Young MC, I don't think the MC market is particularly bad this year. There might be less mid-level positions, but I don't think it reflects any trend. The type of MC positions are pretty much luck of the draw year to year. The only constant is that other classics positions will outnumber them at least 4:1.
It looks like finally news of job offers is starting to trickle onto the wiki. One wonders if committees are taking their time, since there's fewer of them than normal and they don't feel the usual urgency, or if the wiki does not reflect the state of offers.
Campus visits are still being held all over the country, and offers that may have been made are being held up by the candidates' having other options that have yet to decide. Plus, the APA was a week later than usual.
I wouldn't start attributing sinister motives to SCs. This is about the right time for offers to be made. Most everything is in the hands of the candidates who got offers now.
Exactly. Everything is proceeding as normal. Other than all the panic and hand-wringing over a few more searches being called off than usual, this job market is essentially indistinguishable from others.
You're right, nothing terribly unusual about the timing. But to be fair, the market under normal circumstances is pretty nerve-shredding, and the prospects for next year aren't exactly great, so there's additional pressure (if that's possible). So panic, while never helpful, is pretty reasonable, wouldn't you say?
My point was that there are plenty of weeks to come before the majority of the positions are filled. If people want to panic about next year, fine; if people want to get worked up about the pace of things now, that shows a lack of perspective. Which is why I was trying to provide perspective.
As a chair I would confirm that the vast majority of departments want to wrap up searches as soon as possible. But many departments can only handle one finalist per week, and if there are 3 finalists, that's 3 weeks. Some departments also want to be fair to candidates, which means that they may allow "offerees" longer than is ideal in order for those to consider all of their options. Such situations can add 3 weeks to a month beyond what one might think.
Unfortunately, while some candidates need to explore their options, other candidates milk the system, adding weeks to the process.
We're all in this together. As that great philosopher, Rodney King, once said, can't we all get along?
Wow. A self-admitted department chair. Aren't you worried that a mob of job-seekers will capture you and take you away for reprogramming? If you're lucky you'll get to be like that last Chinese emperor in the movie who gets to garden.
I've got a question for some of you veterans out there. I was recently contacted by a SC and asked to interview on campus. It's pretty obvious that I'm an alternate at best. This isn't the issue.
The school is in a major metro that many would find exciting, but I personally don't think it's a major plus. The school is an average commuter school with a heavy teaching load, but it's decent overall. More importantly, I honestly wasn't all that thrilled after meeeting the SC in Philadelphia. I have/had several campus visits and I could stay in my current VAP position indefinitely. Am I foolish for passing up the chance to compete for a TT position? Honestly, this is where being an alternate makes the position even less enthralling. I would especially like to hear from those who took a similar job and what they think now in retrospect. Thanks in advance.
These kinds of questions come up on the CHE fora all the time. You might find good help there:
http://chronicle.com/forums/index.php
FWIW, I don't think the conference interviews are always good indications of department climate for all sorts of reasons. I've been surprised a few times, for better and for worse.
"I have/had several campus visits and I could stay in my current VAP position indefinitely. Am I foolish for passing up the chance to compete for a TT position? Honestly, this is where being an alternate makes the position even less enthralling."
Two dangerous assumptions there: 1) NO VAP position is ever guaranteed permanently, and your shelf life might not be as long as you think. 2) NEVER turn down a shot at a tenure line. Getting your back up about being an alternate is not a healthy attitude. It's never a waste of time to compete. If you do spectacularly well and don't get the job, word might get out. Classics being a small world cuts in your favor too, if you really are that good.
And, Anon. 1:13, there are folks on here who would just kill to be in your position, even as an alternate. Think about how fortunate you are, and never pass up any opportunity. Period. You'll regret it. Because the school isn't up to whatever your brand of snuff is doesn't mean you shouldn't give it a try.
At the same time, as has been discussed here before, toxic TT positions can be worse than a VAP. In the end, you need to figure out how miserable you would be. On the other hand, I wouldn't say never, but you should be pretty darn sure before you pass over a TT position.
I get why you might turn down the job but why would you turn down the visit? And I suppose you might even be able to use an offer to improve the conditions at your current VAP.
If I were you I'd go to the campus visit - you're not making a commitment by doing so, and you can't make an informed decision without spending some time at the place. Anyway, campus visits are fun, and you may well make good contacts by going. If you still don't like it and would rather stay where you are, turn it down if they offer it to you, and cite personal reasons. Yes, the academic market is very difficult, but ultimately it's not worth accepting a job that in your heart you don't want, when you have an alternative you're happy with. Maybe next year something you like better will come up.
Correction: campus visits *can* be fun. Or they can be ordeals that make the Spanish Inquisition seem like a romp in the park. And even the good ones can wear you out/distract you from scholarship/make the next week's teaching load unbearable.
In our friend's case, this is where I will have to disagree with the last couple blanket statements about campus visits. Specifically, not all "alternates" are the same. If a SC perceives the pool to be very deep and had a difficult time choosing between the last 10, yes, you can have a great experience. On the other hand, if you're obviously not as qualified as the top candidates, you can have a horrific experience when you're there to basically round out the finalists late in the game. Do an internet search for the universities to fear during an academic search and you'll see plenty of horror stories where candidates are practically ignored by the department and left to fend for themselves. I'm not saying this will happen in the case presented here, but let's be balanced in our presentation of campus invites.
"Do an internet search for the universities to fear during an academic search and you'll see plenty of horror stories where candidates are practically ignored by the department and left to fend for themselves."
Uh, exactly what Google terms would one use to find such schools? (Just tried a few, and nada.)
I will say that of the campus interviews I've had, only one was awful - and that was because the majority of the department did not want me there; I had been invited because the department's most senior member took an interest in me. The rest of them were openly rude and made it quite clear to me within 5 minutes of my setting foot on campus that I wasn't going to get the job. I've never delivered a job talk to such a hostile audience, and I pity the person who did get the job.
I don't think I see it on there, but there was one campus visit where the faculty member had to have the candidate pay for a meal, who was then never reimbursed.
In another example, a faculty member picked up the candidate at the airport, but was told to take a cab back - 40 miles and never reimbursed.
The last one I remember was when one candidate found out other candidates were put up at a nice hotel and he stayed in the basement of a SC member.
I'm skeptical of this site (some of the complaints, like curricular complaints, don't belong there), but they are totally right about the dean at one school...Classics, however, warned me what he was like when I visited.
Yes, there are a bunch of random rants but it's easy to distinguish the reasonable complaints from the outrageous. I find it interesting that many of the problems seem to transcend disciplines. Here's one listed in biology that sounds awfully similar to one of my recent experiences in classics
Every candidate interviewed for the position had such a horribly negative experience that at a conference we got together for a beer to commiserate. One candidate was so angered by the experience that they contacted the chair of the dept (who was also the chair of the search committee) to complain, and was told that the interview process also involved role-playing to determine which candidate best performed in a hostile and confrontational work environment. If that was their criteria for hiring, I'd hate to see what a bunch of a-holes populate the department. One committee member did such a good job of being a class-A prick I was convinced it wasn't acting. To this day, because of him, I view anyone who researches small mammal ecology with contempt and disdain. Needless to say, the person who was offered the job accepted it but then spent the first year searching for another job elsewhere, and then got the hell out of there. Perhaps things are different with a new department chair and a departmental re-organization, but Dr. Prick is still there, so I'd be sure to double-check he's not on the hiring committee if you apply.
To be honest, I find all this anonymous and non-specific bitching on the internet hard to take seriously. It's all too easy for people to vent their bitterness, and impossible for people reading to tell whether this is well founded or just some resentful candidate complaining about some imaginary grievance relating to a job they failed to get for legitimate reasons (ie they ultimately weren't quite as good as other candidates). Then having failed to get the job they feel the need to find reasons why the world wasn't fair. Perhaps there are genuine grievances being put out here, but much of it seems to be people perpetuating anecdotes and rumours in order to incite a sense of maltreatment and grievance in each other.
SCs really do a much better job when they don't try anything. I mean, it's not like any of them have any training in HR - they just pull this shit off the Apprentice. In my experience most SCs have been fine, so no general gripe here, but there's always one committee or one interviewer in the group who thinks they're so cunning. If I weren't urinating in my underwear at the time I'd scoff. Actually, once I've changed my pants and made it to the bar I have a little scoff to myself. Listen up SCs, you want us to be ourselves, and we want you to be yourselves. Honesty, as everyone's mother says, really is the best policy. Role-play went out with D&D and Gitmo interrogation techniques.
Don't speak so soon. The day may come when 1000 applicants apply for some crappy TT job. To narrow it down, the SC might say WTF, and bring on the waterboarding to narrow it down. Before we get there, maybe there will be a reality show called So You Want A TT Job. Guest judges will include sabre-tooth tigers from Texas and the Princeford Villain.
The comment about the UC Irvine Art History dept. in link 1 really made me laugh. I am sure the chair REALLY appreciated a reject candidate lecture him on professional courtesy based on the latter's experience in the "professional" world - and kicked himself for not hiring such a collegial character.
"I don't think I see it on there, but there was one campus visit where the faculty member had to have the candidate pay for a meal, who was then never reimbursed.
In another example, a faculty member picked up the candidate at the airport, but was told to take a cab back - 40 miles and never reimbursed.
The last one I remember was when one candidate found out other candidates were put up at a nice hotel and he stayed in the basement of a SC member."
Sounds like campus invites from hell, but I could totally see these scenarios happening in academia, which as we know is full of socially inept/sheltered people.
No doubt some of you are familiar with this one, since it is such a small world. I have a friend who was on the market 4 or 5 years ago. During his campus visit he was hosted by a SC member. No big deal, as long as everybody else does the same, right? Well, said SC member didn't have any extra space, so the candidates were forced to crash on a cot in the kid's room. They got the cot because the kid was sleeping in the bed right next to them......
I keep on meaning to ask who got the bigger bowl of Fruit Loops in the morning.....
Seriously, what's with the bunking in a faculty member's house? You can't seriously believe that a candidate placed in such a situation is on equal footing with the rest of the field? Has any candidate who's done this actually become the first choice for the job?
My question is what people would do if you showed up at a campus visit and the faculty member or secretary said, "Change in plans, you need to stay at Dr. Dyskalos' basement." I don't think there is much one could do. How about if you found out before you even got on a plane? Do you all of a sudden have a change of heart due to "personal and professional issues?"
I was once placed in a very awful motel for my campus interview. I just moved my self to the very lovely Ramada across the street and paid for the night myself. The one faculty member I informed (she dropped me off after dinner) told me to submit my receipts to the secretary but I never did. if the situation is that bad, you shouldn't be afraid to just say "No, thank you. If money is that tight, I'll pay my own way." I'd rather shell out the $75 for a moderate hotel than accidentally see Prof. Sleep-in-my-Basements half-naked as he comes out of the shower.
And, no, I did not get the job. But I realized before I made the hotel switch that I didn't want it either.
Not Kosher at all. You have a perfect right to refuse answer. (Although their question presumably reflects high interest in you, and they may just be asking it out of sheer ignorance or manners or boorishness).
Same thing happened to me and I can say do NOT tell them a thing. I was foolish enough to say where I had received an offer and one of the SC members ended up calling a chum at the other school, making for a VERY awkward situation. It's funny that many of the SC members decry the transparency provided by FV but at the same time will beg, borrow, and steal to get info on candidates. It let's you know that know that each side is doing what's best for themselves. Don't be naive enough to think/do otherwise.
Well, post the schools in the jeers portion of the wiki. IMHO, schools should be called out for such behavior. I would also include schools that go out of their way to ask about having kids and whatnot. It's one thing for it to come out in passing, but I think it's pretty obvious when they're making a concerted effort to grill you with inappropriate questions.
What the [expletive deleted] is going on with Pomona? Last year's Greek/Roman history search was canceled (I heard it failed); this year's Greek history search was just listed as failed.
This is totally a rumour, but I heard that the job was offered to their clear-cut #1 choice, who accepted then backed out after receiving a better offer. Sounds like one of this year's superstars.
So why can't Pomona still go to 2 or 3? I mean, it's a buyer's market. What are they going to do, risk the position and hope it gets funded again next year?
