Yes, it is a lottery. The only difference is that you might have gotten a few more "tickets" either through your efforts (good for you) or those of advisors (lucky you). When jobs routinely have over 100 applicants, 20 of which could probably do the job superbly, you should thank your lucky stars that you were the ONE that snagged it. Maybe you said the right thing through training or luck, it doesn't matter when such randomness exists. Anyone who says they trained and worked and that is the only reason why they got the job is full of shit. Stop justifying why you're lucky enough to sit on the other side of the TT fence.
@9:39 Stop justifying why you're lucky enough to sit on the other side of the TT fence.
Whoa. Bitter much?
One day maybe you'll be on the other side of things, and by then, I assure you you will laugh at people calling this thing a lottery as lustily as I now do.
I know that's a more comfortable narrative. But it is not the right one. Luck and the lack thereof play into every aspect of this world; stop making out as if this job search thing is a totally random act of divine favor or cruelty. Stop it. It's making you look silly.
Sorry.
I know this is a frustrating situation. I don't think it's a perfect one. I wish only people who could get precisely the right jobs for their interests and abilities would ever even think of going to grad school. The fact is that a lot of people go to grad school because "they like the topic" and are good students. They get into a grad school. Yay! They get funding. Whoo hoo! They finish a PhD, awesome!
This does not mean that they are as equally qualified for a position in their specialization of X. Hell. When I came out, I got a good job (though started with a VAP). I was a very strong candidate. I was NOT, however, the most impressive candidate in my field that year. I was up there. But I was fresh and untried. I had given papers, I had a publication, I had organized conferences (who hasn't, these days?). But I was up against folks who had more articles than I, and against folks with books. I am still happy that I got so many interviews. When I didn't get an interview, or didn't get a job, I didn't yell "freaking lottery!!" I thought "Ok; well, I could be a more rounded candidate. I'm starting out. How do I want to develop my research agenda? How can I make myself stronger next year?"
I do remember, of course, this time of year, way back in the stone age. I was surely nervous. I don't remember blaming all of my frustration on the field, the TT holders, the deans, the vast unfairness of it all. I just recognized that I needed to be a stronger candidate.
I took a little responsibility in the situation.
But I'm not of the "no one told me the coffee would be hot" tribe.
I just want to say that, in the midst of all this heaviness, the running exchange between "R" and their anonymous cheerleader/interlocutor has been very inspiring.
Anon 10:17, I'm not the person you're debating with, but be careful how strongly you pat yourself on the back (or whip the waters). I'm a TT person myself and I know many a distinguished scholar who themselves acknowledge that they have no idea how they landed their first TT job. I'll be the first to acknowledge that I count my lucky stars every day that I'm not on the VAP circuit.
Thanks, Steve Perry. It's clear that you and R both realize that going in one more round when you don't think you can - that's what makes all the difference in your life.
On a broader note, I have to say that during this debate, I've seen a lot of changing, in the way TT-ers feel about VAPs, and in the way VAPs feel about TT-ers.
In here, there were two career paths killing each other, but I guess that's better than twenty million.
I guess what I'm trying to say, is that if TT'ers can change, and VAP'ers can change, everybody can change!
I'm getting on a plane tomorrow to go on a job interview which seems already to have been guaranteed to an insider (friend of mine). I may not have a chance, but I intend to make it as hard as possible for them to reject me.
Anon 10:17, I agree with Anon 11:06. I think everyone on this blog - or at least most of us - _have_ thought about how to better ourselves as candidates long and hard. And have carried through as much as possible, as much as a VAP is given time and opportunity to. The frustration you complain of arises not because we expect the world to be handed to us on a platter; it arises because we _have_ been trying to improve ourselves as candidates, and there have been few returns.
And I know an Ivy League PhD about to be denied tenure, who has published nothing in 8 years while at an R1 institution (light course load, light service obligations for junior faculty, generous research money and leave policy, supportive colleagues, etc.). Someone else could have had his/her job. That's what I call a waste. It just adds to the frustration.
There is also the issue (not yet discussed on here as far as I see) that many top institutions hire non-American PhD's for their TT positions. In general, I think that's a good thing (makes the field less homogenous), but I can also see how it may disappoint those who have gone through American PhD programs
The problem with hiring European PhD's, from my p.o.v., is that there's very little reciprocity. Sometimes US senior scholars move to the UK, but it's not like German universities are clamoring to hire newly-minted US PhDs...This is, again, the sort of thing SCs have to decide for themselves. But they should think long and hard about any Euro-philia.
Anon 10:17, I'm not the person you're debating with, but be careful how strongly you pat yourself on the back (or whip the waters).
I am not patting myself on the back. I said that I recognized I was not the strongest candidate, and thought seriously and continuously of how to change this. That's not heroics. That's just coming freaking sense.
All I'm saying is that I didn't blame my not getting a thousand offers on other factors. I didn't yell "insider search!" or "dirty search!" or "they just want shiny PhDs from the ivies!" or anything else of the sort I've been reading here. At the time, I remember thinking that newly minted PhDs were probably at an extreme disadvantage—but I didn't go whining about it.
I have had the chance to go back through older posts on this site, esp the ones in the "updates" section, and I saw a lot of craptalking going down. This search or that one "wasn't real"; it was ridiculous for Classics depts to want its faculty to be able to teach Latin and Greek; it was all about the "insider candidate."
I'm not patting myself on the back. But I am saying that a lot of the attitudes here reek to high heaven. I know people are blowing off steam. But still... Jesus. I've seen some really ridiculous suggestions in the past day or so (all jobs can only go to people with VAPs of a few years), and some of you guys are losing it.
And I know an Ivy League PhD about to be denied tenure, who has published nothing in 8 years while at an R1 institution
Well, this is simply ridiculous. Serves that person right. The school took a gamble (every hire is), and everyone will lose.
Someone else could have had his/her job.
Don't worry. Someone will!
Again, it's not the best process. But it's better than any of the suggestions I've read here in the past couple of days.
"And I know an Ivy League PhD about to be denied tenure, who has published nothing in 8 years while at an R1 institution (light course load, light service obligations for junior faculty, generous research money and leave policy, supportive colleagues, etc.). Someone else could have had his/her job. That's what I call a waste. It just adds to the frustration."
I think you hit the nail in the head. These perpetrators in general are the most harmful to the field. They not only represent themselves poorly, but the entire discipline as well. If I heard right, there is a R1 position at a prominent flagship school that invited to campus a retread denied tenure at a relatively elite private university with a nice classics program. WHY?! This person has published one peer-reviewed article in a mediocre journal. 8 years with a light load, sabbatical leave, etc!? Because they were lucky enough to get the job 8 years ago so they must be good in there somewhere? Could it be that the first school made a bad mistake? YES! C'mon SCs, get a little more creative than that.
Funny you should mention it. I once had an interview for a job I didn't get, and I was quite certain that I was as good as any American-born candidate for this position, based on how it was described. But a European got the job. I bear him/her no ill will, but for the first time I did understand what workers in other lines of work must feel when they lose out on a job to someone from another country. And I say that as someone who always has been, and is still, pro-immigration. (With the exception of people from Madagascar, those lousy bastards should be stopped at the border.)
Grumpy prof, you're reading the posts here the way you want to and taking them much too personally. IIRC, the gripe wasn't simply against teaching languages, as you coyly present out of context, but the fact that material culture people are usually called upon to do most of the heavy lifting. As a philologist (who admittedly attended the ASCSA so is perhaps a little more open-minded), I think there is validity to what some people have called a discipline stuck in the Victorian era. Now let the young Turks speak out a bit - there's nothing wrong with it and it's probably even a bit healthy.
Maybe, maybe not. Sometimes the dean decides to cut the position or maybe the department took a risk by hiring a historian and is now determined never to make that "mistake" again. Also, maybe we lost a good academic to Mckenzie or writing for the History Channel b/c the apparently unqualified person had weaknessed hidden by glowing letters or a certain institutional/scholarly affiliation. Etc., etc., etc.
It is good to see so much hostility and bitterness between colleagues - now we know the field is thriving.
I might suggest, as I have before, that the whole situation has too many variables to take failure personally. I have been runner up for a number of jobs and I'm sure that the person who got it deserved it. Being unpredictable does not mean it is a lottery or completely random.
One probably shouldn't evaluate people based on how many years it takes them to get a job or how many pages they published in three years. But where would the fun be in that?
I would also suggest that taring a whole groups with the same brush (VAP loosers/ babied T-T) is a good way to stir up controversy, so keep at!
(Overheard on Famae Volent, aka Job Search Detention Center)
Dr. Amherst Harvard, T.T.: You know why guys like you knock everything? Dr. Moo Yoo, VAP: Oh, this should be stunning. Dr. Amherst Harvard, T.T.: It's because you're afraid. Dr. Moo Yoo, VAP: Oh God, you richies are so smart, that's exactly why I'm not heavy into activities. Dr. Amherst Harvard, T.T.: You're a big coward. Poldy: I'm in the math club. Dr. Amherst Harvard, T.T.: See, you're afraid that they won't take you, you don't belong, so you have to just dump all over it. Dr. Moo Yoo, VAP: Well, it wouldn't have anything to do with you activities people being assholes, now would it? Dr. Amherst Harvard, T.T.: Well, you wouldn't know, you don't even know any of us. Dr. Moo Yoo, VAP: Well, I don't know any lepers, but I'm not going to run out and join one of their fucking clubs. Servius: Hey! Let's watch the mouth, huh? Poldy: I'm in the physics club too. Dr. Moo Yoo, VAP: Excuse me a sec. What are you babbling about? Poldy: Well, what I had said was i'm in the math club, the latin and the physics club...physics club. Dr. Moo Yoo, VAP: Hey, Cherry! Do you belong to the physics club? Dr. Amherst Harvard, T.T.: That's an academic club. Dr. Moo Yoo, VAP: So? Dr. Amherst Harvard, T.T.: So academic clubs aren't the same as other kinds of clubs. Dr. Moo Yoo, VAP: Ah...but to dorks like him, they are. What do you guys do in your club? Poldy: In physics we...uh...we talk about physics, properties of physics. Dr. Moo Yoo, VAP: So it's sorta social, demented and sad, but social. Right? *** Dr. Amherst Harvard, T.T.: I hate it! I hate having to go along with everything my friends say! *** Dr. Moo Yoo, VAP: Don't you ever talk about my friends! You don't know any of my friends. You don't look at any of my friends. And you certainly wouldn't condescend to speak to any of my friends. So you just stick to the things you know: shopping, nail polish, your father's BMW, and your poor, rich drunk mother in the Caribbean. Dr. Amherst Harvard, T.T.: Shut up! Dr. Moo Yoo, VAP: And as far as being concerned about what's gonna happen when you and I walk down the hallways of school together, you can forget it cuz it's never gonna happen. Just bury your head in the sand and wait for your fucking prom. Dr. Amherst Harvard, T.T.: Being bad feels pretty good, huh? *** Poldy: Chicks cannot hold their smoke, that's what it is. Sir Senior Chair: You don't have any goals. Dr. Moo Yoo, VAP: Oh but I do. Sir Senior Chair: Yeah? Dr. Moo Yoo, VAP: I wanna be just like you. I figure all I need, is a lobotomy and some tights. Poldy: You wear tights? Sir Senior Chair: No I don't wear tights. I wear the required uniform. Poldy: Tights. Sir Senior Chair: Shut up
what are people's thoughts on the order of campus visits and any advantage it might give to candidates? i've heard it can be very good to be last, not so good to be first.
i've heard it can be very good to be last, not so good to be first.
I often like being last but only because the wait time between visit and decision isn't as long. Having been runner up now in a number of these beauty pageants and having been offered a couple of jobs, I have decided it doesn't matter. But being first usually means having your talk and such ready to go immediately after the APA. I am almost never prepared for that. I was the middle candidate for one job this year and I'll be the last for another and I am hoping this means I am so good that neither committee can remember anyone else's names.
Grumpy prof, you're reading the posts here the way you want to and taking them much too personally.
Nah, I'm not. I'm not really a grumpy prof. I love my job. I love this field. I don't have it in for VAPs. I have students, great students, who are now looking at their 3rd or 4th year as a VAP, and I worry for them. I also have students who nailed TT jobs just out (or after a year), and I know how much "easier" it is for them.
What I was doing, however, was playing the persona of a great many TT / tenured profs out there (i.e., here, but not right here, 'cause I'm sitting at my dining room table, and that would be crowded). What I wanted to point out was, first of all (this part wasn't persona), it isn't a lottery and thinking of it as one is self-defeating. Second (also not persona), I think the idea of forced two-year service out of TT jobs is cute, but of course impossible—and not, at the base of it, a very smart idea.
But three (persona part), there is indeed a grumpy / snotty / self-congratulatory sort of ... attitude developed by some profs in response to PhDs who have been out on the market for a few years with no TT offers. I can't explain it, and I surely don't support it. I mean, after a while, if the person can't manage to publish much what with her 10-12 teaching load, I can see the problem (I should also say that I would find it nearly impossible to publish much under the conditions of a VAP position, esp a one-year one, so hats off to those who do). But there is a bias. I witness it. It comes from nice, ethical, good people. No one expresses it. But it's there, and I am not going to lie.
Our dept has a search this year. I can't recall exactly (and if I did, I wouldn't give here) exact figures, but the majority of people we interviewed were on a VAP. I think we interviewed a couple of ABDs. However, of our VAPs, most were on their first year of a one-year: have a year to shake off the shell-shocked daze of the PhD, get your teaching feet under yah, move mentally away from the feces [aka thesis: "put the mouse down and back away from the dissertation, sir"], and so on.
One or possibly two years in a respectable VAP position actually helped our candidates.
Much more than that, however, seems to hurt.
I am not sure why, exactly, it should—as long as everything else is going strong. But it seems to.
A one year VAP? We all know how hard it is to get a TT first time out: not only are you competing with the other hotshot new PhDs in a field: you are competing with people possibly in TT positions who are looking for an upward or lateral-but-better-situated move. It's sort of terrific when a student gets a TT first year out, but I'm also not sure that it is the best thing for everyone (it really depends on the person and the damage done by grad school).
So, a one-year VAP seemed to assure us that this person was solidly hirable. We could check out "real" syllabi, "real" student comments (i.e. comments given a prof and not a grad student—they differ, as I've learned), comments from colleagues (we want to know what kind of a colleague a person will be), and so on.
What's my point? Let me try to come up with one quickly. Ok.
My point is first that I don't think the field is skewed toward ABD sorts quite as much as people here seem to think is the case. I think it used to be. Hell, you used to be able to get a TT job without a finished dissertation. Not "accept" a TT job ABD: I mean arrive on campus, and start teaching and all that, with only a chapter or two.
This still happens, but (thank god) more and more rarely.
So, I think the field used to be more this way. I think it is changing of necessity. A solid one or two year VAP position can do much to add a great deal of punch to your profile—so use it this way. Man, if it's only one year, and especially if this is your first year out: plan for it to be difficult. You are going to arrive on campus and have to start looking for a job almost immediately. Ugh! But hit the ground running, and make the entirety of your next 10 months (more or less) completely about making the most of your VAP experience: I know that most VAPs are high on teaching, but for you, this is your year of kickass professional development. You get some articles sent out—now! Get yourself a course web page, even if you hate the idea. Start thinking now about syllabi you will present next year when on market—and write your syllabi for next Fall with such in mind. Spend the summer finding out which commentaries are available for which texts, or working on a website with images, or what intro language book you'd use, or how to teach Latin composition, or maybe you just find out what you didn't get in grad school, and learn it ... whatever.
So in part, I played grumpy professor because I wanted to elicit good arguments against this view (what I got, however, were sort of naive suggestions that we revise the entire field in ways that will never happen and should not—I understand this better now, 75 years into my career); that didn't work, and so that's why I'm writing again, sine persona.
The other part, however, was that I thought it might be useful—in some way—for people to know that there really is a prejudice against VAPs of more than two years. Three years, tops, but that's if you are coming out of the Harvard gig or something equally ritzy. Guys, there is a prejudice against it. This is not to say that such won't finally land a solid and beloved TT job. It's just to say that although a VAP may well add some cache to your file for the first year (for sure) or two (if strong, esp if a two-year VAP and not two one-years), this advantage seems to stop dropping off sharply after this. It's not cool. But I have witnessed it across the board.
I have no idea what to do about it and, yes, I know that it may drive people from the field. There are too many people in this field as it stands (come on, we all know this. The point is merely that everyone wants to be one of us. No one can resist our fame and good looks). It's a problem. I hate to see people driven from a field they love and could add to, simply because they can't handle the uncertainty / constant moving / workload of endless VAPs. I know of someone who is completely and utterly useless, and holds a TT job he does not deserve but will never vacate.
I think a problem is simply that if people aren't up for participating in this field in its entirety (research, teaching, service), they shouldn't get into the field. Such people do enter the field (too often, people go to grad school because they "like the stuff" and were great grad students), and though you can spot 'em in grad school, by then you can't do much about it. I've seen—personally—such sorts come out of the very top schools in this country—and the not so top. It's not about the school: it's about the person. Some brilliant, great people should not be in this field because they have no interest in participating in it. It is indeed a problem when such people—from any institution—get a TT job and then sit on it for 7 years, reading their Herodotos behind their shut door until they are finally escorted off the premises.
Merely like the content of our field is not reason enough to be a professor in it. Reading Greek and Latin ain't so hard. None of it is really that hard. Being a professor, however, is. It's cool! But it is also, at times, a great lot of work that has nothing to do with the stuff that drew us here.
but the fact that material culture people are usually called upon to do most of the heavy lifting.
