Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics:
Hiring Data from 2005-2006
Hiring Data from 2006-2007
Hiring Data from 2007-2008
See the archived version of last year's classics wiki (requires wikidot log-in) in order to get a sense of how the most recent market behaved in terms of contact dates, etc.
191 comments:
2006-7
US and CANADA (t-t, non t-t)
UC BERKELEY (7 ; 8)
PRINCETON (7 ; 2)
MICHIGAN (4 ; 4)
CHICAGO (4 ; 3)
HARVARD (4 ; 0)
YALE (3 ; 5)
UNC CHAPEL HILL (3 ; 3)
DUKE (3 ; 2)
CORNELL (3 ; 0)
MCMASTER (3 ; 0)
OHIO STATE (3 ; 0)
TORONTO (3 ; 0)
PENN (2 ; 4)
STANFORD (2 ; 4)
COLUMBIA (2 ; 3)
USC (2 ; 3)
WASHINGTON-SEATTLE (2 ; 3)
NYU (2 ; 1)
CUNY (2 ; 0)
TEXAS-AUSTIN (2 ; 0)
BROWN (1 ; 4)
VIRGINIA (1 ; 3)
INDIANA (1 ; 2)
U. BRITISH COLUMBIA (1 ; 1)
WISCONSIN-MADISON (1 ; 1)
ARKANSAS (1 ; 0)
BOSTON UNIVERSITY (1 ; 0)
IOWA (1 ; 0)
MINNESOTA (1 ; 0)
PITTSBURGH (1 ; 0)
BRYN MAWR (0 ; 3)
UCLA (0 ; 3)
CATHOLIC UNIV. of AMERICA (0 ; 1)
FLORIDA STATE (0 ; 1)
JOHNS HOPKINS (0 ; 1)
NORTHWESTERN (0 ; 1)
TUFTS (0 ; 1)
UC IRVINE (0 ; 1)
U. OF FLORIDA (0 ; 1)
U. ILLIN. Urbana-Champaign (0 ; 1)
U. MISSOURI-COLUMBIA (0 ; 1)
U. VICTORIA (0 ; 1)
FOREIGN UNIVERSITIES
OXFORD (5 ; 1)
CAMBRIDGE (2 ; 0)
FREIBURG (1 ; 0)
Humboldt UNIV. of Berlin (1 ; 0)
Johann-Wolfgang-Goethe UNI. (1 ; 0)
Julius-Maximilians-Univ. (1 ; 0)
ST ANDREW’S (1 ; 0)
SYDNEY (1 ; 0)
TEL AVIV (1 ; 0)
TRINITY DUBLIN (1 ; 0)
UTRECHT (1 ; 0)
EDINBURGH (0 ; 1)
Well, that should put to bed the notion that Stanford is drinking all of your milkshakes. And while that's a predictably strong number for Princeton, it's not wildly better than the others at the top of that list, which I might point out represent both public and private institutions and are widely dispersed around the country.
Well look at that. Go Bears!
Wait, is that 2006-7 market or last year's?
2006-7 market, i.e. the year before last. I vaguely recall someone else on FV last year saying that they'd do either 2005-6 or 2007-8, and they may even have done it, but I'm sorry I can't remember what results, if any, they posted. Taken in isolation these results don't mean nearly as much as if we had the same list for a couple more years at least.
I really don't have the time to work out which of these hires got their PhD when, but I have another file with the names included. So if someone else really wants to go through the hassle I can post the cumbersome thing for them to work on. I think it would be more economical if people just worked on other market years though.
By the way, just because I took the time to do this doesn't mean I'm an acolyte of the rankings school of thought. I recognise that while rankings mean something they don't mean everything and figures can be quite misleading. I do think that this list starts to put some concerns to bed though, about conspiracies about massive inequalities.
Yeah, enough of the Stanford/Princeton bashing. It's obvious that we should be Berkeley/Princeton bashing. And how the hell do they have 15 people on the market in one year? Do they have 50 grad students in the pipeline?
I'm not from Berkeley so can't speak with much authority, but I presume it's a combination of a large program and an aberrant year. As I said I can't guarantee that the figures are correct but I did take them from the Wiki (which doesn't seem to be too far off), and I hope I didn't make more than the odd slip here or there.
"And how the hell do they have 15 people on the market in one year? Do they have 50 grad students in the pipeline?"
Between the ancient history program and the Classics program, that may be right.
50? If they have 15 people on the market, they could theoretically have close to double that in the pipeline.
Re: Berkeley numbers
I was surprised with the high Berkeley numbers too - I got my PhD a couple of years ago and really could not think of 14 other people that would have been on the market. So I looked at the list, and I can say that they come from the Classics department, the Group in Anc Hist & Med Arch, and Comp Lit. The majority of them already had their PhDs for a couple of years or more, and the majority had already held a visiting position (or post-doc) previously. As for how many grad students are in the pipeline currently, for Classics I think it's about 35-40; for the Group in Anc. Hist., ca. 20. There's also a handful of ancient art historians in the art history department. Fyi.
50+ is pure insanity. So it might be the size of the program as much as its quality that's reflected in these numbers.
"it might be the size of the program as much as its quality that's reflected in these numbers."
Well, obviously size, if there are that *many* people getting jobs, but given that those people actually are *getting* jobs, evidently quality as well (or reputation for quality, depending on how you look at it). Quantity without quality would still result in low placement numbers.
It would be more useful to have data from multiple years, since the number of candidates seeking employment from one institution can vary so much from one year to the next. My guess, though, is that the top of the list wouldn't look radically different. Berkeley, Princeton, Harvard, and Michigan would probably tend to converge, and Chicago would drop a bit.
Depressingly or comfortingly, this is pretty much exactly how the NRC survey viewed the top programs 15 years ago.
"Quantity without quality would still result in low placement numbers."
Well, of course every single program listed is at least a good school with some quality. Schools don't offer Ph.D.s without having some resources and commmittment. But when all these schools are bunched together and are basically "in the ballgame," numbers can be the MOST important factor. You don't think that Berkeley having double or triple the number of students as say Columbia will make a difference? I also find it hard to believe that all 50+ students produced by even Berkeley are excellent. You'll have superstars, but that's the same for pretty much all these programs.
Here is the equivalent table from 2007-2008. It is VERY important to note that the wiki for that year remains very patchy, both for t-t and non t-t, and an update might change this table significantly. I ignored senior moves and appointments to the ICCS and TLL. In any case, this is a good demonstration of why it'd be good to have data from a range of years, not just one.
US and Canada (t-t; non t-t including postdocs)
Stanford (6 ; 1)
Princeton (5 ; 3)
Chicago (5 ; 1)
Berkeley (4 ; 2)
Michigan (4 ; 2)
Yale (4 ; 0)
Penn (3 ; 1)
Virginia (2 ; 4)
Texas (2 ; 3)
Harvard (2 ; 1)
OSU (2 ; 1)
Brown (1 ; 3)
Cornell (1 ; 3)
Columbia (1 ; 2)
USC (1 ; 1)
Cincinnati (1 ; 0)
Iowa (1 ; 0)
Maryland (1 ; 0)
Minnesota (1 ; 0)
NYU (1 ; 0)
Pitt (1 ; 0)
Rutgers (1 ; 0)
UCLA (1 ; 0)
UCSB (1 ; 0)
JHU (0 ; 2)
Bryn Mawr (0 ; 1)
Missouri (0 ; 1)
UNC (0 ; 1)
Wisconsin (0 ; 1)
Foreign (all t-t):
Oxford 3
Berlin 1
Cambridge 1
LMU München 1
SNSP 1
Of 59 named people assuming t-t positions in the 2007-2008 wiki, 28 came from the six institutions that placed four or more people in t-t positions, and 16 came from the three that placed five or more.
Of 89 named people assuming t-t positions in the 2006-2007 wiki, 31 came from the six institutions that placed four or more people in t-t positions, and 19 came from the three that placed five or more.
So,
1). six universities in a given year accounted for more than 35% and less than 47% of people hired into tenure-track positions that year and
2). those six universities came from a pool of eight: Berkeley, Chicago, Harvard, Michigan, Oxford, Princeton, Stanford, and Yale. Berkeley, Chicago, Michigan, and Princeton appeared in the six both times.
3). the three universities that placed five or more scions in a given year accounted for more than 20% and less than 27% of people hired into tenure-track positions that year and
4). those three universities came from a pool of five: Berkeley, Chicago, Oxford, Princeton, and Stanford. Princeton appeared among the three both times.
From this it seems clear to me that Berkeley, Chicago, Michigan, and Princeton are chiefly responsible for most of society’s ills and should be ashamed. Princeton especially. But of course Harvard, Oxford, Stanford, and Yale will be blamed as well.
As well they should be.
I'm noticing that both 2006-7 and 2007-8 Princeton numbers include folks not just from the Classics grad-program, but also from History department's Program in Late Antiquity, Art and Archaeology, and Religious Studies. Also, several of the people who got jobs in each of those years were VAPing for a year or more before.
Also, a correction to Princeton VAP count for 2008-9: should be 5, not 3
"I'm noticing that both 2006-7 and 2007-8 Princeton numbers include folks not just from the Classics grad-program, but also from History department's Program in Late Antiquity, Art and Archaeology, and Religious Studies."
Yeah, this is the case with lots of places. Since the study of the ancient world is configured differently at different universities—in some places, the study of ancient history or of ancient art goes on in the Classics department; in others, in History or in Art History—counting everybody from a given university without regard for department of origin is the only way to compare apples to apples. This doesn't seem like a big problem to me, but maybe I'm missing something.
Having sent out my applications and remarkably unmotivated to write more on my dissertation, I've decided to get inspiration by tracking last year's hires. I am figuring out who filled each of last year's slots, where they went to school, when the degree was earned, and if they had held a previous post. I am also trying to figure out what field they are in, to see if Greek Lit types ever get jobs seemingly intended for Historians, etc. But I need help!
I have not been able to fill in some of the places (I am only about half way through the list). Can anybody send as much info as possible about the following jobs from last year (i.e who got the job, and as much info about them as you can post. I assume posting names in this context is OK?):
Ave Maria (TT Latin Lit)
Brandon University (TT Anc. History)
Christendom College (TT Latin Lit)
Columbia U. (Senior Latinist)
Columbia U. (Open Rank Arch.)
Concordia College (TT Gen.)
Duquesne (TT Lit or Arch?)
Emory (Holland Chair in Roman His)
Fordham (TT Arch/Art Hist)
Hofstra (TT Greek Lit)
Indiana (1-year positions)
Iowa St. (3-year Latin Lit)
Johns Hopkins (Gildersleeve Chair)
Koc U. (TT Arch)
LSU (TT Greek Lit)
McMaster (Arch. Post Doc)
Middle Tenn. St. (TT Anc. His)
NYU ISAW (Open Rank His.)
North Georgia Coll. (TT Anc His.)
Northwestern (Senior Arch)
Ohio State (TT Gree Lit)
Oxford Balliol
Oxford Christ Church
Oxford Magdalen
Penn State (1-year Lit)
Roanoke (Jordan Fellowship)
SUNY Brockport (TT Anc His)
Texas A&M (TT Arch)
U Akron (TT Arch/Lit?)
U Alberta (Senior Anc. His)
U Arizona (TT Arch) (2 hires?)
More requests soon, once I catch up in the lists a bit. I'll post all of this data once I have it processed, and figure out how to get the spreadsheets up. Can we add this to the WIKI? Maybe this can help us get started on tracking hires year-by-year in a more systematic way than the APA does. Resolve some of these arguments, finally!
I strongly advise you against doing this. It will drive you mad. Write your dissertation.
Lighten up, Anon. 2:40, and enjoy the show!
