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.
535 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 401 – 535 of 535Is it true that they have already made an offer? Whoa, that was fast!
It is true.
I hope they have good reason to believe that the person will accept. If they overshot, this will be like Augustana last year.
Congratulations to the person offered the Colorado College job!
I have added a job offer counter on the wiki. It uses the same system as the other two. It only goes up to five, but I suppose if someone receives more offers than that they can easily add another line or two...
It is interesting that schools are moving searches up faster. I suspect the poor economy is part of the issue here, and partly a desire to lock-in hires early. Interesting strategy. Great for the early hire, however, as they are in the cat-bird seat.
You don't understand, it might be a bad thing. No offense to Colorado College, but it's probably not a coveted position outside of its TT status. Someone good enough to land a job this early is probably searching for a better gig so is placed in a predicament of declining and gambling that another job will turn up or taking the job and possibly reneging in several months. I hope I'm wrong, but chances are...
Only downside is for CC. The one offered the job should accept and, given the early offer, keep interviewing. If something better (closer to family, better pay, better whatever) comes up, take it. CC is taking a gamble. All of the risk is traditionally on the job-seeker. Here now CC has placed the potential hire in a difficult situation, and should recognize the gamble they are taking in doing so.
This economic situation is teaching many that a contract isn't worth that much. So, to whomever has the CC job in hand, well done! Do what you need to do, for you and your family, etc. Don't feel some misplaced sense of obligation to the school, or the faculty. It might be the perfect job, or it might not. Sign on the dotted line, but if a better situation arises, seize it. CC will be fine. This is a buyer's market. No guilt.
Tufts Position
A part-time lecturer with 3 courses per semester? Does this mean they want an adjunct who gets paid per class but who teaches 3-3? If so, are they kidding?
Talk about abusive...
>Tufts Position
A part-time lecturer with 3 courses per semester? Does this mean they want an adjunct who gets paid per class but who teaches 3-3? If so, are they kidding?
I wondered about this too, but it turns out there was a mistake in the job ad; the job is in fact part-time, but three courses for the entire year (e-mail from department chair).
Can anyone tell me who sent the Rochester interview request emails?
Re. Colorado College's offer
I know a lot of us are distressed about the current state of the job market, but I hope we all maintain our integrity as best as possible throughout the process.
As problematic as making a pre-APA offer and preempting the "free job-market economy" may be, it's unethical for a candidate to accept an offer and then withdraw his/her acceptance when something better happens to come up. (Shall institutions do the same? Rescind an offer if a better candidate becomes "available"?) Either delay acceptance of the offer with the explicit and perfectly acceptable explanation that you're exploring all your opportunities or deny it outright.
Sure, accepting an offer is a calculated risk; but changing your word, especially when a SC has already rejected other candidates and sent notice to the dean, is just wrong.
As problematic as making a pre-APA offer and preempting the "free job-market economy" may be, it's unethical for a candidate to accept an offer and then withdraw his/her acceptance when something better happens to come up.
This is actually worth discussing. Is it more unethical for a candidate to accept and later renege under these circumstances than it is for an institution to set its "must-respond" deadline at a point before other institutions will have had its campus visits? My initial reaction was "yes," but on reflection I'm not sure. The candidate would be breaking faith, but in a sense CC has already broken faith by trying to make an end run around the system.
No, it's not worth discussing: it is unambiguously unethical for a job candidate to accept a job -- whether orally or in writing -- and then go back on his/her word. Your claim that Colorado College is doing something wrong is just an attempt at justifying a hypothetically unethical act by the person to whom they offered the job.
Even if you're not willing to accept what I or Anonymous 1:59 a.m. wrote about the ethics, there is a practical side: if you give your word and back out, others in the field will hear, and your reputation will be tarnished.
I personally was once screwed out of a job by someone who accepted it and then went back on his word, and don't think I've forgotten -- and don't think that I'm the only one. (And don't bother asking for details: that's as much as I'll write about the matter. I mention it only to show that there can also be collateral damage done to fellow job candidates.)
Oops, I made a mistake: I didn't mean "hypothetically unethical," which would contradict my earlier use of "unambiguously unethical" -- I should have written "hypothetical unethical," since the unethical act is hypothetical, but there's no doubt that it's unethical.
Unless your morals are flawed, or you're a relativist.
Strongly agreed - the only thing worse than trying to snag a candidate while other searches are going on is to accept the offer and then go back on one's word (to speak Ciceronianly). Seriously, the candidate should remonstrate with the SC and try to withhold his/her reply as long as possible, but should not make any promise that cannot be kept.
I strongly disagree with the previous assertions that one cannot back out of a contract. In what other industry (except professional sports, which is an interesting analogy right there!) is it considered such bad form to sign a job contract, but then continue to look for something better?
This is a JOB, and it was gotten on the MARKET. As higher ed continues to slip into the business model, we as employees must adjust. Pretending that some genteel code of ethics applies to us is naive. Colorado (to take the Colorado College example, though perhaps we ought to talk about this in the abstract for the hire's sake?), like most other states, is a work "at will" state. Guess how far that so-called "tenure track" position will go if a school needs to radically cut its budget?
Talk to tenure-track faculty RIGHT NOW at the University of Florida, they'll tell you.
This really IS a conversation worth having, and trying to shut it down by playing the intellectual equivalent of the baby-torturer card ("it is unambiguously unethical") is irresponsible. There are costs, sure, but they should be considered weighed along with other issues, not placed on the scale like some immortal thumb.
As problematic as making a pre-APA offer and preempting the "free job-market economy" may be, it's unethical for a candidate to accept an offer and then withdraw his/her acceptance when something better happens to come up.
I find this slippage interesting. Why is the one "problematic", but the other is "unethical"?
Shall institutions do the same? Rescind an offer if a better candidate becomes "available"?
Uh, yes. They do this all the time. It is called "non-renewal of contract".
