I'm not surprised by the Big Ten schools or any other public school in the rust belt.
Wisconsin was a bit of an anamoly. They made some shrewd hires after WWII but haven't been able to keep up financially nor with the quality of students. Michigan is actually the abnormal one by somehow defying the state's cratering economy. They have held their position for the most part, but schools such as Virginia and UCLA are on the verge of passing it and Berkeley is far enough ahead that it's not realistically a peer anymore. Regardless of how the university is doing, the classics department itself is more than holding its own, of course.
Illinois is a bit of a puzzle. It can draw great students from Chicago and the state is obviously doing better financially than MI, but it's never quite achieved top-public status, except for maybe in engineering and business.
Maybe Cornell, Northwestern, Virginia, Vanderbilt, Georgia, Washington, Iowa, Buffalo, Arizona, Penn State, and Florida State? I don't think Arizona and Penn State have a Ph.D. program out of the group.
Does this mean that you think the schools above are good places to go, or burned out husks to be avoided? Sorry if I'm dense but I'm not sure I understand which you meant here.
I'm also curious what the original poster meant as an alum of one of the schools listed. BTW, Penn State does have a PhD program. Of the list, I'd put my money on Cornell and Virginia. Cornell is always Ivy, and Virginia's main problem for years has been that they didn't produce PhDs consistently enough to make an impact on the field. That seems to be changing with an expansion in the department now.
If the question is still on Latin, I think both of those places are good Latin prose/poetry places.
You can't really be serious that UVA is surpassing Michigan. They have half the faculty, little or no real archaeology, no papyri, etc. Who are you going to study Homer with? Please.
I don't know about Arizona and FSU, despite their strong programs in classics. Both are in similar positions - schools in states that don't traditionally support education very well. They are also both in small cities that are geographically isolated - ASU and UF definitely have a leg up in this regard. They are also the two hardest hit states when it comes to real estate. I don't see either having the mandate nor financial resources to ever become "diamonds," no matter how rough.
"You can't really be serious that UVA is surpassing Michigan. They have half the faculty, little or no real archaeology, no papyri, etc. Who are you going to study Homer with? Please."
Not the OP, but if you study the post, the person was talking about the universities as a whole, not the individual programs. I'm not sure about UVA, but I agree that U of M has been outpaced by Cal and is more on par with UCLA. If I had a crystal ball, I would say that UCLA as a university will surpass U of M within 20 years. Things are pointing in that direction.
What's up with the defensive, belligerent, chip-on-shoulder Michigan people on here? This is definitely not the first time this has happened. Get over yourself and join the discussion constructively.
The point about distinguishing university reputation from departmental reputation (e.g. Michigan) is a good one. Two examples illustrating either side of this spring to mind: Cincinnati as a university is fairly middling, but the Classics dept. there stands out. Harvard, on the other hand, now has a fairly middling dept. compared to the reputation the university as a whole has. This used to be the case with Yale, but they have made a great deal of progress in the last few years as a department. I'm sure there are others out there, but those are the ones I can think of prior to coffee.
"You can't really be serious that UVA is surpassing Michigan. They have half the faculty, little or no real archaeology, no papyri, etc. Who are you going to study Homer with? Please."
Actually, Jenny Clay is the Homerist at UVA. You may have heard of her (recent APA president, several books, etc.). This is not to say that UVA is surpassing Michigan, but they do have amazing faculty, and would be a great option for students interested in philology.
Actually, Jenny Clay is the Homerist at UVA. You may have heard of her (recent APA president, several books, etc.). This is not to say that UVA is surpassing Michigan, but they do have amazing faculty, and would be a great option for students interested in philology.
That's exactly right, they are excellent philologists. You don't want to go there if you want to do archaeology (or rather you want to go to their art history department). And, hey, Michigan person, since when did having papyrology become the determinant of whether a department was any good???
UVa. has expanded from 7 faculty just a few years ago to 11 now, several of them big names (not just Clay), some of the rest close to being big names, and the university has been very involved in that. They did quite well on the market last year, if you go back and check the results, certainly the best they've done lately. They have a thriving grad program, in which students are now finishing consistently, as the OP noted, and giving the market PhDs consistently is very important, in terms of developing reputation and creating alumni networking. They've just moved into a new building with expanded facilities, they have decent relationships with other departments. I'm not saying they're better than any other given school, but they have definitely improved.
The university as a whole, of course, is best known in Virginia and environs, but it does have national name recognition.
And I'll add, the archaeologists in the art history department are closely affiliated with digs or research in Pompeii and Morgantina, and have trained several PhDs of their own lately. So, Michigan person, maybe you should do a little research before you sound off. Not everything has to be under one roof for a program to be great.
Above, someone remarked that this wasn't really the forum for grad school recommendations, and that broaching that topic would only lead to a food fight.
Despite the size mismatch, Wolverines' numbers, ferocity, and pugnacity are too much for the Cavaliers.
Bears are 10:1 favorite over Badgers.
Bears have the decisive advantage in nearly all categories. Badgers are not helped by Bucky's grotesquely overpuffed chest.
Longhorns are 3:2 favorite over Bruins.
Nearly evenly matched in all areas, Longhorns' success depends on the appearance of sabre-toothed tigers, whose thirst for novel blood will likely outweigh their established taste for steer.
"She wasn't doing anything offensive,'' Urmy said. "She was just jumping and dancing. The tree's movement is usually consistent with that of someone who's had something to drink.''
I'd like to take this opportunity to re-direct our collective fear and loathing to a richer and far more deserving set of targets:
Peer-reviewed journals
"Why", you may ask?
