They may not be evil, but one would think that, given the university's unwillingness to provide adequate funding for a legitimate position, the department would be willing to scale back their demands from the person subjected to that job. That's my view, anyway.
"Ok, since the department is "constrained", I guess it's only fair that I constrain my living standards to accommodate a slave wage. February 17, 2011 12:41 PM"
I will probably get flamed for this, but I don't think $34,000 for a one-year lecturer is so low.
I sympathize with the frustration of those who are facing temporary jobs, since I was an adjunct/Visiting Lecturer/ VAP for many years myself. But my thought, on reading this ad, was how much BETTER that is than things used to be (about 10 years ago now) when I was paid by the course, usually about $1200 to $1500 per course. Nine courses (on a 3/3/3 quarter schedule) still didn't get me $15,000, and of course no benefits.
Saying that the dept. should adjust its expectations to reflect the pay indicates that you don't know how universities work. I am all but certain (unless the NH dept. is unlike any other) that they put in a request for a full-time lecturer and that their administration approved that request. The administration then sets the salary. The dept. CANNOT, at that point, say "well,we'll just have this person teach 4 courses instead of 6" -- if they did that, there would unquestionably be repercussions from the administration (such as, at a minimum, never approving a line for that department again).
Folks, departments NEVER get to set salaries. I'm on a tenure-track search committee right now. None of us on the search committee even know what salary will be offered the successful candidate.The dean and administrative higher-ups set the salary. Departments have absolutley no input into that at all.
Just because the department can not set the wage of the prospective candidate (which, by the way, I know from personal experience is not the case, at least where I am), this still does not make it right. If anything, the department is complicit in this low wage. Why offer this position at all? Because some tenured faculty's sabbatical or reduced course load is more important. Way to look out for your own!
Sorry, UNH Classics is setting a bad example for the rest of the community.
I'm blown away by the combination of sense of entitlement and naivete exhibited on this wiki. Hey people - in case you hadn't realized it yet - life is not fair. I wanted a job in Classics, and worked hard to get one. I took a number of low-paying lecturer/VAP positions and felt lucky to get them, since many of my peers did not. In the end I did get a tenure track job. But then I learned the reality of life as a professor - that gosh, salaries vary not just by rank but by department/school! So if you do get one of whatever highly sought, highly paid tenure track positions are out there now, prepare yourself to earn less than your colleagues in the sciences, business, and even across the hall in Spanish. And departments have to think of - gasp - the good of not just themselves but of their students. It isn't all just about you and whatever you think you deserve. Get over yourself.
Sorry, but $34,000 is ridiculous. It's not even an ABD adjunct gig, that's the salary for someone who has spent 5+ years gaining a PhD. Knock off the cost of moving you, your sofa and your books out there, plus the tax you'll lose, and you'd better hope that you don't have any dependents (or leave a partner needy enough to see you more than twice a year). Maybe it was worse ten years ago, but that's no reason to lie down and roll over now.
P.S: To Mr "Entitlement" - yeah, what shameful and naive sense of entitlement to expect a living wage after so many years of poverty-striken grad life. We should all pay to teach classics, and be grateful that our peers couldn't afford to outbid us for the job. I've done my low paid time, too, and I have two words for you: blow me.
Anonymous said... Sorry, but $34,000 is ridiculous. It's not even an ABD adjunct gig, that's the salary for someone who has spent 5+ years gaining a PhD. Knock off the cost of moving you, your sofa and your books out there, plus the tax you'll lose, and you'd better hope that you don't have any dependents (or leave a partner needy enough to see you more than twice a year). Maybe it was worse ten years ago, but that's no reason to lie down and roll over now. February 17, 2011 4:48 PM
Thanks, I'm glad I'm not the only one who sees it this way. You might have included student loan debt in your post as yet another expense that this salary would be hard-stretched to cover. It's too bad that so many of us are apparently willing to settle for being treated unjustly by an academic establishment that should know better.
Last week, y'all were saying that small depts. should hire adjuncts to teach intro. languages and that some of you would move to small towns for $15,000 to teach those courses. Now you're saying that any dept. taht advertises a position that doesn't pay what you consider a living salary (a hell of a lot of people in this country live on less that $34,00/yr, btw) has struck a deal with the devil and is evil.
Just a hint -- candidates with aggressive, chip-on-the-shoulder, angry senses of entitlement don't usually make good impressions on search committees.
And just so you know, I spent several years adjuncting after I finished my PhD, never getting anything close to the salary a t-t position would have paid. I also published several articles and a book in that time. No, I didn't like it. But I recognized that many depts. which would love to hire another f-t t-t colleague can't, and I didn't demonize them for accepting the much less desirable temporary positions their administrations offered them.
"Just a hint -- candidates with aggressive, chip-on-the-shoulder, angry senses of entitlement don't usually make good impressions on search committees."
No. But those of us with a strong sense of what we are worth, and what our families deserve from us after their patience and support as we went through graduate school, do. How many "people in this country who live on 34,000 a year" have PhDs and huge student loans? Classics is dogged with this terrible, "I suffered and so should you" attitude which is neither progressive nor collegial.
Hm. In a very real way, this has absolutely nothing to do with what I think I'm worth. If I got paid what I'm worth, I'd be extremely rich (or flat broke, bankrupt, and alone). This has everything to do with the business of education, which dictates that some of us shell out tens of thousands of dollars a year to supposedly have the chance to succeed in life, only to discover that "success" is defined as having a job that pays you what some faceless administrative type thinks you're worth. The fact that people with years of college teaching experience, a phd, and a solid set of publications may still have to settle for a position that doesn't even cover their living expenses (some of which are brought on by the very education that got them the job) is just a little bit screwy. If you think $34,000 is a lot of money, by all means take the job. But don't expect me to think it's fair, right, or even acceptable for an institution to treat an employee, or a department to treat a colleague, like that.
I vote that we all write the Provost at UNH and demand that they take the 1-year replacement position away from Classics and give it to Economics, or Chemistry, or even those scoundrels who teach Anthropology! Once that full-time position is gone then UNH can advertise for a few ABD adjuncts to make the commute up from Boston or Providence. Four or five suckers from Harvard, Brown and BU can cover those six classes for about $2300/class, without benefits, and we can all rest easier knowing that justice has been served.
If only people had any idea how hard it is for a department like classics to get a sabbatical replacement position approved in this economic environment. I don't know the back story at UNH but I would bet dollars to donuts that the faculty there had to fight like demons to get the funding approved for this.
I agree that the salary sucks, but we can't all complain bitterly about how few jobs there are on the one hand, and complain bitterly about the particulars of a not particularly horrible job on the other hand.
Would it truly be better if this job wasn't available at all? Too bad we can't see all the 1-year positions in classics that didn't get approved this year. Maybe then we'd be a bit more charitable towards UNH. I know I'm applying, and I'll be happy to get it, even though I'll have to apply for hardship waivers for student loans, put off paying down credit card debt, and continue to live like a graduate student for a year.
I concur wholeheartedly that the salary at UNH is insulting. But then again, compared to what I made this year (zip, nil, nada, you get the point), it sounds luxurious. And it would sure beat working at Starbucks. So I'm going for it too. Sit this one out if your ego would be too bruised. Better chances for me anyway.
Academic/Career Counselor (MA required): 38710-59140 Residence Hall Director (BA): 25020-38010 IT Specialist (BA): 44270-68080 Poverty Policy Postdoc, research (phd): 40000-45000 Lecturer in World History (PhD, abd): 32000 Asst Professor of Marketing (phd): 112000-115000
Reality check - I have a tenured position in a good university in mid-America, and as an associate prof I make about $54,000 a year , with good health insurance and okay retirement benefits. Full profs make about $70,000 if they are lucky. I never thought I'd live really well on an academic salary, though, and, like most Americans, am resigned to living in debt pretty much for my whole life. Good luck to all of you who expect to live without credit card debt in this field, in this day and age. Me, I'm happy to have a secure job when so many programs are being eliminated around the country.
All these people who are shocked, shocked at the idea of $34,000 for a one-year -- It's a *temporary* job, guys. Those always pay much, much less than permanent jobs, in any field. With starting salaries for t-ts in the upper $40,000s, $34,000 is about what I'd expect for a one-year, more than a lot of places would offer.
Did you really go through your whole PhD program without ever looking at the kind of salary you'd be likely to get at the other end? If so, why?
Actually, I had a *temporary* position that paid in the mid-40K and that was in *middle America* where cost of living is much lower than NH, so I do not buy this argument I have read on this thread that claims 34K is *about right*. C'mon.
"But don't expect me to think it's fair, right, or even acceptable for an institution to treat an employee, or a department to treat a colleague, like that."
So the dept. is supposed to do . . . what, exactly? As various people have pointed out, depts. have no control at all over salaries (their own or anyone else's). Is the dept. supposed to show solidarity by refusing to fill a position that pays too low a salary? And that would help whom?
Blaming the administration for being close-fisted makes some sense, though at a state school the pursestrings are ultimately held by the legislature and even the administration may have very little control over salaries. Blaming the department just shows a complete naivete about the way universities work.
"Anonymous said... Reality check - I have a tenured position in a good university in mid-America, and as an associate prof I make about $54,000 a year , with good health insurance and okay retirement benefits. Full profs make about $70,000 if they are lucky. I never thought I'd live really well on an academic salary, though, and, like most Americans, am resigned to living in debt pretty much for my whole life. Good luck to all of you who expect to live without credit card debt in this field, in this day and age. Me, I'm happy to have a secure job when so many programs are being eliminated around the country."
So you make $20,000 more a year than this position is slated to get, and you live in a place where the cost of living is probably between 15 and 25% lower. Do you honestly have credit card debt and live in debt (debt deeper than a reasonable mortgage)? Because if you do, I'd recommend getting some financial advice from a professional. In my grad student days when I frequently made less than $15,000 (which some people were supposedly happy to make VAPs in the 1990s), I still never spent myself into debt (aside from my unhappy undergraduate student loans, which I paid off, in large part, during grad school).
I guess I just need to do a better job settling for mediocrity from myself, my students, my institution, and my field. Then I won't be quite so surprised by a very low salary for a position in a place that is very expensive to live. I could live very comfortably in a lot of places on $34,000 a year, assuming I were living alone, with no loan debt, no desire to own a home, and no interest in ever retiring. Otherwise, I'd spend a lot of my work time applying for better paying jobs anywhere else.
Not to sidetrack this thread too much (darn those state universities with no money!), but it's sure nice to see some job offers and acceptances finally popping up on the wiki! Congratulations to those fortunate few, and may we all experience similarly good fortune over the coming weeks and months and years!
Now, what are we, Classics, going to do about this 34K situation? Adjust, roll over, revolt, "man-up", cry, celebrate, (re)unionize?
I suspect someone will and have to take that job which, in turn, will justify (in the eyes of admin and dept.) such a position for that salary.
As long as there are far more applicants than jobs this will be the case. If you want to drive up salaries, you'll need to make labor scarcer. If we could just get three quarters of all humanities Ph.D.s in the country to volunteer to take one for the team, quit academia, and go work at Hot Topic or something, then everything would be much better for those who stayed behind. Until such an epidemic of self-sacrifice sweeps through our numbers, though, you're looking at relatively poor salaries and working conditions, because if x number of candidates turn down a job there's always a candidate x+1 who will take it.
In 2004 I had on-campus interviews for tenure-tracks at two places in the same state. One was a mid-level university. The dept. chair looked rather embarrassed when he told me that the salary would be $37,000, and more embarassed when he added that they'd had no raises (not even cost-of-living) for the past 3 years and had been told to expect none in the future. He hastened to add "But we find that we CAN live on our salaries here!"
The second job was at a SLAC with a good endowment. The starting salary there was in the mid-50s. (I was offered the second job and not the first, so that's where I am now.)
The reason for the difference is clearly that a state school is at the mercy of the state legislators. This is a very red state, and money for those dam' pointy-headed intellectuals who sit around and read BOOKS all the time is not high on the state legislators' list. I can only guess how School #1 is doing these days; I wouldn't be surprised if they've had to take salary cuts.
In any case, it would have been entirely pointless for me to rail at or blame the dept. chair who told me what the salary was. If I'd been offered that job and not this one, I would have taken it. Low salaries at state universities are part of the economic situation we're in now and it's fruitless to get angry at a department.
At the same time there must be a sense of justice in the university (or should we start referring to such institutions as corporations). I too have been offered a variety of low paying lectureships/visiting assistant professorships ($32-35 K) in high rent districts and indeed still work as a VAP for much appreciated, yet very low wages. Like everyone else out there I am hoping for a better day, but the position at UNH is not at all surprising, nor do I think it is atypical of such positions. The sad reality is that new PhD's and old are in need of work and, I might add, are willing to work very hard. We will do what we need to to survive and get to the next level.
At the same time, we should not have to stomach lectures about how much worse it could be or what a wonderful "opportunity" such dead-end jobs represent. In the memorable words of the ancient writer Josey Wales, "Don't piss down my back and tell me it is raining."
I would agree that department heads often have little to say about salaries, but when has such inequity ever kept our chairs from speaking their minds. The culture of university administrations needs to be challenged in some way.
I would agree that department heads often have little to say about salaries, but when has such inequity ever kept our chairs from speaking their minds. The culture of university administrations needs to be challenged in some way.
Departments are already interested in higher salaries, both for t-t and temporary faculty. The more money you can offer, the better your chance of hiring your first choice, and the less likely it is that faculty will be lured away by richer institutions. It's only in instances in which e.g. faculty raises all come from a single, fixed pool that the incentives work in the other direction.
The issue is that the people looking at the bottom line—and this is generally not a department's faculty—correctly perceive that they can pay low salaries and still get acceptable employees. Until that becomes an incorrect perception, you will see low salaries. Ideally, the scarcity of positions and paltriness of pay would deter people from careers in academia before they even went to grad school, but this seems never to happen, I assume because 1). everybody thinks they're different and special and 2). they face the consequences of their decision not immediately but 5-8 years down the road.
Universities are not run much differently than corporations, these days. One of the most pressing issues that we face is the "corporatization" of higher ed; the faculty at my private institution has been trying to prevent this to no avail. At private institutions, faculty often have little to no power to effect change. We are not allowed to unionize, and salaries are kept secret, varying widely between and within departments. Of course, unions are under attack at state universities like Wisconsin and Ohio, so unionization is no guarantee of faculty voice, either.
Same here. Small private institution, no faculty union, salaries set by dean and president; no negotiation, no discussion. We each just get a letter in the spring telling us what our salary for the next year will be. If we're dissatisfied with the offered salary, our only option is to resign. There's no mechanism for negotiation. Our raises (in years when there are any) depend on our previous year's productivity as set out in our annual self-evaluation reports but there is never any explanation of how the exact amounts of raises are determined in each case. No publications pretty much equals no raise, but beyond that it gets completely opaque.
Given that's the set-up for current faculty, including tenured, there is obviously no way that we have any say at all in what salary will be offered new hires (VAPs or t-ts.) It's never discussed with us, not even with the depts. in which the positions are advertised. For temporary positions, we know what salary is offered when the job ad comes out. For permanent positions, we're never told what anyone else's salary is, not even if we're the dept. hiring them.
Hate to beat this long-dead horse, but since Roanoke sent out their final rejections today (which represents the first communication I have had with them that has not been evasive, vague, and disrespectful) - would it have killed them to include a simple, "we apologize to those of you whom we were not able to interview"? Honestly, people. Own up and pony up the apology, it's the very least you can do.
"those of us with a strong sense of what we are worth, and what our families deserve from us after their patience and support as we went through graduate school, do [make a good impression on search committees]."
Eh . . . no, not really. You don't.
Indicating your "strong sense of what you are worth" to a search committee is in effect saying "don't bother to offer this job to me because I won't take it at this salary." I can tell you right away that a search committee (which has no control over salary) will react to that by saying "No reason to waste an interview on that one."
It's not that search committees disagree with you about what you (and we, and all of us) are "worth" or disagree that 70 hour work-weeks are hard on families (ours as well as yours). It's that we have only three campus fly-outs, we very much want to fill our position because if the search fails the line will almost definitely not be given to Classics again next year, and if you let us know that you are not going to work for less than you think you're "worth," you've just given us an unanswerable argument for not expending one of our precious three interviews on you.
What does it mean if you're friendly with the other two finalists and none of you have heard back after a full week? Funding issues? Failed search? Split committee? Disappointment in the three of us?
It could be a number of things, nothing to do with the candidates. It could mean that the dean needs to approve the offer to the chosen candidate, but hasn't gotten back to the dept. yet. Worst case scenario, it could mean that the committee has decided to invite a fourth candidate on campus, but that is unlikely. A week is a very long time to candidates, I know, but given the bureaucracy that can be involved in making a job offer, it isn't a lot of time from the university's viewpoint.
I was just invited as a fourth candidate somewhere, so I'm not sure how "unlikely" it actually is. Maybe with the economy, it's uncommon, but it does still happen.
"What does it mean if you're friendly with the other two finalists and none of you have heard back after a full week?"
A week is nothing. Often the whole dept will have to meet, and this will not be the next day, but whatever day of the week they usually meet. Usually they will decide then, but if someone thinks they need more information ("is this person just pretending not to be a psycho?" "should we have have more people read the whole manuscript?"), there may be work to do or calls to make. Another way a decision could take longer is if the dept. recommends, and the chair decides, which could take an extra day or more. Then finally you ask the dean for approval, and probably to approve a salary/startup offer. The dean may have to consult a money person, or may be putting out fires elsewhere, or taking his/her kid/mother/spouse for an MRI. To paraphrase what someone else said, it's like what Einstein said: ten seconds on a hot stove is forever, ten minutes talking to a pretty girl/(boy) goes by in a flash.