Even if you're not willing to accept what I or Anonymous 1:59 a.m. wrote about the ethics, there is a practical side: if you give your word and back out, others in the field will hear, and your reputation will be tarnished.
Here now is a practical matter to take into consideration. But an equally valid conversation is to talk about WHY one's reputation will be tarnished, and for how long. Moreover, this really is a mild articulation of a code of ethics in which money, jobs, market, etc. are all dirty words. We need to move beyond this.
I personally was once screwed out of a job by someone who accepted it and then went back on his word, and don't think I've forgotten -- and don't think that I'm the only one.
Ahhhhh... Now we come to the nub of the problem. How, exactly, were you "screwed" out of a job. You weren't the best candidate. Period. And now you'll pursue a vendetta because the SC made a bad decision? Petty kingdoms fashion the biggest tyrants, and all that...
Seriously, the candidate should remonstrate with the SC and try to withhold his/her reply as long as possible, but should not make any promise that cannot be kept.
Yeah, good luck with that. I've heard of decision deadlines being anywhere between two days and a month. In this situation a school will accelerate it all the more. Why? Because they know they have placed the candidate in an unethical situation and thus might prompt a problematic response.
All snark aside, no matter one's position, we need to discuss these issues out in the open, without being shouted down by the upholders of an arcane and (possibly) outmoded system of implied and happy obligation. The academic job market, and academic work in general, is structured the way it is partly because we employees have become willing accomplices in our own disenfranchisement and anti-professionalization. We are all seeking jobs, not ways of life. There can be more important considerations than the needs of a group of strangers (SCs, Deans) that will easily be met should you choose to deny them yourself (they'll quickly hire another applicant). Recognizing and acting upon those personal considerations does not make one a bad person.
What about during the regular search season? What about a candidate who signs a contract in March and then continues to interview and breaks the contract?
I see no indication that either weasel-ly candidates or the weasel-ly departments that conduct predatory searches suffer much damage to their reputations. That should be of some comfort to the increasingly large number of weasel-ly candidates on this site. If you are the future of the discipline, I shudder.
Please define "weasel-ly".
"Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines."
I personally was once screwed out of a job by someone who accepted it and then went back on his word, and don't think I've forgotten -- and don't think that I'm the only one.
Ahhhhh... Now we come to the nub of the problem. How, exactly, were you "screwed" out of a job. You weren't the best candidate. Period. And now you'll pursue a vendetta because the SC made a bad decision? Petty kingdoms fashion the biggest tyrants, and all that...
I'm not going to be drawn out and go into any details. You happen to be completely wrong about this. I'll just add that the reason I was upset with what the person did was that already at that point it had been explained to me previously that ONE DOESN'T BACK OUT OF A JOB ONE HAS ACCEPTED. So if you want to think that my opinion is based solely on my personal experience, you go ahead and feel good about yourself that you figured me out with your superior intellect. But you happen to be wrong. And I'd add that the other person whose post I was agreeing with wrote nothing of having been personally screwed out of a job in this manner, so perhaps it is possible to arrive at this conclusion based on the ethics?
Anyway, that's the last I'm saying about this issue. If some of you want to rationalize and justify unethical behavior, knock yourselves out. Perhaps you should go back and read the "Clouds" and figure out which character you're like. Or a few basic nursery tales that teach wrong from right, for that matter...
I have yet to see anyone even attempt to make the case that in the particular situation under discussion the candidate's hypothetical behavior is any worse from an ethical point of view than the institution's behavior. Just declaring it to be worse doesn't make it so. Nor does saying that "it isn't done," nor WRITING IN ALL CAPS TO EMPHASIZE THE SINCERITY OF YOUR INDIGNATION!!!
Well, perhaps the only way to encourage institutions to stick to the conventions is by screwing them. Perhaps, then, the person who takes the job has an obligation to go somewhere else. For the good of the convention. Wow, I'm like Creon and the sophist rolled into one. I hate Sophocles and Aristophanes anyway.
Say what you will, but this year, when there are a lot fewer jobs than hungry candidates, an offer this early on would be definite cause for celebration. It's a t-t job at a respectable college, not a janitorial position at the local prison! Personally, I'd have accepted it in a heartbeat, and would have thanked my lucky stars for not making me interview at the APA and then play the waiting game for weeks (or months) thereafter. But then maybe most folks here actually enjoy this process, unlike me.
You don't understand that most schools ignore the hirability of a candidate, regardless of the department's reputation. Chances are, if they were willing to make an offer this early, they overshot and did not even think about whether the person had other prospects, which they almost surely do.
"they overshot and did not even think about whether the person had other prospects, which they almost surely do."
This is backwards. Consideration of a candidate's other prospects is the whole reason behind jumping the gun. An institution does this because they want to sew up a candidate before other institutions have an opportunity to compete. So they go down their list, telling each candidate: accept our offer, or turn us down and roll the dice.
In short, you don't do this unless you expect your institution not to be competitive for the candidates you want.
One person's dream job can be another person's nightmare scenario. The person offered the Colorado College job may very much want a job at an elite small liberal arts college and may also love mountains, skiing, nature, etc. It is also possible that the person is a research-oriented type who wants to be at an R-1 in a major city and/or in the Northeast. There is no way for those of us on this blog to know about this, but it is a safe bet that Colorado College has a clue about the desirability of this job for this candidate and knows what kind of risk it is taking. The risk may be quite low if the candidate really wants to be at a SLAC. For that kind of person, the Colorado College job would be a great offer and well worth taking. Given the tight job market and dearth of T-T SLAC jobs this year, there wouldn't be much motivation for the person to continue interviewing this season.
I have yet to see anyone even attempt to make the case that in the particular situation under discussion the candidate's hypothetical behavior is any worse from an ethical point of view than the institution's behavior. Just declaring it to be worse doesn't make it so. Nor does saying that "it isn't done," nor WRITING IN ALL CAPS TO EMPHASIZE THE SINCERITY OF YOUR INDIGNATION!!!