But, seriously, Anon. 1:11: not writing your dissertation is a good way to ensure that your name is not on one of these lists next year--which I know you know already. Perhaps there's a way to divide the labor?
FWIW, I think the Columbia arch search failed.
What's the harm? The discovery that PHILOLOGISTS (yes, I'm using the dirty P word) are masquerading as historians and archaeologists?
Thanks to all for the voices of concern.
Dissertation is at beginning stages, so I am only sticking my toes in the water this job-year. If I get lucky, great. If not, another year on institutional support. I'm not too worried about my sanity, and I think this is a more productive way to procrastinate than playing yet more Grand Theft Auto, or frequenting the local bars. I am interested in both the history and state of the profession, so I might as well make a contribution.
Of course, if you want me to get cracking on the dissertation then you can help by posting info (thanks, Fruity 07). :-)
Greetings Sisyphe et al.,
As useful, exciting, and just downright fun as this project might be, please don't list names here. We realize this seems a little bit over the top, but it is easier to hold a bright line on this policy than to try and make exceptions.
If you want to share this sort of information then the appropriate place for that would be on the "last year's results" part of the Wiki:
http://classics.wikidot.com/2007-2008-wiki-and-results
Sorry, but we'll have to ruthlessly edit out any names from the blog.
Sincerely,
SSD
Yes, that's probably best. There shouldn't be a problem putting up the info on the wiki since it's all good objective info. Presumably people with jobs aren't embarrassed about their PhD institution (some members of my institution cause me to cringe, but that's a different story). With it being up on the Wiki people can just edit for themselves - this worked well last year when some of us collaboratively put info up on the wiki (someone remind me what it is we did - I've quite forgotten).
Right--thanks for weighing-in, Servius. So, Sisyphus, I'll check out the wiki and fill in any blanks that I can (probably few, if any).
Incidentally, I felt some poster's remorse about the write-your-dissertation! dog pile, but you seem to have a very good attitude about all of it. Good for you!
Sorry, basic question: when I tried to edit the 2007-8 wikidot wiki I got the following response: "This page is blocked and only Site Administrators and Moderators with enough privileges can modify it." What should I do?
I got that same error message. I just started a place where we can put updates on the main wiki, in the Archives section.
I'll post my own updated info as well, but I've filled in alot of the holes from the old wiki already, except for the ones I noted in my earlier comment.
What's the harm? The discovery that PHILOLOGISTS (yes, I'm using the dirty P word) are masquerading as historians and archaeologists?
What about those of us who are historians masquerading as philologists? Or worse "generalists"!
I'm a Slacker masquerading as a Classicist.
And even worse, what about the simple flower girls masquerading as grand ladies at the embassy ball!?
OK, first round of data. Some searches still unaccounted for (34 of them). I still have not figured out how to display all of this, but until I do, some numbers:
Total Positions Advertised for 2007-2008: 225
Latin Literature Positions 34
Greek Literature Positions 32
Greek and/or Latin Lit Positions 23
Roman History Positions 15
Greek History Positions 5
Greek and/or Roman His. Positions 33
Material Culture Positions 28
Generalist and/or Mixed Positions 55
Candidates Hired (by Field) Total Number
Latinists 42
Hellenists 49
Roman Historians 14
Greek Historians 16
Material Culture 33
Historians (non Classical) 13
Medievalists 3
Philosophers 4
Failed Searches 16
Incomplete Searches 34
Continuing Searches 1
Types of Positions Offered
Senior 12
Open Rank 11
T-T Associate 1
T-T Assistant 118
3-year 7
2-year 7
1-year 54
Post-Doc 15
More later. Trying to figure out exactly how many Philologists poached the MC positions! /-)
Here are the positions I can't figure out yet. Assistance appreciated!
Concordia College Assistant
Pennsylvania State University 1-year
Oxford University - Balliol College Post-Doc
Oxford University - Magdalen Assistant
University of California - Berkeley Assistant
University of Southern California 1-year
University of California - Los Angeles 2-year
University of Iowa 3-year
University of Buffalo Post-Doc
St. John's College Assistant
University of California - Los Angeles 1-year
University of California - Los Angeles 1-year
Roanoke College Post-Doc
McMaster University Post-Doc
Oxford University - Christ Church Post-Doc
University of Sydney Post-Doc
Fordham University Assistant
Koç University Assistant
Texas A&M University Assistant
Brandon University Assistant
Middle Tennessee State University Assistant
North Georgia College Assistant
SUNY - Brockport Assistant
University of Dayton Assistant
Columbia University Open Rank
Vanderbilt University Open Rank
New York University (ISAW) Open Rank
Northwestern University Senior
University of Konstanz Senior
University of Alberta Senior
University of Haifa Senior
Johns Hopkins University Senior
Ohio State University Senior
University of California - Los Angeles Senior
And quickly, of the definite hires, here is the breakdown by PhD vintage. Can also arrange according to T-T, etc. Not sure why 2004 bucks the trend. Too rainy that year?
PhD Vintage
1980 1
1981 1
1983 1
1992 1
1993 2
1995 2
1996 1
1997 3
1999 4
2000 2
2001 5
2002 6
2003 11
2004 6
2005 13
2006 21
2007 32
2008 62
And for the info you've all been waiting for.........
This is still incomplete, but here are the numbers according to PhD. And of course Vintage plays into this. First number is total placed. Second is TT/Permanent, third is temporary of some sort (VAP/Post-Doc/Etc.) So, for example, Chicago placed a total of 12 students, 9 of whom went TT, 3 of whom went temp. (impressive!). Yale placed six of six in TT.... These are for 2007-2008, so we can compare them to the prior 2006-2007 posted above. Interested to hear all your thoughts on these:
PhD Total TT Non
Michigan 18 10 8
Chicago 12 9 3
Princeton 9 5 4
Stanford 9 8 1
Berkeley 8 5 3
Texas 6 2 4
Virginia 6 2 4
Yale 6 6 0
Columbia 5 3 2
Cornell 5 2 3
Harvard 5 3 2
UCLA 5 4 1
Cambridge 4 4 0
Oxford 4 4 0
Penn 4 3 1
UCSB 4 3 1
Brown 3 1 2
NYU 3 1 2
Ohio State 3 2 1
Toronto 3 0 0
UNC 3 1 2
Wisconsin 3 0 3
Bryn Mawr 2 1 1
Cincinnatti 2 1 1
Duke 2 1 1
Iowa 2 1 1
JHU 2 0 2
London 2 1 1
Missouri 2 0 2
Rutgers 2 1 1
St. Andrews 2 0 0
USC 2 1 1
Washington 2 1 1
Bayreuth 1 1
Boston U. 1 1 0
Buffalo 1 0 1
Firenze 1 1 0
Florida St. 1 0 1
Helskinki 1 0 1
Illinois 1 0 1
Indiana 1 1 0
Laval 1 1 0
Loyola Chic. 1 1 0
LSU 1 1 0
Minnesota 1 0 1
Munich 1 1 0
Northwestern 1 1 0
Nottingham 1 0 1
Pisa 1 1 0
Pittsburgh 1 1 0
U. Vic. 1 0 1
UBC 1 0 1
UC - Irvine 1 0 1
Vienna 1 1 0
It would be interesting to know how many people from each place were on the market--meaning, how many people didn't place.
Great work.
It would probably be useful to have both the 2006-7 and the 2007-8 numbers in the same format. I don't think the "total positions" is needed, unless we think adding two small numbers is beyond the capacity of classicists. That would also permit ranking by number of t-t positions attained, rather than total positions. So, for example, in the 2007-2008 list, Texas, UVA, and Yale are bunched together, but I think we can all agree that 6 tt positions is a better year than 2 tt and 4 non tt. Same thing with Princeton and Stanford.
Re: Fordham
Someone doing late Latin literature got a MC/art history position? That's crazy.
That last comment is why we shouldn't be posting names here. Servius, please delete.
Where did the 16 Greek historians get hired if there were only 5 Greek history positions? Did 11 Greek historians get hired as generalists?
Thank you, Sisyphus. I'm sorry I can't bring myself to make a stone-rolling joke.
I agree about not discussing individual positions, and I see that the initial post has been removed, but it may as well be made clear that the position in question was not MC. Before flames start getting spouted.
Fordham's Classics job in 07-08 was advertised for Latin prose. Explicitly.
Someone doing late Latin literature got a MC/art history position? That's crazy.
Easy, now. That position was a Latin prose position.
Hmm, I guess that answers the question above. Philologists ARE afraid that people will find out they are masquerading as historians/MCers
What's with the list in the middle of this thread that says Fordham had a MC/Art History job?
What's with the list in the middle of this thread that says Fordham had a MC/Art History job?
I believe the technical term for that is "a mistake."
Yes. Note the bolded text and stop whining, MCers. It also looks like the historians did a stellar job of grabbing non-history jobs so maybe the whole "philologists masquerading as MCers" isn't the problem you want to pretend it is:
Fordham University’s Classics Department is seeking a tenure-track assistant professor (with Ph.D. in hand by the time of appointment) for its Lincoln Center Campus to commence duties in the fall semester 2008. Specialization: Latin prose. The successful candidate will have a three-two teaching load and will normally teach one graduate course a year in the CUNY-Fordham-NYU Classics Consortium; he or she will be expected to play a flexible role in the college in the teaching of courses in both Greek and Latin languages as well as in classical civilization.
"Hmm, I guess that answers the question above. Philologists ARE afraid that people will find out they are masquerading as historians/MCers"
How does this masquerade work? Do philologists nefariously pretend to be archaeologists and do so with such skill that they succeed in deceiving poor, unwitting search committees?
Technically, it's not a mistake on that list, since Fordham did advertise for an Art Historian (Roman, I believe) in 07-08 -- in the Art History department. The kind soul who provided information re: Fordham's hire innocently conflated the two jobs. And that's why names should stay off the blog.
"How does this masquerade work? Do philologists nefariously pretend to be archaeologists and do so with such skill that they succeed in deceiving poor, unwitting search committees?"
It's actually quite simple. You spend one summer or even one week in Athens or Rome and maybe teach one civ course. The SC, dominated by philologists, say, "That's good enough for us."
Crap, there goes the rest of the MC jobs. Thank you very much.
You spend one summer or even one week in Athens or Rome and maybe teach one civ course. The SC, dominated by philologists, say, "That's good enough for us."
And the department that advertised a material culture position just acquiesces in the hiring of this person that they had not advertised for? Or did they all secretly want a literature person all along? And if so, why did they advertise for material culture in the first place?
"And the department that advertised a material culture position just acquiesces in the hiring of this person that they had not advertised for? Or did they all secretly want a literature person all along? And if so, why did they advertise for material culture in the first place?"
Are you that blind? The MC adverts almost always say "must teach Latin and Greek at all levels," but when it goes into detail about MC qualifications, does it ever say "must know all aspects of surveying, pottery analysis, and architecture and be familiar with scientific techniques, botany, physical anthropology, and faunal analysis?" Want proof? Look at the Berkeley MC advert - arguably one of the most prestigious institutions for classical archaeology:
We are seeking candidates with a specialization in Greek and/or Roman archaeology and material culture (broadly understood). We hope by this appointment to enhance the overall range of our expertise and methodologies in archaeology, and we are particularly interested in candidates who work in one or more of the following areas: architecture, colonization, cultural contact, ethnicity, gender, religion, settlement, technology, trade, urbanism. Candidates must be competent in classical Latin and Greek and be prepared to contribute to the graduate programs in Classics, the Group in Ancient History and Mediterranean Archaeology (AHMA), Near Eastern Studies, and History of Art, as appropriate.
Notice that the "interests" run the gamut and can easily be filled by a non-MC person? Nuff said.
