Until we figure out how to deal most effectively with the wiki vandalism, feel free to provide updates in the comments here.
A new wiki has also been established. See the post above for directions and password.
In your comment please note exactly which position(s) you are updating, if possible just cut and paste from the job-search page.
497 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 401 – 497 of 497Someone posted on the AHA wiki that U Alabama had made on campus interview decisions on 2/4. Anyone hear from them? I'm not sure if this person was contacted for an interview or heard some other way. Anyone?
Never heard of the AHA wiki. Where is that?!?
http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/AHA_Fields
There are other wiki discipline on scratchpad too
Any recent news about Brown's Art History search? It seems time has passes since I received a confirmation letter. Silence follows.
AHA folks are also still hiding out at the wikihost site as well:
Heee. We AHA folks are slippery, secretive little buggers. We like to go digging for our info and checks lots of sources.
"Heee. We AHA folks are slippery, secretive little buggers. We like to go digging for our info and checks lots of sources."
I had no idea Gollum was looking for an Ancient History position!
oops.
yes yes yes. we likes the jobses.
U. of Arizona
(T-T Greek Archaeology)
Rejection letter 02/06/08 dated 01/25/08 (had APA interview)
Kansas State search is complete--offer made.
Wait, the Kansas State search can only be said to be complete when the offer is accepted, right?
(Snail-mail) Acknowledgement of Villanova application; they are reviewing apps.
Yesterday, I got tired of waiting, and wrote a lot of messages to sc chairs. Here's what I got out of it:
Alabama has a short list of 2 and having on-campus right around now;
Denver already made an offer;
ECLA (Berlin) has a short list;
Long Island Brooklyn has just started looking at files and won't interview until March;
Indiana-Purdue-Fort Wayne has a short list;
Irvine has a short list;
Waterloo has a short list;
Washington Univ St.Louis (postdoc) hasn't started shortening their list yet;
UChicago (postdoc) is scheduled to start interviewing finalists next week, and make offers around mid-march;
Rice (postdoc) is scheduled to make shortlist nextweek (from 20 semi-finalists);
and Stanford (postdoc) has a shortlist of 12 at the moment.
Hope that helps!
Oh, I forgot!
NGCSU has also made an offer, which has been accepted.
Thank you, 2:53, that does help! I appreciate it!
And I think it's kind of odd that Long Island won't be interviewing until March. Weird. Does anyone have any idea why they'd be so behind everyone else's calendar?
What is the typical turn-around after a school finishes their interviewing? Obviously this will vary depending on when the school has scheduled what meetings, but what is the long and short of when one can expect to hear? (Asks the woman who knows that the schools she interviewed at are done with their candidates already and is just impatiently waiting!)
In reply to the question about wait-time.
Really hard to answer in a helpful way. As short as being offered the job while on the campus visit, as long as having to wait 6 weeks afterwards. I've seen both.
Good luck!
Has anyone heard from Rhodes College?
On scratchpad (http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Europe:_Medieval), somebody posted, on Jan. 11, that campus visits had been scheduled.
Does anyone know if Texas A&M has made offers yet? Thanks!
I'm hearing that the Arizona search failed. Anyone else heard this?
Re: Arizona
I believe they've made an offer for the Latinist position so I don't think this is correct.
Re: Arizona
Maybe people can clarify which Arizona searches they are referring to.
I think Arizona State's job was offered and accepted.
Wait a sec.
ASU = Arizona State was looking for a Hellenist.
UA = University of Arizona was looking for both an Clarch and a Latinist.
This is getting confusing. So, ASU has hired their Hellenist.
UA has done what? Offered to a Clarch but failed in the Latin search?
One anon said the Latinist Arizona position was offered. So if everyone's on the same page, this means the ASU Hellenist and Arizona Latinist positions have been offered, making the archaeology positions failed by default. Sound right?
I'm not personally involved, but as a Roman archaeologist, I'm curious as to why the Arizona position failed. We need to nurture these precious positions - there are surely more archaeologists than good positions out there.