Okay, I lied when I said I wouldn't respond on this topic again. Before returning to the blog and seeing this post, I had decided to write just a bit more. But seeing this post, I'll point out that I wasn't making a relative comparison between the behavior of the institution and the hypothetical behavior of the candidate, and wasn't attempting to. And, even Colorado College has done something unethical (which I don't believe), is that a reason for someone to behave unethically towards them? Again, a refresher from nursery school: "Two wrongs don't make a right." (As for the use of ALL-CAPS, I had momentarily forgotten that I could use italics.)
Anyway, the reason I just returned to the blog was to give a bit more detail about the situation I was in, both to illustrate why accepting and then rejecting a job is wrong, and also to demonstrate to the know-it-all Mr./Ms. “Petty Kingdoms Fashion The Biggest Tyrants” that another proverb might be more appropriate: true wisdom is knowing what you might not know. Here is the situation I was in. The other candidate was offered a very good job at a very good place (School A), a position for which I was runner-up. (By the way, it’s not that I was the second-best candidate, as was suggested by Mr./Ms. PKFTB. There was a particular reason that the other person got the offer instead, and it had nothing to do with my abilities being inferior or his being superior. So jumping to that conclusion is wrong, and shows the sort of presumption that would make Socrates weep.) About two weeks later, he was offered a better position at a better school (School B) and accepted that, screwing over the good people at School A. By then, I had already accepted a job at a place that is perfectly decent, but not as good (and paid $5000 or so less!), so when School A was left in the lurch it was too late for them to offer the job to me. Moreover, and this where the wisdom of Socrates applies, I was also among the candidates for School B. Now, maybe I wouldn’t have gotten that job -- though I believe I had a pretty good shot -- but someone would have. And just to add one more point, this search was one of those in the spring, and if I hadn’t gotten the other offer I might not have found a job at all.
So, can people see how I can be opposed to candidates accepting offers and then going back on their word, without this being some personal “vendetta”? Looking at this dispassionately, it should be clear that one candidate’s going back on his word hurt not only School A, but either me or someone else who as a result ended up with an inferior job (or possibly no job at all, as might have been the case for some other unlucky applicant to School B). The proper course of action should have been to thank School A for its offer and ask for time to hear back from School B, or accept School A’s offer and withdraw his application at School B, as one is supposed to do when one accepts a job.
Is the morality of keeping one’s word really so ambiguous to some people?
I had a friend who got an offer from one school with a short deadline for acceptance, so she accepted. Not too long after she got an offer from another school, not really a better school but one that was better for her for personal reasons. So she canceled her acceptance from School A and took the offer from School B. School A offered the job to the next in line, who accepted it. Ironically, also a friend of mine... with all due respect to my friends, they were pretty much identical on paper. No one seemed very upset about it. On the other hand, she had a good reason and the turn-around was only a few weeks, so maybe it's not comparable. I personally could tell stories about being treated with extraordinary discourtesy by search committees in this regard, so I'm not sure the standards of behavior are very high on either side at this point, and it will only get worse as the market tightens.
One of the few bright spots for candidates about the system of job placement is that, should they be lucky enough to be offered a position, they also have time to listen to other institutions and perhaps field a competing offer or two. An institution that offers a position before the convention and that gives a deadline for acceptance that comes while other institutions are still doing flybacks is effectively trying to take away that possibility from its candidates, without giving up anything in turn. I don't know what the story is in this particular case, but that's what is usually going on in cases that look like this. And when that's what's going on, I think it's pretty lousy.
But realistically speaking, how many people a year actually get multiple job offers? From what I've heard, it's VERY rare, and thus not something that affects folks regularly, or at least not me or my fellow Princeforkley alums.
I actually know several people who have gotten multiple offers, and it's worth noting that none of them were from a top program, none of them wrote a remotely publishable dissertation, and they all have incredibly banal personalities. I also know several people of the same ilk who landed T-T jobs, traded those in for even better T-T jobs, and have been climbing the ladder ever since, collecting job offers as fast as they collect rejection slips from publishers they sent their "book project" to. Nobody cares if your good, nobody cares if your work is good. Believe me, it's totally random.
I think it's uncommon, not "very rare." This is something we don't have data on, at least not that I'm aware of, but in ancient studies the ratio of candidates to t-t positions is not so out of balance that you wouldn't expect it to happen with some frequency. If I were guessing, I'd say that 1 in 10 people who got a t-t position in a given year were also offered at least one other t-t position. But that's just a guess.
As they say, the plural of anecdote is not "data," but I know personally a half dozen junior people who have been in that situation at one point or another.
That chances of that happening to any one person vary considerably according to their field, of course.
Nobody cares if your good, nobody cares if your work is good.
Maybe they care whether you know the difference between "you're" and "your"...
Give me a break, I was venting.
I heard that with some committees, there's a marked preference for the tenure-deniable. Not sure if the person who told me that was being ironic....
Dear “Dr. not a big Tyrant, nor even a Tyrant at all” (i.e. Anon 2:53; 12:49; 3:34)
Thank you for the clarification, and for the willingness to put out on the table why I was wrong to assume that your thinking was driven by a vendetta. I don’t want this to be personal, as that leads to less clarity, so please accept my humble, albeit anonymous, apologies. This will be relatively short for time reasons, but I will write more later.
I don’t think that you’ve defended your position, nor successfully undermined my own critique of the present system. For the record I find any discussion of this situation that centers around particular, historical examples difficult precisely because it becomes personal. This year it is Colorado College which prompts the argument, last year it was Augustana, next year it will be Lord knows which school.