Maybe 2 and even 3 have moved on? As we've discussed many times on here, there is often a handful of candidates getting a disproportionate number of the flybacks and offers. I know one friend on the market this year who received an early offer and promptly cancelled several other flybacks. The position wasn't even TT but it apparently fit him the best otherwise?!
So why can't Pomona still go to 2 or 3? I mean, it's a buyer's market. What are they going to do, risk the position and hope it gets funded again next year?
Sometimes after the visits are over it's clear that only one of the candidates seems appropriate for the position (and sometimes that none of them does!). In that case, you don't offer the job to someone who doesn't seem appropriate; you do in fact "risk the position and hope it gets funded again next year." And really, what else can a department do but be guided by its judgment about how well its candidates fit what they're looking for? If its judgment is "not well," can we really say it should offer the job anyway?
How is it possible for a department to fuck up the APA interviews so badly that they end up inviting THREE candidates to campus whom they then decide are not what they need?
If I were a dean I would yank the position immediately. In this market a school like Pomona should be able to get an excellent hire, no problem. If this search failed because the second and third choices were not "appropriate" then the committee should be hung up by their toenails at the next APA (conveniently close to Pomona).
A failed search in this economic environment means one less tenure-track line for the field in the long run. This hurts us all. Idiots.
I happen via the grapevine to know Pomona interviewed 12 people at the APA. Somewhere in there they can't find a 4th or 5th person to fly out who's at least worth a look to see if they're appropriate?
And if their No. 1 really did string them on and then renege, well, that's extremely bad behavior on the candidate's part. If it had anything to do with the search failing - i.e., it was then too late to make another offer - that person should bear some of the blame for whatever happens to that line.
You'll be surprised how irrational a SC can get. As someone mentioned before "hirability" is not a serious concern in my experience.
For instance, why the hell are 3rd/4th tier schools with 3-3 or 4-4 teaching loads extending flybacks to tenured or someone up for tenure at top 20 programs? Do they really believe this person would be happy there? I see this phenomenon all the time and these candidates accept the flybacks for whatever reason (practice, safety net, etc.). They often get the offer but I've yet to see one accept!
I don't think a well-endowed school like Pomona really gives a crap, even in this economy. From what I can tell, the average state school is pulling out all the stops to make sure they don't lose what they know to be a golden opportunity.
Anyone know whether the person who backed out is a regular visitor to FV, and therefore had read how morally repugnant it is to back out of a job after giving your word, back when we had that discussion about Colorado College?
Re: the Pomona job. Please get your facts straight. Nobody reneged on anything. An offer was made, considered over a 5-day period (which included a weekend), then turned down for another offer. End of part one. Then, for its own reasons, the dept decided it had a failed search on its hands; about this I have no info, although any number of reasonable scenarios might explain it. But the candidate did nothing wrong or unprofessional and shouldn't be blamed.
I don't think anyone said above that the candidate was more than a rumor, but, OK, then, why would Pomona let such a thing happen...two years in a row? I understand that one of their faculty - with whom this hire would probably have to work closely - is a bit of a sabre-tooth tiger, but you need a victim to be a REAL sabre-tooth tiger.
I don't think anyone said above that the candidate was more than a rumor, but, OK, then, why would Pomona let such a thing happen...two years in a row? I understand that one of their faculty - with whom this hire would probably have to work closely - is a bit of a sabre-tooth tiger, but you need a victim to be a REAL sabre-tooth tiger.
I have heard that the problem is really irreconcilable differences between the Classics and History departments. The historians have their claws sunk rather deep into the position. This is always a risk with joint positions or even positions where the larger department is only "supporting" the smaller one in the search.
Has anyone ever had a REALLY short campus visit? I have a callback for a place that wants the campus visit to last about 3 hours total: 50-minute class followed by brunch/interview with the faculty. That's it. Should I be alarmed?
On the quickee interview from a tenured prof and recent SC-member. I can't imagine doing an on-campus interview that way myself, but if they're bringing you to campus, they're seriously interested.
I had an interview like that once--I flew in, had lunch at a cheap place with the Chair, gave a talk, met with a couple of faculty and then went home. I was made to take the train to and from the airport and was told that, if I needed to have dinner at the airport, I could ask for a reimbursement. I got the job, but, lord I wish I hadn't. They were as cheap about everything else as they were about the visit. If they can't buy you dinner, you should know you probably won't get any research support and the pay will be lousy.
This is probably more appropriate for another thread, but this appears to be the only one getting any action these days, so, a question about temporary jobs advertised in the fall, some of which interviewed at the APA. Anyone have any news on:
-Assumption (supposedly met weeks ago) -Gettysburg (the 1-year) -Furman -Middlebury (job offered weeks ago, but no update) -UNH (job offered weeks ago, email stated clearly that the offeree had been given a week to respond, no update)
This is another appeal to change "Hungry Classicist" to "Desperate" or whatever suits your fancy...but, is it me or is it irony that "Hungry Classicist"'s profile's Karma ranking is "very high"?
I admit it. I am the one who changed the profile to "Hungry Classicist".
Anyway, after all of the complaints here I have tried to go back and change it, but Wikidot allows only TWO name changes, so we are stuck with the current nomenclature. I wouldn't take it too seriously. And for what it is worth, I don't have any job prospects, I am on the second year of a 2-year VAP, and I am looking to move back in with my parents in June. I'm going to be hungry, desperate and depressed very soon. The least I am worrying about is a stupid wiki username.
Finally, I changed it only because some bozo had changed the profile name to "gina". What the fuck was that about? So don't blame me for this, blame "gina". None of this would have happened if she hadn't changed the damn thing in the first place. So if anybody knows someone on the market named "gina", talk to her about how you feel.
Anyone else feeling like the eternal bridesmaid right about now? Out of morbid curiosity, what is the record number of fly-outs anyone has ever gotten without getting any offers?
Anon. 8:17 - I feel your pain, and I can't top 5, but if you look at the wiki, you'll see only about a quarter of the people who have self-ID's as on the market have flyouts. I had a flyout but I know quite a few people who didn't. Your post suggests you had quite a few - maybe you could remember that for most people on here that's not the case. And strictly speaking since you got a flyout you at least got engaged. :-o Bridesmaid status is reserved for APA interviewees only.
No. Flyback without offer is bridesmaid (or maybe contestant onthe Bachelor?). Engagement is when you get the job offer. Tenure is the actual marriage.
I'm concerned about my friend. (S)he has had over twenty-eight "encounters" at the meetings over the past two years, yet (s)he still has not made a commitment to one person -- let alone even dated monogamously! I am concerned. (S)he claims that (s)he's been cursed to be a "jerk/bitch magnet," but I'm beginning to wonder if it is just his/her lack of commitment or -- worse! -- loose morals? What should I do?
Sincerely,
Helping Others Believe in Acquiring Gainful (employment)
Make sure to explain to your "friend" the dangers of picking up STDs -- i.e. "Stupid Terminal Discussions" -- at yearly academic conferences. Symptoms take anywhere from one week to three months to manifest. Treatments include VAPs, post-docs, dropping out of the field, and -- in dire cases -- adjuncting.
I too had 5 fly-outs last year and didn't get a job: 2 had inside candidates, 1 committee voted to hire me but was turned down by the dean, AND SO ON. I have a little information about what is going on at Pomona - and hope this will put the department in a better light. They did choose a 4th candidate, but the dean wouldn't give them another fly-out. He did give them a term position, and they have called the 4th candidate.
Fellow bridesmaids, take heart. Those multiple offer freaks have no choice but to jilt a few grooms at the altar, and then said grooms will come running tearfully to our arms for "comfort".
To torture this metaphor a little further: what does this make a VAP? A short non-committal relationship? And is an adjunct the mistress for whom the man never leaves his wife?
sloppy seconds, I'm not seeing multiple offer freaks on the wiki (only two people with more than one offer), and I actually haven't even heard of any this year (unlike last year, when there were several). Does anyone know of any?
And Anon. 1:36, WOW. That REALLY sucks that a dean turned your job offer down. As for Pomona, why not give the term position to their 2nd or 3rd flyout candidate?
"I'm not seeing multiple offer freaks on the wiki (only two people with more than one offer), and I actually haven't even heard of any this year... Does anyone know of any?"
Just in case this offers any consolation, let me say that I have in the past applied to 100+ positions, got just two flyouts out of those, and one job offer which I took. Ultimately it is not the number of flyouts that count but the job offer, right?
Is the wiki correct with the Tufts entry? They offered the job in January? How did the updater hear about this? I presume you're from the UK or a commonwealth nation (who else spells it as "rumour?"). Sorry to be annoying, but I was really hoping for at least an interview. Congrats to the person who accepted the job, if the rumor is true - Boston rocks.
Well, I don't think the sciences recruit foreigners because of their Anglo-Saxon sensibilities, especially since most seem to come from East Europe and Asia. On the flipside, for classics, this does happen. That is, we heavily recruit foreigners based on cultural reasons. Sure, there are some brilliant classicists from overseas who've studied the classics since the age of 5, but I rarely find this to be true today - there are plenty of home grown talent who can hang with them. I do believe in cross-pollinating, but the over-fascination in classics with Anglo-Saxon scholars doesn't help our image as an elitist discipline out of touch with today's world.
we heavily recruit foreigners based on cultural reasons ... the over-fascination in classics with Anglo-Saxon scholars
According to the "Past Performance" thread, in 2007-2008 a total of 22 positions, TT and non-TT combined, were filled by people with non-North American Ph.D.s. There were 174 positions filled in all. That's about 1 in 8. 16 of those 22 were from UK universities (and some of those were doubtless not people from the UK but from other European countries or North America). 8 of them were from Oxbridge.
I don't know that I would call that heavy recruitment or over-fascination. I also don't find it particularly strange that people from Oxford and Cambridge should be attractive. They're good schools!
I don't know that I would call that heavy recruitment or over-fascination. I also don't find it particularly strange that people from Oxford and Cambridge should be attractive. They're good schools!
Yes, they're good schools. But do they provide the background necessary for their graduates to teach in the American system? Oxbridge classes are nothing like our classes, and I've seen a lot of their graduates struggle to teach in the American university. Don't undergrads deserve better?
And, given the dire nature of the UK job market - worse than ours - many of them are just cutting their teeth over here and will return to the UK as soon as they get a job over there. (I except those Americans who just get their degrees over there and then return to the motherland.)
It's also a question of specialization. There are pretty clearly American and European, especially British, areas of interest. For instance, if you want to do a PhD in Latin or Greek prose, the UK/Europe is the place to go. Where does that leave homegrown prose people? In competition with people with degrees more dazzling to most Americans than a BA at Princeford and a PhD at Berkelago.
And, finally, there's no reciprocity to even things out. You hear often enough of senior scholars from the US becoming UK or European dons. You very rarely hear of European schools, much less Oxbridge, hiring American junior PhDs or ABDs.
This is a question responsible SCs at least consider. (It's a perennial debate at Berkeley, for instance.) And one last thought: 1 of 8 jobs in this economy and job market seems like an awful lot to me.
Yes, they're good schools. But do they provide the background necessary for their graduates to teach in the American system? Oxbridge classes are nothing like our classes, and I've seen a lot of their graduates struggle to teach in the American university. Don't undergrads deserve better?
Sure they do. But American PhDs who are horrible teachers and have strong research profiles get hired all the time, too. Don't undergrads deserve better?
And, given the dire nature of the UK job market - worse than ours - many of them are just cutting their teeth over here and will return to the UK as soon as they get a job over there.
Actually, things are bad there, and have only gotten worse in terms of administrative and research demands. This is a reason why many senior scholars come here from the UK. For better or worse, many of both the younger folks and the older ones are going to stay.
(I except those Americans who just get their degrees over there and then return to the motherland.)
Do you also except the non-Americans who get their PhDs at US institutions? Or should we stop admitting them, or hiring them after they get their degrees?
It's also a question of specialization. There are pretty clearly American and European, especially British, areas of interest. For instance, if you want to do a PhD in Latin or Greek prose, the UK/Europe is the place to go. Where does that leave homegrown prose people? In competition with people with degrees more dazzling to most Americans than a BA at Princeford and a PhD at Berkelago.