With all respect due: this is not a fact. It may be your opinion, but it is not a "fact." I know a very good many departments, and no department worth its salt (mine included) would have a MC person teach a language class unless that were the only option. But maybe the dept wants to know it's an option (just as in our dept two or three of us language people have sufficient training to teach an undergrad MC class with a bit of extra prep—if need be), and that this person, if teaching grad students, is comfortable bringing ancient texts into a grad seminar.
That's not "most of the heavy lifting." I have scanned a lot of dept'l beginning language pages, and it's not the MC folks who are teaching them. By and large, the MC folks are given MC or culture courses, and that seems perfectly fair.
[QUOTE] As a philologist (who admittedly attended the ASCSA so is perhaps a little more open-minded), I think there is validity to what some people have called a discipline stuck in the Victorian era.[/QUOTE]
I think this must depend on one's department. I would argue that MC folks (and I am not going to identify my own training, as it would also identify myself) who think they should be in Classics depts but not have to engage in language teaching of any sort or culture courses are being similarly Victorian. Everyone needs to be more widely trained in every area. Period. That is the way this field is headed.
Wide training also, quite simply, helps you on the job market and helps you get fellowships and grants.
But this all marginal to my point that the VAP thing is not a simple one. I don't know what to do about the 3 year+ VAP prejudice. Grumpy professor was channeling some expressions of that prejudice (if sloppily). Just saying "it's not fair" on the VAP end isn't going to end it—nor is merely deciding that shiny ABDs such and shouldn't get jobs. It's not the first two years out that are the problem. It's the years after that.
Hmmm. I don't know what to think of the problem, nor how to fix it. Bright ideas?
If it was my consistent attempts to characterize the process as unpredictable that stood behind your use of the term 'lottery', I hope my position is clear now and this odd characterization of it can stop. The reason I brought up the many variables of job searches was to encourage those on the searching side not to make sweeping generalization about the process. I did not think that those on the hiring side would need such encouragement.
The problem you raise about the bias against long-term VAPs is not one that is easily soluble because it clearly rests in prejudice. If people knew how to eradicate prejudice, then the world would be a very different place. But perhaps if enough people play down the rhetoric of their personae and openly address the question of the VAPs and adjuncts in the field, perhaps fewer people would hold such unfortunate points of view.
But you did let out the secret that everyone should know by now - publish.
toodle-pip,
Poldy
ps. I don't mind playing Brian; I suck at Chess, though. I can only win if I cheat.
Now we're touching on another one of my pet peeves: the way the field, as is undoubtedly true of others, seems to value speed and quantity over quality of publications. In my four years of VAP's, I've published two major, research-intensive articles that will be the standard reference points on their particular subjects for decades, plus a smattering of shorter and lesser stuff. But I don't have a book, because my dissertation revision will lead to another work that will be the standard work for decades, and for that reason I want to get it right rather than rush it. And at this point, the lack of a book is undoubtedly hurting me. I work on my project 6-7 days a week, despite heavy teaching loads, and yet am already being thought of by some as "slow to publish." And here I've been foolishly believing that we engage in research in order to benefit our fellow scholars...
Classics should follow the lead of Philosophy and concentrate on producing solid articles. With on-line publishing starting to become more acceptable, costs wouldn't even be much of an issue.
This is one of my pet peeves as well. But I will shut up now for fear of going on a real rant.
In my uni, at least, the monograph prejudice is held at the uni- (not dept'l-) level, and is all about tenure. Depts want to get their hires tenured (unless they don't), and most schools, and certainly most R1 schools, have college councils that require a monograph. It needn't be published; hell, it needn't have a contract. But it had better be finished, and submitted, and under review, and with readers who say solidly "this is going to be published."
Another problem I have seen is that chapters contributed to edited vols are seen as less prestigious than articles in journals. Since one normally has to have reached a level of some visibility in order to be invited to contribute to a vol (I guess one might argue "you were invited because your friends edited it!," but I have contributed to several, and the editors have never been friends. I hated every last one of them with a Vatinian hatred), such contributions should be viewed at least on the level of journal articles—but in many schools, they are not.
Another wacky thing? In R1 schools with heavy science representation, jointly authored articles are often given preeminence over solo work. Wonkers! This is not, of course, at the Classics dept. level, but remember that the college councils of schools include faculty from all over the university.
Poldy McPoldster: I don't think you were the one who started with the "lottery" comment, and didn't mean to aim my response at you. It's just that, yeah, the term hit a chord and seemed to give an impression of this field (to the searchers) that is not helpful. Especially to them.
But yes, you are right. Publish. Publish early and often.
Interesting place you all have here! I like the cinder-block shelving, bean bag chairs, and, of course, the hookah. Brings me back a few years.
One of the problems with the monograph-for-tenure model is that it delegates responsibility, ultimately, to a business: the publisher.
Why should the editors of university presses, who are struggling mightily financially, have so much say over tenure? I don't blame them, I feel for them. They have a bottom line to worry about. With dwindling library sales, first-runs are shrinking, back-lists are being slashed, and new titles are severely limited.
So what does this mean to an aspiring young scholar? It is getting harder and harder and harder to get published by a respectable scholarly press. This has nothing to do with the quality of the manuscripts being submitted and everything to do with the fact that the publishing houses are in serious trouble.
At the same time, tenure expectations have gone through the roof. Respectable liberal arts colleges with 3/3 teaching loads can "reasonably" expect a book and articles for tenure. If you don't produce, well, sorry. Plenty of starving adjuncts clamoring at the gates. Happy trails, don't let the door hit you on the way out!
We are being squeezed by an overproduction of qualified scholars and an underproduction (or, rather, and under-publication) of the things we currently rely upon to judge scholarly worth, books.
Somebody needs to come up with some new methods for judging academic productivity, or convince Bill Gates to donate a couple billion to the various academic presses. Otherwise we might to see bricks through windows soon.
Despite some remarks to the contrary--and despite (or because of) the reality of tenure requirements--I think that too much stuff gets published: books that should be articles, articles that should be short notices, notices that should be . . . I don't know what. Footnotes?
I don't mean that we shouldn't be motivated to publish; I just want more recognition of the different kinds of contributing publications (sometimes we need to get the facts out, less often we need to promote bigger ideas). There are just too many books! I guess what I'm saying is that philosophers seem to have the right idea.
This is a useful discussion, but let's move it over to Professional Development. It would be helpful for those of wanting to know news about campus visits not to have to scroll past people's musings on the field, TT, etc.
I am not sure we really know that, but this is a rumor blog.
publishing by weight
Modern shades of Aristophanes' Frogs. I suspect the focus on numbers and venue is another example of the bureaucratic mindset - if it can't be counted and quantified scholarship, it can't be evaluated.
Does anybody still have their Princeton University Press catalogue from the conference? I would like to order some books but I don't have the promotional code that would allow me to get the APA/AIA discount. If you have the code, can you post it here?
1) inform your potential future colleagues that this department (at which you are a guest) isn't really one of the top programs in the country. They surely know their department's standing better than you.
2) discount the importance of your one-on-one interviews with junior members of the faculty by flinging yourself on the couch/chair/etc in the office of a junior member of the faculty, and attempting to gain sympathy by nattering on about how exhausting the interview process is, and how ever did they (junior member) survive it last year/ two years ago, etc.
If anyone's vote really counts, it is that of the junior faculty member who may be working with you for the next 30 years. Do your best to convince them that you will be a serious and contributing member of the department by conducting yourself in a professional manner.
3) If asked to choose the wine at dinner, it is best not to choose a $90 bottle (unless that happens to be the cheapest bottle on the menu). Whether you do or do not know a lot about wine, stick with the old business school rule - choose the second least expensive bottle, it's usually the best value.
Not to stir-up ill feeling between the parties, but I must admit that I get a rather unbecoming enjoyment from knowing that those having to endure such rude behavior may be the same people who passed on my charming company.
toodle-pip,
Poldy
- Neid zu fühlen ist menschlich, Schadenfreude zu genießen teuflisch 'it is human to feel envy; to savor schadenfreude is devilish.'
3) If asked to choose the wine at dinner, it is best not to choose a $90 bottle (unless that happens to be the cheapest bottle on the menu). Whether you do or do not know a lot about wine, stick with the old business school rule - choose the second least expensive bottle, it's usually the best value.
Dear no doubt well-meaning committee member,
Don't ask the candidate to choose the wine. That is just dumb, and thoughtless. If they had picked the second least expensive bottle, then assuredly someone at the table would have thought, "rube". Selecting wine is fraught with peril, therefore doing so is the job of the senior member at the table, or the resident wine snob.
Oh, get over it - you all need to stop assuming that everyone who offers advice is trying to or has tried to screw the candidates. I'm reporting an event that has led to a bad impression of a candidate, not a witness to it. I wouldn't have allowed a candidate to screw themselves in that way. In this case the candidate itself insisted on choosing, based on her/his "knowledge of wine."
The advice applies, with your suggested modification. Don't order the wine - express a preference (red, white, nothing), but defer to the search committee chair or dinner host.
In this case the candidate itself insisted on choosing, based on her/his "knowledge of wine."
Well, if the latter, then serves them right. You were pretty unclear in your original post, though. It sounded like they were asked or (more charitably read) given the opportunity to choose.
My response had nothing to do with your "advice", and I certainly didn't assume that you were trying to "screw the candidate". I was just pointing out that placing a candidate in that position was "dumb" and "thoughtless".
SCs are generally quite thoughtful, but your post made it sound like the poor candidate completely failed a secret test, which raised my ire. Apologies if I mis-read you.
I usually go for a triple of the best scotch they have, for starters. After the third grey goose martini, I'm ready for some cognac, and they're ready to move onto the next candidate.
Unless the candidate is either Italian or French. If both are present, the French must defer to the Italians. The problem now, of course, is that the Euro is too strong. So their sense of price is completely warped. 90 USD? That's chump change.
I can't believe the way some of you are personalizing a few of these discussions, or picking on every comment that doesn't sit right with you. Did the faculty member really need to be jumped on, even if he/she was the one having the candidate choose the wine?
I'm working on a theory that some of my fellow job candidates are rather thoughtless, and some even have tendencies more often associated with jerks than intellectuals.
And here I was thinking that I'm supposed to be the grumpy one...
Maybe we job seekers have got into the habit of thinking that SCs are not looking for reasons to hire one candidate, but instead are looking for the reasons not to hire the other two. From the moment we reach campus, we're being watched to see what we do wrong, not what we do right. I don't think at all that SCs are doing this. But if it's often hard to choose between finalists (as we've been told on this blog), it's easy to see why we've become so panic-striken.
I thought the Scandal of the Vino was instructive for all parties; a port-hole view of the hiring process.
Candidates, you are being "judged", so act accordingly. Don't spout idiocies, insult your hosts, or take younger interviewers for granted. Duh. Hopefully, however, this mini-thread has reminded interviewers not to take everything so damn seriously. When I was fresh out of graduate school my knowledge of wine spanned the distance between Night Train and the gallon jug of Julio Gallo. Maybe the candidate's choice of the $90 bottle reflected their own cultural and class background.
The most important question remains unanswered: did they choose the best wine for that particular meal? That is how I choose whom to hire. :*)
We tenured faculty often want to present the SC world as a collegial process, but I'm afraid you're correct to some degree. I've been in meetings that represent the Taiwanese legislature (fistfights and threats) more than the US Congress. There are bound to be favorites among individual SC members. Alas, instead of playing up their candidate, the meeting usually resorts to negative attacks against others. "I saw him use a computer in the lab. He spent almost an hour on it! He surely won't be a productive colleague." Etc., etc., etc.
Are you kidding me? What wine I choose, or how I choose to unwind before my next "pleasant" chat could determine whether I'm hired or not? Why not just cut to the chase and measure my skull, to get a really objective measure of what kind of colleague I'll be?
The notion that you can judge a human being based on a single gesture or moment is a complete abdication of professional responsibility. On the other hand, there is something quite philological about it.
I know that people are acting on a generous impulse, but might I point out that every time someone points out things job candidates should not do -- e.g., taking junior SC members for granted, something I can't imagine anyone would be stupid enough to do -- he/she is helping flawed candidates patch over their flaws? This simply makes it more likely that departments will go for someone who turns out to be a regrettable hire, while making it harder for more collegial sorts to get that job.
I know that social Darwinism is out of fashion, but still...
know that people are acting on a generous impulse, but might I point out that every time someone points out things job candidates should not do --
I thought you were going to finish this sentence by saying that they were revealing to a candidate who may be reading this that they definitely did NOT get that job.
Whether you do or do not know a lot about wine, stick with the old business school rule - choose the second least expensive bottle, it's usually the best value.
Wine writers often assert that it is, in fact, almost never the best value, precisely because of this "business school rule" and its wide application. Ordering the 2nd cheapest bottle means ordering the bottle on the bottom half of the wine list with the largest markup--because restaurant owners know that people uncertain of what to order will order it (and, apparently, a lot of men on first dates who do not want to look cheap).
I've never forced a candidate to choose a wine, though I've certainly talked with candidates about what wine we ought to order for the table. I would think that if asked to choose a wine, a candidate could turn the question back around and ask for input from the others. I would think someone would make a suggestion.
In any case, having served on three search committees and participated less centrally in many other searches, I can say that I have never yet heard a colleague nix a candidate because of something the candidate did or did not order at dinner. Because of something the candidate said at dinner? Absolutely.
Because of something the candidate said at dinner?
And what might that have been? Sounds like a good story.
I suspect I shot myself in the foot a few years ago at a dinner when I was asked about my undergraduate university. After I commented on how lucky I was to have had a lot of close contact with faculty, I received an austere rebuke from a member of the department, who insisted on how much care he and his fellow teaching assistants had put into teaching undergrads. I had not meant to slight his efforts, but I could see how he would take it that way.
And what might that have been? Sounds like a good story.
Not really, since I quite liked the candidate in question, and this had the effect not of spectacularly torpedoing the candidacy, but just lowering it enough that the offer went to someone else. (It was probably not the sole factor, of course, but it sticks in my mind as one of the prominent factors.) Let's just say that one normal mode of conversation between Americans under the age of 40 or so is laced with pure irony, now honed by years of watching the Daily Show, etc. In this case a string of comments that I, a member of that demographic, saw as mere irony, was interpreted by another faculty member as obnoxious, unprofessional, and tasteless. That faculty member soured on the candidate in question, and in a search where the candidates were all well qualified and no one made any obvious mistakes (no wretched job talks, no profanity-laced racial tirades, etc.) the decision can often become centered on that squishy category of "collegiality." After that dinner, this candidate simply was not seen as collegial by one colleague, and that colleague's opinion influenced that of others who were not at the dinner.
On the plus side, for me personally, the hire was outside of Classics, so I don't have to interact on a daily basis with the person they did hire--who turned out to be remarkably collegial except in one major area: the hire shirks almost all service--departmental and university--letting it devolve onto immediate colleagues, making their lives much more difficult.
"On the plus side, for me personally, the hire was outside of Classics, so I don't have to interact on a daily basis with the person they did hire--who turned out to be remarkably collegial except in one major area: the hire shirks almost all service--departmental and university--letting it devolve onto immediate colleagues, making their lives much more difficult."
So basically, the candidates who are the best actors and hobnobbers get the jobs. No wonder so many a-holes are hired with no interest in the discipline or their department beyond how far it can take their careers. This is especially epidemic in the humanities. It gives be great hope in the future of classics.
So basically, the candidates who are the best actors and hobnobbers get the jobs.
It's a bit absurd to extrapolate from this one case to all hires, and I'm not even sure that's a lesson to be drawn about this single instance itself. I think my preferred candidate would have been better, but I have no guarantee. And even at the time I can remember thinking that I wished the candidate showed greater discretion and situational awareness. Would that candidate have gotten to campus and alienated everyone? Would that candidate have annoyed all the members of every committee they sat on? Is it acting or hobnobbing not to be a smart ass around people who don't know you and are evaluating you for a position?
One of our searches a couple of years ago came down to two excellent candidates. Both extremely qualified. One extremely slick and very impressive in public settings, the other much quieter and less showy, almost shy. Their writing samples were of equally high quality. Letters (in typical fashion) hyperbolic. Job talks went well. Students loved them both in the classes they taught, but preferred the showier one. Almost all the faculty members who saw them only briefly distinctly preferred the first, as well. Most people who had multiple encounters with them--and here we're particularly talking about members of the SC--thought they were much more closely matched than that. In the end, the SC went with the second, for a variety of reasons. Now that this person is our colleague, I think everyone feels it was absolutely the right decision.
Do all searches go like that? No. But members of any SC are going to use a range of criteria, and "collegiality" is a big one. You'll be stuck with this person for years, and that fact inevitably enters the evaluation. I wouldn't suggest that a candidate try to fake everyone out, but if they have basic problems being polite and making nice conversation, I doubt they're going to get the job. Diogenes, for instance, could never get a tenure-track job. Showing up naked and masturbating before the job talk might not definitely rule him out at some schools, but urinating on the search committee would certainly put him out of the running.
What the hell?!? I was the Old Oligarch months ago! And now someone's stealing my handle? Just because I haven't posted under that name for a while doesn't mean that I was abandoning my proprietary rights. This is pretty low, even for the "Famae Volent" board.
Well, I did change up somewhat, since too many posts under one name might make it easier to be identified. So if you want to use it, I guess that's okay.
Just be aware that based on a joke that wasn't properly appreciated "Old Hoss" thinks that you/we do not properly respect archaeologists. (You know, those satyr-like pseudo-academics who do nothing other than drink and have sex the whole time that they're on their digs.)