*WARNING* - this is more hearsay than anything, so take it with a grain of salt. Please, no flaming from upset SCs. You are free to skip this post.
I believe Arizona was angling for a particular candidate who offered something that many SCs found quite attractive and set their hearts on. Anyway, this person accepted elsewhere, presumably deflating their hopes and resulting in a failed search.
But again, there MIGHT be a dean or some other circumstances involved. I am somewhat familiar with this search but NOT an insider.
Has anyone heard anything about either of the Chicago searches? (History/ Classics)
Chicago Greek has been offered (and -- I believe -- accepted). No idea on Chicago history.
Am I a dumbass to just notice how many classics and humanities TT searches fail? There are a bunch from last year and several already this year. My roommate is a biologist and he says searches rarely fail; they just move on to the next person until someone bites. Are we a bunch of catty pansies? Overanalyzing and overthinking in an attempt to extrapolate the impossible? It's already been mentioned half a dozen times on this blog how important the search is because you have to work with this person for the next several decades. My roommate says this is plain weird. They're your potential colleagues, not your spouse. I really picked the wrong year to give up drinking...
> Are we a bunch of catty pansies?
Yes.
Pick someone reasonably nice and reasonably competent. Now if not a single candidate satisfies those criteria, well, then we have a problem...
I come from a dept. that moved from failing to hire a lot of stellar people to hiring a lot of good, if not Nobel prize-winning, candidates. Life is much, much better now than it was before.
"I come from a dept. that moved from failing to hire a lot of stellar people to hiring a lot of good, if not Nobel prize-winning, candidates."
But stellar by whose judgment? In my experience, it's more the subjective, narrow definition made by an inbred, esoteric discipline than genious defined everyday by the greater academic world. How many true geniuses are in our field? 10?
Well, genius as recognized by the greater academic world is usually conferred on our archaeologist brethren. The MacArthur has been awarded to Sue Alcock (Roman Archaeology) and Jenny Moody (Minoan Archaeology). Tom Palaima is a philologist, but an expert in Linear B. Overall, what does this tell us about classics? That the millionth translation of Homer doesn't impress the world nearly as much as us inbred insiders...
What do you mean by inbred?
http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/sbl0065l.jpg
Re: inbreeding
Look at it this way. How many members are there in the APA? 3000? Now how many are tenured faculty who PRIMARILY associate themselves with the APA and not the AHA, AIA, CAA, etc? 1000? 500? That, my friend, is inbreeding.
And they won't make a movie about our 300...
Well, no one will be desirous of a glimpse at our bare, paunchy mid-riffs, but how about if it's styled as a tragic comedy? Or something like the Truman Show? They can empathize with our "prison" and celebrate our escape?
I get dibs on John Goodman portraying my paunchorial splendor.
Ooh, ooh, I get Jack Black!
Philip Seymour Hoffman, please.
What the hell, put me down for Kathy Bates. Might as well make it egalitarian.
"How many true geniuses are in our field? 10?"
Yeah, I think we tried to hire those ten. Didn't get one. Someone finally had the good sense to stop crying over spilt wine and just hire people with solid records and functioning personalities. It really wasn't that hard. Had the old guard had their way though...
Wait, what about Cedric the Entertainer for our movie? Oops, I forgot...
Re: "Still under consideration pending admin. approval (yes, that's vague)"
This is listed under the Arizona Archaeology search. I'm not on the market but will be next year, so I'm trying to get a lay of the land. So...what the heck does it mean?
So...what the heck does it mean?
"Still under consideration"
We're desperately trying to save the search but it doesn't look good.
"pending admin. approval"
We changed the rules a bit and are begging upper administration to go along.
What changed? I'm guessing that they're trying to hire someone at the senior level and/or perhaps making it a cross appointment as they're wont to do for archaeology.
Thanks!? :-)
So why change expectations mid-stream?