First, "dazzling to most Americans," not to most American professional classicists. I'm not really aware of this prose problem, and since I'm a prose person I can think of lots of examples of American-trained prose people holding attractive jobs in the US.
And, finally, there's no reciprocity to even things out. You hear often enough of senior scholars from the US becoming UK or European dons. You very rarely hear of European schools, much less Oxbridge, hiring American junior PhDs or ABDs.
True. But that's not a weakness of their system we should emulate. There's no need to do dumb things to harm ourselves just because the Brits do dumb things to harm themselves.
This is a question responsible SCs at least consider. (It's a perennial debate at Berkeley, for instance.)
I say, consider away. If a department is willing to put considerations of nationality over ones of merit, who am I to tell them no?
And one last thought: 1 of 8 jobs in this economy and job market seems like an awful lot to me.
"I say, consider away. If a department is willing to put considerations of nationality over ones of merit, who am I to tell them no?"
How do you define merit? Are you saying that the 1/8 hiring demographic is indicative of the UK producing inherently superior classicists (as they presumably don't produce 1/8 of the classicsts worldwide)? Or are you saying that there's some x-factor that makes UK scholars deserving of a much higher percentage of the US jobs than one would guess from their numbers? I don't understand what UK scholars bring to the table that would necessitate us importing such a high percentage. 1/20 I could see; 1/8 means something is skewing the numbers as if we're in the 19th century before the international rise of US institutions.
In the sciences, it's simple. European and Asian students, in general, can run circles around us when it comes to math and the basic sciences. Plus they are willing to put in insane hours as grad students and post-docs that most of us are not willing to do. This Anglophilia we have in classics is dumbfounding. I can't think of any other discipline that does this across the board. Yes, there is European history and other sub-disciplines, but not an entire discipline from what I know.
How do you define merit? Are you saying that the 1/8 hiring demographic is indicative of the UK producing inherently superior classicists (as they presumably don't produce 1/8 of the classicsts worldwide)? Or are you saying that there's some x-factor that makes UK scholars deserving of a much higher percentage of the US jobs than one would guess from their numbers? I don't understand what UK scholars bring to the table that would necessitate us importing such a high percentage. 1/20 I could see; 1/8 means something is skewing the numbers as if we're in the 19th century before the international rise of US institutions.
A). 1/8 = all foreign PhDs, not all UK PhDs. UK = less than 1/10.
B). You've got an Anglophone country of 60 million people and a strong tradition in Classics, and two of the top universities in the world, plus a number of other strong universities. (Presumably they do in fact produce more than 1/8 of Anglophone Classicists worldwide, although I don't see why that's relevant.) My question is, why wouldn't you expect to have a lot of good UK candidates on the market?
Honestly, I don't see why you're upset about the UK and not California. In 2007-08, California PhDs got 29 of the filled APA positions. That's 1 in 6 of the filled positions, despite—get this!—having 2/3 the population of the UK.
Now, what are we going to do about this unhealthy Californiaphilia?
As far as "merit," I'm obviously not suggesting inherent foreign merit. I'm saying that if a department happens to find that its best candidate is not a US PhD holder and decides that it's willing to hire a US PhD instead for that reason, it's fine with me.
"As far as "merit," I'm obviously not suggesting inherent foreign merit. I'm saying that if a department happens to find that its best candidate is not a US PhD holder and decides that it's willing to hire a US PhD instead for that reason, it's fine with me."
Yep, in this case, it's not "blinded by science," but "blinded by the accent."
Given that there are more than 100 grad students in Classics at Oxbridge (Cambridge gives a partial list of 54, I don't know about Oxford), I don't think we have to invoke anything like Anglophilia to explain why a number of them would end up working in the US.
More reason classics should just die or be folded into language departments.
It's often helpful to give some indication of what statement you're responding to. Otherwise, people will think you're just some insane person typing random, angry comments.
Which is clearly not the case in your case, Sir or Madam.
If foreign PhD institutions are so hot, you know you can always go there. It's called the free market. Something you people are apparently fond of. Occasionally.
If foreign PhD institutions are so hot, you know you can always go there. It's called the free market. Something you people are apparently fond of. Occasionally.
I forgot to mention this earlier during my impassioned defense of departments that hire foreign Ph.D.s, but now's as good a time as any: as in the U.S., so too in foreign countries, many people are assholes. So, one would expect a certain percentage of Ph.D.s to be assholes as well.
More reason classics should just die or be folded into language departments.
Seriously, it's like being trapped in a 19th century time warp. It would be like all the scientists and physicians still coming from Scotland. Wait, the sciences actually live in reality and not some strange bend in the space-time continuum. Now someone pass me some crumpets.
Yes, if there's an inherent advantage to being culturally Anglo-Saxon when gauging "merit" AND it has nothing to do with one's skills as a classicist, classics should die. I couldn't agree more. Whether this is actually the case, is harder to gauge.
It would be like all the scientists and physicians still coming from Scotland.
Except it's not at all like that. A small percentage of US professional classicists hold UK PhDs. This isn't strange, since the UK, despite its small surface area, has fully 20% of the population that we have, plus a much stronger preparatory education basis in Greek and Latin than we do, and two of the great world universities. Plus they're Anglophone, which gives them a much better basis as teachers in the US than people from other European countries.
I swear, last year it was exactly the same conversation with the Junior Lou Dobbs Squad.
Based on your logic, why the hell don't we have Brits filling 1/10 or whatever of the English department positions in the US? How about horticulture positions? How about restaurants that want really crappy but authentic British food? How about mechanics at the Jaguar dealership?
Oxford has by far the largest Classics department in the world. Cambridge has the second largest. So perhaps it's not surprising that the two largest classics departments go on to claim a large share of the market. Get over yourselves people, and stop looking for xenophobic conspiracy theories to justify why you're having difficulty finding a job.
If foreign PhD institutions are so hot, you know you can always go there. It's called the free market. Something you people are apparently fond of. Occasionally.
Actually, no. It's hard to do - not hard to get in, mind you, but hard to fund your education over there, unless you are independently wealthy. I was admitted to Oxford a few years back for a DPhil, but ended up not going; as part of their policy towards foreign students, they require you to prove that you have 30-40K of income a year to support yourself. I didn't, and they very rarely give aid to foreign students. I don't know about other European universities, but that's a big stumbling block. I'm under the impression that funding is MUCH less of a problem for European students attending US schools; at least in my program, all were eligible equally for fellowships, which were based on merit not nationality.
You can say what you want about the free market in jobs, but the free market in schools is clearly also a problem.
I find it ironic that we're talking about a body (the European Union) that is far less pro-free market than the US is, yet whose citizens take advantage of the free market policies of the US.
Europe and a lot of other places do invest a LOT in public education though - and they reap a small part of that benefit when they see their folk dominating grad schools here.
It isn't a one-way street - if you're angry about Europeans "taking our jobs", why don't you apply for their jobs too? There have been several Classics jobs in the UK advertised in the last month, and nothing to stop Americans applying.
Name five junior scholars from the US who have gotten UK jobs cold, with no contacts. (I speak as someone who has applied for quite a few.) Over there, it's very much who you know that nets a job, much more than it is here. It's all very well to say "well, go to their schools" or "apply for their jobs." But it doesn't address an underlying inequity - failure of reciprocity, as someone above said.
I love how the whole discussion started with a comment that Americans think Europeans are better than they are, and lots of the pro-European comments have completely borne that out.
Based on your logic, why the hell don't we have Brits filling 1/10 or whatever of the English department positions in the US? How about horticulture positions? How about restaurants that want really crappy but authentic British food? How about mechanics at the Jaguar dealership?
Here at Stanford every entering Classics grad student is given a free car. The catch is that the car must have been built in their home country. Since I am American I received a free 1984 Ford Fiesta. My office-mate is British and Ian Morris made him choose between a Jaguar and an Aston Martin. He reluctantly (but gracefully - he is British, after all) chose a 2008 Aston Martin DB9. Now he has to take it to all the way to a dealer out in Walnut Creek for oil changes. Anyway, to make a long story short, fully 75% of the mechanics there are Pakistani.
I don't think it's "who you know" (any more than you can say the same thing about the US). I think the difference is that in the UK there is no tenure-track model. So in practice this means that applying for a UK job is applying for a tenured job, i.e. you will be competing against mid-career candidates, and they are most likely to get the jobs. So junior scholars (of any nationality) don't really stand a chance. And so British junior scholars have little choice but to apply for American jobs...
I'm not at all sure I would want a job in the UK. I have three friends who teach there - one at Oxford, two at red-brick universities - and they're all rushed off their feet all the time during terms. They spend more time teaching than a VAP here with a 3:3 load does (in terms of actually in the classroom/meeting students). On top of that, there are tons of administrative duties, some of which we have here, like admissions, but also things like yearly programme reports and exam analyses, requirements imposed by the nanny state.
The anti-European brigade have, as usual, managed to lump all Europeans together as British. This would manage to irritate both parties simultaneously. Nice job.
Europeans tend to compete for the best US jobs. Why? Because they're some of the best global jobs and the candidates come from some of the best global universities. You want to have a foreigner cap on 8th tier community colleges, go ahead. It won't make one jot of difference because there aren't any Europeans applying anyway. You want to cap Harvard or Berkeley? Er, that reasoning's probably why you're not even a candidate...
Why stop at the national borders? Why not let states forbid out-of-state PhDs from working in-state?
And why the focus on foreign degrees? Why not ban from US employment foreign nationals with US degrees, too? In fact, let's ban them from our grad schools entirely.
Why not just implement the de jure policy of Canada that is de facto in the UK - public institutions must prove beyond a shadow of doubt that the foreigner offers a service that no citizen can. Princeford and the other private institutions can throw as many jobs as they want at any wanker with an accent as far as I care. Hell, give Rowan Atkinson a job at the APA. It would probably run better.
Why not just implement the de jure policy of Canada that is de facto in the UK - public institutions must prove beyond a shadow of doubt that the foreigner offers a service that no citizen can.
We have by far the best system of colleges and research universities on earth. One of the reasons why this is so is that we attract people from everywhere. Shutting that down so that there would be a few more jobs for Americans would be shooting ourselves in the foot.
Places that regard the purpose of universities as "provide the fullest possible employment to citizen PhDs" instead of "teach and research" end up with a crappy university system. You use Canada and the UK as a model here (which aren't exactly appealing) but one could adduce more horrifying examples of the results of the policy you advocate, such as Italy. And any proposal that depends on US higher education adopting policies that will take us down the road Italy has traveled seems to me pretty misguided. Baby with the bathwater etc.
Does the University of Iowa really need that British classicist to accomplish its mission to the full? I could see perhaps a handful of public institutions (Berkeley, Virginia, Michigan) maybe suffering in the humanities, but it would be easy to overcome this criterion in the sciences. I don't think the humanities and especially the classics could pull this off. Why? Because I agree with a previous post that snagging a Brit for a classics department is largely a prestige hire in this day and age. There's an antiquated sentiment that a classics department has more cred with a Brit. Yes, there are some superior British classicists, but they can still get hired based on their superior abilities. I, for one, believe that many of the 1/8 would not pass muster otherwise.
Why not just implement the de jure policy of Canada that is de facto in the UK - public institutions must prove beyond a shadow of doubt that the foreigner offers a service that no citizen can.
A few (?) institutions do this, officially or not. UT San Antonio's ad stated that candidates must have prior authorization to work in the US (I'm guessing this means they would not sponsor a visa themselves) and a friend of mine was told by a SC member at another institution that it would be hard to hire him for a VAP position since he was not a national (even though he could legally work in the US for at least a year). I don't think this is a good thing for the US education system, but it exists to some extant.
Oops. The UT San Antonio ad actually said "Applicants who are selected for interviews must be able to show proof that they will be eligible and qualified to work in the United States by time of hire." It doesn't necessarily mean they wouldn't sponsor a candidate. My bad.
"Because I agree with a previous post that snagging a Brit for a classics department is largely a prestige hire in this day and age. There's an antiquated sentiment that a classics department has more cred with a Brit."
See, it's fine to say this, but do you see how you don't really adduce any examples or evidence? This makes it impossible to engage in any kind of dialogue with you. Which makes me wonder why you're bothering to comment at all.
