, someone should only be denied tenure because they haven't met a more or less well-defined set of expectations for tenure, and not because of the range of imaginable reasons why one might be reluctant to hire a person in the first place (departmental needs, direction of research, collegiality, etc.).
So for example, if someone shows signs of budding sabretoothness, the hiring decision is the only point at which it's possible to block her or him. You can't deny tenure because of bloodthirst.
It's an abstract discussion about departments' obligations to the field, and doesn't suggest that there were wicked NYU candidates.
Instead of fussing over NYU, why not fuss over Chicago's senior Latinist job?
An abstract discussion, sure. But on this site , abstract discussion turns into accusations of impropriety quite easily (as we saw with the accusations that the Pomona candidate who turned down the job was to blame for the failed search). Better to nip it in the bud before it gets going.
abstract discussion turns into accusations of impropriety quite easily
Yes, and that happens precisely because someone does something like this: take an explanation of why departments aren't morally obliged to fill every position they're given and characterize it as "your sabretooth theory for NYU candidates." That's not nipping a rumor in the bud; that's planting, fertilizing, and watering the rumor.
I don't see why a reasonable (if possibly false) critical rumor about NYU failing to find someone to hire in this market turned into an assumption that the candidates, or at least some of them, were despicable. It's astonishing that we do this to ourselves.
I don't see how failure to hire in this market is any different than failure to hire in any other year. Jobs are always scarce even if they may be more scarce currently. A search failure is a failure regardless of when or why. Arguing about it here isn't going to make the committee go "Oh! maybe we haven't failed after all!"
I don't think the point was to make the committee feel better about their failure. Rather to emphasize the opprobrium that should attach to a committee that does fail. Perhaps that should be true in any market, but surely a fortiori in this one?
If the funds are withdrawn for that position next year, then what? That's simply one job lost to the field because of petty disagreement this year. Where is the pragmatism in that I ask you?
If the search is for a Hellenist, we should know better than to use the word "pragmatism." Everyone knows Hellenists are idealists.
Yeah, but traditionally it has been Romanists who have given the Hellenists their jobs. So you'd think pragmatism would win out. Maybe Cato the Elder was on the SC, and that is why the search failed.
I don't see why a reasonable (if possibly false) critical rumor about NYU failing to find someone to hire in this market turned into an assumption that the candidates, or at least some of them, were despicable.
Low reading comprehension skills, hunger for controversy, and general frenzy.
Pragmatists find the idealists incomprehensible. Thus, a failed search.
If the funds are withdrawn for that position next year, then what? That's simply one job lost to the field because of petty disagreement this year.
Departments don't have a moral obligation to Classics to fill every position they're given. The consequences for a department of any given hiring decision are far greater than the consequences for the whole field, and a department should be free to consult its own interests in deciding whether and whom to hire. Now, sometimes departments will do a bad job of consulting their own interests, as may or may not have happened in this case, but that's not also a "crime against Classics" in any meaningful sense.
Well, no. But it is a crime against ME. I WANTED that job, and I would have taken it. Can I sue somebody?
Now, sometimes departments will do a bad job of consulting their own interests, as may or may not have happened in this case, but that's not also a "crime against Classics" in any meaningful sense.
If it's not meaningful don't use it. I don't recall anyone else having said it in those terms. The point was that depts often look down their noses at perfectly good candidates for reasons that would elude most people. In the current climate I would have thought that there might be less of that, for pragmatic, not merely charitable, reasons. If the rumor is true, NYU must have had their pick of Hellenists and you're telling me they couldn't come up with one. Disgraceful. If it turns out they offered it and couldn't get their woman, that's another thing.
If it's not meaningful don't use it. I don't recall anyone else having said it in those terms.
Here you go:
If hires are possible in this market, I do actually think faculty members have a responsibility to the broader field as well as their own institution, but I recognize I might be an outlier in thinking that.
March 4, 2009 10:55 AM
That's simply one job lost to the field because of petty disagreement this year.
March 5, 2009 9:49 AM
The first one is pretty clear, and I don't see any way of reading the second one in such a way that it doesn't imply that NYU has selfishly harmed the larger Classics community.
If the rumor is true, NYU must have had their pick of Hellenists and you're telling me they couldn't come up with one. Disgraceful.
Maybe, maybe not. Sometimes searches fail for bad reasons, and sometimes it makes sense for them to fail. Searches are very difficult and complicated. Not knowing what happened, I wouldn't venture a judgment. But it's entirely possible that you're right, and that they screwed up. And I'd also venture that a search that doesn't find anyone to offer a job to might be a sign of a department or university that's kind of screwed up. Note: not is but might be. (But a pattern of such searches is a sign.)
Maybe it's something in the famed NYC water. From what I understand, many of the NYC searches did/are not go(ing) so well.
I said, a responsibility to the broader field, with the acknowledgement that I might be an outlier, along with numerous other qualifications. You said "Crime against Classics". You must work on declamation!
Look the SC may have done the right thing, I don't know. But I'm raising the possibility that they did not and that they could have done things better. I could be wrong. Perhaps it's my naivety but I really don't see a failed tenured/tenure-track search at a top university as being anything other than the failure of the search committee. Senior hires, yes, they can go wrong. Hires at second tier places and below, yes, they too can wrong through no fault of the committee. But having been at a top five institution I can tell you that all administrative failures were due to the incompetence and/or arrogance of some of the faculty. As soon as someone decent is in charge things like this - shock horror! - don't happen.
I said, a responsibility to the broader field, with the acknowledgement that I might be an outlier, along with numerous other qualifications. You said "Crime against Classics". You must work on declamation!
Ha! Fair enough. But I still dispute that there is any moral obligation to the field in a hiring decision, and so no possibility of transgression of responsibility.
Look the SC may have done the right thing, I don't know. But I'm raising the possibility that they did not and that they could have done things better. I could be wrong.
I think we're all agreed that it's possible; it's just a question of whether the Classics community has any moral claim on the department's decision.
Perhaps it's my naivety but I really don't see a failed tenured/tenure-track search at a top university as being anything other than the failure of the search committee. Senior hires, yes, they can go wrong. Hires at second tier places and below, yes, they too can wrong through no fault of the committee. But having been at a top five institution I can tell you that all administrative failures were due to the incompetence and/or arrogance of some of the faculty. As soon as someone decent is in charge things like this - shock horror! - don't happen.
I've never been present for a failed search. I have however been present for searches in which, by the end of campus visits, 2 of 3 or 3 of 4 candidates had skilfully eliminated themselves from the running in various ways. Had the candidate who ended up being hired also managed to eliminate her/himself, those searches would have failed, and I can't say that that would have been the wrong outcome.