It could be for a myriad of reasons. Remember, searches aren't static; they are messy affairs that can take on a life of its own during the process. Expectations change and SCs learn themselves what they want once they have a better pulse of what's out there. In the process mistakes are made, some which can be remedied and others you'll wish you had a mulligan for years to come. It's an imperfect process and we're imperfect people.
I understand the cross-appointment scenario, but why hire a senior person when the search clearly called for a junior hire?
[b]Am I a dumbass to just notice how many classics and humanities TT searches fail? There are a bunch from last year and several already this year. My roommate is a biologist and he says searches rarely fail; they just move on to the next person until someone bites. Are we a bunch of catty pansies? Overanalyzing and overthinking in an attempt to extrapolate the impossible? It's already been mentioned half a dozen times on this blog how important the search is because you have to work with this person for the next several decades. My roommate says this is plain weird. They're your potential colleagues, not your spouse. I really picked the wrong year to give up drinking...[/b]
I have a hunch that fewer searches would fail if departments stopped being smitten by current or recent grads and focused on those of us with a bit more seasoning. How many times does a department include at least one unproven youngster among its final three candidates, only to find that that person isn't ready for the job, or has other flaws that would have become evident if he/she had already spent time in a VAP position? So those departments are essentially limiting themselves to two candidates (or one), instead of three.
Oops, used the wrong symbols to put the quoted text in boldface.
"I understand the cross-appointment scenario, but why hire a senior person when the search clearly called for a junior hire?"
It could be for a number of reasons. They could have wanted a senior person from the beginning but the administration downgraded the hire due to budget contraints. Perhaps a faculty member was recently denied tenure and they feel that they can't afford another miss. As someone mentioned, maybe they have their heart set on a particular candidate and the situation demands a senior hire. Etc., etc., etc.
Have campus visits been scheduled for the following schools with deadlines prior to the APA: Creighton, Davidson, St. Olaf, Williams?
Williams and Creighton: Yes (I heard that third-hand though)
Davidson and St. Olaf: No clue.
Well, genius as recognized by the greater academic world is usually conferred on our archaeologist brethren. The MacArthur has been awarded to Sue Alcock (Roman Archaeology) and Jenny Moody (Minoan Archaeology). Tom Palaima is a philologist, but an expert in Linear B. Overall, what does this tell us about classics? That the millionth translation of Homer doesn't impress the world nearly as much as us inbred insiders...
Leslie Kurke won and is not an archaeologist. Palaima is not what most of us mean by a philologist.
The Macarthur is sometimes about who you know, too. Also, it took a while for at least two of the people mentioned here to be recognized as employment-worthy: I think this is either cause for optimism or despair.
"Also, it took a while for at least two of the people mentioned here to be recognized as employment-worthy: I think this is either cause for optimism or despair."
The peculiar thing about classics, and I suppose the humanities in general, is that very few of even the elite departments seem willing to house those who think outside the box. When I look at the faculty of an elite program and compare it to any other R1, I don't seem much of a difference in terms of their research interests. Yes, there are some with some fame and notoriety, but 90+% strike me as the Antonio Salieris of the world marching steadily into the sunset. Are they out there and classics just not reflect this well, or worse yet, does classics discourage such innovators from joining its ranks?
I don't want to start a debate about which departments are elite and which aren't, so I won't name the departments I have in mind, but I am telling you, there are people doing some really interesting work out there...perhaps not at the departments people think of as the traditional elite, but at R1 schools. I will note that those people who do the most interesting work are the ones who are reading widely, reading out of their fields, collaborating with other humanities and social sciences disciplines, thinking in big picture terms. I'm not talking about theory junkies either. I'm talking about smart people asking interesting questions and then doing amazing research to answer those questions, making Classics (philology, philosophy, archaeology, literature, history, linguistics, art, etc.) relevant and interesting to other disciplines at long last.