Do not despair if there is a fourth candidate and you are one of the first three. I know a situation where a fourth candidate helped a Department overcome its hesitation on one of the first three. (Oddly, years later the fourth candidate married someone in that Department.)
How does one get information like "fourth candidate invited to campus"? My only communication with departments that have brought me to campus in past seasons has been the offer or, usually much later on, the rejection. Nobody (as far as I know) writes to let candidates know they've finished with on campus interviews and are now in deliberations, and it's not always a very comfortable time to write and ask whether an offer has been extended. The wiki is supposed to cut down some of the uncertainty, but that's limited by the number of people involved and their level of openness in posting.
I'm the OP on the comment that you are criticizing, and I have to say that I sighed with despair about the obsessive focus on the small picture revealed by your answer. I know you're probably jumpy about the job market, but it's asinine to assume that anything a candidate privately believes is something they are shoving down the throats of search committees. You are even agreeing with me that my view of these matters is probably shared by the search committee! It's not that I don't understand why these problems occur in our field, I simply believe that we deserve better, and given the chance would work to make it so. That ideology in no way translates into disrespect for a department or search committee as you (somewhat illogically) assume.
For all the criticism of candidates (some deserved), the "you don't know jack, little grasshopper" and high-n-mighty tone taken by some SC members on here is revolting.
Agreed. Perhaps we can chalk it up to search fatigue, but me thinks that passing judgment on a hundred applicants is getting to some people's heads. Take heart though, these committees often overestimate their appeal in a seller's market. They realize to their horror at the end that their first choices had no intention of ever filling their position.
Fwiw, the way it works at my SLAC would make it just about impossible for us to get an offer out within a week of the last candidate's visit.
First the SC has to meet. Since we all have our regular three classes to teach and other committees we're on, finding a time when the 5 of us can meet is tricky and may not happen within the first couple of days.Then, once we've agreed, we get to *recommend* a candidate to the next-step-up committee -- the associate deans and dean of faculty. Then, after they've met, if they approve they get to *recommend* the candidate to the president, who shuffles this into the queue of whatever else he's doing that week. Somewhere in there the Dean and the President decide a salary. Only after all that can the phone call making the offer happen.
So a week is not at all a long time to wait. If you haven't heard after 3 weeks, that's a different matter.
"Take heart though, these committees often overestimate their appeal in a seller's market. They realize to their horror at the end that their first choices had no intention of ever filling their position."
SCs are very aware of this possibility which is precisely why we are super-wary about giving an interview to someone we have reason to think won't take the job and hyper-vigilant for any clues that might indicate a candidate thinks s/he's "worth more" than we can offer. That's not meant to sound "high and mighty" -- it's meant as helpful advice. We have to whittle down over 100 candidates to 3 or 4. What that means, in practice, is that we have to look for reasons to reject dozens of candidates. You don't want to give us any such reasons (though it makes our task much easier when you do).
It's my first time on the market and I was hoping for some advice, though I've already spoken with my adviser. I've received two offers for a VAP and am in consideration for a third after a fly-out last week. One of the offers requires a response in the next week or so, and I know that the third possibility won't be meeting in time, as they have another candidate schedule for next week. I'm wondering what the etiquette is in this sort of situation. I really enjoyed my time at the third place, but I can't pass up firm job offers on the hope that I'll receive another. I've spoken with the third committee and they are unable to give me concrete information. Will I be committing some cardinal sin if I accept one of the other jobs and withdraw my third application? Any advice is appreciated.
First, congratulations on your job offers! If one of the two job offers you have already received looks like one you'd like to have, and the third institution cannot give you an answer within the necessary timeframe, I don't see anything dishonorable in withdrawing your candidacy. Search committees understand the constraints candidates are under.
To Anon 4:11 with the two offers. You say A and B have made you offers, and B wants to know before C can decide. You need first to decide whether you prefer A to B. You should also be telling both A and B about the other; possibly one of them will come up with and extra ten cents in salary, though that happens more often with TT jobs. If you prefer A to B, you can turn down B and wait longer for C, if they are indeed your preference.
I agree with the person who says there is nothing wrong with pulling out of a search as long as you are clear and polite. It's also nice to let them know as soon as you can.
Plus, some lucky person who is worried that he/she had missed out on a job will get one of those jobs as a second choice.
To anon 4:46 and 6:04. Thank you both for your advice(I'm the OP). You've both said the same general things as my adviser. He's just been away from the market for some time, and I wanted to make certain etiquette hadn't changed. I appreciate your replies!
Would it not be possible just to call "C", express strong interest, let them know you already have two offers, and ask it it would be possible to find out out any sooner than a week so that you can consider their offer rather than have to turn it down for fear of losing either "A" or "B"?
If they're really interested they'll make the concession.
While you're waiting for news about the Dalhousie search, I suggest you amuse yourself by running your eye down the list of where current faculty got their degrees. And then see if you can guess which one was hired as a "Roman historian" in last year's farce, ahem, I mean, search.
The reason why classics will get assimilated/downsized within the next couple generations is your insularity, simple as that. It might not be the vast majority of you, but it generally holds true when you look at the university as a whole. It's the way your most visible representatives project themselves. When you look closer, one is dismayed to see it's hardwired in most of you. Classics holds the penthouse suite in the ivory tower. It's what singles you out in a negative way from the rest of the humanities. It's your calling card. A underlying smug arrogance that your former most-favored status will somehow spare you from the 21st century. It's a shame as there are many things that classics brings to the table.
Insularity, huh? Well, I don't know about that. At many institutions, classicists teach courses that are cross-listed with a number of other departments such as English, History, Art History, Philosophy, and Theology. We are an interdisciplinary field at heart, and I think that because of that, we'll survive. Time will tell.
Who gives a fart in space once you have a job and tenure. When I'm pulling in six figures and teaching classes I canned decades ago, do you think I'll care? Now if this were 2050, I might care.
The reason why classics will get assimilated/downsized within the next couple generations is your insularity, simple as that. It might not be the vast majority of you, but it generally holds true when you look at the university as a whole. It's the way your most visible representatives project themselves. When you look closer, one is dismayed to see it's hardwired in most of you. Classics holds the penthouse suite in the ivory tower. It's what singles you out in a negative way from the rest of the humanities. It's your calling card. A underlying smug arrogance that your former most-favored status will somehow spare you from the 21st century. It's a shame as there are many things that classics brings to the table.
Interesting. So, the rest of the humanities are all fucked because nobody sees enough value in them to want to pay for them, but that's not why Classics is fucked. Classics is fucked for its own special reason, which is that Classicists are smug. If they weren't, people would just be lining up with wheelbarrows full of money and jobs for them.
Look, if you don't like Classics, that's fine! You can bitch till you're blue in the face about how much you hate Classicists and their stupid smug expressions and stupid Classics faces that you just wish you could punch because they are so stupid and smug. Just don't confuse your own resentments and antipathies for an explanation that is actually of any value.
"When I'm pulling in six figures . . . do you think I'll care?"
Hate to be the one to break it to you, but very, very few of us Tenured Devils are actually making anywhere near six figures, even after 20 to 30 years on the job.
Hate to be the one to break it to you, but very, very few of us Tenured Devils are actually making anywhere near six figures, even after 20 to 30 years on the job.
To be fair, we don't know his whole story. Maybe he's planning on doing some stripping on the side.
Let's talk about something new. Or perhaps it's old news?
What's up with these SCs that make an offer (and it is accepted, at least acc. to wiki) but weeks later *still* have not bothered to tell their APA interviewees (maybe 10 people?) that they are not getting a campus visit? Are they holding off to make sure the accepter doesn't take better offer, or are they just being lazy/rude?
I'd settle for a form email, but it would be nice to be told what's up...
To Anon 6:43, For what it's worth, I'm one of the people who has accepted a job offer (and has noted it on the wiki) but I know that my SC won't send out letters until all things are completely squared away with the deans and the provost. I guess it's on the off chance that a candidate for some reason or another isn't approved by the administration. I've never been on an SC, but I imagine that there are a number of practical concerns like this that could hinder them from making more timely announcements that a position has been filled.
Anonymous said... The reason why classics will get assimilated/downsized within the next couple generations is your insularity, simple as that. (Everything in life is "simple as that" to me.)
It might not be the vast majority of you (I don’t care if my next sentence follows from my first one, or if my pronouns have antecedents),
but it generally holds true when you look at the university as a whole (when I’m nervous I say the same thing at the start [“generally”] and finish [“as a whole”] of a clause, especially when I’m nervous).
It's the way your most visible representatives project themselves (I have a special ability to generalize from tiny sample sizes, and again, no interest in whether my third sentence is connected to the third).
When you (second person) look closer (at.... something, possibly the most visible representatives), one (third person) is dismayed to see it's hardwired in most of you (is “you” here the person looking or the person being looked at? And I think I know what’s hard-wired means, right? And I’ve met 37 of you, so I can judge all several thousand of you, by looking closely at your most visible representatives ).
Classics holds the penthouse suite in the ivory tower (plus I can do metaphors).
It's what singles you out in a negative way from the rest of the humanities (because people in the penthouse are always singled out in a negative way—look at any hotel or condo).
It's your calling card (Yes, being in the penthouse (“it”--look I used one with an antendecent) is your calling card; I can mix metaphors too).
A underlying smug arrogance that your former most-favored status will somehow spare you from the 21st century.(No one in Classics has done anything to modernize since I was born.)
It's a shame as there are many things that classics brings to the table (like teaching people to write).
Alas, you might never get a letter informing you that a search has been completed. If it makes you feel better, I once received no communication after a campus visit. The strangest incident might have been when I received a PFO letter in the fall term after not making the post-APA cut the previous year.
It's pretty easy to fall down a hole post-interview and never hear anything at all, that has happened to me, too. I'm curious though, after a *campus visit*? Anon 2.41 am, didn't you call or email the department and give them a polite WTF?
I'm not sure if I would rather hear nothing at all or receive a PFO the following school year. The strangest letter I've received is one that barely mentioned my application. It read more like a announcement/bio of the hired candidate. I'm talking two lengthy paragraphs of praise. The ironic thing is that the person left after 2-3 years.
I'm not sure WTF was up with that original diatribe, but I must say as a fifth generation Irish-American that classics must be the whitest discipline out there short of British history/literature. Now pass the tea.
I was wondering if you had (rational and reasoned) thoughts on why many SLACs (and other "teaching" schools) end up choosing ABDs for TT positions over experienced (but not too long in the tooth) PhDs who have a proven and stellar teaching resume. I mean the shiny new toy who's brilliant theory works for R1 places but really why hire someone who has yet to teach a full load (and who hasn't even finished) for a position which demands that they teach a third or half of the courses offered by the dept? To my dismay, I have seen this happen again and again.
Pedigree. I'd bet the hire has a BA from a peer SLAC or even from the department itself. Sprinkle in the fact that the "mover" on the SC went to school with the hire's advisor and you have a perfect formula. SLACs love shit like this.
Only problem with your theory is that I like most of my friends are also SLAC'ers who have not only graduated but also taught at those peer institutions.
I have seen the "he's my old adviser's new student" so I'll choose him/her in action but I still wonder about the fascination with ABDs by places that should for all intents and purposes want someone who has taught at another SLAC with good recs.
As I mentioned, I have seen those people get turned down again and again and lose out to ABDs, who may look solid on a visit but are essentially a wash (except for the glaring difference of a proven teaching record and a PhD in hand). I have even talked to committee members who admitted that the PhD candidate with teaching was one of the best teachers they've seen, yet in the end they ended up hiring the ABD.
It makes little sense to me that a place looking for and requiring good teaching which has a choice between the two and all things are otherwise equal (you know the old adage--"We could have picked any of them and they would have done fine"), yet they choose the least qualified for some mysterious reason (power, superiority/inferiority, for gender/sexuality balance, race, etc...). Just look at the WIKIs over the past two years to see this again and again... thankfully this is not unanimous.
Also just to clarify, I think it's fine to hire a promising ABD for a one year position and will concede that there are many GREAT ABDs out there.
At the same time many ABDs do come out of their graduate programs with extensive teaching experience. I taught for seven years as a grad student, and by the time I graduated I had been the primary teacher for all levels of both languages, civ courses, and lit courses. I was lucky enough to get a TT at an SLAC as an ABD, and was later told that it was my teaching experience that secured the position for me.
Dude, maybe those ABDs are just *better* than you are, and the fact that you can't get a TT position before they do is a good sign that you should consider leaving the profession. Just sayin'.
Dude, maybe those ABDs are just *better* than you are, and the fact that you can't get a TT position before they do is a good sign that you should consider leaving the profession. Just sayin'.
Maybe. But perhaps it's simply part of a larger context in which there are far too few jobs for far too many qualified candidates. When it comes down to it, hiring decisions are based on a host of factors, not all of which look rational to someone outside the process (mainly because they aren't). Even the rational factors, moreover, aren't always rational.
I don't know whether SLACs to a statistically significant degree do favor ABDs over PhDs with a few years' experience. I don't think we have the data to support such a conclusion. But if they do, it would be interesting to know why they do so, and how much their preferences are mirrored at other sorts of institutions.
I've been puzzled for many years by the hiring-ABDs tendency. I made on-campus interviews a couple of times post-PhD only to see an ABD get the job, and now (after getting tenured and sitting on a few search committees myself) I'm still not sure I fully understand it. But I think one important aspect for small departments is the fear of hiring someone who is already too set in their ways, inflexible, whatever you want to call it.
Very small programs at SLACs want someone who will do research, but will be willing to modify the research agenda to fit whatever the dept's/college's/program's needs are. They get uneasy about someone who clearly has a research trajectory not only thought out but already well under way (unless you get the perfect fit where the candidate's research trajectory is precisely what the dept. needs). They want someone with teaching experience but who will also easily fit into the way they teach. Which book is used in intro. languages, for instance-- believe me that can be a big deal. If the dept. has used Athanaze for years and swears by it, they may be hesitant to hire someone who has always taught from Hanson and Quinn and likes it, while a young ABD who has taught languages but not often enough to have a fixed preference comes across as much more likely to adapt gracefully and without resentment.
I'm not saying that's the only explanation by any means nor that that's a sufficient explanation. But I think SCs do see a lot of appeal in the idea that ABDs are qualified but still malleable, and get uneasy at the idea of hiring someone who already knows exactly what s/he wants to do and may not modify that for this particular program.
I agree they shouldn't think that way -- but I think they do. (And yes, the most recent SC I served on ended up offering the job to an ABD despite my arguments for all the reasons why we should give it the PhD who's been out a few years instead.)
ABDs at SLACs over proven PhDs? I sometimes wonder if perceived malleability plays a part, for it's often easier to ask for more from and/or to institutionalize somebody who has less experience... plus, if you overload someone -- thereby slowing down/nullifying research -- you might be able to ensure that that person has just enough research to get tenure, but not nearly enough to switch institutions. Of course, all of this presumes the ability to engage in long-term planning and competence on the part of the SC... so I'd actually go with the pedigree angle. Never underestimate the power of the "we're the Harvard of the [insert name of non-New England region here], so we hire from peers" rationale.
The strangest letter I've received is one that barely mentioned my application. It read more like a announcement/bio of the hired candidate. I'm talking two lengthy paragraphs of praise. The ironic thing is that the person left after 2-3 years.
Sounds like the SC/department was dazzled early and had their minds made up (to their obvious long-term detriment).
Anonymous 6:51 makes some good points about why a SLAC might hire an ABD, but this claim seem exaggerated: "Very small programs ... get uneasy about someone who clearly has a research trajectory not only thought out but already well under way."
In fact I think SLACs and small programs often have the most flexibility when it comes to what your research specialty is. As long as you can teach courses they need well, and supervise senior theses on useful topics, precisely what you publish in is not as important for programs without graduate students. What would make them nervous would be research agendas that cannot be done with their own or nearby libraries, or a person who seemed like they thought they belonged at a "better" place.
As you anxiously wait for notifications this year, let's remember that although some departments are rude and uncaring, there are also some departments that in this economy are operating with smaller staffs than they are used to, and the person who is late in sending you a notification might be doing so because the pile of things to do on their desk is twice as big as it used to be.
Unfortunately, the shiny new ABD may also be a real disaster for a SLAC department. I've twice seen them come and manage to be tenured (often because some SLACs nowadays are trending toward being impressed by publications more than teaching per se), only to be really miserable colleagues. In the two cases I'm thinking of, hey know what they want to do and how they want to do it, they do as they please without regard for colleagues, and behind it all is a sense of spoiled brat entitlement.
Unfortunately, the shiny new ABD may also be a real disaster for a SLAC department. I've twice seen them come and manage to be tenured (often because some SLACs nowadays are trending toward being impressed by publications more than teaching per se), only to be really miserable colleagues. In the two cases I'm thinking of, hey know what they want to do and how they want to do it, they do as they please without regard for colleagues, and behind it all is a sense of spoiled brat entitlement.
Yeah, whereas people who have their degrees before starting a job are, as a rule, saintly and pure and smell of fresh flowers.
Jesus Christ, this place is really an inexhaustible fount of weird little prejudices and deranged theories, isn't it?
ABDs are a nice white canvas onto which SC committee members can each mentally paint his or her own image. There is just less to disagree with, to feel threatened by, to see as not relevant or appropriate for that particular department, so sometimes it can be much easier for a SC to *agree* on someone with fewer qualifications, a sort of lowest common denominator. Same reason why internal candidates sometimes get the shaft. The person you know the least about can be the least controversial, the most tempting, so much "potential"....
Anybody know what Wellesley is looking for in their one-year search? They specify that they want somebody with expertise in archaeology, but then they only mention teaching Greek and courses in translation. Am I missing something here? Are archaeology courses considered "in translation"?