Thanks, Sisyphus. You've confirmed what I've long thought:
MICHIGAN IS EVIL
Sometimes that is the case, especially in departments who focus heavily on language and literature courses. A lot of those departments have 1-2 material-oriented courses at most, and what they really want is someone who can throw those together, but spend most of their time on non MC stuff.
I applied for a job several years ago which was advertised for a generalist with a focus on MC. I was warned by an insider that I should not focus on MC in my interview because what they wanted was a philologist who could kind of teach an archaeo class or two, and so I should make myself seem more like that's what I was.
So yes, this does happen in some cases.
But then again, I later got a history job, so the definition game can be played in one's favor too.
Notice that the "interests" run the gamut and can easily be filled by a non-MC person? Nuff said.
I wouldn't be surprised if those 11 historians who are unaccounted for in history jobs didn't end up in MC jobs (instead of phantom philologists...) since they could probably cover most of that material from a history perspective, teach at least one language if not both and dabble in epigraphy or the Parthenon or Agora when needed.
"Or did they all secretly want a literature person all along? And if so, why did they advertise for material culture in the first place?"
Departments advertise for a MC person b/c it would be preposterous to claim to be a "classical studies" or "the original interdisciplinary field," as most departments are wont to do these days, if you have no MC person. This is especially true if it's a large department or a university of any stature.
As to whether SCs secretly want a literature person, I don't think so, but it is human tendency to want people who speak our culture and look like us.
Finally, before people counter by saying historians and archaeologists masquerade as generalists, there is no masquerading because they almost always more than hold their own when it comes to languages and literature. I can't say the same about the average classicist when it comes to material culture. I teach in a large state school in the south and our gigantic intro to classical civ course is currently taught by someone who thinks that intro to civ means going through the greatest hits of classical literature. This is THE gateway classics course for the university community here and it has made the recent public interest in classical civ more flaccid than a person encountering a German grandma in a thong.
Fordham had two positions: one Philology in the Classics (Languages and Literatures Dept.) and a second in the Art History dept. It was advertised in the CAA. Interestingly, the archived Classics Wiki has them both listed clearly.
I had already figured out the Philology position, but couldn't (and still have yet) figure out the MC hire. Sorry for the confusion, but I was quite explicit in my original list that it was the MC position I was after. The response, unfortunately, named the Philologist, and its been a shitstorm ever since......
Interestingly, as far as I can tell ALMOST ALL of the MC positions advertised as such were eventually filled by an MC candidate, while many generalist and phil. positions were "poached" (and I quote this in jest :-) by an MC or MCish applicant.... Perhaps MCers doth protest too much? I don't want to start another war, and I hope I can put the whole data set up so that everybody can see for themselves. It's interesting, and well worth the few hours I've spent on it.
In response to the Historian question. Remember, there were many Greek and/or Roman History positions, so the Greek Historians landed some of them. Thus the numbers.
Interesting how successful the foreign PhDs are. This made me feel like Tom Tancredo for a little while. I did get over it, though.
Post more info on the Wiki so that I can fill in the gaps. It would be nice to get the whole thing completed.
-Sisyphus
The Fordham MC position was filled by an art historian. Go to http://www.fordham.edu/mvst/faculty.htm and do a search for "University of Pennsylvania." I believe the person graduated in 2007 or 2008 from the art history department at UPenn.
Does an Art Historian qualify as an MC person? I would say no. They're just dealing with different kinds of "texts".
No GIS, no trenches, no dirt, no alcohol, no sex, and no sex in the dirty trenches after too much alcohol.
No, Art Historians are NOT the Real MC.
The MC adverts almost always say "must teach Latin and Greek at all levels,"
compare with...
Candidates must be competent in classical Latin and Greek and be prepared to contribute to the graduate programs in Classics, the Group in Ancient History and Mediterranean Archaeology (AHMA), Near Eastern Studies, and History of Art, as appropriate.
That doesn't say "must teach Greek and Latin at all levels." That says "must be competent in classical Latin and Greek," which is a rather different standard.
I'll eat my hat if from that advertisement pasted above Berkeley hires someone who is not an archaeologist or historian of art.
Finally, before people counter by saying historians and archaeologists masquerade as generalists, there is no masquerading because they almost always more than hold their own when it comes to languages and literature.
If this is the case, why the bellyaching about MC positions requesting minimal competence in Greek and Latin?
Interestingly, as far as I can tell ALMOST ALL of the MC positions advertised as such were eventually filled by an MC candidate, while many generalist and phil. positions were "poached" (and I quote this in jest :-) by an MC or MCish applicant.... Perhaps MCers doth protest too much?
Word.
Sheesh, keep it down. People might think you are a defensive philologist filling a MC position with dubious credentials. If you went to Rome or Athens for one summer, you're fine in my book.
People might think you are a defensive philologist filling a MC position with dubious credentials
lol. I guess I'm a defensive philologist filling a philology position! I just don't think it's either healthy or, more importantly, correct to think that people who don't do material culture are occupying tenure-line MC positions in any numbers, if at all.
I'll admit I'm a poseur. Don't know if I'm rare, but I guess that would just make me more special - lucky me. My position at a SLAC was advertised for a MC person. I don't go overseas every summer but I came out of a program that had a strong MC presence. Yes, I did time at the ASCSA, but it was for one year, not a summer. I did the Corinth training and I still have an interest in MC. Don't know what the big hubbub is about. I can competently teach a non-literture course here and there.
If you went to Rome or Athens for one summer, you're fine in my book.
Just stay in a Holiday Inn and watch Raiders of the Lost Ark. You'll be Golden.
God, did I choose the wrong field or what?
Does an Art Historian qualify as an MC person? I would say no. They're just dealing with different kinds of "texts".
No GIS, no trenches, no dirt, no alcohol, no sex, and no sex in the dirty trenches after too much alcohol.
No, Art Historians are NOT the Real MC.
An art history department hired an art historian instead of an MC person? Call the damn FBI - I smell a Republican philologist at fault.
Anonymous 11:35 needs to learn the definition of material culture.
Someone who is an art historian is not necessarily an archaeologist, however, and I suspect that is what the poster is getting at.
Give it a rest; it's obvious that the person you're quoting is not an archaeologist and just muddying the waters. It's pathetic to see classicists trolling classicists. Do MCers even come on here in any number? There's probably ten of us for every one of them.
Ahhh yes. The Official Motto of Classical Archaeologists.
Boffing Like Bunnies Since 1817.
I'm not sure I get what the whole language requirement debacle is about. The standard required is usually pretty low. If MC people are coming out of good programs with strong ties to Classics, shouldn't those programs ensure their students are minimally competent in the languages (given that it's a pretty standard Classics requirement)? You're being asked to teach undergrads, not do the new Persius Teubner. And if you're really that opposed to minimal competence in the languages shouldn't you be applying for jobs in anthro. and art history only? And another thing: teaching language is not a philologist's job - it's a service course feeding historians, linguists, philologists, and yes, even archaeologists. It's no different from intro. Italian or French.
I definitely chose the wrong field.
Ladies and gentlemen, you can clearly see now why classical archaeology has no academic cred outside of classics. Classical archaeologists - philologists who get, or got, dirty once in a while.
[I just want to state that the person posting as "Teiresias in the House" is not the same as yours truly, the person who produced a series of posts this past spring. I am briefly emerging from hiding to renew my rights to that name, for roughly the same reason that MLK's kids and extended family are fighting the uncompensated use of his image alongside Obama's on shirts and other items: under the law, if you let something to which you have the rights get used for free, you arguably lose the rights to it and it becomes public domain. So, I am extending my rights to the name, and thus this blog has just one Tiresias, even if he/she is silent these days.
Whoever you are, you are welcome to use the name "Teiresias in the House" -- so long as you don't drop the last three words and the first 'e' in "Teiresias." Then we go to court.]
HA, you think classical archaeology has cred in classics? Maybe tolerated or resigned to its necessity might be a better description. This place just gets better and better. Who needs dinner and a movie. Order take out and pull up a chair next to the 'puter.
Ahhh yes. The Official Motto of Classical Archaeologists.
Boffing Like Bunnies Since 1817.
Roger Rarebit,
You should watch yourself. Last year I made a simple joke about how all archaeologists do on their digs is drink and have sex -- when they could be studying their Latin and Greek!, as I recall, was my point -- and one mirthless archaeologist completely denied that sort of thing ever goes on. The lesson, I guess, is that the archaeologists who aren't drinking and having sex all summer can be a touchy lot...
God, I should have become a "Biblical archaeologist." I knew that classical archaeology could be just as bad using texts as a divining rod, but at least there are #$%%$ jobs in middle eastern archaeology. Even #$@% UBC classics has a #$#% job in it this year. Now where's that shotgun...
And what the @#$% am I doing up at 1am reading this @!#$% crap. Good @#$% night, people.
Okay, step away the computer. You can do it. Go to sleep and dream of big-brained (wo)men.
Sisyphus,
If you want you can send us the complete tallies and we will try to post it to the GooglePages site that has last year's data. That way everybody can see the whole picture. If you don't have one already, create an anonymous gmail account, although we promise not to "out" you in any case (unless you crave fame).
Email us at jobagora@gmail.com
SSD
For the apologists defending classics, I think those who are criticizing the role of archaeology are not decrying the necessary classical credentials, but the LACK OF archaeological credentials advertised when searching. I'm a historian myself, but I would have to agree, if this was indeed what they were trying to say. I'm in a rare classics/anthropology department and I've noticed that what we demand for an anthropological archaeologist is much more rigorous, archaeologically speaking, than what we demand from a classical archaeologist. If you search for advertisements for anthropological archaeologists and compare them to those for classical archaeologists, I don't think anyone could deny this. Now what this means for classics and classical archaeology, I don't know, but I think it's something that has to be addressed as classics programs get dismantled and combined around the country.
Ah, people. Quirites. Where is the love?
Some of the posts in response to Sisyphus' honest labor made me feel sad--sad for the field, sad for myself, and sad for you. Inevitably the ill-advised MC vs. Philologist vs. Historian arguments were going to flare up again, but this time seems a little more vicious (perhaps because the market is just that much tighter this year).
As a Young MC, I'd like to offer what I think are some insights into why we MCs are "always whining":
1) Definitions. We none of us know or agree on what "material culture" means. Witness the person who attacked art historians for not being "real" MCs. Troll-y to be sure but quite an old antagonism. What really seems to get MCs' goads (and I've been there) is when a search for an archaeologist hires someone who has little experience working in the field and/or lacks an ongoing field project. This happens. It happens because "MC" can mean many things and good hires can spend most of their time *out of* the field, working on, say, iconography of X or inscriptions from site Y. Are not pots and inscriptions material? The frustration comes in, again, when the job ad says "archaeologist" (for which see number 3) and you-who-were-not-hired spent the last five years mastering GIS or otherwise doing innovative field work (while still having drunken orgies every night--it takes serious time management).
2) Teaching competency does not mean research focus. In an ideal world, or in a world run entirely by lip service, our research interest and teaching loads would coincide with a few service classes (mythology) thrown in. From what I know of the field, which is still not so very much, this situation is not common. Many of us are competent to teach outside our areas of expertise: archaeologists can teach language, historians can teach archaeology, philologists can teach civ, and so on. As many of us know from experience, good training and the ability to stay a couple days ahead of your class in the reading is plenty of preparation for your average undergraduate lecture. So when a department hires an epigraphist, say, who spent one season at Corinth, or did the summer Rome program, to *teach* archaeology, I'm not thrilled but I also don't get too riled up (anymore). It seems comparable to a Hellenistic philosopher teaching Homer and Thucydides. It's kind of okay. But it does not in any way mean that the department has hired someone who will contribute professionally to the subject of archaeology (which speaks to some of the shortcomings in classical archaeology described by the poster above). The department has apparently chosen teaching competency over research interests, which leads me to the last point.