I will note that those people who do the most interesting work are the ones who are reading widely, reading out of their fields, collaborating with other humanities and social sciences disciplines, thinking in big picture terms.
And this sort of scholarship doesn't necessarily happen only at R1 schools. Smaller departments (SLACs, R2s, etc.) encourage this sort of intellectual breadth. Even teaching outside of one's area of expertise can be the best thing for opening up new lines of inquiry. And not having many other fellow classicists can be very good because it forces you to talk with your colleagues in History, Political Science, Psychology, etc. Perhaps as classicists are forced to become generalists then the field will develop in exciting new directions.
From Anonymous 10:32 responding to Skywise:
I completely agree -- often those at R2s and SLACs are the most interdisciplinary. My comment was directed at the complaint that R1s are full of boring old farts who just ask the same questions over and over again and don't invite in new blood. There are some very 'elite' departments where this is the case, but there are many departments, even very conservative ones, that are beginning to hanker after new ideas. From my admittedly small knowledge of who got interviews and offers where this year, I can say that while many schools ended up hiring like-minded people (which is how human beings work, so let's not be too critical!), at the same time they were willing to interview and consider seriously a number of scholars with less-conventional approaches. So things are changing.
Perhaps as classicists are forced to become generalists then the field will develop in exciting new directions.
Sure, there's value in being exposed to what other fields are doing and perhaps learning a trick or two from them, but statements like this (along with one or two others posted here) strike me as symptomatic of a major problem with classics these days: this odd tendency towards becoming "self-hating classicists" that has emerged in the field. There is NOTHING wrong with continuing to engage in traditional classical scholarship, even when it appears to be done in a complete vacuum. However, over time pressures from the inside (e.g., a need by some to be seen themselves as "trendy") and from the outside (e.g., from deans and other administrators saying "Why isn't your department's work relevant to the other departments at our school?") has led many to think that it is a necessity for our field to become more interdisciplinary and "relevant" to the rest of academia. That's all well and good, and I myself am EXTREMELY interdisciplinary in some of my work, but I think there is nothing wrong with old-fashioned classical scholarship (so long as it's good, of course), and it's about time someone said so. This need to assimilate ourselves with other fields -- to become reform rather than orthodox -- is a greater danger to classics than a bunch of elderly full professors without fresh ideas.
A discussion related to this is going on in another thread ("Past Performance", I think). There, too, there seems to be a conservative / progressive dynamic. That dynamic has done Classics a lot of good in the past, I think. As the last poster here suggests, the risks are 1) disappearing into a reactionary hole and 2) disappearing into an undifferentiated mass. To be crass for a moment, wouldn't both directions result in decreased funding? In the case of 1) because there wouldn't be any students left; and in 2) because we'd be reduced and assimilated into combined humanities depts.
Traditional classical scholarship is great, but so are new approaches. I think the debate here is not whether one is better than the other but whether some departments permit the introduction and promotion of new ideas. I certainly don't think that new approaches should be accompanied by poor rigor, and the people doing the interesting work I referenced are well-versed in traditional classical studies and are very thorough in their work. It really is just about whether you will listen to me if I am drawing on an approach from another field, provided that I am not out of touch with 'old-school' classics. You sound like a reasonable person, so I assume that you would give me the time of day and give my ideas a chance. Some people aren't so open-minded as you. But my point was that many departments, even 'old-school' ones, seem to be open to new approaches, so I am HAPPY with the state of the discipline, think it's a great time to be a classicist, and am not saying that we should throw out the past -- I'm saying that we are going in the right direction, incorporating helpful new ideas while still retaining all the parts of classical scholarship that make it great.
Well, I hear a meteor coming with our name on it...
But my point was that many departments, even 'old-school' ones, seem to be open to new approaches, so I am HAPPY with the state of the discipline, think it's a great time to be a classicist, and am not saying that we should throw out the past -- I'm saying that we are going in the right direction, incorporating helpful new ideas while still retaining all the parts of classical scholarship that make it great.