I think you're right, though, that if that had happened it would have been the fault of the SC. I think it's at least understandable, though, since so much guesswork goes into each stage of the winnowing of the applicant pool. Searches are hard.
But more often than not (and especially this year, from what I've heard about quite a few searches), none of the candidates manage to eliminate themselves. That makes the SC's job a lot harder: if everyone is really bloody good, how on earth do you choose?
It has nothing to do with "good." The weakest "good" candidate might be selected if the department feels s/he is the best fit.
That makes the SC's job a lot harder: if everyone is really bloody good, how on earth do you choose?
My favorite techniques:
1). Rank them alphabetically by last name.
2). Steel cage match.
3). Tequila shots till there's one candidate left standing.
Seriously, though, it takes a lot of reading, thinking, and discussing with one's colleagues.
My question is how a candidate gets eliminated. If one shows up and gets hammered at the dinner or ends up not speaking English, I could totally understand. The person has demonstrated a severe lack of judgment or qualifications. Now if a SC member decides to torpedo an otherwise stellar candidate because s/he mentioned in passing that Tacitus was an idiot or Brits have bad teeth, that's total bs. I know from experience and colleagues that the latter happens way too often.
My question is how a candidate gets eliminated.
I'd say that the three big things are the job talk, the fielding of questions after the job talk, and the candidate's general interactions with the community during the visit. And these don't just eliminate; they also help separate first choice from second, etc.
Basically, there's a lot of room between your "doesn't speak English" scenario and your "insults British dentistry" scenario. Someone can give a talk that's just not very good or interesting or consequential and talk her/himself out of a job. That person might still be able to perform the described duties of the job, in English, but s/he's also now behind everybody who does give a good and interesting talk.
So does that mean that person is not hirable? I suppose it depends to a degree on the school, but an elimination to me connotes a clear cut line. My feeling is that this line is way too arbitrary at times resulting in failure despite eminently qualified candidates. More than a line, it ends up like spaghetti.
So does that mean that person is not hirable? I suppose it depends to a degree on the school, but an elimination to me connotes a clear cut line.
It probably does depend on the school to a degree. But a talk that really doesn't go anywhere useful or interesting, or a candidate who really can't follow or respond to questions after a talk, usually means elimination: the calculation is that the department will be able to find a better fit for the department among the other candidates or, failing that, by searching again. And I would put that decision in a significantly different category from the arbitrary "she looked at me funny" or "he stepped on my toe" decisions of the sort that you or someone else above described.
I also have to say that this means that a department's feeling an intellectual affinity for a candidate is a significant factor: what one department thinks is a boring and pointless talk or subject might seem to another department incredibly interesting and important.
But this is the problem with the entire process. You get a feeling for a candidate's long term body of work from their CV, publications, reference letters, and interview only to throw this out the window so that you can go all-in on a somewhat artificial two-day process? This is like picking who will represent your country for the marathon by lining them up for the 100m dash. Good searches take the campus visit with a grain of salt and think long term. I've noticed that there's a general disciplinary trend as to how seriously campus visits are considered and we tend to focus on them too much, in my opinion, to our own detriment.
I still don't get how you can weed through one hundred applications, ten interviewees, however many visitors, and then arrive at nothing. What was the principle of selection? SV? Hell I love denigrating Hellenists, but under the cover of anonymity I feel I can admit that some of them are actually quite smart. Just give one of them a damn job. I bet they'll do you proud.
Naw, it's like making someone run a marathon with the first five finishers advancing to a talent routine in a bathing suit. Seriously, I think it's why VAP to TT is so attractive. It makes much sense but we have to go through the routine of doing an official search, which then results in cries of foul play when the VAP gets chosen.
Yeah, I know, it's not a very good gauge of what you're going to do for the rest of your career. Campus visits leave much to be desired as a means of evaluation.
But all hiring is like this or (usually) worse, federal political office excepted. You don't get to see enough of a person really to know. You learn what you can, and go with that.
And I should say that it's easily possible to survive a mediocre talk, or mediocre answers to questions. It's not as though the rest of one's record goes out the window at the campus visit stage.
One difficulty with the process is that the candidates often never know why they didn't get the job.
It is obvious why search committees rarely say anything about their decisions at any stage. However, this makes it difficult for the candidates and can easily lead to paranoia (as this blog attests).
- poldy
The questions are, why do searches fail, and what do candidates do that gets them eliminated.
Speaking from experience, I cannot possibly stress enough how important a job talk is. The chief reason candidates get eliminated (and entire searches fail) is because they come to campus and are affable enough, but they then present a stupid/incompetent/naive/unoriginal job talk. From the SC's perspective, you've just had 2-3 years to work up all sorts of original, highly competent thoughts about your author, field, text, whatever. That means we expect to hear an expert show us something that (1) isn't perfectly obvious to a casual observer, and (2) doesn't feature an argument so riddled with holes that even people who know nothing about your field can see the problems. So the talk speaks volumes to your promise of future achievement.
Advising profs in grad school aren't communicating clearly how important this part of the hiring process is. It's absolutely essential. Your clothes, comments about national dentistry of others, etc. etc., - none of that foolishness matters. Intellectual promise does.
One piece of advice that folks aren't getting is that your job talk SHOULD come from your dissertation. ABDs and recent grads often think it looks unoriginal to present something from their dissertations and they often try to work up new stuff specifically for the job talk. That seems like a good idea in theory, but it doesn't often work in practice. If you aren't sure, you should absolutely ask the head of the SC which sort of talk s/he would prefer...
Here's the hole in your argument: if it's a common error of green candidates to present a talk that is not drawn directly from their dissertation, how can it speak volumes about their future potential?
You can call it a 'hole' in my argument if you like, but I'm simply saying it's a reality, not an argument, like it or not.
Future promise is best shown by your best work, not something cobbled together in the three months since you graduated. SCs are looking for the long haul and want to see polish, not work in progress that you haven't had a chance to discuss with other experts before.
if it's a common error of green candidates to present a talk that is not drawn directly from their dissertation, how can it speak volumes about their future potential?
Don't think of it as a talk drawn directly from your completed first dissertation. Think of it as a talk adapted from your ongoing first book project—which is very much about the future, not the past.
Agreed. But I don't know if it's fair to blame failed searches on the candidates' job talk performances, as Anon 7:44 did. It takes two to tango, and at least three campus visits to do a job search.
au contraire. A search I know of that took place less than 5 years ago failed because it was agreed that all the job talks were substandard...