If you really want me to name names of individuals from overseas that have/had dubious academic (especially teaching) records which resulted in expensive experiments that failed miserably, I would be happy to do so in a venue outside of FV (which does not allow names). I don't think I really even have to do this as it's easy to come up with a number of names if you've been in the field long enough. I can think of at least five names off the top of my head who received tenure in the US and promptly moved to a senior lectureship or higher back in the motherland first chance they got. I suppose the US is doing a noble thing keeping the careers of some junior Europeans alive until they can flourish back home, but is this really a primary mission or desired result of any US university? I'm not talking about elite universities here. The Princefords of the world can and should experiement with these high risk/high gain hires. It's just puzzling when Southwest Idaho State College does it.
But these are the sort of areas for which there isn't any hard evidence to the standards you want. I've been told often and repeatedly by advisers and recommenders not to bother applying for UK jobs as a junior scholar because it is who you know. As these are intelligent, non-anonymous people with years of experience, I tend to believe them. Instead of asking someone on a blog for proof, why not ask some of the faculty in your department/university what they think?
I would not say, however, that most of the 1/8 wouldn't cut it otherwise. They do come from a different system, one that at the grad level places a greater priority on publications and research, and then go on to postdocs over there, so they often have books by the time they apply for jobs over here and are attractive to research universities. (Of course, this is another dangerous precedent - hiring assistant professors because they've published a book takes us down the path of a book being required just to get a t-t job.)
I agree, let's import the Ian Morrises of the world by the boatload, especially for senior positions at places like Stanford. I have no problem with this. To hire some random John Bull fresh out of Oxbridge, which I suspect is the more typical representative of the 1/8 hired, is a weird classics phenomenon that has little bearing on the long term health of classics in the US.
Well, it does have consequences on the long-term health of classics. It perpetuates this notion that classics is the domain of WASPs. Why else drive a Jaguar or Bentley? They're engineering crap. If you want to go on "merit," we should be importing more BMWs and Lexuses.
I think we can quantify this to some degree. How many of the Brits hired were senior vs. junior? If it's largely senior, I don't think there is anything wrong with the system. We're snagging some good scholars that have presumably proven themselves. If it's largely junior, the previous posters might be on to something.
Went back and looked at t-t hires of non-US degrees (not just British) from last year. Defining "junior" as less than 6 years away from the PhD (i.e., would not yet have come up for tenure in an entry-level position), there are:
11 junior (all but three since 2006, actually) 8 senior
Of folks going the other way, I only saw one US degree getting a job in Europe (a temp job, too), and a couple in Canada.
To me, it looks like there's a slight bias for new foreign blood here, just as there is a bias for dewy-skinned ABDs with "potential" in the US.
Of those eleven junior (successful) candidates I can say that at least one had a stellar cv and got a stellar job. You can argue about whether he was the right choice, but he wasn't obviously the wrong - or an unfair - choice. Ten to go.
Prove to us that this person had a stellar CV, since that seems to be a popular demand around here. I expect superstar status. Compare this person to a US superstar from that year and see how they stack up.
This current inane discussion makes me want to slit my wrists. No, I don't have a constructive alternative topic to offer; I am too worn out with job market effort and disappointment and tough choices. But how about we all (wo)man up and stop complaining and grasping at [insert pet imagined institutional bias/injustice] to explain why we didn't get the job(s) we wanted. I didn't get the jobs I wanted, and I don't think it's because whoever got those jobs were undeserving--nor do I think it was because I was undeserving. Reality is, there are so many more of us well-qualified candidates than there are jobs. Sunt lacrimae rerum.
Which is worse for one's career, a tenure-track position at a CC or adjuncting?
You mean, for eventually getting into a TT position at a 4-year? I don't know. They're probably about equal, I'd guess.
CCs vary a lot from state to state, but I know someone who took a CC job in California and was very happy with it. The money and terms of employment also were surprisingly good. So, depending where you are, the CC might be preferable from that perspective, at least.
I adjuncted for 2 years and landed a TT this year. Also, if people weren't aware, the TT job at OSU-Newark is essentially a CC job. There is no hard and fast rule on it. It all depends on where you are at and what you do while you are there. If it is the only way to stay affiliated, then do it.
Sheesh, based on the wiki, maybe it's the Pennford villain?
Oh, don't get your hopes up. No matter how many PhDs get positions from Penn or anywhere else, I can guarantee that there will some goof here in November complaining about "Princeford."
I wonder if any SC figured out who this look-at-me-I-have-fifteen-interviews villain was. I personally doubt it and bet that the person has a plum contract in hand.
Princeton's having a bad year. Or so I hear from my Princeton friends.
Uh, could someone clarify what "rumor mill" means on the wiki? Does it mean you know for sure the job was offered/accepted? Is the source a friend, a friend of a friend, an alien over Texas? I kind of like the "viva voce" marker for WLU - suggests person heard from someone with direct knowledge of the search. I have no reason to doubt the rumors; I just want to know how reliable they are.
I wonder if any SC figured out who this look-at-me-I-have-fifteen-interviews villain was. I personally doubt it and bet that the person has a plum contract in hand.
Since the "villain" was a spoof, I'm going to say "no."
[cue someone pretending to be the "villain," insisting on his/her own reality]
Princeton's having a bad year. Or so I hear from my Princeton friends.
All Classics departments are so small that their placements from one year to the next can vary dramatically. This is why it's important not to draw conclusions on the basis of one or two years' placement.
Or we can just go on yelling about how "Princeford" vacuums up all the jobs.
Actually, having seen this before, I'm going to go ahead and bet on Option #2.
For crying out loud, what do you want? A 1-10 rating for the rumor? A rumor is a rumor. Take it for what it's worth. You can't set stiff parameters for a rumor. Sheesh.
How are you so sure, unless...you were the spoofer.
Well, really, because the villain was too cartoonish, or silent-movie-villainish. Real villains mainly operate under the illusion that they're not villains. They don't actually grow the mustache. The "villain" had the mustache. It reveled without shame in its outlandish repulsiveness. Which says to me that it was a spoof.
You're obviously new to classics. I see plenty of people brandishing their mustaches proudly as if it's they're God given right to be a total ass.
Not new. And I really think it would take an especially pathetic sort of person to type blog comments bragging about interview numbers. As you're doing so, I think you have to have a moment at which you think to yourself, "Ugh. I'm pathetic."
Unless you're a spoof, and then it's all in good fun.
Uh, hello? Toronto like other foreign universities produces disgusting greedy completely unqualified pigs who steal jobs that by rights belong to 'murcans just because they say "abowt" instead of "about."
Yeah, right, there are no pathetic people in classics...
Of course I am. I mean, of course there are. But come on: didn't those comments seem ridiculously cartoonish, and pitched to press everybody's buttons?
I don't know. Most people in classics are very decent, but there are some arrogant pricks out there who would love nothing better to shove it in other people's faces, especially under the protection of anonymity. You know - I can be a total prick and there's nothing anybody can do about it.
Well, Toronto is a pretty good school in my book and last time I checked, it was a part of the Americas too.
Right, sorry, that was parody.
And (someone else's) original joke was to pretend to understand that someone had meant "University of Toronto" by "UT" when in fact they had meant "University of Texas, Austin."
I am truly sorry if my attempt at humor offended you or your proud people, Mr. or Ms. possible Canadian. I honor your people's ways, and in no way mean to suggest that you (as a person, not a people) should be more alive to the potential humorous implications of apparently serious statements. God keep your land glorious and free.
I don't know. Most people in classics are very decent, but there are some arrogant pricks out there who would love nothing better to shove it in other people's faces, especially under the protection of anonymity. You know - I can be a total prick and there's nothing anybody can do about it.
At least one of those ABDs from Penn has just defended.
I'm actually happy to see Penn succeed. It's a good and often overlooked program with a lot of great people on staff (both academically and collegially) and I have never met a Penn grad who's a prick (unlike some other grad programs I could name...).
Oooh, I may get to start a new page if I type this fast enough! Makes my day, in this jobless world.
1,771 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 1001 – 1200 of 1771 Newer› Newest»Who said any Columbia grad was directly getting preferential treatment? You're silly if you think the ISAW family tree is confined to one institution.
I come here for the paranoia, the bitter jealousy, the sanctimony, the drunken rage, and the deranged accusations.
I stay for the canapes.
Young MC, I don't think the MC market is particularly bad this year. There might be less mid-level positions, but I don't think it reflects any trend. The type of MC positions are pretty much luck of the draw year to year. The only constant is that other classics positions will outnumber them at least 4:1.
I stay for the canapes.
Mmmm....canapes.
I stay for the canapes.
Mmmm....canapes.
OMG, I'm sooooo sorry I'm late. Traffic was hell, and then I couldn't find parking.
Are there any canapes left?
No, but you can find the box of Franzia and a few cheap plastic cups over there by the bust of Cicero.
And there's a half-eaten bag of Cheetos making the rounds somewhere....
Cicero? I could have sworn that was Julius Caesar!
It looks like finally news of job offers is starting to trickle onto the wiki. One wonders if committees are taking their time, since there's fewer of them than normal and they don't feel the usual urgency, or if the wiki does not reflect the state of offers.
Campus visits are still being held all over the country, and offers that may have been made are being held up by the candidates' having other options that have yet to decide. Plus, the APA was a week later than usual.
I wouldn't start attributing sinister motives to SCs. This is about the right time for offers to be made. Most everything is in the hands of the candidates who got offers now.
Exactly. Everything is proceeding as normal. Other than all the panic and hand-wringing over a few more searches being called off than usual, this job market is essentially indistinguishable from others.
You're right, nothing terribly unusual about the timing. But to be fair, the market under normal circumstances is pretty nerve-shredding, and the prospects for next year aren't exactly great, so there's additional pressure (if that's possible). So panic, while never helpful, is pretty reasonable, wouldn't you say?
My point was that there are plenty of weeks to come before the majority of the positions are filled. If people want to panic about next year, fine; if people want to get worked up about the pace of things now, that shows a lack of perspective. Which is why I was trying to provide perspective.
As a chair I would confirm that the vast majority of departments want to wrap up searches as soon as possible. But many departments can only handle one finalist per week, and if there are 3 finalists, that's 3 weeks. Some departments also want to be fair to candidates, which means that they may allow "offerees" longer than is ideal in order for those to consider all of their options. Such situations can add 3 weeks to a month beyond what one might think.
Unfortunately, while some candidates need to explore their options, other candidates milk the system, adding weeks to the process.
We're all in this together. As that great philosopher, Rodney King, once said, can't we all get along?
Wow. A self-admitted department chair. Aren't you worried that a mob of job-seekers will capture you and take you away for reprogramming? If you're lucky you'll get to be like that last Chinese emperor in the movie who gets to garden.
I've got a question for some of you veterans out there. I was recently contacted by a SC and asked to interview on campus. It's pretty obvious that I'm an alternate at best. This isn't the issue.
The school is in a major metro that many would find exciting, but I personally don't think it's a major plus. The school is an average commuter school with a heavy teaching load, but it's decent overall. More importantly, I honestly wasn't all that thrilled after meeeting the SC in Philadelphia. I have/had several campus visits and I could stay in my current VAP position indefinitely. Am I foolish for passing up the chance to compete for a TT position? Honestly, this is where being an alternate makes the position even less enthralling. I would especially like to hear from those who took a similar job and what they think now in retrospect. Thanks in advance.
Oh, if I do decide to decline the campus invite, how do I do so graciously? Classics IS a small world. Thanks.
Anon. 1:13 -
These kinds of questions come up on the CHE fora all the time. You might find good help there:
http://chronicle.com/forums/index.php
FWIW, I don't think the conference interviews are always good indications of department climate for all sorts of reasons. I've been surprised a few times, for better and for worse.
"I have/had several campus visits and I could stay in my current VAP position indefinitely. Am I foolish for passing up the chance to compete for a TT position? Honestly, this is where being an alternate makes the position even less enthralling."
Two dangerous assumptions there:
1) NO VAP position is ever guaranteed permanently, and your shelf life might not be as long as you think.
2) NEVER turn down a shot at a tenure line. Getting your back up about being an alternate is not a healthy attitude. It's never a waste of time to compete. If you do spectacularly well and don't get the job, word might get out. Classics being a small world cuts in your favor too, if you really are that good.
