An Interactive Website Devoted to the Classics & Archaeology Job Market.
"Because there is no "hire" in "Higher Education"
Monday, January 1, 2007
... And There Was Much Rejoicing
Whether announcing a job offered, or a job accepted, feel free to let the world (or at least the few hundred readers of this blog) know. Once again, please don't name names, even your own.
All top programs wax and wane, depending on the speciality and standing faculty. Otherwise, there's isn't much separating Harvard from Minnesota in the grand scheme of things.
Berkeley had an amazing run of producing top ancient historians for a couple decades. With retirements, it looks like Berkeley's run at the top is over, but it will invariably remain among the best programs.
Penn had an amazing run as the best MC program from around 1950-1980. Many of us today would not know this, but a disproportionate amount of the top classical archaeologists about to retire were all Rodney Young's students.
Not surprisingly, Penn's decline fell in line with Young's death and the move of Mike Jameson to...you guessed it, Stanford. This started Stanford's run that's culminated now with the hire of Ian Morris.
For around twenty years, Penn's program fell on hard times but is now rising to the top again with the hire of Brian Rose, Tom Tartaron, and more ancient and art historians.
Michigan had an amazing run for philology during the same time of Penn's MC dominance. Look at their recent newsletter of alumni updates. Penn's MC program's decline coincides with Michigan's philology program's decline but the latter's material culture program took off culminating in the hires of Sue Alcock and John Cherry. Now these two are gone and I'm sure Brown's program will rise as Michigan's wane. Etc., etc., etc.
I think we are on our own with the wiki cleaning/matching. All I can assume is that those posting here do not also read the wikis. One would think that if they did, they would feel obligated to help out. You know, contributing to group efforts, not benefiting from the work of others without pitching in, that sort of thing.
Kind Soul, I think we should give up and clean no more. We must be the only two who read the wikis regularly. But no posters should be complaining about the state of the wiki in any way, shape, or form unless they have contributed to the wiki clean-up.
Look, I got bored at T. U was just too long. Sorry. Hope I didn't make any slip-ups or violate any agraptoi nomoi. I also corrected a few spellings, transferred a few new job entries wholesale from the new wiki (e.g., Alberta), and restored alphabetical order (as far as I know University of the South does not come after U-W).
Over the discussion of the merits or otherwise of our (American) PhD programs one shouldn't forget that every year some of the good jobs, and even jobs at SLACs, go to people with PhD's from abroad. I'm pretty sure Oxford (for instance) doesn't offer any APA support or interview prepping to their grad students, and still every year some of them get US jobs. Makes one wonder what the effort of American universities is really worth.
Here's a famae that I'll volent. I don't know this with certainty, but have good reason to believe that Penn's #2 choice has opted for another position.
If so, I would call this karma, i.e. what Penn deserves for not giving job-seekers the simple courtesy of acknowledging their applications had arrived (to allude to an earlier discussion on this blog).
People fresh out of an English PhD ought not to stand much chance against their American-trained equivalents. We're often talking about two years' difference in training and teaching. After two years out, however, when the English PhD has taught and lectured a fair bit, got a few articles out, and is approaching the publication of their thesis - then the tables are completely turned. It's worth pointing out that the American system tends to encourage more revision of the dissertation (which is a great idea if you have a t-t job, but otherwise presents enormous problems). Good SCs should be able to recognise differences in the global market and take account of them. The job market seems tolerable in the UK at the moment so I don't think there's any immediate cause for concern about a massively more competitive market.
Over the last two years the Brits have stayed home and the US now sees itself hiring Germans, and, suddenly, Italians, who had previously restricted themselves to the UK.
British academics complain a lot about bureaucracy and administration (perhaps rightly) but I haven't yet heard the dire reports of stagnation, nepotism, and even complete implosion that attach to Italian and German academia. I should say that I'm in no position to judge the truth of those reports (probably somewhat exaggerated).
I've been on 3 SCs now and I would agree with the previous assessment about Oxbridge grads. Princeton, Harvard, etc also falls into this category. When they are fresh out of school, they don't usually have an established CV and they have to fight the negative perception of being teaching stiffs with little experience. Once they have a couple years though, watch out, they have the experience to go with the name brand.
Sorry for the confusion,2:31 PM; it was a Stanford _graduate_ degree that was a crucial factor, and hey, perhaps that was a nice way of letting me down rather than some nebulous issue of "fit".
My point, ineptly stated, was that focusing on the name of a grad program is indirectly rewarding the undergraduate performance of a student, as they wouldn't have gotten into Stanford or wherever in the first place without exceptional performance in classics/archaeology/ancient history in their college years.
In response to 1:33 PM, I'm not at all saying that students from the "top" programs are undeserving; they have indeed been through rigorous programs with excellent and devoted advisors, and more power to them for getting good jobs. The question is more - ok, so what do the rest of us do, given that we can't change the names on our diplomas? How do we get SCs to look at our many other qualifications (including, in most cases, rigorous graduate programs)?
I don't know if I'm counting as the Stanford Fan, but the wiki is updated with all of the information I know about jobs at this point. Sorry not to have time to work on synchronizing, but I've been dyeing eggs with my family. Happy Purim/Holi/Eid Milad an Nabi/Easter/spring break, everyone!
My point, ineptly stated, was that focusing on the name of a grad program is indirectly rewarding the undergraduate performance of a student, as they wouldn't have gotten into Stanford or wherever in the first place without exceptional performance in classics/archaeology/ancient history in their college years.
Couldn't one extend this further and claim that one's brand-name grad degree is significantly dependent upon the socio-economic position enjoyed in childhood? Top programs tend to pick from top undergrad programs. Getting into Amherst, etc. these days is harder and harder unless you have the resources necessary to build the application portfolio (=money money money), and/or a diploma from the likes of Andover. And then there is the issue of choice of major as an undergrad. Classics tends to be the domain of the privileged, even today. And so forth and so on...
Now, I wouldn't make this argument myself, at least not so boldly, but I do think there is a serious class-bias in the academic system. This is partially reflected in the hiring practices and biases of the SCs. As for fixing it, no clue.
Since the top schools can offer massive financial aid the real problem, as identified by the previous poster, is the frankly awful public education system. If you want to fix that - and good luck to you - I'm afraid you're going to have to leave Classics behind and enter either public school education or government. There is no Left in this country to speak of, so you're really not going to get these debates about elitism in the public arena, just rank platitudes about a classless society and personal autonomy.
Does anyone think it would be worthwhile to list the PhD institutions of those who got t-t jobs last year? I feel the arguments about programs were improved by people being able to refer to the wiki for corroboration. I know two years isn't exactly a large statistical sample, but it's a start, and maybe in five years' time we'll have better data. I vaguely recall one poster saying the APA does not keep track of such things. And to the person who said that graduate programs are too small for such data to be of any use, well, we're at liberty to qualify our conclusions by accepting natural variations, right?
If we spent some time going back through the APA newsletters we could compile a fairly thorough database. The thing to do would be for one person to tackle one year and post the info here. Servius, would you create a separate page/post or whatever in order to get this information accessible?
I'll start by making a list of last year's. Shouldn't take too long, and if the plan fizzles out at least a lot of people's time won't have been wasted.
I think the plan under discussion is worthwhile but the information will be incomplete. Some schools never report whom they hire, as the Placement Service report usually complains. And for temporary jobs, contract renewals are usually not noted.
Here's a famae that I'll volent. I don't know this with certainty, but have good reason to believe that Penn's #2 choice has opted for another position.
If so, I would call this karma, i.e. what Penn deserves for not giving job-seekers the simple courtesy of acknowledging their applications had arrived (to allude to an earlier discussion on this blog).
Um, this is by far not the worst sin ever committed by an SC. Certainly not the worst sin ever mentioned on this blog.
I don't get the unpopularity of Penn. Do they have any of their shortlist left, even?
I was going to start with t-t jobs since that's primarily what we're concerned with, right? Last year's list on the wiki looks pretty full (more than the APA newsletter?) and PhD info should be easy enough to track down.
"I don't get the unpopularity of Penn. Do they have any of their shortlist left, even?"
I think much of Penn's unpopularity has to do with their salary. Despite Philadelphia being cheaper than most northeast cities, it's not *that* cheap anymore, and Penn has paid their junior faculty notoriously low. New hires were paid less than $40k in the mid to late 90s and I believe it's around $50k now for the humanities. Even tenured faculty can be significantly underpaid compared to other peer institutions unless one has used a job offer elsewhere as leverage.
How does Penn justify this? Their peripheral benefits can be superior, if a bit esoteric. Any employee can get a significant downpayment and low rate loan to purchase a home in the area. You can also send a kid to school at Penn for virtually free and many peer institutions at a fraction of the cost. Now whether one believes this and other peripheral benefits balance out the poor pay is up to the individual.
Re: "I should add that graduates from schools such as Michigan, Texas, Virginia, and Minnesota come from excellent programs yet lack The Name and so they flounder on the market."
[Awakes from drunken slumber with a snort; slurring, squinting, and pointing indiscriminately]
Wh-what? Who said that about Moo U? The next one to patronize me, I'm a-gonna...
[Listens to what bartender, who is washing a glass, has to say]
Here's a famae that I'll volent. I don't know this with certainty, but have good reason to believe that Penn's #2 choice has opted for another position.
Can you clarify this - did Penn indeed offer the job to someone else, and this person turned it down?
Any number of reasons why they didn't score their top choices (if this is the case, I don't know). I think they just got unlucky that their top choice chose another place. This happens. Maybe that candidate felt that Penn didn't have the right "fit". Just as candidates have to recognize that luck is a huge factor for their own search, SCs know this too. The process isn't random, but there are so many factors as to make it unpredictable and easy to mis-interpret. Penn is a great place, faculty are cool, lively intellectual culture, Philly is awesome, etc. etc. etc. (full disclosure: I was a post-bac there for a couple years), but if it doesn't "feel" right, or another offer is simply better for that person, they don't come. It certainly isn't a commentary on Penn. Karma? Isn't that supposed to be pretty even-steven? Failed search for the fact that they didn't acknowledge applications? Yikes, that's some overly-harsh, non-karmic pay-back, if you ask me.
Maybe their second choice had already accepted an offer so that would explain that. The further along the more difficult it is to fill the slot.
In the end, Penn will land a great person and that will be that. If not this year then next.
Regardless, SCs do need to be better about communication. Keeping candidates informed, and doing so in a timely manner, will go a long way to making this whole process less stressful. As much as I appreciate getting an APA interview, telling me that two days before the conference isn't all that thoughtful.
I'll try and figure out the hiring for academic year 2005-2006. I'm not going to limit it to t-t, however, since we need to know what the average time to t-t post is. If people are bouncing around on VAPs for an average of 4 of 5 years, this needs to get out.
I see that the job that I have been offered (yes!!) but not yet signed-on-the-dotted-line accepted is listed on the wiki as 'offered and accepted.' I'm not going to change it, since I am planning ultimately to accept the job, but folks should be careful about what they post.
I'm glad at least that whoever is responsible didn't post my name as well!
"I'll try and figure out the hiring for academic year 2005-2006. I'm not going to limit it to t-t, however, since we need to know what the average time to t-t post is. If people are bouncing around on VAPs for an average of 4 of 5 years, this needs to get out."