3) Job ads, like degree-granting department titles, are not transparent. Spurned MC candidates, like me and like many of you out there, foolishly take the wording of job ads to heart--ads that might in no way represent department climate, a unified SC voice, or a knowledge of the field (especially if they're written by a dean). Everyone tends to assume that when an ad says "Greek or Roman archaeologist" or "archaeology and material culture (broadly defined)" it is speaking to their department's, advisor's or personal definition of the terms. I know this is true because I have done it: "so and so is not a real archaeologist; (s)he doesn't even have an excavation!", etc., etc. This kind of thinking leads to greater disenchantment and disappointment and ill-will towards fellow classicists (broadly defined).
Whatever your perspective, it makes good sense to me let off some steam on FV, to air grievances, to explore differences. At the same time it makes little sense to cannibalize in this way. Vent, yes, but remember that in the end we're together on this raft of the Medusa.
A correction (maybe?) to the tally - I got a job in 2007-08 that was not through the APA (in fact, not in 'Merica at all) and was never listed on the Wiki. So you can add 1 temporary position to Princeton's tally, if you like. (All part of our plan for world domination.)
I reworked the placements by PhD institution that Sisyphus posted, stripping out the total number. Somebody suggested (correctly, in my view) that this would give a better sense, and would be directly comparable to the 2006-2007 rankings in the first comment on this thread.
Here they are:
Michigan 10 8
Chicago 9 3
Stanford 8 1
Yale 6 0
Princeton 5 4
Berkeley 5 3
UCLA 4 1
Cambridge 4 0
Oxford 4 0
Penn 4 1
Columbia 3 2
Harvard 3 2
UCSB 3 1
Texas 2 4
Virginia 2 4
Cornell 2 3
Ohio State 2 1
Brown 1 2
NYU 1 2
UNC 1 2
Bryn Mawr 1 1
Cincinnatti 1 1
Duke 1 1
Iowa 1 1
London 1 1
Rutgers 1 1
USC 1 1
Washington 1 1
Boston U. 1 0
Firenze 1 0
Indiana 1 0
Laval 1 0
Loyola Chic. 1 0
LSU 1 0
Munich 1 0
Northwestern 1 0
Pisa 1 0
Pittsburgh 1 0
Vienna 1 0
Toronto 0 0
Wisconsin 0 3
JHU 0 2
Missouri 0 2
St. Andrews 0 0
Bayreuth 0 1
Buffalo 0 1
Florida St. 0 1
Helskinki 0 1
Illinois 0 1
Minnesota 0 1
Nottingham 0 1
U. Vic. 0 1
UBC 0 1
UC - Irvine 0 1
Dear Anon. 12:20,
Can you post that information, including all of the relevant aspects (field, year of phd, job type, etc.) on the archive section of the wiki?
Thanks!
So the half-dozen schools placing the most people in t-t jobs in a given year come from a pool of eight, and they bounce around relative to each other, as is to be expected when the total number of people on the market from a given school can vary so much from year to year. Then there are a lot of schools that place somewhat fewer. That seems like a much healthier situation than the one envisioned in the "Princeton and Stanford take all the jobs" delusion.
I'm assuming that if I go on the wiki and find out that someone has said that my field is one thing, and it really is another, I can supply the correct information?
How exactly did you determine what field someone was in?
"we're together on this raft of the Medusa."
Apparently, a sinking raft if we are to believe the chicken little MCs on here. Go to anthropology and art history, good riddance.
"the chicken little MCs"
Please can't we use the term "sucka MCs" instead? And then we could distinguish between the "dope" and the "sucka" varieties.
Sheesh, is this the part when geeky classicists come out in do-rags and battle it out through parsing?
This classicist doth protest the term "geeky classicist" on grounds of its redundancy.
I second thy protest.
I think the appropriate garb would be Adidas track suits and gold chains. We are students of the classics, after all.
It's all fun and games until somebody loses an eye. Let's keep it civil. A few of these posts were good-natured joking (e.g. "sex in the trench"), so respond in kind.
Fruity 07s counsel is well-spoken. Chins up, smiles, and good manners folks!
Sincerely,
SSD
More Spread Sheet Fun!
Someone asked how I've determined field. Good question. I am sure I've made mistakes. Where possible I've looked at CVs in the placement book, though most hires aren't in there (as you will see). I've looked at their faculty bio pages, and I've asked friends here in my grad program who might know these things. Again, I'm sure to have messed some of this up, but once it is posted then we all can start tweaking it. I've done some more playing around with the spreadsheet, and will post some numbers in the next few comments.
Here is a list sorted by
Phd Institution, PhD Vintage, Previous Position, Field, Hiring Institution, and type of position
Bayreuth 2005 Gottingen RH Ohio State University 1-year
Berkeley 1992 Chicago LL Brown University Senior
Berkeley 2003 Dartmouth LL Purdue University Assistant
Berkeley 2005 Gtown GH Georgetown University Assistant
Berkeley 2006 Stanford GL University of Colorado - Boulder Assistant
Berkeley 2007 Grad LL Stanford University Post-Doc
Berkeley 2007 SFSU GH Santa Clara University 2-year
Berkeley 2008 Grad LL Vassar College 3-year
Berkeley 2008 Grad LL Wellesley College Assistant
Boston Univ. 2004 Hofstra GL Hofstra University Assistant
Brown 2008 Baylor GL Pacific Lutheran 2-year
Brown 2008 Grad MC McMaster University Assistant
Brown 2008 Oberlin LL Grinnell College 1-year
Bryn Mawr 2000 Gettysburg LL Gettysburg College 1-year
Bryn Mawr 2002 Brooklyn MC University of Arizona Assistant
Buffalo 2008 Grad LL Denison University 1-year
Cambridge 1997 Exeter MC University of Toronto Open Rank
Cambridge 1999 Tufts MC University of Arizona Assistant
Cambridge 2004 Cambridge MC University of Cape Town Assistant
Cambridge 2008 Grad PHIL Grand Valley State Assistant
Chicago 1997 Vassar GL Swarthmore College 1-year
Chicago 2002 Wooster GH Ashland University Assistant
Chicago 2006 Chicago RH University of Chicago Assistant
Chicago 2006 Toronto GH Whitman College Assistant
Chicago 2007 Bryn Mawr GL Union College 2-year
Chicago 2007 Trinity TX GL Haverford College Assistant
Chicago 2008 Grad HIS Eastern Kentucky University Assistant
Chicago 2008 Grad GL Princeton University Assistant
Chicago 2008 Grad HIS Loyola University of New Orleans Assistant
Chicago 2008 Grad GL Davidson College 1-year
Chicago 2008 Grad HIS Wayne State University Assistant
Chicago 2008 Grad LL Wake Forest University Assistant
Cincinnatti 2003 Akron MC University of North Carolina - Gboro Assistant
Cincinnatti 2007 Not. Dam. MC Bowdoin College 3-year
Columbia 2005 NYU RH Fairfield University Assistant
Columbia 2006 Brandeis GL Knox College 1-year
Columbia 2006 Nrthwstrn LL Stanford University Post-Doc
Columbia 2008 Grad RH Salem State University Assistant
Columbia 2008 Grad GL University of Chicago Assistant
Cornell 2006 Tennessee GH ASCSA 2-year
Cornell 2007 Wilfrid L. GH Loyola University of Chicago Assistant
Cornell 2008 Grad LL Colby College 1-year
Cornell 2008 Grad MED Ave Maria University Assistant
Cornell 2008 Grad MC University of Pennsylvania Post-Doc
Duke 1983 Yale MED University of North Carolina - CH Open Rank
Duke 2006 Iowa State MC Iowa State University 3-year
Firenze 2002 VCU GL University of Idaho Assistant
Florida St. 2006 Iowa MC University of Utah 1-year
Harvard 1980 Cincinnatti MC Brock University Associate
Harvard 2003 BYU GL Arizona State University Assistant
Harvard 2007 Harvard MC University of Washington Assistant
Harvard 2007 JHU LL University of Texas - Austin 1-year
Harvard 2008 Grad LL Duke University 1-year
Helskinki 2008 Grad MC University of Manitoba Post-Doc
Illinois 2008 Grad GL Brigham Young University 2-year
Indiana 1996 LSU GL Louisiana State University Assistant
Iowa 2008 Corn. Coll. LL Wheaton College (Illinois) Assistant
Iowa 2008 Grad GL Ohio University 1-year
JHU 2004 Buffalo GL Wabash College 1-year
JHU 2008 G. Wash. GL Indiana University 1-year
Kiel 2003 Harvard LL APA-TLL Fellow 1-year
Laval 2006 EPHE Paris RH University of Toronto - Scarborough Assistant
London 1999 Chieti GL Georgetown University 1-year
London 2001 DAI MC Bryn Mawr College Assistant
Loyola Chic. 2006 Unaffiliated LL Xavier University Assistant
LSU 2005 St. Thomas HIS University of West Florida Assistant
Maryland 1995 Dowling MC George Washington University Assistant
Michigan 1993 Swansea MC ICCS/Duke Senior
Michigan 1997 Rollins MC George Washington University Assistant
Michigan 1999 Macalester MC Vanderbilt University Open Rank
Michigan 1999 USC MC Wellesley College Assistant
Michigan 2001 Unaffiliated MC College of Wooster Assistant
Michigan 2002 Port. St. MC College of William and Mary Assistant
Michigan 2004 LIU RH Long Island University Assistant
Michigan 2005 Gr. Val. St. LL Hope College 1-year
Michigan 2005 ICCS MC University of Rochester Assistant
Michigan 2005 Wabash MC ICCS/Duke 1-year
Michigan 2007 Cornell GL Emory University 1-year
Michigan 2007 Princeton GL Miami University 1-year
Michigan 2007 Prix Roma RH Willamette University Assistant
Michigan 2008 Brown MC Dartmouth College 1-year
Michigan 2008 Grad MC Northwestern University Post-Doc
Michigan 2008 Grad RH University of Tulsa Assistant
Michigan 2008 Grad RH Reed College 1-year
Michigan 2008 Grad LL Colorado College Post-Doc
Minnesota 1981 St. Olaf LL University of Minnesota 1-year
Missouri 2005 Centre C. GL Howard University 1-year
Missouri 2007 Nebraska MC Creighton University 1-year
Munich 2003 Munich GL Lafayette University Assistant
Northwestern 2007 St. Thom. PHIL Dalhousie University Assistant
Nottingham 2008 Grad GL ICCS/Duke 1-year
NYU 2003 St. Josephs LL Villanova University Assistant
NYU 2006 Pratt MC Brown University 1-year
NYU 2008 Grad LL Austin College 3-year
Ohio State 2003 G. Wash. GL Union College 3-year
Ohio State 2008 Grad LL Butler University Assistant
Ohio State 2008 Grad LL Augustana College Assistant
Oxford 2001 Texas GL University of Waterloo Open Rank
Oxford 2006 Oxford GH Cal State - Sacramento Assistant
Oxford 2006 Princeton LL Stanford University Assistant
Oxford 2007 Dickinson LL Dickinson College Assistant
Penn 1993 Berkeley MC University of California - Berkeley Assistant
Penn 2006 Emory GL New College of Florida Assistant
Penn 2006 Hamilton GL St. Olaf College 1-year
Penn 2006 Indiana LL University of Victoria Assistant
Pisa 2004 Pisa GL University of California - Los Angeles Assistant
Pittsburgh 2006 Lawrence GL Virginia Wesleyan College Assistant
Princeton 2005 Colgate PHIL University of Texas - Austin 1-year
Princeton 2007 Grad HIS University of Alabama Assistant
Princeton 2007 Wellesley GH University of Buffalo Assistant
Princeton 2008 Grad PHIL Colgate University 1-year
Princeton 2008 Grad GL University of London - Birkbeck 1-year
Princeton 2008 Grad RH Cal State - Chico Assistant
Princeton 2008 Grad LL Amherst College Assistant
Princeton 2008 Grad LL University of Texas - Austin 1-year
Princeton 2008 Grad GL Yale University Assistant
Princeton 2008 Grad PHIL Freie University of Berlin Post-Doc
Princeton 2008 Grad RH Rhodes College 3-year
Rutgers 2008 Grad RH Hendrix College Assistant
Rutgers 2008 Grad GL Grinnell College 1-year
St. Andrews 2007 Grad LL Ohio State University Assistant
St. Andrews 2007 U. Vic. GH Cleveland State University Assistant
Stanford 2003 U. Vic. LL Memorial University Assistant
Stanford 2005 Georgia GL Gettysburg College Assistant
Stanford 2007 USC GH University of Southern California Assistant
Stanford 2007 Wilfrid L. MC University of North Carolina - CH Open Rank
Stanford 2008 Grad GH New York University Assistant
Stanford 2008 Grad LL McGill University Assistant
Stanford 2008 Grad GH Tulane University Assistant
Stanford 2008 Grad LL Indiana University 1-year