It's a bit absurd to extrapolate from this one case to all hires
Absurd and intemperate hyper-extrapolation is one of our specialties.
I'm working on a theory that some of my fellow job candidates.. have tendencies more often associated with jerks than intellectuals
Your theory should take into account the fact that intellectuals and jerks are far from exclusive categories.
too many posts under one name might make it easier to be identified
Does my consistent use of a single handle mean my anonymity has been compromised? Or will my vacuous comments give me away. Let's see if I can trick everyone.
"Does my consistent use of a single handle mean my anonymity has been compromised? Or will my vacuous comments give me away. Let's see if I can trick everyone."
No, it doesn't give you away, though I imagine that if I'm at the APA next year sitting at the bar and overhear someone saying "tinkerty-tonk" or "toodle-pip" I'll be able to figure it out. Whatever you do, don't use those phrases in an interview!
though I imagine that if I'm at the APA next year sitting at the bar and overhear someone saying "tinkerty-tonk" or "toodle-pip" I'll be able to figure it out.
Actually, if you hear someone using those phrases, chances are you are sitting next to Bertie Wooster, not poldy.
Whatever you do, don't use those phrases in an interview!
If I conducted an entire interview in knut, I couldn't do worse than now.
Right-ho, though, you offer sound advice: nix the toodle-piping in professional situations. Perhaps I really should have applied to the college of Wooster, what?
is it common that during a campus visit members of the department ask you what other places you've been invited to? and if they do (it happened to me), what do you best say?
It's unprofessional to ask, in my opinion, and it has never happened to me in numerous campus visits. I think you are not required to give specific details. How to best evade the question...maybe just say you do have other options but would prefer not to identify them? It's tricky.
I felt it was unprofessional too. I decided it'd be best to tell them, but since all my other options are 'better' than the department where I was asked I wonder whether my answer will hurt me when they decide about a job offer
have been asked by two places about my interview schedule. there was no way to evade the question. in both cases the person asking critiqued my other schools, which i thought was rather tacky.
I mean, if they're "better" schools, it might help, in that it validates you as a candidate, but it might hurt, in that they might assume you won't pick them, so they should reject you first. I think critiquing is tacky, too, but possibly means genuine interest on the asker's part in your candidacy?
Closest I've come is someone assuming I was interviewing elsewhere (not true that year, but I did not correct the assumption). I think it may make schools more communicative around decision time if they know you are interviewing elsewhere. But otherwise...tacky and unprofessional, imho.
I did not realize asking candidates about other interviews was a gray area--I thought it was forbidden?
In any case, I've had it come up a few times (usually because of grad students who don't know the "rules" [that I think I know]). I think an oligarch (old or new) should weigh in on this.
I think it is utterly tacky to ask a campus visitor anything about their job search that does not apply immediately and directly to their visit.
It's beyond tacky. I consider it unprofessional.
Now what I'm on the other side of THE DESK OF DOOM, I can see the impulse. You have someone out, so you OBVIOUSLY would like to hire them. You wonder what your chances are. In an awkward moment, you ask.
But you shouldn't!
It is an utterly inappropriate question. May you (SCs) are just trying to make conversation "Well, it's a crazy time of year... I bet you're flying all over the place..." or maybe you are really wondering what your competition is. Either way, SCs have no business asking this. Period.
It is unseemly.
For campus visitors asked this, if the statement is vague "I bet you're flying all over..." it is fine just to say "well, it's a busy time for everyone involved in this process, I'd guess."
If the statement is explicit, then a suitable answer is "Well, there are a few options open, but I don't feel comfortable discussing them. Right now I'm just focussing on this visit: you have such a great department here..."
Keep in mind that an SC member who asks such a tactless question was either just (1) feeling awkward and trying to come up with something to say or (2) really and truly interested in trying to figure out what their chances are for getting you. Take it in the best way you can, because taking it any other way is not going to do anyone any favors.
As re the faculty member who asked this and then criticized the other schools—again, this was probably meant as a compliment (i.e., trying to make her or his own school look better), but it is tacky upon tacky.
And another etiquette question...the equally tricky one of family and s.o.'s.
I know that SCs are not supposed to ask that, and no one ever has asked me that, nor do I mention my personal life. But I am about to go on a visit at a school a mere hour's drive away from my long-distance s.o. It would be the ideal solution (right now we are on opposite coasts). Should I bring this up? I did remark in my application letter that I was especially interested in the position because I had a personal interest in the area. But I feel that it might be unprofessional of me to bring it up as much as it would for them.
As the person whose other schools were critiqued -- I know that in both cases the SC was seriously interested in my candidacy, so I responded politely. But it did seem like they were operating under the assumption that I would get offered ALL of the jobs and would be able to pick and choose (which of course will not happen -- I'll be lucky to get one offer) -- in one case, I can see how the school might think I'd prefer other choices to it, but the fact of the matter is that this school is very high on my list, so I hope they don't make that assumption and decide not to offer me the job.
It was harder to respond to the critiques -- they seemed to expect me to agree with their assessments of my other choices. And it left me with a weird feeling -- they've put down, to greater and lesser degrees, the majority of my other choices, so then if they don't offer me the job, isn't it going to be awkward when they see me at the APA next year? "Oh, so you ended up at University X? Well, good luck dealing with that messed up department/tiny research fund/crazy provost/crime problem I warned you about." Charming.
There is absolutely no reason not to tell them that you have a s.o. in the area (or some other compelling personal reason to want to be there). Committees want to hire people who want to be there for the long haul.
I agree that it's a good idea to mention your SO. I was in a similar situation 2 years ago. In the interview, the SC asked me if I knew much about the area their university was in. I decided to take a chance and say yes and add that it was because my SO was very nearby. They responded that they were glad I told them because they are not legally allowed to ask, and it enabled them to see I was really serious about the position.
Unfortunately, here's another view: My SO has made it to the campus visit stage at a great school about an hour away from mine. SO mentioned situation at the conference interview stage. At the visit, several faculty members mentioned that my teaching an hour away was a concern because SO might not be fully committed to the school if not living in the immediate environs of campus. As far as they were concerned, it would be more desirable to take someone with no geographic connection who would definitely live in town.
FWIW, previous occupant of position lasted only one year before his 'big city' wife couldn't handle the sticks and insisted they leave. Grumble grumble grumble ....
Maybe you should just say you have family in the area and leave it at that. Then they'll assume that you have a good reason to be in the area, but you won't have to be specific about the SO factor or that you will have to compromise on how close to campus you live. Good luck!
Thanks for all the advice...I don't get the hour away/residency complaint, though. I have colleagues who live an hour away from campus (admittedly in the greater metropolitan area, but even so).
I have an upcoming campus visit, and have a question related to it.
The search committee has kindly arranged to have a faculty member pick me up at the airport and then drive me to the hotel when I get in. The airport is about an hour away from campus and my flight arrives in the early evening. I will have a little less than an hour at the hotel before dinner with the faculty.
I understand that this gesture is both collegial and (potentially) money-saving. But I would much prefer to have that small window of post-flight time to decompress! I hate flying, and I am going to be exhausted.
I will happily pay the cost of a taxi or a limo. Would it be bad form for me to suggest that I make my own arrangements for getting from the airport to the hotel? This would also save that faculty member's time. I don't want to come off as high-maintenance, or unfriendly.
Sorry - I think you'll have to follow their plan. It is a collegial gesture (I doubt the purpose is money-saving) and I think that's why you shouldn't turn it down.
Frankly, I love being picked up at the airport by a faculty member. It says something about that department. Think of it as an early opportunity to get your "game face" on - just pretend you're enjoying the situation, even if you're not. You'll have to do the same in your academic career, after all, and through the whole visit. Could you perhaps take ten minutes to collect yourself before emerging into the greeting area and meeting your ride?
Müde said... I have an upcoming campus visit, and have a question related to it. Would it be bad form for me to suggest that I make my own arrangements for getting from the airport to the hotel?
I think it would be bad to change the schedule they thought through. In my experience, when no one wants to/can pick you up at the airport, the dept. arranges for a shuttle. When someone does pick you up at the airport, it's part of your visit. (Joy.)
That said, I understand your feelings completely. I would almost always choose to take a shuttle. I sometimes like having dinner on my own the first night, too, which can help with the unwinding and readjusting to a sometimes very different time zone or schedule.
No, you cannot suggest that you will find your own way in. This would be considered rude (or at any rate weird), and is no way to start your visit.
Look at your other foot, and use that one. It's the one that gets into the faculty car with a smile and says "it is so kind of you to come and get me at the airport!"
Were I on a search committee, Müde, which I am not, I would be more than happy to let you find your own way to the hotel. However, you are certainly better off graciously accepting the ride - members of search committees can be so touchy sometimes.
"Taken together, these statistics paint a bleak portrait indeed for job candidates age 40 or above, be they new job candidates or candidates searching for another position. The statistics gathered demonstrate that we, as a profession, fall prey to a “wunderkind complex”; we encourage and reward younger job candidates for their youthful accomplishments in the field and speedy completion of their academic training. At the same time, we reward them for not publishing; this is ironic in light of our professional imperatives towards greater quantities of publication. We seem to reward younger job candidates precisely because they represent pure potentiality, because they have promise even if they have not yet shown how (or indeed if) they will live up to that same promise."
I have to agree with all the posters here. The SC has already planned this out, so you should go along with it. Reach down deep and SMILE, even though you might not feel like it!
I am a veteran of a number of campus visits, and I sympathize. In fact, to all of you SC members out there, please consider making the taxi/shuttle/limo pick-up the default move.
I like meeting people! I'm one of those annoyingly perky-types. I have always been happy to talk with the faculty member or graduate student who came to the airport to pick me up. But I was happiest when I could dress down for my flight and know that I had a bit of "down" time in between travel mode and interview mode.
Has anyone else ever had the experience of being taken to lunch by a SC member and ending up paying for them? (It's one step above being taken to McDonald's and being told that you can only order from the dollar menu...)
Has anyone else ever had the experience of being taken to lunch by a SC member and ending up paying for them?
You didn't "end up paying". I asked if it was OK if you footed the bill "this time" (implying that there would be an opportunity for me to pay next time, when you were my colleague). You said, "Uhhhh, sure!"
That was a test. You failed. The proper response was "screw you", or something to that effect. We need to make sure that our junior faculty have spines, know how to say "no" to pesky students, deans, and other such riff-raff.
(I don't know how old Poldy is, of course, but someone should give him/her a job, already!)
The study to which Poldy refers is notoriously flawed, I think. Among other things, it claims there are 2 candidates per job. I don't think so. Does anyone else? (I think they only used the number of those registered with the Placement Service to get their statistics.)
But I like the following quote: "In terms of obtaining academic positions, Cumulative Figure 28c shows that it is a significant advantage to be a candidate under the age of 30 and have no articles published."
Why exactly, 5 years out, have I been spending my not copious free time (with 5-5, 4-4, 3-3 loads and the like) publishing those 10 articles in high-quality refereed journals?
Ten articles is impressive and with those teaching loads truly astounding.
The report does say that there are 2 registered candidates per job, but acknowledges that number does not represent the total numbers of candidates per job, lamenting "the sad reality that there are many more candidates than there are positions."
I fear we both would have been better served by doctoring our birth certificates than publishing. Next year I plan to be 26 and only gently published.
Has anyone who interviewed with UCLA for the junior position heard from them?
Now I know that they've already invited people to campus; they did that at the APA. I was just wondering if they were waiting to land someone before sending out their apologies or what.
The Chronicle "first-person" essays always strike me, for some reason, as self-serving. Why the writers use a pseudonym when they paint themselves as so wonderful? That is most certainly unfair, but the confessional genre is so hard to manage.
I still think it best for candidates not to try to pierce the veil of why any particular job rejected them. I prefer to simply trust that hiring committees honestly do what they think best. I sleep well that way. And I am comforted by the thought that if they screw up and hired someone who didn't fit, they have to live with it.
toodle-pip,
Poldy
[of course, one should take advice about what do better - but that article doesn't have it]
Quite an interesting piece. But I think I know the explanation for this:
"I read all of the files a second time seeking to counteract what was apparently an institutional prejudice on my part. Even upon a third reading, though, I found that the cover letters coming from elite institutions were dramatically more sophisticated, professional, and provocative than the letters from other universities."
The top programs do an outstanding job supporting and advising their applicants, but that's not true of every good classics Ph.D. program out there. I myself went to one that is certainly quite good, but not considered among the very best. And the faculty in that program did at best a so-so job helping their grads get jobs. One manifestation of this was that I got terrible advice in terms of my own cover letter. The first year I was on the market my letter was two full pages -- and I wasn't done with my dissertation and had no publications. It was well written, but too long. And none of the 3+ faculty members I showed it to did anything but make a few stylistic points here and there.
My first observation is that the best placement support comes from wealthy departments. This isn't a surprise. Faculty in these departments have relatively light teaching loads and service requirements with generous sabbaticals. My second observation is that these wealthy departments often cherry pick the most prominent names in the field, which gives instant name recognition to your letter is you're lucky enough to snag one from him/her. The third factor usually related to the first though not necessarily to the second is the willingness of the faculty to put forth the effort to look over your dossier, mock interview, write letters, call colleagues, etc. All together, none of these factors guarantee that it's the best program for producing future productive scholars, but it does usually guarantee the best placement.
'Light teaching loads' and 'generous sabbaticals' do not automatically translate into involved placement advice and help but rather into research production. I take by 'wealthy' you might mean 'top' (without too much qualitative emphasis). If that is the case, faculty in these places are connected, but can also polarize - instant name recognition may evince 'yuck' not 'yippity-skippity.' Reading over dossiers, writing letters, networking on your behalf is something that any dedicated advisor (regardless of money, which may or may not equal time) should and will do.
The one truly tangible benefit reaped from a 'wealthy' department is financial support in the final year/years of writing the diss AND in traveling to/from conferences (including the APA). Professional development over the long run is just as an important (if not the most important) factor in placement.
Also, the moniker above has a point - Little Orphan Annie had to teach Daddy Warbucks how to be a good father and not just a sugardaddy. Money wasn't enough for her.
I actually do think the Chron article offers _some_ advice - albeit, "work on your cover letter." I think this is an area many applicants ignore, or get bad advice on. And the letter is partly what will get you that APA interview.
But I also think there's still a "crap shoot" element: it may not be in the selection process, but it is in what kinds of jobs come up that year, and whether they "fit" and whether the fact that they fit is clear to both sides. I've had scads of APA interviews, a number of campus visits, and of all those interviews and applications, the job that has fit me best over the years just came up this year. (Discouraging is that I share the shortlist with an ABD and a new PhD, both with far fewer publications, fewer professional contacts and service, and far less teaching experience, especially at this kind of school/ department...but, according to the APA survey poldy referenced, statistically one of them is more likely to get the job.) There are lots of other jobs out there, and I'll eventually get one of them, if not this one, but this one seems ideal.
As for wealthy departments (I am not from one)...I would suspect that it may not be that students get more faculty attention when searching for jobs, but that part of their experience there is expected to be giving conference papers, publishing, etc., all of which give them training in self-presentation, which is what a cover letter is all about. Students at "non-wealthy" programs should take note and try to create the same opportunity for themselves.
Whether a place has money isn't necessarily the chief factor -- I think it's more a matter of having departmental pride (for lack of a better term) in placing grads. My department certainly did not lack money, and has some names that are well known, but most of the faculty really didn't care at all about helping their grads get jobs. This wasn't just my perception, but a common one among us. Compare that to a friend of mine who went to a non-Michigan/Berkeley state university with a very good Ph.D. program, whose advisor took her around to meet people at the APA the year BEFORE she was on the market, so that she would already have connections. No one in my department ever did that for any of us.
So, in some cases it's just a matter of individually faculty not making the extra effort to help, but in other cases it has become a departmental attitude. And money and teaching loads aren't the main factor.
Reading over dossiers, writing letters, networking on your behalf is something that any dedicated advisor (regardless of money, which may or may not equal time) should and will do.
This made me laugh. Anon. 1:47 et al. made many good points, but let me just assure those with any doubts: having a big-name advisor at a top school in no way guarantees this kind of attention--letters, yes, but not networking or follow-up phone calls (surely some of the rest of you have advisors who think it unnecessary and/or unseemly?). Same goes for funding for conferences and automatic funding in the last year of the program to finish the diss. People everywhere are bootstrapping, though I have no interest in denying the many advantages of going to top programs.
That said, I think many of us are about done with campus visits. Let the nail-biting begin and good luck to you all.
I'm not sure if you can answer this, but can the person who said that the CSU-Sacramento job has been accepted verify this? Were you the hire, or did you hear about it second or third-hand?
Presumably if you've accepted then you have no problem outing yourself? I ask because if it is definitely true it means I can turn to VAP campus visits without worrying about this coming through.
In response to: "Has anyone who interviewed with UCLA for the junior position heard from them?
Now I know that they've already invited people to campus; they did that at the APA. I was just wondering if they were waiting to land someone before sending out their apologies or what."
So what is your question? I'm guessing that you were not one of the four fly-backs.
In my general experience, letters updating those interviewed at the APA, but not invited to campus, do not go out until the search is completed.
If there's something specific that you would like to know, you should probably email the chair of the search committee.
I posted that on the wiki. Having given a job talk there in December, I just received an email from the department chair saying that the person who was offered the job has accepted it.
Yep, the Haves are busy flying around the country and waiting while the Havenots are busy scrambling for VAPs. Yeah, and we try to teach on the side when we have a bit of free time...
The quiet, I think, comes from the waiting. Many schools have finished or are finishing up their campus visits and now we all just get to sit and wait...