Hey, whoever posted Concordia on the wiki - has this been advertised via the APA? If not, could you cut and paste the ad into the Job Announcements thread? We should do this as standard procedure for any jobs we hear of NOT through the APA.
(And as a Hellenist, I'm not even applying to Concordia.)
I'm not the one who posted it to the wiki, but I think this is Concordia in Canada, not Texas, right?
http://artsandscience1.concordia.ca/employmentopportunities/limited-termappointments/?f=detail<A=273&PHPSESSID=6051bfcd8f23b8eca734f634fce4e3d9
Even on top of its newsprint tower and with its own bankruptcy looming, the NY Times has noticed the poor academic job market.
They also suggested in another piece last week that Humanities needs to start justifying its existence in the new economy. Because it was all those Humanities PhDs who caused our economy to collapse. More like all those MBAs with no ethics.
I say pshaw to the NYTimes.
We should do this as standard procedure for any jobs we hear of NOT through the APA.
I don't think everyone who follows the wiki also follows FV (can't blame them). So stuff can appear there without being cross-posted here as well.
Is it bad form to insert names into the wiki of candidates who have accepted jobs if we learned about it through word of mouth? I see at least one example of this but I wanted to hear a consensus before possibly doing it.
Is it bad form to insert names into the wiki of candidates who have accepted jobs if we learned about it through word of mouth? I see at least one example of this but I wanted to hear a consensus before possibly doing it.
This was discussed quite a bit last year. There was definite consensus that this should not be done in the immediate aftermath of a job's being accepted. After all, the person should be given the opportunity to inform other schools where he/she was a candidate, not to mention friends, professors, etc. So you should not "out" someone in this manner early on. There was, however, some sentiment that after at least 3-4 weeks have passed it's fine. After all, the APA itself publishes this information a few months later, and the only reason they wait so long is that it's in the newsletter after they've had a chance to collect all that info.
I haven't added names, but a quick check tells me that several of the names posted on the wiki can be found by going to the department's home pages and looking at course listings for the fall - or in one case, a big banner headline: "X shall be joining us!" Right after the hire, I would only add a name under those circumstances - i.e., anyone with Google and curiosity can find this out. But if it's word-of-mouth only, I think I'd wait a bit.
And frankly a candidate who's decided to take another job offer doesn't need more than a day or two to notify other schools at which they're under consideration. If they delay that notification longer, they're being unprofessional.
I agree with the previous comments - if a name has been posted by the hiring institution, I have no qualms about posting it on the wiki. If it's word of mouth, I would wait at least a week or two.
One caveat: my name was posted on department course listings when I had been offered, but not yet actually accepted the job. It seems possible that a number of schools do this, for reasons discussed earlier in this thread.
Wow, talk about jumping the gun.
A certain school is cleaning up this year...
Looks like it is the year of the underdog. (Wish I hadn't gone to that top program now! What was I thinking?)
if you mean Bryn Mawr College, how is three positions 'cleaning up'?
U Michigan is doing pretty well (as usual) -- there are several hired Michigan PhDs that are still not posted on the wiki....
U Michigan is doing pretty well (as usual) -- there are several hired Michigan PhDs that are still not posted on the wiki....
Oh, do tell! If they are IPCAA students, I'm not surprised. If they are philologists, well, last I heard only one of eleven ABDs or recent PhDs had a job lined up for next year.
Go Blow - get over yourself already.
Has anyone heard from Oberlin? The deadline was almost a month ago, so one would think they would be getting the ball rolling right about now...
If you're confident that the position has been accepted for at least a couple weeks or it has been posted on the internet, update the wiki already instead of being so defensive.
Has anyone heard from Oberlin? The deadline was almost a month ago, so one would think they would be getting the ball rolling right about now...
I hear they want to rehire someone who worked there as a VAP two years ago, but that's a rumor, take it with a grain of salt.
Anyone know whether the UCSB offer has been accepted?
For that matter, what's going on with some of the other gigs that have been offered weeks ago, but are not yet listed as accepted on the wiki? This list includes Columbia, Gallatin, Middlebury, Sweet Briar, Michigan, and Texas Tech. Have some (or all) of these jobs, in fact, been accepted already? Some of us would like to know for sure, so we can move on with our lives.
Re: Michigan - At the risk of upsetting the Michigan prude from a few weeks back, I think it's safe to say that the senior offer won't be resolved for some time as possible counteroffers and other attendant considerations play out. Since it's now known not to be a junior position I guess it doesn't really concern most of us in any practical sense.
Peoples,
Is called negotiation, a process you too may be able to participate in one day when you actually get some job offers.
Er, I was just trying to answer (one of) the poster's question(s). What were you trying to do, exactly, apart from make them feel bad?
OK, what is with the latest name erasures on the wiki? I understand the desire for privacy, but a) the names can be found out anyway, even when erased, and b) so long as it's correct, why remove it?
(b) happened to me last year, only a day after taking the job. I let it stay because it was correct.
Could it be a therapeutic damnatio memoriae procedure on the part of us not-haves? If we deny it long enough, maybe it will just go away, right?
I agree with A 10:11. I have a friend listed this year who does not frequent FV or the wiki. While he was surprised when I informed him about the listing, he didn't see the harm in it being there.
The Open University is now as good as Oxbridge in the US job market...
Names & Anonymity
As someone who has been offered a job verbally and accepted it verbally (but not named myself on the wiki), I feel very strongly about the matter of publishing candidates' names.
Until the contract has at least been received, some of us hesitate to announce our being hired. Until contact has been made by the dean of the hiring institution, until the appointment has been approved, unfortunately one cannot be absolutely certain the deal is set. In the current climate, any candidate is replaceable; let's all do our best, please, to avoid vitium.
Rumors will flitter around, but no one should be "outed" before a contract is signed. And if you do want to or (for whatever reason) feel the absolute need to "out" someone you know, why not ask him first?
FAMISSIMA:
The one-year job at Hamilton is very unlikely to be in play this year. Two VAPs there already - you do the math.
also FAMISSIMA: both current Union VAPs got t-t offers, so Union may be looking for more people.
True Story: Union is hiring two people though they have only advertised so far for one. The other position was authorized after the first position had been announced.
Heard something similar about Colgate, but that's more up in the air.
Looks like upstate NY is the place to be!
Didn't you see "The Last Seduction"? Evidently, it's not.
The wiki lists 11 canceled searches and 2 failed searches for this year's market. That is astronomical, especially given that only 2 of those have been transformed into a temporary position.