Okay, good idea, I'll include VAPs too. But we're just listing PhD/postdoc institutions, right? We're not trailing individuals' careers, surely?
I have no axe to grind against Penn, but part of their problem goes way back to when we talked about "hirability" on here. They went after this year's superstar candidate that every top school went after - Toronto, NYU, etc. They knew for a fact this person was checking out their options. Yet they put all their hopes into this person saying yes. They do this every year. While they were waiting, at least two candidates, who would have made great fits, chose other schools when they probably would have chose Penn unlike the superstar. Now they are left with a failed search, another year without a colleague, and the spectre of going through the circus yet again next year. There are many things neither SCs nor candidates can control. But your overall strategy CAN influence how successful you are.
Okay, good idea, I'll include VAPs too. But we're just listing PhD/postdoc institutions, right? We're not trailing individuals' careers, surely?
No, I think just Phd/postdoc is right. Over time you can track the info without worrying about trailing individuals.
I think the way to do this is to first make a list of all the jobs advertised for any given year, then do the APA Newsletters, and then check websites. I bet you can figure out how about 90% of the jobs were filled in three steps. Somewhat time-consuming, but better than playing x-box.
On the listing of those who got jobs in years past...
What about ABDs who get jobs, either t-t or temporary? (I think this is another trend we might follow, given the occasional discussions of experience v. potential on this blog.)
Would anyone who KNOWS care to say what's happening with the Michigan Latin position? The wiki says that the job was accepted. Did the job go to a Roman historian (as intended), or is this the "spousal" hire of someone who does Latin poetry?
Re: Michigan. Someone earlier posted "Did the job go to a Roman historian (as intended)". This puzzled me as the job ad said they were looking for someone who works on "Latin with an emphasis on Republican or early Augustan prose and its social and cultural contexts. Expertise in ancillary disciplines, such as epigraphy and numismatics, is welcome, as is familiarity with historiographic or rhetorical theory." Apparently the person was also to teach the grad. Latin lit. survey. If they'd intended to hire a historian the whole time that ad was pretty misleading and must have wasted quite a lot of people's time and hopes. So, to the earlier poster, are you *sure* they intended to hire a historian the whole time, or can I give Michigan the benefit of the doubt and assume they were casting their net more widely?
Given that the ad was for Republican / Augustan prose (and ancillaries), it stands to reason that Michigan was looking for a historian or an expert in rhetoric. Then again, perhaps there's someone out there who's really into agricultural manuals??!!
Michigan brought three candidates to campus, two of whom do Roman Republican history. Upon offering the job to the candidate who does not, in fact, work on the Roman Republic or Age of Augustus -- no, rather, quite Late Imperial!! So, yes, net cast widely-- Michigan immediately rejected the other two. The candidate to whom the job was offered has, however, since accepted a position elsewhere.
So if Michigan has offered the advertised TT position and has had it accepted, it was not offered to and accepted by one of three candidates invited to campus after their APA interviews.
Even if the ad didn't use the word "historian," my understanding is that they wanted someone more historical than not. Perhaps not Ronald Syme reincarnated, but certainly not Judith Hallett's young clone. (I won't go into specifics about how I formed that impression, though, but will state that it's based on more than the job posting.) The person hired as a spousal hire works on Latin poetry and doesn't appear to meet any aspect of the original job ad, hence my question.
I see that the job that I have been offered (yes!!) but not yet signed-on-the-dotted-line accepted is listed on the wiki as 'offered and accepted.' I'm not going to change it, since I am planning ultimately to accept the job, but folks should be careful about what they post.
I'm glad at least that whoever is responsible didn't post my name as well!
Yeah, this happened to me too, except that someone actually posted my name, long before it was a done deal. I have no idea who, or how they even knew, because it was not public information - not direct from me, nor from the department hiring. It was kind of annoying - I thought the wiki was a place for information from official communications, and the blog was for rumors. I would encourage people from refraining from posting people's names on the wiki unless you have their permission or know for sure a contract has been signed.
My point about the Michigan ad was that it seemed to include Latin literature people (albeit historically inclined) as much as if not more than Roman historians (of whatever period); but at least two people on this blog seem to have known that they were looking for a historian the whole time. If I were looking to hire a historian I sure could have written a better ad.
It's been stated before: people should NOT post any names until 3-4 weeks after the job has been accepted, and people had damned well better know that a job has been ACCEPTED. If people act responsibly there is no reason not to post names. I thought everyone around here knows a little something about having scholarly standards. Sheesh.
It seems to me that the biggest culprits when it comes to letting the cat out of the bag are the websites of the hiring department and the hire's graduate program. It's also sometiimes possible to deduce from looking at course schedules for the fall semester that list the hire's name. Now as to who would go through the trouble? I would guess it's well-intentioned people affiliated with one of two before-mentioned institutions.
"Given that the ad was for Republican / Augustan prose (and ancillaries), it stands to reason that Michigan was looking for a historian or an expert in rhetoric. Then again, perhaps there's someone out there who's really into agricultural manuals??!!"
Lol. People who work on historical writing = historians? By that logic, people who work on rhetoric are speechwriters and people who work on Apuleius are novelists!
And I wonder about those people who work on the Ars Amatoria...
"Lol. People who work on historical writing = historians? By that logic, people who work on rhetoric are speechwriters and people who work on Apuleius are novelists!
And I wonder about those people who work on the Ars Amatoria..."
Lol again. But quite inevitable. You can either subscribe to some stupid (and to my mind impossible) idea of objectivism and just study the Ars disinterestedly without letting its content and precepts affect you, or you can, as a serious student of the Ars, learn something from it and become a better lover at the same time as you study it. Same for rhetoric: you can just study it, or you can try to use what you observe in ancient rhetorical texts to improve your own discourse.
Guys, ancient texts were not written to be studied as German 19th century scholars studied them; they were written to change the lives of their readers! And if we just sit in our offices and heap footnotes on them, we engage in the worst kind of misreading possible.
Sorry for expanding the scope of this blog... Back to my morning coffee...
I get that depts want to "cast their net widely" but if you can't write an ad to indicate your preferences clearly then what does that say about your sense of the field (or the position for that matter)? SCs - stop wasting our time and optimism! (Some of us have precious little of either).
Guys, ancient texts were not written to be studied as German 19th century scholars studied them; they were written to change the lives of their readers! And if we just sit in our offices and heap footnotes on them, we engage in the worst kind of misreading possible.
I think some were written just to show off how smart and talented their authors were -- not to change lives. And footnotes can help to bring that out.
Granted, for example, that many of Martial's epigrams that ridiculed certain forms of behavior were encouraging more normative behavior, but can you tell me that the "Xenia" and "Apophoreta" changed lives?
This may be blasphemous, but I have a request/suggestion. Can we please abandon one wiki? I don't care which one, but having two going is annoying. I know the new wikihost site was supposed to fix the problems but I still get that stupid error message every now and then. Sometimes having to get retinal-scanned on the super-secret wiki is aggravating, but I haven't had any problems with it otherwise. Anyway, I wasn't one of those who coordinated the info updates (Thanks for that work. I was on break else I would have helped out!). But it was a short-term fix. We are going to continually have the same issues, and it doesn't seem worth it. So, this is a plea. Can we please abandon one wiki? We only need one!
I'm not sure who this superstar is who keeps on getting talked about, but I don't want to be discourteous to any of the other superstars who landed multiple sought-after jobs (yes, there are others; no, sadly, I was not one of them). Congratulations to you all. I do hope you get to form a rock band one day.
What you have to remember that being a rockstar on the job market is no guarantee that you will be one as a scholar. There are a bunch of senior scholars in our field who are now dead wood associate profs not able to retire lest they lose their benefits. I'm sure a bunch of these people were superstars back in the day when they were on the market. I wish the best for these recent superstars, but our field has a tendency to produce superstar du jours. Take one part elite graduate education, two parts Ivy League VAP, one hot speciality such as papyrological social history, three stellar reference letters from our SMALL world, and you have one superstar.
one hot speciality such as papyrological social history
I assume this is meant to be dripping with irony...
Papyrologists should be treated like rock-stars, but all to often they aren't. They are (wrongly, imho) seen as overly narrow. It is very hard to land generalist jobs - basically anything other than a major R1 - as a papyrologist.
Well, superstars don't usually aim to get hired by Brooks Brothers College or Southwest Central Moo University, do they? Papyrologists have been quite successful the past several years getting into top R-1 positions ASSUMING, they have all their other bases covered, like a good elite-university VAP.
"Take one part elite graduate education, two parts Ivy League VAP, one hot speciality such as papyrological social history, three stellar reference letters from our SMALL world, and you have one superstar."
I agree but add one publication in at least a middling journal that your advisor helped get accepted for you so that it rounds out your "promise" as a scholar. This of course goes along with an advisor who helped get you into grad school and the advisor who got you that VAP.
I say this somewhat contemptuously because you can see how dependent we are on the largely subjective opinions of a narrow group of senior scholars, who stamps your forehead with a big, red "OK" for other members to see. Yeah, we have to make sure that candidate will not jump on a table and squawk like a chicken. Never mind that the person's guaranteed to be a top-notch scholar. Can you stand their stench of disagreement when they sit next to you at a meeting?
"Take one part elite graduate education, two parts Ivy League VAP, one hot speciality such as papyrological social history, three stellar reference letters from our SMALL world, and you have one superstar."
Wow, I didn't realize I'm a superstar! Apparently neither do search committees, because I still don't have a job for next year, despite almost perfectly resembling that remark (replace three with six, and that field with something else - oh, and seven articles!).
I'm an as-yet unemployed superstar, too, and just like Anon. 11:58...just replace 1 Ivy VAP with 3 years teaching at 2 top-10 programs (including grad students), and ten publications. Must be my research specialty...it's just not "hot" enough.
Sure, there are superstars, but I don't think there's a recipe.
You can be a superstar, but you also have to perform during a couple concentratd days. It's basically a beauty pageant. You have your inherent beauty and you've put on your makeup, but you also have to do you song and dance and get paraded around in your bikini. You have to answer trite questions about world hunger or a struggle you've overcome in life. Do these tests help you do you job once you become Miss America/Universe? Nope. None of these things will prepare you for comforting kids in a cancer ward or meeting the Dalai Lama. But it's the only way you'll get the job though.
A bit late to the discussion, but I would argue with your statement that Penn's MC program fell into decline with the departure of Jameson for Stanford. For one thing, Jameson founded the Ancient History program at Penn, and was only peripherally involved with the archaeology program (if that's what you mean by MC). If anything, it was the death of Rodney Young that made the biggest difference -- and that happened back in 1974. Regardless, you are casually lumping three different programs together -- Classics, Classical Archaeology, and Ancient History. While Classical Archaeology did go through some tough times in the late 80s and early 90s, finally re-emerging as AAMW, the other programs continued on as successfully as before, under the guidance of Muhly, Rosen, Farrell, and others. If anything, it was the almost-simultaneous retirements of Muhly and Iakovidis, plus the departure of O'Connor for NYU that made a great, albeit temporarily, difference in the MC and Ancient History programs -- but in the mid-90s, not in the late 70s. One only has to look at the placement of their graduates from the 80s and 90s to see that those programs produced some good people, with decent T-T jobs and good publications, including the BA MC person who just got the Berkeley Nemea job among other offers (see http://www.arthistory.upenn.edu/aamw/alumni.html and http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/anch/alumni.htm). Programs do indeed wax and wane, especially in popularity, but blanket statements such as you have made are disingenuous at best and uninformed at worst.