Oh, Anon. 11:18, you took the words right out of my mouth. I was hesitant to ask that question about Wellesley because I didn't want to bait the "inside hire!!!" screamers. I haven't a clue what the Wellesley ad writers were smoking. They certainly did not explain why they need a 1-yr Greek lang/lit teacher to have expertise in archy. I decided not to overthink it and just apply.
I'm guessing that they're classical archaeologists is going on sabbatical or whatever. When a temp is hired to fill in, smaller departments usually want more flexibility and skew that much more to the lang-lit side. Yeah, it creates a really bastardized position that should make TT clarchs think twice when they bitch and moan about teaching part-time in lang-lit. Look at what we would do if we could. Enjoy what you have, kids. We are meeting you clarchs half way even if you think we're not.
Sorry, but there's no way they hire a clarch to fill that position. They just want a phil/hist person that has taken a couple arch classes as a grad student. Meeting us halfway? Nope, just paying lipservice to the value of archaeology as a discipline.
Dear Candidates and the Advisors who should be reading their advisees' application materials,
When applying for a visiting position at a teaching school, please don't spend the first 1.5 pages of your cover letter talking about your dissertation! That is around 1000 words which do nothing but tell me that you are absolutely clueless about what this 1-year position entails. It strongly suggests that I need look no further at the rest of your file.
When applying for a visiting position at a teaching school, please don't spend the first 1.5 pages of your cover letter talking about your dissertation! That is around 1000 words which do nothing but tell me that you are absolutely clueless about what this 1-year position entails
Personally, this wouldn't bother me at all. It says to me that this person would like to be at an R1 eventually, didn't get a job at one this year, but still needs employment for next year while continuing the search. I guess if I wanted to I could get all pouty about how the person didn't write me a special letter telling me how it's their personal dream to move someplace for a year, teach their ass off, and then move again, but even if I did I definitely wouldn't say so on the internet, because then people would make fun of me.
"Sorry, but there's no way they hire a clarch to fill that position. They just want a phil/hist person that has taken a couple arch classes as a grad student. Meeting us halfway? Nope, just paying lipservice to the value of archaeology as a discipline."
You people are so full of shit. I know three clarchs in the last five years who have gotten jobs like this, and I don't know that many clarchs. What makes a person go on a blog like this and spout nonsense? Is your research full of baseless claims like this?
I've heard rumors that a Classics Department at an unnamed University in the Southwest (near Nogales but South of Phoenix) has 1) Recently offered jobs to visitors and 2) May not have the greatest record of treating its faculty (especially visitors). Any word about these rumors? Sorry, as much as I would like to hear about Archeology versus Literature, I really want to know about the reasonable future prospects for a job.
Well, you inadvertently dragged the lit-archy debate into our midst with your question. The school in question was ground zero for this debate and it was one of the few (only?) instances when the archys pushed back instead of taking it up the !@#. And I say this as a somewhat neutral historian.
Which brings me to my next point. Is it me or does it seem like TT classics (and humanities?) jobs are pretty shitty these days? I'm not talking about the pay, workload, publishing expectations, etc. Grad school prepares you for this. How many TT jobs are out there where one can say, "I pretty much like my colleagues and my quality of life?" Is this why we have all these TT/tenured people hopping around everywhere? The university in question is a flagship state school in a city that's not terrible. Raise your hand if you're in your dream job and you didn't have to convince yourself that it is.
Yes! THIS debate! Again! Let's change topics. So, all of you who were livid about New Hampshire's salary, have you checked out the FSU position? 34k don't seem too shabby now, does it? At least you won't be expected to advise grad students and do all that annoying service stuff too...oh wait.
The only good clarch is an unemployed clarch (or one teaching in anthropology where the little apes belong).
I see the Scott Walker/Faux News contingent is out in force, planting agitators, hoping to get sympathy for their side. Way too over the top, clarchies. Nobody actually believes this sort of thing.
Maybe if you'd spent more time in the library reading your ancient texts and less time drinking and having sex in the dirt you would have picked up some subtlety, refinement and rhetorical skill.
"Which brings me to my next point. Is it me or does it seem like TT classics (and humanities?) jobs are pretty shitty these days? "
Some are, but there are also people who move b/c of the partner, or the fit, so that the job isn't just "shitty" but "shitty for me." Not everyone is thrilled with every colleague, but often there is an initial state of disappointment that everyone in the department is different from you (which is why they hired you), and that some have lost much of the fire that drove everyone in grad school. But as you get to know them better and find out that they are very good at several things, and also make friends in other departments and develop courses and a way of getting your research done, it gets better.
"This is why a department should only ever hire one or 1/2 an archaeologist at most. You shouldn't let them gain enough strength to ever "push back."
And the scheisskopfs out there wonder why some clarchs aren't pleased with the status quo? I know, I know, go back to my sex and booze filled trench like the dirty little ape I am.
Naw, it's pretty shitty. Who are we kidding? Most of those kids you are teaching now will make 50% more than junior classics faculty as a freshly minted BA/BS. We're teachers and the days of profs being in a class by themselves within this group are long gone, along with respect for airline pilots and the tailfins on cars. The academic perks that roughly equalized matters is largely gone or soon will be.
Good day! I am not a troll. I am merely writing to express my strong negative opinion of your particular branch of classical studies, whatever it may be. All people associated with it are worse than the Nazis and all of our problems would be solved if they were to be imprisoned or driven into exile.
Dear 'Not a Troll', You are a paradigmatic specimen of the problem. Your post reveals in some utterly spurious way why you are both stupid and a paedophile. Paedophiles are bad for the humanities and my job prospects. Therefore you should be eliminated for the sake of humanity. Not a Troll (For Realz) PS My discipline is awesome for five totally objective reasons by which you're bound to be convinced.
I just wanted to say that the institution at which you were educated is much less good than you think it is, and that everything bad that has happened to you has happened not because life is unfair but because of your own failings as a human being. Also, if you are currently occupying an academic position, you obtained it by illegitimate means and do not deserve it. Finally, I strongly believe that classicists of your generation, whichever it may be, are chiefly responsible for the imminent demise of classics.
For the person who a few days ago was asking about the University of Arizona positions: That information that one person accepted on or by 2/24 was false. (I've corrected the wiki.) I myself know one of the candidates, and know someone who knows the other, and to the best of my knowledge neither position has been accepted. Or perhaps by now one of them has, but on 2/24 that most certainly was not the case. Another example of overzealous wiki updaters...
That's false information about the baby. I'm the father and my son is laughing at your pathetic attempt at a job letter. The fact that I'm ripping apart your file in disgust has nothing to do with his mirth.
Normally these rejection letters say something like, "over 100 applicants..." but the Purdue one says, "We had several qualified applicants...." Thanks, Purdue, for telling me that I didn't get the job because you had roughly five qualified applicants (of which I am obviously not one).
"There are more players than there are spots. .... It isn’t easy to contemplate walking away from a career for which one has trained for 5, 6, or more years. And at the same time, one has to eat, pay rent, and often provide for children.....Players go where they are drafted. .... Players often get traded. It is increasingly common for academics to change jobs at some point in their careers. ....There is life after football."
Okay, hungry Bowdoin clarch, I *just* heard from a friend that said friend got a phone interview with Bowdoin. I do not know when/how this friend was informed of the interview.
Never mind, I found the archaeology listing as well. There is definitely an ancient history position too, however. I'll post it on the Job Announcements section.
They should have never been posted, because they basically named another job-seeker. I was upset that they had been left up there for so long, but at least the mods finally stepped in and deleted them.
so what causes non-vulgar posts that do not name individuals to get deleted from this thread?
I believe that the thing that causes that is known as "you are not the author of the blog." If you would like to have a blog of your own, go make one. They are free and you can write as many non-vulgar or vulgar posts as you like, and probably all of the readers of this blog will go over to your blog because yours is more edgy. Actually probably not though. Still, you should make your own blog, and put cool stuff on it, like recipes, and pictures of dogs and flowers that you took at the park.
Can I just say to all you search committee members out there: enough with the ridiculous laundry list of materials that you require for your one-year slave-wage position. Since I'm fairly certain that you will disregard my application with a simple glance at my cv or cover letter, why the hell are you forcing me to mail you syllabi, evaluations, teaching philosophy, writing samples, transcripts, birth certificate and notarized affidavit of serfdom?? At least join the 21st century and let me email or submit these materials online so I don't have to waste an entire ink cartridge, 100 pages of paper, an hour of waiting at the post office, not to mention all of the money that I have absolutely thrown down the drain in my 30+ applications this year which have gotten me nowhere.
Now before all the trolls come out to attack me for whining, let me just say that I'm poor, unemployed, struggling financially, fed-up, and yes, it's difficult to spend the money - even if it's "an investment in my career". Seems to me that SC's could ask for a cover letter and cv and then contact interesting candidates for more material, saving all of us a lot of hassle, not to mention a few 1000 trees.
I thought it was a joke (Penn=Philadelphia) made in exceptionally poor taste referring to J.J. Winkler, a classicist who tragically died at much too young an age. That's why I removed the "joke" wiki update and made the comment here.
I thought it was a joke (Penn=Philadelphia) made in exceptionally poor taste referring to J.J. Winkler, a classicist who tragically died at much too young an age. That's why I removed the "joke" wiki update and made the comment here.
I didn't make the "Philadelphia" connection, but I guess that might be right. If that's the case, the composer of the edit should fuck off and go be embarrassed somewhere.
I suspect that whoever posted the update about that job merely mis-spelled the name of the candidate. It took all of thirty seconds on one departmental website to reach that conclusion.
I'm the one who erroneously read too much into the J. Winkler post at U. Penn. and got my knickers in a knot about it.
I guess here is an example of how concerns about allusion, intertext, etc. can get one in trouble. There was no there there and I've fixed the wiki again, after doing that 30 seconds of research you mentioned.
I can't agree more with the person who complained about the ridiculous amount of information a one-year SLAC position requested. I mean do they really want all that stuff, well, really do they want the research material? Ridiculous. I've had R1 places not ask for that material for a TT position, and they want it for a one-year?
Just read the CVs,teaching recs, and cover letters and if you like us request more info.
The smaller/shittier/more backwater the school, the more stuff you have to send.
Not untrue, however, maybe SLACs are more interested in what kind of teacher/scholar you REALLY are, rather than relying on pedigree and how well-known your letter writers are. Then, again, I would still prefer they ask for more info than make me mail all that shit if they're not interested.
The chair of my grad department refers to this as the "academic Napoleon complex".
This is unfair. Your beliefs about what is a small/shitty/backwater school is highly subjective. Some people believe that R1s are the only "good" schools that exist.
I just interviewed at a small/backwater (but not shitty) school, and it was clear that they certainly need everything they asked for in their ad. Every faculty member had read and remembered every bit of my extensive application (including teaching philosophy, writing sample, etc). The students had dissected my CV and had many pertinent questions for me (mostly questions about what I could do for them). The unusual requests of the ad ("must be able to teach X, Y, Z") translated directly to classes they need taught (and such requests aren't ridiculous, because there is at least one candidate - me - who is able to teach those classes and teach them well).
I currently teach at what you might consider a "shitty" school (although not small and not backwater). Yes, the overall quality of student is not great, but there are always several exceptional students in every class, who have come to this "shitty" school because they are poor, they are first generation college kids, or they own homes and have families in the area. But they deserve excellent teachers nonetheless.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that these small/shitty/backwater schools tend to ask for exactly what they need to ask for in order to determine if you can do the job they want. And they actually care about the quality of your teaching and interaction with the students. *And they have every right to.*
Shame on you for looking down your nose at a school you consider to be "inferior" just because they have high standards and take their job seriously.
Sure there are people who view SLACs in shitty places as beneath them, but I don't and I still think all that crap for the initial application for a ONE-YEAR position is horseshit.
I think one of the others put it best--if they are interested they should then ask for a PDF of some of this stuff. I can assure you no one wants to read 50 writing samples.
Let's just calm down. If it's a TT position, they can ask for whatever, but for a one-year... it's stupid.
It is difficult to keep track of the proper way to avoid offending people who have one-year jobs on offer. It wasn't too long ago that we were treated to a lecture about the scandal of addressing at too great length in the cover letter one's research interests, and now we have had the pleasure of reading a indignant assertion of the vital importance of giving every candidate's research profile a deep and thorough probing.
Being frustrated and annoyed that a one-year job app requires a lot of work is understandable. But some places do not have the time to ask for a c.v. and letter first and then ask later for more information from those on a long short list. For most places, "What can we do to make sure we get the best/right person?" has to take priority over "how can we not inconvenience the fifty people that won't get our job?"
A Modest Proposal Towards Reform of the Academic Job Application Process
1) Institutions initially shall request from applicants only a CV, Cover Letter, and YouTube video.
2) Applicants shall email CV and Cover Letter and link to video to search chair.
3) Prior to submission of said materials applicants shall purchase Yahtzee set (yard sale editions welcome).
4) Video shall consist of applicant, dressed in APA appropriate attire, playing one full game of solitaire Yahtzee.
5) A scanned, notarized copy of the Yahtzee scorecard associated with this video should be sent to the search chair forthwith.
6) Those applicants with the three highest scores shall be extended campus invitations.
7) Tie-breaks among equal scores shall be made according to a) typographical excellence on the CV, and b) quality of paper and impressiveness of letterhead for cover letter.
8) Campus interviews shall consist of all three finalists playing 5 games of Yahtzee. Whoever among them scores the highest average shall be judged the winner.
9) Tie-breaks among equal scores shall be made according to a) Oxbridge affectedness, and b) absence of callouses on hands and dirt under fingernails.
10) The financial savings among all institutions stemming from this system shall be pooled and invested in the construction and maintenance of the Classical Institute for the Terminally Unlucky, based in Lebanon, KS, which shall provide renewable 1-year research positions for all of those classicists failing to secure employment through the above system.
But some places do not have the time to ask for a c.v. and letter first and then ask later for more information from those on a long short list. For most places, "What can we do to make sure we get the best/right person?" has to take priority over "how can we not inconvenience the fifty people that won't get our job?"
I think you're not quite following. My point is that different voices have claimed here 1). that it is an obvious mistake to think that a committee seeking to fill a one year position would want to hear anything about a person's research and 2). that a committee seeking to fill a one year position needs to know everything about a person's research in order to find the person who's best for the job.
If I'm buying a car, one of the most important things I want to know is how it's going to hold up over time: I want to know what it's going to be like in five years because I'll probably still be driving it in five years.
But if I'm renting a car, all I care about is how it's going to run till I take the thing back, and what happens to it in five years is anybody's problem but mine.
Really the only exception to this I can see is if one of the person's jobs during that year will be to teach a graduate seminar, but this won't be the case with most one year positions (or most positions).
Look, I'm sorry to say that even the VAP market is a buyer's market. Even if a department required 10 handwritten copies of a candidate's writing sample, I have no doubt that it would receive more than enough applications.
And besides, sorting through scores, if not hundreds, of applications is easier if, say, 20% can be rejected immediately for being incomplete. And what better way to allow this than to require submission of many documents.
But some places do not have the time to ask for a c.v. and letter first and then ask later for more information from those on a long short list.
That's the beauty of 21st century technology (aka email). Ask for a pdf of a writing sample and you can receive it the same day!! Wow!! Time to wake up and recognize that you can treat your candidates with respect AND get what you need.
The claim that depts with one-year jobs have no right to be interested in research has no merit, regardless of how we rent cars. First, some one-year jobs will turn into t.t. jobs, or at least 2-4 years of one-year jobs, so research becomes more important (renting a car you might buy someday, esp. a new model, is actually a great practice). Second, you fundamentally misunderstand the purpose of research if you think it's only relevant for teaching graduate seminars. Research shows whether a person understands whether knowledge is something that is created, or just handed down. I want to know how a person thinks before I have them grade 3-page papers in 4th term Latin or Greek.
I said But some places do not have the time to ask for a c.v. and letter first and then ask later for more information from those on a long short list.
And Anon said: That's the beauty of 21st century technology (aka email). Ask for a pdf of a writing sample and you can receive it the same day!! Wow!! Time to wake up and recognize that you can treat your candidates with respect AND get what you need.
New answer: "the same day" as what? In a two-stage system, if you only ask for some materials on Feb 1, then they come in and the dept or committtee reads them and meets on Feb 8 and decides to ask for more materials from 10-20 people, then it takes a day or two for those emails to go out (because maybe the chair has a seminar to teach or a kid to bring to the dentist), and you have to give people a few days to do it or they will complain on FV that their flesh is being ripped from their bones by cruel sadists, so let's say a Feb 15 deadline, then the committee has to read all the new material and meet again Feb 22 (which they will do with great joy because faculty love having as many meetings as possible), and then you're inviting people to campus in late Feb instead of early.
"Wow!! Time to wake up and recognize that"... life is not always so simple as in solipsistic whining on FV.
life is not always so simple as in solipsistic whining on FV
First of all, your use of "solipsistic" reveals the fact that you are a pretentious ass.
Second, who's whining here? A few salaried, steadily-employed profs having to spend a few weeks reviewing applications. Oh no, heaven forbid. I'm sorry but I don't buy into this. I don't know where my next meal will come from. I'm probably going to have to get a retail job to make ends meet. I'm cutting back on food to afford rent. But, oh no, God forbid I inconvenience a bunch of ivory tower snobs with my "solipsistic" whining and demand that they offer me the option of emailing an application rather than spending money uselessly mailing a packet of materials that they may never read.
A lot of us are suffering. Real-life poverty and despair, having trained several years for a career that may never materialize. How dare you belittle that. Not all of us come from institutions that will fund us until we find work. In fact, some of us have had those funding strings cut long before we ever were close to defending. So, Prof. Solipsism, go f*&! yourself.