I'm all in favor of more jobs, but I don't think it's a good idea to list the second Union position on the wiki before seeing an ad, a statement from the department or whatever else we can be put in the job announcement thread.
I am going to write a happy post. Three of my friends have gotten tenure-track jobs. One of the three got a really amazing job. I am happy for them. All three are very nice people, hard workers, and they deserve it. Congratulations guys.
Just curious, 5:26, are all your successful friends from the same university (for PhD) or from different places?
The Baylor job has been offered (and presumably accepted). Faculty listed as teaching in the fall are the same as are currently listed as being there. Stands to reason it was offered to one of the lecturers there already. Who didn't see that coming?
5:26 here. All three of them did their degrees at the same school (incidentally, not my school), but their dates of graduation and subsequent work experiences vary.
"The Baylor job has been offered (and presumably accepted). Faculty listed as teaching in the fall are the same as are currently listed as being there. Stands to reason it was offered to one of the lecturers there already. Who didn't see that coming?"
Unless you are operating from information beyond what is posted in the wiki, why do you say the job has been "presumably accepted"? And why does it "stand to reason" that it was offered to one of the lecturers, simply because faculty listed as teaching there in the fall don't include a new name? The job was JUST offered; I realize that some universities put their new hire's name up on fall course listings right away, but by no means does this happen across the board. I don't care either way (whether Baylor hired someone from the inside or the outside), but it seems unfair to jump to these conclusions in a sarcastic tone based on the information that we currently have.
I don't get this animosity thing against internal candidates. Well, I do from an irrational standpoint - people are pissed for not getting a job. But if you think about it objectively, this is a good thing (assuming that the insider wasn't hired nepotistically in the first place). We should be celebrating someone getting hired because of their proven abilities and how they fit in, not because they are the latest and greatest or their advisor knows someone on the faculty. I've never been an insider, but I have friends who went through hell during the process before getting offered the job. Cut them some slack and congratulate them for staying the course and proving themselves over many months, and not several days.
I don't get this animosity thing against internal candidates.
OK, let's just have this whole conversation right now and get it over with.
Anti-internal candidate position: "I resent having to apply for a position and getting my hopes up when really it was all a charade and the inside candidate must have been guaranteed to get the job all along."
Pro-internal candidate position: "well, sometimes the internal gets the job, and sometimes s/he doesn't, and sometimes the internal candidate wants to go elsewhere, so a department has to have a search no matter what."
Then there's some more arguing back and forth, and nobody changes their mind, and then it starts all over again next year.
Next topic?
Yeah, let's talk about some less contentious issues. How about them Princefordians? Seen any good UT sabretooths lately? Archaeologists rules!
Is that better?
Actually I don't recall a discussion about internal candidates anything like last year's. Looking at the wiki, I see like two, and I know for sure there were more searches with internal candidates than two, suggesting that not all internals get the jobs. Plus it's a little late for this discussion, unless we want to apply it to the temp market...
Since we seem to be fishing around for a subject of controversy, how about floating this one up the flagpole?
Should classics be doing anything, as a discipline, to adapt to the changing educational/economic/political climate, or is it important that we (like the GOP!) return to first principles?
And if a change in course is needed, should this be reflected in what gets emphasized and valued in graduate training? That is to say, is the traditional emphasis on philological expertise ultimately counterproductive to the field as a whole?
And when this is all over, I'd be interested in knowing who was the person with 14 interviews (see wiki). What did s/he have to offer, and how can we learn from him/her? Was s/he finished? Adjuncting? What field with what subdisciplines? What kind of letter-writers (did the writers personalize each letter for each school - as per the wishes of the grumpy prof at HWSC?) How many job offers did s/he get in the end?
We could all definitely learn from him/her!
And I am eager to do so.
If it's the Princeford Villain in the flesh, I'd quit if that's what it takes to nail a job.
Not the Princeford villain - but someone who quietly goes about his/her business and doesn't bother much with FV or the wiki.
(At least, if this is the person I know with that many interviews. Who, yes, is finished, and who has the specialties one might expect to be popular this year.)
Holy !@#$. I didn't even know there was such a thing as a 5-4 teaching load. The 4-3 load doesn't seem so bad anymore.
My first job had a 5-4 load...that I survived was a minor miracle.
On the other hand, it does teach you how to manage your time, if grad school didn't.
In my final semester of grad school I got a VAP job at a large state school, teaching three courses. As what they thought was a favor to me -- to improve my resume -- they give me the opportunity to teach a graduate seminar on top of two other courses. I somehow manage to ship off my 900-page dissertation on the last possible day, and did survive that and the teaching load. And in retrospect, teaching the grad course was a good thing.
I've since forgotten how to manage my time, but I once had that down!
What kind of school has a 5-4? I'm contemplating a 4-4 with three preps. It seems doable (if tough) at a regional U with a small publishing requirement for tenure. But 5-4? Wow.
Wow!
Queensborough CC (ancient history gig listed on the wiki) has a 5-4. They do say, however, that the faculty only do 2-3 preps per semester, so essentially you are just teaching the same class over and over and over and over...
The one listed on the wiki is a CC. My 5-4 job was at a small religious SLAC.
Its not the load, its the preps, and what kinds of preps, that matter.
A 3/3 or even a 2/3 at a good SLAC, where you teach different kinds of things, languages and lectures included, would be more difficult than a 5/4 at a CC. This is assuming lots of contact hours with students, lots of writing assignments (and grading!), different courses each semester, and high expectations for both teaching and research.
Not to say that a 5/4 is a walk in the park, but simple course loads are not a good measure of what to expect.
In this environment, though, we should all be happy to get a 5/5 with two books for tenure. Pretty soon, unfortunately, that won't be a joke......
5/4 does sound horrific, so does 4/4. But the brass ring of 2/2 at a big research u with a grad program or prestigious college isn't necessarily as great as it sounds. My first VAP position was at one such place, and in addition to teaching my regular courses I had to read endless drafts of dissertations, senior theses, article drafts that grad students wanted to send out, etc. And there was no BSing any of it the way one might in an undergraduate lecture course, because these students were good.
I've done 5/4 (with only one doubled prep in the 5 semester, so 4/4) and 2/2. I much prefer 2/2. It might be harder intellectually, but I had time to breathe.
I just can't see any scenario where 5/4 can be better than 2/2, except maybe if two sabretooths are knawing at your shins daily while pointing out how superior the Princeford colleague who came in at the same time at you is. Even then, it's not like the ONLY thing negative about a 5/4 job is the teaching load. You'll surely have bs to deal with like at every school. That said, I can think of many scenarios where a 3/3 or even a VAP gig can be better than the 2/2 job from hell. I know it's just luck of the draw, but I have enough friends in 2/2 jobs from hell that I sometimes wonder whether it's the norm for 2/2 positions.