I was a post-bac during R.E.A. Palmer's final year, and audited his Latin epigraphy course. Best grad course I ever took. His loss to retirement strikes me as a serious blow in terms of material culture at Penn, though I'm sure that because of his personality many would have seen things otherwise. (He did give out Hershey's Kisses in class when people said something smart, which made up for a lot of orneriness.)
I've added institutions for almost all of last year's job list. [Applause. Bow.] I can either put the list up somewhere for people to add the remaining few details (for 9 people), or I can just arrange what I have. (Don't crucify me for mistakes (for which apologies) - I did my best but it's not exactly my dissertation.)
Re: the arrangement - how about arranging by PhD institution in order of # of t-t appts. I know I know, looks like a horrible misleading league table, but we're all grown-ups here (most of the time), each of us has plentiful personal supplies of salt to pinch. Since we're all after t-t jobs it seems as good a way of arranging the list as any other, right? We could also go alphabetical if people prefer.
Oh yes, should we move this discussion over to Past Performances and Statistics?
Why not add the list as you have it to the bottom of the wiki, that way it will be open to edit? I'd keep it alphabetical, either by name or by institution. If people want to figure out which institutions placed more in a given year then they can, but arranging it like that will only piss people off for no good reason.
Fair enough. Unless anyone has any objections, then, I'll just replace the old list (without Ph.D. info) with the new one later today. Please fill in the few remaining blanks if you know the details.
List's up. There's an asterisk and question mark by the nine people I couldn't find details for (please fill in if you can). I put an open square bracket by failed searches or ones with no name listed. I also bracketed specifically senior searches (e.g., Corpus Prof. at Oxford) since I assume we're more interested in recent Ph.D.s and (potential) junior positions (hence I *did* put in the Ph.D. institution for open rank searches irrespective of the rank of the successful candidate).
Discussion of figures should really be confined to Past Performance or Professional Developments though, since we don't want to clutter this thread even more so than already.
20 VAP applications is scary indeed, but figure that a good number of them will be from ABDs. While ABDs may rule (or at least have one advantage on) the TT market, those who are out teaching have the leg up on ABDs who weren't snatched up in the TT food frenzy. At this point many schools just want a warm body to prop up in front of a class. Or so I think.
But since I don't have a job yet for next year, I clearly don't know what I'm talking about.
I thought that somebody had been offered the job, and accepted it. Now, however, one of the wikis states that the search failed. Anybody actually know what's going on there?
There was an offer made but not accepted. The search failed. Anyone who says otherwise is misinformed. (Note: I'm not at Michigan, but do pride myself on being informed...)
What I don't get about some of the failed searches (e.g., Michigan) is why they do not offer the position to the next candidate, if the first-choice candidate turns it down. And I bet the other finalists were just as qualified as the one who got offered the job, or they would not have been finalists for the job, right?
The position was offered to someone but they declined it. Michigan did not go deeper into their pool. Hence their search failed.
The reason for confusion is that Michigan did make a tenure track offer to someone who was already there, as part of a pre-arranged spousal-accomodation package. This person has accepted the position.
"What I don't get about some of the failed searches (e.g., Michigan) is why they do not offer the position to the next candidate, if the first-choice candidate turns it down. And I bet the other finalists were just as qualified as the one who got offered the job, or they would not have been finalists for the job, right?"
There are two things working here, which people have suggested on here is fairly common in the humanities job search/beauty pageant.
One is that a department can get hung up on a candidate for whatever reason. We HAVE to snag the person who studies purple, fractal widgets. I know this person from Boy Scout camp and he is brilliant, sociable, and can walk on water.
The other is that the longer the search drags, the more chance that your other top candidates will take offers elsewhere. For some, if you have your heart set on something you are passionate about, "second-best" might as well be a leper archaeologist with a big mole on their unibrow.
As the clock ticks, both factors can conspire to produce a failed search. Throw in spousal considerations, deans, donors, etc., and it can get downright messy. There appear to be at least a couple failed searches from some prominent universities.
Why do searches fail? Ours (not Michigan) didn't but it easily could have. Our top candidate took another position and then the runner up asked for a spousal hire. If the higher ups had decided (as they have always done in the past) to not grant the spousal hire, we would have had a failed search since the 3rd candidate was deemed unacceptable (seriously) after the campus visit and the Dean had already rejected our 4th choice. So, there are some more reasons why searches can fail.
I just got an automated e-mail rejection from the human resources department of one of those schools that requires an online HR form be completed as part of the application. And this was a place that interviewed me at the APA. Absolutely classless. Though perhaps the department will send its own letter as well -- we'll see.
Stanford IHUM, and in particular working with Ian Morris in the Ancient Empires course, is a blast. You'll have fun...I still think back fondly on my time there...
I did. And it's been long enough that I'm now tenured and Chair. May it be so for you as well -- all of the IHUMers from my era landed T-T jobs almost immediately...
Another reason that searches fail is that "the powers that be" (i.e. dean's office, or the higher authorities) sometimes allow departments only one shot. It's all or nothing. Whether this was or wasn't the case at UM is anyone's guess; apparently they did email the other two on-campus candidates as soon as they had made their offer to their first choice -- but before s/he accepted (that is, refused) it.
I'm not sure why the Michigan job is being brought up yet again, but from everything I've heard (and I have good sources) here are the pertinent facts: 1) Michigan decided that it was looking for something in particular, and therefore interviewed very few people (4-5?) at the APA; 2) the two final candidates who did not receive an offer appear not to have fit those very particular needs, even if they did fit the job ad as it was written and even if they would have been considered promising candidates elsewhere; 3) the person who "refused" -- now there's a loaded word -- the position had an excellent reason for doing so. So, there is no reason to think this had anything to do with an administration decision.
Maybe I should call myself "Calchas" so that you'll believe me.
I heard that 3% of the US owns 80% of the wealth while the next 50% owns 15%, leaving a large lower class scrambling for 5%. I'm beginning to think that classics job searches are the same way.
80% of the SCs out there are fighting for 3% of the candidates as their first choice. Many of these "superstars" drag out their decisions and the SCs go along with them for weeks if not months hoping to snag them. You know what happens next - the vast majority of the SCs get left at the altar resulting in 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th choices. Many decide to pull the plug like MI, Cornell, Arizona, Akron, Penn State and Penn (not a good year for PA). There is something inherently flawed in the system if our discipline has an overabundance of qualified people, unlike the sciences and law, but we have so many failed searches in comparison.
The sciences and law professionals can fall back on the industry, private practice, public practice, secondary education - a slew of professions outside academia. How many Yale, Stanford, Harvard, Penn, Chicago, and Columbia science PhDs and JDs do you know thankful to get a VAP in northern Iowa? Go down the list of classics VAPs hired last year and see where they ended up. If you're even somewhat competent in the sciences and law, you can get a great job. In classics, even the brightest and best-trained are not guaranteed a permanent position. It's what we all chose when we went into classics.
What is with MC searches? I'm not trying to open up a can of worms here, but I'm a curious historian. In a given year, maybe 10-20% of searches are explicitly MC, right? Whatever the ratio, it seems less than generalist, latinist, hellenist, or historian positions. For such relatively few positions, why are there so many failed MC searches? 50% of all failed searches? Going down the list this year, I see CS-Long Beach, Columbia, Akron, Arizona, and Toronto failed MC searches. Are there more moving parts when it comes to hiring an archaeologist? My department has no MC people so I've never been part of a search for one.
"I'm beginning to think that classics job searches are the same way."
I agree. Someone in the past mentioned "hirability" as a neglected criterion when considering candidates. What gets SCs so enamored and worked up to a froth about a superstar candidate they HAVE to have is rarely a guarantee that they will be a stellar scholar, colleague, and teacher. Surely they can snag just as good of a candidate who is imminently more hirable? Am I wrong and is it common for choice #1 to be head and shoulder above the rest?
I can think of one superstar his first year on the market whose department is now suffering serious buyer's remorse, and whose peers in his sub-field don't think too highly of his scholarship.
I can also think back to a few other grads who were contemporaries of mine who got a dozen or so interviews, and their fellow grads, who knew them best, were wondering what other schools saw in them.
Overall, search committees often get it right, but they also often do very dumb things, and not all of those dumb things were unforeseeable.
I can think of one superstar his first year on the market whose department is now suffering serious buyer's remorse, and whose peers in his sub-field don't think too highly of his scholarship.
Crap, I've been exposed for the fraud I've always been! Though I suppose the Meth use and the Jaeger shots just before faculty meetings didn't help, either.
Speaking of MC searches, what's with the heading under George Washington's classical archaeology search that states, "Second job offered and accepted by..." What second job? What sub-discipline was it for?
Quite possibly, but I heard there are still a couple TT jobs that the people are desperately trying to save. At least one looks to be DOA though since the spouse would have to give up her own TT job at a better school. Overall, it doesn't look good since the year is ending for most schools.
Minnesota Latinist lecturer position has been filled (so I was told by the search committee after the fact) I have heard that Cornell College (IA) is doing some phone interviews next week, I believe.
I've already accepted a position so I really have no axe to grind, but why do departments even advertise a non-TT position if they know 99% that they are hiring an internal candidate? From what I understand, it's not required to advertise, right? Why waste the time of so many people?
why do departments even advertise a non-TT position if they know 99% that they are hiring an internal candidate? From what I understand, it's not required to advertise, right? Why waste the time of so many people?
I think the most straightforward answer to this question is that the poster who said that is full of crap!
"why do departments even advertise a non-TT position if they know 99% that they are hiring an internal candidate? From what I understand, it's not required to advertise, right? Why waste the time of so many people?"
The most likely reason is cases where the internal candidate is looking at other options, so the SCs know they cannot rely on that person. After all, as hard as it is to remember this late in the spring, the whole process is a two-way street. So a candidate who is promised one job can still look at other jobs, and maybe even take one of them, leaving place #1 s.o.l.
"Five dollars says that there will be an angry post by an outraged UCLA faculty member up here shortly."
Why would a UCLA faculty member be outraged? Because their hand is revealed? It's obvious that the source of the leak is an insider at UCLA. Maybe even the alum promised the job? If this is indeed true, he or she is doing the rest of the applicants a favor.
How else would someone know? Yeah, it might be someone who knows an insider, but would people a degree removed care that much about a 1-year VAP? I doubt it. This is a local SoCal rumor mill thing.
But they don't know, that's why they said "I heard," because, yes, as you say -- it's a rumor! Just because the rumor exists doesn't mean it originates from someone on the inside.
I'm sure the rumor is true. UCLA's lecturer slot (it's not a VAP) is used as a spring-board for their unemployed Phds. When there aren't any, then it goes to someone else. And someone who is already there in the position from somewhere else will be displaced in favor of one of their own unemployed PhDs.