It's not a bad idea to have a writing sample that is less than 20 pages (in fact, many places have a 20p limit). Heck, even 10. No one will read a 50 page sample anyway: Classicists are good at figuring out the quality and contribution of a paper pretty fast.
I do wish that more SCs would accept electronic applications, particularly emailed PDFs. But if you have to pay for printing and shipping, 5 double-sided pages is not bad. And that's about all they need to judge the quality of your work anyway.
As a present and past SC Chair, I'd be more than happy to accept emailed PDFs in lieu of a printed and mailed packet. Just send an email to me letting me know that you are doing this, and explain the reason. Oftimes the job ad and process is written by HR, and most of us can gently bend the rules if doing so makes sense. It is a buyers' market, but all of us want to receive as many qualified applications as possible.
The "don't contact the SC" advice often found here can be harmful. Use your own common sense, and perhaps ask colleagues if they know "me" before deciding not to apply. This is a small world, so use that to your benefit occasionally!
Next year we need a "whining" blog that does not allow search committees to eavesdrop. I think as much as we are guilty of whining, a charge which I think is asinine since you SC members also seem to be whining and have less at stake (as one of my fellow posters effectively ranted about) besides getting candidate #2 from a "buyers' market" pool of candidates.
"It's the human resources people." "We would have to wait a week to decide." Give me a break. That's our life except we have more issues to deal with.
We're at the mercy of search committees whims (and lies--just tell us the truth every once and a while--I've been lied to so much this year by committees it's not funny especially after being told point blank how they "understand"), the idiocy of human resource sites, and having to wait months on end. AND, YES, it does strain marriages and families to no end. There really is no comparison. How are you going to tell your kid again about why we have to move. How are you going to scrape together enough money for the move or the cost for bridge health coverage, b/c your last contract only covered nine months of health insurance. These are real issues and this puts a lot of stress on us. This is more than whining. I would argue that you are the ones whining, and we have legitimate concerns and are frustrated, scared, disillusioned, and angry. How does it feel when we say to you "get over it?" Well, you don't like it, but what are the ramifications? You get someone who doesn't work out but is okay?
To quote your responses or their force: This is the real world, and shit happens. Grow up. You don't understand and will someday.
You have the power. Stop your whining and go to your own site to complain while we argue over ClArchs vs. Philos.
Best, ERIS
PS: As for writing samples, yes, it might become a TT position, but most of the time, they'll still hold another search, if they find the person they hired isn't up to snuff.
Thank you Anon 11:30 for putting into words what a lot of us are feeling. And also thank you to the SC members who are understanding and reasonable. Unfortunately, it seems like you are few and far between, and there are plenty of "Prof. Solipsism"s out there to make my blood pressure raise.
To put things into quantitative terms, I've applied, or will apply to, 32 positions this year. About half of these allowed email or had online systems. However, even for those positions I had to pay Interfolio to deliver some of my letters of recommendation (due to letter writers that are [somewhat] understandably burdened by the sheer number of us unemployed candidates out there). This is at minimum $6 a pop, even for email. And, yes, I'm only human and sometimes deadlines crept up on me because I was worrying about other things and had to resort to expedited services. There goes 12, 16, or even 28 dollars, per application.
Then there were the remaining half that had to be snail mailed. Of course you want things to look professional and be delivered on time to avoid the "automatic discard pile" for not being on time or incomplete, so you pay for a priority or express service if you have to. $5 - $18 per packet.
The end result is I've easily spent $500 on applications, and so far, I have no job. I won't reveal my gross income, but suffice it to say that $500 is a high enough percentage that it has put a strain on my budget. Loans, credit card debt, rent, utilities, gas. Take your pick. It sucks. So when I see the magic words "email" or "online" in a job ad it really helps. Really.
"A few salaried, steadily-employed profs having to spend a few weeks reviewing applications. Oh no, heaven forbid. I'm sorry but I don't buy into this."
you're only partly understanding me: It's not just that they have to do more work (if they review the files twice which is indeed a cost), but that if the search drags on longer the best people have taken jobs, or maybe the dean takes back the position, or your courses are not set for next year, etc. Inviting people in late Feb and not early Feb seems bad, for everyone involved. I'm not pro-suffering, and have no objection to samples being sent by email--using pdfs had no part in what I said, which was only about the difficulties of asking for more info from a long short list (pdfs would of course make a search take less time). Thus I decline your suggestion that I copulate with myself.
As for the date of campus invites, well, early February is clearly better, much better for a TT position, but if it's for a one year I think it puts the candidate and the school in a tough spot, because if that candidate has other invites for TT positions, then how do they handle that situation?
I've had to face this problem before where you delay and delay, because you have a one-year offer on the table with TT visits still coming up at the end of Feb/early March. Does the SC really want that person to choose and pass up (and resent) or lie about a potential position (Mine did)? Do you risk passing up a TT position for a one year job because the committee did their invites too early (I think it's too early and not fair). I can't sympathize with the situation of deans getting nervous and pulling the plug on a search (if it's a temporary one). If the SC can't get a month's respite from the Dean they really have bigger problems.
I think it would be great for both parties to push back campus invites for temporary positions so that both sides don't have to deal with this awkward dance... let's not even get into the fact that more and more places ask you to pony up the $4-600 for airfare that sometimes gets reimbursed months later.
It's heartbreaking to read the comments from "disillusioned" grad students who are facing the job market, but I have to wonder how they could have been "illusioned" in the first place.
For at least 15 years I, and every other classics prof. I've discussed this with, have been telling our undergrad classics majors DO NOT go to grad school in classics if there is anything else at all you can imagine doing. I have a whole spiel worked out. I tell them that IF they go to grad school, they must look at it as worth doing for its own sake, because they WILL NOT get a job at the other end. I tell them, over and over, that there simply are no jobs. I tell them the numbers of applicants for current classics jobs.
Undergraduate majors don't like to hear this. Some get angry. Some break down and cry in my office. But it seems to me that we absolutely must tell them this, and must discourage as many of them as we possibly can from going on to graduate work.
So I wonder -- who advised the grad students posting here? Were you really led to think that there WOULD be jobs once you got your doctorate, so that now you feel disillusioned and angry? I don't mean that to sound snarky at all. I am genuinely curious -- and genuinely distressed if people embarking on graduate work in Classics ARE being so misled as to think they have a reasonable chance of getting a job in the field.
Wow, you tell them that? If no-one goes on to grad school, then classics will simply die. I don't want to see that. Here's what I tell my students: apply only to top-ranked schools with great placement rates and, most importantly, good funding packages. DO NOT GO if they do not pay enough to live on. DO NOT GO if it involves taking out a loan. But I don't have a blanket "it's a terrible idea" policy. I figure if they get the funding to go, they won't be rich for the next 6 years, but they won't rack up debt either, and they'll have a fighting chance of a job at the end. The option to do something else will still be there when they have a doctorate. That doesn't answer your question, anon, but I feel that if we want the field to continue we can't have a total "just say no" policy.
I was warned. I was told to go only to a "top 5" dept., and only then if fully funded for at least 5 years.
I did this, but even then I knew it was a complete crapshoot. It isn't as if we didn't understand that it was going to be tough, but I think the way you think about it when you are 22 or 23 is much different than how it feels to be unemployed, over-educated, and behind the curve when you are 30.
When I talk to the grad-school curious undergrads where I am finishing my PhD, I tell them to read this blog from beginning to end. If that doesn't scare them straight I don't know what will
Like the commenter above, my tendency is to discourage students from going to grad school unless they can get into a school with a very strong placement record and solid funding. In my experience, though, this doesn't at all discourage people from applying and going no matter where they get in. I don't know how much more I can do, short of just refusing to write letters for them. "Humanities grad school applicant" should become a byword for iron determination and boundless confidence.
Yup to 5.11pm. At 22 we all secretly thought that we were special, that we'd beat the odds, that everyone else might end up unemployed but our inherent brilliance would shine through and get us a job. And that feeling is why everyone keeps going to grad school, despite all the evidence that suggests it's a bad idea. Cos we're just more awesome than everyone else.
Anonymous said... "Wow, you tell them that? If no-one goes on to grad school, then classics will simply die. I don't want to see that."
Yes, I do tell them that. I don't want to see Classics die either. But notice, in my original post I said that I tell them "Don't go to grad school in classics IF there is anything else you can imagine doing." My point there is, if you're hesitating between grad. school in classics and any other option, go for the other option. But IF you are so in love with classics that there is simply nothing else you want to do for the next several years, well then, go to grad school.
But then, the next bit of the spiel is "But go, realizing that you're doing it for the love of the subject, NOT in any expectation of employment in the field. If you are one of the lucky handful who does get a job, that is absolutely wonderful. But DO NOT go into grad school in the expectation that you will get a job."
Is the chance to spend several years studying what you love worth the cost of grad school (with or without loans)? That's a question each individual has to decide for her/himself. But I think we do have a responsibility to put it to our undergrads that way -- classics is worth studying in itself, absolutely. Grad school is a wonderful chance to do that, absolutely. But one cannot count on, or even expect, that grad school will lead to employment.
(All of the above applies to students who want to teach at the college level. I always start by asking them if they're interested in teaching Latin in middle school or high school. If they say yes, and say that they're willing to move where the jobs are, then I tell them by all means to go get an MA. )
One of my teachers told me decades ago that it was very hard getting a job in Classics. It was like planning on being an NBA or NFL player: very few spots and lots of talented people going for them. You don't tell students to go to grad school for its own sake, or that the number of jobs is zero, but you tell them the ratio of applicants to jobs is very high, and they should only go to grad school if they feel compelled to and can deal with it personally and financially if it doesn't work out.
I'm sorry for all the pain out there and for anyone struggling with that this year.
Tenured Radical has a discussion of search committees and chairs who do not let runners up know when they have made an offer. http://tenured-radical.blogspot.com/2011/03/ask-radical-search-committee-smackdown.html
As one of the comments on "Tenured Radical" pointed out, many colleges/institutions have an official policy that no candidates may be contacted to be told they didn't get the job until AFTER the signed contract is in hand.
My college is one of those. This policy (which I think is stupid, fwiw) means that the unsuccessful candidates don't hear until mid-March at the earliest and sometimes late March (if the negotiations with the successful candidate are at all complicated). But, please realize, this is not something over which SCs have any control, at least at most places.
If an institution has legal language saying that an SC can't contact applicants to let them know that the the job has been filled by somebody else, it seems like the most ethical thing to do is to "leak" that info here, or on the wiki. At least that way we can all move on, and don't have to wait by the phone.
Anonymous August 30, 2010 3:53 PM said... "Ha! Cornell lost a Late Antique archaeologist so they're now searching for someone who does Roman archaeology OR classical lit? Talk about hedging one's bet. I'll kiss a sabretooth's ass if a Roman arch gets hired."
I think the underlying assumption was if the situation called for one or the other. I also believe the archaeologist you're referring to is a Greek archaeologist, which I suppose means that candidates should apply widely.
I think the underlying assumption was if the situation called for one or the other. I also believe the archaeologist you're referring to is a Greek archaeologist, which I suppose means that candidates should apply widely.
Fantastic. So even one of the few positions that called for a Roman archaeologist ended up hiring a Hellenist. Does this mean that as a Roman clarch I should have been applying for those Hellenist positions too? How about some philology jobs? Why bother writing such specific ads when schools are going to hire whatever tickles their fancy in the end? This whole process is infuriating.
Stop your whining. There was ONE archaeology position this year on the Greek side and they wanted a mongrel of a scholar who would teach half-time Greek, half-time classical archaeology, half-time Middle Eastern studies (oops, ran out of halves), and throw in archaeological methodology for good measure. I would have applied if I knew how to juggle knives.
There were at least several Roman archaeology positions this year and it was obvious in the ad that Cornell was looking for top scholars first with a preference for certain specialties.
I just tried logging onto the classics wiki for the first time using the requisite two-word Vergilian phrase typed as one word, and it said wrong password. Has it changed?
Sucks to be any of us, but especially a Greek archaeologist from the sounds of it. I find it difficult to believe that there was only one sort-of position out there. Something is seriously wrong with this picture even in a craptastic market.
No, I know someone who interviewed for the job and it was basically half-time Greek, half-time classical civ (with all the other bullshit thrown in for whatever reason). I think an introductory Greek archaeology is taught biannually. How anyone can define this position as archaeology is beyond me. I don't care how small and SLACy you are. Cry us a f-ing river. Do us all a favor and call it what it is next time instead of living in what is even a fantasy world for classics.
Boston and Wesleyan weren't Greek Archaeology positions? No wonder I didn't get those jobs...
Let's be a bit more honest, it's just not a good market for archaeologists in general (or Classicists in general, for that matter). There are too many of us, and too few jobs. It's almost like we're real people, despite our impressive credentials.
If you're a Greek archaeologist as pretty much everyone outside of America defines one in the 21st century, no, you would have been toast. Now if you're an art historian or Hellenist with a passing interest in archaeology, you would have had a fighting chance.
I guess the lesson for next year is to apply for all "archaeology" positions and play up the fact that I did the summer session in Athens back in the day. Heck, I'm more than qualified to teach Greek and civ.
Actually, I've always thought very little of the classicists who sit in their nicely furnished offices and tell undergrad majors not to think of grad school because the job market sucks. The people who were saying that in the mid 80s at my college were all junior faculty, while the seniors encouraged us to fulfill our passions. Guess what? Those juniors are now mostly out of the field, and the people they tried to discourage in many cases have succeeded.
Actually, I've always thought very little of the classicists who sit in their nicely furnished offices and tell undergrad majors not to think of grad school because the job market sucks.
Aww. I love you, too!
Great that you bring up the office, because that's the problem. Undergraduates imagine their future by looking at us: we're their mental image of what life as a classicist is like, and they assume that ending up like us—employed, having offices, talking Classics all day—is a reliable outcome of going to grad school. They don't see people for whom it went badly at all; they see only the subset of people for whom it went very well.
The people who were saying that in the mid 80s at my college were all junior faculty, while the seniors encouraged us to fulfill our passions. Guess what? Those juniors are now mostly out of the field, and the people they tried to discourage in many cases have succeeded.
1). How vast was this army of Classics junior faculty working at your college in the mid-eighties who tried to discourage students from going to grad school? And how many students' dreams did they try to crush? I'm assuming there were a whole lot of them for you to conclude that this was a meaningful demonstration of something, and not a tiny scrap of anecdotal evidence.
2). Some of your senior professors in the mid-eighties were coming from a world in which it was much easier to find employment as a professor. In their experience, this was a reliable career path. So that was their excuse. I don't have that excuse, and neither do you.
In the past, we've seen people protesting in comments that if they had known what they know now they'd never have gone to grad school. And if it's true that their teachers hadn't warned them, I think it's scandalous.
1,431 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 1001 – 1200 of 1431 Newer› Newest»They may not be evil, but one would think that, given the university's unwillingness to provide adequate funding for a legitimate position, the department would be willing to scale back their demands from the person subjected to that job. That's my view, anyway.
Hmmm, for UNH:
"Dec. 2009 cost of living index in Durham: 137.7 (high, U.S. average is 100)
Read more: http://www.city-data.com/city/Durham-New-Hampshire.html#ixzz1EFJYNxEY"
"Ok, since the department is "constrained", I guess it's only fair that I constrain my living standards to accommodate a slave wage.
February 17, 2011 12:41 PM"
I will probably get flamed for this, but I don't think $34,000 for a one-year lecturer is so low.
I sympathize with the frustration of those who are facing temporary jobs, since I was an adjunct/Visiting Lecturer/ VAP for many years myself. But my thought, on reading this ad, was how much BETTER that is than things used to be (about 10 years ago now) when I was paid by the course, usually about $1200 to $1500 per course. Nine courses (on a 3/3/3 quarter schedule) still didn't get me $15,000, and of course no benefits.
Saying that the dept. should adjust its expectations to reflect the pay indicates that you don't know how universities work. I am all but certain (unless the NH dept. is unlike any other) that they put in a request for a full-time lecturer and that their administration approved that request. The administration then sets the salary. The dept. CANNOT, at that point, say "well,we'll just have this person teach 4 courses instead of 6" -- if they did that, there would unquestionably be repercussions from the administration (such as, at a minimum, never approving a line for that department again).
Folks, departments NEVER get to set salaries. I'm on a tenure-track search committee right now. None of us on the search committee even know what salary will be offered the successful candidate.The dean and administrative higher-ups set the salary. Departments have absolutley no input into that at all.
Ok get ready to cover your backside for this...
Just because the department can not set the wage of the prospective candidate (which, by the way, I know from personal experience is not the case, at least where I am), this still does not make it right. If anything, the department is complicit in this low wage. Why offer this position at all? Because some tenured faculty's sabbatical or reduced course load is more important. Way to look out for your own!
Sorry, UNH Classics is setting a bad example for the rest of the community.
I'm blown away by the combination of sense of entitlement and naivete exhibited on this wiki. Hey people - in case you hadn't realized it yet - life is not fair. I wanted a job in Classics, and worked hard to get one. I took a number of low-paying lecturer/VAP positions and felt lucky to get them, since many of my peers did not. In the end I did get a tenure track job. But then I learned the reality of life as a professor - that gosh, salaries vary not just by rank but by department/school! So if you do get one of whatever highly sought, highly paid tenure track positions are out there now, prepare yourself to earn less than your colleagues in the sciences, business, and even across the hall in Spanish. And departments have to think of - gasp - the good of not just themselves but of their students. It isn't all just about you and whatever you think you deserve. Get over yourself.
1,001th comment!!