I am SO sick and bloody tired of hearing from 2-2 tenure-track or tenured colleagues how hard their lives are professionally. (And, in one shining case, repeatedly telling me how much easier I have it than you do.) Jesus. Here I am, a VAP teaching 3-3, having to spend six months each year looking for a job, and my existence makes it possible for you to teach 2-2 so you can do the stuff you're supposed to do professionally. Christ. There's one big difference between you and me: job security. Unless you've totally blown your chance at tenure by being lazy and wasting your sabbaticals and free time (which I don't have, btw), the person who doesn't know where their income is coming from next academic year has it worse.
(Sorry for the rant, I've just heard this much too often.)
I agree with the immediately previous post. And I never write on this blog (except once, when I wrote about corn dogs [mmmmm!!!!]).
I just wanted to say that I have a 2-2 job and completely agree with the previous post. I'm sorry, I really am. I can only promise that I'll try not to screw this up so that I don't scream wasted opportunity to people who might have done a better job. I'll teach language classes, lecture classes, anything, I won't shirk or delegate any admin, I won't invite you to meetings that aren't important for you. And I'll wish you the best of luck at every available opportunity, and not complain about any of the irritants bothering my pampered ass. Having just re-read this I'm not quite sure how to vouch for its lack of irony, you'll just have to take my word for it. Some of us have it good and we really shouldn't lecture anyone else about anything. Ever.
I have to ask, why would anyone seriously take a 5-4 job?
That sounds really, really obnoxious, so let me immediately clarify.
Nobody should be working that much. It's awful. I assume people only do it because they hope or expect to get out of such a job pretty soon and move on to better things.
So, an empirical question: does anyone know anyone who actually has moved on to a 2-2 from a 5-4 or even a 4-4? Does such a move happen in practice (obviously it can and could in the abstract)? What about 5-4 to 3-3 or 3-2?
"Here I am, a VAP teaching 3-3, having to spend six months each year looking for a job, and my existence makes it possible for you to teach 2-2 so you can do the stuff you're supposed to do professionally. Christ. There's one big difference between you and me: job security."
You're making a totally different point from the one to which you purportedly respond. You're talking about a temporary teaching gig vs. a permanent teaching gig; you're comparing apples to oranges. I reiterate that a tenure track 2-2 sounds totally great and dreamy, but if compared to a tenure track 3-3, I doubt it's less work and in many ways probably quite a bit more. The itinerant moving every year is certainly an awful experience, but it's a separate concern.
So, an empirical question: does anyone know anyone who actually has moved on to a 2-2 from a 5-4 or even a 4-4? Does such a move happen in practice (obviously it can and could in the abstract)? What about 5-4 to 3-3 or 3-2?
I've moved from a 5-4 to a 3-3 to a 3-2 to a 2-2, all VAPs...yes, it's possible. If you're asking if there's hope for people to move up from a 5-4, yeah, there is.
You're making a totally different point from the one to which you purportedly respond.
Au contraire: I wasn't responding to anything, but going off on a rant on something that vexes me and a number of other VAPs. My point holds even if the tenured/t-t person is 3-3, and the VAP 2-2 or 4-4 or 3-2 or 5-4 or 5-5. And that point was not so much which job is worse, but that some collegiality and sensitivity in not complaining to the possibly-imminently jobless would be appropriate.
Why is it that when I think of the many grads and untenured-faculty in the field (i.e., people who are at roughly my level) whom I've met and know either casually or well it seems to me that there is about a 4:1 ratio of smart people to idiots, but on this blog that ratio flips to 1:4?
I find this discussion useful - what a nice surprise.
I am the one who posted upthread about contemplating a 4-4 with 3 preps (of which 2 per year would always be the same introductory survey). I have a Princefordian background and this is the first time I've contemplated seriously moving to a "teaching position" that's not an elite SLAC.
As I mentioned, it's a regional U with no grad students and no majors (yet?) in my sub-discipline. Admin work is important but not heavy as the department is a good size and is not looking for major structural changes anywhere - except, perhaps, in my area of expertise.
The place seems very sane and understands that this teaching load means that tenure should focus on what takes most of your time: teaching, then service (a distant second), then research (quite far behind the other two). I can continue to research in the summer as I've always had to do, but I won't get much done writing- and research- wise during the year. Isn't this okay?
I also think with relief about how I won't be balancing a 2-2 (which I've been doing for awhile now) with finishing a dissertation/article/book chapter AND applying wildly to jobs AND interviewing, etc. It looks . . . kind of good.
"I also think with relief about how I won't be balancing a 2-2 (which I've been doing for awhile now) with finishing a dissertation/article/book chapter AND applying wildly to jobs AND interviewing, etc. It looks . . . kind of good."
This is exactly the point. It's a job, not an identity. The seemingly brass ring jobs aren't always what they're cracked up to be; unless you really are ambitious to research, and expect to remain so for many years, these other kinds of jobs are normal and afford probably a healthier lifestyle overall. I can't figure out why they're considered so undesirable around here.
As someone pointed out, the 5-4 is at a Community College. There are typically ZERO publication requirements for tenure. It is pure teaching. If you want to teach and don't care about publishing, then there is nothing wrong with a 5-4 and a CC. If you were being asked to teach 5-4 with 3-5 articles or a book for tenure, then the whining could commence. This is different. many people on this blog seem to not know the difference between a CC, an R1 and everything in between.
OK, let's look at this from a slightly different perspective. VAPs/lecturers with their 5-4, 3-3, 2-2, what have you, loads, are expected to teach - and do a good job of it, so their chair can write them a good reference - plus they are expected to at least show some enterprise in the field of research, in order to improve their CV as they spend a lot of other time looking for jobs. To me, anything t-t offers more security than VAPing. It even lets you have a bad semester where you lie around on the couch feeling sorry for yourself, watching Real Housewives of Orange County, and eat HoHos and corn dogs when you're not in the classroom, and you won't suffer for it professionally. It gives a little relief, I think the ranter is trying to say. VAPs don't have that. It's hardly a question of which kind of job is "better," but a question of the quality of life that each job allows one to enjoy.
To the person contemplating a 4-4, if what you want is regularity, I'd say go for it. To the people under consideration at QCC, I'd say the same - but with the added proviso that at a CC you are way out of the loop academically, even further than if you went to a small SLAC with a 4-4 load.