Amen.
We just have to do a better job at outreach. That is the only way to shoot down that meteor. Encourage students to explore these other avenues without hitting them over the head with philology, philology, philology all the time. Don't get me wrong. I'm a philologist. But as the demographics of college students change we need to change our approach as well. I think the new Classical Civ majors springing up are a good sign. As is the growth in post-baccalaureate programs. Get 'em interested and hooked first, then they can choose the long haul of serious Latin and Greek study.
It always comes down to Greek and Latin. Face it, you will NEVER grow a program to a legit number in this day and age if civ and other courses just serve to funnel students into philological studies. This path leads to classics getting combined with foreign languages in most universities.
Why can't majors choose a concentration with no Greek and Latin? Anathema? The departments which are growing are those who bait students, but then dont' pull the switch into philology. Cry all you want, but times have changed and making token changes will not stop the meteor. A department cannot survive for long these days with 5-10 faculty and 5-10 majors.
Hi Dodo,
I am Anon 11:28. I am afraid that I did not make myself clear. I am in no way saying that we should use the ol' bait 'n' switch. I think Civ majors are good precisely because they do NOT require languages, at least ours does not. Now, if the students CHOOSE to take Greek and Latin after taking some civ classes, great! If not, no problem. That is also why I think post-baccalaureate programs are useful. They give those Civ majors who learned about the field too late in their undergraduate careers a chance to go into greater depth. But that is their CHOICE. That is also a function of the changing demographics of the field. We are seeing fewer and fewer students with four years of high-school Latin, much less any of Greek. Now, I DO think that we also need to reach out to the secondary-shool teachers, because effective, energetic high-school Latin teachers are going to end up providing us with more numbers for departmental offerings - language and civ classes alike. That is a good thing all around. I suspect that we agree, but that I did a poor job of demonstrating that in my previous post.
Cheers!
You raised some very good points and I agree whole-heartedly. I WOULD like to propose that what you state sounds great in theory, but rarely happens in actuality. My experience is that civ majors get treated like red-headed stepchildren of the department. One cannot underestimte the tremendous pressures from your mentors to become a "real classicist" by taking 3 years of Latin and Greek at the expense of civ courses.
There is very little middle ground, which is exactly where most students today wish to be. One cannot take 3 years of Latin and 3 years of Greek followed by a slew of advanced courses without sacrificing other pursuits. I today's world, student's want to be pre-law, pre-med, pre-business, etc, not one of the very few text geeks with Ph.D.s like us. Why do we gear our programs for people who aspire to be classics Ph.D.s when in fact so very few of us exist in the real world? That's why enrollment is so low and departments are getting downsized.
Classical Civilization/Studies programs that are language-light should be encouraged. You can major in modern Chinese history without reading Chinese. Can you go on to get a PhD without Chinese? -- no -- but every kid who is allowed to read and learn about China without jumping through the difficult language hoops means that there is one more person walking around the world who is better prepared to understand that NYT article about what's going on in China and how things got there. That can't be a bad thing. Same with Classics. I by no means think that Classics PhD programs should lower their standards to admit students without languages -- for ANY track (archaeology included). I advised a student the other day on this matter. She didn't have enough languages to apply to grad school next year, so I encouraged her to seek out post-bac programs for the following year. Do I feel a responsibility to make certain that every undergraduate who sets foot in my classroom COULD go to grad school if he/she wants? No. Do I feel a responsibility to lower PhD standards of admission to make certain that we keep the field going? No, but that really isn't that much of a problem these days -- there are plenty of well-prepared bodies getting PhDs and then not finding employment because of the position to candidate ration. Do I feel a responsibility to make certain that Classics is a thriving discipline and that knowledge about the ancient world is passed on by teaching students about Greek democracy and Roman imperialism and Egyptian history and Near Eastern archaeology? I sure do. And I can pass along that information at the undergraduate level by teaching dynamic courses grounded in translations of the ancient sources. I want our language classrooms as packed as you do. But requiring it of all Classics majors is just going to kill the major. The real problem is at the middle/high school level. We should be working out outreach efforts to get more kids learning Latin (and even Greek) at an early age. That's how you keep the languages going.