Given your own example (which, if it happened last year, I think I know the details of fairly well), I would argue that you are a victim of the very system you defend, not the candidate whose decision to defect you abhor. In almost any other professional field it would be acceptable for you, even after accepting job C, to have accepted the offer of job A (after the initial hire had declined them in order to move to job B). Moreover, I think a strong case can be made that such an outcome would be better for all involved, especially institution A. You would be in a job more desirable for you (A), the original candidate would be able to accept the later offer of B without worry of censure and probation, and institutions would be more prepared with a deeper bench of acceptable (and, crucially, hirable) candidates so that they wouldn’t be left in the lurch when a hot prospect flees (so institution C would be fine as well). That so many searches fail, year after year, because they “overshoot”, or mis-read the market tea-leaves, is a huge problem. This causes more and more VAP hiring and, ultimately, a lessening of T-T lines. That is a structural issue which rests partly on what I think of as an outmoded system of “ethical” understanding completely contrary to market logic. But that is a whole post in and of itself.
Seriously, vague appeals to Aristophanes, Plato, nursery rhymes, or the morality of keeping one’s word, do not bolster your argument. I understand where you are coming from, I really do. In the vast majority of interpersonal transactions I would agree with you. But within the context of a deeply unequal process, whereby academic workers are more and more bearing the costs of risk and instability, I think you are being naive.
Saying it is so doesn’t make it so. Vigorous assertion, whether IN CAPS or in italics does not an argument make. This is a serious, serious issue, and one that, because it really is complex, needs to be discussed as dispassionately as possible, unencumbered by notions of “ethics” which generally (and often sadly) don’t apply to institutional behavior. Because we are talking about institutional/individual transactions, however, we have to come up with a new way of evaluating this decision-making; one that does not hobble with unfair expectations the ability of individuals to make sound and sane decisions. I think FV actually provides a pretty interesting forum for doing so, as long as we don’t get personal, and are careful to protect privacy.
I also think this taps into a deeper issue - how we as academics think about work itself, the notion of a vocation, and the “feminization” of academic/teaching labor as service. But that is very much a larger post, so I’ll pass over that.
In the end, I don’t think that Colorado College is acting unethically, I think they are acting riskily. We should remember that it may well be the administration (Deans, etc.) that have chosen this accelerated process. We should not think that the faculty members themselves are at fault here. They are our colleagues, and are in a potentially difficult situation, so let’s be generous. They seek the reward of “sewing up” a great candidate early. But they also, in my eyes, ought to bear a greater risk for that potential reward. That greater risk is that said candidate can still shop themselves on the market, and potentially sign on the dotted line elsewhere, without jeopardizing the current offer. If they do so they should not, I think, be subject to any sort of censure by our community. And, let’s imagine that February or March rolls around and they do just that. Will Colorado College not be able to find a truly excellent Latinist among all those without a job at that point? Of course not. They will still have the pick of a deep pool, and will be absolutely fine. So please explain to me who loses in that situation. The risk/reward equation gets trickier as we move into the normal spring schedule of things, but I think it is possible to think more deeply about the current, normative structure whereby, as you say (with conviction!), “ONE DOESN'T BACK OUT OF A JOB ONE HAS ACCEPTED, and how that affects us all, negatively, in so many ways.
OK, not so short after all. My apologies and best regards to you all! I look forward to hearing everybody's thoughts on this, especially during this season of generosity and good will.
Happy Holidays!
Something also to remember--jobs like the Gallatin position, positions in literature or language or anth or other non-Classics departments may offer jobs at a different rate than what we expect from our normal interview season because they do not run necessarily on the APA schedule. Gallatin is all non-Classics people and they are already interviewing. They will likely offer the job before fly-back season post-APA. This doesn't make them unethical. It just means a difference of schedule--same with MLA and AHA or the other APA jobs that may cross into our territory. I know departments that are running multiple searches often try to finish one job up before sewing up the next and if they wait until after APA season, they may lose a lot of potential candidates--I know I pulled out of two such searches one year because I had accepted another (comparable) offer already. Having everything centralized at the APA is nice in some ways, but it isn't required and for some it isn't tenable. Hiring before the APA certainly isn't unethical especially given the wide range of reasons why they do it.
Will Colorado College not be able to find a truly excellent Latinist among all those without a job at that point? Of course not. They will still have the pick of a deep pool, and will be absolutely fine.
This is an interesting and worthwhile discussion. It's definitely causing me to rethink some aspects of the issue.
But I disagree with the above statement. One of the things that has been interesting to me about the wiki and the blog is to learn how many searches fail. And then to learn later what caused them to fail. Most departments can't afford to invite more than four candidates to campus, so the idea that just because one person turns a job down doesn't mean that a department won't be left in the lurch isn't true. I've seen good candidates go jobless, but I've also seen good jobs go unfilled.
I'm not advocating one way or another for changing particularly either candidates' behavior or search committees' behavior, but knowing how many searches fail, it does seem like it would be in the interest of the profession (APA Placement Committee, any thoughts?) to work hard to avoid this outcome.
it would be in the interest of the profession (APA Placement Committee, any thoughts?) to work hard to avoid this outcome.
It is hard for me to see what a professional organization could do, outside of telling institutions what candidates they were permitted to court and candidates what positions they were allowed to accept. The big problems are that hiring basically takes place only once a year, and the process of evaluating each candidate is long and expensive. There's no obvious way around problem one, given the academic year cycle. If departments were willing to consider candidates via videoconferencing or something like that, they might be able to consider more than three or four, but I wouldn't be especially excited about doing this. If someone might be in my department for the next 30-40 years, it's nice to have them visit it first.
The big problems are that hiring basically takes place only once a year
Isn't the main problem here actually that some institutions aren't hiring at the same time? I get that postdocs and non-classics positions can't all be on the same schedule (think CAA). But the APA might strongly discourage depts from accelerating their searches in this unhelpful way. And we might voluntarily restrict our opprobrium to those who back out of acceptances in the spring (and let off those who back out of acceptances in an early search).
Having said all that, I too accept that there may be very particular reasons why Colorado College might be running the search the way they are, reasons that have nothing to do with jumping the gun. I guess we'll find out in due course. But if they're forcing the candidate's hand (which they effectively are, whatever their intentions), then I'm less sympathetic if the candidate runs off with another dept.