BTW, a friend of mine can top 5-4; he did 5-5 as a temp at Ball State University.
More good stuff, thanks.
I, for one, am looking for security (YMMV).
A bunch of related questions: if you're in a 2-2 or 2-3 at an R1 or selective LAC, how much time do you spend per day/week/whatever doing research? And when? Weekends? Sabbaticals? Are you getting as much research time as you'd like? If not, what's taking it up?
I hope there are some t-t types willing to contribute their experiences to the discussion.
I'll bite.
I'm T-T at a fairly selective SLAC, 2/3 load.
First of all, let's be clear not to compare permanent and impermanent positions. To me relative security is everything. I'd rather have a 4/4 TT than even a 2/2 VAP. In this environment a permanent job is huge. It just is, and we all need to be aware of that. The psychological cost (let alone the practical, time-suck costs) of having no idea where you might be next year sucks, big time. I did that for two years, at good places. I can't imagine being in that position with the current market. I wish I was a billionaire so I could sponsor every unemployed classicist out there. But I'm not, I can't, and the whole situation blows.
Anyway, to get to the question. I get no research done during the year. Nada, zip. I teach five different courses each year, three of these are lecture course, two are language courses. I work between 60 and 70 hours/week. Teaching, college and departmental service, independent studies, senior theses, and random "my door is always open so come in" meetings with students takes it out of me. It is exhausting. I need to be better at limiting my prep and grading time because the research expectations here are also high. But the teaching expectations are very high as well, and I haven't figured out the balance. I try to write and research during the summer, but it is tough because I constantly have to come up with new lecture courses.
I have friends who teach 2/2, and even a couple who teach 2/1, at larger places. We've compared notes, and we all agree that I definitely put more time into the job. Also, some of their courses and advising have some bearing upon their research interests. For me that just doesn't happen.
The problem is that institutions recognize that they can demand more and more research, even while maintaining high teaching expectations. Now we have SLACs expecting a book and articles for tenure, the same as R1s. This is ridiculous. But what are we going to do? It is either accept the deal or get out of the field.
There are too many eager young (and now starving) beavers out there willing to accept jobs that, quite frankly, ask too much of people. I fear that this economy will only make it worse, and what used to be a humane profession and pursuit is becoming unsustainable.
My $.02
SLACker - thanks so much for your insights!
FV is changing my life today.
I'm the person above who went from a 5/4 to a 2/2 VAP with stops at 3/3 and 3/2. The 2/2 is current. It is a very cushy job: no administrative expectations at all, for instance. I do have a grad seminar, but that is the toughest thing on my plate. So my 2/2 or 2/1 colleagues actually do have it worse than I do, workload-wise. But the big difference for me from previous jobs is that this year I have finally had time for research. Before, on 3/3, even on 3/2, the best I could do was maybe ONE of the following during term: some proofs, edit an already-written article, or do a book review. This year my production has been much higher: haven't written anything new, but have edited an submitted/am currently editing 4 articles and a book (all but one of which have been sitting around for years waiting for me to finish them). I'd guess I'm working 45-50 hours a week in terms of class time and preparation and student-related activities. But that is very much on the easy end of the scale for VAPing...I know, I've had it the other way around too. And if I were tenure-track, I know I'd be working another 10-20 hours a week on administrative stuff. That said, it is job security that makes all the difference. I would rather have a tenure-track job than all the 2/2 VAPs in succession.
I really don't want to detract from one of our rare productive discussions in which we actually listen to one another and help one another out, but did anyone else notice the last lines of the U-Wisconsin job just posted under job announcements?
"Unless confidentiality is requested in writing, information regarding the names of applicants must be released upon request. Finalists cannot be guaranteed confidentiality."
Do other places have policies like this?
Did someone change the wiki password?
Did someone change the wiki password?
Yes, they did. This was, unfortunately, a malicious move by a fellow classicist. Access to the wiki is now back up. Same username and password.
And, verb. sap. to the vandal-classicist: Don't bother. You can't shut down a wiki as long as there are users for it. We have an endless supply of usernames and passwords which we will post here in order to keep the flow of information going. If you don't like the wiki, find a strong shoulder to cry on and try to forget that it exists.
If you persist we will formally request that Wikidot trace your IP, figure out who you are, and then out you on this site.
Looks like the vandals have done it again...
Servius to the rescue. Thanks! Now . . . any chance we could get back to that helpful discussion about teaching-research balance?
Any other t-t folks out there willing to share/wanting to take advantage of this anonymous forum?
9:50am March 13
The password has been changed again.
No, it's there. You just have to be sure to log-in with the email
classicswiki@gmail.com
same password
The old "Hungry Classicist" username is no longer in effect.
This was, unfortunately, a malicious move by a fellow classicist.
No, it wasn't. It was an inadvertent mistake by someone who hadn't used the wiki before and thought each individual had to create his or her own account. A vandal would be unlikely to self-identify by name.
Obviously I feel awful about mistakenly resetting the account, and I'm sorry. But please let's not jump to conclusions.
RE:WISC "Do other places have policies like this?"
Many state institutions, following generous interpretations of freedom of information laws and fearing litigious individuals, are now moving in this 'completely transparent direction'.
In the Lone Star State (and I have personal knowledge about this) referee letters for tenure packages are now being stripped of all protections. So, anyone in their tenure year can get access not only to the letters themselves but also to the names and addresses of their referees.
In the psychology department at my institution, a few professors denied tenure have contacted and hassled their referees. As a result, there is concern among department chairs that they will encounter a dwindling pool of referees.
So, Wisconsin's strange disclaimer may be just the beginning
If you are really that clueless, then why did you go and CHANGE the password? It is one thing to create a new account, a completely different thing to actually change the password.
And what do you mean by "self-identify by name"? I see no self-identifying going on here, Doctor Anonymous! :-)
In order to show your bona fides, why don't you change the password for the "hungry classicists" account BACK to what it once was so we can all return to normal and use the old account?
I don't know about you all, but I'm feeling more optimistic about the spring market, with ads from Colgate, another Union position, and Wisconsin over the past few days. Of course, Monday's ads may have just those three, plunging us all into pessimism again.
And on "vandalism," why not also yell at the folks who changed the username to "gina" or "Hungry Classicist" instead of a newbie who thought we needed individual accounts? Perfectly understandable mistake (given parallels like Wikipedia), whereas the others knew what they were doing.
I don't know. Player might have done us a favor by changing the password. My productivity has doubled from what it was: now I only check FV ten times a day, instead of FV and the wiki!