And, Anon. 1:13, there are folks on here who would just kill to be in your position, even as an alternate. Think about how fortunate you are, and never pass up any opportunity. Period. You'll regret it. Because the school isn't up to whatever your brand of snuff is doesn't mean you shouldn't give it a try.
At the same time, as has been discussed here before, toxic TT positions can be worse than a VAP. In the end, you need to figure out how miserable you would be. On the other hand, I wouldn't say never, but you should be pretty darn sure before you pass over a TT position.
I get why you might turn down the job but why would you turn down the visit? And I suppose you might even be able to use an offer to improve the conditions at your current VAP.
Wow, the SC must have been pretty underwhelming for someone to decline a flyback.
Another reason for SCs to love FV.
Oh, if I do decide to decline the campus invite, how do I do so graciously? Classics IS a small world. Thanks.
I would advise you to refer to personal/family/partner considerations.
That is, that you couldn't take that position because of those considerations, not that you couldn't visit because of them. Sorry.
If I were you I'd go to the campus visit - you're not making a commitment by doing so, and you can't make an informed decision without spending some time at the place. Anyway, campus visits are fun, and you may well make good contacts by going. If you still don't like it and would rather stay where you are, turn it down if they offer it to you, and cite personal reasons. Yes, the academic market is very difficult, but ultimately it's not worth accepting a job that in your heart you don't want, when you have an alternative you're happy with. Maybe next year something you like better will come up.
"campus visits are fun"
Correction: campus visits *can* be fun. Or they can be ordeals that make the Spanish Inquisition seem like a romp in the park. And even the good ones can wear you out/distract you from scholarship/make the next week's teaching load unbearable.
Or they can be ordeals that make the Spanish Inquisition seem like a romp in the park.
Well, granted, it's not all soft cushions and comfy chairs.
In our friend's case, this is where I will have to disagree with the last couple blanket statements about campus visits. Specifically, not all "alternates" are the same. If a SC perceives the pool to be very deep and had a difficult time choosing between the last 10, yes, you can have a great experience. On the other hand, if you're obviously not as qualified as the top candidates, you can have a horrific experience when you're there to basically round out the finalists late in the game. Do an internet search for the universities to fear during an academic search and you'll see plenty of horror stories where candidates are practically ignored by the department and left to fend for themselves. I'm not saying this will happen in the case presented here, but let's be balanced in our presentation of campus invites.
"Do an internet search for the universities to fear during an academic search and you'll see plenty of horror stories where candidates are practically ignored by the department and left to fend for themselves."
Oh, wow. Who would these be? From years past?
Uh, exactly what Google terms would one use to find such schools? (Just tried a few, and nada.)
I will say that of the campus interviews I've had, only one was awful - and that was because the majority of the department did not want me there; I had been invited because the department's most senior member took an interest in me. The rest of them were openly rude and made it quite clear to me within 5 minutes of my setting foot on campus that I wasn't going to get the job. I've never delivered a job talk to such a hostile audience, and I pity the person who did get the job.
http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Universities_to_fear
http://www.wikihost.org/w/academe/black_listed_universities_and_colleges/
link 1
link 2
I don't think I see it on there, but there was one campus visit where the faculty member had to have the candidate pay for a meal, who was then never reimbursed.
In another example, a faculty member picked up the candidate at the airport, but was told to take a cab back - 40 miles and never reimbursed.
The last one I remember was when one candidate found out other candidates were put up at a nice hotel and he stayed in the basement of a SC member.
I'm skeptical of this site (some of the complaints, like curricular complaints, don't belong there), but they are totally right about the dean at one school...Classics, however, warned me what he was like when I visited.
Yes, there are a bunch of random rants but it's easy to distinguish the reasonable complaints from the outrageous. I find it interesting that many of the problems seem to transcend disciplines. Here's one listed in biology that sounds awfully similar to one of my recent experiences in classics
Every candidate interviewed for the position had such a horribly negative experience that at a conference we got together for a beer to commiserate. One candidate was so angered by the experience that they contacted the chair of the dept (who was also the chair of the search committee) to complain, and was told that the interview process also involved role-playing to determine which candidate best performed in a hostile and confrontational work environment. If that was their criteria for hiring, I'd hate to see what a bunch of a-holes populate the department. One committee member did such a good job of being a class-A prick I was convinced it wasn't acting. To this day, because of him, I view anyone who researches small mammal ecology with contempt and disdain. Needless to say, the person who was offered the job accepted it but then spent the first year searching for another job elsewhere, and then got the hell out of there. Perhaps things are different with a new department chair and a departmental re-organization, but Dr. Prick is still there, so I'd be sure to double-check he's not on the hiring committee if you apply.
To be honest, I find all this anonymous and non-specific bitching on the internet hard to take seriously. It's all too easy for people to vent their bitterness, and impossible for people reading to tell whether this is well founded or just some resentful candidate complaining about some imaginary grievance relating to a job they failed to get for legitimate reasons (ie they ultimately weren't quite as good as other candidates). Then having failed to get the job they feel the need to find reasons why the world wasn't fair. Perhaps there are genuine grievances being put out here, but much of it seems to be people perpetuating anecdotes and rumours in order to incite a sense of maltreatment and grievance in each other.
Queribundi volent!
SCs really do a much better job when they don't try anything. I mean, it's not like any of them have any training in HR - they just pull this shit off the Apprentice. In my experience most SCs have been fine, so no general gripe here, but there's always one committee or one interviewer in the group who thinks they're so cunning. If I weren't urinating in my underwear at the time I'd scoff. Actually, once I've changed my pants and made it to the bar I have a little scoff to myself. Listen up SCs, you want us to be ourselves, and we want you to be yourselves. Honesty, as everyone's mother says, really is the best policy. Role-play went out with D&D and Gitmo interrogation techniques.
Don't speak so soon. The day may come when 1000 applicants apply for some crappy TT job. To narrow it down, the SC might say WTF, and bring on the waterboarding to narrow it down. Before we get there, maybe there will be a reality show called So You Want A TT Job. Guest judges will include sabre-tooth tigers from Texas and the Princeford Villain.
The comment about the UC Irvine Art History dept. in link 1 really made me laugh. I am sure the chair REALLY appreciated a reject candidate lecture him on professional courtesy based on the latter's experience in the "professional" world - and kicked himself for not hiring such a collegial character.
Anon @ 1:49/re. UC Irvine:
I agree. And, to be honest, Irvine's approach strikes me as rather applicant-friendly. Isn't this the kind of information we all crave?
"I don't think I see it on there, but there was one campus visit where the faculty member had to have the candidate pay for a meal, who was then never reimbursed.
In another example, a faculty member picked up the candidate at the airport, but was told to take a cab back - 40 miles and never reimbursed.
The last one I remember was when one candidate found out other candidates were put up at a nice hotel and he stayed in the basement of a SC member."
Sounds like campus invites from hell, but I could totally see these scenarios happening in academia, which as we know is full of socially inept/sheltered people.
This wacky stuff does happen in Classics, alas.
No doubt some of you are familiar with this one, since it is such a small world. I have a friend who was on the market 4 or 5 years ago. During his campus visit he was hosted by a SC member. No big deal, as long as everybody else does the same, right? Well, said SC member didn't have any extra space, so the candidates were forced to crash on a cot in the kid's room. They got the cot because the kid was sleeping in the bed right next to them......
I keep on meaning to ask who got the bigger bowl of Fruit Loops in the morning.....
He didn't get the job. Not sure who did.
Seriously, what's with the bunking in a faculty member's house? You can't seriously believe that a candidate placed in such a situation is on equal footing with the rest of the field? Has any candidate who's done this actually become the first choice for the job?
Anyone know anything about the Gettysburg one-year job, or are they waiting to fill that till their t-t offer gets accepted?
My question is what people would do if you showed up at a campus visit and the faculty member or secretary said, "Change in plans, you need to stay at Dr. Dyskalos' basement." I don't think there is much one could do. How about if you found out before you even got on a plane? Do you all of a sudden have a change of heart due to "personal and professional issues?"
I was once placed in a very awful motel for my campus interview. I just moved my self to the very lovely Ramada across the street and paid for the night myself. The one faculty member I informed (she dropped me off after dinner) told me to submit my receipts to the secretary but I never did. if the situation is that bad, you shouldn't be afraid to just say "No, thank you. If money is that tight, I'll pay my own way." I'd rather shell out the $75 for a moderate hotel than accidentally see Prof. Sleep-in-my-Basements half-naked as he comes out of the shower.
And, no, I did not get the job. But I realized before I made the hotel switch that I didn't want it either.
I was asked by various SC members where else I was interviewing. Is this kosher?
Not Kosher at all. You have a perfect right to refuse answer. (Although their question presumably reflects high interest in you, and they may just be asking it out of sheer ignorance or manners or boorishness).
That's pretty bush league, especially since it was more than one person. That would set off multiple alarms for me.
Same thing happened to me and it made me really uncomfortable. I'm all for transparency, but...
Same thing happened to me and I can say do NOT tell them a thing. I was foolish enough to say where I had received an offer and one of the SC members ended up calling a chum at the other school, making for a VERY awkward situation. It's funny that many of the SC members decry the transparency provided by FV but at the same time will beg, borrow, and steal to get info on candidates. It let's you know that know that each side is doing what's best for themselves. Don't be naive enough to think/do otherwise.
Well, post the schools in the jeers portion of the wiki. IMHO, schools should be called out for such behavior. I would also include schools that go out of their way to ask about having kids and whatnot. It's one thing for it to come out in passing, but I think it's pretty obvious when they're making a concerted effort to grill you with inappropriate questions.
What the [expletive deleted] is going on with Pomona? Last year's Greek/Roman history search was canceled (I heard it failed); this year's Greek history search was just listed as failed.
This is totally a rumour, but I heard that the job was offered to their clear-cut #1 choice, who accepted then backed out after receiving a better offer. Sounds like one of this year's superstars.
So why can't Pomona still go to 2 or 3? I mean, it's a buyer's market. What are they going to do, risk the position and hope it gets funded again next year?
Maybe 2 and even 3 have moved on? As we've discussed many times on here, there is often a handful of candidates getting a disproportionate number of the flybacks and offers. I know one friend on the market this year who received an early offer and promptly cancelled several other flybacks. The position wasn't even TT but it apparently fit him the best otherwise?!
So why can't Pomona still go to 2 or 3? I mean, it's a buyer's market. What are they going to do, risk the position and hope it gets funded again next year?
Sometimes after the visits are over it's clear that only one of the candidates seems appropriate for the position (and sometimes that none of them does!). In that case, you don't offer the job to someone who doesn't seem appropriate; you do in fact "risk the position and hope it gets funded again next year." And really, what else can a department do but be guided by its judgment about how well its candidates fit what they're looking for? If its judgment is "not well," can we really say it should offer the job anyway?
How is it possible for a department to fuck up the APA interviews so badly that they end up inviting THREE candidates to campus whom they then decide are not what they need?
If I were a dean I would yank the position immediately. In this market a school like Pomona should be able to get an excellent hire, no problem. If this search failed because the second and third choices were not "appropriate" then the committee should be hung up by their toenails at the next APA (conveniently close to Pomona).
A failed search in this economic environment means one less tenure-track line for the field in the long run. This hurts us all. Idiots.
I happen via the grapevine to know Pomona interviewed 12 people at the APA. Somewhere in there they can't find a 4th or 5th person to fly out who's at least worth a look to see if they're appropriate?
And if their No. 1 really did string them on and then renege, well, that's extremely bad behavior on the candidate's part. If it had anything to do with the search failing - i.e., it was then too late to make another offer - that person should bear some of the blame for whatever happens to that line.
You'll be surprised how irrational a SC can get. As someone mentioned before "hirability" is not a serious concern in my experience.
For instance, why the hell are 3rd/4th tier schools with 3-3 or 4-4 teaching loads extending flybacks to tenured or someone up for tenure at top 20 programs? Do they really believe this person would be happy there? I see this phenomenon all the time and these candidates accept the flybacks for whatever reason (practice, safety net, etc.). They often get the offer but I've yet to see one accept!
I don't think a well-endowed school like Pomona really gives a crap, even in this economy. From what I can tell, the average state school is pulling out all the stops to make sure they don't lose what they know to be a golden opportunity.