Just out of sheer curiousity, how many flyouts do folks who have flyouts typically get? Do most people who have flyouts get multiples, or is it more common to have just one?
That's a good question, and I'm guessing the answer is going to be "your mileage may vary." I felt like a superstar with 6 fly-outs this year, until I heard from a friend who had nearly twice that.
I've never had more than 2 a year. In fact, I don't know anyone (personally) who has ever had more than 2 a year. Says something about the company I keep, huh?
I would never want 6 flyouts, or nearly twice that. Too exhausting, especially on a VAP's teaching load. It's like too many interviews at the APA (which in my book is anything more than 7, and I've been there).
That is frickin' absurd. Even six is sick. Since each fly-out generally takes about 3 full days of time, including travel to and fro, I just do not see how one could manage this without going bat-shit insane. Way too much stress, adrenaline and caffeine in way too short a period of time.
I only want one job, so I hope my one fly-out is enough.
A couple of random things to bear in mind: some candidates (especially first-timers) will be highly selective in the institutions they apply to and will consequently have fewer fly-outs (which, incidentally, isn't to say they don't stand a very good chance at those places). Other candidates will apply for all possibilities and will consequently have many fly-outs (but may only be serious about some, leading to long wait times for final decisions).
12, 6, and even 4 fly-outs. Those who were "stars" in my day received around 3 campus interviews.
Hearing these numbers, after hearing about people with 20+ interviews at the APA, is interesting. Again, in my day (not too long ago) having 8-10 APA interviews was excellent, and any number above that, mind-boggling.
1) Evidence for a vast improvement over the job market of ~10 years ago.
2) Evidence that more candidates are willing to apply much more widely.
1 & 2 are not mutually exclusive, of course.
I would be inclined to disagree with the poster above. I always thought "first-time" applicants cast much wider nets. It is those with a couple of years of teaching experience who tend to know where they have a better shot, tend to have stronger preferences themselves, and have are more likely to have external factors coming to bear upon their decision-making. But maybe I'm wrong?
I agree with anon. 2:16. The more times I go on the job market, the fewer jobs I apply for, because I have a good sense from researching the schools where I stand a chance and where I don't. And the fewer jobs I apply for, the more interviews I get, both in general and in proportion to the number of applications sent in - I now regularly get APA interviews for over two-thirds of the jobs for which I apply, not the 10% or so I started out with.
I also know from past experience which general types of schools are likely to be interested in me and which are not (i.e., SLACs v. large state universities). I also have a renewable position, at a place I like, so while I do apply to a fair number of schools, if there's a place I just cannot imagine ever wanting to work at, I don't apply.
*I always thought "first-time" applicants cast much wider nets.*
I was thinking rather of graduate students who were just testing the waters, but were otherwise happy to remain in their program for one more year. (Some of these people do get lucky.) Plus, some experienced candidates concerned about possible unemployment will presumably cast their net as widely as possible. Maybe I have this wrong?
Why all this talk about having to fly to campus interviews? From reading this blog over the past few months, I've been under the impression that everyone's an inside candidate...
Why all this talk about having to fly to campus interviews? From reading this blog over the past few months, I've been under the impression that everyone's an inside candidate...
I think that UCLA candidate description was a joke, either at the expense of certain grumpy material culture candidates, or at somebody in particular. I don't know. Anyway, I'm pretty sure UCLA hired a philologist of some sort, not a MC person.
It says jobs, as opposed to job, so were there two ancient history positions offered, or does this mean an ancient history and a mellon post-doc were offered?
Just to be clear. Are you saying that the Penn Ancient History job has been accepted? If you are the one, congratulations, and if not, best of luck yourself!
Has anyone gotten a campus invite from Lafayette? I know some folks have received post-APA rejection emails and snail mail a few weeks ago, but I have gotten neither. Good sign or oversight?
Does anybody have any advice or thoughts about negotiating? I have one offer, and am quite happy about it, but am wondering if I can/should ask for course relief, additional start-up funds, etc.
People on the Chronicle fora talk about this -- they all say go read "Getting to Yes", but I'm interested in classicists' experiences with negotiating -- can an ABD ask for a small salary bump (say 2-3k) without appearing full of hubris? A first-year course reduction?
It would be quite funny if you received advice here from someone at the institution that has made the offer. (I think Leviticus says something against this.)
Is it just me, or has this site become quite unstable in the past week or so?
Depends on the institution and how much they want you. Deans usually don't have a lot of flexibility for new, young hires in the humanities (let's face it, we're not going to cure cancer). But it's certainly possible to get a 2k increase and first-year course reduction *at some places*. Make sure your reasoning on the phone is sound and you don't sound like you're haggling or arrogant (e.g., domestic situation involves travelling, double rent; massive hike in local property prices; first-year relief will really help you make a solid start to teaching and research, etc.). The Deans have more experience than you; they will signal in advance when you're over-reaching, so just make sure you're polite. Remember, some places will *expect* you to negotiate, so don't be shy.
It would be quite funny if you received advice here from someone at the institution that has made the offer. (I think Leviticus says something against this.)
Is it just me, or has this site become quite unstable in the past week or so?
Can't say for sure, but I was offered (w/o negotiation) a one course reduction in each of my first and fourth years at a SLAC -- bringing my teaching load to 2/3 those years.
What is considered a "decent" amount for start-up funds from a SLAC? 3k, 13k, 30k? I know this varies from school to school, so I am hoping a few people will share their own experiences.
Other than relocation (3k), a computer (2k), and a research budget (which isn't really start-up anyway) is there much else for a philologist/historian? It's not like we have labs, equipment, or RAs. Antique mahogany bookshelves...? I guess benefits are pretty standard too, right? Maybe an MC person can offer some more creative ideas (diamond-tipped shovels, etc.)?
I started teaching at a Midwest SLAC four years ago. The first year package was something like this: 10k incentive money 2.5k relocation 2k for attending early training one course relief brand-new printer and laptop low-rent town-house from school exemption from committee service until the second year 2k salary increase every year conference funds (enough to cover several conferences) I also got summer research fund.
I started teaching at a Midwest SLAC four years ago. The first year package was something like this: 10k incentive money 2.5k relocation 2k for attending early training one course relief brand-new printer and laptop low-rent town-house from school exemption from committee service until the second year 2k salary increase every year conference funds (enough to cover several conferences) I also got summer research fund.
If you don't mind me asking... did you have to negotiate for this package, or was it the initial offer?
If you don't mind me asking... did you have to negotiate for this package, or was it the initial offer?
February 19, 2008 11:46 PM
It was more or less a standard package. I didn't need to negotiate; I didn't know how to negotiate to begin with. I forgot to mention the pre-tenure leave in the fourth year. Benefits are standard as well.
Most of the things should be in the faculty handbook (usually online) and your formal appointment letter/contract. If you think they've missed something, you can always check with the department chair or the Dean of Faculty.
OK, so I discovered yet another procrastination device yesterday:
update and format the wiki. I added the nifty bulleted lists to the new wiki. I hope you all like it. I think it makes it look all sorts of sexy. Like something I want to post a job-offer on. Yeah, that's the ticket!
It was so much fun that I went to do it to the other one this morning and discovered that there is another pathetic soul out there who has also turned to wiki-pimping as a way of dealing with the wait. They beat me to it!
"MC people: what are you considering negotiating for? Lab space? Equipment?"
From a Classics department? What are you smokin'? Besides what any candidate for a classics position negotiates for, the only other issue might be course assignments - i.e. Can I not teach Latin 101, pretty please?
Sure, you could call it "delusion," but you'd be missing the point: the closest I might come to a job this year will be these hypothetical negotiations. So why not reach for the stars--or the total station?
It's not at all delusional. I received additional start-up funds to help cover the added expense of being someone who works on visual/archaeological material; in my case this included a nice digital camera and extra money for travel research this summer. I've been told in general that one-off costs are easier to negotiate than recurring ones, i.e. salary raise.
I could also have pressed for additional space for some sort of lab/work room (i.e. for myself and my students both), if I had been in a position to demonstrate that I need it now. I might in the future, depending on future fieldwork, and the department was definitely responsive - they saw this as good initiative on my part and evidence of bringing new energy to that aspect of the curriculum.
I think if you can make a well-reasoned case for something, then I say go for it. It's not like they're going to withdraw the offer. And schools are keen to snag their first-choice candidate.
Could we please ensure that NO comments of the form 'The person job X was first offered to turned it down' are published? There is no advantage to anyone in knowing that the person who finally got a job was not the first choice, certainly not to the candidate concerned.
Although I thoroughly understand the desire to protect everyone when the 1st choice goes elsewhere, I could wish our egos were not so fragile.
Not that I want to be in the room when the committee discusses me, my uninteresting research and my poor choice in shoes.
Does everyone think it better that we not mention when an offer is turned down? Wouldn't we also have to refrain from even mentioning an offer? We would have to limit the comments to "job x accepted," no?
Could we please ensure that NO comments of the form 'The person job X was first offered to turned it down' are published? There is no advantage to anyone in knowing that the person who finally got a job was not the first choice, certainly not to the candidate concerned.
What? Do you really think this sort of thing is secret? I've never met any of the Penn finalists, and don't think I know anyone who knows them, but the second I saw that a certain other job had been accepted I knew what was going on. And I doubt I'm the only one...
Our field doesn't really have all that many secrets, when you come right down to it. Hell, I even know some very embarrassing sexual stories about people I barely know or have never even met...
I think it is ridiculous to imply that anyone would be embarrassed to be the 'second' finalist, and eventually the one who gets the job, in a major search for a very good position. These searches often are very close, anyone invited to campus is most probably a great choice, and I'll tell you what -- Penn can call me, and I'll be more than happy to have everyone know that I was one of their top choices, and that I'm their new hire, regardless of whether I got the first offer (not that I'm even in the running...).
Anonymous 8:48 here. In cases like this I think we need to weigh carefully any benefit against potential harm. It's potentially harmful to an institution if it's known to have lost it's first choice. It's also potentially harmful to the ultimately successful candidate and to her relations with her future colleagues, as well as her reputation more widely. This seems clear, even if (of course) it won't apply to every case.
Now for potential benefit. As far as I can see, the only person who benefits by learning that the position has been turned down is the second choice candidate, who will in most cases be informed by the institution immediately anyway (if the search is not abandoned). So unless I'm missing something there is no obvious gain from publishing the information here, and some potential for harm. That seems to me a good reason to discourage the practice.
Point taken, and I'm actually on your side -- I think the practice should be discouraged, out of consideration for everyone (first candidate, second candidate, department, etc.). I just think that in addition to discouraging the practice, we should admit that there is NOTHING wrong with being second in line for an awesome job. Since people on this forum have decided to imply that there is, I thought I'd point out that there isn't. There will be a lot of second choices getting hired this year. I'm crossing my fingers and hoping to be one of them. We should feel good about ourselves. That's all.
And by the way, search chairs who write nice emails telling the second and third choices that it was hard to pick a first choice out of a group of three great ones, THANK YOU (whether or not you are telling the truth). It really does make me, at least, feel better.
I think I disagree, although your arguments are persuasive in many ways. Here's my counterargument:
1. People are posting (correctly, I think) frequently about offers having been made. Everyone who is on a shortlist for that institution and did not get the offer has been biting their lips for the last few days or week waiting for the first-choice person to make up their mind. If (s)he declines, and another finalist gets an offer, (s)he already knows that (s)he wasn't choice #1 and that can affect her decisions or ego however s(he) chooses. I, for one, would much rather have the info positively or negatively so I can get on with my life and stop tensing at every phone call and obsessive wiki-checking. (Saying this, I'm now convinced I'm doomed, of course.)
2. I suspect that in the next week or so there will be a cascading effect, as the folks with multiple offers (congrats!) pick one of them, and the institutions they don't accept either cancel the search or call person #2, who may then reject another institution where they've already gotten an offer, and so forth.
It is of immense value to the people on Shortlist A who have been offered Position B but would much prefer Position A to know that they once again have a reasonable chance at Position A. It may stop them from making decisions that they later regret, and hopefully increases the total happiness all the way down the line.
3. As far as the reputation of the institution goes, I find it a bit hard to care about the perceived loss of status. That's the kind of points-playing game that leads people to do things like making grandiose statements about only ever taking their first-choice candidates, when failed searches seriously hurt the university, its students, and the careers of promising academics. There are a huge number of really talented classicists out here; by the time you've narrowed it down to three or four, you ought to be able to be reasonably happy with any of them, even if one was extra special with whipped cream on top.
I have to second 10:49. This past week I got an automated form email from a school that I had fairly extensive contact with (no on-campus interview, but several phone conversations). The email started "Dear Applicant" and didn't get any better from there. I also got a ridiculously terse phone call from a department chair that I had little contact with during my on campus interview -- his phone call basically said, "We wanted to let you know that we offered the position to another candidate and they accepted so thank you for your time," essentially all in one breath. I said, "I'm sorry to hear that and thank you for calling," and we both hung up. No "we enjoyed meeting you, we know you'll do well in your future career, and we're sorry we can't offer the position to more than one person."
I know it could be worse, but SCCs should remember that a little tact and diplomacy go a hell of a long way!
753 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 401 – 600 of 753 Newer› Newest»Yes, it is a lottery. The only difference is that you might have gotten a few more "tickets" either through your efforts (good for you) or those of advisors (lucky you). When jobs routinely have over 100 applicants, 20 of which could probably do the job superbly, you should thank your lucky stars that you were the ONE that snagged it. Maybe you said the right thing through training or luck, it doesn't matter when such randomness exists. Anyone who says they trained and worked and that is the only reason why they got the job is full of shit. Stop justifying why you're lucky enough to sit on the other side of the TT fence.
Dear Anon 8.16pm,
I really appreciate that--cheers. Feeling more like lead than iron at the moment. Eye of the tiger?
The good news is that if I get hired I can look forward to being hated and constantly suspected of intellectual fraud. Guess I'll take that.
R
>>>
r:
Best of luck and just remember:
You're not human. You're like a piece of iron.
January 28, 2008 8:16 PM
@9:39 Stop justifying why you're lucky enough to sit on the other side of the TT fence.
Whoa. Bitter much?
One day maybe you'll be on the other side of things, and by then, I assure you you will laugh at people calling this thing a lottery as lustily as I now do.
I know that's a more comfortable narrative. But it is not the right one. Luck and the lack thereof play into every aspect of this world; stop making out as if this job search thing is a totally random act of divine favor or cruelty. Stop it. It's making you look silly.
Sorry.
I know this is a frustrating situation. I don't think it's a perfect one. I wish only people who could get precisely the right jobs for their interests and abilities would ever even think of going to grad school. The fact is that a lot of people go to grad school because "they like the topic" and are good students. They get into a grad school. Yay! They get funding. Whoo hoo! They finish a PhD, awesome!
This does not mean that they are as equally qualified for a position in their specialization of X. Hell. When I came out, I got a good job (though started with a VAP). I was a very strong candidate. I was NOT, however, the most impressive candidate in my field that year. I was up there. But I was fresh and untried. I had given papers, I had a publication, I had organized conferences (who hasn't, these days?). But I was up against folks who had more articles than I, and against folks with books. I am still happy that I got so many interviews. When I didn't get an interview, or didn't get a job, I didn't yell "freaking lottery!!" I thought "Ok; well, I could be a more rounded candidate. I'm starting out. How do I want to develop my research agenda? How can I make myself stronger next year?"
I do remember, of course, this time of year, way back in the stone age. I was surely nervous. I don't remember blaming all of my frustration on the field, the TT holders, the deans, the vast unfairness of it all. I just recognized that I needed to be a stronger candidate.
I took a little responsibility in the situation.
But I'm not of the "no one told me the coffee would be hot" tribe.
I just want to say that, in the midst of all this heaviness, the running exchange between "R" and their anonymous cheerleader/interlocutor has been very inspiring.
Don't stop believing, hold on to that feeling.
Anon 10:17, I'm not the person you're debating with, but be careful how strongly you pat yourself on the back (or whip the waters). I'm a TT person myself and I know many a distinguished scholar who themselves acknowledge that they have no idea how they landed their first TT job. I'll be the first to acknowledge that I count my lucky stars every day that I'm not on the VAP circuit.
Thanks, Steve Perry. It's clear that you and R both realize that going in one more round when you don't think you can - that's what makes all the difference in your life.
On a broader note, I have to say that during this debate, I've seen a lot of changing, in the way TT-ers feel about VAPs, and in the way VAPs feel about TT-ers.
In here, there were two career paths killing each other, but I guess that's better than twenty million.
I guess what I'm trying to say, is that if TT'ers can change, and VAP'ers can change, everybody can change!
Insert Politburo applause
I'm getting on a plane tomorrow to go on a job interview which seems already to have been guaranteed to an insider (friend of mine). I may not have a chance, but I intend to make it as hard as possible for them to reject me.
Anon 10:17, I agree with Anon 11:06. I think everyone on this blog - or at least most of us - _have_ thought about how to better ourselves as candidates long and hard. And have carried through as much as possible, as much as a VAP is given time and opportunity to. The frustration you complain of arises not because we expect the world to be handed to us on a platter; it arises because we _have_ been trying to improve ourselves as candidates, and there have been few returns.
And I know an Ivy League PhD about to be denied tenure, who has published nothing in 8 years while at an R1 institution (light course load, light service obligations for junior faculty, generous research money and leave policy, supportive colleagues, etc.). Someone else could have had his/her job. That's what I call a waste. It just adds to the frustration.