Sorry, but $34,000 is ridiculous. It's not even an ABD adjunct gig, that's the salary for someone who has spent 5+ years gaining a PhD. Knock off the cost of moving you, your sofa and your books out there, plus the tax you'll lose, and you'd better hope that you don't have any dependents (or leave a partner needy enough to see you more than twice a year). Maybe it was worse ten years ago, but that's no reason to lie down and roll over now.
P.S: To Mr "Entitlement" - yeah, what shameful and naive sense of entitlement to expect a living wage after so many years of poverty-striken grad life. We should all pay to teach classics, and be grateful that our peers couldn't afford to outbid us for the job. I've done my low paid time, too, and I have two words for you: blow me.
Anonymous said...
Sorry, but $34,000 is ridiculous. It's not even an ABD adjunct gig, that's the salary for someone who has spent 5+ years gaining a PhD. Knock off the cost of moving you, your sofa and your books out there, plus the tax you'll lose, and you'd better hope that you don't have any dependents (or leave a partner needy enough to see you more than twice a year). Maybe it was worse ten years ago, but that's no reason to lie down and roll over now.
February 17, 2011 4:48 PM
Thanks, I'm glad I'm not the only one who sees it this way. You might have included student loan debt in your post as yet another expense that this salary would be hard-stretched to cover. It's too bad that so many of us are apparently willing to settle for being treated unjustly by an academic establishment that should know better.
$34,000? Indeed, sickening.
So, what are we ("Classics") going to do about this?
Last week, y'all were saying that small depts. should hire adjuncts to teach intro. languages and that some of you would move to small towns for $15,000 to teach those courses. Now you're saying that any dept. taht advertises a position that doesn't pay what you consider a living salary (a hell of a lot of people in this country live on less that $34,00/yr, btw) has struck a deal with the devil and is evil.
Just a hint -- candidates with aggressive, chip-on-the-shoulder, angry senses of entitlement don't usually make good impressions on search committees.
And just so you know, I spent several years adjuncting after I finished my PhD, never getting anything close to the salary a t-t position would have paid. I also published several articles and a book in that time. No, I didn't like it. But I recognized that many depts. which would love to hire another f-t t-t colleague can't, and I didn't demonize them for accepting the much less desirable temporary positions their administrations offered them.
"Just a hint -- candidates with aggressive, chip-on-the-shoulder, angry senses of entitlement don't usually make good impressions on search committees."
No. But those of us with a strong sense of what we are worth, and what our families deserve from us after their patience and support as we went through graduate school, do. How many "people in this country who live on 34,000 a year" have PhDs and huge student loans? Classics is dogged with this terrible, "I suffered and so should you" attitude which is neither progressive nor collegial.
Hm. In a very real way, this has absolutely nothing to do with what I think I'm worth. If I got paid what I'm worth, I'd be extremely rich (or flat broke, bankrupt, and alone). This has everything to do with the business of education, which dictates that some of us shell out tens of thousands of dollars a year to supposedly have the chance to succeed in life, only to discover that "success" is defined as having a job that pays you what some faceless administrative type thinks you're worth. The fact that people with years of college teaching experience, a phd, and a solid set of publications may still have to settle for a position that doesn't even cover their living expenses (some of which are brought on by the very education that got them the job) is just a little bit screwy. If you think $34,000 is a lot of money, by all means take the job. But don't expect me to think it's fair, right, or even acceptable for an institution to treat an employee, or a department to treat a colleague, like that.
I vote that we all write the Provost at UNH and demand that they take the 1-year replacement position away from Classics and give it to Economics, or Chemistry, or even those scoundrels who teach Anthropology! Once that full-time position is gone then UNH can advertise for a few ABD adjuncts to make the commute up from Boston or Providence. Four or five suckers from Harvard, Brown and BU can cover those six classes for about $2300/class, without benefits, and we can all rest easier knowing that justice has been served.
That'll learn 'em!!
If only people had any idea how hard it is for a department like classics to get a sabbatical replacement position approved in this economic environment. I don't know the back story at UNH but I would bet dollars to donuts that the faculty there had to fight like demons to get the funding approved for this.
I agree that the salary sucks, but we can't all complain bitterly about how few jobs there are on the one hand, and complain bitterly about the particulars of a not particularly horrible job on the other hand.
Would it truly be better if this job wasn't available at all? Too bad we can't see all the 1-year positions in classics that didn't get approved this year. Maybe then we'd be a bit more charitable towards UNH. I know I'm applying, and I'll be happy to get it, even though I'll have to apply for hardship waivers for student loans, put off paying down credit card debt, and continue to live like a graduate student for a year.
I concur wholeheartedly that the salary at UNH is insulting. But then again, compared to what I made this year (zip, nil, nada, you get the point), it sounds luxurious. And it would sure beat working at Starbucks. So I'm going for it too. Sit this one out if your ego would be too bruised. Better chances for me anyway.
Some other UNH jobs, for comparison:
Academic/Career Counselor (MA required): 38710-59140
Residence Hall Director (BA): 25020-38010
IT Specialist (BA): 44270-68080
Poverty Policy Postdoc, research (phd): 40000-45000
Lecturer in World History (PhD, abd): 32000
Asst Professor of Marketing (phd): 112000-115000
34000 for a classics phd? Seems about right.
Reality check - I have a tenured position in a good university in mid-America, and as an associate prof I make about $54,000 a year , with good health insurance and okay retirement benefits. Full profs make about $70,000 if they are lucky. I never thought I'd live really well on an academic salary, though, and, like most Americans, am resigned to living in debt pretty much for my whole life. Good luck to all of you who expect to live without credit card debt in this field, in this day and age. Me, I'm happy to have a secure job when so many programs are being eliminated around the country.
All these people who are shocked, shocked at the idea of $34,000 for a one-year -- It's a *temporary* job, guys. Those always pay much, much less than permanent jobs, in any field. With starting salaries for t-ts in the upper $40,000s, $34,000 is about what I'd expect for a one-year, more than a lot of places would offer.
Did you really go through your whole PhD program without ever looking at the kind of salary you'd be likely to get at the other end? If so, why?
Actually, I had a *temporary* position that paid in the mid-40K and that was in *middle America* where cost of living is much lower than NH, so I do not buy this argument I have read on this thread that claims 34K is *about right*. C'mon.
"But don't expect me to think it's fair, right, or even acceptable for an institution to treat an employee, or a department to treat a colleague, like that."
So the dept. is supposed to do . . . what, exactly? As various people have pointed out, depts. have no control at all over salaries (their own or anyone else's). Is the dept. supposed to show solidarity by refusing to fill a position that pays too low a salary? And that would help whom?
Blaming the administration for being close-fisted makes some sense, though at a state school the pursestrings are ultimately held by the legislature and even the administration may have very little control over salaries. Blaming the department just shows a complete naivete about the way universities work.
"Anonymous said...
Reality check - I have a tenured position in a good university in mid-America, and as an associate prof I make about $54,000 a year , with good health insurance and okay retirement benefits. Full profs make about $70,000 if they are lucky. I never thought I'd live really well on an academic salary, though, and, like most Americans, am resigned to living in debt pretty much for my whole life. Good luck to all of you who expect to live without credit card debt in this field, in this day and age. Me, I'm happy to have a secure job when so many programs are being eliminated around the country."
So you make $20,000 more a year than this position is slated to get, and you live in a place where the cost of living is probably between 15 and 25% lower. Do you honestly have credit card debt and live in debt (debt deeper than a reasonable mortgage)? Because if you do, I'd recommend getting some financial advice from a professional. In my grad student days when I frequently made less than $15,000 (which some people were supposedly happy to make VAPs in the 1990s), I still never spent myself into debt (aside from my unhappy undergraduate student loans, which I paid off, in large part, during grad school).
I guess I just need to do a better job settling for mediocrity from myself, my students, my institution, and my field. Then I won't be quite so surprised by a very low salary for a position in a place that is very expensive to live. I could live very comfortably in a lot of places on $34,000 a year, assuming I were living alone, with no loan debt, no desire to own a home, and no interest in ever retiring. Otherwise, I'd spend a lot of my work time applying for better paying jobs anywhere else.
Not to sidetrack this thread too much (darn those state universities with no money!), but it's sure nice to see some job offers and acceptances finally popping up on the wiki! Congratulations to those fortunate few, and may we all experience similarly good fortune over the coming weeks and months and years!
Yeah, sorry, that was too much of a sidetrack. It goes without saying the end goal is jobs for all!
Now, what are we, Classics, going to do about this 34K situation? Adjust, roll over, revolt, "man-up", cry, celebrate, (re)unionize?
I suspect someone will and have to take that job which, in turn, will justify (in the eyes of admin and dept.) such a position for that salary.
Pathei mathos.
Now, what are we, Classics, going to do about this 34K situation? Adjust, roll over, revolt, "man-up", cry, celebrate, (re)unionize?
I suspect someone will and have to take that job which, in turn, will justify (in the eyes of admin and dept.) such a position for that salary.
As long as there are far more applicants than jobs this will be the case. If you want to drive up salaries, you'll need to make labor scarcer. If we could just get three quarters of all humanities Ph.D.s in the country to volunteer to take one for the team, quit academia, and go work at Hot Topic or something, then everything would be much better for those who stayed behind. Until such an epidemic of self-sacrifice sweeps through our numbers, though, you're looking at relatively poor salaries and working conditions, because if x number of candidates turn down a job there's always a candidate x+1 who will take it.
In 2004 I had on-campus interviews for tenure-tracks at two places in the same state. One was a mid-level university. The dept. chair looked rather embarrassed when he told me that the salary would be $37,000, and more embarassed when he added that they'd had no raises (not even cost-of-living) for the past 3 years and had been told to expect none in the future. He hastened to add "But we find that we CAN live on our salaries here!"
The second job was at a SLAC with a good endowment. The starting salary there was in the mid-50s. (I was offered the second job and not the first, so that's where I am now.)
The reason for the difference is clearly that a state school is at the mercy of the state legislators. This is a very red state, and money for those dam' pointy-headed intellectuals who sit around and read BOOKS all the time is not high on the state legislators' list. I can only guess how School #1 is doing these days; I wouldn't be surprised if they've had to take salary cuts.
In any case, it would have been entirely pointless for me to rail at or blame the dept. chair who told me what the salary was. If I'd been offered that job and not this one, I would have taken it. Low salaries at state universities are part of the economic situation we're in now and it's fruitless to get angry at a department.
At the same time there must be a sense of justice in the university (or should we start referring to such institutions as corporations). I too have been offered a variety of low paying lectureships/visiting assistant professorships ($32-35 K) in high rent districts and indeed still work as a VAP for much appreciated, yet very low wages. Like everyone else out there I am hoping for a better day, but the position at UNH is not at all surprising, nor do I think it is atypical of such positions. The sad reality is that new PhD's and old are in need of work and, I might add, are willing to work very hard. We will do what we need to to survive and get to the next level.
At the same time, we should not have to stomach lectures about how much worse it could be or what a wonderful "opportunity" such dead-end jobs represent. In the memorable words of the ancient writer Josey Wales, "Don't piss down my back and tell me it is raining."
I would agree that department heads often have little to say about salaries, but when has such inequity ever kept our chairs from speaking their minds. The culture of university administrations needs to be challenged in some way.
I would agree that department heads often have little to say about salaries, but when has such inequity ever kept our chairs from speaking their minds. The culture of university administrations needs to be challenged in some way.
Departments are already interested in higher salaries, both for t-t and temporary faculty. The more money you can offer, the better your chance of hiring your first choice, and the less likely it is that faculty will be lured away by richer institutions. It's only in instances in which e.g. faculty raises all come from a single, fixed pool that the incentives work in the other direction.
The issue is that the people looking at the bottom line—and this is generally not a department's faculty—correctly perceive that they can pay low salaries and still get acceptable employees. Until that becomes an incorrect perception, you will see low salaries. Ideally, the scarcity of positions and paltriness of pay would deter people from careers in academia before they even went to grad school, but this seems never to happen, I assume because 1). everybody thinks they're different and special and 2). they face the consequences of their decision not immediately but 5-8 years down the road.
Universities are not run much differently than corporations, these days. One of the most pressing issues that we face is the "corporatization" of higher ed; the faculty at my private institution has been trying to prevent this to no avail. At private institutions, faculty often have little to no power to effect change. We are not allowed to unionize, and salaries are kept secret, varying widely between and within departments. Of course, unions are under attack at state universities like Wisconsin and Ohio, so unionization is no guarantee of faculty voice, either.
Same here. Small private institution, no faculty union, salaries set by dean and president; no negotiation, no discussion. We each just get a letter in the spring telling us what our salary for the next year will be. If we're dissatisfied with the offered salary, our only option is to resign. There's no mechanism for negotiation. Our raises (in years when there are any) depend on our previous year's productivity as set out in our annual self-evaluation reports but there is never any explanation of how the exact amounts of raises are determined in each case. No publications pretty much equals no raise, but beyond that it gets completely opaque.
Given that's the set-up for current faculty, including tenured, there is obviously no way that we have any say at all in what salary will be offered new hires (VAPs or t-ts.) It's never discussed with us, not even with the depts. in which the positions are advertised. For temporary positions, we know what salary is offered when the job ad comes out. For permanent positions, we're never told what anyone else's salary is, not even if we're the dept. hiring them.
Hate to beat this long-dead horse, but since Roanoke sent out their final rejections today (which represents the first communication I have had with them that has not been evasive, vague, and disrespectful) - would it have killed them to include a simple, "we apologize to those of you whom we were not able to interview"? Honestly, people. Own up and pony up the apology, it's the very least you can do.
"those of us with a strong sense of what we are worth, and what our families deserve from us after their patience and support as we went through graduate school, do [make a good impression on search committees]."
Eh . . . no, not really. You don't.
Indicating your "strong sense of what you are worth" to a search committee is in effect saying "don't bother to offer this job to me because I won't take it at this salary." I can tell you right away that a search committee (which has no control over salary) will react to that by saying "No reason to waste an interview on that one."
It's not that search committees disagree with you about what you (and we, and all of us) are "worth" or disagree that 70 hour work-weeks are hard on families (ours as well as yours). It's that we have only three campus fly-outs, we very much want to fill our position because if the search fails the line will almost definitely not be given to Classics again next year, and if you let us know that you are not going to work for less than you think you're "worth," you've just given us an unanswerable argument for not expending one of our precious three interviews on you.
What does it mean if you're friendly with the other two finalists and none of you have heard back after a full week? Funding issues? Failed search? Split committee? Disappointment in the three of us?
It could be a number of things, nothing to do with the candidates. It could mean that the dean needs to approve the offer to the chosen candidate, but hasn't gotten back to the dept. yet. Worst case scenario, it could mean that the committee has decided to invite a fourth candidate on campus, but that is unlikely. A week is a very long time to candidates, I know, but given the bureaucracy that can be involved in making a job offer, it isn't a lot of time from the university's viewpoint.
I was just invited as a fourth candidate somewhere, so I'm not sure how "unlikely" it actually is. Maybe with the economy, it's uncommon, but it does still happen.
"What does it mean if you're friendly with the other two finalists and none of you have heard back after a full week?"
A week is nothing. Often the whole dept will have to meet, and this will not be the next day, but whatever day of the week they usually meet. Usually they will decide then, but if someone thinks they need more information ("is this person just pretending not to be a psycho?" "should we have have more people read the whole manuscript?"), there may be work to do or calls to make. Another way a decision could take longer is if the dept. recommends, and the chair decides, which could take an extra day or more. Then finally you ask the dean for approval, and probably to approve a salary/startup offer. The dean may have to consult a money person, or may be putting out fires elsewhere, or taking his/her kid/mother/spouse for an MRI. To paraphrase what someone else said, it's like what Einstein said: ten seconds on a hot stove is forever, ten minutes talking to a pretty girl/(boy) goes by in a flash.
Do not despair if there is a fourth candidate and you are one of the first three. I know a situation where a fourth candidate helped a Department overcome its hesitation on one of the first three. (Oddly, years later the fourth candidate married someone in that Department.)
How does one get information like "fourth candidate invited to campus"? My only communication with departments that have brought me to campus in past seasons has been the offer or, usually much later on, the rejection. Nobody (as far as I know) writes to let candidates know they've finished with on campus interviews and are now in deliberations, and it's not always a very comfortable time to write and ask whether an offer has been extended. The wiki is supposed to cut down some of the uncertainty, but that's limited by the number of people involved and their level of openness in posting.
To Feb 18th 7.46 PM...
I'm the OP on the comment that you are criticizing, and I have to say that I sighed with despair about the obsessive focus on the small picture revealed by your answer. I know you're probably jumpy about the job market, but it's asinine to assume that anything a candidate privately believes is something they are shoving down the throats of search committees. You are even agreeing with me that my view of these matters is probably shared by the search committee! It's not that I don't understand why these problems occur in our field, I simply believe that we deserve better, and given the chance would work to make it so. That ideology in no way translates into disrespect for a department or search committee as you (somewhat illogically) assume.
For all the criticism of candidates (some deserved), the "you don't know jack, little grasshopper" and high-n-mighty tone taken by some SC members on here is revolting.
Agreed. Perhaps we can chalk it up to search fatigue, but me thinks that passing judgment on a hundred applicants is getting to some people's heads. Take heart though, these committees often overestimate their appeal in a seller's market. They realize to their horror at the end that their first choices had no intention of ever filling their position.
A week is a VERY short time.
Fwiw, the way it works at my SLAC would make it just about impossible for us to get an offer out within a week of the last candidate's visit.
First the SC has to meet. Since we all have our regular three classes to teach and other committees we're on, finding a time when the 5 of us can meet is tricky and may not happen within the first couple of days.Then, once we've agreed, we get to *recommend* a candidate to the next-step-up committee -- the associate deans and dean of faculty. Then, after they've met, if they approve they get to *recommend* the candidate to the president, who shuffles this into the queue of whatever else he's doing that week. Somewhere in there the Dean and the President decide a salary. Only after all that can the phone call making the offer happen.