Isn't the main problem here actually that some institutions aren't hiring at the same time?
I chose my words poorly. I meant that because our world is on an academic-year cycle, if your search fails this year, you have to wait another year before searching again (if you're lucky!). You can't just advertise again next week, as a company would do.
In this circumstance, yes, the problem is precisely that some institutions aren't hiring at the same time. But that's only a problem because in what we do hiring can only be done on an annual basis; if it were a normal job market, "jumping the gun" wouldn't be a problem at all, or rather there wouldn't be such a thing as "jumping the gun."
Anyone heard anything from Baylor? Three searches and not a peep? I have a friend in another department there, and he said there has been no announcement of any kind of hiring freeze.
On the issue of early job offers, check out this on the Chronicle site from someone on a SC in English:
http://chronicle.com/jobs/blogs/onhiring/810
This line from one of the comments caught my attention: "MLA guidelines are that 'no candidate should be required before 22 January to give a final answer to an offer of a position without tenure for the following academic year, however early an offer is tendered.'"
Yeah, and check out comment 36, which gets to some of our discussion here - "One other thought of relevance — it seems that an effect of this shift is that candidates will have less bargaining power to affect starting salary and other negotiable items. In a profession where salary compression is the norm, this shift will probably end up causing more faculty members to re-enter the market looking for salary upgrades and thereby create even more turmoil.
Also, the ‘dream job’ discussion so far has been focused mostly on the position itself, but another reason why candidates want to consider all offers is that there’s also considerations of location, distance to family, and other non-career issues that influence candidate choices. Rushing offers means that candidates will be more likely to renege on acceptances or to re-enter the market quickly."
...there may be very particular reasons why Colorado College might be running the search the way they are, reasons that have nothing to do with jumping the gun. I guess we'll find out in due course. But if they're forcing the candidate's hand (which they effectively are, whatever their intentions), then I'm less sympathetic if the candidate runs off with another dept.
I don't know anything about the particulars of Colorado College, but from my limited experience with this sort of thing, I think we need to keep the larger context of academic hiring in mind. Especially in this tight budget year, accelerating a search is one way to fend off having the search canceled later in the year or, alternatively, a way to secure the position in competition with other departments in one's own university. (It is not unheard of for universities to start more searches than they can fund in the end. If one search turns up good candidates and they can wrap it up, then they may have a leg up on other departments within the same institution competing for limited resources.) If "early" offers result from these sorts of pressures, then the department likely takes on the risk of losing its chosen candidate knowingly and with some justification (even if they do not make that justification clear to candidates). A department risks having a search fail because the candidate later pulls out for his/her more preferable job, but this may in fact be safer than waiting until January when there is a larger chance that funding will be pulled at that later stage because of factors out of the department's control.
All that said in defense of departments, it is certainly possible that university administrators would not object to the inability of candidates to negotiate significantly on salary, as stated above. This strikes me as problematic for candidates but then again, fielding multiple offers is not the most common scenario (as far as one can tell from the discussions here.)
In light of the very productive discussion about the ethics of backing out of offers, it is very difficult to judge this issue when each side only sees a portion of the picture. As much as we can imagine the motives behind things, there are internal gears moving that are, for the most part, invisible to the outside observer (and which extend well beyond an individual department.) You can't really blame a department for trying to secure a position which otherwise it might lose or not fill. (So too, one can't really blame a candidate for trying to secure the best position for him- or her-self, provided he/she is responsible about informing all parties about his/her actions in as timely a fashion as possible.) Arguably, accelerated searches on the part of a department might be in the best interests of the profession as a whole even if particular individuals are put in difficult situations of having an early deadline to decide about a specific job offer.
"MLA guidelines are that 'no candidate should be required before 22 January to give a final answer to an offer of a position without tenure for the following academic year, however early an offer is tendered.'"
Which doesn't apply to this particular case since CC is a TT position. The idea seems to be that the MLA doesn't want schools with non-TT positions trying to force candidates who are interviewing for TT lines to have to choose between a VAP and potentially no job or risk losing a TT later on. It is a sound principle since we want to place as many TT people as possible to not only avoid people having to return to the market but also to increase the number of sustainable TTs. Trying to force candidates into VAPs when the TT interview season is still going strong may be great for an individual department but could be bad for the field as a whole.
That said, it doesn't apply to Augustana last year or CC this year or Temple a few years before that (for those of you new to the market, Temple had an early hire a few years ago as well--it isn't like it only started happening last year).
I believe it would apply. It's saying TENURED not TT. So unless it's a tenured associate or full professorship, you cannot require responses until Jan. 22.
I believe it would apply. It's saying TENURED not TT.
Is it a position with tenure already? Or with the possibility of tenure? Kind of vague, no?
Besides, how many schools in Classics get off their asses fast enough to notify fly-backs by Jan. 22 let alone make offers? We'd have to make the deadline, like, March 15.
March 15 would be late. I think Feb. 15 would be fine for all parties.
March 15 would be late. I think Feb. 15 would be fine for all parties.
Schools on the semester system don't even start teaching till three weeks into January. If you make the date Feb. 15th, how are these schools going to schedule three or four visits, make a decision, process an offer through the administration, and give the candidate more than 30 seconds to think about it? March 15th makes way more sense.
Many schools are still doing campus interviews Feb 15.
You have to keep in mind that it's the EARLIEST that an offer can be made. A March 15 deadline for everyone would create a terrible last minute backlog. Keep in mind that many if not most positions get filled by 2nd, 3rd, 4th choice candidates. This takes weeks to sort out. Most administrations require things to be set in writing by April. There's no way this can be done with the first offer made on March 15. There would be a huge uptick in failed searches as a result of departments waiting on their candidate(s) until it's too late.
Yep, you guys must be newbies. Many times, like last year, one candidate is sitting on half a dozen offers from the top schools and maybe a handful of others from second tier programs. This one person almost single-handedly held up the entire process while waiting for all his offers to come in. Once he committed to an offer, all the other programs scrambled t get their next choices until offers were finally made to the rest of the candidates that year. March 15 would be bad.