There is also the issue (not yet discussed on here as far as I see) that many top institutions hire non-American PhD's for their TT positions. In general, I think that's a good thing (makes the field less homogenous), but I can also see how it may disappoint those who have gone through American PhD programs
The problem with hiring European PhD's, from my p.o.v., is that there's very little reciprocity. Sometimes US senior scholars move to the UK, but it's not like German universities are clamoring to hire newly-minted US PhDs...This is, again, the sort of thing SCs have to decide for themselves. But they should think long and hard about any Euro-philia.
@11:06
Anon 10:17, I'm not the person you're debating with, but be careful how strongly you pat yourself on the back (or whip the waters).
I am not patting myself on the back. I said that I recognized I was not the strongest candidate, and thought seriously and continuously of how to change this. That's not heroics. That's just coming freaking sense.
All I'm saying is that I didn't blame my not getting a thousand offers on other factors. I didn't yell "insider search!" or "dirty search!" or "they just want shiny PhDs from the ivies!" or anything else of the sort I've been reading here. At the time, I remember thinking that newly minted PhDs were probably at an extreme disadvantage—but I didn't go whining about it.
I have had the chance to go back through older posts on this site, esp the ones in the "updates" section, and I saw a lot of craptalking going down. This search or that one "wasn't real"; it was ridiculous for Classics depts to want its faculty to be able to teach Latin and Greek; it was all about the "insider candidate."
I'm not patting myself on the back. But I am saying that a lot of the attitudes here reek to high heaven. I know people are blowing off steam. But still... Jesus. I've seen some really ridiculous suggestions in the past day or so (all jobs can only go to people with VAPs of a few years), and some of you guys are losing it.
And I know an Ivy League PhD about to be denied tenure, who has published nothing in 8 years while at an R1 institution
Well, this is simply ridiculous. Serves that person right. The school took a gamble (every hire is), and everyone will lose.
Someone else could have had his/her job.
Don't worry. Someone will!
Again, it's not the best process. But it's better than any of the suggestions I've read here in the past couple of days.
"And I know an Ivy League PhD about to be denied tenure, who has published nothing in 8 years while at an R1 institution (light course load, light service obligations for junior faculty, generous research money and leave policy, supportive colleagues, etc.). Someone else could have had his/her job. That's what I call a waste. It just adds to the frustration."
I think you hit the nail in the head. These perpetrators in general are the most harmful to the field. They not only represent themselves poorly, but the entire discipline as well. If I heard right, there is a R1 position at a prominent flagship school that invited to campus a retread denied tenure at a relatively elite private university with a nice classics program. WHY?! This person has published one peer-reviewed article in a mediocre journal. 8 years with a light load, sabbatical leave, etc!? Because they were lucky enough to get the job 8 years ago so they must be good in there somewhere? Could it be that the first school made a bad mistake? YES! C'mon SCs, get a little more creative than that.
Funny you should mention it. I once had an interview for a job I didn't get, and I was quite certain that I was as good as any American-born candidate for this position, based on how it was described. But a European got the job. I bear him/her no ill will, but for the first time I did understand what workers in other lines of work must feel when they lose out on a job to someone from another country. And I say that as someone who always has been, and is still, pro-immigration. (With the exception of people from Madagascar, those lousy bastards should be stopped at the border.)
Grumpy prof, you're reading the posts here the way you want to and taking them much too personally. IIRC, the gripe wasn't simply against teaching languages, as you coyly present out of context, but the fact that material culture people are usually called upon to do most of the heavy lifting. As a philologist (who admittedly attended the ASCSA so is perhaps a little more open-minded), I think there is validity to what some people have called a discipline stuck in the Victorian era. Now let the young Turks speak out a bit - there's nothing wrong with it and it's probably even a bit healthy.
"'Someone else could have had his/her job.'
Don't worry. Someone will!"
Maybe, maybe not. Sometimes the dean decides to cut the position or maybe the department took a risk by hiring a historian and is now determined never to make that "mistake" again. Also, maybe we lost a good academic to Mckenzie or writing for the History Channel b/c the apparently unqualified person had weaknessed hidden by glowing letters or a certain institutional/scholarly affiliation. Etc., etc., etc.
It is good to see so much hostility and bitterness between colleagues - now we know the field is thriving.
I might suggest, as I have before, that the whole situation has too many variables to take failure personally. I have been runner up for a number of jobs and I'm sure that the person who got it deserved it. Being unpredictable does not mean it is a lottery or completely random.
One probably shouldn't evaluate people based on how many years it takes them to get a job or how many pages they published in three years. But where would the fun be in that?
I would also suggest that taring a whole groups with the same brush (VAP loosers/ babied T-T) is a good way to stir up controversy, so keep at!
tinkerty-tonk,
poldy
(Overheard on Famae Volent, aka Job Search Detention Center)
Dr. Amherst Harvard, T.T.: You know why guys like you knock everything?
Dr. Moo Yoo, VAP: Oh, this should be stunning.
Dr. Amherst Harvard, T.T.: It's because you're afraid.
Dr. Moo Yoo, VAP: Oh God, you richies are so smart, that's exactly why I'm not heavy into activities.
Dr. Amherst Harvard, T.T.: You're a big coward.
Poldy: I'm in the math club.
Dr. Amherst Harvard, T.T.: See, you're afraid that they won't take you, you don't belong, so you have to just dump all over it.
Dr. Moo Yoo, VAP: Well, it wouldn't have anything to do with you activities people being assholes, now would it?
Dr. Amherst Harvard, T.T.: Well, you wouldn't know, you don't even know any of us.
Dr. Moo Yoo, VAP: Well, I don't know any lepers, but I'm not going to run out and join one of their fucking clubs.
Servius: Hey! Let's watch the mouth, huh?
Poldy: I'm in the physics club too.
Dr. Moo Yoo, VAP: Excuse me a sec. What are you babbling about?
Poldy: Well, what I had said was i'm in the math club, the latin and the physics club...physics club.
Dr. Moo Yoo, VAP: Hey, Cherry! Do you belong to the physics club?
Dr. Amherst Harvard, T.T.: That's an academic club.
Dr. Moo Yoo, VAP: So?
Dr. Amherst Harvard, T.T.: So academic clubs aren't the same as other kinds of clubs.
Dr. Moo Yoo, VAP: Ah...but to dorks like him, they are. What do you guys do in your club?
Poldy: In physics we...uh...we talk about physics, properties of physics.
Dr. Moo Yoo, VAP: So it's sorta social, demented and sad, but social. Right?
***
Dr. Amherst Harvard, T.T.: I hate it! I hate having to go along with everything my friends say!
***
Dr. Moo Yoo, VAP: Don't you ever talk about my friends! You don't know any of my friends. You don't look at any of my friends. And you certainly wouldn't condescend to speak to any of my friends. So you just stick to the things you know: shopping, nail polish, your father's BMW, and your poor, rich drunk mother in the Caribbean.
Dr. Amherst Harvard, T.T.: Shut up!
Dr. Moo Yoo, VAP: And as far as being concerned about what's gonna happen when you and I walk down the hallways of school together, you can forget it cuz it's never gonna happen. Just bury your head in the sand and wait for your fucking prom.
Dr. Amherst Harvard, T.T.: Being bad feels pretty good, huh?
***
Poldy: Chicks cannot hold their smoke, that's what it is.
Sir Senior Chair: You don't have any goals.
Dr. Moo Yoo, VAP: Oh but I do.
Sir Senior Chair: Yeah?
Dr. Moo Yoo, VAP: I wanna be just like you. I figure all I need, is a lobotomy and some tights.
Poldy: You wear tights?
Sir Senior Chair: No I don't wear tights. I wear the required uniform.
Poldy: Tights.
Sir Senior Chair: Shut up
what are people's thoughts on the order of campus visits and any advantage it might give to candidates? i've heard it can be very good to be last, not so good to be first.
i've heard it can be very good to be last, not so good to be first.
I often like being last but only because the wait time between visit and decision isn't as long. Having been runner up now in a number of these beauty pageants and having been offered a couple of jobs, I have decided it doesn't matter. But being first usually means having your talk and such ready to go immediately after the APA. I am almost never prepared for that. I was the middle candidate for one job this year and I'll be the last for another and I am hoping this means I am so good that neither committee can remember anyone else's names.
The Breakfast Club!!
LOL
Good catch. Poldy, if you are out there, no offense meant. Somebody had to play Brian. We love you, man.
Any news out of Georgetown regarding their Archaeology position?
@1.29.12:14
Grumpy prof, you're reading the posts here the way you want to and taking them much too personally.
Nah, I'm not. I'm not really a grumpy prof. I love my job. I love this field. I don't have it in for VAPs. I have students, great students, who are now looking at their 3rd or 4th year as a VAP, and I worry for them. I also have students who nailed TT jobs just out (or after a year), and I know how much "easier" it is for them.
What I was doing, however, was playing the persona of a great many TT / tenured profs out there (i.e., here, but not right here, 'cause I'm sitting at my dining room table, and that would be crowded). What I wanted to point out was, first of all (this part wasn't persona), it isn't a lottery and thinking of it as one is self-defeating. Second (also not persona), I think the idea of forced two-year service out of TT jobs is cute, but of course impossible—and not, at the base of it, a very smart idea.
But three (persona part), there is indeed a grumpy / snotty / self-congratulatory sort of ... attitude developed by some profs in response to PhDs who have been out on the market for a few years with no TT offers. I can't explain it, and I surely don't support it. I mean, after a while, if the person can't manage to publish much what with her 10-12 teaching load, I can see the problem (I should also say that I would find it nearly impossible to publish much under the conditions of a VAP position, esp a one-year one, so hats off to those who do). But there is a bias. I witness it. It comes from nice, ethical, good people. No one expresses it. But it's there, and I am not going to lie.
Our dept has a search this year. I can't recall exactly (and if I did, I wouldn't give here) exact figures, but the majority of people we interviewed were on a VAP. I think we interviewed a couple of ABDs. However, of our VAPs, most were on their first year of a one-year: have a year to shake off the shell-shocked daze of the PhD, get your teaching feet under yah, move mentally away from the feces [aka thesis: "put the mouse down and back away from the dissertation, sir"], and so on.
One or possibly two years in a respectable VAP position actually helped our candidates.
Much more than that, however, seems to hurt.
I am not sure why, exactly, it should—as long as everything else is going strong. But it seems to.
A one year VAP? We all know how hard it is to get a TT first time out: not only are you competing with the other hotshot new PhDs in a field: you are competing with people possibly in TT positions who are looking for an upward or lateral-but-better-situated move. It's sort of terrific when a student gets a TT first year out, but I'm also not sure that it is the best thing for everyone (it really depends on the person and the damage done by grad school).
So, a one-year VAP seemed to assure us that this person was solidly hirable. We could check out "real" syllabi, "real" student comments (i.e. comments given a prof and not a grad student—they differ, as I've learned), comments from colleagues (we want to know what kind of a colleague a person will be), and so on.
What's my point? Let me try to come up with one quickly. Ok.
My point is first that I don't think the field is skewed toward ABD sorts quite as much as people here seem to think is the case. I think it used to be. Hell, you used to be able to get a TT job without a finished dissertation. Not "accept" a TT job ABD: I mean arrive on campus, and start teaching and all that, with only a chapter or two.
This still happens, but (thank god) more and more rarely.
So, I think the field used to be more this way. I think it is changing of necessity. A solid one or two year VAP position can do much to add a great deal of punch to your profile—so use it this way. Man, if it's only one year, and especially if this is your first year out: plan for it to be difficult. You are going to arrive on campus and have to start looking for a job almost immediately. Ugh! But hit the ground running, and make the entirety of your next 10 months (more or less) completely about making the most of your VAP experience: I know that most VAPs are high on teaching, but for you, this is your year of kickass professional development. You get some articles sent out—now! Get yourself a course web page, even if you hate the idea. Start thinking now about syllabi you will present next year when on market—and write your syllabi for next Fall with such in mind. Spend the summer finding out which commentaries are available for which texts, or working on a website with images, or what intro language book you'd use, or how to teach Latin composition, or maybe you just find out what you didn't get in grad school, and learn it ... whatever.
So in part, I played grumpy professor because I wanted to elicit good arguments against this view (what I got, however, were sort of naive suggestions that we revise the entire field in ways that will never happen and should not—I understand this better now, 75 years into my career); that didn't work, and so that's why I'm writing again, sine persona.
The other part, however, was that I thought it might be useful—in some way—for people to know that there really is a prejudice against VAPs of more than two years. Three years, tops, but that's if you are coming out of the Harvard gig or something equally ritzy. Guys, there is a prejudice against it. This is not to say that such won't finally land a solid and beloved TT job. It's just to say that although a VAP may well add some cache to your file for the first year (for sure) or two (if strong, esp if a two-year VAP and not two one-years), this advantage seems to stop dropping off sharply after this. It's not cool. But I have witnessed it across the board.
I have no idea what to do about it and, yes, I know that it may drive people from the field. There are too many people in this field as it stands (come on, we all know this. The point is merely that everyone wants to be one of us. No one can resist our fame and good looks). It's a problem. I hate to see people driven from a field they love and could add to, simply because they can't handle the uncertainty / constant moving / workload of endless VAPs. I know of someone who is completely and utterly useless, and holds a TT job he does not deserve but will never vacate.
I think a problem is simply that if people aren't up for participating in this field in its entirety (research, teaching, service), they shouldn't get into the field. Such people do enter the field (too often, people go to grad school because they "like the stuff" and were great grad students), and though you can spot 'em in grad school, by then you can't do much about it. I've seen—personally—such sorts come out of the very top schools in this country—and the not so top. It's not about the school: it's about the person. Some brilliant, great people should not be in this field because they have no interest in participating in it. It is indeed a problem when such people—from any institution—get a TT job and then sit on it for 7 years, reading their Herodotos behind their shut door until they are finally escorted off the premises.
Merely like the content of our field is not reason enough to be a professor in it. Reading Greek and Latin ain't so hard. None of it is really that hard. Being a professor, however, is. It's cool! But it is also, at times, a great lot of work that has nothing to do with the stuff that drew us here.
but the fact that material culture people are usually called upon to do most of the heavy lifting.
With all respect due: this is not a fact. It may be your opinion, but it is not a "fact." I know a very good many departments, and no department worth its salt (mine included) would have a MC person teach a language class unless that were the only option. But maybe the dept wants to know it's an option (just as in our dept two or three of us language people have sufficient training to teach an undergrad MC class with a bit of extra prep—if need be), and that this person, if teaching grad students, is comfortable bringing ancient texts into a grad seminar.
That's not "most of the heavy lifting." I have scanned a lot of dept'l beginning language pages, and it's not the MC folks who are teaching them. By and large, the MC folks are given MC or culture courses, and that seems perfectly fair.
[QUOTE] As a philologist (who admittedly attended the ASCSA so is perhaps a little more open-minded), I think there is validity to what some people have called a discipline stuck in the Victorian era.[/QUOTE]
I think this must depend on one's department. I would argue that MC folks (and I am not going to identify my own training, as it would also identify myself) who think they should be in Classics depts but not have to engage in language teaching of any sort or culture courses are being similarly Victorian. Everyone needs to be more widely trained in every area. Period. That is the way this field is headed.
Wide training also, quite simply, helps you on the job market and helps you get fellowships and grants.
But this all marginal to my point that the VAP thing is not a simple one. I don't know what to do about the 3 year+ VAP prejudice. Grumpy professor was channeling some expressions of that prejudice (if sloppily). Just saying "it's not fair" on the VAP end isn't going to end it—nor is merely deciding that shiny ABDs such and shouldn't get jobs. It's not the first two years out that are the problem. It's the years after that.
Hmmm. I don't know what to think of the problem, nor how to fix it. Bright ideas?
Dear [pseudo]Grumpy,
If it was my consistent attempts to characterize the process as unpredictable that stood behind your use of the term 'lottery', I hope my position is clear now and this odd characterization of it can stop. The reason I brought up the many variables of job searches was to encourage those on the searching side not to make sweeping generalization about the process. I did not think that those on the hiring side would need such encouragement.
The problem you raise about the bias against long-term VAPs is not one that is easily soluble because it clearly rests in prejudice. If people knew how to eradicate prejudice, then the world would be a very different place. But perhaps if enough people play down the rhetoric of their personae and openly address the question of the VAPs and adjuncts in the field, perhaps fewer people would hold such unfortunate points of view.
But you did let out the secret that everyone should know by now - publish.
toodle-pip,
Poldy
ps. I don't mind playing Brian; I suck at Chess, though. I can only win if I cheat.
Now we're touching on another one of my pet peeves: the way the field, as is undoubtedly true of others, seems to value speed and quantity over quality of publications. In my four years of VAP's, I've published two major, research-intensive articles that will be the standard reference points on their particular subjects for decades, plus a smattering of shorter and lesser stuff. But I don't have a book, because my dissertation revision will lead to another work that will be the standard work for decades, and for that reason I want to get it right rather than rush it. And at this point, the lack of a book is undoubtedly hurting me. I work on my project 6-7 days a week, despite heavy teaching loads, and yet am already being thought of by some as "slow to publish." And here I've been foolishly believing that we engage in research in order to benefit our fellow scholars...
Ah, yes.
The Tyranny of the Monograph.
Classics should follow the lead of Philosophy and concentrate on producing solid articles. With on-line publishing starting to become more acceptable, costs wouldn't even be much of an issue.
This is one of my pet peeves as well. But I will shut up now for fear of going on a real rant.
On the monograph issue:
In my uni, at least, the monograph prejudice is held at the uni- (not dept'l-) level, and is all about tenure. Depts want to get their hires tenured (unless they don't), and most schools, and certainly most R1 schools, have college councils that require a monograph. It needn't be published; hell, it needn't have a contract. But it had better be finished, and submitted, and under review, and with readers who say solidly "this is going to be published."