If you are really that clueless, then why did you go and CHANGE the password? It is one thing to create a new account, a completely different thing to actually change the password.
I thought "Hungry Classicist" was a default ID for a newly created account. It sounded like a phrase designating a generic job seeker in this field.
And what do you mean by "self-identify by name"? I see no self-identifying going on here, Doctor Anonymous! :-)
That part was addressed to Servius; he knows my name because I didn't try to hide it when I thought I was creating a new account. That's presumably what enabled him to attribute my actions to "a fellow classicist."
In order to show your bona fides, why don't you change the password for the "hungry classicists" account BACK to what it once was so we can all return to normal and use the old account?
I have sent an email to Servius asking if I need to do this. At this point, I'm hesitant to touch anything without making absolutely sure I know what I'm doing.
I don't know. Player might have done us a favor by changing the password. My productivity has doubled from what it was: now I only check FV ten times a day, instead of FV and the wiki!
Yeah, now that the chills, shaking, vomiting and cramps have stopped I can deal with the constant yawning, dilated pupils and goose bumps.
Thanks, Doctor Stumblythumbs!
I'm not having problems logging onto the wiki...why are others? (But then, I selected the perpetual login option last time I logged in or something. ;-)
Servius fixed it. So it should be back to normal, unless you log in as the very hungry caterpillar or something....
So, on the U-Wisconsin confidentiality thing (not quite the same as Texas, which affected people not even in Texas, sounds like)...does anyone think it would be BAD to request confidentiality?
To go back even further away from the berating of the new user, here are some thoughts about workload brought on by SLACker's comments:
The advice I have heard multiple times about balancing research and teaching (several new faculty orientations and specialized faculty enrichment workshops) is that you must MAKE time for research. Just as you schedule class or office hours, schedule research time. Otherwise it is easy to let the immediacy of teaching deadlines take over completely (especially when you are new to a full time teaching load). It has also been said that we have to learn to work in small bites (even 15 minutes here and there) and stop hoping for large unbroken, uninterrupted stretches. I can say from experience (one VAP and a TT I left by choice for another TT) that those are both easier said than done, but worthwhile to attempt.
The piece of advice I have to give to those of you lucky enough to get the TT is to inform yourself about the expectations of your department and college/university ASAP and in writing if possible. Don’t fall prey to mere lip service about what you should be doing. Often schools say a lot of nice things about caring about teaching, but in reality, they actually weigh research more heavily. And most places that tell you service counts are full of shit (it matters if you don’t do any, but rewards for excelling in that category are not at all proportionate). At one new faculty orientation, they brought in the recent teacher of the year to give us advice. He told us not to take up our time doing university-level service until after tenure, and to make research our priority (this was a place that sells itself as a SLAC to undergrads, but also has a med and business school). It was amusing to watch the administrators go white as all their lip-service about teaching and community-building was undermined.
Learn to say no: this is difficult, since we are all led to believe that tenure (and a job in the first place) is given to those who obey. But if you can’t complete projects that you know will count because you are stuck doing things that don’t count – or don’t count as much – speak up. I know someone who was let go after their 2nd-year review because they had followed their department’s request (command?) to revamp the curriculum and created and taught multiple courses from scratch – turns out what they really wanted was a couple completed articles (the university in that case actually ruled against the department and the faculty member was given an extra year to prepare for a new review, which went much better once the REAL expectations were clear). It is true that you will be stuck doing things that are less helpful for yourself than they should be, but look for areas that you can control. Don’t take every book review offer that’s thrown at you if you’re not at a place where reviews “count.” Don’t waste time and money delivering a paper at a conference that you know you are not going to turn into an article if delivered papers are not considered evidence of a scholarly program. Don’t assign long papers in a class of 75 students if you don’t have a TA.
The teacher-scholar model is espoused by more and more SLACS, but very few actually give you the necessary resources and support (time, money, equipment) to make it possible to be the best you can be at both. I feel for you, SLACker, and a lot of us are there with you. I hope that the effort you are putting in will be acknowledged, and there won’t be a bait-and-switch come tenure time. It’s one thing not to be able to meet really high (often impossible) standards, but another to think you are meeting them, only to find out you were playing by a different set of rules than the referees.
I heartily agree with the comments of the last poster, Anon 1:58. I work at a fairly prestigious SLAC and was tenured last year. If I had listened to the advice of many of my seniors about service and teaching, I never would have gotten here. Sure, at a SLAC teaching is important, and you should work at it and do a good job at it. But, as the previous poster said, do not let it take over your life. One thing that is is easy not to understand when you are fresh out of grad school is really how much undergrads, even at pretty selective places, don't know. So, when you are prepping for a class at a SLAC, it is not the same as prepping for a grad seminar, and you should try not to make it so. In other words, prep only as much as you have to, and save the rest of your time for your own work. The advice of RESERVING time for your research is a good one. I am not good at this, but I have had to learn the hard way that this is the ONLY way I can get time for research. I also make it a point on the first day of class to explain to students in a diplomatic way what it is that I actually do when I am not teaching. When students begin to see how much work I do outside of class on my own stuff, they are less likely to come and interrupt me outside my office hours for every little thing. It is not that I don't want to see them; it is that I am not only trying to protect my time but that I am also trying to teach them a very real life-lesson in respect for others' work and time -- not to mention a willingness to alter their own schedules to fit someone else's. Anyway, so, yes, absolutely try to set some time for yourself for research. it may not happen every day, and it may never happen in huge chunks of hours at a stretch, but if you can manage to work on your own stuff 1-2 hours every or every other day during the semester while prepping for new classes and doing your admin stuff, then you are doing it and you are doing it right. Just my 2cents.
Does anyone have any intel on the UT searches (not the Toronto one :-) ? Both have been listed as offered for weeks. Has either position been accepted/turned down? Is anything stirring in that pot?
Seriously, may the gods grant those poor 15 UT philologists a reprieve from teaching language classes. Some have to sacrifice 50% of their teaching load teaching languages. Oh, the humanity.
I think you mean the poor MC people at UT - they must hire philologists so no MC person ever has to teach a language!
I know, it's like asking a mathematician to teach algebra - the audacity! And those damn physicists refuse to teach it! Arumph!
Hey, you! Give the governor a harumph!
(harumph!)
Curious about UT:
I have heard that both positions were offered and declined. This is super-super-FAMISSIMA, however (my source is usually reliable but did not hear this from anyone associated with UT - it's kind of a 6 degrees of separation thing).