Yes, there is at least one big time program still hurting with a failed search from waiting on a candidate. By the time this person came back to them, the rest of their campus invites had accepted offers elsewhere and they didn't have enough time to make more campus invites.
Anyone know what's up with the places that haven't notified APA interviews yet? I can understand some (e.g., HWS had a Dec. 15 deadline), but what about places like Baylor, Ohio State Newark, or Northwestern Romanist post? Are those searches still on? Are they just not deciding on interviews until after the holidays?
You have to keep in mind that it's the EARLIEST that an offer can be made.
No, actually, if you look, it's the earliest that an institution may set its deadline for a yes or no from its candidate, which is a completely different question. An institution can offer a job whenever it wants. March 15 would be a perfectly fine date for a final answer, and as it is few institutions expect a response by March 15th.
Re. going down the applicant ladder
Not all schools have the option of offering their runner-up the position once it has been declined by their first-choice candidate.
One of last year's top Latinist positions resulted in a failed search because the first-choice candidate accepted another offer -- at a "lesser" school due to personal reasons. Good for him/her!
The search then failed because the Search Committee was allowed to make one and only one offer. They rejected the other candidates whom they had invited to campus at the same time as they made the offer to their first choice.
There are a lot of assumptions being made on this blog. Most of us have only one or two pieces of the jigsaw puzzle and no one really knows what the box-top looks like.
The search then failed because the Search Committee was allowed to make one and only one offer. They rejected the other candidates whom they had invited to campus at the same time as they made the offer to their first choice.
That's right. Sometimes a department will rank its shortlist 1-2-3 and tell the administration that, if it can't get 1, it would like to offer the job to 2, etc. Sometimes the administration will say OK, and sometimes not. Usually it's yes, if a department can offer a good explanation for why #2 is desirable even though the candidate wasn't their first choice. But sometimes a department will decide after looking at everyone that it is only in fact interested in one of the candidates, and will end up not hiring anyone if their preferred candidate turns them down. And of course sometimes a department will decide that it doesn't find anyone on its shortlist acceptable, and will not offer the position to anyone.
"Backing Out,"
I had hoped not to post on all this, but since you wrote such a long post I felt it would be discourteous to ignore you.
First, I should say that it is 100% clear to me that whatever situation you are thinking of is not the one I was describing. My own situation was exactly as I described it, and I can assure you that I was most absolutely not victimized by "the system." Nor could the scenario you described have played out if I had gone back on my word to School C, for reasons I won't get into simply because I'm trying not to provide many details. I realize that my posts have a black-or-white quality to them that might elide over areas that area more grey than I allow, but my account of my own experience accurately reflects that situation, which really was that black-or-white. (By the way, note the use of the clever spelling "grey," just to throw everyone off the scent and make them think I got my degree at Camford.)
I agree with you that using specific anecdotes doesn't necessarily help to evaluate whether it's right or wrote towards the school to go back on one's word -- but of course, I shared my own tale more to show that this sort of behavior could have collateral damage. I can state with absolute certainty that in my particular situation someone ended up having no job -- I got lucky and found one, though not at my first choice (and for $5000 less!), but someone out there ended up with no job that year, and it was solely because of this person. I thought that was worth sharing.
As for the other points you made, I'll have mercy on you, myself, and everyone else by not responding point by point. I do see where you're coming from, about candidates being in a weaker position. But I simply don't see how that justifies lying and acting in bad faith. To quote a possibly familiar line, "This is the life we've chosen for ourselves." At an early stage in our careers, many of us are screwed over by "the system," often more than once. But that's not a justifiable reason to try to screw over a department that has had the, the, the CHUTZPAH to make one a job offer. (Note the clever employment of ethnic vocabulary as another red herring.)
At this point, I would be very interested to know what one (or more) of those senior faculty that FV posters love to hate has to say about this matter.
At this point, I would be very interested to know what one (or more) of those senior faculty that FV posters love to hate has to say about this matter.
Well, OK:
1). a breathalyzer would be a very useful function for Blogger to institute. :)
2). I don't know what the situation you're discussing is, since it's all being discussed through tears and semaphore. However, I think institutions that demand an answer before other institutions have a chance to look at a candidate are behaving in a very naughty manner.
God help us all, though, if senior faculty become a moral center by virtue of being senior.
I leave for a few days of travel, and all hell breaks loose. You guys need to have a beer. This is crazed.
According to the wiki, Northwestern has sent out rejection emails to junior folks today. Has anyone gotten an actual interview notice? I have not gotten a rejection (yet), but am wondering whether I should read too much into this lack of communication...
Maybe you're "wait-listed" and they're quietly going down a list extending campus invites? Maybe you're on the "list" but not in the top 3? Regardless, good luck - NU would be a fantastic gig.
So NU is not interviewing at the APA for the Romanist search?
Northwestern is interviewing at the AIA/APA for their Romanist position. Perhaps they are interviewing mostly SR-types (it is open rank) or Europeans - i.e. demographic populations underrepresented on the wiki.
Northwestern asked for additional writing samples from a junior scholar two weeks ago
No one's heard anything from Notre Dame or Assumption, huh?
Notre Dame is still interviewing - at least according to Renie's email.
Could the person who posted about SUNY New Paltz please clarify here what his/her email said? I've applied there and heard nothing; now I fear a(nother) cancelled search.
Thanks.
Servius et al., two observations - the "search" function at blog-top does not seem to work, at least in Firefox 3.0, and I'm not seeing a way to write directly to any of you so as to avoid an off-topic post like this.
I was looking for the post about cheap SEPTA travel (thanks, Native Philadelphian!) and had to do it the hard way. Nor could I find a way to write you and share my pain.
Oimoi.
Otherwise, thanks many times over for your wonderful work here.