Stanford 2008 Grad MC Evergreen State College Assistant
Texas 2003 Nrthwstrn GL North Central College Assistant
Texas 2006 Florida St. MC University of Toronto Assistant
Texas 2008 Grad LL Trinity University 1-year
Texas 2008 Grad GL Dartmouth College 2-year
Texas 2008 Grad GL Trinity University 1-year
Texas 2008 Vassar GL Williams College 1-year
Toronto 2000 Manchester HIS Queens University Open Rank
Toronto 2001 Stanford HIS University of Illinois - Springfield Assistant
Toronto 2002 Georgia HIS University of Southern Mississippi Assistant
Trieste 2007 Prix Roma RH Columbia University Assistant
U. Vic. 2008 Grad GH Mount Allison University Post-Doc
UBC 2005 Unaffiliated GH Colby College 1-year
UC - Irvine 2007 Grad GL Northwestern University 1-year
UCLA 2004 UCSC LL Vassar College Blegen
UCLA 2007 Albright MC University of Akron Assistant
UCLA 2007 Grad GL University of Oregon Assistant
UCLA 2007 Wellesley GL University of North Carolina - CH Assistant
UCLA 2008 Grad GH Denver University Assistant
UCSB 2001 West Ga. HIS Metropolitan State Assistant
UCSB 2005 New Mex. HIS University of California - Irvine Assistant
UCSB 2008 Grad HIS West Chester University Assistant
UCSB 2008 Grad LL University of California - Irvine 1-year
UNC 2006 Wm & My MC Washington and Lee University 1-year
UNC 2008 Amherst GL University of Oklahoma 1-year
UNC 2008 Grad LL Duquesne University Assistant
USC 2007 Sweet Briar GL Hamilton College 1-year
USC 2007 Wellesley LL York University Assistant
Vienna 1995 Vienna MED University of Notre Dame Open Rank
Virginia 2003 Texas GH University of Minnesota 1-year
Virginia 2005 Miami GL University of the South Assistant
Virginia 2007 St. Olaf LL University of the South Assistant
Virginia 2007 U. South GL Franklin and Marshall College 1-year
Virginia 2008 Grad GL Kenyon College 1-year
Virginia 2008 Grad GL University of Georgia Post-Doc
Washington 2007 Grad GL Washington University - St. Louis Assistant
Washington 2007 Iowa State GL Cornell College 1-year
Wisconsin 2007 UNC-Gbor GL Bowdoin College 1-year
Wisconsin 2008 Grad GL College of Charleston 1-year
Wisconsin 2008 Grad RH Cornell University 1-year
Yale 2002 Irvine LL Fordham University Assistant
Yale 2003 W. Wash. GL University of California - Davis Assistant
Yale 2006 Dartmouth LL University of Arizona Assistant
Yale 2006 Rutgers LL Rutgers University Assistant
Yale 2008 Grad HIS Kansas State University Assistant
Yale 2008 Grad LL Dartmouth College Assistant
If I couldn't find evidence of teaching prior to placement I put GRAD. No doubt you all might find mistakes based on this alone, so please post on the WIKI if so.
The format is ugly here because Blogger doesn't respect my tabs, but you can figure it out.
Here is how hiring broke down by PhD Vintage.
Senior, Open, Associate, Assistant, 3-year, 2-year, 1-year, and Post-Doc
1980 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1981 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
1983 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
1992 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1993 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
1995 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0
1996 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
1997 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0
1999 0 1 0 2 0 0 1 0
2000 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0
2001 0 1 0 4 0 0 0 0
2002 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0
2003 0 0 0 8 1 0 2 0
2004 0 0 0 4 0 0 1 1
2005 0 0 0 7 0 0 6 0
2006 0 0 0 13 1 1 5 1
2007 0 1 0 18 1 2 9 1
2008 0 0 0 28 3 3 23 7
For example, Fruity 07s vintage placed one person in an Open Rank position, 18 in T-T Asst, 1 in a 3-year, 2 in a 2-year, 9 in a 1-year and 1 in a post-doc.
28 ABD hires is quite surprising - 50% more than the previous year and 100% more than the antepenultimate year. I wonder if these ratios will hold in light of the economy. My gut instinct is that it will change minimally with departments still going after the latest and greatest from the 5-6 Ph.D. mills with big names.
If most hires don't put a CV in the book then what the heck is the book for?
Killing some more trees, but it's actually for a good purpose. Killing more trees=more money for Canada=more Canadian academic positions=more jobs for APA candidates. And you silly people thought the APA has no foresight.
I've thought about the APA Placement Service's predicament (i.e. thankless, low paying jobs for its staff) and here is one factor to consider. Let me preface this by saying that I know nothing of the staff and structure at the Placement Service. However, I'm guessing that the people there largely look at it like a j-o-b, and a crappy one at that for the aforementioned reasons. My proposal is that they hire youngish professionals, late 20s to early 40s, who are passionate about classics as a discipline - maybe a bacherlors degree in classics. Isn't this how we get teachers, librarians, etc. to do tedious jobs with relatively low pay? The way I see it, the Placement Service seems to be staffed by overwhelmed people with little passion for the field. If I'm totally off target, I apologize, but this seems like a reasonable assessment. I have a feeling that some bigwig on the inside will swoop in and chide me for not understanding how complex it is, but what are we trying to do here, put people on Mars? It's obvious that peers disciplines are much more organized with their placement service, so I don't buy the "it's complicated" explanation. My 2 cents.
I don't have much to add, but one phrase you used gave me an epiphany. We can combine several thoughts from this forum to use as a litmus test. Fill in the blank: trying to put people on [ ]. If you want to say "the moon," then freakin' retire already! And in anticipation of the flood of analogies about to come in, no one wants to eat your dry, shrively flesh either. Do you hear that voice? It's Florida calling!
Look, we Boomers invented Sex. In 1968. What have you young punks done? Nada. Prove yourselves, and then we'll retire.
Looks like we are proving amazingly good at avoidance behaviors (with interesting results of course -- one T in Cincinnati, it's a Latin word after all) .
APA could take all of this frenetic data crunching energy and put it to work in the placement office.
the latest and greatest from the 5-6 Ph.D. mills with big names.
OK, so, last year, it was all "OMG Princeford is eatin all the jobs!!1!!" So we go and through the magic of numbers figure out that it's actually more like 8 places that can do really well on the market in a given year, with a bunch of other programs doing moderately well, and the response to that isn't "hey, it looks like things are a lot more open than we thought" but rather "OMG Berkchiharmichoxprincefordyale is diploma milz!!1!"
For what it's worth, 16 of the 28 ABD hires into t-t positions come from that group in 2008 (57%), which is somewhat out of proportion to the 50 t-t jobs they occupied out of 118 t-t jobs offered (42%), but not vastly.
What I would like to understand better here is, what's the number that someone who feels the present distribution is unjust would be pleased with? 42%? 25%? And why?
I already see two mistakes in my cohort re: field - my field and a peer's field, and I see two others in an institution where I have friends. I'm not trying to be rude about this; I think it is really valuable information, and I appreciate it, but I do want to point out that job candidates are and have to be chameleons in order to get certain jobs, so you might look at someone's faculty page and it screams ROMAN LITERATURE because that's the job they managed to get ...when actually they have spent six seasons in the trenches and wrote a dissertation that is completely focused on answering a major historical question. But this is the exception, I'm guessing, not the rule, so I doubt it invalidates most of the data.
Hi Anon 4:12,
There is no need for you to apologize, and I at least don't find your comment rude. As I said, I know I must have made mistakes, and that you have already found four is great, because you can post the corrections.
I hope you are right that these things won't invalidate the larger trends the data suggest. But it is easily corrected, and I will update as soon as I know which ones I goofed up on.
Thanks for this,
Sisyphus
How do we post corrections? Directly here? Or somewhere on the Wiki (and I'm a different Anonymous who also sees a mistake or two).
Hate to say it, but if a program, no matter how vaunted, puts out 15+ people on the market in one year, that's a diploma mill by our standards. I'm guessing that 15 is not even the total number as some went unrecorded or left academia. Anything that approaches 10 grads in one year is a diploma mill in my opinion. Yes, it's just one voice supporting what's been said, but I suspect far from the only. Unfortunately, if we want to teach "classical gay sex rawks," we need butts in seats so we accept 20 new faces, which in my book is totally irresponsible. If all are can't miss superstars, I'll eat those words, but I'm willing to bet $500 that sending away half of those apps would have served society and our field better. After all, we teach about old, Mediterranean men. More people should be out there finding the cure for cancer so we can teach until we're 100 and have less young pups complaining to boot.
"Diploma mill" does not mean what you think it means.
If you look at the very helpful table compiled above by the estimable Sisyphus, you'll see that nobody is placing 15 new Ph.Ds a year. In 2008, Princeton placed 8, Chicago 6, Michigan and Stanford 5 each, Texas 4, Brown and Cornell 3 each. Berkeley's 15 in 2007 and Michigan's 18 in 2008 were a matter of people from several previous years taking new positions.
sending away half of those apps would have served society and our field better.
So is the argument that institutions that produce a lot of Ph.Ds should produce fewer? Or that all institutions should produce fewer? I don't see why it's any more irresponsible for one university to produce 6 Ph.D.s than for 3 to produce 2 each.
iIf all are can't miss superstars, I'll eat those words
No program can meet this standard. And I see no a priori reason why a very desirable program with 10 fellowship slots in a given year is going to end up with a higher percentage of students who don't pan out than a very desirable program with 3 fellowship slots. It's not as though each institution gets alloted 3 rockstars and the rest of the slots get filled up with scrubs.
we need butts in seats so we accept 20 new faces
Name one single American institution that enrolls an average of 20 new graduate students a year, or anything close to that, in all fields of ancient studies.
May I add that all the people finishing a program in a given year does not necessarily indicate that they all started together - this is certainly true for one top-tier school much maligned on this board, where 2008 PhDs are people who started the program between roughly 1999 and 2003.
It figures that several Berkeley classics alums would chime in, there must be hundreds out there. Fifteen+ on the market in any given year, that's crazy.
Look, no dept. takes in 20 new students, and even large multi-dept. programs like Michigan take in at most 12-15 a year, between History, IPCA and Classics.
For example, while Michigan "placed" 18 total, only 5 of the 2008 vintage went out into the great wilds. Since there are three separate programs at work there, that just isn't that large a number. It's good work on Michigan's part, but nothing to get flabbergasted about.