Anyone know whether the person who backed out is a regular visitor to FV, and therefore had read how morally repugnant it is to back out of a job after giving your word, back when we had that discussion about Colorado College?
Re: the Pomona job. Please get your facts straight. Nobody reneged on anything. An offer was made, considered over a 5-day period (which included a weekend), then turned down for another offer. End of part one. Then, for its own reasons, the dept decided it had a failed search on its hands; about this I have no info, although any number of reasonable scenarios might explain it. But the candidate did nothing wrong or unprofessional and shouldn't be blamed.
I don't think anyone said above that the candidate was more than a rumor, but, OK, then, why would Pomona let such a thing happen...two years in a row? I understand that one of their faculty - with whom this hire would probably have to work closely - is a bit of a sabre-tooth tiger, but you need a victim to be a REAL sabre-tooth tiger.
I don't think anyone said above that the candidate was more than a rumor, but, OK, then, why would Pomona let such a thing happen...two years in a row? I understand that one of their faculty - with whom this hire would probably have to work closely - is a bit of a sabre-tooth tiger, but you need a victim to be a REAL sabre-tooth tiger.
I have heard that the problem is really irreconcilable differences between the Classics and History departments. The historians have their claws sunk rather deep into the position. This is always a risk with joint positions or even positions where the larger department is only "supporting" the smaller one in the search.
Sabre-tooth tiger or sabre-tooth buffoon?
Maybe the answer to the question posed below is to send the girl to FV?
World's Worst Boyfriend Needs Help Stopping Some Silly Classics Student
Has anyone ever had a REALLY short campus visit? I have a callback for a place that wants the campus visit to last about 3 hours total: 50-minute class followed by brunch/interview with the faculty. That's it. Should I be alarmed?
Have to add that the previous comment is about a campus visit for a T-T job!
On the quickee interview from a tenured prof and recent SC-member. I can't imagine doing an on-campus interview that way myself, but if they're bringing you to campus, they're seriously interested.
I had an interview like that once--I flew in, had lunch at a cheap place with the Chair, gave a talk, met with a couple of faculty and then went home. I was made to take the train to and from the airport and was told that, if I needed to have dinner at the airport, I could ask for a reimbursement. I got the job, but, lord I wish I hadn't. They were as cheap about everything else as they were about the visit. If they can't buy you dinner, you should know you probably won't get any research support and the pay will be lousy.
This is probably more appropriate for another thread, but this appears to be the only one getting any action these days, so, a question about temporary jobs advertised in the fall, some of which interviewed at the APA. Anyone have any news on:
-Assumption (supposedly met weeks ago)
-Gettysburg (the 1-year)
-Furman
-Middlebury (job offered weeks ago, but no update)
-UNH (job offered weeks ago, email stated clearly that the offeree had been given a week to respond, no update)
Am I the only one who feels a wave of depression whenever I log on the wiki, and am greeted with:
HELLO, HUNGRY CLASSICIST!
Could someone change this, please?
(Since hunger is a distinct possibility given my career trajectory.)
Seconded. It was cute like the first two times. Could it at least be "Desperate Classicist"?
add request for news from Georgetown
Any news from other places that were supposed to notify this week? E.g., Sweet Briar?
I would guess that VAP offers are on hold until the TT offers are sorted out - which should really be wrapping up this week and next.
I was told a couple week's back that Georgetown had made at least one offer- but that may be sheer fama.
This is another appeal to change "Hungry Classicist" to "Desperate" or whatever suits your fancy...but, is it me or is it irony that "Hungry Classicist"'s profile's Karma ranking is "very high"?
Nuh-uh!
Life is duḥkha
I admit it. I am the one who changed the profile to "Hungry Classicist".
Anyway, after all of the complaints here I have tried to go back and change it, but Wikidot allows only TWO name changes, so we are stuck with the current nomenclature. I wouldn't take it too seriously. And for what it is worth, I don't have any job prospects, I am on the second year of a 2-year VAP, and I am looking to move back in with my parents in June. I'm going to be hungry, desperate and depressed very soon. The least I am worrying about is a stupid wiki username.
Finally, I changed it only because some bozo had changed the profile name to "gina". What the fuck was that about? So don't blame me for this, blame "gina". None of this would have happened if she hadn't changed the damn thing in the first place. So if anybody knows someone on the market named "gina", talk to her about how you feel.
Life is duḥkha
Ah, a field even worse off than Classics...
Anyone else feeling like the eternal bridesmaid right about now? Out of morbid curiosity, what is the record number of fly-outs anyone has ever gotten without getting any offers?
Signed,
Clearly NOT the Princeford villain
...what is the record number of fly-outs anyone has ever gotten without getting any offers?
Highest I've heard of is 5. Anyone know a sadder story?
Anon. 8:17 - I feel your pain, and I can't top 5, but if you look at the wiki, you'll see only about a quarter of the people who have self-ID's as on the market have flyouts. I had a flyout but I know quite a few people who didn't. Your post suggests you had quite a few - maybe you could remember that for most people on here that's not the case. And strictly speaking since you got a flyout you at least got engaged. :-o Bridesmaid status is reserved for APA interviewees only.
No. Flyback without offer is bridesmaid (or maybe contestant onthe Bachelor?). Engagement is when you get the job offer. Tenure is the actual marriage.
hmm, well, I guess at least I got some cute bridesmaid dresses to remember this by!
Dear Hungry Classicist,
I'm concerned about my friend. (S)he has had over twenty-eight "encounters" at the meetings over the past two years, yet (s)he still has not made a commitment to one person -- let alone even dated monogamously! I am concerned. (S)he claims that (s)he's been cursed to be a "jerk/bitch magnet," but I'm beginning to wonder if it is just his/her lack of commitment or -- worse! -- loose morals? What should I do?
Sincerely,
Helping Others Believe in Acquiring Gainful (employment)
Dear HOBAG(e),
Make sure to explain to your "friend" the dangers of picking up STDs -- i.e. "Stupid Terminal Discussions" -- at yearly academic conferences. Symptoms take anywhere from one week to three months to manifest. Treatments include VAPs, post-docs, dropping out of the field, and -- in dire cases -- adjuncting.
Hungry Classicist
I'm beginning to wonder if it is just his/her lack of commitment or -- worse! -- loose morals?
I'd be happy to help. Please have your friend contact me directly.
I too had 5 fly-outs last year and didn't get a job: 2 had inside candidates, 1 committee voted to hire me but was turned down by the dean, AND SO ON. I have a little information about what is going on at Pomona - and hope this will put the department in a better light. They did choose a 4th candidate, but the dean wouldn't give them another fly-out. He did give them a term position, and they have called the 4th candidate.
Fellow bridesmaids, take heart. Those multiple offer freaks have no choice but to jilt a few grooms at the altar, and then said grooms will come running tearfully to our arms for "comfort".
To torture this metaphor a little further: what does this make a VAP? A short non-committal relationship? And is an adjunct the mistress for whom the man never leaves his wife?
sloppy seconds, I'm not seeing multiple offer freaks on the wiki (only two people with more than one offer), and I actually haven't even heard of any this year (unlike last year, when there were several). Does anyone know of any?
And Anon. 1:36, WOW. That REALLY sucks that a dean turned your job offer down. As for Pomona, why not give the term position to their 2nd or 3rd flyout candidate?
For the jeers section of the wiki, grow a couple, people, and name departments.
"I'm not seeing multiple offer freaks on the wiki (only two people with more than one offer), and I actually haven't even heard of any this year... Does anyone know of any?"
Yes. I don't think they use the wiki.
Yes. I don't think they use the wiki.
'Cause they're THAT much better than us!
Another reason to hate the Princeford Villain and sabretooths in training. Boo, hiss.
Just in case this offers any consolation, let me say that I have in the past applied to 100+ positions, got just two flyouts out of those, and one job offer which I took. Ultimately it is not the number of flyouts that count but the job offer, right?
Is the wiki correct with the Tufts entry? They offered the job in January? How did the updater hear about this? I presume you're from the UK or a commonwealth nation (who else spells it as "rumour?"). Sorry to be annoying, but I was really hoping for at least an interview. Congrats to the person who accepted the job, if the rumor is true - Boston rocks.
I presume you're from the UK or a commonwealth nation (who else spells it as "rumour?")
The phenomenon of pretentious US academics displaying their Anglophilia via spelling is not unknown.
Assume NOTHING.
I presume you're from the UK or a commonwealth nation (who else spells it as "rumour?")
Blame Canada?
The Classics job market: Proof that foreigners will do those jobs Americans WANT to do.
Wait... There really are Classics jobs in the US? I thought it was just a big scam.
The Classics job market: Proof that foreigners will do those jobs Americans WANT to do.
Here we go again...
For the Dutch classicists out there:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pi89QLpud4I
In case any of you hasn't seen this, check it:
http://home.comcast.net/~fuuchan/aeneidonfacebookfinal.png
The Dutch must be trading up. I thought they were sardined into this:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/61/Cutlass_Ciera_1980s.JPG
The Classics job market: Proof that foreigners will do those jobs Americans WANT to do.
Tell me about it. I am so sick of our system of higher education acting as a magnet for gifted scientists and scholars from all over the world.
I propose that we round up all these nerds and send them back to Nerdistan or wherever.
Well, I don't think the sciences recruit foreigners because of their Anglo-Saxon sensibilities, especially since most seem to come from East Europe and Asia. On the flipside, for classics, this does happen. That is, we heavily recruit foreigners based on cultural reasons. Sure, there are some brilliant classicists from overseas who've studied the classics since the age of 5, but I rarely find this to be true today - there are plenty of home grown talent who can hang with them. I do believe in cross-pollinating, but the over-fascination in classics with Anglo-Saxon scholars doesn't help our image as an elitist discipline out of touch with today's world.
we heavily recruit foreigners based on cultural reasons ... the over-fascination in classics with Anglo-Saxon scholars
According to the "Past Performance" thread, in 2007-2008 a total of 22 positions, TT and non-TT combined, were filled by people with non-North American Ph.D.s. There were 174 positions filled in all. That's about 1 in 8. 16 of those 22 were from UK universities (and some of those were doubtless not people from the UK but from other European countries or North America). 8 of them were from Oxbridge.
I don't know that I would call that heavy recruitment or over-fascination. I also don't find it particularly strange that people from Oxford and Cambridge should be attractive. They're good schools!
Yeah, but Oxbridge is in the UK, so it's elitist. Unlike homegrown Princeford.
I don't know that I would call that heavy recruitment or over-fascination. I also don't find it particularly strange that people from Oxford and Cambridge should be attractive. They're good schools!
Yes, they're good schools. But do they provide the background necessary for their graduates to teach in the American system? Oxbridge classes are nothing like our classes, and I've seen a lot of their graduates struggle to teach in the American university. Don't undergrads deserve better?
And, given the dire nature of the UK job market - worse than ours - many of them are just cutting their teeth over here and will return to the UK as soon as they get a job over there. (I except those Americans who just get their degrees over there and then return to the motherland.)
It's also a question of specialization. There are pretty clearly American and European, especially British, areas of interest. For instance, if you want to do a PhD in Latin or Greek prose, the UK/Europe is the place to go. Where does that leave homegrown prose people? In competition with people with degrees more dazzling to most Americans than a BA at Princeford and a PhD at Berkelago.
And, finally, there's no reciprocity to even things out. You hear often enough of senior scholars from the US becoming UK or European dons. You very rarely hear of European schools, much less Oxbridge, hiring American junior PhDs or ABDs.
This is a question responsible SCs at least consider. (It's a perennial debate at Berkeley, for instance.) And one last thought: 1 of 8 jobs in this economy and job market seems like an awful lot to me.
Yes, they're good schools. But do they provide the background necessary for their graduates to teach in the American system? Oxbridge classes are nothing like our classes, and I've seen a lot of their graduates struggle to teach in the American university. Don't undergrads deserve better?
Sure they do. But American PhDs who are horrible teachers and have strong research profiles get hired all the time, too. Don't undergrads deserve better?
And, given the dire nature of the UK job market - worse than ours - many of them are just cutting their teeth over here and will return to the UK as soon as they get a job over there.