Another problem I have seen is that chapters contributed to edited vols are seen as less prestigious than articles in journals. Since one normally has to have reached a level of some visibility in order to be invited to contribute to a vol (I guess one might argue "you were invited because your friends edited it!," but I have contributed to several, and the editors have never been friends. I hated every last one of them with a Vatinian hatred), such contributions should be viewed at least on the level of journal articles—but in many schools, they are not.
Another wacky thing? In R1 schools with heavy science representation, jointly authored articles are often given preeminence over solo work. Wonkers! This is not, of course, at the Classics dept. level, but remember that the college councils of schools include faculty from all over the university.
Poldy McPoldster: I don't think you were the one who started with the "lottery" comment, and didn't mean to aim my response at you. It's just that, yeah, the term hit a chord and seemed to give an impression of this field (to the searchers) that is not helpful. Especially to them.
But yes, you are right. Publish. Publish early and often.
Interesting place you all have here! I like the cinder-block shelving, bean bag chairs, and, of course, the hookah. Brings me back a few years.
One of the problems with the monograph-for-tenure model is that it delegates responsibility, ultimately, to a business: the publisher.
Why should the editors of university presses, who are struggling mightily financially, have so much say over tenure? I don't blame them, I feel for them. They have a bottom line to worry about. With dwindling library sales, first-runs are shrinking, back-lists are being slashed, and new titles are severely limited.
So what does this mean to an aspiring young scholar? It is getting harder and harder and harder to get published by a respectable scholarly press. This has nothing to do with the quality of the manuscripts being submitted and everything to do with the fact that the publishing houses are in serious trouble.
At the same time, tenure expectations have gone through the roof. Respectable liberal arts colleges with 3/3 teaching loads can "reasonably" expect a book and articles for tenure. If you don't produce, well, sorry. Plenty of starving adjuncts clamoring at the gates. Happy trails, don't let the door hit you on the way out!
We are being squeezed by an overproduction of qualified scholars and an underproduction (or, rather, and under-publication) of the things we currently rely upon to judge scholarly worth, books.
Somebody needs to come up with some new methods for judging academic productivity, or convince Bill Gates to donate a couple billion to the various academic presses. Otherwise we might to see bricks through windows soon.
Despite some remarks to the contrary--and despite (or because of) the reality of tenure requirements--I think that too much stuff gets published: books that should be articles, articles that should be short notices, notices that should be . . . I don't know what. Footnotes?
I don't mean that we shouldn't be motivated to publish; I just want more recognition of the different kinds of contributing publications (sometimes we need to get the facts out, less often we need to promote bigger ideas). There are just too many books! I guess what I'm saying is that philosophers seem to have the right idea.
This is a useful discussion, but let's move it over to Professional Development. It would be helpful for those of wanting to know news about campus visits not to have to scroll past people's musings on the field, TT, etc.
At this point, there isn't really much more news still to come about campus visits...
Is the Rutgers position the only job out there that we "know" has been offered and accepted?
Rutgers
I am not sure we really know that, but this is a rumor blog.
publishing by weight
Modern shades of Aristophanes' Frogs. I suspect the focus on numbers and venue is another example of the bureaucratic mindset - if it can't be counted and quantified scholarship, it can't be evaluated.
toodle-pip,
poldy
I am not sure we really know that, but this is a rumor blog.
I know the person who accepted the job. Unless this person is a liar, it's no rumor.
And how do we know that you are not a liar? For all we know, Anonymous might not even be your real name...
Apparently the Northwestern Mellon Post-Doc has been offered and accepted as well, so we can cross that one off the list.
I guess everybody is off giving job-talks today.
*sigh*
Does anybody still have their Princeton University Press catalogue from the conference? I would like to order some books but I don't have the promotional code that would allow me to get the APA/AIA discount. If you have the code, can you post it here?
Thanks!!
Things not to do on fly backs:
1) inform your potential future colleagues that this department (at which you are a guest) isn't really one of the top programs in the country. They surely know their department's standing better than you.
2) discount the importance of your one-on-one interviews with junior members of the faculty by flinging yourself on the couch/chair/etc in the office of a junior member of the faculty, and attempting to gain sympathy by nattering on about how exhausting the interview process is, and how ever did they (junior member) survive it last year/ two years ago, etc.
If anyone's vote really counts, it is that of the junior faculty member who may be working with you for the next 30 years. Do your best to convince them that you will be a serious and contributing member of the department by conducting yourself in a professional manner.
3) If asked to choose the wine at dinner, it is best not to choose a $90 bottle (unless that happens to be the cheapest bottle on the menu). Whether you do or do not know a lot about wine, stick with the old business school rule - choose the second least expensive bottle, it's usually the best value.
what not to do = poldy's schadenfreude
Not to stir-up ill feeling between the parties, but I must admit that I get a rather unbecoming enjoyment from knowing that those having to endure such rude behavior may be the same people who passed on my charming company.
toodle-pip,
Poldy
- Neid zu fühlen ist menschlich, Schadenfreude zu genießen teuflisch
'it is human to feel envy; to savor schadenfreude is devilish.'
3) If asked to choose the wine at dinner, it is best not to choose a $90 bottle (unless that happens to be the cheapest bottle on the menu). Whether you do or do not know a lot about wine, stick with the old business school rule - choose the second least expensive bottle, it's usually the best value.
Dear no doubt well-meaning committee member,
Don't ask the candidate to choose the wine. That is just dumb, and thoughtless. If they had picked the second least expensive bottle, then assuredly someone at the table would have thought, "rube". Selecting wine is fraught with peril, therefore doing so is the job of the senior member at the table, or the resident wine snob.
Good Luck Meg!!!
Go get 'em tiger, you are going to do great tomorrow!!
Selecting wine is fraught with peril, therefore doing so is the job of the senior member at the table, or the resident wine snob.
Seconded. Especially if you are using it as a "test."
Oh, get over it - you all need to stop assuming that everyone who offers advice is trying to or has tried to screw the candidates. I'm reporting an event that has led to a bad impression of a candidate, not a witness to it. I wouldn't have allowed a candidate to screw themselves in that way. In this case the candidate itself insisted on choosing, based on her/his "knowledge of wine."
The advice applies, with your suggested modification. Don't order the wine - express a preference (red, white, nothing), but defer to the search committee chair or dinner host.
Don't order the wine - express a preference (red, white, nothing), but defer to the search committee chair or dinner host.
Seconded. Especially if you think you have "knowledge of wine."
Which is it?
If asked to choose the wine at dinner ...
or
In this case the candidate itself insisted on choosing, based on her/his "knowledge of wine."
Well, if the latter, then serves them right. You were pretty unclear in your original post, though. It sounded like they were asked or (more charitably read) given the opportunity to choose.
My response had nothing to do with your "advice", and I certainly didn't assume that you were trying to "screw the candidate". I was just pointing out that placing a candidate in that position was "dumb" and "thoughtless".
SCs are generally quite thoughtful, but your post made it sound like the poor candidate completely failed a secret test, which raised my ire. Apologies if I mis-read you.
You guys/gals can't be serious...
The blog has sunk to this? Wine at dinner?
I usually go for a triple of the best scotch they have, for starters. After the third grey goose martini, I'm ready for some cognac, and they're ready to move onto the next candidate.
"Don't ask the candidate to choose the wine."
Unless the candidate is either Italian or French. If both are present, the French must defer to the Italians. The problem now, of course, is that the Euro is too strong. So their sense of price is completely warped. 90 USD? That's chump change.
I'd love to continue on here, but the Lost recap is about to start...
I can't believe the way some of you are personalizing a few of these discussions, or picking on every comment that doesn't sit right with you. Did the faculty member really need to be jumped on, even if he/she was the one having the candidate choose the wine?
I'm working on a theory that some of my fellow job candidates are rather thoughtless, and some even have tendencies more often associated with jerks than intellectuals.
And here I was thinking that I'm supposed to be the grumpy one...
Maybe we job seekers have got into the habit of thinking that SCs are not looking for reasons to hire one candidate, but instead are looking for the reasons not to hire the other two. From the moment we reach campus, we're being watched to see what we do wrong, not what we do right. I don't think at all that SCs are doing this. But if it's often hard to choose between finalists (as we've been told on this blog), it's easy to see why we've become so panic-striken.
Dyskolos-
I thought the Scandal of the Vino was instructive for all parties; a port-hole view of the hiring process.
Candidates, you are being "judged", so act accordingly. Don't spout idiocies, insult your hosts, or take younger interviewers for granted. Duh. Hopefully, however, this mini-thread has reminded interviewers not to take everything so damn seriously. When I was fresh out of graduate school my knowledge of wine spanned the distance between Night Train and the gallon jug of Julio Gallo. Maybe the candidate's choice of the $90 bottle reflected their own cultural and class background.
The most important question remains unanswered: did they choose the best wine for that particular meal? That is how I choose whom to hire. :*)
We tenured faculty often want to present the SC world as a collegial process, but I'm afraid you're correct to some degree. I've been in meetings that represent the Taiwanese legislature (fistfights and threats) more than the US Congress. There are bound to be favorites among individual SC members. Alas, instead of playing up their candidate, the meeting usually resorts to negative attacks against others. "I saw him use a computer in the lab. He spent almost an hour on it! He surely won't be a productive colleague." Etc., etc., etc.
When I was fresh out of graduate school my knowledge of wine spanned the distance between Night Train and the gallon jug of Julio Gallo.
Where does Mad Dog 20/20 fall in there?
Are you kidding me? What wine I choose, or how I choose to unwind before my next "pleasant" chat could determine whether I'm hired or not? Why not just cut to the chase and measure my skull, to get a really objective measure of what kind of colleague I'll be?
The notion that you can judge a human being based on a single gesture or moment is a complete abdication of professional responsibility. On the other hand, there is something quite philological about it.
Evergreen requested campus interview (1/30/08) (em).
"Why not just cut to the chase and measure my skull ... ?"
Well, there is something quite archaeological about that...
I know that people are acting on a generous impulse, but might I point out that every time someone points out things job candidates should not do -- e.g., taking junior SC members for granted, something I can't imagine anyone would be stupid enough to do -- he/she is helping flawed candidates patch over their flaws? This simply makes it more likely that departments will go for someone who turns out to be a regrettable hire, while making it harder for more collegial sorts to get that job.
I know that social Darwinism is out of fashion, but still...
know that people are acting on a generous impulse, but might I point out that every time someone points out things job candidates should not do --
I thought you were going to finish this sentence by saying that they were revealing to a candidate who may be reading this that they definitely did NOT get that job.
OK then. That is the absolute last time I ever grace a group of provincial strangers with my charm, wit, and remarkable sophistication.
I'm just going take that job at Yale so that I am close to a few carefully selected cellars, and a short Connecticut Limo ride away from JFK.
$90?
*sniff*
Any news about Wake Forest???
Any news about Wake Forest???
They totally choked against Clemson the other night. It was sad.
Whether you do or do not know a lot about wine, stick with the old business school rule - choose the second least expensive bottle, it's usually the best value.
Wine writers often assert that it is, in fact, almost never the best value, precisely because of this "business school rule" and its wide application. Ordering the 2nd cheapest bottle means ordering the bottle on the bottom half of the wine list with the largest markup--because restaurant owners know that people uncertain of what to order will order it (and, apparently, a lot of men on first dates who do not want to look cheap).
I've never forced a candidate to choose a wine, though I've certainly talked with candidates about what wine we ought to order for the table. I would think that if asked to choose a wine, a candidate could turn the question back around and ask for input from the others. I would think someone would make a suggestion.
In any case, having served on three search committees and participated less centrally in many other searches, I can say that I have never yet heard a colleague nix a candidate because of something the candidate did or did not order at dinner. Because of something the candidate said at dinner? Absolutely.
Because of something the candidate said at dinner?
And what might that have been? Sounds like a good story.
I suspect I shot myself in the foot a few years ago at a dinner when I was asked about my undergraduate university. After I commented on how lucky I was to have had a lot of close contact with faculty, I received an austere rebuke from a member of the department, who insisted on how much care he and his fellow teaching assistants had put into teaching undergrads. I had not meant to slight his efforts, but I could see how he would take it that way.
tinkerty-tonk,
poldy
And what might that have been? Sounds like a good story.
Not really, since I quite liked the candidate in question, and this had the effect not of spectacularly torpedoing the candidacy, but just lowering it enough that the offer went to someone else. (It was probably not the sole factor, of course, but it sticks in my mind as one of the prominent factors.) Let's just say that one normal mode of conversation between Americans under the age of 40 or so is laced with pure irony, now honed by years of watching the Daily Show, etc. In this case a string of comments that I, a member of that demographic, saw as mere irony, was interpreted by another faculty member as obnoxious, unprofessional, and tasteless. That faculty member soured on the candidate in question, and in a search where the candidates were all well qualified and no one made any obvious mistakes (no wretched job talks, no profanity-laced racial tirades, etc.) the decision can often become centered on that squishy category of "collegiality." After that dinner, this candidate simply was not seen as collegial by one colleague, and that colleague's opinion influenced that of others who were not at the dinner.
On the plus side, for me personally, the hire was outside of Classics, so I don't have to interact on a daily basis with the person they did hire--who turned out to be remarkably collegial except in one major area: the hire shirks almost all service--departmental and university--letting it devolve onto immediate colleagues, making their lives much more difficult.
"On the plus side, for me personally, the hire was outside of Classics, so I don't have to interact on a daily basis with the person they did hire--who turned out to be remarkably collegial except in one major area: the hire shirks almost all service--departmental and university--letting it devolve onto immediate colleagues, making their lives much more difficult."
So basically, the candidates who are the best actors and hobnobbers get the jobs. No wonder so many a-holes are hired with no interest in the discipline or their department beyond how far it can take their careers. This is especially epidemic in the humanities. It gives be great hope in the future of classics.
Anyone else have visits in the midwest/NE storm zone this week? It was crazy!
So basically, the candidates who are the best actors and hobnobbers get the jobs.
It's a bit absurd to extrapolate from this one case to all hires, and I'm not even sure that's a lesson to be drawn about this single instance itself. I think my preferred candidate would have been better, but I have no guarantee. And even at the time I can remember thinking that I wished the candidate showed greater discretion and situational awareness. Would that candidate have gotten to campus and alienated everyone? Would that candidate have annoyed all the members of every committee they sat on? Is it acting or hobnobbing not to be a smart ass around people who don't know you and are evaluating you for a position?
One of our searches a couple of years ago came down to two excellent candidates. Both extremely qualified. One extremely slick and very impressive in public settings, the other much quieter and less showy, almost shy. Their writing samples were of equally high quality. Letters (in typical fashion) hyperbolic. Job talks went well. Students loved them both in the classes they taught, but preferred the showier one. Almost all the faculty members who saw them only briefly distinctly preferred the first, as well. Most people who had multiple encounters with them--and here we're particularly talking about members of the SC--thought they were much more closely matched than that. In the end, the SC went with the second, for a variety of reasons. Now that this person is our colleague, I think everyone feels it was absolutely the right decision.
Do all searches go like that? No. But members of any SC are going to use a range of criteria, and "collegiality" is a big one. You'll be stuck with this person for years, and that fact inevitably enters the evaluation. I wouldn't suggest that a candidate try to fake everyone out, but if they have basic problems being polite and making nice conversation, I doubt they're going to get the job. Diogenes, for instance, could never get a tenure-track job. Showing up naked and masturbating before the job talk might not definitely rule him out at some schools, but urinating on the search committee would certainly put him out of the running.
Tulane Greek History
I heard third-hand that they have made an offer. I trust my source, but I didn't ask from whom she had heard the news.
Anyone out there able to confirm this?
What the hell?!? I was the Old Oligarch months ago! And now someone's stealing my handle? Just because I haven't posted under that name for a while doesn't mean that I was abandoning my proprietary rights. This is pretty low, even for the "Famae Volent" board.
My sincerest apologies! I had no idea that somebody had dibs on that handle.
But I really did write that nifty little tract, even though everybody thinks you did.
On second thought. Apologies just slightly retracted. Why have you stopped using that handle?!?!
It would be a heck of a lot easier if there were fewer "Anonymous" identities, and more people willing to stick with a named persona!
Well, I did change up somewhat, since too many posts under one name might make it easier to be identified. So if you want to use it, I guess that's okay.
Just be aware that based on a joke that wasn't properly appreciated "Old Hoss" thinks that you/we do not properly respect archaeologists. (You know, those satyr-like pseudo-academics who do nothing other than drink and have sex the whole time that they're on their digs.)
... those satyr-like pseudo-academics who do nothing other than drink and have sex the whole time that they're on their digs.
How could anybody not respect such behavior? Work hard, play hard. That's my motto.
It's a bit absurd to extrapolate from this one case to all hires
Absurd and intemperate hyper-extrapolation is one of our specialties.
I'm working on a theory that some of my fellow job candidates.. have tendencies more often associated with jerks than intellectuals
Your theory should take into account the fact that intellectuals and jerks are far from exclusive categories.
too many posts under one name might make it easier to be identified
Does my consistent use of a single handle mean my anonymity has been compromised? Or will my vacuous comments give me away. Let's see if I can trick everyone.
toodle-pip,
[Poldy]
"Does my consistent use of a single handle mean my anonymity has been compromised? Or will my vacuous comments give me away. Let's see if I can trick everyone."
No, it doesn't give you away, though I imagine that if I'm at the APA next year sitting at the bar and overhear someone saying "tinkerty-tonk" or "toodle-pip" I'll be able to figure it out. Whatever you do, don't use those phrases in an interview!
though I imagine that if I'm at the APA next year sitting at the bar and overhear someone saying "tinkerty-tonk" or "toodle-pip" I'll be able to figure it out.