Very well said - especially, "But requiring it of all Classics majors is just going to kill the major."
I would make a small change and say, "But requiring it of all Classics majors IS killing the major."
Why do we gear our programs for people who aspire to be classics Ph.D.s when in fact so very few of us exist in the real world?
B/c we are the very definition of the ivory tower? Every discipline/department has some sort of "secret handshake" to let members know they are amongst each other. For classics, it's traditionally been Greek and Latin. I have yet to meet a classicist, me included, who has a MBA or any inkling of good business sense. In fact, we usually take great pride in our esoteric impracticalities. Maybe there is something to that blog that states classics is what white people do to feel like we're still smarter than others?!
Having a language-light "Classical Civilizations" major that requires, say, 1.5 years of each language is fine, especially since those students who decide at the end of their majors that they want to go to grad school can attend Penn's or another post-bac program to make up their language deficiencies. I sort of did something like that myself.
Though you said "language-light" I am sure there are many old Turks out there who automatically think "classics-light" with all the negative connotations you can imagine. Other commons reactions are "over my dead body" and "the end of classics" when the end is already upon us in so many ways.
It's not rocket science. If you have good teachers in your department and offer subjects that are of interest, students will flock to classical civ and lit courses, and some will even be inspired to become majors and start the languages. (I have a friend who's an excellent teacher who singlehandedly has boosted interest in the classics at his small SLAC now that he's there, so this is demonstrable.) The thing is, despite their claims about caring about undergrads, there are many departments (and administrations!) out there that make hiring decisions that hurt the quality of undergraduate teaching. I saw this close-up at my Ph.D. institution, where someone who was viewed as one of the worst professors on campus got tenure, and in a senior hire who is at best mediocre in the classroom. And I've seen it many times since, including this year, in which one candidate with a proven and easily discernible track-record of bad teaching has been hired. And then departments wonder about low enrollments.
Of course, this sort of behavior must happen in every field, but if classicists held themselves to a higher standard that would give us an advantage. After all, it's basic strategy that you try to take advantage of your rivals' mistakes instead of duplicating them.
I was wondering if anyone else got that rejection email from North Central College, and if so whether they share my feeling that it's fucking crappy.... it's like a checklist more than a letter. Or am I warped by bitterness?
It's not a "rejection letter", it is a PFO document.
I'm curious about the North Central College e-mail. What did it say?
Could whoever posted the Wabash VAP campus invite say how it came (email, phone)? Thanks
I don't see the problem, but here is the North Central letter:
Dear etc.
Thank you for your application for the Classics position at North Central College. We received a large number of qualified applicants. We have successfully completed the search.
Best wishes in your search for a position. We appreciate your interest in North Central College.
Sincerely, etc. etc.
Yeah, that is pretty much standard boilerplate rejection. Nothing to write home about.
Better than the rejection that thanked me for interviewing at New Orleans. Now I don't remember much of the last APA, and my geography isn't great, but I vaguely recall it being in Chicago.
The North Central letter really doesn't look so bad. Who cares about rejection letters anyway? I feel bad enough I got rejected - the letter's not going to make me feel any better or worse. In fact, the platitudes are so empty I'd rather do without them.
On the other extreme, Haverford had what seemed to be half the SC sign their letter. In ink.
I suppose the letters serve some purpose, if they allow us to feel some amount of cathartic indignation: I feel incensed if a school doesn't send me one at all OR if they send one and it sucks ("Dear Applicant").
Sorry, didn't mean to suggest I wanted *no* letter. Just that I didn't care how it was phrased. A timely letter would also be nice. Rejections in late March for jobs settled in mid-February are ridiculous.