Actually, things are bad there, and have only gotten worse in terms of administrative and research demands. This is a reason why many senior scholars come here from the UK. For better or worse, many of both the younger folks and the older ones are going to stay.
(I except those Americans who just get their degrees over there and then return to the motherland.)
Do you also except the non-Americans who get their PhDs at US institutions? Or should we stop admitting them, or hiring them after they get their degrees?
It's also a question of specialization. There are pretty clearly American and European, especially British, areas of interest. For instance, if you want to do a PhD in Latin or Greek prose, the UK/Europe is the place to go. Where does that leave homegrown prose people? In competition with people with degrees more dazzling to most Americans than a BA at Princeford and a PhD at Berkelago.
First, "dazzling to most Americans," not to most American professional classicists. I'm not really aware of this prose problem, and since I'm a prose person I can think of lots of examples of American-trained prose people holding attractive jobs in the US.
And, finally, there's no reciprocity to even things out. You hear often enough of senior scholars from the US becoming UK or European dons. You very rarely hear of European schools, much less Oxbridge, hiring American junior PhDs or ABDs.
True. But that's not a weakness of their system we should emulate. There's no need to do dumb things to harm ourselves just because the Brits do dumb things to harm themselves.
This is a question responsible SCs at least consider. (It's a perennial debate at Berkeley, for instance.)
I say, consider away. If a department is willing to put considerations of nationality over ones of merit, who am I to tell them no?
And one last thought: 1 of 8 jobs in this economy and job market seems like an awful lot to me.
That was last year's economy and job market.
"I say, consider away. If a department is willing to put considerations of nationality over ones of merit, who am I to tell them no?"
How do you define merit? Are you saying that the 1/8 hiring demographic is indicative of the UK producing inherently superior classicists (as they presumably don't produce 1/8 of the classicsts worldwide)? Or are you saying that there's some x-factor that makes UK scholars deserving of a much higher percentage of the US jobs than one would guess from their numbers? I don't understand what UK scholars bring to the table that would necessitate us importing such a high percentage. 1/20 I could see; 1/8 means something is skewing the numbers as if we're in the 19th century before the international rise of US institutions.
In the sciences, it's simple. European and Asian students, in general, can run circles around us when it comes to math and the basic sciences. Plus they are willing to put in insane hours as grad students and post-docs that most of us are not willing to do. This Anglophilia we have in classics is dumbfounding. I can't think of any other discipline that does this across the board. Yes, there is European history and other sub-disciplines, but not an entire discipline from what I know.
How do you define merit? Are you saying that the 1/8 hiring demographic is indicative of the UK producing inherently superior classicists (as they presumably don't produce 1/8 of the classicsts worldwide)? Or are you saying that there's some x-factor that makes UK scholars deserving of a much higher percentage of the US jobs than one would guess from their numbers? I don't understand what UK scholars bring to the table that would necessitate us importing such a high percentage. 1/20 I could see; 1/8 means something is skewing the numbers as if we're in the 19th century before the international rise of US institutions.
A). 1/8 = all foreign PhDs, not all UK PhDs. UK = less than 1/10.
B). You've got an Anglophone country of 60 million people and a strong tradition in Classics, and two of the top universities in the world, plus a number of other strong universities. (Presumably they do in fact produce more than 1/8 of Anglophone Classicists worldwide, although I don't see why that's relevant.) My question is, why wouldn't you expect to have a lot of good UK candidates on the market?
Honestly, I don't see why you're upset about the UK and not California. In 2007-08, California PhDs got 29 of the filled APA positions. That's 1 in 6 of the filled positions, despite—get this!—having 2/3 the population of the UK.
Now, what are we going to do about this unhealthy Californiaphilia?
As far as "merit," I'm obviously not suggesting inherent foreign merit. I'm saying that if a department happens to find that its best candidate is not a US PhD holder and decides that it's willing to hire a US PhD instead for that reason, it's fine with me.
"As far as "merit," I'm obviously not suggesting inherent foreign merit. I'm saying that if a department happens to find that its best candidate is not a US PhD holder and decides that it's willing to hire a US PhD instead for that reason, it's fine with me."
Yep, in this case, it's not "blinded by science," but "blinded by the accent."
More reason classics should just die or be folded into language departments.
Given that there are more than 100 grad students in Classics at Oxbridge (Cambridge gives a partial list of 54, I don't know about Oxford), I don't think we have to invoke anything like Anglophilia to explain why a number of them would end up working in the US.
More reason classics should just die or be folded into language departments.
It's often helpful to give some indication of what statement you're responding to. Otherwise, people will think you're just some insane person typing random, angry comments.
Which is clearly not the case in your case, Sir or Madam.
If foreign PhD institutions are so hot, you know you can always go there. It's called the free market. Something you people are apparently fond of. Occasionally.
If foreign PhD institutions are so hot, you know you can always go there. It's called the free market. Something you people are apparently fond of. Occasionally.
I forgot to mention this earlier during my impassioned defense of departments that hire foreign Ph.D.s, but now's as good a time as any: as in the U.S., so too in foreign countries, many people are assholes. So, one would expect a certain percentage of Ph.D.s to be assholes as well.
And indeed that appears to be the case.
as in the U.S., so too in foreign countries, many people are assholes
Why so sensitive? It was just a little jibe at American rhetoric. Chill.
Why so sensitive? It was just a little jibe at American rhetoric. Chill.
LOL. Sorry. That's fine, if you're an American. But if not, please don't ever call me "you people" again.
More reason classics should just die or be folded into language departments.
Seriously, it's like being trapped in a 19th century time warp. It would be like all the scientists and physicians still coming from Scotland. Wait, the sciences actually live in reality and not some strange bend in the space-time continuum. Now someone pass me some crumpets.
Yes, if there's an inherent advantage to being culturally Anglo-Saxon when gauging "merit" AND it has nothing to do with one's skills as a classicist, classics should die. I couldn't agree more. Whether this is actually the case, is harder to gauge.
It would be like all the scientists and physicians still coming from Scotland.
Except it's not at all like that. A small percentage of US professional classicists hold UK PhDs. This isn't strange, since the UK, despite its small surface area, has fully 20% of the population that we have, plus a much stronger preparatory education basis in Greek and Latin than we do, and two of the great world universities. Plus they're Anglophone, which gives them a much better basis as teachers in the US than people from other European countries.
I swear, last year it was exactly the same conversation with the Junior Lou Dobbs Squad.
Based on your logic, why the hell don't we have Brits filling 1/10 or whatever of the English department positions in the US? How about horticulture positions? How about restaurants that want really crappy but authentic British food? How about mechanics at the Jaguar dealership?
Oxford has by far the largest Classics department in the world. Cambridge has the second largest. So perhaps it's not surprising that the two largest classics departments go on to claim a large share of the market. Get over yourselves people, and stop looking for xenophobic conspiracy theories to justify why you're having difficulty finding a job.
LOL. Sorry. That's fine, if you're an American. But if not, please don't ever call me "you people" again.
Does anyone else find it strangely ironic that someone posting up as "Anonymous" doesn't want to be lumped in with "you people"?
If foreign PhD institutions are so hot, you know you can always go there. It's called the free market. Something you people are apparently fond of. Occasionally.
Actually, no. It's hard to do - not hard to get in, mind you, but hard to fund your education over there, unless you are independently wealthy. I was admitted to Oxford a few years back for a DPhil, but ended up not going; as part of their policy towards foreign students, they require you to prove that you have 30-40K of income a year to support yourself. I didn't, and they very rarely give aid to foreign students. I don't know about other European universities, but that's a big stumbling block. I'm under the impression that funding is MUCH less of a problem for European students attending US schools; at least in my program, all were eligible equally for fellowships, which were based on merit not nationality.
You can say what you want about the free market in jobs, but the free market in schools is clearly also a problem.
I find it ironic that we're talking about a body (the European Union) that is far less pro-free market than the US is, yet whose citizens take advantage of the free market policies of the US.
Europe and a lot of other places do invest a LOT in public education though - and they reap a small part of that benefit when they see their folk dominating grad schools here.
It isn't a one-way street - if you're angry about Europeans "taking our jobs", why don't you apply for their jobs too? There have been several Classics jobs in the UK advertised in the last month, and nothing to stop Americans applying.
Name five junior scholars from the US who have gotten UK jobs cold, with no contacts. (I speak as someone who has applied for quite a few.) Over there, it's very much who you know that nets a job, much more than it is here. It's all very well to say "well, go to their schools" or "apply for their jobs." But it doesn't address an underlying inequity - failure of reciprocity, as someone above said.
I love how the whole discussion started with a comment that Americans think Europeans are better than they are, and lots of the pro-European comments have completely borne that out.
Based on your logic, why the hell don't we have Brits filling 1/10 or whatever of the English department positions in the US? How about horticulture positions? How about restaurants that want really crappy but authentic British food? How about mechanics at the Jaguar dealership?
Here at Stanford every entering Classics grad student is given a free car. The catch is that the car must have been built in their home country. Since I am American I received a free 1984 Ford Fiesta. My office-mate is British and Ian Morris made him choose between a Jaguar and an Aston Martin. He reluctantly (but gracefully - he is British, after all) chose a 2008 Aston Martin DB9. Now he has to take it to all the way to a dealer out in Walnut Creek for oil changes. Anyway, to make a long story short, fully 75% of the mechanics there are Pakistani.
Outrageous.
I don't think it's "who you know" (any more than you can say the same thing about the US). I think the difference is that in the UK there is no tenure-track model. So in practice this means that applying for a UK job is applying for a tenured job, i.e. you will be competing against mid-career candidates, and they are most likely to get the jobs. So junior scholars (of any nationality) don't really stand a chance. And so British junior scholars have little choice but to apply for American jobs...
No, really, who you know definitely matters more in the UK.
No, really, who you know definitely matters more in the UK.
And your evidence is...?
I'm not at all sure I would want a job in the UK. I have three friends who teach there - one at Oxford, two at red-brick universities - and they're all rushed off their feet all the time during terms. They spend more time teaching than a VAP here with a 3:3 load does (in terms of actually in the classroom/meeting students). On top of that, there are tons of administrative duties, some of which we have here, like admissions, but also things like yearly programme reports and exam analyses, requirements imposed by the nanny state.
My my, we are empirically minded on FV this year. That's just how it is, love. I've got no stats to show you.
For anyone who wants to apply for a UK job, go here. Perhaps add to the sidebar, Servius?
But I think you'll find, it is indeed who (British) you know.
My my, we are empirically minded on FV this year. That's just how it is, love. I've got no stats to show you.
One of the nice things about having data is that it puts a check on wild exaggerations, paranoia, scapegoating, and general uninformed bellyaching.
I assume that this is why so few people here present data.
You are welcome to doubt me in your ignorance, but I can assure you my bellyaching is well informed.
The anti-European brigade have, as usual, managed to lump all Europeans together as British. This would manage to irritate both parties simultaneously. Nice job.
Europeans tend to compete for the best US jobs. Why? Because they're some of the best global jobs and the candidates come from some of the best global universities. You want to have a foreigner cap on 8th tier community colleges, go ahead. It won't make one jot of difference because there aren't any Europeans applying anyway. You want to cap Harvard or Berkeley? Er, that reasoning's probably why you're not even a candidate...
Why stop at the national borders? Why not let states forbid out-of-state PhDs from working in-state?
And why the focus on foreign degrees? Why not ban from US employment foreign nationals with US degrees, too? In fact, let's ban them from our grad schools entirely.
Why not just implement the de jure policy of Canada that is de facto in the UK - public institutions must prove beyond a shadow of doubt that the foreigner offers a service that no citizen can. Princeford and the other private institutions can throw as many jobs as they want at any wanker with an accent as far as I care. Hell, give Rowan Atkinson a job at the APA. It would probably run better.
Why not just implement the de jure policy of Canada that is de facto in the UK - public institutions must prove beyond a shadow of doubt that the foreigner offers a service that no citizen can.
We have by far the best system of colleges and research universities on earth. One of the reasons why this is so is that we attract people from everywhere. Shutting that down so that there would be a few more jobs for Americans would be shooting ourselves in the foot.