Hello,
Sorry, we still haven't figured out all the bugs in the search function. Best just to do a web-page search once you have all the comments in a thread displayed. Clunky and annoying, we know, but that is the thing that definitely works.
In order to reach us please write:
jobagora@gmail.com
Best of luck to everybody in Philly and beyond!!!
Sincerely,
Servius
Regarding New Paltz, I haven't heard anything from them officially, but one of the professors told me in person that the search had been canceled. Another one bites the dust, alas...
Just got back from Philly and have been catching up on the thread about whether it's okay to screw over a school (Colorado College or any other) where you've already signed a contract, given that the school also behaved unethically in forcing you to make your decision before hearing from other schools. As I see it, whether or not the *school* has behaved unethically in its turn, the really crummy thing about breaking a contract would be the fact that you'd also be screwing over all the other applicants for the position. *They* never behaved unethically toward you, and it isn't fair to potentially deprive *them* of a job by hanging onto a position that you potentially don't intend to take. Yes, the job market is a market, but we're also part of a community (and a relatively small one at that). If we don't treat each other with respect and kindness, who will?
The SUNY-New Paltz ancient art job is officially dead in the water, per a letter from the program chair.
I noticed that Swarthmore notified people at the APA, as forewarned by RP. Did Tufts and UC-Irvine also do so? If so, could someone note this is the wiki for completion?
UCI notified two days ago, not at the meetings.
Didn't hear anything about Tufts at the APA from my circle of clarch friends on the market. Perhaps they're not proceeding or doing so quietly?
Does anyone know how many people Trinity University invited to campus?
Just a wild guess, but maybe three?
Just a wild guess, but maybe three?
ha ha. nice.
Did they interview 16 in Philadelphia?
Okay, it appears that flyback notifications are trickling in. I guess SC members have caught up with their work thanks to the holiday.
For people who got interviews at U-Miami, are you Latinists or Hellenists?
(By "interviews" I mean fly-outs to U-Miami.)
Has anyone heard anything from Gettysburg since the APA? They have a dean on the SC, so one would think they'd be zippier than some other places in issuing campus invites...
Hi, I posted to the wrong section. I was wondering if any other ancient historians had an interview at the AHA with Queensborough Community College and if you'd heard anything yet.
Good luck to those of us who do have fly-outs and to those of us still on the hunt.
I can't remember whether someone already said this, but do you think the delay in responses from cttees is actually because Oct-Dec financial reports are out and said cttees are having to justify their hires to deans once again? Or are the people on this blog (inc. me) so few and so poorly connected that we simply don't have any fama to bring to the table? Come on, there are like 25 flybacks recorded on the wiki two weeks after the APA near the end of January. Where are the other, I'm guessing, 150 or so?
The wiki simply isn't up to date.
There are also some committees that haven't yet met with the rest of the faculty. We meet tomorrow.
Okay, so if you know anything can you please PLEASE put some of us out of our misery. Remember, this is anonymous, so no one's going to scold you. Either update the wiki (if you know that campus interviews have been scheduled) or just stick the info on this thread (if you know that cttees are yet to meet-you don't have to be more specific than that). Have some sympathy for those of us whose temporary institutions have just said that there won't be so many re-hires next year for visiting/adjunct staff. We really don't need false hope at this stage; we need info, fast, so we can start sending out begging emails to anyone we might know asking for a job.
The wiki simply isn't up to date.
So update it. I have one callback, but I'd like to know about other schools; and I've got friends with no callbacks who really need to know, so they can start planning.
This was started by Servius as a communal endeavor, in which we help EACH OTHER. I know some people hold information back, trying to see if anyone else posts something, but that's contrary to the spirit of the enterprise, and it simply gets us back to the old system that this blog and the wiki are supposed to combat. If I hear of anyone getting a campus interview, anywhere, I post it. Others should do so as well.
(Job acceptances/offers of course are a totally different story, unless the SC makes them public.)
(Job acceptances/offers of course are a totally different story, unless the SC makes them public.)
Just to be clear, you're only talking about naming the recipients, right? It'd presumably be fine to post these as long as no names were mentioned.
Just to be clear, you're only talking about naming the recipients, right? It'd presumably be fine to post these as long as no names were mentioned.
I'm not actually sure WHAT we decided, other than no names. The general sense was that the recipient of an offer ought to be given a chance to post him/herself (like a week or two).
Yeah, I think that's right. But it's totally legit to write "job offered" or "job accepted" vel sim.
"Yeah, I think that's right. But it's totally legit to write "job offered" or "job accepted" vel sim."
Yes, accepted and expected.
On Gettysburg, they have sent out rejection emails and emails that seem to indicate alternate status if visits don't go well. So I would imagine someone has been invited to campus, but I don't know for sure, so I won't note it on the wiki, just here, FYI.
What's with the new and bizarre updates? Did we really need to know that Baylor contacted you via email on Dec. 30th for an APA interview? What's a fly-back rejection?
And what's with Baylor anyways? Anyone have news? They had lots of lecturers there...
Did we really need to know that Baylor contacted you via email on Dec. 30th for an APA interview?
Some people (and the wiki, by purpose) are completists.
Yes, perfectionism with respect to the wiki is a desideratum. Keep it up.
And WHAT, in the name of all that is Bacchic, is going on with Swarthmore? I know that this plaintive cry for information will most likely go unanswered, but I dream for a torch of illumination amidst the darkness of unconventional deadlines, baffling timetables, and brief glimpses of wiki-info that are suddenly and mysteriously withdrawn...
Anyone know the status of Hobart and William Smith's search?
And does anyone know if Gettysburg has actually scheduled campus visits? (Yes, I saw the post above, but the wiki hasn't been updated.)
Gettysburg has invited three finalists to campus.
I've posted all I know about Queensborough Community College's ancient history search (for the sake of completeness as well) but has anyone heard about Rhode Island College's ancient history search?