Who's making an argument using the number of students matriculating into Berkeley? It's about the number graduating, whether it's an especially high year or not. It happened. I know of at least one program in the "big 6-8" that regularly accepts 15-20 CLASSICS students in the hopes of matriculating 10-15. You add archaeology, history, etc, and voila, you have 20+ matriculating in a year. IRRESPONSIBLE - justify it all your want.
So Berkeley's excuse comes down to, "Michigan does it?" LMAO! If you can apply for a generalist position (as all the grads of the different Berkeley programs can), it doesn't matter what the name of the program is. As someone pointed out earlier, each university puts specialities in different places, but it all boils down to "classical studies" in the end.
It figures that several Berkeley classics alums would chime in, there must be hundreds out there.
If you scroll up slightly, you'll see that they placed two new Ph.D.s in 2008.
Fifteen+ on the market in any given year, that's crazy.
This is only crazy if you think a large percentage of that is new Ph.D.s. Sometimes when people go on the market, they don't get a t-t position, or after they have got one they find that they'd rather have a different t-t position. So what they do is to go back on the market. Sometimes multiple times. So "fifteen+ on the market" could be a senior hire or two plus a large graduating class plus one or two people from each of the preceding half dozen years.
"I know of at least one program in the "big 6-8" that regularly accepts 15-20 CLASSICS students in the hopes of matriculating 10-15."
OK. What program? And do you have any sort of data to support this? Particularly the "regularly" part? Apart from, you know, a "gut feeling" or "rumor"?
"You add archaeology, history, etc, and voila, you have 20+ matriculating in a year. IRRESPONSIBLE - justify it all your want."
I don't stipulate the accuracy of the numbers you're throwing out. But I'll grant that some programs graduate more Ph.D.s than others. But why should we care? Is it irresponsible for programs that have very good placement success to graduate as many students as they can place? Aren't the irresponsible parties the programs that have poor placement but take students anyway?
And FYI, I wasn't referring to Berkeley.
Admitting 20 a year seems improbable. For the schools that Anon 11:27 seems to have in mind, a quick check of the student names listed on dept. webpages as current grad students shows these numbers (classics only):
Princeton 42
Harvard 39
Berkeley 37
Michigan 33
Yale 30
Stanford 26
UCLA 21
Chicago 17
If any of these schools were admitting 20 at first year, their attrition rate (to reach the enrolled numbers above) would be so high as to repel prospectives and attract deanly attention.
a quick check of the student names listed on dept. webpages as current grad students shows these numbers (classics only)
Right, great. Divide these numbers by 6 to get the average number of students remaining in any given cohort of the program at a particular moment in time (although different programs are of different lengths, which should affect e.g. Princeton [strict about 5 years and out] and Berkeley [long]). We can safely say, though, that the average number of people completing the Ph.D. and going on the market from each institution will be smaller by a non-trivial amount than the number above divided by 5-7.
So, for example, according to the numbers of Anon. 12:21, Yale has an average of 5 students remaining from each cohort at any one time. The number of new people on the market from Yale in a given year should average around 3-4, then, depending on how optimistic you feel about attrition (and keeping in mind that some attrition is already figured into the "average of students from each cohort remaining").
Even if you take Princeton and divide by 5 not 6, you've still got only 8.4 remaining per cohort, which probably translates into an average of at the most 6-7 new Classics Ph.D.s/year. If we consider that there were 118 t-t positions offered (not advertised) last year, I don't think that's a lot.
oof - Princeton's website reflects the reality of the program (i.e. it's a list of all those who haven't got their PhDs yet, which can take quite a while although they've been shoring things up lately) not the official administrative policy (i.e. "we pretend you aren't a student after 5 years")
"Anonymous 5:17 said...
And FYI, I wasn't referring to Berkeley."
Yeah, we know you were referring to Stanford.
Stanford does not appear to have a large graduate program, after looking at the numbers posted for some of the schools in question. So I think even though they did well last year for their smaller numbers, it's really Princeton, Harvard, Berkeley, and Michigan that are the four with large graduate numbers and high numbers of graduates on the market each and every year.
"I don't stipulate the accuracy of the numbers you're throwing out. But I'll grant that some programs graduate more Ph.D.s than others. But why should we care? Is it irresponsible for programs that have very good placement success to graduate as many students as they can place? Aren't the irresponsible parties the programs that have poor placement but take students anyway?"
First post in this discussion, but your argument makes no sense. You're assuming that the only thing that goes into the job market is pure merit - how good a scholar/teacher actually is. Of course you're saying this as an alum defending your school's output, but you don't think that having a flood of grads from several programs affects the health of the field? Bear with me here. Don't you think that after a number of years (or perhaps it's always been like this and this is just a continuation) that there will be a bias to hire fellow alums? Let me guess, this will play a minimal role? In the end, I don't think this is good and amounts to inbreeding and less "genetic" diversity. We already have such few graduate classics programs at it is. Perhaps this explains the situation we're in now where the majority of us have painted ourselves into a corner studying some esoteric aspect of classics that the "academy" has deemed as important. As one of my academic senate colleagues recently quipped, how many translations of Homer do we need? Whether this is fair or not, this IS the perception of classics among academics.
Re Anonymous 1:55: you're assuming that hires only come from the US programs under discussion here. At many schools, Canadian, European, Middle Eastern, and some other programs are substantial suppliers of hires.
And for comparative purposes, in the one program of the "big 8" I know best, with more than 50 faculty, there is one local PhD I know of, and maybe one other as well (unusual appointment; I'm not sure of details). 2 in 50+: not too bad. If schools never hire *any* of their own, they're open to yet a different accusation.
I know of at least one program in the "big 6-8" that regularly accepts 15-20 CLASSICS students in the hopes of matriculating 10-15.
At the risk of seeming rude, I call bullshit on this. I know of no program that has 10-15 entering students in Classics only. MAYBE if you count allied departments like History, Religion and Art History, but not Classics alone.
I don't think anon 1:55 is talking about institutions hiring their own grads (please correct me if I'm wrong). It's the fact that a school named...Berkigan might have a program that is 90% Princeford and UCNH with the balance filled by exotic Oxbridge alums (institution names changed to protect identities - any similarities are purely coincidental). You go over to Princeford's faculty, and you have 90% Berkigan and UCNH grads. Etc., etc., etc. In the end, you're just punting the "best" alumns back and forth among these graduate institutions with the remainder going to smaller programs. End result...inbreeding...insularity...the same old ideas discussed ad nauseum with little input from peer disciplines. Sound familiar?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not rooting for this and continually hold out hope that this will change with a new guard, but I've found that students almost invariably become clones of their 19th century forefathers with little change. What happens when genetic diversity continues to decrease...extinction.
"At the risk of seeming rude, I call bullshit on this. I know of no program that has 10-15 entering students in Classics only. MAYBE if you count allied departments like History, Religion and Art History, but not Classics alone."
You're reading too much into it. He (she?) said "hopes of matriculating 10-15." Presumably, they are not successful all the time or even most of the time. The fact that there are programs shooting for that number, or even close to it, DOES scare me.
Re 2:26: So what we need is *more* programs, with *more* grads! That'll bring diversity!
Seriously - a new sport would be to look at the current Berkigvardton faculties and count sources of PhDs, both total and from the self-same motherships. Just guessing, but I bet it's more than four. ;) Off to count.
BTW I saw the APA's ad last week for their publication describing all the degree-granting programs in classics, in I think US/Can. I assume it'll have much data generally relevant to this discussion.
Not 2:26, but I agree that we need MORE grads (or at least the same amount), but also from MORE programs. And when we say more programs, we should also say from more advisors. Using my sub-discipline (Roman archaeology), I would say that a Michigan archy grad from the last twenty years would have nearly identical disciplinary worldviews as a recent grad from Brown - ie. they are all Chalcockians.
"your argument makes no sense"
Well, that's entirely possible, but I still need your help in seeing why, I'm afraid.
"You're assuming that the only thing that goes into the job market is pure merit - how good a scholar/teacher actually is."
I am?
"Of course you're saying this as an alum defending your school's output,"
Seems to me that I used to know a fancy Latin phrase for when somebody tries to point to the personal attributes of their interlocutor rather than engaging with their argument. Wish I could remember it, 'cause it'd sure come in handy right about now!
"but you don't think that having a flood of grads from several programs affects the health of the field?"
It might if it were true. But we're talking about maybe an average of four new Ph.Ds each per year from the eight or so that produce the most. That's not a "flood," and that's not "several."
"Don't you think that after a number of years [...] there will be a bias to hire fellow alums? Let me guess, this will play a minimal role? "
There may well be. But I don't see a reason to suppose that that is actually more important than merit. Saying that something may be a factor is not the same as saying it's a determining factor. It seems to me that you'd have a better argument if you said that hiring institutions are confusing pedigree with merit—that is, they assume that the Princeford Ph.D. guarantees a certain degree of quality, but that it doesn't really.
'In the end, I don't think this is good and amounts to inbreeding and less "genetic" diversity.'
Well, what do you think would be a good distribution of graduate students to program, if you don't like this one? What is the appropriate amount of genetic diversity that would be good, and why would that be the right amount?
And I would also add that the group producing the most Ph.D.s is not exactly intellectually homogeneous.
"We already have such few graduate classics programs at it is."
Well, listed above I see 35 U.S. Ph.D. programs in Classics that placed Ph.D.s in jobs in 2008. I'm sure there's at least a handful more that didn't place anybody. How many do you think we need? Do you think we need to start up more programs?
"Perhaps this explains the situation we're in now where the majority of us have painted ourselves into a corner studying some esoteric aspect of classics that the "academy" has deemed as important."
I wonder if you could explain your reasoning. Are you saying that having fewer Ph.D.s from Princeton would lead to an increase in non-esoteric research?
Also, I have to say that I don't find casual statements like "the majority of us have painted ourselves into a corner" very helpful, because it's hard to know how one would begin supporting or challenging them.
"As one of my academic senate colleagues recently quipped, how many translations of Homer do we need? Whether this is fair or not, this IS the perception of classics among academics."
Isn't producing translations of Homer for enjoyment of those who don't have Greek an example of a very non-esoteric activity?
I most certainly chose the wrong field (and the wrong year to quit drinking).
Okay, back to the discussions that I barely understand.
Ditto. Drinking is a fixture but there's no sex-in-trenches on my end as compensation for tolerating such an antiquated field.
True, very true. If you're ensconced in a field that's increasingly viewed as irrelevant to greater academia and the world, one should at least indulge in some of its few perks. Now pass the grappa.
Grappa? Pass me some Kibbles N Bits. I'm not a graduate of the Big 8 and neither are any members of my committee.
Okay, let's be constructive here. Let's presume that there's some truth to this idea of inbreeding. What can we do (or could we have done) to alleviate this? Let's be concrete here. Provide specific scenarios where we can introduce, or could have introduced, more disciplinary diversity to the pool. No need to provide names but some specfics would be appreciated. I'm curious whether the ills presented here can actually be "cured" or whether it's just an idealistic wish list endemic to all academic disciplines. After this, we can discuss whether these ills NEED to be cured.
In 2008, 48 people who weren't from Berkeley, Chicago, Harvard, Michigan, Oxford, Princeton, Stanford, or Yale got t-t jobs, versus 50 from those places. In 2007, the number was 53 not from those places vs. 36 from those places.
Scheiz, is that supposed to make us feel better? How ridiculous would it sound if someone said only 503 English Ph.D.s came from Berkeley et al. and 484 came from all the rest? Plus in the "other category" how many diss committees were led by an alum of the mothership 8? I think the results would scare us. I'm going to take a shower now and hope my advisees don't develop a strong overbite and cross eyes.
Scheiz, is that supposed to make us feel better?
I guess that would depend on what you thought about the distribution of positions before reading it.
How ridiculous would it sound if someone said only 503 English Ph.D.s came from Berkeley et al. and 484 came from all the rest?