By the way, someone removed the rumor about the position from the passworded WIKI.
By the way, someone removed the rumor about the position from the passworded WIKI.
I did that. I thought the wiki was supposed to be only for "official communication", while famae is for, well, famae. It does seem better to keep the wiki as "clean" as possible. I was annoyed by all the Wheaton talk, but I refrained from deleting it and reposting here.
"I'm sure the rumor is true. UCLA's lecturer slot (it's not a VAP) is used as a spring-board for their unemployed Phds. When there aren't any, then it goes to someone else. And someone who is already there in the position from somewhere else will be displaced in favor of one of their own unemployed PhDs."
Positions should come with a "APA President's" warning, just like cigarettes. "The APA President has determined that the UCLA lecturer position is dangerous for the hopes of any outsider. Repeated applications by non-UCLA grads can lead to heartbreak and disillusionment."
And what's so bad about that, I wonder? I know my Alma Mater (happy mother's day!) in the East Coast has the same kind of lectureship (although the position is usually not advertised - does that make all the difference?), and imagine that some of the other Ph.D. granting institutions have similar arrangements.
And what's so bad about that, I wonder? I know my Alma Mater (happy mother's day!) in the East Coast has the same kind of lectureship (although the position is usually not advertised - does that make all the difference?)
Nothing bad about it at all, and yes, it does make a difference.
What is with MC searches? I'm not trying to open up a can of worms here, but I'm a curious historian. In a given year, maybe 10-20% of searches are explicitly MC, right? Whatever the ratio, it seems less than generalist, latinist, hellenist, or historian positions. For such relatively few positions, why are there so many failed MC searches? 50% of all failed searches? Going down the list this year, I see CS-Long Beach, Columbia, Akron, Arizona, and Toronto failed MC searches. Are there more moving parts when it comes to hiring an archaeologist? My department has no MC people so I've never been part of a search for one.
I'm a bit late to the discussion, but I'm tempted to agree that there are more moving parts. I would add "unfamiliar" as a descriptor to "parts."
I graduated from a state school with a great MC program that's not quite elite (i.e. not Berkeley, Michigan, or UNC). It took me several VAPs to land a permanent job this year.
The funny thing is that I always followed the "one notch down" rule when applying for jobs. So my "dream job" was an average flagship state school to go along with the SLACs and comprehensives.
Wouldn't you know it, I somehow got a job at an elite school? I wasn't the top choice or even the top-3 choice, but that's irrelevant now. MC searches are impossible to predict. There's no "standard" archaeologist. There are some characteristics, like experience at the Academcy or American School, but it's not nearly as standardized as a generalist position. SCs themselves don't know what to expect from my experience.
My advise for MC hopefuls out there is to apply for a variety of positions. You never know!
Excuse the ABD newbie here, but what substantive difference is there between a "lecturer" and a "VAP?"
Where I work--and I think it's typical--VAP means you have full-time "professor" status. "Lecturers" are on a difference pay scale and have lesser status. They do not necessarily work full time, and they don't have professorial duties (admin) or perks.
I know my Alma Mater (happy mother's day!) in the East Coast has the same kind of lectureship (although the position is usually not advertised - does that make all the difference?), and imagine that some of the other Ph.D. granting institutions have similar arrangements.
A lot of PhD programs have "arrangements" for ABDs or jobless alums not at their schools but at nearby schools. Brown has Wheaton in MA, UTexas has Trinity in San Antonio and Rice in Houston, etc. Again, those jobs tend not to be advertised.
At some places, I think the difference between visiting lecturer and visiting assistant professor is simply that one gets paid less. When I taught at a major state university I was a "lecturer" one year and then a "senior lecturer" when hired for a second-one year job (for which I got a $1000 or $2000 raise), but my chair told me that since at other institutions the same job is called "visiting assistant professor" I should put that on my C.V. I did that until I had moved on and the department got a new chair, since I was afraid that if he was asked he would have said, "No, X was only a lecturer."
Hmm, I wasn't clear in that last post. What I meant was that schools can get away with paying less to someone called "lecturer," and thus used that title for one-year junior visitors. That was the sense that I got from my chairman at that state university.
I'm a bit late to the discussion, but I'm tempted to agree that there are more moving parts. I would add "unfamiliar" as a descriptor to "parts." . . . There's no "standard" archaeologist. There are some characteristics, like experience at the Academcy or American School, but it's not nearly as standardized as a generalist position.
True. And I think the unfamiliar combined with fuzzy expectations of standard training can lead to all sorts of odd moments, missteps, and misinterpretations. It's important to keep in mind that "material culture" does not necessarily mean "archaeologist", either. (Just as "Roman archaeologist" hardly means someone who works in Rome. If your work is in Turkey, your "school" time might be at ARIT, not the Academy.) There's just SO much evidence, that it makes sense to have several specialists to deal with it (field archaeologists, theorists, art historians, etc.).
As we know, this is rarely the case, meaning that a grab-bag of ill-defined MC hopes might be all a committee has heading in--and out--of a job search. (Yes, it's a lot like any other search, I'm just saying the lack of cohesion seems greater, which probably leads to more failures.) I think it is very difficult for MC folks to understand where they stand in terms of competitiveness. I think it's best to take Anon 1:35's advice: just keep plugging away, if you can, until the right job opens up for you.
Hmm, I wasn't clear in that last post. What I meant was that schools can get away with paying less to someone called "lecturer," and thus used that title for one-year junior visitors.
Exactly the case where I work (as a lecturer). Thank goodness we have a union.
Here at a large state system in the East, the difference is largely bureaucratic. Administratively, VAPs need to be treated like an incoming assistant professor. This sounds great and all, but it can actually be a negative for a 1-year position that often requires some flexibility.
A perfect example is the issue of moving expenses. We are understandably not allowed to bump up the salary of an assistant professor to take into account their moving expenses, as this is a one time thing. VAPs get the same rule even though it's a one year gig. For both, we need to go through different channels and officially apply for the money. Often, the VAP does not get it and we have no way of reimbursing in a creative manner. This often leaves us no choice but to choose someone local.
For a lecturer, we are not allowed to apply for this moving money, BUT we are allowed to bump up a lecturer's salary to factor in the moving expenses. A bit ironic, no?
From a practical standpoint, how a VAP gets treated by a department vs. a lecturer is often a case by case issue. I have a friend who is a former associate professor from a middling school in Texas who is now a lecturer at a much more dynamic university and region. This was a conscious decision for a variety of reasons. This person sits in on all faculty meetings and is afforded a status not too dissimilar from a tenured faculty member. On the flipside, I know of VAPs who are treated a little better than mules. Overall, there are some trends concerning the two positions, but specifics vary widely from university to university.
I'm a bit late to the discussion, but I'm tempted to agree that there are more moving parts. I would add "unfamiliar" as a descriptor to "parts."
But c'mon, Long Beach, Columbia, Akron, Arizona, and Toronto?
Akron I can understand b/c it's not the most cosmo area nor the most pretigious uni(no offense to any natives or alums). Columbia I can understand a bit b/c of the elite reputation they are presumably trying to uphold. Toronto is probably similar and you have to factor in the entire Canadian thing. What's Arizona and Long Beach's excuse for failing searches? They seem to have the resources to conduct a good search, desirable regions, good departments, etc. Am the only one confused here?!
So...did you all get the email with the 2008-09 Placement Service forms, and see the APA's new proposal for letting candidates know some interviews before the meetings? The wiki is way better.
The Service seems so pleased with itself that it's doing this -- but it's still contingent on an institution getting their list in by mid December. I've always been informed by the institution before the meetings anyway. A change that would actually make a difference would be for them to do more things online rather than snail mail, especially that awful form on which you check off all the times you are available to meet.
It would be entirely possible to fill out the availability form online or email (I did it once by email when they lost the physical one).
Just an idea about the wiki: what about listing those unadvertised jobs (mostly temporary) mentioned above several times? (I think there's a few on there already, and last year's as well.) It would give us overall a better idea of how many jobs there actually are.
Folks, please do remember the name of this blog and don't assume what you read here is accurate. Some of the searches labeled "failed" are not (yet) failed. It can take a long time to iron out details on an offer, and even longer if a spousal hire or other issue is involved. The world of most universities is more complicated than you may realize. Patience.
I'll assume that your post wasn't meant to be as condescending as it sounded. So, if you really do have good info on tardy searches, please consider adding an actual useful update disputing their "failed" status! That would be much more helpful than vague hand-waving at an audience of benighted fools......
Anybody else seriously nervous about all of the state budget issues? I hear U. Florida let a bunch of tenure-track faculty go, and backed out from most of their new hires for this season. I assume California is also hurting, but haven't heard any news firsthand. Good reasons to look more closely at private colleges. This sucks!
357 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 357 of 357I did A-C...
Some kind soul did D-H...
Team spirit???
I did D-H. Once again, could someone do I-M?
The price for every other post on this thread: do one letter of the alphabet. Sound fair?
Anon. 2:48-
Believe it or not, but on the basis of your post I think I know who you are. Your cat was feral; mine is orange and fat. Yes?
All top programs wax and wane, depending on the speciality and standing faculty. Otherwise, there's isn't much separating Harvard from Minnesota in the grand scheme of things.
Berkeley had an amazing run of producing top ancient historians for a couple decades. With retirements, it looks like Berkeley's run at the top is over, but it will invariably remain among the best programs.
Penn had an amazing run as the best MC program from around 1950-1980. Many of us today would not know this, but a disproportionate amount of the top classical archaeologists about to retire were all Rodney Young's students.
Not surprisingly, Penn's decline fell in line with Young's death and the move of Mike Jameson to...you guessed it, Stanford. This started Stanford's run that's culminated now with the hire of Ian Morris.
For around twenty years, Penn's program fell on hard times but is now rising to the top again with the hire of Brian Rose, Tom Tartaron, and more ancient and art historians.
Michigan had an amazing run for philology during the same time of Penn's MC dominance. Look at their recent newsletter of alumni updates. Penn's MC program's decline coincides with Michigan's philology program's decline but the latter's material culture program took off culminating in the hires of Sue Alcock and John Cherry. Now these two are gone and I'm sure Brown's program will rise as Michigan's wane. Etc., etc., etc.
Kind Soul,
I think we are on our own with the wiki cleaning/matching. All I can assume is that those posting here do not also read the wikis. One would think that if they did, they would feel obligated to help out. You know, contributing to group efforts, not benefiting from the work of others without pitching in, that sort of thing.
Kind Soul, I think we should give up and clean no more. We must be the only two who read the wikis regularly. But no posters should be complaining about the state of the wiki in any way, shape, or form unless they have contributed to the wiki clean-up.
Signing off,
A-H
I'm going to do a few wiki letters starting from Y and working my up.
Faith in humanity restored!
I'll do I-M.
Many many thanks to our newest volunteers!
Look, I got bored at T. U was just too long. Sorry. Hope I didn't make any slip-ups or violate any agraptoi nomoi. I also corrected a few spellings, transferred a few new job entries wholesale from the new wiki (e.g., Alberta), and restored alphabetical order (as far as I know University of the South does not come after U-W).
I'll just finish up with all the edits.