Places that regard the purpose of universities as "provide the fullest possible employment to citizen PhDs" instead of "teach and research" end up with a crappy university system. You use Canada and the UK as a model here (which aren't exactly appealing) but one could adduce more horrifying examples of the results of the policy you advocate, such as Italy. And any proposal that depends on US higher education adopting policies that will take us down the road Italy has traveled seems to me pretty misguided. Baby with the bathwater etc.
Does the University of Iowa really need that British classicist to accomplish its mission to the full? I could see perhaps a handful of public institutions (Berkeley, Virginia, Michigan) maybe suffering in the humanities, but it would be easy to overcome this criterion in the sciences. I don't think the humanities and especially the classics could pull this off. Why? Because I agree with a previous post that snagging a Brit for a classics department is largely a prestige hire in this day and age. There's an antiquated sentiment that a classics department has more cred with a Brit. Yes, there are some superior British classicists, but they can still get hired based on their superior abilities. I, for one, believe that many of the 1/8 would not pass muster otherwise.
Why not just implement the de jure policy of Canada that is de facto in the UK - public institutions must prove beyond a shadow of doubt that the foreigner offers a service that no citizen can.
A few (?) institutions do this, officially or not. UT San Antonio's ad stated that candidates must have prior authorization to work in the US (I'm guessing this means they would not sponsor a visa themselves) and a friend of mine was told by a SC member at another institution that it would be hard to hire him for a VAP position since he was not a national (even though he could legally work in the US for at least a year). I don't think this is a good thing for the US education system, but it exists to some extant.
Oops. The UT San Antonio ad actually said "Applicants who are selected for interviews must be able to show proof that they will be eligible and qualified to work in the United States by time of hire." It doesn't necessarily mean they wouldn't sponsor a candidate. My bad.
"Because I agree with a previous post that snagging a Brit for a classics department is largely a prestige hire in this day and age. There's an antiquated sentiment that a classics department has more cred with a Brit."
See, it's fine to say this, but do you see how you don't really adduce any examples or evidence? This makes it impossible to engage in any kind of dialogue with you. Which makes me wonder why you're bothering to comment at all.
If you really want me to name names of individuals from overseas that have/had dubious academic (especially teaching) records which resulted in expensive experiments that failed miserably, I would be happy to do so in a venue outside of FV (which does not allow names). I don't think I really even have to do this as it's easy to come up with a number of names if you've been in the field long enough. I can think of at least five names off the top of my head who received tenure in the US and promptly moved to a senior lectureship or higher back in the motherland first chance they got. I suppose the US is doing a noble thing keeping the careers of some junior Europeans alive until they can flourish back home, but is this really a primary mission or desired result of any US university? I'm not talking about elite universities here. The Princefords of the world can and should experiement with these high risk/high gain hires. It's just puzzling when Southwest Idaho State College does it.
But these are the sort of areas for which there isn't any hard evidence to the standards you want. I've been told often and repeatedly by advisers and recommenders not to bother applying for UK jobs as a junior scholar because it is who you know. As these are intelligent, non-anonymous people with years of experience, I tend to believe them. Instead of asking someone on a blog for proof, why not ask some of the faculty in your department/university what they think?
I would not say, however, that most of the 1/8 wouldn't cut it otherwise. They do come from a different system, one that at the grad level places a greater priority on publications and research, and then go on to postdocs over there, so they often have books by the time they apply for jobs over here and are attractive to research universities. (Of course, this is another dangerous precedent - hiring assistant professors because they've published a book takes us down the path of a book being required just to get a t-t job.)
I agree, let's import the Ian Morrises of the world by the boatload, especially for senior positions at places like Stanford. I have no problem with this. To hire some random John Bull fresh out of Oxbridge, which I suspect is the more typical representative of the 1/8 hired, is a weird classics phenomenon that has little bearing on the long term health of classics in the US.
1/10, folks. Not 1/8. 1/10 from the UK that one year. This isn't that hard.
John Bull? Is that the limey equivalent of Joe the Classicist?
To hire some random John Bull fresh out of Oxbridge, which I suspect is the more typical representative of the 1/8 hired
This is exactly the kind of lazy talking-out-of-your-ass that I'm talking about. "I suspect." Come on, now.
Well, it does have consequences on the long-term health of classics. It perpetuates this notion that classics is the domain of WASPs. Why else drive a Jaguar or Bentley? They're engineering crap. If you want to go on "merit," we should be importing more BMWs and Lexuses.
I think we can quantify this to some degree. How many of the Brits hired were senior vs. junior? If it's largely senior, I don't think there is anything wrong with the system. We're snagging some good scholars that have presumably proven themselves. If it's largely junior, the previous posters might be on to something.
Went back and looked at t-t hires of non-US degrees (not just British) from last year. Defining "junior" as less than 6 years away from the PhD (i.e., would not yet have come up for tenure in an entry-level position), there are:
11 junior (all but three since 2006, actually)
8 senior
Of folks going the other way, I only saw one US degree getting a job in Europe (a temp job, too), and a couple in Canada.
To me, it looks like there's a slight bias for new foreign blood here, just as there is a bias for dewy-skinned ABDs with "potential" in the US.
Of those eleven junior (successful) candidates I can say that at least one had a stellar cv and got a stellar job. You can argue about whether he was the right choice, but he wasn't obviously the wrong - or an unfair - choice. Ten to go.
Prove to us that this person had a stellar CV, since that seems to be a popular demand around here. I expect superstar status. Compare this person to a US superstar from that year and see how they stack up.
This current inane discussion makes me want to slit my wrists. No, I don't have a constructive alternative topic to offer; I am too worn out with job market effort and disappointment and tough choices. But how about we all (wo)man up and stop complaining and grasping at [insert pet imagined institutional bias/injustice] to explain why we didn't get the job(s) we wanted. I didn't get the jobs I wanted, and I don't think it's because whoever got those jobs were undeserving--nor do I think it was because I was undeserving. Reality is, there are so many more of us well-qualified candidates than there are jobs. Sunt lacrimae rerum.
Ditto. Seconded. Ibid. Etc.
OK, I got a new topic: Which is worse for one's career, a tenure-track position at a CC or adjuncting? Seriously, I'd like to know.
Which is worse for one's career, a tenure-track position at a CC or adjuncting?
You mean, for eventually getting into a TT position at a 4-year? I don't know. They're probably about equal, I'd guess.
CCs vary a lot from state to state, but I know someone who took a CC job in California and was very happy with it. The money and terms of employment also were surprisingly good. So, depending where you are, the CC might be preferable from that perspective, at least.
CC or Adjunct?
I adjuncted for 2 years and landed a TT this year. Also, if people weren't aware, the TT job at OSU-Newark is essentially a CC job. There is no hard and fast rule on it. It all depends on where you are at and what you do while you are there. If it is the only way to stay affiliated, then do it.
Sheesh, based on the wiki, maybe it's the Pennford villain?
Serious, who took the Prince out of Princeford? Or maybe they're just lying low?
Sheesh, based on the wiki, maybe it's the Pennford villain?
Oh, don't get your hopes up. No matter how many PhDs get positions from Penn or anywhere else, I can guarantee that there will some goof here in November complaining about "Princeford."
Assuming the Internet still exists in November.
Princeford does have a certain ring to it, eh?
I wonder if any SC figured out who this look-at-me-I-have-fifteen-interviews villain was. I personally doubt it and bet that the person has a plum contract in hand.
As a newbie, can someone please enlighten me as to what all this "Princeford" talk is about?
Princeton's having a bad year. Or so I hear from my Princeton friends.
Uh, could someone clarify what "rumor mill" means on the wiki? Does it mean you know for sure the job was offered/accepted? Is the source a friend, a friend of a friend, an alien over Texas? I kind of like the "viva voce" marker for WLU - suggests person heard from someone with direct knowledge of the search. I have no reason to doubt the rumors; I just want to know how reliable they are.
Princeford = Princeton + Stanford. Name born in the 2007-08 wiki, where everyone hated on Princeton and Stanford. This year we're hating on UT, too.
I wonder if any SC figured out who this look-at-me-I-have-fifteen-interviews villain was. I personally doubt it and bet that the person has a plum contract in hand.
Since the "villain" was a spoof, I'm going to say "no."
[cue someone pretending to be the "villain," insisting on his/her own reality]
I have no reason to doubt the rumors; I just want to know how reliable they are.
Since the one rumor reported about a situation of which I have secure knowledge is wrong, I'm going to say "not very."
Princeton's having a bad year. Or so I hear from my Princeton friends.
All Classics departments are so small that their placements from one year to the next can vary dramatically. This is why it's important not to draw conclusions on the basis of one or two years' placement.
Or we can just go on yelling about how "Princeford" vacuums up all the jobs.
Actually, having seen this before, I'm going to go ahead and bet on Option #2.
For crying out loud, what do you want? A 1-10 rating for the rumor? A rumor is a rumor. Take it for what it's worth. You can't set stiff parameters for a rumor. Sheesh.
"Since the "villain" was a spoof, I'm going to say "no."
How are you so sure, unless...you were the spoofer.
"Princeton's having a bad year. Or so I hear from my Princeton friends."
Now I know you're lying. Princetonians don't have friends.
Let's make up some new names this year. How about Yarvard? Berginia?Or better yet, Pornell. We could then talk about Bergins and Pornos.
How are you so sure, unless...you were the spoofer.
Well, really, because the villain was too cartoonish, or silent-movie-villainish. Real villains mainly operate under the illusion that they're not villains. They don't actually grow the mustache. The "villain" had the mustache. It reveled without shame in its outlandish repulsiveness. Which says to me that it was a spoof.
I strongly second using "Pornell" next year.
If it hasn't been trademarked as a shampoo name, that is.
You're obviously new to classics. I see plenty of people brandishing their mustaches proudly as if it's they're God given right to be a total ass.
"This year we're hating on UT, too."
What do people have against Toronto?
You're obviously new to classics. I see plenty of people brandishing their mustaches proudly as if it's they're God given right to be a total ass.
Not new. And I really think it would take an especially pathetic sort of person to type blog comments bragging about interview numbers. As you're doing so, I think you have to have a moment at which you think to yourself, "Ugh. I'm pathetic."
Unless you're a spoof, and then it's all in good fun.
Yeah, right, there are no pathetic people in classics...
What do people have against Toronto?
Uh, hello? Toronto like other foreign universities produces disgusting greedy completely unqualified pigs who steal jobs that by rights belong to 'murcans just because they say "abowt" instead of "about."
Please try to pay attention.
Yeah, right, there are no pathetic people in classics...
Of course I am. I mean, of course there are. But come on: didn't those comments seem ridiculously cartoonish, and pitched to press everybody's buttons?
Well, Toronto is a pretty good school in my book and last time I checked, it was a part of the Americas too.
I don't know. Most people in classics are very decent, but there are some arrogant pricks out there who would love nothing better to shove it in other people's faces, especially under the protection of anonymity. You know - I can be a total prick and there's nothing anybody can do about it.
Well, Toronto is a pretty good school in my book and last time I checked, it was a part of the Americas too.
Right, sorry, that was parody.
And (someone else's) original joke was to pretend to understand that someone had meant "University of Toronto" by "UT" when in fact they had meant "University of Texas, Austin."
I am truly sorry if my attempt at humor offended you or your proud people, Mr. or Ms. possible Canadian. I honor your people's ways, and in no way mean to suggest that you (as a person, not a people) should be more alive to the potential humorous implications of apparently serious statements. God keep your land glorious and free.
there are some arrogant pricks out there who would love nothing better to shove it in other people's faces
That sounds icky to me.
How about "protection of anonymity?" That could be FV's new tagline - FV, better than a Trojan and damn proud of it.
I don't know. Most people in classics are very decent, but there are some arrogant pricks out there who would love nothing better to shove it in other people's faces, especially under the protection of anonymity. You know - I can be a total prick and there's nothing anybody can do about it.
OK, well, maybe there is something to Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory.
"No matter how many PhDs get positions from Penn..."
More like ABDs from Penn. I mean, really, in this market?
At least one of those ABDs from Penn has just defended.
I'm actually happy to see Penn succeed. It's a good and often overlooked program with a lot of great people on staff (both academically and collegially) and I have never met a Penn grad who's a prick (unlike some other grad programs I could name...).
Oooh, I may get to start a new page if I type this fast enough! Makes my day, in this jobless world.
Post a Comment