So a week is not at all a long time to wait. If you haven't heard after 3 weeks, that's a different matter.
anon 11:21 said, re search committees:
"Take heart though, these committees often overestimate their appeal in a seller's market. They realize to their horror at the end that their first choices had no intention of ever filling their position."
SCs are very aware of this possibility which is precisely why we are super-wary about giving an interview to someone we have reason to think won't take the job and hyper-vigilant for any clues that might indicate a candidate thinks s/he's "worth more" than we can offer. That's not meant to sound "high and mighty" -- it's meant as helpful advice. We have to whittle down over 100 candidates to 3 or 4. What that means, in practice, is that we have to look for reasons to reject dozens of candidates. You don't want to give us any such reasons (though it makes our task much easier when you do).
It's my first time on the market and I was hoping for some advice, though I've already spoken with my adviser. I've received two offers for a VAP and am in consideration for a third after a fly-out last week. One of the offers requires a response in the next week or so, and I know that the third possibility won't be meeting in time, as they have another candidate schedule for next week. I'm wondering what the etiquette is in this sort of situation. I really enjoyed my time at the third place, but I can't pass up firm job offers on the hope that I'll receive another. I've spoken with the third committee and they are unable to give me concrete information. Will I be committing some cardinal sin if I accept one of the other jobs and withdraw my third application? Any advice is appreciated.
First, congratulations on your job offers! If one of the two job offers you have already received looks like one you'd like to have, and the third institution cannot give you an answer within the necessary timeframe, I don't see anything dishonorable in withdrawing your candidacy. Search committees understand the constraints candidates are under.
To Anon 4:11 with the two offers. You say A and B have made you offers, and B wants to know before C can decide. You need first to decide whether you prefer A to B. You should also be telling both A and B about the other; possibly one of them will come up with and extra ten cents in salary, though that happens more often with TT jobs. If you prefer A to B, you can turn down B and wait longer for C, if they are indeed your preference.
I agree with the person who says there is nothing wrong with pulling out of a search as long as you are clear and polite. It's also nice to let them know as soon as you can.
Plus, some lucky person who is worried that he/she had missed out on a job will get one of those jobs as a second choice.
To anon 4:46 and 6:04.
Thank you both for your advice(I'm the OP). You've both said the same general things as my adviser. He's just been away from the market for some time, and I wanted to make certain etiquette hadn't changed. I appreciate your replies!
Would it not be possible just to call "C", express strong interest, let them know you already have two offers, and ask it it would be possible to find out out any sooner than a week so that you can consider their offer rather than have to turn it down for fear of losing either "A" or "B"?
If they're really interested they'll make the concession.
Anyone have word on the Dalhousie search? It's been over a month since the application deadline and still no info on wiki or otherwise. Thx!
While you're waiting for news about the Dalhousie search, I suggest you amuse yourself by running your eye down the list of where current faculty got their degrees. And then see if you can guess which one was hired as a "Roman historian" in last year's farce, ahem, I mean, search.
The reason why classics will get assimilated/downsized within the next couple generations is your insularity, simple as that. It might not be the vast majority of you, but it generally holds true when you look at the university as a whole. It's the way your most visible representatives project themselves. When you look closer, one is dismayed to see it's hardwired in most of you. Classics holds the penthouse suite in the ivory tower. It's what singles you out in a negative way from the rest of the humanities. It's your calling card. A underlying smug arrogance that your former most-favored status will somehow spare you from the 21st century. It's a shame as there are many things that classics brings to the table.
Insularity, huh? Well, I don't know about that. At many institutions, classicists teach courses that are cross-listed with a number of other departments such as English, History, Art History, Philosophy, and Theology. We are an interdisciplinary field at heart, and I think that because of that, we'll survive. Time will tell.
Who gives a fart in space once you have a job and tenure. When I'm pulling in six figures and teaching classes I canned decades ago, do you think I'll care? Now if this were 2050, I might care.
The reason why classics will get assimilated/downsized within the next couple generations is your insularity, simple as that. It might not be the vast majority of you, but it generally holds true when you look at the university as a whole. It's the way your most visible representatives project themselves. When you look closer, one is dismayed to see it's hardwired in most of you. Classics holds the penthouse suite in the ivory tower. It's what singles you out in a negative way from the rest of the humanities. It's your calling card. A underlying smug arrogance that your former most-favored status will somehow spare you from the 21st century. It's a shame as there are many things that classics brings to the table.
Interesting. So, the rest of the humanities are all fucked because nobody sees enough value in them to want to pay for them, but that's not why Classics is fucked. Classics is fucked for its own special reason, which is that Classicists are smug. If they weren't, people would just be lining up with wheelbarrows full of money and jobs for them.
Look, if you don't like Classics, that's fine! You can bitch till you're blue in the face about how much you hate Classicists and their stupid smug expressions and stupid Classics faces that you just wish you could punch because they are so stupid and smug. Just don't confuse your own resentments and antipathies for an explanation that is actually of any value.
"When I'm pulling in six figures . . . do you think I'll care?"
Hate to be the one to break it to you, but very, very few of us Tenured Devils are actually making anywhere near six figures, even after 20 to 30 years on the job.
Hate to be the one to break it to you, but very, very few of us Tenured Devils are actually making anywhere near six figures, even after 20 to 30 years on the job.
To be fair, we don't know his whole story. Maybe he's planning on doing some stripping on the side.
Let's talk about something new. Or perhaps it's old news?
What's up with these SCs that make an offer (and it is accepted, at least acc. to wiki) but weeks later *still* have not bothered to tell their APA interviewees (maybe 10 people?) that they are not getting a campus visit? Are they holding off to make sure the accepter doesn't take better offer, or are they just being lazy/rude?
I'd settle for a form email, but it would be nice to be told what's up...
To Anon 6:43,
For what it's worth, I'm one of the people who has accepted a job offer (and has noted it on the wiki) but I know that my SC won't send out letters until all things are completely squared away with the deans and the provost. I guess it's on the off chance that a candidate for some reason or another isn't approved by the administration. I've never been on an SC, but I imagine that there are a number of practical concerns like this that could hinder them from making more timely announcements that a position has been filled.
Anonymous said...
The reason why classics will get assimilated/downsized within the next couple generations is your insularity, simple as that. (Everything in life is "simple as that" to me.)
It might not be the vast majority of you (I don’t care if my next sentence follows from my first one, or if my pronouns have antecedents),
but it generally holds true when you look at the university as a whole (when I’m nervous I say the same thing at the start [“generally”] and finish [“as a whole”] of a clause, especially when I’m nervous).
It's the way your most visible representatives project themselves (I have a special ability to generalize from tiny sample sizes, and again, no interest in whether my third sentence is connected to the third).
When you (second person) look closer (at.... something, possibly the most visible representatives), one (third person) is dismayed to see it's hardwired in most of you (is “you” here the person looking or the person being looked at? And I think I know what’s hard-wired means, right? And I’ve met 37 of you, so I can judge all several thousand of you, by looking closely at your most visible representatives ).
Classics holds the penthouse suite in the ivory tower (plus I can do metaphors).
It's what singles you out in a negative way from the rest of the humanities (because people in the penthouse are always singled out in a negative way—look at any hotel or condo).
It's your calling card (Yes, being in the penthouse (“it”--look I used one with an antendecent) is your calling card; I can mix metaphors too).
A underlying smug arrogance that your former most-favored status will somehow spare you from the 21st century.(No one in Classics has done anything to modernize since I was born.)
It's a shame as there are many things that classics brings to the table (like teaching people to write).
Alas, you might never get a letter informing you that a search has been completed. If it makes you feel better, I once received no communication after a campus visit. The strangest incident might have been when I received a PFO letter in the fall term after not making the post-APA cut the previous year.
Anonymous 10:44,
Nice Fisking! Well done!
It's pretty easy to fall down a hole post-interview and never hear anything at all, that has happened to me, too. I'm curious though, after a *campus visit*? Anon 2.41 am, didn't you call or email the department and give them a polite WTF?
I'm not sure if I would rather hear nothing at all or receive a PFO the following school year. The strangest letter I've received is one that barely mentioned my application. It read more like a announcement/bio of the hired candidate. I'm talking two lengthy paragraphs of praise. The ironic thing is that the person left after 2-3 years.
I so wish that you could include the body paragraphs of these letters (names blacked out). I'd bet it would be entertaining as hell.
Re: Dalhousie. Wow. Just, wow.
?
I'm not sure WTF was up with that original diatribe, but I must say as a fifth generation Irish-American that classics must be the whitest discipline out there short of British history/literature. Now pass the tea.
I was wondering if you had (rational and reasoned) thoughts on why many SLACs (and other "teaching" schools) end up choosing ABDs for TT positions over experienced (but not too long in the tooth) PhDs who have a proven and stellar teaching resume. I mean the shiny new toy who's brilliant theory works for R1 places but really why hire someone who has yet to teach a full load (and who hasn't even finished) for a position which demands that they teach a third or half of the courses offered by the dept? To my dismay, I have seen this happen again and again.
Pedigree. I'd bet the hire has a BA from a peer SLAC or even from the department itself. Sprinkle in the fact that the "mover" on the SC went to school with the hire's advisor and you have a perfect formula. SLACs love shit like this.
Only problem with your theory is that I like most of my friends are also SLAC'ers who have not only graduated but also taught at those peer institutions.
I have seen the "he's my old adviser's new student" so I'll choose him/her in action but I still wonder about the fascination with ABDs by places that should for all intents and purposes want someone who has taught at another SLAC with good recs.
As I mentioned, I have seen those people get turned down again and again and lose out to ABDs, who may look solid on a visit but are essentially a wash (except for the glaring difference of a proven teaching record and a PhD in hand). I have even talked to committee members who admitted that the PhD candidate with teaching was one of the best teachers they've seen, yet in the end they ended up hiring the ABD.
It makes little sense to me that a place looking for and requiring good teaching which has a choice between the two and all things are otherwise equal (you know the old adage--"We could have picked any of them and they would have done fine"), yet they choose the least qualified for some mysterious reason (power, superiority/inferiority, for gender/sexuality balance, race, etc...). Just look at the WIKIs over the past two years to see this again and again... thankfully this is not unanimous.
Also just to clarify, I think it's fine to hire a promising ABD for a one year position and will concede that there are many GREAT ABDs out there.
At the same time many ABDs do come out of their graduate programs with extensive teaching experience. I taught for seven years as a grad student, and by the time I graduated I had been the primary teacher for all levels of both languages, civ courses, and lit courses. I was lucky enough to get a TT at an SLAC as an ABD, and was later told that it was my teaching experience that secured the position for me.
Dude, maybe those ABDs are just *better* than you are, and the fact that you can't get a TT position before they do is a good sign that you should consider leaving the profession. Just sayin'.
Dude, maybe those ABDs are just *better* than you are, and the fact that you can't get a TT position before they do is a good sign that you should consider leaving the profession. Just sayin'.
Maybe. But perhaps it's simply part of a larger context in which there are far too few jobs for far too many qualified candidates. When it comes down to it, hiring decisions are based on a host of factors, not all of which look rational to someone outside the process (mainly because they aren't). Even the rational factors, moreover, aren't always rational.
I don't know whether SLACs to a statistically significant degree do favor ABDs over PhDs with a few years' experience. I don't think we have the data to support such a conclusion. But if they do, it would be interesting to know why they do so, and how much their preferences are mirrored at other sorts of institutions.
I've been puzzled for many years by the hiring-ABDs tendency. I made on-campus interviews a couple of times post-PhD only to see an ABD get the job, and now (after getting tenured and sitting on a few search committees myself) I'm still not sure I fully understand it. But I think one important aspect for small departments is the fear of hiring someone who is already too set in their ways, inflexible, whatever you want to call it.
Very small programs at SLACs want someone who will do research, but will be willing to modify the research agenda to fit whatever the dept's/college's/program's needs are. They get uneasy about someone who clearly has a research trajectory not only thought out but already well under way (unless you get the perfect fit where the candidate's research trajectory is precisely what the dept. needs). They want someone with teaching experience but who will also easily fit into the way they teach. Which book is used in intro. languages, for instance-- believe me that can be a big deal. If the dept. has used Athanaze for years and swears by it, they may be hesitant to hire someone who has always taught from Hanson and Quinn and likes it, while a young ABD who has taught languages but not often enough to have a fixed preference comes across as much more likely to adapt gracefully and without resentment.
I'm not saying that's the only explanation by any means nor that that's a sufficient explanation. But I think SCs do see a lot of appeal in the idea that ABDs are qualified but still malleable, and get uneasy at the idea of hiring someone who already knows exactly what s/he wants to do and may not modify that for this particular program.
I agree they shouldn't think that way -- but I think they do. (And yes, the most recent SC I served on ended up offering the job to an ABD despite my arguments for all the reasons why we should give it the PhD who's been out a few years instead.)
ABDs at SLACs over proven PhDs? I sometimes wonder if perceived malleability plays a part, for it's often easier to ask for more from and/or to institutionalize somebody who has less experience... plus, if you overload someone -- thereby slowing down/nullifying research -- you might be able to ensure that that person has just enough research to get tenure, but not nearly enough to switch institutions. Of course, all of this presumes the ability to engage in long-term planning and competence on the part of the SC... so I'd actually go with the pedigree angle. Never underestimate the power of the "we're the Harvard of the [insert name of non-New England region here], so we hire from peers" rationale.
"The strangest incident might have been when I received a PFO letter in the fall term after not making the post-APA cut the previous year."
I must have interviewed for that same job.
The strangest letter I've received is one that barely mentioned my application. It read more like a announcement/bio of the hired candidate. I'm talking two lengthy paragraphs of praise. The ironic thing is that the person left after 2-3 years.
Sounds like the SC/department was dazzled early and had their minds made up (to their obvious long-term detriment).
What's up with Dalhousie?
Anonymous 6:51 makes some good points about why a SLAC might hire an ABD, but this claim seem exaggerated: "Very small programs ... get uneasy about someone who clearly has a research trajectory not only thought out but already well under way."
In fact I think SLACs and small programs often have the most flexibility when it comes to what your research specialty is. As long as you can teach courses they need well, and supervise senior theses on useful topics, precisely what you publish in is not as important for programs without graduate students. What would make them nervous would be research agendas that cannot be done with their own or nearby libraries, or a person who seemed like they thought they belonged at a "better" place.
As you anxiously wait for notifications this year, let's remember that although some departments are rude and uncaring, there are also some departments that in this economy are operating with smaller staffs than they are used to, and the person who is late in sending you a notification might be doing so because the pile of things to do on their desk is twice as big as it used to be.
Unfortunately, the shiny new ABD may also be a real disaster for a SLAC department. I've twice seen them come and manage to be tenured (often because some SLACs nowadays are trending toward being impressed by publications more than teaching per se), only to be really miserable colleagues. In the two cases I'm thinking of, hey know what they want to do and how they want to do it, they do as they please without regard for colleagues, and behind it all is a sense of spoiled brat entitlement.
Unfortunately, the shiny new ABD may also be a real disaster for a SLAC department. I've twice seen them come and manage to be tenured (often because some SLACs nowadays are trending toward being impressed by publications more than teaching per se), only to be really miserable colleagues. In the two cases I'm thinking of, hey know what they want to do and how they want to do it, they do as they please without regard for colleagues, and behind it all is a sense of spoiled brat entitlement.
Yeah, whereas people who have their degrees before starting a job are, as a rule, saintly and pure and smell of fresh flowers.
Jesus Christ, this place is really an inexhaustible fount of weird little prejudices and deranged theories, isn't it?
ABDs are a nice white canvas onto which SC committee members can each mentally paint his or her own image. There is just less to disagree with, to feel threatened by, to see as not relevant or appropriate for that particular department, so sometimes it can be much easier for a SC to *agree* on someone with fewer qualifications, a sort of lowest common denominator. Same reason why internal candidates sometimes get the shaft. The person you know the least about can be the least controversial, the most tempting, so much "potential"....
I love how unabashedly provincial Dalhousie is. Or feudal. Or something.
Anybody know what Wellesley is looking for in their one-year search? They specify that they want somebody with expertise in archaeology, but then they only mention teaching Greek and courses in translation. Am I missing something here? Are archaeology courses considered "in translation"?
Oh, Anon. 11:18, you took the words right out of my mouth. I was hesitant to ask that question about Wellesley because I didn't want to bait the "inside hire!!!" screamers. I haven't a clue what the Wellesley ad writers were smoking. They certainly did not explain why they need a 1-yr Greek lang/lit teacher to have expertise in archy. I decided not to overthink it and just apply.
I'm guessing that they're classical archaeologists is going on sabbatical or whatever. When a temp is hired to fill in, smaller departments usually want more flexibility and skew that much more to the lang-lit side. Yeah, it creates a really bastardized position that should make TT clarchs think twice when they bitch and moan about teaching part-time in lang-lit. Look at what we would do if we could. Enjoy what you have, kids. We are meeting you clarchs half way even if you think we're not.
Sorry, but there's no way they hire a clarch to fill that position. They just want a phil/hist person that has taken a couple arch classes as a grad student. Meeting us halfway? Nope, just paying lipservice to the value of archaeology as a discipline.
Dear Candidates and the Advisors who should be reading their advisees' application materials,
When applying for a visiting position at a teaching school, please don't spend the first 1.5 pages of your cover letter talking about your dissertation! That is around 1000 words which do nothing but tell me that you are absolutely clueless about what this 1-year position entails. It strongly suggests that I need look no further at the rest of your file.