- originally I-M
"I'll just finish up with all the edits.
- originally I-M"
If you run out of steam, hand it back over, and I'll do some more.
And thanks to you and to Retro!
Over the discussion of the merits or otherwise of our (American) PhD programs one shouldn't forget that every year some of the good jobs, and even jobs at SLACs, go to people with PhD's from abroad. I'm pretty sure Oxford (for instance) doesn't offer any APA support or interview prepping to their grad students, and still every year some of them get US jobs. Makes one wonder what the effort of American universities is really worth.
Here's a famae that I'll volent. I don't know this with certainty, but have good reason to believe that Penn's #2 choice has opted for another position.
If so, I would call this karma, i.e. what Penn deserves for not giving job-seekers the simple courtesy of acknowledging their applications had arrived (to allude to an earlier discussion on this blog).
All cleaned up now to best of my abilities.
- Classicist formerly known as I-M.
People fresh out of an English PhD ought not to stand much chance against their American-trained equivalents. We're often talking about two years' difference in training and teaching. After two years out, however, when the English PhD has taught and lectured a fair bit, got a few articles out, and is approaching the publication of their thesis - then the tables are completely turned. It's worth pointing out that the American system tends to encourage more revision of the dissertation (which is a great idea if you have a t-t job, but otherwise presents enormous problems). Good SCs should be able to recognise differences in the global market and take account of them. The job market seems tolerable in the UK at the moment so I don't think there's any immediate cause for concern about a massively more competitive market.
You are our hero and princeps civitatis of the global village.
You are our hero and princeps civitatis of the global village.
That was for s/he who cleaned up the wikis, by the way.
Over the last two years the Brits have stayed home and the US now sees itself hiring Germans, and, suddenly, Italians, who had previously restricted themselves to the UK.
British academics complain a lot about bureaucracy and administration (perhaps rightly) but I haven't yet heard the dire reports of stagnation, nepotism, and even complete implosion that attach to Italian and German academia. I should say that I'm in no position to judge the truth of those reports (probably somewhat exaggerated).
I've been on 3 SCs now and I would agree with the previous assessment about Oxbridge grads. Princeton, Harvard, etc also falls into this category. When they are fresh out of school, they don't usually have an established CV and they have to fight the negative perception of being teaching stiffs with little experience. Once they have a couple years though, watch out, they have the experience to go with the name brand.
Sorry for the confusion,2:31 PM; it was a Stanford _graduate_ degree that was a crucial factor, and hey, perhaps that was a nice way of letting me down rather than some nebulous issue of "fit".
My point, ineptly stated, was that focusing on the name of a grad program is indirectly rewarding the undergraduate performance of a student, as they wouldn't have gotten into Stanford or wherever in the first place without exceptional performance in classics/archaeology/ancient history in their college years.
In response to 1:33 PM, I'm not at all saying that students from the "top" programs are undeserving; they have indeed been through rigorous programs with excellent and devoted advisors, and more power to them for getting good jobs. The question is more - ok, so what do the rest of us do, given that we can't change the names on our diplomas? How do we get SCs to look at our many other qualifications (including, in most cases, rigorous graduate programs)?
I don't know if I'm counting as the Stanford Fan, but the wiki is updated with all of the information I know about jobs at this point. Sorry not to have time to work on synchronizing, but I've been dyeing eggs with my family. Happy Purim/Holi/Eid Milad an Nabi/Easter/spring break, everyone!
I'll work on cleaning up the wiki if somebody points out what sections still need it.
My point, ineptly stated, was that focusing on the name of a grad program is indirectly rewarding the undergraduate performance of a student, as they wouldn't have gotten into Stanford or wherever in the first place without exceptional performance in classics/archaeology/ancient history in their college years.
Couldn't one extend this further and claim that one's brand-name grad degree is significantly dependent upon the socio-economic position enjoyed in childhood? Top programs tend to pick from top undergrad programs. Getting into Amherst, etc. these days is harder and harder unless you have the resources necessary to build the application portfolio (=money money money), and/or a diploma from the likes of Andover. And then there is the issue of choice of major as an undergrad. Classics tends to be the domain of the privileged, even today. And so forth and so on...
Now, I wouldn't make this argument myself, at least not so boldly, but I do think there is a serious class-bias in the academic system. This is partially reflected in the hiring practices and biases of the SCs. As for fixing it, no clue.
Since the top schools can offer massive financial aid the real problem, as identified by the previous poster, is the frankly awful public education system. If you want to fix that - and good luck to you - I'm afraid you're going to have to leave Classics behind and enter either public school education or government. There is no Left in this country to speak of, so you're really not going to get these debates about elitism in the public arena, just rank platitudes about a classless society and personal autonomy.
Does anyone think it would be worthwhile to list the PhD institutions of those who got t-t jobs last year? I feel the arguments about programs were improved by people being able to refer to the wiki for corroboration. I know two years isn't exactly a large statistical sample, but it's a start, and maybe in five years' time we'll have better data. I vaguely recall one poster saying the APA does not keep track of such things. And to the person who said that graduate programs are too small for such data to be of any use, well, we're at liberty to qualify our conclusions by accepting natural variations, right?
If we spent some time going back through the APA newsletters we could compile a fairly thorough database. The thing to do would be for one person to tackle one year and post the info here. Servius, would you create a separate page/post or whatever in order to get this information accessible?
I'll start by making a list of last year's. Shouldn't take too long, and if the plan fizzles out at least a lot of people's time won't have been wasted.
I think the plan under discussion is worthwhile but the information will be incomplete. Some schools never report whom they hire, as the Placement Service report usually complains. And for temporary jobs, contract renewals are usually not noted.
Here's a famae that I'll volent. I don't know this with certainty, but have good reason to believe that Penn's #2 choice has opted for another position.
If so, I would call this karma, i.e. what Penn deserves for not giving job-seekers the simple courtesy of acknowledging their applications had arrived (to allude to an earlier discussion on this blog).
Um, this is by far not the worst sin ever committed by an SC. Certainly not the worst sin ever mentioned on this blog.
I don't get the unpopularity of Penn. Do they have any of their shortlist left, even?
I was going to start with t-t jobs since that's primarily what we're concerned with, right? Last year's list on the wiki looks pretty full (more than the APA newsletter?) and PhD info should be easy enough to track down.
"I don't get the unpopularity of Penn. Do they have any of their shortlist left, even?"
I think much of Penn's unpopularity has to do with their salary. Despite Philadelphia being cheaper than most northeast cities, it's not *that* cheap anymore, and Penn has paid their junior faculty notoriously low. New hires were paid less than $40k in the mid to late 90s and I believe it's around $50k now for the humanities. Even tenured faculty can be significantly underpaid compared to other peer institutions unless one has used a job offer elsewhere as leverage.
How does Penn justify this? Their peripheral benefits can be superior, if a bit esoteric. Any employee can get a significant downpayment and low rate loan to purchase a home in the area. You can also send a kid to school at Penn for virtually free and many peer institutions at a fraction of the cost. Now whether one believes this and other peripheral benefits balance out the poor pay is up to the individual.
Re: "I should add that graduates from schools such as Michigan, Texas, Virginia, and Minnesota come from excellent programs yet lack The Name and so they flounder on the market."
[Awakes from drunken slumber with a snort; slurring, squinting, and pointing indiscriminately]
Wh-what? Who said that about Moo U? The next one to patronize me, I'm a-gonna...
[Listens to what bartender, who is washing a glass, has to say]
That was yesterday? Oh screw it. Drinks on me!
Here's a famae that I'll volent. I don't know this with certainty, but have good reason to believe that Penn's #2 choice has opted for another position.
Can you clarify this - did Penn indeed offer the job to someone else, and this person turned it down?
Regarding Penn:
Any number of reasons why they didn't score their top choices (if this is the case, I don't know). I think they just got unlucky that their top choice chose another place. This happens. Maybe that candidate felt that Penn didn't have the right "fit". Just as candidates have to recognize that luck is a huge factor for their own search, SCs know this too. The process isn't random, but there are so many factors as to make it unpredictable and easy to mis-interpret. Penn is a great place, faculty are cool, lively intellectual culture, Philly is awesome, etc. etc. etc. (full disclosure: I was a post-bac there for a couple years), but if it doesn't "feel" right, or another offer is simply better for that person, they don't come. It certainly isn't a commentary on Penn. Karma? Isn't that supposed to be pretty even-steven? Failed search for the fact that they didn't acknowledge applications? Yikes, that's some overly-harsh, non-karmic pay-back, if you ask me.
Maybe their second choice had already accepted an offer so that would explain that. The further along the more difficult it is to fill the slot.
In the end, Penn will land a great person and that will be that. If not this year then next.
Regardless, SCs do need to be better about communication. Keeping candidates informed, and doing so in a timely manner, will go a long way to making this whole process less stressful. As much as I appreciate getting an APA interview, telling me that two days before the conference isn't all that thoughtful.
I'll try and figure out the hiring for academic year 2005-2006. I'm not going to limit it to t-t, however, since we need to know what the average time to t-t post is. If people are bouncing around on VAPs for an average of 4 of 5 years, this needs to get out.
I see that the job that I have been offered (yes!!) but not yet signed-on-the-dotted-line accepted is listed on the wiki as 'offered and accepted.' I'm not going to change it, since I am planning ultimately to accept the job, but folks should be careful about what they post.
I'm glad at least that whoever is responsible didn't post my name as well!
"I'll try and figure out the hiring for academic year 2005-2006. I'm not going to limit it to t-t, however, since we need to know what the average time to t-t post is. If people are bouncing around on VAPs for an average of 4 of 5 years, this needs to get out."
Okay, good idea, I'll include VAPs too. But we're just listing PhD/postdoc institutions, right? We're not trailing individuals' careers, surely?
I have no axe to grind against Penn, but part of their problem goes way back to when we talked about "hirability" on here. They went after this year's superstar candidate that every top school went after - Toronto, NYU, etc. They knew for a fact this person was checking out their options. Yet they put all their hopes into this person saying yes. They do this every year. While they were waiting, at least two candidates, who would have made great fits, chose other schools when they probably would have chose Penn unlike the superstar. Now they are left with a failed search, another year without a colleague, and the spectre of going through the circus yet again next year. There are many things neither SCs nor candidates can control. But your overall strategy CAN influence how successful you are.
Okay, good idea, I'll include VAPs too. But we're just listing PhD/postdoc institutions, right? We're not trailing individuals' careers, surely?
No, I think just Phd/postdoc is right. Over time you can track the info without worrying about trailing individuals.
I think the way to do this is to first make a list of all the jobs advertised for any given year, then do the APA Newsletters, and then check websites. I bet you can figure out how about 90% of the jobs were filled in three steps. Somewhat time-consuming, but better than playing x-box.
On the listing of those who got jobs in years past...
What about ABDs who get jobs, either t-t or temporary? (I think this is another trend we might follow, given the occasional discussions of experience v. potential on this blog.)
Would anyone who KNOWS care to say what's happening with the Michigan Latin position? The wiki says that the job was accepted. Did the job go to a Roman historian (as intended), or is this the "spousal" hire of someone who does Latin poetry?