Re: UT. This is only slightly better than six degrees of separation but I hear the Roman lit/hist position is likely to be accepted. I didn't hear anything about it or the Greek position being declined by anyone, but I could be wrong.
One of UT's finalists took another position before the campus visit stage, and two others, I've heard, have accepted positions elsewhere - 2 Hellenists and 1 Latinist gone from the pool, total.
I know, it's like asking a mathematician to teach algebra - the audacity! And those damn physicists refuse to teach it! Arumph!
Actually, I'd say that it's like asking a roofer if every once in a while, instead of tarring roofs, they'd like to get paid for just splashing around in a swimming pool. The amazing thing is if the roofer says "No! Roofing is my passion, I have been honing my roofing skills for many years, and I refuse to spend a single day doing anything that isn't roofing!"
Of course, it makes a lot more sense if you assume that the roofer doesn't really know how to swim.
"I know, it's like asking a mathematician to teach algebra - the audacity! And those damn physicists refuse to teach it! Arumph!"
Perfect analogy, but as someone pointed out, you need the rough breathing in there - Harumph!
Sounds a wee bit embarrassing for UT in this seller's market. As someone pointed out weeks ago, which of the high-caliber candidates would choose this program when other options are available? You can just smell the sabretooth drool and language courses waiting for you. I personally like teaching language courses, but don't find the thought of being the low person on the totem pole, and having little option but to teach them every semester, very attractive.
The various mathematics and contracting similes are confusing me. Are people saying that teaching languages every semester is a bad thing? Or just for MCers? I thought that the UT jobs were for philologists - wouldn't they WANT to teach languages all the time?
On some other thread, back in the fall, there was a big discussion on the place of civ courses in Classics, and UT was used as an example where the philologists teach half languages, half civ courses. But the MCers and historians perceived this as a big attack on them, and things went downhill from there...
(The UT jobs do seem to be for philologists/Roman historians.)
The various mathematics and contracting similes are confusing me. Are people saying that teaching languages every semester is a bad thing? Or just for MCers? I thought that the UT jobs were for philologists - wouldn't they WANT to teach languages all the time?
There was an earlier episode in which some MC people were complaining about having to teach languages, and (I believe) someone from Texas remarked that current Texas MC faculty are not inclined to teach languages.
Then someone said, "Why should they have to teach languages? They teach all the big lecture courses! And archaeologists don't train to teach languages, even though they can do it as well as any philologists, so why should they have to?"
Then someone determined that all the big lecture classes at Texas this year are being taught by philologists.
Then there was some grumbling, and the subject changed.
In the parable of the roofer I was suggesting that since language teaching is easy and fun, anybody should like getting the occasional language teaching instead of the big, tiring lecture courses that MC people are often called on to do, and that that subset of MC people who object to the occasional language teaching are likelier to be doing so because they don't feel comfortable teaching the languages than because they really feel strongly about only teaching MC courses.
In the parable of the roofer I was suggesting that since language teaching is easy and fun, anybody should like getting the occasional language teaching instead of the big, tiring lecture courses that MC people are often called on to do, and that that subset of MC people who object to the occasional language teaching are likelier to be doing so because they don't feel comfortable teaching the languages than because they really feel strongly about only teaching MC courses.
Ah, now this is all clear (I am late to this conversation). I heartily agree. As a historian I would actually prefer a full slate of language classes (I've often kicked myself for not being a Greek Lit person). They are much easier and MUCH less time consuming than the lecture classes.
MCers need to realize that departments that ask them to teach languages are actually doing them a favor. Teach a couple of years of beginning Latin and/or Greek. After that you'll be ready to teach everything else, and then you're research projects will thank you. Nothing easier than middle- and upper-level language classes in my book!
What's with Rutgers? Last week one of their former VAPs accepted the position, now the wiki is empty.
Anyone know something concrete?
The name was erased at the same time as the name of a Rutgers alum who got another job (that second name has now been restored). I'm assuming some Rutgers-ite is just being oversensitive or something...
I'm assuming some Rutgers-ite is just being oversensitive or something...
As a job candidate myself, and not a Rutgers student, I am pretty certain that the person who erased his/her name from the wiki had his/her own reasons, which may have included issues of contract, negotiation, information flow, and so on. Getting a job is a protracted process, and there are, at times, reasons a candidate, who otherwise has (at best) very little control of the process may want to control the circulation of certain information. Read previous posts from this year and last about being "outed" if you require further explanation.
It was TWO people...both affiliated with Rutgers...conspiracy theory, anyone?
It was TWO people...both affiliated with Rutgers...conspiracy theory, anyone?
Yeah, a mutual friend of both of theirs, probably also a Rutgers alum or prof, heard of their good fortune and in his/her enthusiasm prematurely published the news on the wiki. The two candidates, outted, were then flooded with congratulations from eagle-eyed wiki-readers, and independently removed their names.
Let's not create scandal where there isn't any. If you're that hungry for intrigue, may I suggest some Suetonius or a couple of episodes of HBO's Rome?
GO, SCARLET KNIGHTS!!!
Might I suggest that if you are actually checking on ISP addresses to see whether the changes to the Rutgers info were made there or elsewhere on the planet you are either bored or neurotically obsessed, or possibly fulfilling your childhood dreams of being like Nancy Drew and/or the Hardy Boys?
And did it never occur to you that the changes could have been made by person or persons using an ISP randomizer, and that this is all just a coincidence?
Correct me if I'm wrong, Anon. 2:41, but it's a no-IP address wiki, at least it was last year. (I tried to find out who posted my name on the wiki less than 24 hours after I took a job, no dice.)
Might I suggest that if you are actually checking on ISP addresses to see whether the changes to the Rutgers info were made there or elsewhere on the planet you are either bored or neurotically obsessed, or possibly fulfilling your childhood dreams of being like Nancy Drew and/or the Hardy Boys?
No one checked IP addresses. It's perfectly clear in the history section. The two Rutgers changes were made at the same time - they were both highlighted when the versions were compared.
Anyhoo, to change the subject, do y'all think the APA is waiting to send out the 3/15 ads till we're all slightly buzzed on St. Patty's day and don't care if they're thin or not?
Anyhoo, to change the subject, do y'all think the APA is waiting to send out the 3/15 ads till we're all slightly buzzed on St. Patty's day and don't care if they're thin or not?
Bingo!
Bottoms up Boys and Girls!!
24 hours? Sounds like an inside job to me.
Whatt? Peoplle actually wait untill Tueshday to bbe dronk?
OK, on the East Coast the workday is over and no job ads...let the drinking commence!
Post a Comment