Pretty ridiculous alright, given that there are far more positions and Ph.D. programs for English than for Classics. It would not sound at all unlikely to me however if you told me that graduates of a similar percentage of all English programs (say, e.g., 40 programs out of 170) are responsible for a similar proportion (35%-50%) of all t-t hires in research universities and liberal arts colleges. In fact, that seems like a pretty likely scenario to me.
Plus in the "other category" how many diss committees were led by an alum of the mothership 8?
I don't know. A lot, I would assume, especially since diss. committees obviously only exist at Ph.D.-granting institutions, which I suspect (but am not inclined to do research to prove) draw more heavily on "the Eight" than the overall pool of institutions does.
Maybe Berkeley should get the bottom draft pick for next year? I think I'm pretty rubbish and would be happy to be publicly labelled so.
Corrections Needed!
I've now put up all of last year's info that I compiled. Some of you noted mistakes, so please do go into the wiki and make corrections. I can then update the data set accordingly, and after a few weeks put up the revised numbers. Here is the link to the page on the wiki:
http://classics.wikidot.com/2007-2008-hiring-data
As I've said many times, I am SURE there are mistakes, so I am relying upon all of you to correct them. They were honest errors, and I apologize ahead of time for misunderstanding whether somebody is a Latin Lit, Roman History or Roman Arch. person, or all three!
There ia also a page for 2006-2007, but I haven't figured out those numbers yet. I will, after T-Giving.
Have fun!
So who lands MC positions?
According to my tally there were 29 pure MC positions up for grabs last year. 28 of 29 went to MC-types, 1 went to a Greek Historian who has definite MC tendencies. There were 6 more General positions that explicitly mentioned MC qualifications as desiderata in their ads. Of these 3 went to MC-types, 1 went to a Latin Lit person, 1 went to a Greek Lit and 1 was a failed search.
On the other side of the coin, there were (according to my admittedly crude calculations) 33 MC candidates hired into positions last year. Of these, 20 were placed into purely MC positions, 5 went to stated Generalist positions, 3 to pure Latin Lit positions, 4 to mixed positions and 1 to Greek History.
Now, some may dispute my identification of some people as Material Culture types. I will revise the numbers if things change on the Wiki. But perhaps this might influence the discussion. I myself will refrain from comment.
there were 29 pure MC positions up for grabs last year. 28 of 29 went to MC-types
there were ... 33 MC candidates hired into positions last year. Of these, 20 were placed into purely MC positions
I don't understand how both of these can be true. If the first is true, the second should read "28 were placed," right? Or is an "MC-type" different from an "MC candidate"?
Unless last year was unrepresentative, then, the phenomenon of non-MC candidates taking MC positions is insignificant, if it exists at all. The phenomenon of MC candidates taking non-MC positions, while it apparently does exist, doesn't look all that important either.
Maybe there should be a special thread for "treasured myths heartlessly debunked."
The MC/History line is very fine. Having some knowledge of the MC/History types on the market last year, I can say that some of the people hired are historians integrating archaeological evidence into their analyses, while others are archaeologists answering distinctly historical questions. Or is there even a difference? In any case, it would be ridiculous to try to pin down exactly what all these people do, given that I know also that some of them are changing research directions, but I think it is a great sign that things are becoming more fluid.
A couple things to consider in some of the positions that MC people got that were either advertised as generalist or Latin lit:
1. Something like the Akron job isn't really for a lit person even if it says "generalist" since the school has no Greek and hardly any Latin. It isn't a place where someone who wants to teach languages would go. I didn't even apply and I am Greek history. I just happen to like teaching languages and think they are a necessary part of a strong Classics program. Someone who does straight lit not apply either or, if they do, the department might not look at them all that seriously since they know the likelihood of a lit person staying and being a good 'fit' is slim.
2. Wasn't Washington and Lee a spousal hire? Even if they advertised Latin Lit, didn't they hire the spouse of last year's hire (NOTE: not that there is anything wrong with this. More schools should accommodate academic spouses.) That would necessarily change the dynamics of understanding how an MC person may have gotten a non-MC or history position in that case.
So really now, all of that gnashing of teeth and rending of garments upthread about people getting archaeology jobs after having done no more than look at pictures of the Acropolis through a View-Master was grounded in purest fantasy, completely uncontaminated by even a speck of reality? There really was nothing to it at all? That's pretty funny.
This is why they call them "rumors."
The problem isn't non-archaeologists getting archaeology jobs. When a job is actually advertised as for an archaeologist (and not this 'material culture' mumbo-jumbo, which as far as I can tell is often code for 'non-archaeologist who likes Greek vase painting or Latin epigraphy'), an archaeologist is usually hired.
The problem occurs at an earlier level in the process, with the way positions are defined in the first place. Departments want to add archaeology courses because they realize that that is where the numbers are in terms of drawing students. But the ads that come out of this situation are not 'archaeologist needed to teach archaeology courses' but rather 'broadly trained Classicist with a specialization in material culture and/or history, ability to teach Greek and Latin at all levels.' And the people who get hired for those jobs are often not archaeologists.
And the way those jobs have been defined on the wiki hiring history list seems to me to be, retroactively, based on the specialization of the person hired. Reread, for instance, the job description for the 3-year last year at Rhodes College-- where they seem to have hired a historian with some background in archaeology-- and you will see what I mean.
I'll be less bent out of shape about this when departments who want to add some Latin lit courses start advertising for broadly trained Classicists with a specialization in Latin literature, ability to teach Etruscan, Bronze Age, Greek, and Roman archaeology.
Exactly, let the P-ologists sneer on and live their pleasant fiction. This practice still goes on. I noticed that the Brooklyn College position is defined as a Hellenist position here. However, look at the job announcement:
BROOKLYN COLLEGE (C.U.N.Y.) – BROOKLYN, NY
The Department of Classics invites applications for a full-time tenure-track position at the rank of Assistant Professor, to begin in the Fall 2009 semester. We seek applicants trained in the literature and material culture of ancient Greece, with a research specialization in the pre-Classical period, particularly in the relations of ancient Greece with other Mediterranean and Near Eastern cultures such as Mesopotamia or the Black Sea littoral. Candidates must have a proven record of teaching the ancient Greek language at all levels and be qualified to teach a core curriculum course in ancient culture, through which Brooklyn College students are exposed to Homer and Bronze Age culture as well as other periods and genres through the Roman era. Brooklyn College emphasizes a strong tie between research and teaching, and this position is intended to contribute in particular to two concentrations with the Classics major: Languages and Material Culture.
Who wants to bet it goes to a Malkin type that does Greece and the East and only sees a trowel when gardening. The most elite schools might have specific clarch positions, but I've noticed that the majority of schools which start out like Brooklyn wanting a MC type often go with a MC "poseur" in the end, but this doesn't show up here.
Sisyphus brought data. You bring anecdotes. Nobody wants anecdotes. Bring data, like Sisyphus.
Ack!
Nice catch 7:51. Not sure what happened there.
Here is the updated data:
33 MC candidates were hired, of these 33:
20 into “pure” MC positions
5 into stated Generalist positions
3 into Latin Literature positions
3 into Mixed (part MC) positions
1 into Greek History
35 positions had some mention of MC in ad
29 of these 35 were MC exclusive positions. Of these 29:
20 were filled by MC candidates
7 are incomplete (I haven’t figured who, if anybody, filled them)
1 was filled by somebody who appears to be primarily a Greek Historian (though who am I to define them?!)
1 was canceled (CSU - LB)
6 of the 35 were MC and/or “other” (Mixed) positions, of these 6:
3 were filled by MC candidates
1 was filled by a Latin Lit candidate
1 was filled by a Greek Lit candidate
1 is incomplete (can’t figure out who, if anybody, has filled it)
I find many of the initial reactions enlightening. I agree that pigeon-holing people is very difficult, and the fact that it is difficult is a good thing. Fluidity is cool.
I also agree that just as one can get simplistically defined by dissertation, so too can a position be retroactively and simplistically defined according by the resulting hire. I admit an over-reliance on the wiki. I need to go back and read all of the ads, one by one, and perhaps re-define positions according to a fresh reading. The Brooklyn College example is a good one. When I hear "Hellenist" I think first of a Greek Lit person, then a Greek Historian, and only lastly a MC person working primarily on Greek material. If it is listed as "Hellenist" on the wiki that itself is problematic. Knowing my ignorance, however, I hope you all can correct my mistakes on the wiki pages where this data is posted, which will allow me to re-input the data into my spreadsheet, and spit out more fun stats later.
N.B. I don't think the W&L hire was spousal at all.
Finally, while I am a philologist, I am quite sympathetic to the MC plight, so I do hope this data doesn't let us pretend that there isn't an issue here. The problem 9:44 describes spells real danger for us all. If mushy ads encourage clarchs to migrate to Anthro and/or Art History departments because they can't find strong places in Classics depts, that is a poor result for the field.
That said, if an argument has been made in the past that non-MC candidates were commonly being hired into clearly-defined MC positions, I don't see how this one year's data supports that assertion.
I am intrigued enough by all this to try and go through the 2006-2007 hires using the same methodology. If anybody is interested in digging further back leave a message on the blog and maybe I can share my program with you somehow.
I'll grant that that Brooklyn ad seems to have been generated by people who don't know what the f*ck they're talking about, or directly from committee, which amounts to the same thing.
Defining "material culture" ever more narrowly till it's something only you and your buddy do seems less plausible. And if there are people whom you'd define as "historians" or "art historians" who have illegitimately occupied positions meant for you and your buddy, that's still a long way away from the "philologists are stealing our jobs" scenario, at least for all known values of "philologist."
Anon 10:01:
If you know anything about the way the CUNY Brooklyn program works, you would understand why it is they are looking for what they are looking for. When I interviewed for a job there some years ago (advertised for Classical Greek history and Greek language at all levels), I was told the teaching load was 3/4 with the hope that you would teach at the CUNY Summer Greek program and, once you published a book, you would teach in the CUNY grad program. They have a really small faculty for what they cover. When they hire someone in, they need that person to teach a lot of classes and it needs to include language and something else. No one teaches 7 classes per year in their area. It isn't some cushy 2/2 load.
One easy solution - why the hell don't we define MC positions better when advertising? Why do ads look for expertise in "Roman Imperial Archaeology or Archaic Greek Literature?" This is so bizarre. Are they hedging their bets in case they don't find an archaeologist? Also, why do we insist on saying "must teaching Greek and Latin at all levels" when looking for a clarch? This just muddies the waters and makes a position seem like a literature one. We surely don't say "must be able to tell dirt from water" when asking for archaeology credentials.
As a Peeologist, I can understand why some archaeologists feel jilted when someone with no MC experience gets a position that makes any reference to MC. Maybe the SC wasn't looking for an archaeologist to being with? I think part of the fault is that SCs often have no clue when looking for an archaeologist, even when there is one on the committee. Can you imagine the searches, and I'm sure there are many of them, with no archaeologists on them? "Yeah, go find an archaeologists even though you have no idea what one looks like." FANTASTIC
I need to emend part of that last post:
33 MC candidates were hired, of these 33:
20 into “pure” MC positions
5 into stated Generalist positions
3 into Latin Literature positions
3 into Mixed positions (including MC)
1 into Mixed position (not including MC)
1 into Greek History
Sorry, that clears everything up now (yeah, right!).
God, so the Brooklyn College job is one of those must-teach-everything-under-the-sun-including-the-occasional-samba positions? Regardless, looking at their job description, I do hope they hire an archaeologist so we can end the complaints. I do agree that a classical archaeologist (still can't get myself to say clarch) would probably be in a better position to teach Greek, archaeology, near east, etc. than an average classicist. On the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised if they hired an ancient historian as suggested above.