I am not one who knows, but I can play one on this blog.
I "think/heard" that it went to an actual Roman "cultural/social historian". Take that cum grano, however, as I don't know who they are.
I'm a little confused about the two temp. jobs at Dartmouth. Has the 2-yr Hellenist VAP been accepted or the 1-yr Greek Archaeology VAP or both?
Re: Michigan. Someone earlier posted "Did the job go to a Roman historian (as intended)". This puzzled me as the job ad said they were looking for someone who works on "Latin with an emphasis on Republican or early Augustan prose and its social and cultural contexts. Expertise in ancillary disciplines, such as epigraphy and numismatics, is welcome, as is familiarity with historiographic or rhetorical theory." Apparently the person was also to teach the grad. Latin lit. survey. If they'd intended to hire a historian the whole time that ad was pretty misleading and must have wasted quite a lot of people's time and hopes. So, to the earlier poster, are you *sure* they intended to hire a historian the whole time, or can I give Michigan the benefit of the doubt and assume they were casting their net more widely?
Re. Michigan. {Famae volent}
Given that the ad was for Republican / Augustan prose (and ancillaries), it stands to reason that Michigan was looking for a historian or an expert in rhetoric. Then again, perhaps there's someone out there who's really into agricultural manuals??!!
Michigan brought three candidates to campus, two of whom do Roman Republican history. Upon offering the job to the candidate who does not, in fact, work on the Roman Republic or Age of Augustus -- no, rather, quite Late Imperial!! So, yes, net cast widely-- Michigan immediately rejected the other two. The candidate to whom the job was offered has, however, since accepted a position elsewhere.
So if Michigan has offered the advertised TT position and has had it accepted, it was not offered to and accepted by one of three candidates invited to campus after their APA interviews.
Even if the ad didn't use the word "historian," my understanding is that they wanted someone more historical than not. Perhaps not Ronald Syme reincarnated, but certainly not Judith Hallett's young clone. (I won't go into specifics about how I formed that impression, though, but will state that it's based on more than the job posting.) The person hired as a spousal hire works on Latin poetry and doesn't appear to meet any aspect of the original job ad, hence my question.
Know any jobs out there for Judith Hallett's young clone, ooc?
I see that the job that I have been offered (yes!!) but not yet signed-on-the-dotted-line accepted is listed on the wiki as 'offered and accepted.' I'm not going to change it, since I am planning ultimately to accept the job, but folks should be careful about what they post.
I'm glad at least that whoever is responsible didn't post my name as well!
Yeah, this happened to me too, except that someone actually posted my name, long before it was a done deal. I have no idea who, or how they even knew, because it was not public information - not direct from me, nor from the department hiring. It was kind of annoying - I thought the wiki was a place for information from official communications, and the blog was for rumors. I would encourage people from refraining from posting people's names on the wiki unless you have their permission or know for sure a contract has been signed.
My point about the Michigan ad was that it seemed to include Latin literature people (albeit historically inclined) as much as if not more than Roman historians (of whatever period); but at least two people on this blog seem to have known that they were looking for a historian the whole time. If I were looking to hire a historian I sure could have written a better ad.
It's been stated before: people should NOT post any names until 3-4 weeks after the job has been accepted, and people had damned well better know that a job has been ACCEPTED. If people act responsibly there is no reason not to post names. I thought everyone around here knows a little something about having scholarly standards. Sheesh.
It seems to me that the biggest culprits when it comes to letting the cat out of the bag are the websites of the hiring department and the hire's graduate program. It's also sometiimes possible to deduce from looking at course schedules for the fall semester that list the hire's name. Now as to who would go through the trouble? I would guess it's well-intentioned people affiliated with one of two before-mentioned institutions.
Anon. March 24, 2008 9:27 PM
"Given that the ad was for Republican / Augustan prose (and ancillaries), it stands to reason that Michigan was looking for a historian or an expert in rhetoric. Then again, perhaps there's someone out there who's really into agricultural manuals??!!"
Lol. People who work on historical writing = historians? By that logic, people who work on rhetoric are speechwriters and people who work on Apuleius are novelists!
And I wonder about those people who work on the Ars Amatoria...
lol. WWTS? (What would Tacitus say?) And of course, those who work on agricultural manuals are, of course, farmers -- or maybe biologists?
"Lol. People who work on historical writing = historians? By that logic, people who work on rhetoric are speechwriters and people who work on Apuleius are novelists!
And I wonder about those people who work on the Ars Amatoria..."
Lol again. But quite inevitable. You can either subscribe to some stupid (and to my mind impossible) idea of objectivism and just study the Ars disinterestedly without letting its content and precepts affect you, or you can, as a serious student of the Ars, learn something from it and become a better lover at the same time as you study it. Same for rhetoric: you can just study it, or you can try to use what you observe in ancient rhetorical texts to improve your own discourse.
Guys, ancient texts were not written to be studied as German 19th century scholars studied them; they were written to change the lives of their readers! And if we just sit in our offices and heap footnotes on them, we engage in the worst kind of misreading possible.
Sorry for expanding the scope of this blog... Back to my morning coffee...
In any event, I heard that Michigan -- as per their ad -- hired a dietitian who works on Celsus...
I get that depts want to "cast their net widely" but if you can't write an ad to indicate your preferences clearly then what does that say about your sense of the field (or the position for that matter)? SCs - stop wasting our time and optimism! (Some of us have precious little of either).
Guys, ancient texts were not written to be studied as German 19th century scholars studied them; they were written to change the lives of their readers! And if we just sit in our offices and heap footnotes on them, we engage in the worst kind of misreading possible.
I think some were written just to show off how smart and talented their authors were -- not to change lives. And footnotes can help to bring that out.
Granted, for example, that many of Martial's epigrams that ridiculed certain forms of behavior were encouraging more normative behavior, but can you tell me that the "Xenia" and "Apophoreta" changed lives?
This may be blasphemous, but I have a request/suggestion. Can we please abandon one wiki? I don't care which one, but having two going is annoying. I know the new wikihost site was supposed to fix the problems but I still get that stupid error message every now and then. Sometimes having to get retinal-scanned on the super-secret wiki is aggravating, but I haven't had any problems with it otherwise. Anyway, I wasn't one of those who coordinated the info updates (Thanks for that work. I was on break else I would have helped out!). But it was a short-term fix. We are going to continually have the same issues, and it doesn't seem worth it. So, this is a plea. Can we please abandon one wiki? We only need one!
I'm not sure who this superstar is who keeps on getting talked about, but I don't want to be discourteous to any of the other superstars who landed multiple sought-after jobs (yes, there are others; no, sadly, I was not one of them). Congratulations to you all. I do hope you get to form a rock band one day.
What you have to remember that being a rockstar on the job market is no guarantee that you will be one as a scholar. There are a bunch of senior scholars in our field who are now dead wood associate profs not able to retire lest they lose their benefits. I'm sure a bunch of these people were superstars back in the day when they were on the market. I wish the best for these recent superstars, but our field has a tendency to produce superstar du jours. Take one part elite graduate education, two parts Ivy League VAP, one hot speciality such as papyrological social history, three stellar reference letters from our SMALL world, and you have one superstar.
one hot speciality such as papyrological social history
I assume this is meant to be dripping with irony...
Papyrologists should be treated like rock-stars, but all to often they aren't. They are (wrongly, imho) seen as overly narrow. It is very hard to land generalist jobs - basically anything other than a major R1 - as a papyrologist.
Well, superstars don't usually aim to get hired by Brooks Brothers College or Southwest Central Moo University, do they? Papyrologists have been quite successful the past several years getting into top R-1 positions ASSUMING, they have all their other bases covered, like a good elite-university VAP.
"Take one part elite graduate education, two parts Ivy League VAP, one hot speciality such as papyrological social history, three stellar reference letters from our SMALL world, and you have one superstar."
I agree but add one publication in at least a middling journal that your advisor helped get accepted for you so that it rounds out your "promise" as a scholar.
This of course goes along with an advisor who helped get you into grad school and the advisor who got you that VAP.
I say this somewhat contemptuously because you can see how dependent we are on the largely subjective opinions of a narrow group of senior scholars, who stamps your forehead with a big, red "OK" for other members to see. Yeah, we have to make sure that candidate will not jump on a table and squawk like a chicken. Never mind that the person's guaranteed to be a top-notch scholar. Can you stand their stench of disagreement when they sit next to you at a meeting?
"Take one part elite graduate education, two parts Ivy League VAP, one hot speciality such as papyrological social history, three stellar reference letters from our SMALL world, and you have one superstar."
Wow, I didn't realize I'm a superstar! Apparently neither do search committees, because I still don't have a job for next year, despite almost perfectly resembling that remark (replace three with six, and that field with something else - oh, and seven articles!).
I'm an as-yet unemployed superstar, too, and just like Anon. 11:58...just replace 1 Ivy VAP with 3 years teaching at 2 top-10 programs (including grad students), and ten publications. Must be my research specialty...it's just not "hot" enough.
Sure, there are superstars, but I don't think there's a recipe.
You can be a superstar, but you also have to perform during a couple concentratd days. It's basically a beauty pageant. You have your inherent beauty and you've put on your makeup, but you also have to do you song and dance and get paraded around in your bikini. You have to answer trite questions about world hunger or a struggle you've overcome in life. Do these tests help you do you job once you become Miss America/Universe? Nope. None of these things will prepare you for comforting kids in a cancer ward or meeting the Dalai Lama. But it's the only way you'll get the job though.
In retrospect, I'm pretty sure the swim-suit competition took me out of the running this year.
Signed,
Unemployed Superstar, a.k.a. First or Second runner-up for a nice job
Two words: Brazilian Wax
A bit late to the discussion, but I would argue with your statement that Penn's MC program fell into decline with the departure of Jameson for Stanford. For one thing, Jameson founded the Ancient History program at Penn, and was only peripherally involved with the archaeology program (if that's what you mean by MC). If anything, it was the death of Rodney Young that made the biggest difference -- and that happened back in 1974. Regardless, you are casually lumping three different programs together -- Classics, Classical Archaeology, and Ancient History. While Classical Archaeology did go through some tough times in the late 80s and early 90s, finally re-emerging as AAMW, the other programs continued on as successfully as before, under the guidance of Muhly, Rosen, Farrell, and others. If anything, it was the almost-simultaneous retirements of Muhly and Iakovidis, plus the departure of O'Connor for NYU that made a great, albeit temporarily, difference in the MC and Ancient History programs -- but in the mid-90s, not in the late 70s. One only has to look at the placement of their graduates from the 80s and 90s to see that those programs produced some good people, with decent T-T jobs and good publications, including the BA MC person who just got the Berkeley Nemea job among other offers (see http://www.arthistory.upenn.edu/aamw/alumni.html and http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/anch/alumni.htm). Programs do indeed wax and wane, especially in popularity, but blanket statements such as you have made are disingenuous at best and uninformed at worst.
(signed) A Penn Grad (obviously)
I was a post-bac during R.E.A. Palmer's final year, and audited his Latin epigraphy course. Best grad course I ever took. His loss to retirement strikes me as a serious blow in terms of material culture at Penn, though I'm sure that because of his personality many would have seen things otherwise. (He did give out Hershey's Kisses in class when people said something smart, which made up for a lot of orneriness.)