Does anyone know how many candidates got fly-outs to the University of Miami? (Two positions)
Does anyone know how many candidates got fly-outs to the University of Miami? (Two positions)
No. I am under the probably mistaken impression that they are moving in steps, as they did with the phone/APA interviews. But I'd wager six: three Latinists, three Hellenists. I've also heard that there were campus visits pre-APA.
There are also rumors that one of the Miami searches (maybe even both?!) is at risk of being canceled.
There are also rumors that one of the Miami searches (maybe even both?!) is at risk of being canceled.
I don't know about that but I do know from a friend in the History dept. that the university is making major budget slashes in other places like benefits. They are hurting financially.
Things have a tendency to move slowly at Swarthmore, as anyone who applied for their VAP last year knows. So instead of fruitlessly invoking Bacchus, I suggest you uncork a bottle of him, take a deep breath, and allow those lovely, lovely people to deal with their dean, or whatever it is they are doing. I'm sure they are moving as quickly as they can.
Anyone know if Chicago/Michigan are hiring senior or junior? Indeed hiring at all?
The problem isn't that Swarthmore is slow, nor do I bear those lovely, lovely people any ill will; it's just that there seem to be odd things going on with the information surrounding their search process. Most notably: a couple of days ago on the wiki, someone posted that they'd made a campus invite(s) on 1/12. After a few hours, that info was deleted. I'm curious and confused.
Anyone hear from Notre Dame post-APA?
ND
Notre Dame is bringing candidates to campus.
What's the word on the Brown Romanist search?
Re: Romanist searches. Michigan appears to be senior (for the moment). No idea about Chicago or Brown.
New position:
Byvanck Professorship in Classical Archaeology, The Faculty of Archaeology
Leiden University
19 hours per week
Job description
The Faculty of Archaeology announces the creation of a Chair in Classical Archaeology, supported by the Byvanck Fund, part of the Leiden University Fund (LUF). The successful applicant will provide lecture-courses and advanced seminars in aspects of Classical archaeology and art, in the context of modern, theoretical and comparative perspectives
The Chair is intended to provide a new addition to present-day Classical Archaeology in the Netherlands in general and to the current profile of the Classical Archaeology department within the Archaeology Faculty in particular. This has a lacuna in Greek art, notably sculpture, but it should be noted that all aspects of Classical Archaeology are equally suitable as long as they conform to the intentions as outlined.
Required education/skills:Doctorate
The Archaeology Faculty invites applicants for this (part-time) Chair from established lecturers with a high international profile and a proven teaching and research expertise. The successful candidate will have a record of innovative research and an impressive series of international publications in article and monograph form and extensive experience in teaching students at both undergraduate and postgraduate level. Since all Leiden Master programmes are given in English, applicants must be able to lecture in that language. The undergraduate courses may be given in English or Dutch. The successful candidate will offer courses at advanced BA (years 2-3) and Masters’ levels, as well as occasional postgraduate seminars and workshops where PhD students will be present. Greek art should be included among the subjects. The candidate will also create and supervise PhD projects.
Conditions of employment
Employment basis: Temporary for specified period
Duration of the contract: 5 years
Maximum hours per week: 19
Additional information can be obtained through one of the following links:
About the organization (http://www.leiden.edu/)
About the department (http://www.archaeology.leidenuniv.nl/)
About the function (http://www.vacatures.leidenuniv.nl/byvanck-professorship-vac-nr-8-213_1.jsp)
Application
You can apply for this job before 16-03-2009 (dd-mm-yyyy) by sending your application to:
faculty Archaeology
Witte Singel Doelencomplex (WSD)
Prof.dr.W.J.H. Willems
Postbus 9515
2300 RA Leiden
Nederland
E-mail: w.j.h.willems@arch.leidenuniv.nl
Hobart and William Smith strikes again. Just got an email saying there was a bureaucratic holdup (and hinting darkly at false hope - cancellation looming, maybe?).
But, what I love from the school that gave us the Cranky Professor, is that they left the names and email addresses of everyone they interviewed visible to all. The personal touch, I guess...
Going back to some Jan 29. comments about "rumors" that the University of Miami may be canceling one or both of their searches: can anyone elaborate on this? Any information on Miami would be MUCH appreciated, as this was one that I liked a lot but have heard absolutely nothing on since the APA. I'm wondering if I should give up hope.
Re: Miami
I'd say forget about it. They had people visiting campus before the APA. There could also be an inside candidate. Frankly, it sounded too good to be true.
Good luck, though.
So, does anybody know if the lucky ducky who had the Colorado College offer eventually accept? I'm assuming that they did, but still, inquiring minds wanna know...
Did anyone actually get called back by Brown? And what is going on with Chicago?
Re: Chicago
I have three ideas:
DOA (funding)
senior candidate who is unconcerned by wiki & unaware of FV
European (or ?) candidate who is unconcerned by the wiki & unaware of FV
So junior candidates from North America are magically compelled to contribute to the wiki and FV?
Re: Colorado College
As far as I know, the job offer was accepted before the APA.
So junior candidates from North America are magically compelled to contribute to the wiki and FV?
Obviously.
Re: Colorado College
The job offer was accepted.
Didn't you see the lucky dog holding down the bar in Philly?
Any news on the Vanderbilt job?
Please keep those job offers coming on the wiki! Why aren't more candidates "rejoicing" on here though?
In the current climate (somewhere between a hurricane, a drought, and the apocalypse) people may be reluctant to gloat in the style of the Princagoberkford villain... I doubt I would make a bug fuss of it here if I were to receive an offer.
Great, so one villain is making the rest of us gun shy? One more reason to hate the villain(s).
I don't recall anyone making a huge fuss last year. I think *not* making a fuss shows manners, politeness, and collegiality.
////Or maybe there's already a blacklist out for the people who post on FV?
Anyone heard from Colgate?
Eastern Illinois University (Mediterranean History T-T) - offer made and accepted with great joy.
congrats!
anyone know anything about the cambridge position in archaeology?
Post a Comment