God, how the hell can CUNY be 3-4? Are the Cal State jobs also 3-4 or worse? Sorry for the ignorance, first time on the market.
'Why do ads look for expertise in "Roman Imperial Archaeology or Archaic Greek Literature?" This is so bizarre.'
Department has two needs, only one position, with no real priority as to which should get filled first. Wants awesome candidate. Chances enhanced of getting awesome candidate if they look at all Roman Imperial Archaeologists and Archaic Hellenists. I don't really see anything wrong with that.
'why do we insist on saying "must teaching Greek and Latin at all levels"'
"At all levels" means different things from one institution to another. And instead of saying "why do we insist" please bring some data about the number of positions that insist on 1). language qualifications tout court and 2). degree of qualifications (i.e., "competence" vs. "must teach Greek verse comp"). Otherwise, experience on this blog indicates that someone making such a statement may be making a wild, unsupportable exaggeration.
I think Cal State is 3-3. In general, public university systems in the NE have historically been more impoverished than in the Midwest, West, and South.
More Field Data:
There were 50 hires whom I identified as primarily Greek Lit candidates, of these 50:
20 went into straight Greek Lit positions
16 went into stated Generalist positions
10 went into Latin or Greek Lit positions
2 went into Mixed positions
1 went into a Roman or Greek History position
1 went into a seemingly Latin Lit position
There were 41 hires whom I identified as primarily Latin Lit candidates, of these 41:
22 went into straight Latin Lit positions
8 went into Latin or Greek Lit positions
7 went into stated Generalist positions
3 went into Mixed positions
1 went into a seemingly Greek Lit position
There were 16 hires whom I identified as Greek Historians, of these 16:
4 went into Greek History positions
7 went into Greek or Roman History positions
1 went into a Greek Lit position
1 went into a MC position
1 went into a Mixed (including Greek History) position
1 went into a stated Generalist position
1 went into a Roman History position (though they really do straddle the two fields, so I feel bad lumping them in with the Greek Historians - a classic case of the evils of pigeon-holing)
There were 15 hires whom I identified as Roman Historians, of these 15:
8 were hired into Roman or Greek History positions
4 were hired into Roman History positions
2 were hired into Latin or Greek Lit positions
1 was hired into a Greek History position
There were 12 hires who were trained in History Departments, of these 12:
6 went into Roman or Greek History positions
4 went into Roman History positions
1 went into a Greek Lit position
1 went into a Greek History position
There were 5 Philosophers hired, of these:
3 went into Latin or Greek Lit positions (2 of which explicitly mentioned Philosophy)
2 went into Generalist positions
1 went into a Greek Lit positions
There were 3 Medievalists hired, of these:
all 3 went into Latin Lit positions
I think Cal State is 3-3. In general, public university systems in the NE have historically been more impoverished than in the Midwest, West, and South.
Cal State is a 3/3 but they also do not require a book for tenure as CUNY does. CSUs require "5 good publications" which can be articles or book chapters. At least that was the union negotiated deal when I was interviewing for one a couple of years ago. The 3/3 load isn't bad when you don't have to publish that much. CUNY wants book and about 4-6 articles or chapters.
So one more class per year AND a book? Serious props for the tenured CUNY faculty out there that made it through those first six years of hades.
Would it upset any parties if we posted teaching loads on the wiki? They are rarely advertised and it's considered bad form to ask from what I can tell, yet they are so important in forming one's expectations about a job.
I heartily second the proposal to post teaching loads on the wiki. If possible we should note if there is overlap in teaching (i.e. if a 4/4 means eight different courses in that year, or whether it might mean teaching 2 sections of the same 2 courses). Preps are as (and sometimes more) important than course numbers.
"it's considered bad form to ask from what I can tell"
No, you have a right to know this, and if they don't offer you should ask.
"it's considered bad form to ask from what I can tell"
No, you have a right to know this, and if they don't offer you should ask.
This is usually something better saved for the campus interview, though.
I'm curious about # of slots by subdiscipline, across the years (how many Greek lit every year, for 20 years kind of thing).
Anyone know of a source for this? ACLS, or similar? I'm pretty sure the APA does not track this.
A list I recently saw in the Chronicle only grouped by "classics" - no further division.
It will probably show that Latinist followed by Hellenist positions dominate the percentages. At the risk of opening up another salvo, it might partially explain why our MC brethren are (overly?) sensitive to MC-ish positions going to more run of the mill classicists. [Slowly backing away now...]
"It will probably show that Latinist followed by Hellenist positions dominate the percentages. At the risk of opening up another salvo, it might partially explain why our MC brethren are (overly?) sensitive to MC-ish positions going to more run of the mill classicists."
It probably does show that. The question then should be whether there ought to be a higher proportion of MC positions than there is currently, and why.
On teaching loads...I've noticed a disturbing correlation between my friends with high teaching loads in t-t positions and how low their salary is. Seriously, I have a very cushy full-time one-year job (for which I am incredibly grateful) with a 2-2 load, and I get paid (with much better benefits) about 125% of what a t-t friend of mine in the East makes with a 4-4 load. And my job is not at a rich school.
I've heard that CUNY, in addition to high teaching loads, pays abysmally. Asst. profs there make under 50K, I believe.
I had a 4-4 load TT that paid barely over 40k to live in a very expensive city. I now have a visiting position that has half the teaching load with way more pay and awesome benefits (not a wealthy school either, just treats its faculty better) TTs are supposed to be the goal but some TTs just aren't worth it.
TT's do offer more stability than non TT's though. In visiting positions, however high you are standing now, the stool you are one might suddenly be kicked away at the end of the year - while with TT's, however low you stand, at least the ground you are on is solid.
TT's do offer more stability than non TT's though. In visiting positions, however high you are standing now, the stool you are one might suddenly be kicked away at the end of the year - while with TT's, however low you stand, at least the ground you are on is solid.
My VAP is for as long as the first leg of the average TT before re-appointment. A lot less pressure.
while with TT's, however low you stand, at least the ground you are on is solid.
Ha ha. That's funny. Sure, you don't have to go on the market the first year you land the TT but you may be up for re-appointment in the 2nd year (though typically the third) and if you don't already have publications out or accepted and have served on the right number of committees and kissed all the right departmental asses, you may find your stable stool hurling across the room. Hell, you could have the pubs covered and the service but enough people in the department don't want you to stay. In some departments, it only takes 1 or 2 people. There is no such thing as stability until you have tenure and some people are more likely to be successful with a couple years at a cushy VAP than starting right out of grad school into a terror TT.
I had a 3-3 teaching load TT position at a low-ranked R-1. The teaching was fine but the academic atmosphere was absolutely depressing. It was like going to the morgue every day to work, except maybe less lively! All the other faculty were near retirement and it was difficult injecting life into any aspect of the department. I'm in a 2-2 VAP at a flagship R-1 and I couldn't be happier for now. Yes, I would like to get back into a TT position, but I feel that getting away from my previous situation has rejuvenated (saved?) my career. What does this all mean? I don't know but I hope it's not trending in that direction -- i.e. haves vs. have-nots
I don't think it's as much haves vs. have nots as it is administrative competence. Money covers a multitude of sins, but even universities on a budget can support lively departments if they have enough foresight (in your case, they should have prevented the entire department from get bunched up at the top or at least ameliorated the situation).
As a somewhat cynical academic, one trend I don't like in my eyes is the increase in administrative positions. Administrators outnumber faculty at some schools now?! Do we need that many 2nd assistant vice deputy directors of sub-regional development? No matter many you throw in there, administrative units are still slow and incompetent! It's getting ridiculous and it seems that faculty bear the brunt of the blame for the high cost of attending college. Hell, at least I paid my dues with a freakin' Ph.D. That pimple-faced guy sitting in development has a bachelors in business and is already making more than you.
Yes, I would like to get back into a TT position, but I feel that getting away from my previous situation has rejuvenated (saved?) my career.
Agreed. It was like hitting the reset button. I am so much better off than I was before--happier, more productive, more optimistic. Moved to a VAP at a SLAC from a TT at a low ranked R-1. Its like moving from purgatory to the Elysian fields.
It's getting ridiculous and it seems that faculty bear the brunt of the blame for the high cost of attending college. Hell, at least I paid my dues with a freakin' Ph.D. That pimple-faced guy sitting in development has a bachelors in business and is already making more than you.
Recent article in either NYT or Chronicle makes it clear that it is not faculty salaries driving the cost of higher ed and makes exactly the point that while TT faculty lines have remained static over the last decade, admins have increased sometimes by as much as double. It really is absurd.
Okay, so if we have generally agreed to post teaching loads, does anyone know what format we should use? Something like perhaps?
Kickarse University (T-T Latinist) 2-2 TL
How do we do schools on quarters?
University of Chibridge (T-T Greek History) 4/year
Keep in mind that teaching loads are not all that is expected of entering faculty, and I don't just mean university service. A friend of mine last year was a finalist at a state university with a 4-4 load, the usual academic service, AND which required of faculty X (can't remember exactly, but it was at least 25) amount of hours per semester of volunteer service in the community. (In principle, my friend was not opposed to this, but to ask that of new faculty along with everything else? C'mon.) I have never seen anyone so happy to NOT get a job.
Quarter system can be:
2-2-2 or 2-2-x or 2-1-1 depending.
Does "x" above equal 0. I know for a fact that 2-2-0 is a definite possibility in a quarter system.
Yes. Some place like a UC will offer you the option of a 2-2-0 or a 2-1-1 whereas a SLAC on the quarter system will more likely be a 2-2-2 or 2-2-1. Of course, if you are a lecturer in a UC, be prepared for a 3-3-2. Or a 2-2-3.
And sometimes there are different teaching loads for t-t vs. visiting faculty.
For instance, Northwestern's t-t faculty teach 2-2-0, while the visiting helots teach 3-3-3.
This is another reason I like me current gig--all faculty teach the same load (except Chairs and such who get a single course release).
Okay, we've started adding teaching loads to the wiki. It would be great if departments would be forthcoming and update their listings themselves, but I don't think this will happen.
If you are fairly familiar with the teaching load at a department, PLEASE chip in and update the listing. Even if you're not 100%, this can always be clarified and it might even force SC members to speak up.
I'm guessing that we all agree that the wiki should list normal teaching loads without special circumstances like first year course reductions.
I've never participated in a quarter system, but I noticed that most UC schools are 2-1-1 while Berkeley is 2-2. How does it make sense that the flagship UC school has the heaviest teaching load? Am I misunderstanding something? 2-1-1 means that you're teaching two-thirds of 2-2 load, no?
Berkeley is on the semester system.
Even taking into account the semester system, you're apparently teaching more.
2 ten week courses, 1 ten week course, 1 ten week coure=40 weeks of courses
4 fifteen week courses=60 weeks of courses
Even if the semesters aren't fifteen weeks, I don't see how it equalizes (e.g. twelve week semesters would still leave you with 48 weeks of courses).
Even taking into account the semester system, you're apparently teaching more.
Berkeley faculty of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains!
You teach more hours per week on the quarter system than you do in a semester. For example, in a semester school, beginning Greek might meet for 4 50 minute sessions per week. In a quarter system, you meet (frequently, but not always) for 5 50 minute sessions per week. And, for example, I used to teach my 14 week lecture courses for 2 75 minute session per week. Now, on quarters, I teach 3 65 minute sessions per week. You don't teach more in a semester. You are in the classroom the same number of hours but in a compressed format. Having taught both, the quarter is much more exhausting. There is no down time. Though, I did prefer quarters as a student.
For what it's worth, I've taught on quarter and on semester systems. The former involved fewer classroom hours and slightly more preps (an average of 4.5/year). But I strongly prefer the experience of teaching at the semester pace: it's much less stressful and hurried, and the students actually have some knowledge of the subject by the time they have to start formulating their papers.
Post a Comment