I assume that everybody knows The Donald (Trump) is himself A Penn Grad?
Just a bit of useless trivia. Carry on!
UC Davis - offered and accepted.
I've added institutions for almost all of last year's job list. [Applause. Bow.] I can either put the list up somewhere for people to add the remaining few details (for 9 people), or I can just arrange what I have. (Don't crucify me for mistakes (for which apologies) - I did my best but it's not exactly my dissertation.)
Re: the arrangement - how about arranging by PhD institution in order of # of t-t appts. I know I know, looks like a horrible misleading league table, but we're all grown-ups here (most of the time), each of us has plentiful personal supplies of salt to pinch. Since we're all after t-t jobs it seems as good a way of arranging the list as any other, right? We could also go alphabetical if people prefer.
Oh yes, should we move this discussion over to Past Performances and Statistics?
Why not add the list as you have it to the bottom of the wiki, that way it will be open to edit? I'd keep it alphabetical, either by name or by institution. If people want to figure out which institutions placed more in a given year then they can, but arranging it like that will only piss people off for no good reason.
Fair enough. Unless anyone has any objections, then, I'll just replace the old list (without Ph.D. info) with the new one later today. Please fill in the few remaining blanks if you know the details.
List's up. There's an asterisk and question mark by the nine people I couldn't find details for (please fill in if you can). I put an open square bracket by failed searches or ones with no name listed. I also bracketed specifically senior searches (e.g., Corpus Prof. at Oxford) since I assume we're more interested in recent Ph.D.s and (potential) junior positions (hence I *did* put in the Ph.D. institution for open rank searches irrespective of the rank of the successful candidate).
Discussion of figures should really be confined to Past Performance or Professional Developments though, since we don't want to clutter this thread even more so than already.
Evergreen College
Classical Studies
Offered and accepted
20 VAP applications is scary indeed, but figure that a good number of them will be from ABDs. While ABDs may rule (or at least have one advantage on) the TT market, those who are out teaching have the leg up on ABDs who weren't snatched up in the TT food frenzy. At this point many schools just want a warm body to prop up in front of a class. Or so I think.
But since I don't have a job yet for next year, I clearly don't know what I'm talking about.
Michigan Latinist position
I thought that somebody had been offered the job, and accepted it. Now, however, one of the wikis states that the search failed. Anybody actually know what's going on there?
There was an offer made but not accepted. The search failed. Anyone who says otherwise is misinformed. (Note: I'm not at Michigan, but do pride myself on being informed...)
What I don't get about some of the failed searches (e.g., Michigan) is why they do not offer the position to the next candidate, if the first-choice candidate turns it down. And I bet the other finalists were just as qualified as the one who got offered the job, or they would not have been finalists for the job, right?
Re: Michigan
The position was offered to someone but they declined it. Michigan did not go deeper into their pool. Hence their search failed.
The reason for confusion is that Michigan did make a tenure track offer to someone who was already there, as part of a pre-arranged spousal-accomodation package. This person has accepted the position.
These are the facts.
"What I don't get about some of the failed searches (e.g., Michigan) is why they do not offer the position to the next candidate, if the first-choice candidate turns it down. And I bet the other finalists were just as qualified as the one who got offered the job, or they would not have been finalists for the job, right?"
There are two things working here, which people have suggested on here is fairly common in the humanities job search/beauty pageant.
One is that a department can get hung up on a candidate for whatever reason. We HAVE to snag the person who studies purple, fractal widgets. I know this person from Boy Scout camp and he is brilliant, sociable, and can walk on water.
The other is that the longer the search drags, the more chance that your other top candidates will take offers elsewhere. For some, if you have your heart set on something you are passionate about, "second-best" might as well be a leper archaeologist with a big mole on their unibrow.
As the clock ticks, both factors can conspire to produce a failed search. Throw in spousal considerations, deans, donors, etc., and it can get downright messy. There appear to be at least a couple failed searches from some prominent universities.
Damnit! I knew that I should choose between the mole and the unibrow. Both of them together was a bit much...
Why do searches fail? Ours (not Michigan) didn't but it easily could have. Our top candidate took another position and then the runner up asked for a spousal hire. If the higher ups had decided (as they have always done in the past) to not grant the spousal hire, we would have had a failed search since the 3rd candidate was deemed unacceptable (seriously) after the campus visit and the Dean had already rejected our 4th choice. So, there are some more reasons why searches can fail.
I just got an automated e-mail rejection from the human resources department of one of those schools that requires an online HR form be completed as part of the application. And this was a place that interviewed me at the APA. Absolutely classless. Though perhaps the department will send its own letter as well -- we'll see.
Stanford IHUM fellowship offered.
Stanford IHUM fellowship accepted (teaching Ancient Empires and Laws & Orders)
Stanford IHUM, and in particular working with Ian Morris in the Ancient Empires course, is a blast. You'll have fun...I still think back fondly on my time there...
Thanks; that's great to hear! And I hope you have since moved on to a great tenure-track job yourself. I'm really looking forward to the IHUM program.
I did. And it's been long enough that I'm now tenured and Chair. May it be so for you as well -- all of the IHUMers from my era landed T-T jobs almost immediately...
Another reason that searches fail is that "the powers that be" (i.e. dean's office, or the higher authorities) sometimes allow departments only one shot. It's all or nothing.
Whether this was or wasn't the case at UM is anyone's guess; apparently they did email the other two on-campus candidates as soon as they had made their offer to their first choice -- but before s/he accepted (that is, refused) it.
I'm not sure why the Michigan job is being brought up yet again, but from everything I've heard (and I have good sources) here are the pertinent facts: 1) Michigan decided that it was looking for something in particular, and therefore interviewed very few people (4-5?) at the APA; 2) the two final candidates who did not receive an offer appear not to have fit those very particular needs, even if they did fit the job ad as it was written and even if they would have been considered promising candidates elsewhere; 3) the person who "refused" -- now there's a loaded word -- the position had an excellent reason for doing so. So, there is no reason to think this had anything to do with an administration decision.
Maybe I should call myself "Calchas" so that you'll believe me.
What is with this new info that the Penn State Hellenist search failed? Huh? Thought that was wrapped up months ago?
Penn State:
Did the candidate who had accepted back out for something else? Or maybe the original news about the job being offered was bogus.
I doubt it was bogus.
I heard that 3% of the US owns 80% of the wealth while the next 50% owns 15%, leaving a large lower class scrambling for 5%. I'm beginning to think that classics job searches are the same way.
80% of the SCs out there are fighting for 3% of the candidates as their first choice. Many of these "superstars" drag out their decisions and the SCs go along with them for weeks if not months hoping to snag them. You know what happens next - the vast majority of the SCs get left at the altar resulting in 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th choices. Many decide to pull the plug like MI, Cornell, Arizona, Akron, Penn State and Penn (not a good year for PA). There is something inherently flawed in the system if our discipline has an overabundance of qualified people, unlike the sciences and law, but we have so many failed searches in comparison.
Wait. Just a clarification. Are you saying that the sciences and the law don't have an overabundance of talented and qualified people?
The sciences and law professionals can fall back on the industry, private practice, public practice, secondary education - a slew of professions outside academia. How many Yale, Stanford, Harvard, Penn, Chicago, and Columbia science PhDs and JDs do you know thankful to get a VAP in northern Iowa? Go down the list of classics VAPs hired last year and see where they ended up. If you're even somewhat competent in the sciences and law, you can get a great job. In classics, even the brightest and best-trained are not guaranteed a permanent position. It's what we all chose when we went into classics.
What is with MC searches? I'm not trying to open up a can of worms here, but I'm a curious historian. In a given year, maybe 10-20% of searches are explicitly MC, right? Whatever the ratio, it seems less than generalist, latinist, hellenist, or historian positions. For such relatively few positions, why are there so many failed MC searches? 50% of all failed searches? Going down the list this year, I see CS-Long Beach, Columbia, Akron, Arizona, and Toronto failed MC searches. Are there more moving parts when it comes to hiring an archaeologist? My department has no MC people so I've never been part of a search for one.
"I'm beginning to think that classics job searches are the same way."
I agree. Someone in the past mentioned "hirability" as a neglected criterion when considering candidates. What gets SCs so enamored and worked up to a froth about a superstar candidate they HAVE to have is rarely a guarantee that they will be a stellar scholar, colleague, and teacher. Surely they can snag just as good of a candidate who is imminently more hirable? Am I wrong and is it common for choice #1 to be head and shoulder above the rest?
I can think of one superstar his first year on the market whose department is now suffering serious buyer's remorse, and whose peers in his sub-field don't think too highly of his scholarship.
I can also think back to a few other grads who were contemporaries of mine who got a dozen or so interviews, and their fellow grads, who knew them best, were wondering what other schools saw in them.
Overall, search committees often get it right, but they also often do very dumb things, and not all of those dumb things were unforeseeable.
I can think of one superstar his first year on the market whose department is now suffering serious buyer's remorse, and whose peers in his sub-field don't think too highly of his scholarship.
Crap, I've been exposed for the fraud I've always been! Though I suppose the Meth use and the Jaeger shots just before faculty meetings didn't help, either.
I'm suffering serious seller's remorse for accepting the only job offer I ever had.
Speaking of MC searches, what's with the heading under George Washington's classical archaeology search that states, "Second job offered and accepted by..." What second job? What sub-discipline was it for?
It's a spousal hire. It wasn't an advertised position. He works in the same field, apparently.
Wheaton TT offered and accepted.
(Last TT of the year?)
Quite possibly, but I heard there are still a couple TT jobs that the people are desperately trying to save. At least one looks to be DOA though since the spouse would have to give up her own TT job at a better school. Overall, it doesn't look good since the year is ending for most schools.
University of Southern California 1-year lecturer offered and accepted!
Minnesota Hellenist position offered and accepted (according to the wiki).
Anyone know about the Minnesota Latinist position, or the U-Idaho search?
Wow, USC was fast. Their due date was 5/6, and they make an offer on 5/9?
The spit was hardly even dry under my stamp.
Minnesota Latinist lecturer position has been filled (so I was told by the search committee after the fact)
I have heard that Cornell College (IA) is doing some phone interviews next week, I believe.
Wow, USC was fast. Their due date was 5/6, and they make an offer on 5/9?
Makes you wonder, doesn't it? BTW, I've heard that the UCLA job is intended for a recent alum.
I've already accepted a position so I really have no axe to grind, but why do departments even advertise a non-TT position if they know 99% that they are hiring an internal candidate? From what I understand, it's not required to advertise, right? Why waste the time of so many people?
"BTW, I've heard that the UCLA job is intended for a recent alum."
I guess that explains why no external candidate has heard directly from the SC!
Five dollars says that there will be an angry post by an outraged UCLA faculty member up here shortly.
Any takers?
Five dollars says that there will be an angry post by an outraged UCLA faculty member up here shortly.
Any takers?
You're on!
why do departments even advertise a non-TT position if they know 99% that they are hiring an internal candidate? From what I understand, it's not required to advertise, right? Why waste the time of so many people?
I think the most straightforward answer to this question is that the poster who said that is full of crap!