Sincerely,
Abe
When applying for a visiting position at a teaching school, please don't spend the first 1.5 pages of your cover letter talking about your dissertation! That is around 1000 words which do nothing but tell me that you are absolutely clueless about what this 1-year position entails
Personally, this wouldn't bother me at all. It says to me that this person would like to be at an R1 eventually, didn't get a job at one this year, but still needs employment for next year while continuing the search. I guess if I wanted to I could get all pouty about how the person didn't write me a special letter telling me how it's their personal dream to move someplace for a year, teach their ass off, and then move again, but even if I did I definitely wouldn't say so on the internet, because then people would make fun of me.
"Sorry, but there's no way they hire a clarch to fill that position. They just want a phil/hist person that has taken a couple arch classes as a grad student. Meeting us halfway? Nope, just paying lipservice to the value of archaeology as a discipline."
You people are so full of shit. I know three clarchs in the last five years who have gotten jobs like this, and I don't know that many clarchs. What makes a person go on a blog like this and spout nonsense? Is your research full of baseless claims like this?
I've heard rumors that a Classics Department at an unnamed University in the Southwest (near Nogales but South of Phoenix) has 1) Recently offered jobs to visitors and 2) May not have the greatest record of treating its faculty (especially visitors). Any word about these rumors? Sorry, as much as I would like to hear about Archeology versus Literature, I really want to know about the reasonable future prospects for a job.
I agree with Simpson. How hard is it for you to write more about teaching than research in a letter for a teaching job?
Well, you inadvertently dragged the lit-archy debate into our midst with your question. The school in question was ground zero for this debate and it was one of the few (only?) instances when the archys pushed back instead of taking it up the !@#. And I say this as a somewhat neutral historian.
Which brings me to my next point. Is it me or does it seem like TT classics (and humanities?) jobs are pretty shitty these days? I'm not talking about the pay, workload, publishing expectations, etc. Grad school prepares you for this. How many TT jobs are out there where one can say, "I pretty much like my colleagues and my quality of life?" Is this why we have all these TT/tenured people hopping around everywhere? The university in question is a flagship state school in a city that's not terrible. Raise your hand if you're in your dream job and you didn't have to convince yourself that it is.
"it was one of the few (only?) instances when the archys pushed back"
This is why a department should only ever hire one or 1/2 an archaeologist at most. You shouldn't let them gain enough strength to ever "push back."
*raises hand*
Dream job? check. Great colleagues? check. Happy clarch? check. Good students? check. Great town? check. Cold as hell? check.
Yeah, I raise my hand, too!
*raises hand, barely visible from the British Isles*
Raises hand, devil's sign.
Yes! THIS debate! Again! Let's change topics. So, all of you who were livid about New Hampshire's salary, have you checked out the FSU position? 34k don't seem too shabby now, does it? At least you won't be expected to advise grad students and do all that annoying service stuff too...oh wait.
The only good clarch is an unemployed clarch (or one teaching in anthropology where the little apes belong).
The only good clarch is an unemployed clarch (or one teaching in anthropology where the little apes belong).
I see the Scott Walker/Faux News contingent is out in force, planting agitators, hoping to get sympathy for their side. Way too over the top, clarchies. Nobody actually believes this sort of thing.
Maybe if you'd spent more time in the library reading your ancient texts and less time drinking and having sex in the dirt you would have picked up some subtlety, refinement and rhetorical skill.
Nice attempt at covering up your own ignorant post.
Huh? WHAT FSU position? I see no announcement either here or in the APA positions . . .
FSU advertised in the most recent placement service bulletin, which came out Tuesday.
"Which brings me to my next point. Is it me or does it seem like TT classics (and humanities?) jobs are pretty shitty these days? "
Some are, but there are also people who move b/c of the partner, or the fit, so that the job isn't just "shitty" but "shitty for me." Not everyone is thrilled with every colleague, but often there is an initial state of disappointment that everyone in the department is different from you (which is why they hired you), and that some have lost much of the fire that drove everyone in grad school. But as you get to know them better and find out that they are very good at several things, and also make friends in other departments and develop courses and a way of getting your research done, it gets better.
"This is why a department should only ever hire one or 1/2 an archaeologist at most. You shouldn't let them gain enough strength to ever "push back."
And the scheisskopfs out there wonder why some clarchs aren't pleased with the status quo? I know, I know, go back to my sex and booze filled trench like the dirty little ape I am.
Even the most inept trolls get people stirred up here. It takes the fun out of it for the other, more competent trolls.
Naw, it's pretty shitty. Who are we kidding? Most of those kids you are teaching now will make 50% more than junior classics faculty as a freshly minted BA/BS. We're teachers and the days of profs being in a class by themselves within this group are long gone, along with respect for airline pilots and the tailfins on cars. The academic perks that roughly equalized matters is largely gone or soon will be.
Haha! At least some of us get booze and sex to go along with our illiterate disrespect for ancient texts.
Even the most inept trolls get people stirred up here. It takes the fun out of it for the other, more competent trolls.
No joke. I'm taking my talents over to Redstate.com. They're wasted here.
Good day! I am not a troll. I am merely writing to express my strong negative opinion of your particular branch of classical studies, whatever it may be. All people associated with it are worse than the Nazis and all of our problems would be solved if they were to be imprisoned or driven into exile.
Dear 'Not a Troll',
You are a paradigmatic specimen of the problem. Your post reveals in some utterly spurious way why you are both stupid and a paedophile. Paedophiles are bad for the humanities and my job prospects. Therefore you should be eliminated for the sake of humanity.
Not a Troll (For Realz)
PS My discipline is awesome for five totally objective reasons by which you're bound to be convinced.
So, I have to ask: what's with the Beloit mug? Are they giving out booby prizes?
I'm pouring whiskey in it, with which I will drown the sorrows I have gained in lieu of a fucking job.
@Anonymous March 4, 2011 6:20 PM
I just wanted to say that the institution at which you were educated is much less good than you think it is, and that everything bad that has happened to you has happened not because life is unfair but because of your own failings as a human being. Also, if you are currently occupying an academic position, you obtained it by illegitimate means and do not deserve it. Finally, I strongly believe that classicists of your generation, whichever it may be, are chiefly responsible for the imminent demise of classics.
For the person who a few days ago was asking about the University of Arizona positions: That information that one person accepted on or by 2/24 was false. (I've corrected the wiki.) I myself know one of the candidates, and know someone who knows the other, and to the best of my knowledge neither position has been accepted. Or perhaps by now one of them has, but on 2/24 that most certainly was not the case. Another example of overzealous wiki updaters...
so, most of you are among the 6M who've seen the baby laughing hysterically while his dad the PhD student tears up a job rejection letter?
That's false information about the baby. I'm the father and my son is laughing at your pathetic attempt at a job letter. The fact that I'm ripping apart your file in disgust has nothing to do with his mirth.
Wiki says 'x2' jobs but only (one?) 'job offered'. Clarification please?
Normally these rejection letters say something like, "over 100 applicants..." but the Purdue one says, "We had several qualified applicants...." Thanks, Purdue, for telling me that I didn't get the job because you had roughly five qualified applicants (of which I am obviously not one).
Anybody hear anything from Bowdoin, or know when they expect to contact candidates?
Bueller? Bueller?
http://chronicle.com/blogs/profhacker/using-the-nfl-analogy-to-explain-the-academic-job-market/23788
"There are more players than there are spots. .... It isn’t easy to contemplate walking away from a career for which one has trained for 5, 6, or more years. And at the same time, one has to eat, pay rent, and often provide for children.....Players go where they are drafted. .... Players often get traded. It is increasingly common for academics to change jobs at some point in their careers. ....There is life after football."
Okay, hungry Bowdoin clarch, I *just* heard from a friend that said friend got a phone interview with Bowdoin. I do not know when/how this friend was informed of the interview.
I can confirm the fact that Bowdoin has contacted people for phone interviews.
It's not easy being hairy, drunk, and frisky.
I'm confused. I thought the Bowdoin position was for an archaeologist. I went to check the HR site and found this:
http://www.bowdoin.edu/academic-affairs/curriculum-teaching/recruit/classics-ancient-visiting.shtml
Is there a second position?
Never mind, I found the archaeology listing as well. There is definitely an ancient history position too, however. I'll post it on the Job Announcements section.
so what causes non-vulgar posts that do not name individuals to get deleted from this thread?
so what causes non-vulgar posts that do not name individuals to get deleted from this thread?
I'd assume that it was because what the person did was tantamount to naming, but I like to think it was just a punishment for being a dick.
They should have never been posted, because they basically named another job-seeker. I was upset that they had been left up there for so long, but at least the mods finally stepped in and deleted them.
so what causes non-vulgar posts that do not name individuals to get deleted from this thread?
I believe that the thing that causes that is known as "you are not the author of the blog." If you would like to have a blog of your own, go make one. They are free and you can write as many non-vulgar or vulgar posts as you like, and probably all of the readers of this blog will go over to your blog because yours is more edgy. Actually probably not though. Still, you should make your own blog, and put cool stuff on it, like recipes, and pictures of dogs and flowers that you took at the park.
If you do start a blog, and you post recipes for the dogs and flowers you've taken from the park, I'd check it all the time.
Can I just say to all you search committee members out there: enough with the ridiculous laundry list of materials that you require for your one-year slave-wage position. Since I'm fairly certain that you will disregard my application with a simple glance at my cv or cover letter, why the hell are you forcing me to mail you syllabi, evaluations, teaching philosophy, writing samples, transcripts, birth certificate and notarized affidavit of serfdom?? At least join the 21st century and let me email or submit these materials online so I don't have to waste an entire ink cartridge, 100 pages of paper, an hour of waiting at the post office, not to mention all of the money that I have absolutely thrown down the drain in my 30+ applications this year which have gotten me nowhere.
Now before all the trolls come out to attack me for whining, let me just say that I'm poor, unemployed, struggling financially, fed-up, and yes, it's difficult to spend the money - even if it's "an investment in my career". Seems to me that SC's could ask for a cover letter and cv and then contact interesting candidates for more material, saving all of us a lot of hassle, not to mention a few 1000 trees.
Any word on the BYU VAP?
Re the BYU VAP: She was fired for having sex with her boyfriend.
Anonymous said...
Re the BYU VAP: She was fired for having sex with her boyfriend.
March 14, 2011 10:39 PM
That's a relief - I heard she was axed for reading about sex in Latin poetry. oh my!
Any word on UMBC? I was told they were aiming for a mid-March deadline.
To whomever put the J Winkler comment on the wiki,
Stay classy.
What does the Fonz have to do with anything?
I thought it was a joke (Penn=Philadelphia) made in exceptionally poor taste referring to J.J. Winkler, a classicist who tragically died at much too young an age. That's why I removed the "joke" wiki update and made the comment here.
I thought it was a joke (Penn=Philadelphia) made in exceptionally poor taste referring to J.J. Winkler, a classicist who tragically died at much too young an age. That's why I removed the "joke" wiki update and made the comment here.
I didn't make the "Philadelphia" connection, but I guess that might be right. If that's the case, the composer of the edit should fuck off and go be embarrassed somewhere.
I suspect that whoever posted the update about that job merely mis-spelled the name of the candidate. It took all of thirty seconds on one departmental website to reach that conclusion.
Thanks, Classier,
I'm the one who erroneously read too much into the J. Winkler post at U. Penn. and got my knickers in a knot about it.
I guess here is an example of how concerns about allusion, intertext, etc. can get one in trouble. There was no there there and I've fixed the wiki again, after doing that 30 seconds of research you mentioned.
Cheers!
This is weird, because usually on the Internet nobody ever jumps to conclusions.
I can't agree more with the person who complained about the ridiculous amount of information a one-year SLAC position requested. I mean do they really want all that stuff, well, really do they want the research material? Ridiculous. I've had R1 places not ask for that material for a TT position, and they want it for a one-year?
Just read the CVs,teaching recs, and cover letters and if you like us request more info.
Which SLAC 1-year requested all of that?
Depauw in Indiana
My experience over 2008-10? The smaller/shittier/more backwater the school, the more stuff you have to send.
The smaller/shittier/more backwater the school, the more stuff you have to send.
Not untrue, however, maybe SLACs are more interested in what kind of teacher/scholar you REALLY are, rather than relying on pedigree and how well-known your letter writers are. Then, again, I would still prefer they ask for more info than make me mail all that shit if they're not interested.
"The smaller/shittier/more backwater the school, the more stuff you have to send."
The chair of my grad department refers to this as the "academic Napoleon complex".
The chair of my grad department refers to this as the "academic Napoleon complex".
This is unfair. Your beliefs about what is a small/shitty/backwater school is highly subjective. Some people believe that R1s are the only "good" schools that exist.
I just interviewed at a small/backwater (but not shitty) school, and it was clear that they certainly need everything they asked for in their ad. Every faculty member had read and remembered every bit of my extensive application (including teaching philosophy, writing sample, etc). The students had dissected my CV and had many pertinent questions for me (mostly questions about what I could do for them). The unusual requests of the ad ("must be able to teach X, Y, Z") translated directly to classes they need taught (and such requests aren't ridiculous, because there is at least one candidate - me - who is able to teach those classes and teach them well).
I currently teach at what you might consider a "shitty" school (although not small and not backwater). Yes, the overall quality of student is not great, but there are always several exceptional students in every class, who have come to this "shitty" school because they are poor, they are first generation college kids, or they own homes and have families in the area. But they deserve excellent teachers nonetheless.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that these small/shitty/backwater schools tend to ask for exactly what they need to ask for in order to determine if you can do the job they want. And they actually care about the quality of your teaching and interaction with the students. *And they have every right to.*
Shame on you for looking down your nose at a school you consider to be "inferior" just because they have high standards and take their job seriously.
Amen to that. The only shitty schools are the ones without the classics.
"Shame On You" needs to calm down.
Sure there are people who view SLACs in shitty places as beneath them, but I don't and I still think all that crap for the initial application for a ONE-YEAR position is horseshit.
I think one of the others put it best--if they are interested they should then ask for a PDF of some of this stuff. I can assure you no one wants to read 50 writing samples.
Let's just calm down. If it's a TT position, they can ask for whatever, but for a one-year... it's stupid.
It is difficult to keep track of the proper way to avoid offending people who have one-year jobs on offer. It wasn't too long ago that we were treated to a lecture about the scandal of addressing at too great length in the cover letter one's research interests, and now we have had the pleasure of reading a indignant assertion of the vital importance of giving every candidate's research profile a deep and thorough probing.
Being frustrated and annoyed that a one-year job app requires a lot of work is understandable. But some places do not have the time to ask for a c.v. and letter first and then ask later for more information from those on a long short list. For most places, "What can we do to make sure we get the best/right person?" has to take priority over "how can we not inconvenience the fifty people that won't get our job?"
A Modest Proposal Towards Reform of the Academic Job Application Process
1) Institutions initially shall request from applicants only a CV, Cover Letter, and YouTube video.
2) Applicants shall email CV and Cover Letter and link to video to search chair.
3) Prior to submission of said materials applicants shall purchase Yahtzee set (yard sale editions welcome).
4) Video shall consist of applicant, dressed in APA appropriate attire, playing one full game of solitaire Yahtzee.
5) A scanned, notarized copy of the Yahtzee scorecard associated with this video should be sent to the search chair forthwith.
6) Those applicants with the three highest scores shall be extended campus invitations.
7) Tie-breaks among equal scores shall be made according to a) typographical excellence on the CV, and b) quality of paper and impressiveness of letterhead for cover letter.
8) Campus interviews shall consist of all three finalists playing 5 games of Yahtzee. Whoever among them scores the highest average shall be judged the winner.
9) Tie-breaks among equal scores shall be made according to a) Oxbridge affectedness, and b) absence of callouses on hands and dirt under fingernails.
10) The financial savings among all institutions stemming from this system shall be pooled and invested in the construction and maintenance of the Classical Institute for the Terminally Unlucky, based in Lebanon, KS, which shall provide renewable 1-year research positions for all of those classicists failing to secure employment through the above system.
But some places do not have the time to ask for a c.v. and letter first and then ask later for more information from those on a long short list. For most places, "What can we do to make sure we get the best/right person?" has to take priority over "how can we not inconvenience the fifty people that won't get our job?"
I think you're not quite following. My point is that different voices have claimed here 1). that it is an obvious mistake to think that a committee seeking to fill a one year position would want to hear anything about a person's research and 2). that a committee seeking to fill a one year position needs to know everything about a person's research in order to find the person who's best for the job.
If I'm buying a car, one of the most important things I want to know is how it's going to hold up over time: I want to know what it's going to be like in five years because I'll probably still be driving it in five years.
But if I'm renting a car, all I care about is how it's going to run till I take the thing back, and what happens to it in five years is anybody's problem but mine.
Really the only exception to this I can see is if one of the person's jobs during that year will be to teach a graduate seminar, but this won't be the case with most one year positions (or most positions).
Look, I'm sorry to say that even the VAP market is a buyer's market. Even if a department required 10 handwritten copies of a candidate's writing sample, I have no doubt that it would receive more than enough applications.
And besides, sorting through scores, if not hundreds, of applications is easier if, say, 20% can be rejected immediately for being incomplete. And what better way to allow this than to require submission of many documents.
But some places do not have the time to ask for a c.v. and letter first and then ask later for more information from those on a long short list.
That's the beauty of 21st century technology (aka email). Ask for a pdf of a writing sample and you can receive it the same day!! Wow!! Time to wake up and recognize that you can treat your candidates with respect AND get what you need.
Ask for a pdf of a writing sample and you can receive it the same day!! Wow!!
I do not wish to receive your writing sample; I wish to complain about your writing sample. Please note the difference.