Word. Timely rejections, and timely remuneration if a candidate's own cold hard cash was spent on a plane ticket, etc.
I remember a certain elite East-coast school sending a rejection letter last year that in effect said: "after a diligent search, we chose a candidate far more qualified than you are." It did not even thank me for applying to the position but conveyed a sense of annoyance that I dared do so. Now that I have gotten into an RU/VH institution I can laugh at it, but that letter ruined my day at that time. Most rejection letters, including the one mentioned here a while ago, are fortunately consolatory or neutral, not insulting like the one I cited.
"timely remuneration"
I can only second that. I've heard horror stories about late remuneration, and have had myself an experience that was at least very disappointing. That's something the APA ought to look into. It may be harder for state schools, but a private R1 institutions shouldn't take six or more weeks to reimburse a candidate.
I have it from a source that the Arizona Greek Archaeology position has come up empty...if anyone still cares.
I have it from a source that the Arizona Greek Archaeology position has come up empty...if anyone still cares.
I'll take a break from the "Classicists Gone Wild" thread to say...THAT SUCKS!!! Okay, back to our normally scheduled program.
"I have it from a source that the Arizona Greek Archaeology position has come up empty...if anyone still cares.
I'll take a break from the "Classicists Gone Wild" thread to say...THAT SUCKS!!! Okay, back to our normally scheduled program."
Well...is it that surprising. It was obvious from their 3-person "shortlist" that there were several unorthodox factors at play. I'm a historian, but have some knowledge of this small, archaeological world from friends - someone needs to say something.
First and foremost, it appears that they did not want someone with star potential actually working in Greece, lest they show up the current Greek archaeologists on staff. How else do you explain the fact that several non-shortlisted candidates went on to some prominent positions at places like Berkeley and Toronto? That the focus of their search turned to a relatively harmless archaeologist working in Sicily instead of someone with a dig at Mycenae? I won't even blink at the fact that this person working in Sicily is a pseudo-internal candidate as I can see the merits of this factor.
Second, is it by coincidence that two of the three flyback candidates could start a "cheery red tomatoes" club with the current Greek archaeologists on staff? That they have strong connections with one of the SC member's alma mater and are indeed more friends than colleagues to this person?
Overall, it bugs me that a R1 institution could use such subjective factors in choosing what should be the top scholar out there. I believe a lot has to do with the fact that archaeology is somewhat inbred at this department at this point. If I was an archaeologist and on the job market who cared a bit more, I would have cried bloody murder for the sake of classics more than anything else. Now back to our normally scheduled program.
But:
1. Are these concerns provable? I would guess that non-shortlisted people eventually getting positions at Toronto and Berkeley would raise eyebrows, but perhaps it's easily rationalized?
2. Does anyone on the inside care enough? After all, I assume the SC had to report back to the department for approval? Were they just apathetic/hoodwinked?
3. What can be done? A letter to the dean?
I don't know, I have enormous respect for the chair of this SC. We would have assume that he had to "lay down" in order for these subtle choices to be made. This is totally possible, of course, as the chair might have deferred to the interests of younger colleagues who have a longer term stake in who gets the job. Still, the entire process is curious and seemingly not above reproach as a search at a prominent, public university should take great pains to be.
HA! So our high-falutin' MC colleagues are not immune to intrigue! What did the non-MC SC members do during the process? Yawn and go along with the archaeologists?
As a prehistorian involved in the Arizona search (interviewed at AIA but not on-campus) and who knows some of the people involved, I would call the indictment of the search process unfair and somewhat insulting. I can come up with good reasons for their short list (I won't, because that would require naming names or virtually doing so). I also have reason to believe that the search has not failed.
I wouldn't worry about it too much. It just sounds like sour grapes from one of the other flyback candidates.
Could whoever got the info from Gettysburg about their search tell us the context? I.e., did they send an email asking if you were still free? Thanks!
That's essentially what the Gettysburg e-mail was about. Plus getting something additional for the dossier.
Post a Comment