"why do departments even advertise a non-TT position if they know 99% that they are hiring an internal candidate? From what I understand, it's not required to advertise, right? Why waste the time of so many people?"
The most likely reason is cases where the internal candidate is looking at other options, so the SCs know they cannot rely on that person. After all, as hard as it is to remember this late in the spring, the whole process is a two-way street. So a candidate who is promised one job can still look at other jobs, and maybe even take one of them, leaving place #1 s.o.l.
"Five dollars says that there will be an angry post by an outraged UCLA faculty member up here shortly."
Why would a UCLA faculty member be outraged? Because their hand is revealed? It's obvious that the source of the leak is an insider at UCLA. Maybe even the alum promised the job? If this is indeed true, he or she is doing the rest of the applicants a favor.
yous guys don't know what you're talking about...
I'm not the original poster on the UCLA job, but I heard the same thing from someone who should know - who's not the alum in question.
I don't get it...Why is it obvious that the source of the "leak" is a UCLA insider?
How else would someone know? Yeah, it might be someone who knows an insider, but would people a degree removed care that much about a 1-year VAP? I doubt it. This is a local SoCal rumor mill thing.
But they don't know, that's why they said "I heard," because, yes, as you say -- it's a rumor! Just because the rumor exists doesn't mean it originates from someone on the inside.
"Just because the rumor exists doesn't mean it originates from someone on the inside."
Huh? Who does it originate with then? The tooth fairy? Carnac the Magnificent?
You don't have to get snippy about it.
Wherever rumors originate, we all know that they sometimes turn out to be false.
The Rumor Is TRUE! Doubt Me At Your Peril!!
I just want to say that I have no insights or opinions on this matter.
Any outsights?
Sorry. That was terribly insensitive....
Believe me, I'm used to it...
I'm sure the rumor is true. UCLA's lecturer slot (it's not a VAP) is used as a spring-board for their unemployed Phds. When there aren't any, then it goes to someone else. And someone who is already there in the position from somewhere else will be displaced in favor of one of their own unemployed PhDs.
By the way, someone removed the rumor about the position from the passworded WIKI.
By the way, someone removed the rumor about the position from the passworded WIKI.
I did that. I thought the wiki was supposed to be only for "official communication", while famae is for, well, famae. It does seem better to keep the wiki as "clean" as possible. I was annoyed by all the Wheaton talk, but I refrained from deleting it and reposting here.
"I'm sure the rumor is true. UCLA's lecturer slot (it's not a VAP) is used as a spring-board for their unemployed Phds. When there aren't any, then it goes to someone else. And someone who is already there in the position from somewhere else will be displaced in favor of one of their own unemployed PhDs."
Positions should come with a "APA President's" warning, just like cigarettes. "The APA President has determined that the UCLA lecturer position is dangerous for the hopes of any outsider. Repeated applications by non-UCLA grads can lead to heartbreak and disillusionment."
And what's so bad about that, I wonder? I know my Alma Mater (happy mother's day!) in the East Coast has the same kind of lectureship (although the position is usually not advertised - does that make all the difference?), and imagine that some of the other Ph.D. granting institutions have similar arrangements.
I'm sure the rumor is true. UCLA's lecturer slot (it's not a VAP) is used as a spring-board for their unemployed Phds.
Excuse the ABD newbie here, but what substantive difference is there between a "lecturer" and a "VAP?"
And what's so bad about that, I wonder? I know my Alma Mater (happy mother's day!) in the East Coast has the same kind of lectureship (although the position is usually not advertised - does that make all the difference?)
Nothing bad about it at all, and yes, it does make a difference.
What is with MC searches? I'm not trying to open up a can of worms here, but I'm a curious historian. In a given year, maybe 10-20% of searches are explicitly MC, right? Whatever the ratio, it seems less than generalist, latinist, hellenist, or historian positions. For such relatively few positions, why are there so many failed MC searches? 50% of all failed searches? Going down the list this year, I see CS-Long Beach, Columbia, Akron, Arizona, and Toronto failed MC searches. Are there more moving parts when it comes to hiring an archaeologist? My department has no MC people so I've never been part of a search for one.
I'm a bit late to the discussion, but I'm tempted to agree that there are more moving parts. I would add "unfamiliar" as a descriptor to "parts."
I graduated from a state school with a great MC program that's not quite elite (i.e. not Berkeley, Michigan, or UNC). It took me several VAPs to land a permanent job this year.
The funny thing is that I always followed the "one notch down" rule when applying for jobs. So my "dream job" was an average flagship state school to go along with the SLACs and comprehensives.
Wouldn't you know it, I somehow got a job at an elite school? I wasn't the top choice or even the top-3 choice, but that's irrelevant now. MC searches are impossible to predict. There's no "standard" archaeologist. There are some characteristics, like experience at the Academcy or American School, but it's not nearly as standardized as a generalist position. SCs themselves don't know what to expect from my experience.
My advise for MC hopefuls out there is to apply for a variety of positions. You never know!
Excuse the ABD newbie here, but what substantive difference is there between a "lecturer" and a "VAP?"
Where I work--and I think it's typical--VAP means you have full-time "professor" status. "Lecturers" are on a difference pay scale and have lesser status. They do not necessarily work full time, and they don't have professorial duties (admin) or perks.
I know my Alma Mater (happy mother's day!) in the East Coast has the same kind of lectureship (although the position is usually not advertised - does that make all the difference?), and imagine that some of the other Ph.D. granting institutions have similar arrangements.
A lot of PhD programs have "arrangements" for ABDs or jobless alums not at their schools but at nearby schools. Brown has Wheaton in MA, UTexas has Trinity in San Antonio and Rice in Houston, etc. Again, those jobs tend not to be advertised.
At some places, I think the difference between visiting lecturer and visiting assistant professor is simply that one gets paid less. When I taught at a major state university I was a "lecturer" one year and then a "senior lecturer" when hired for a second-one year job (for which I got a $1000 or $2000 raise), but my chair told me that since at other institutions the same job is called "visiting assistant professor" I should put that on my C.V. I did that until I had moved on and the department got a new chair, since I was afraid that if he was asked he would have said, "No, X was only a lecturer."
Hmm, I wasn't clear in that last post. What I meant was that schools can get away with paying less to someone called "lecturer," and thus used that title for one-year junior visitors. That was the sense that I got from my chairman at that state university.
I'm a bit late to the discussion, but I'm tempted to agree that there are more moving parts. I would add "unfamiliar" as a descriptor to "parts."
. . .
There's no "standard" archaeologist. There are some characteristics, like experience at the Academcy or American School, but it's not nearly as standardized as a generalist position.
True. And I think the unfamiliar combined with fuzzy expectations of standard training can lead to all sorts of odd moments, missteps, and misinterpretations. It's important to keep in mind that "material culture" does not necessarily mean "archaeologist", either. (Just as "Roman archaeologist" hardly means someone who works in Rome. If your work is in Turkey, your "school" time might be at ARIT, not the Academy.) There's just SO much evidence, that it makes sense to have several specialists to deal with it (field archaeologists, theorists, art historians, etc.).
As we know, this is rarely the case, meaning that a grab-bag of ill-defined MC hopes might be all a committee has heading in--and out--of a job search. (Yes, it's a lot like any other search, I'm just saying the lack of cohesion seems greater, which probably leads to more failures.) I think it is very difficult for MC folks to understand where they stand in terms of competitiveness. I think it's best to take Anon 1:35's advice: just keep plugging away, if you can, until the right job opens up for you.
Hmm, I wasn't clear in that last post. What I meant was that schools can get away with paying less to someone called "lecturer," and thus used that title for one-year junior visitors.
Exactly the case where I work (as a lecturer). Thank goodness we have a union.
Here at a large state system in the East, the difference is largely bureaucratic. Administratively, VAPs need to be treated like an incoming assistant professor. This sounds great and all, but it can actually be a negative for a 1-year position that often requires some flexibility.
A perfect example is the issue of moving expenses. We are understandably not allowed to bump up the salary of an assistant professor to take into account their moving expenses, as this is a one time thing. VAPs get the same rule even though it's a one year gig. For both, we need to go through different channels and officially apply for the money. Often, the VAP does not get it and we have no way of reimbursing in a creative manner. This often leaves us no choice but to choose someone local.
For a lecturer, we are not allowed to apply for this moving money, BUT we are allowed to bump up a lecturer's salary to factor in the moving expenses. A bit ironic, no?
From a practical standpoint, how a VAP gets treated by a department vs. a lecturer is often a case by case issue. I have a friend who is a former associate professor from a middling school in Texas who is now a lecturer at a much more dynamic university and region. This was a conscious decision for a variety of reasons. This person sits in on all faculty meetings and is afforded a status not too dissimilar from a tenured faculty member. On the flipside, I know of VAPs who are treated a little better than mules. Overall, there are some trends concerning the two positions, but specifics vary widely from university to university.
I'm a bit late to the discussion, but I'm tempted to agree that there are more moving parts. I would add "unfamiliar" as a descriptor to "parts."
But c'mon, Long Beach, Columbia, Akron, Arizona, and Toronto?
Akron I can understand b/c it's not the most cosmo area nor the most pretigious uni(no offense to any natives or alums). Columbia I can understand a bit b/c of the elite reputation they are presumably trying to uphold. Toronto is probably similar and you have to factor in the entire Canadian thing. What's Arizona and Long Beach's excuse for failing searches? They seem to have the resources to conduct a good search, desirable regions, good departments, etc. Am the only one confused here?!
So...did you all get the email with the 2008-09 Placement Service forms, and see the APA's new proposal for letting candidates know some interviews before the meetings? The wiki is way better.
The Service seems so pleased with itself that it's doing this -- but it's still contingent on an institution getting their list in by mid December. I've always been informed by the institution before the meetings anyway.
A change that would actually make a difference would be for them to do more things online rather than snail mail, especially that awful form on which you check off all the times you are available to meet.
It would be entirely possible to fill out the availability form online or email (I did it once by email when they lost the physical one).
Just an idea about the wiki: what about listing those unadvertised jobs (mostly temporary) mentioned above several times? (I think there's a few on there already, and last year's as well.) It would give us overall a better idea of how many jobs there actually are.
Re "failed searches"
Folks, please do remember the name of this blog and don't assume what you read here is accurate. Some of the searches labeled "failed" are not (yet) failed. It can take a long time to iron out details on an offer, and even longer if a spousal hire or other issue is involved. The world of most universities is more complicated than you may realize. Patience.
Dear Anon 1:29,
I'll assume that your post wasn't meant to be as condescending as it sounded. So, if you really do have good info on tardy searches, please consider adding an actual useful update disputing their "failed" status! That would be much more helpful than vague hand-waving at an audience of benighted fools......
Columbia University (T-T Greek Art/Archaeology)
Job offered (acc. to rejection sm)
Anybody else seriously nervous about all of the state budget issues? I hear U. Florida let a bunch of tenure-track faculty go, and backed out from most of their new hires for this season. I assume California is also hurting, but haven't heard any news firsthand. Good reasons to look more closely at private colleges. This sucks!
Rollins College VAP (Art History/Latin) offered
Emory University - offered and accepted
Post a Comment