The claim that depts with one-year jobs have no right to be interested in research has no merit, regardless of how we rent cars. First, some one-year jobs will turn into t.t. jobs, or at least 2-4 years of one-year jobs, so research becomes more important (renting a car you might buy someday, esp. a new model, is actually a great practice). Second, you fundamentally misunderstand the purpose of research if you think it's only relevant for teaching graduate seminars. Research shows whether a person understands whether knowledge is something that is created, or just handed down. I want to know how a person thinks before I have them grade 3-page papers in 4th term Latin or Greek.
I said
But some places do not have the time to ask for a c.v. and letter first and then ask later for more information from those on a long short list.
And Anon said:
That's the beauty of 21st century technology (aka email). Ask for a pdf of a writing sample and you can receive it the same day!! Wow!! Time to wake up and recognize that you can treat your candidates with respect AND get what you need.
New answer: "the same day" as what? In a two-stage system, if you only ask for some materials on Feb 1, then they come in and the dept or committtee reads them and meets on Feb 8 and decides to ask for more materials from 10-20 people, then it takes a day or two for those emails to go out (because maybe the chair has a seminar to teach or a kid to bring to the dentist), and you have to give people a few days to do it or they will complain on FV that their flesh is being ripped from their bones by cruel sadists, so let's say a Feb 15 deadline, then the committee has to read all the new material and meet again Feb 22 (which they will do with great joy because faculty love having as many meetings as possible), and then you're inviting people to campus in late Feb instead of early.
"Wow!! Time to wake up and recognize that"... life is not always so simple as in solipsistic whining on FV.
life is not always so simple as in solipsistic whining on FV
First of all, your use of "solipsistic" reveals the fact that you are a pretentious ass.
Second, who's whining here? A few salaried, steadily-employed profs having to spend a few weeks reviewing applications. Oh no, heaven forbid. I'm sorry but I don't buy into this. I don't know where my next meal will come from. I'm probably going to have to get a retail job to make ends meet. I'm cutting back on food to afford rent. But, oh no, God forbid I inconvenience a bunch of ivory tower snobs with my "solipsistic" whining and demand that they offer me the option of emailing an application rather than spending money uselessly mailing a packet of materials that they may never read.
A lot of us are suffering. Real-life poverty and despair, having trained several years for a career that may never materialize. How dare you belittle that. Not all of us come from institutions that will fund us until we find work. In fact, some of us have had those funding strings cut long before we ever were close to defending. So, Prof. Solipsism, go f*&! yourself.
It's not a bad idea to have a writing sample that is less than 20 pages (in fact, many places have a 20p limit). Heck, even 10. No one will read a 50 page sample anyway: Classicists are good at figuring out the quality and contribution of a paper pretty fast.
I do wish that more SCs would accept electronic applications, particularly emailed PDFs. But if you have to pay for printing and shipping, 5 double-sided pages is not bad. And that's about all they need to judge the quality of your work anyway.
As a present and past SC Chair, I'd be more than happy to accept emailed PDFs in lieu of a printed and mailed packet. Just send an email to me letting me know that you are doing this, and explain the reason. Oftimes the job ad and process is written by HR, and most of us can gently bend the rules if doing so makes sense. It is a buyers' market, but all of us want to receive as many qualified applications as possible.
The "don't contact the SC" advice often found here can be harmful. Use your own common sense, and perhaps ask colleagues if they know "me" before deciding not to apply. This is a small world, so use that to your benefit occasionally!
Next year we need a "whining" blog that does not allow search committees to eavesdrop. I think as much as we are guilty of whining, a charge which I think is asinine since you SC members also seem to be whining and have less at stake (as one of my fellow posters effectively ranted about) besides getting candidate #2 from a "buyers' market" pool of candidates.
"It's the human resources people." "We would have to wait a week to decide." Give me a break. That's our life except we have more issues to deal with.
We're at the mercy of search committees whims (and lies--just tell us the truth every once and a while--I've been lied to so much this year by committees it's not funny especially after being told point blank how they "understand"), the idiocy of human resource sites, and having to wait months on end. AND, YES, it does strain marriages and families to no end. There really is no comparison. How are you going to tell your kid again about why we have to move. How are you going to scrape together enough money for the move or the cost for bridge health coverage, b/c your last contract only covered nine months of health insurance. These are real issues and this puts a lot of stress on us. This is more than whining. I would argue that you are the ones whining, and we have legitimate concerns and are frustrated, scared, disillusioned, and angry. How does it feel when we say to you "get over it?" Well, you don't like it, but what are the ramifications? You get someone who doesn't work out but is okay?
To quote your responses or their force: This is the real world, and shit happens. Grow up. You don't understand and will someday.
You have the power. Stop your whining and go to your own site to complain while we argue over ClArchs vs. Philos.
Best,
ERIS
PS: As for writing samples, yes, it might become a TT position, but most of the time, they'll still hold another search, if they find the person they hired isn't up to snuff.
Thank you Anon 11:30 for putting into words what a lot of us are feeling. And also thank you to the SC members who are understanding and reasonable. Unfortunately, it seems like you are few and far between, and there are plenty of "Prof. Solipsism"s out there to make my blood pressure raise.
To put things into quantitative terms, I've applied, or will apply to, 32 positions this year. About half of these allowed email or had online systems. However, even for those positions I had to pay Interfolio to deliver some of my letters of recommendation (due to letter writers that are [somewhat] understandably burdened by the sheer number of us unemployed candidates out there). This is at minimum $6 a pop, even for email. And, yes, I'm only human and sometimes deadlines crept up on me because I was worrying about other things and had to resort to expedited services. There goes 12, 16, or even 28 dollars, per application.
Then there were the remaining half that had to be snail mailed. Of course you want things to look professional and be delivered on time to avoid the "automatic discard pile" for not being on time or incomplete, so you pay for a priority or express service if you have to. $5 - $18 per packet.
The end result is I've easily spent $500 on applications, and so far, I have no job. I won't reveal my gross income, but suffice it to say that $500 is a high enough percentage that it has put a strain on my budget. Loans, credit card debt, rent, utilities, gas. Take your pick. It sucks. So when I see the magic words "email" or "online" in a job ad it really helps. Really.
"A few salaried, steadily-employed profs having to spend a few weeks reviewing applications. Oh no, heaven forbid. I'm sorry but I don't buy into this."
you're only partly understanding me: It's not just that they have to do more work (if they review the files twice which is indeed a cost), but that if the search drags on longer the best people have taken jobs, or maybe the dean takes back the position, or your courses are not set for next year, etc. Inviting people in late Feb and not early Feb seems bad, for everyone involved. I'm not pro-suffering, and have no objection to samples being sent by email--using pdfs had no part in what I said, which was only about the difficulties of asking for more info from a long short list (pdfs would of course make a search take less time). Thus I decline your suggestion that I copulate with myself.
As for the date of campus invites, well, early February is clearly better, much better for a TT position, but if it's for a one year I think it puts the candidate and the school in a tough spot, because if that candidate has other invites for TT positions, then how do they handle that situation?
I've had to face this problem before where you delay and delay, because you have a one-year offer on the table with TT visits still coming up at the end of Feb/early March. Does the SC really want that person to choose and pass up (and resent) or lie about a potential position (Mine did)? Do you risk passing up a TT position for a one year job because the committee did their invites too early (I think it's too early and not fair). I can't sympathize with the situation of deans getting nervous and pulling the plug on a search (if it's a temporary one). If the SC can't get a month's respite from the Dean they really have bigger problems.
I think it would be great for both parties to push back campus invites for temporary positions so that both sides don't have to deal with this awkward dance... let's not even get into the fact that more and more places ask you to pony up the $4-600 for airfare that sometimes gets reimbursed months later.
>both sides don't have to deal with this awkward dance
It's Classics. Awkward dancing is the only kind of dancing we have.
It's Classics. Awkward dancing is the only kind of dancing we have.
Ehnh. Oof. (spin) Ahh! (spin) Ehnh ... ehnh... (jazz hands) Oof. Ow!
It's heartbreaking to read the comments from "disillusioned" grad students who are facing the job market, but I have to wonder how they could have been "illusioned" in the first place.
For at least 15 years I, and every other classics prof. I've discussed this with, have been telling our undergrad classics majors DO NOT go to grad school in classics if there is anything else at all you can imagine doing. I have a whole spiel worked out. I tell them that IF they go to grad school, they must look at it as worth doing for its own sake, because they WILL NOT get a job at the other end. I tell them, over and over, that there simply are no jobs. I tell them the numbers of applicants for current classics jobs.
Undergraduate majors don't like to hear this. Some get angry. Some break down and cry in my office. But it seems to me that we absolutely must tell them this, and must discourage as many of them as we possibly can from going on to graduate work.
So I wonder -- who advised the grad students posting here? Were you really led to think that there WOULD be jobs once you got your doctorate, so that now you feel disillusioned and angry? I don't mean that to sound snarky at all. I am genuinely curious -- and genuinely distressed if people embarking on graduate work in Classics ARE being so misled as to think they have a reasonable chance of getting a job in the field.
Wow, you tell them that? If no-one goes on to grad school, then classics will simply die. I don't want to see that. Here's what I tell my students: apply only to top-ranked schools with great placement rates and, most importantly, good funding packages. DO NOT GO if they do not pay enough to live on. DO NOT GO if it involves taking out a loan. But I don't have a blanket "it's a terrible idea" policy. I figure if they get the funding to go, they won't be rich for the next 6 years, but they won't rack up debt either, and they'll have a fighting chance of a job at the end. The option to do something else will still be there when they have a doctorate. That doesn't answer your question, anon, but I feel that if we want the field to continue we can't have a total "just say no" policy.
I was warned. I was told to go only to a "top 5" dept., and only then if fully funded for at least 5 years.
I did this, but even then I knew it was a complete crapshoot. It isn't as if we didn't understand that it was going to be tough, but I think the way you think about it when you are 22 or 23 is much different than how it feels to be unemployed, over-educated, and behind the curve when you are 30.
When I talk to the grad-school curious undergrads where I am finishing my PhD, I tell them to read this blog from beginning to end. If that doesn't scare them straight I don't know what will
Like the commenter above, my tendency is to discourage students from going to grad school unless they can get into a school with a very strong placement record and solid funding. In my experience, though, this doesn't at all discourage people from applying and going no matter where they get in. I don't know how much more I can do, short of just refusing to write letters for them. "Humanities grad school applicant" should become a byword for iron determination and boundless confidence.
Yup to 5.11pm. At 22 we all secretly thought that we were special, that we'd beat the odds, that everyone else might end up unemployed but our inherent brilliance would shine through and get us a job. And that feeling is why everyone keeps going to grad school, despite all the evidence that suggests it's a bad idea. Cos we're just more awesome than everyone else.
Anonymous said...
"Wow, you tell them that? If no-one goes on to grad school, then classics will simply die. I don't want to see that."
Yes, I do tell them that. I don't want to see Classics die either. But notice, in my original post I said that I tell them "Don't go to grad school in classics IF there is anything else you can imagine doing." My point there is, if you're hesitating between grad. school in classics and any other option, go for the other option. But IF you are so in love with classics that there is simply nothing else you want to do for the next several years, well then, go to grad school.
But then, the next bit of the spiel is "But go, realizing that you're doing it for the love of the subject, NOT in any expectation of employment in the field. If you are one of the lucky handful who does get a job, that is absolutely wonderful. But DO NOT go into grad school in the expectation that you will get a job."
Is the chance to spend several years studying what you love worth the cost of grad school (with or without loans)? That's a question each individual has to decide for her/himself. But I think we do have a responsibility to put it to our undergrads that way -- classics is worth studying in itself, absolutely. Grad school is a wonderful chance to do that, absolutely. But one cannot count on, or even expect, that grad school will lead to employment.
(All of the above applies to students who want to teach at the college level. I always start by asking them if they're interested in teaching Latin in middle school or high school. If they say yes, and say that they're willing to move where the jobs are, then I tell them by all means to go get an MA. )
One of my teachers told me decades ago that it was very hard getting a job in Classics. It was like planning on being an NBA or NFL player: very few spots and lots of talented people going for them. You don't tell students to go to grad school for its own sake, or that the number of jobs is zero, but you tell them the ratio of applicants to jobs is very high, and they should only go to grad school if they feel compelled to and can deal with it personally and financially if it doesn't work out.
I'm sorry for all the pain out there and for anyone struggling with that this year.
Tenured Radical has a discussion of search committees and chairs who do not let runners up know when they have made an offer.
http://tenured-radical.blogspot.com/2011/03/ask-radical-search-committee-smackdown.html
As one of the comments on "Tenured Radical" pointed out, many colleges/institutions have an official policy that no candidates may be contacted to be told they didn't get the job until AFTER the signed contract is in hand.
My college is one of those. This policy (which I think is stupid, fwiw) means that the unsuccessful candidates don't hear until mid-March at the earliest and sometimes late March (if the negotiations with the successful candidate are at all complicated). But, please realize, this is not something over which SCs have any control, at least at most places.
If an institution has legal language saying that an SC can't contact applicants to let them know that the the job has been filled by somebody else, it seems like the most ethical thing to do is to "leak" that info here, or on the wiki. At least that way we can all move on, and don't have to wait by the phone.
Looks like the Joukowsky people are trawling for fish again. How many temps can they cycle through that place?
a lot of them. they have more temps than faculty. must be dumping their current VAP, by the look of it.
Anonymous August 30, 2010 3:53 PM said...
"Ha! Cornell lost a Late Antique archaeologist so they're now searching for someone who does Roman archaeology OR classical lit? Talk about hedging one's bet. I'll kiss a sabretooth's ass if a Roman arch gets hired."
Check the wiki and pucker up
I think the underlying assumption was if the situation called for one or the other. I also believe the archaeologist you're referring to is a Greek archaeologist, which I suppose means that candidates should apply widely.
I think the underlying assumption was if the situation called for one or the other. I also believe the archaeologist you're referring to is a Greek archaeologist, which I suppose means that candidates should apply widely.
Fantastic. So even one of the few positions that called for a Roman archaeologist ended up hiring a Hellenist. Does this mean that as a Roman clarch I should have been applying for those Hellenist positions too? How about some philology jobs? Why bother writing such specific ads when schools are going to hire whatever tickles their fancy in the end? This whole process is infuriating.
Stop your whining. There was ONE archaeology position this year on the Greek side and they wanted a mongrel of a scholar who would teach half-time Greek, half-time classical archaeology, half-time Middle Eastern studies (oops, ran out of halves), and throw in archaeological methodology for good measure. I would have applied if I knew how to juggle knives.
There were at least several Roman archaeology positions this year and it was obvious in the ad that Cornell was looking for top scholars first with a preference for certain specialties.
I just tried logging onto the classics wiki for the first time using the requisite two-word Vergilian phrase typed as one word, and it said wrong password. Has it changed?
Sucks to be any of us, but especially a Greek archaeologist from the sounds of it. I find it difficult to believe that there was only one sort-of position out there. Something is seriously wrong with this picture even in a craptastic market.
No, I know someone who interviewed for the job and it was basically half-time Greek, half-time classical civ (with all the other bullshit thrown in for whatever reason). I think an introductory Greek archaeology is taught biannually. How anyone can define this position as archaeology is beyond me. I don't care how small and SLACy you are. Cry us a f-ing river. Do us all a favor and call it what it is next time instead of living in what is even a fantasy world for classics.
Boston and Wesleyan weren't Greek Archaeology positions? No wonder I didn't get those jobs...
Let's be a bit more honest, it's just not a good market for archaeologists in general (or Classicists in general, for that matter). There are too many of us, and too few jobs. It's almost like we're real people, despite our impressive credentials.
If you're a Greek archaeologist as pretty much everyone outside of America defines one in the 21st century, no, you would have been toast. Now if you're an art historian or Hellenist with a passing interest in archaeology, you would have had a fighting chance.
I guess the lesson for next year is to apply for all "archaeology" positions and play up the fact that I did the summer session in Athens back in the day. Heck, I'm more than qualified to teach Greek and civ.
Sorry, archys. All's fair in love and war.
Actually, I've always thought very little of the classicists who sit in their nicely furnished offices and tell undergrad majors not to think of grad school because the job market sucks. The people who were saying that in the mid 80s at my college were all junior faculty, while the seniors encouraged us to fulfill our passions. Guess what? Those juniors are now mostly out of the field, and the people they tried to discourage in many cases have succeeded.
What happened with Cincinnati? Does anybody know?
Actually, I've always thought very little of the classicists who sit in their nicely furnished offices and tell undergrad majors not to think of grad school because the job market sucks.
Aww. I love you, too!
Great that you bring up the office, because that's the problem. Undergraduates imagine their future by looking at us: we're their mental image of what life as a classicist is like, and they assume that ending up like us—employed, having offices, talking Classics all day—is a reliable outcome of going to grad school. They don't see people for whom it went badly at all; they see only the subset of people for whom it went very well.
The people who were saying that in the mid 80s at my college were all junior faculty, while the seniors encouraged us to fulfill our passions. Guess what? Those juniors are now mostly out of the field, and the people they tried to discourage in many cases have succeeded.
1). How vast was this army of Classics junior faculty working at your college in the mid-eighties who tried to discourage students from going to grad school? And how many students' dreams did they try to crush? I'm assuming there were a whole lot of them for you to conclude that this was a meaningful demonstration of something, and not a tiny scrap of anecdotal evidence.
2). Some of your senior professors in the mid-eighties were coming from a world in which it was much easier to find employment as a professor. In their experience, this was a reliable career path. So that was their excuse. I don't have that excuse, and neither do you.
In the past, we've seen people protesting in comments that if they had known what they know now they'd never have gone to grad school. And if it's true that their teachers hadn't warned them, I think it's scandalous.
Post a Comment