Actually, if you hear someone using those phrases, chances are you are sitting next to Bertie Wooster, not poldy.
Whatever you do, don't use those phrases in an interview!
If I conducted an entire interview in knut, I couldn't do worse than now.
Right-ho, though, you offer sound advice: nix the toodle-piping in professional situations. Perhaps I really should have applied to the college of Wooster, what?
bung-ho,
Poldy
is it common that during a campus visit members of the department ask you what other places you've been invited to? and if they do (it happened to me), what do you best say?
It's unprofessional to ask, in my opinion, and it has never happened to me in numerous campus visits. I think you are not required to give specific details. How to best evade the question...maybe just say you do have other options but would prefer not to identify them? It's tricky.
I felt it was unprofessional too. I decided it'd be best to tell them, but since all my other options are 'better' than the department where I was asked I wonder whether my answer will hurt me when they decide about a job offer
have been asked by two places about my interview schedule. there was no way to evade the question. in both cases the person asking critiqued my other schools, which i thought was rather tacky.
I mean, if they're "better" schools, it might help, in that it validates you as a candidate, but it might hurt, in that they might assume you won't pick them, so they should reject you first. I think critiquing is tacky, too, but possibly means genuine interest on the asker's part in your candidacy?
Closest I've come is someone assuming I was interviewing elsewhere (not true that year, but I did not correct the assumption). I think it may make schools more communicative around decision time if they know you are interviewing elsewhere. But otherwise...tacky and unprofessional, imho.
Grumpy Prof, what do you think?
I did not realize asking candidates about other interviews was a gray area--I thought it was forbidden?
In any case, I've had it come up a few times (usually because of grad students who don't know the "rules" [that I think I know]). I think an oligarch (old or new) should weigh in on this.
Grumpy McGrumpstein, PhD, signing in!
I think it is utterly tacky to ask a campus visitor anything about their job search that does not apply immediately and directly to their visit.
It's beyond tacky. I consider it unprofessional.
Now what I'm on the other side of THE DESK OF DOOM, I can see the impulse. You have someone out, so you OBVIOUSLY would like to hire them. You wonder what your chances are. In an awkward moment, you ask.
But you shouldn't!
It is an utterly inappropriate question. May you (SCs) are just trying to make conversation "Well, it's a crazy time of year... I bet you're flying all over the place..." or maybe you are really wondering what your competition is. Either way, SCs have no business asking this. Period.
It is unseemly.
For campus visitors asked this, if the statement is vague "I bet you're flying all over..." it is fine just to say "well, it's a busy time for everyone involved in this process, I'd guess."
If the statement is explicit, then a suitable answer is "Well, there are a few options open, but I don't feel comfortable discussing them. Right now I'm just focussing on this visit: you have such a great department here..."
Keep in mind that an SC member who asks such a tactless question was either just (1) feeling awkward and trying to come up with something to say or (2) really and truly interested in trying to figure out what their chances are for getting you. Take it in the best way you can, because taking it any other way is not going to do anyone any favors.
As re the faculty member who asked this and then criticized the other schools—again, this was probably meant as a compliment (i.e., trying to make her or his own school look better), but it is tacky upon tacky.
I can't imagine such a thing. Horrifying.
And another etiquette question...the equally tricky one of family and s.o.'s.
I know that SCs are not supposed to ask that, and no one ever has asked me that, nor do I mention my personal life. But I am about to go on a visit at a school a mere hour's drive away from my long-distance s.o. It would be the ideal solution (right now we are on opposite coasts). Should I bring this up? I did remark in my application letter that I was especially interested in the position because I had a personal interest in the area. But I feel that it might be unprofessional of me to bring it up as much as it would for them.
As the person whose other schools were critiqued -- I know that in both cases the SC was seriously interested in my candidacy, so I responded politely. But it did seem like they were operating under the assumption that I would get offered ALL of the jobs and would be able to pick and choose (which of course will not happen -- I'll be lucky to get one offer) -- in one case, I can see how the school might think I'd prefer other choices to it, but the fact of the matter is that this school is very high on my list, so I hope they don't make that assumption and decide not to offer me the job.
It was harder to respond to the critiques -- they seemed to expect me to agree with their assessments of my other choices. And it left me with a weird feeling -- they've put down, to greater and lesser degrees, the majority of my other choices, so then if they don't offer me the job, isn't it going to be awkward when they see me at the APA next year? "Oh, so you ended up at University X? Well, good luck dealing with that messed up department/tiny research fund/crazy provost/crime problem I warned you about." Charming.
There is absolutely no reason not to tell them that you have a s.o. in the area (or some other compelling personal reason to want to be there). Committees want to hire people who want to be there for the long haul.
I agree that it's a good idea to mention your SO. I was in a similar situation 2 years ago. In the interview, the SC asked me if I knew much about the area their university was in. I decided to take a chance and say yes and add that it was because my SO was very nearby. They responded that they were glad I told them because they are not legally allowed to ask, and it enabled them to see I was really serious about the position.
Unfortunately, here's another view: My SO has made it to the campus visit stage at a great school about an hour away from mine. SO mentioned situation at the conference interview stage. At the visit, several faculty members mentioned that my teaching an hour away was a concern because SO might not be fully committed to the school if not living in the immediate environs of campus. As far as they were concerned, it would be more desirable to take someone with no geographic connection who would definitely live in town.
FWIW, previous occupant of position lasted only one year before his 'big city' wife couldn't handle the sticks and insisted they leave. Grumble grumble grumble ....
Maybe you should just say you have family in the area and leave it at that. Then they'll assume that you have a good reason to be in the area, but you won't have to be specific about the SO factor or that you will have to compromise on how close to campus you live. Good luck!
Thanks for all the advice...I don't get the hour away/residency complaint, though. I have colleagues who live an hour away from campus (admittedly in the greater metropolitan area, but even so).
Good luck to the others in this situation!
Does anyone have any news about Villanova's TT?
Hss anyone heard anything from Duquesne?
I have an upcoming campus visit, and have a question related to it.
The search committee has kindly arranged to have a faculty member pick me up at the airport and then drive me to the hotel when I get in. The airport is about an hour away from campus and my flight arrives in the early evening. I will have a little less than an hour at the hotel before dinner with the faculty.
I understand that this gesture is both collegial and (potentially) money-saving. But I would much prefer to have that small window of post-flight time to decompress! I hate flying, and I am going to be exhausted.
I will happily pay the cost of a taxi or a limo. Would it be bad form for me to suggest that I make my own arrangements for getting from the airport to the hotel? This would also save that faculty member's time. I don't want to come off as high-maintenance, or unfriendly.
Thanks in advance for any advice.
Sorry - I think you'll have to follow their plan. It is a collegial gesture (I doubt the purpose is money-saving) and I think that's why you shouldn't turn it down.
Frankly, I love being picked up at the airport by a faculty member. It says something about that department. Think of it as an early opportunity to get your "game face" on - just pretend you're enjoying the situation, even if you're not. You'll have to do the same in your academic career, after all, and through the whole visit. Could you perhaps take ten minutes to collect yourself before emerging into the greeting area and meeting your ride?
Müde said...
I have an upcoming campus visit, and have a question related to it. Would it be bad form for me to suggest that I make my own arrangements for getting from the airport to the hotel?
I think it would be bad to change the schedule they thought through. In my experience, when no one wants to/can pick you up at the airport, the dept. arranges for a shuttle. When someone does pick you up at the airport, it's part of your visit. (Joy.)
That said, I understand your feelings completely. I would almost always choose to take a shuttle. I sometimes like having dinner on my own the first night, too, which can help with the unwinding and readjusting to a sometimes very different time zone or schedule.
Good luck!
Müde:
No, you cannot suggest that you will find your own way in. This would be considered rude (or at any rate weird), and is no way to start your visit.
Look at your other foot, and use that one. It's the one that gets into the faculty car with a smile and says "it is so kind of you to come and get me at the airport!"
That is the right foot.
you want to save me a two hour drive?
Were I on a search committee, Müde, which I am not, I would be more than happy to let you find your own way to the hotel. However, you are certainly better off graciously accepting the ride - members of search committees can be so touchy sometimes.
NOTE: http://www.apaclassics.org/profmat/CSWMG_Placement_Report.html
"Taken together, these statistics paint a bleak portrait indeed for job candidates age 40 or above, be they new job candidates or candidates searching for another position. The statistics gathered demonstrate that we, as a profession, fall prey to a “wunderkind complex”; we encourage and reward younger job candidates for their youthful accomplishments in the field and speedy completion of their academic training. At the same time, we reward them for not publishing; this is ironic in light of our professional imperatives towards greater quantities of publication. We seem to reward younger job candidates precisely because they represent pure potentiality, because they have promise even if they have not yet shown how (or indeed if) they will live up to that same promise."
poodle-tip,
a rapidly aging Poldy
Müde,
I have to agree with all the posters here. The SC has already planned this out, so you should go along with it. Reach down deep and SMILE, even though you might not feel like it!
I am a veteran of a number of campus visits, and I sympathize. In fact, to all of you SC members out there, please consider making the taxi/shuttle/limo pick-up the default move.
I like meeting people! I'm one of those annoyingly perky-types. I have always been happy to talk with the faculty member or graduate student who came to the airport to pick me up. But I was happiest when I could dress down for my flight and know that I had a bit of "down" time in between travel mode and interview mode.
Just a thought from the candidate's perspective.
Müde,
I would only add to the others' advice that you NOT ask "Are we there yet?" every five minutes.
And if you need to go to the bathroom, DO NOT ask the faculty member to pull over to the side of the road.
Has anyone else ever had the experience of being taken to lunch by a SC member and ending up paying for them? (It's one step above being taken to McDonald's and being told that you can only order from the dollar menu...)
Are you dating that SC member? There must be something you're not telling us for this to be true...
Has anyone else ever had the experience of being taken to lunch by a SC member and ending up paying for them?
You didn't "end up paying". I asked if it was OK if you footed the bill "this time" (implying that there would be an opportunity for me to pay next time, when you were my colleague). You said, "Uhhhh, sure!"
That was a test. You failed. The proper response was "screw you", or something to that effect. We need to make sure that our junior faculty have spines, know how to say "no" to pesky students, deans, and other such riff-raff.
Thanks for playing, and better luck next time.
(I don't know how old Poldy is, of course, but someone should give him/her a job, already!)
The study to which Poldy refers is notoriously flawed, I think. Among other things, it claims there are 2 candidates per job. I don't think so. Does anyone else? (I think they only used the number of those registered with the Placement Service to get their statistics.)
But I like the following quote: "In terms of obtaining academic positions, Cumulative Figure 28c shows that it is a significant advantage to be a candidate under the age of 30 and have no articles published."
Why exactly, 5 years out, have I been spending my not copious free time (with 5-5, 4-4, 3-3 loads and the like) publishing those 10 articles in high-quality refereed journals?
not as old
I second the plea for someone to employ me.
Ten articles is impressive and with those teaching loads truly astounding.
The report does say that there are 2 registered candidates per job, but acknowledges that number does not represent the total numbers of candidates per job, lamenting "the sad reality that there are many more candidates than there are positions."
I fear we both would have been better served by doctoring our birth certificates than publishing. Next year I plan to be 26 and only gently published.
bung-ho,
poldy
Poldy--
Thank you for posting the link to the APA publication. Reading it is like watching a train wreck. Horrifying and fascinating at the same time.
Well, here's to another year on the market.
{lifts PBR in the air}
--TOF
Duke VAP offered and accepted (confirmed rumor)
Re: Anon. 1.17:
"Confirmed rumor" i.e. "I confirmed the rumor" OR "this is a bona fide rumor"?
Has anyone heard from LSU since the APA? Is the search still on, or have they forgotten about it by now?
Someone asked that question on another thread, no one answered. I heard they would decide end of January. Which is well past. Me, I just want closure.
Re: Anon 3:05
I confirmed the rumor - Duke VAP all sewn up.
LSU has invited candidates to campus.
Has anyone who interviewed with UCLA for the junior position heard from them?
Now I know that they've already invited people to campus; they did that at the APA. I was just wondering if they were waiting to land someone before sending out their apologies or what.
MTSU - campus invite via email.
Not classics, but close enough
inscrutable
The Chronicle "first-person" essays always strike me, for some reason, as self-serving. Why the writers use a pseudonym when they paint themselves as so wonderful? That is most certainly unfair, but the confessional genre is so hard to manage.
I still think it best for candidates not to try to pierce the veil of why any particular job rejected them. I prefer to simply trust that hiring committees honestly do what they think best. I sleep well that way. And I am comforted by the thought that if they screw up and hired someone who didn't fit, they have to live with it.
toodle-pip,
Poldy
[of course, one should take advice about what do better - but that article doesn't have it]
Quite an interesting piece. But I think I know the explanation for this:
"I read all of the files a second time seeking to counteract what was apparently an institutional prejudice on my part. Even upon a third reading, though, I found that the cover letters coming from elite institutions were dramatically more sophisticated, professional, and provocative than the letters from other universities."
The top programs do an outstanding job supporting and advising their applicants, but that's not true of every good classics Ph.D. program out there. I myself went to one that is certainly quite good, but not considered among the very best. And the faculty in that program did at best a so-so job helping their grads get jobs. One manifestation of this was that I got terrible advice in terms of my own cover letter. The first year I was on the market my letter was two full pages -- and I wasn't done with my dissertation and had no publications. It was well written, but too long. And none of the 3+ faculty members I showed it to did anything but make a few stylistic points here and there.
My first observation is that the best placement support comes from wealthy departments. This isn't a surprise. Faculty in these departments have relatively light teaching loads and service requirements with generous sabbaticals. My second observation is that these wealthy departments often cherry pick the most prominent names in the field, which gives instant name recognition to your letter is you're lucky enough to snag one from him/her. The third factor usually related to the first though not necessarily to the second is the willingness of the faculty to put forth the effort to look over your dossier, mock interview, write letters, call colleagues, etc. All together, none of these factors guarantee that it's the best program for producing future productive scholars, but it does usually guarantee the best placement.
Re: it is what it is said ...
'Light teaching loads' and 'generous sabbaticals' do not automatically translate into involved placement advice and help but rather into research production. I take by 'wealthy' you might mean 'top' (without too much qualitative emphasis). If that is the case, faculty in these places are connected, but can also polarize - instant name recognition may evince 'yuck' not 'yippity-skippity.' Reading over dossiers, writing letters, networking on your behalf is something that any dedicated advisor (regardless of money, which may or may not equal time) should and will do.
The one truly tangible benefit reaped from a 'wealthy' department is financial support in the final year/years of writing the diss AND in traveling to/from conferences (including the APA). Professional development over the long run is just as an important (if not the most important) factor in placement.
Also, the moniker above has a point - Little Orphan Annie had to teach Daddy Warbucks how to be a good father and not just a sugardaddy. Money wasn't enough for her.
I actually do think the Chron article offers _some_ advice - albeit, "work on your cover letter." I think this is an area many applicants ignore, or get bad advice on. And the letter is partly what will get you that APA interview.
But I also think there's still a "crap shoot" element: it may not be in the selection process, but it is in what kinds of jobs come up that year, and whether they "fit" and whether the fact that they fit is clear to both sides. I've had scads of APA interviews, a number of campus visits, and of all those interviews and applications, the job that has fit me best over the years just came up this year. (Discouraging is that I share the shortlist with an ABD and a new PhD, both with far fewer publications, fewer professional contacts and service, and far less teaching experience, especially at this kind of school/
department...but, according to the APA survey poldy referenced, statistically one of them is more likely to get the job.) There are lots of other jobs out there, and I'll eventually get one of them, if not this one, but this one seems ideal.
As for wealthy departments (I am not from one)...I would suspect that it may not be that students get more faculty attention when searching for jobs, but that part of their experience there is expected to be giving conference papers, publishing, etc., all of which give them training in self-presentation, which is what a cover letter is all about. Students at "non-wealthy" programs should take note and try to create the same opportunity for themselves.
Whether a place has money isn't necessarily the chief factor -- I think it's more a matter of having departmental pride (for lack of a better term) in placing grads. My department certainly did not lack money, and has some names that are well known, but most of the faculty really didn't care at all about helping their grads get jobs. This wasn't just my perception, but a common one among us. Compare that to a friend of mine who went to a non-Michigan/Berkeley state university with a very good Ph.D. program, whose advisor took her around to meet people at the APA the year BEFORE she was on the market, so that she would already have connections. No one in my department ever did that for any of us.
So, in some cases it's just a matter of individually faculty not making the extra effort to help, but in other cases it has become a departmental attitude. And money and teaching loads aren't the main factor.
Looks from the wiki page that Wake Forest has notified at least someone about an on-campus visit.
Reading over dossiers, writing letters, networking on your behalf is something that any dedicated advisor (regardless of money, which may or may not equal time) should and will do.
This made me laugh. Anon. 1:47 et al. made many good points, but let me just assure those with any doubts: having a big-name advisor at a top school in no way guarantees this kind of attention--letters, yes, but not networking or follow-up phone calls (surely some of the rest of you have advisors who think it unnecessary and/or unseemly?). Same goes for funding for conferences and automatic funding in the last year of the program to finish the diss. People everywhere are bootstrapping, though I have no interest in denying the many advantages of going to top programs.
That said, I think many of us are about done with campus visits. Let the nail-biting begin and good luck to you all.
I'm not sure if you can answer this, but can the person who said that the CSU-Sacramento job has been accepted verify this? Were you the hire, or did you hear about it second or third-hand?
Presumably if you've accepted then you have no problem outing yourself? I ask because if it is definitely true it means I can turn to VAP campus visits without worrying about this coming through.
Thanks for whatever info you can give!
The wiki reports that the Sacramento job has been offered, not that it has been accepted. Maybe you could contact the university?
That said, I think many of us are about done with campus visits. Let the nail-biting begin and good luck to you all.
So, how long do folk have to wait? I've got 3 weeks or so till my first school decides.
I'm looking at about two-three weeks for the last decision to get to the last dean and out again.
In response to: "Has anyone who interviewed with UCLA for the junior position heard from them?
Now I know that they've already invited people to campus; they did that at the APA. I was just wondering if they were waiting to land someone before sending out their apologies or what."
So what is your question? I'm guessing that you were not one of the four fly-backs.
In my general experience, letters updating those interviewed at the APA, but not invited to campus, do not go out until the search is completed.
If there's something specific that you would like to know, you should probably email the chair of the search committee.
RE: Sacramento Ancient History Job
I posted that on the wiki. Having given a job talk there in December, I just received an email from the department chair saying that the person who was offered the job has accepted it.
all quiet on the wiki front...
Yep, the Haves are busy flying around the country and waiting while the Havenots are busy scrambling for VAPs. Yeah, and we try to teach on the side when we have a bit of free time...
The quiet, I think, comes from the waiting. Many schools have finished or are finishing up their campus visits and now we all just get to sit and wait...
Just out of sheer curiousity, how many flyouts do folks who have flyouts typically get? Do most people who have flyouts get multiples, or is it more common to have just one?
That's a good question, and I'm guessing the answer is going to be "your mileage may vary." I felt like a superstar with 6 fly-outs this year, until I heard from a friend who had nearly twice that.
I've never had more than 2 a year. In fact, I don't know anyone (personally) who has ever had more than 2 a year. Says something about the company I keep, huh?
I would never want 6 flyouts, or nearly twice that. Too exhausting, especially on a VAP's teaching load. It's like too many interviews at the APA (which in my book is anything more than 7, and I've been there).
on haves and have-nots, anon. 11:13...don't worry, haves can quickly become have-nots as well at this time of year.
TWELVE fly-outs?!
That is frickin' absurd. Even six is sick. Since each fly-out generally takes about 3 full days of time, including travel to and fro, I just do not see how one could manage this without going bat-shit insane. Way too much stress, adrenaline and caffeine in way too short a period of time.
I only want one job, so I hope my one fly-out is enough.
Four fly-outs this year.
A couple of random things to bear in mind: some candidates (especially first-timers) will be highly selective in the institutions they apply to and will consequently have fewer fly-outs (which, incidentally, isn't to say they don't stand a very good chance at those places). Other candidates will apply for all possibilities and will consequently have many fly-outs (but may only be serious about some, leading to long wait times for final decisions).
12, 6, and even 4 fly-outs. Those who were "stars" in my day received around 3 campus interviews.
Hearing these numbers, after hearing about people with 20+ interviews at the APA, is interesting. Again, in my day (not too long ago) having 8-10 APA interviews was excellent, and any number above that, mind-boggling.
1) Evidence for a vast improvement over the job market of ~10 years ago.
2) Evidence that more candidates are willing to apply much more widely.
1 & 2 are not mutually exclusive, of course.
I would be inclined to disagree with the poster above. I always thought "first-time" applicants cast much wider nets. It is those with a couple of years of teaching experience who tend to know where they have a better shot, tend to have stronger preferences themselves, and have are more likely to have external factors coming to bear upon their decision-making. But maybe I'm wrong?
I agree with anon. 2:16. The more times I go on the job market, the fewer jobs I apply for, because I have a good sense from researching the schools where I stand a chance and where I don't. And the fewer jobs I apply for, the more interviews I get, both in general and in proportion to the number of applications sent in - I now regularly get APA interviews for over two-thirds of the jobs for which I apply, not the 10% or so I started out with.
I also know from past experience which general types of schools are likely to be interested in me and which are not (i.e., SLACs v. large state universities). I also have a renewable position, at a place I like, so while I do apply to a fair number of schools, if there's a place I just cannot imagine ever wanting to work at, I don't apply.
UCLA (TT open field)
job offered and accepted
Re:UCLA
OOC, can you say what field the successful applicant is in?
And Congratulations!
*I always thought "first-time" applicants cast much wider nets.*
I was thinking rather of graduate students who were just testing the waters, but were otherwise happy to remain in their program for one more year. (Some of these people do get lucky.) Plus, some experienced candidates concerned about possible unemployment will presumably cast their net as widely as possible. Maybe I have this wrong?
Why all this talk about having to fly to campus interviews? From reading this blog over the past few months, I've been under the impression that everyone's an inside candidate...
Why all this talk about having to fly to campus interviews? From reading this blog over the past few months, I've been under the impression that everyone's an inside candidate...
heh heh heh...
Re:UCLA
OOC, can you say what field the successful applicant is in?
And Congratulations!
'Twas an Archaeologist who will have the opportunity to teach Gender Theory, Greek, Latin, Hittite, and Textual Criticism.
Re:UCLA
'Twas an Archaeologist who will have the opportunity to teach Gender Theory, Greek, Latin, Hittite, and Textual Criticism.
Cool combination, to be sure--and big congratulations to all--but will (s)he have the opportunity to teach . . . archaeology?
I think that UCLA candidate description was a joke, either at the expense of certain grumpy material culture candidates, or at somebody in particular. I don't know. Anyway, I'm pretty sure UCLA hired a philologist of some sort, not a MC person.
of some sort indeed
I knew it was my lack of Hittite that was hurting me on the market this year!
I got in touch with the University of Toronto about the Greek art job and was told they now have a short list...I of course am not on it.
I got in touch with the University of Toronto about the Greek art job and was told they now have a short list...I of course am not on it.
UGH!
(That's really all I can say without profanity and/or blasphemy.)
I miss Poldy.
toodle-pip?
To the person who posted the Dartmouth offer: for which job?
Sorry, ignore that-I just checked the Wiki.
Regarding the Penn position(s)
It says jobs, as opposed to job, so were there two ancient history positions offered, or does this mean an ancient history and a mellon post-doc were offered?
thanks!
I think both the Penn history job and the post-doc have been offered. One has certainly been accepted.
RE: Penn
Just to be clear. Are you saying that the Penn Ancient History job has been accepted? If you are the one, congratulations, and if not, best of luck yourself!
Thanks for any info you can give!
toodle-pip, indeed.
RE: Penn
The Penn ancient history job has been offered but not yet accepted.
Happy Valentine's Day,
Here's hoping that every search committee falls madly in love with you and cannot live without seeing your sparkling smile every day.
tinkerty-tonk,
Poldy
being missed by anonymous, you sly minx you, made my day
Has anyone gotten a campus invite from Lafayette? I know some folks have received post-APA rejection emails and snail mail a few weeks ago, but I have gotten neither. Good sign or oversight?
Lafayette has been inviting people to campus. Don't know any more than that.
Does anybody have any advice or thoughts about negotiating? I have one offer, and am quite happy about it, but am wondering if I can/should ask for course relief, additional start-up funds, etc.
What is the protocol for this?
People on the Chronicle fora talk about this -- they all say go read "Getting to Yes", but I'm interested in classicists' experiences with negotiating -- can an ABD ask for a small salary bump (say 2-3k) without appearing full of hubris? A first-year course reduction?
It would be quite funny if you received advice here from someone at the institution that has made the offer. (I think Leviticus says something against this.)
Is it just me, or has this site become quite unstable in the past week or so?
Depends on the institution and how much they want you. Deans usually don't have a lot of flexibility for new, young hires in the humanities (let's face it, we're not going to cure cancer). But it's certainly possible to get a 2k increase and first-year course reduction *at some places*. Make sure your reasoning on the phone is sound and you don't sound like you're haggling or arrogant (e.g., domestic situation involves travelling, double rent; massive hike in local property prices; first-year relief will really help you make a solid start to teaching and research, etc.). The Deans have more experience than you; they will signal in advance when you're over-reaching, so just make sure you're polite. Remember, some places will *expect* you to negotiate, so don't be shy.
Is it just me, or has this site become quite unstable in the past week or so?
Do you mean the website itself, or the people visiting it?
It would be quite funny if you received advice here from someone at the institution that has made the offer. (I think Leviticus says something against this.)
Is it just me, or has this site become quite unstable in the past week or so?
See? Stupid unstable website just printed my post a second time.
I blame it on the blog destabilizer, cousin of the wiki vandal.
It is groaning under the weight of so much anxiety.
Do SLAC's ever offer course relief? In a a department of 3-6 FTEs, how much room do they have to knock off the teaching load for a new hire?
Can't say for sure, but I was offered (w/o negotiation) a one course reduction in each of my first and fourth years at a SLAC -- bringing my teaching load to 2/3 those years.
What is considered a "decent" amount for start-up funds from a SLAC? 3k, 13k, 30k? I know this varies from school to school, so I am hoping a few people will share their own experiences.
Other than relocation (3k), a computer (2k), and a research budget (which isn't really start-up anyway) is there much else for a philologist/historian? It's not like we have labs, equipment, or RAs. Antique mahogany bookshelves...? I guess benefits are pretty standard too, right? Maybe an MC person can offer some more creative ideas (diamond-tipped shovels, etc.)?
I started teaching at a Midwest SLAC four years ago.
The first year package was something like this:
10k incentive money
2.5k relocation
2k for attending early training
one course relief
brand-new printer and laptop
low-rent town-house from school
exemption from committee service until the second year
2k salary increase every year
conference funds (enough to cover several conferences)
I also got summer research fund.
I started teaching at a Midwest SLAC four years ago.
The first year package was something like this:
10k incentive money
2.5k relocation
2k for attending early training
one course relief
brand-new printer and laptop
low-rent town-house from school
exemption from committee service until the second year
2k salary increase every year
conference funds (enough to cover several conferences)
I also got summer research fund.
If you don't mind me asking... did you have to negotiate for this package, or was it the initial offer?
If you don't mind me asking... did you have to negotiate for this package, or was it the initial offer?
February 19, 2008 11:46 PM
It was more or less a standard package. I didn't need to negotiate; I didn't know how to negotiate to begin with. I forgot to mention the pre-tenure leave in the fourth year. Benefits are standard as well.
Most of the things should be in the faculty handbook (usually online) and your formal appointment letter/contract. If you think they've missed something, you can always check with the department chair or the Dean of Faculty.
OK, so I discovered yet another procrastination device yesterday:
update and format the wiki. I added the nifty bulleted lists to the new wiki. I hope you all like it. I think it makes it look all sorts of sexy. Like something I want to post a job-offer on. Yeah, that's the ticket!
It was so much fun that I went to do it to the other one this morning and discovered that there is another pathetic soul out there who has also turned to wiki-pimping as a way of dealing with the wait. They beat me to it!
I don't know who you are, but we think alike.
Good luck!
If by wiki-pimping you mean tidying things up a bit, I'm guilty as charged.
Alas, my luck ran out the week after the APA. Perhaps my house is a bit too clean.
OCD, PhD
Re: negotiating.
Posts are scarce these days, and the wikis are beautiful already, so I'm enjoying this new distraction.
MC people: what are you considering negotiating for? Lab space? Equipment?
. . . An end to this torture?
"MC people: what are you considering negotiating for? Lab space? Equipment?"
From a Classics department? What are you smokin'? Besides what any candidate for a classics position negotiates for, the only other issue might be course assignments - i.e. Can I not teach Latin 101, pretty please?
Sure, you could call it "delusion," but you'd be missing the point: the closest I might come to a job this year will be these hypothetical negotiations. So why not reach for the stars--or the total station?
Re: MC negotiations in a Classics department
It's not at all delusional. I received additional start-up funds to help cover the added expense of being someone who works on visual/archaeological material; in my case this included a nice digital camera and extra money for travel research this summer. I've been told in general that one-off costs are easier to negotiate than recurring ones, i.e. salary raise.
I could also have pressed for additional space for some sort of lab/work room (i.e. for myself and my students both), if I had been in a position to demonstrate that I need it now. I might in the future, depending on future fieldwork, and the department was definitely responsive - they saw this as good initiative on my part and evidence of bringing new energy to that aspect of the curriculum.
I think if you can make a well-reasoned case for something, then I say go for it. It's not like they're going to withdraw the offer. And schools are keen to snag their first-choice candidate.
RE: Penn (Open Rank Ancient History)
The person first offered the position has turned it down and accepted another offer.
Could we please ensure that NO comments of the form 'The person job X was first offered to turned it down' are published? There is no advantage to anyone in knowing that the person who finally got a job was not the first choice, certainly not to the candidate concerned.
Although I thoroughly understand the desire to protect everyone when the 1st choice goes elsewhere, I could wish our egos were not so fragile.
Not that I want to be in the room when the committee discusses me, my uninteresting research and my poor choice in shoes.
Does everyone think it better that we not mention when an offer is turned down? Wouldn't we also have to refrain from even mentioning an offer? We would have to limit the comments to "job x accepted," no?
Tinkerty-tonk,
poldy
Could we please ensure that NO comments of the form 'The person job X was first offered to turned it down' are published? There is no advantage to anyone in knowing that the person who finally got a job was not the first choice, certainly not to the candidate concerned.
What? Do you really think this sort of thing is secret? I've never met any of the Penn finalists, and don't think I know anyone who knows them, but the second I saw that a certain other job had been accepted I knew what was going on. And I doubt I'm the only one...
Our field doesn't really have all that many secrets, when you come right down to it. Hell, I even know some very embarrassing sexual stories about people I barely know or have never even met...
I think it is ridiculous to imply that anyone would be embarrassed to be the 'second' finalist, and eventually the one who gets the job, in a major search for a very good position. These searches often are very close, anyone invited to campus is most probably a great choice, and I'll tell you what -- Penn can call me, and I'll be more than happy to have everyone know that I was one of their top choices, and that I'm their new hire, regardless of whether I got the first offer (not that I'm even in the running...).
Anonymous 8:48 here.
In cases like this I think we need to weigh carefully any benefit against potential harm. It's potentially harmful to an institution if it's known to have lost it's first choice. It's also potentially harmful to the ultimately successful candidate and to her relations with her future colleagues, as well as her reputation more widely. This seems clear, even if (of course) it won't apply to every case.
Now for potential benefit. As far as I can see, the only person who benefits by learning that the position has been turned down is the second choice candidate, who will in most cases be informed by the institution immediately anyway (if the search is not abandoned). So unless I'm missing something there is no obvious gain from publishing the information here, and some potential for harm. That seems to me a good reason to discourage the practice.
Please forgive the illiterate 'it's' for 'its'. It's (sic) been a long day.
Point taken, and I'm actually on your side -- I think the practice should be discouraged, out of consideration for everyone (first candidate, second candidate, department, etc.). I just think that in addition to discouraging the practice, we should admit that there is NOTHING wrong with being second in line for an awesome job. Since people on this forum have decided to imply that there is, I thought I'd point out that there isn't. There will be a lot of second choices getting hired this year. I'm crossing my fingers and hoping to be one of them. We should feel good about ourselves. That's all.
And by the way, search chairs who write nice emails telling the second and third choices that it was hard to pick a first choice out of a group of three great ones, THANK YOU (whether or not you are telling the truth). It really does make me, at least, feel better.
Anon 8:48:
I think I disagree, although your arguments are persuasive in many ways. Here's my counterargument:
1. People are posting (correctly, I think) frequently about offers having been made. Everyone who is on a shortlist for that institution and did not get the offer has been biting their lips for the last few days or week waiting for the first-choice person to make up their mind. If (s)he declines, and another finalist gets an offer, (s)he already knows that (s)he wasn't choice #1 and that can affect her decisions or ego however s(he) chooses. I, for one, would much rather have the info positively or negatively so I can get on with my life and stop tensing at every phone call and obsessive wiki-checking. (Saying this, I'm now convinced I'm doomed, of course.)
2. I suspect that in the next week or so there will be a cascading effect, as the folks with multiple offers (congrats!) pick one of them, and the institutions they don't accept either cancel the search or call person #2, who may then reject another institution where they've already gotten an offer, and so forth.
It is of immense value to the people on Shortlist A who have been offered Position B but would much prefer Position A to know that they once again have a reasonable chance at Position A. It may stop them from making decisions that they later regret, and hopefully increases the total happiness all the way down the line.
3. As far as the reputation of the institution goes, I find it a bit hard to care about the perceived loss of status. That's the kind of points-playing game that leads people to do things like making grandiose statements about only ever taking their first-choice candidates, when failed searches seriously hurt the university, its students, and the careers of promising academics. There are a huge number of really talented classicists out here; by the time you've narrowed it down to three or four, you ought to be able to be reasonably happy with any of them, even if one was extra special with whipped cream on top.
I have to second 10:49. This past week I got an automated form email from a school that I had fairly extensive contact with (no on-campus interview, but several phone conversations). The email started "Dear Applicant" and didn't get any better from there. I also got a ridiculously terse phone call from a department chair that I had little contact with during my on campus interview -- his phone call basically said, "We wanted to let you know that we offered the position to another candidate and they accepted so thank you for your time," essentially all in one breath. I said, "I'm sorry to hear that and thank you for calling," and we both hung up. No "we enjoyed meeting you, we know you'll do well in your future career, and we're sorry we can't offer the position to more than one person."
I know it could be worse, but SCCs should remember that a little tact and diplomacy go a hell of a long way!
Hey, how did you know that one of those pieces of sex gossip I know involved whipped cream on top?
zing!
Post a Comment