Well, because our current system is broken, and those of us trying to get jobs, as well as those others trying to keep the ones they have, are getting screwed. This cuts across sub-discipline, graduate program, or place of (un/under/quasi)employment. We are all connected by this problem, and we need to speak up because the senior scholars in this field are not doing so.
Many journals have obscene backlogs for publication. This is a problem, but not a tragedy. Most journals have absurdly long turn-around times when it comes to acceptance or decline. This is a farce and a tragedy. E.g. I once waited 14 months for an editor to finally tell me to go f*#k myself, and “all the best!” 14 months as that work grew more stale and difficult to revise. 14 months to receive a few paragraphs, total, of relatively useless comments from 3 different reviewers, none of whom offered anything constructive. 14 months of precious, precious time flushed down the toilet because reviewers are either overworked or lazy. This kind of stuff is career-killing. How can one expect to have any chance at even getting a job if our work is held up in the pipeline so long? We are caught between a higher set of expectations from SCs and deans, and a system that makes it harder and harder to actually get anything into print. In short, we are screwed and we’ve got to do something about it!
Instead of fighting about stooopid shit like whose grad program is better we should be raising a stink about tenured folks falling down on their jobs by 1) failing to accept and/or 2) then review submissions in a timely and thoughtful manner.
In recognition of this I am hereby submitting this online petition. Copy it and email it to the tenured scholar of your choice, but make sure and cc the APA board every time you do so.
Dear Old Fart,
Do you want to make sure that your own tenure-line is replaced by the administration? Are you at all interested in seeing that the young assistant professor down the hall has more than a snowball’s chance in hell of earning tenure (if for no other reason than so that you don’t lose yet another FTE to the Economics Dept.)? Do you give a rat’s ass about the future of our field?
If you answered “Yes!” to any one of these questions, then please do some actual service to the profession. Please don’t actively fuck up everybody else’s chances by free-riding on a system that enabled you to get where you are today.
Get ready for some self-righteous references to cannibalism. Note to boomers - we don't want your wrinkly old flesh - just trying to help you get a life while you still have some lead left in that pencil. So take out your sabretooth dentures, back out of campus slowly, and travel a bit. Go adopt an African orphan or family since you probably didn't find time to start a family. Visit the rock n roll hall of fame. Do something other than coming into campus twice a week to grumble at students and terrorize junior faculty.
How about an authors' bill of rights? Participation by journals would be voluntary. Not all would participate, but at least you'd know before submitting whether you are taking a gamble that your work will be held hostage for a couple of years.
Authors' Bill of Rights
1. Within 7 days of submitting an article, the author will receive an acknowledgment of the submission. Exception: times during which the journal's offices are closed. Dates of office closing will be clearly posted on the journal's website or printed in its guidelines for contributors.
2. Within 30 days of the acknowledgment, the author will receive an initial response, indicating whether the submission will be rejected, accepted with mandatory changes, or accepted, possibly with changes, some of which may be mandatory.
3. Within 90 days of the acknowledgment, the author will receive reader reports (except in the case of rejection due to lack of compatibility with the journal's mission, e.g. an article having nothing to do with Vergil submitted to Vergilius). In this case, rejection would have taken place within 30 days of submission and the author would have been informed that there would be no comments.
4. An editor will not demand that an article meet his/her journal's specifications for formatting, bibliographical style, etc. until that article has been accepted.
5. An editor who agrees to abide by the Authors' Bill of Rights will post the document on his/her journal's website, if the journal has a website. Such journals will also be identified in the list of journals on the APA website.
Authors' Responsibilities
1. An author will not have an article simultaneously under consideration at multiple journals without the knowledge and permission of all involved editors.
2. If an author needs to withdraw an article from consideration before an initial response has been given, the editor should be notified at once.
3. If an author chooses to withdraw an article after the initial response, the editor must be notified within 7 days of that response.
4. An author must meet deadlines set for revisions.
5. An author must comply with the written policies of the journal.
Did I miss it, or did no one mention Yale's Latin? That's stronger than most places, especially for prose. (I'm not associated with Yale, but do know some of the players.)
Can the person who suggested that the University of British Columbia is a diamond in the rough expand on what they see its potential being. Is it just their fairly recent senior Latin hire or does it have other merits?
Note to boomers - we don't want your wrinkly old flesh - just trying to help you get a life while you still have some lead left in that pencil.
Oh, man, I've got a good thirty years or so left till retirement, but if I were retirement age right now I'd hang on for another five years just in hopes of keeping this person from getting a job.
I like the Author's Bill of Rights idea! Especially good is the suggestion that journals not worry about formatting until they've accepted the article. It is quite tiresome having to re-format things each time you submit, often all for not.
Did I miss it, or did no one mention Yale's Latin?
Another institution that has quietly placed very well for a number of years (even before all the recent hires). Maybe keeping a low profile can have an upside? Plus the graduate students I know there are literally rolling in it. Recession? What recession? Bastards. (That was friendly, as the people in question will understand.)
RE: UBC - I don't know - I don't want to put up people's names for us to debate whether they're good or not, but just go look at the faculty list - they have some good, solid scholars.
That might be going a bit far. I agree it's good and it has potential to be even better, plus it's in a very nice place, but 'powerhouse' suggests it's the equivalent of Princeton, which I think most people will agree it is not (yet).
Sigh...this is why I didn't want to post any specific information about UBC. You can't say anything nice around here without having someone respond with a snarky comeback. I never claimed UBC was a powerhouse in anything - I merely said that if you go look through their faculty bios, they have some really solid scholars. I knew someone would reply with the equivalent of "If by 'solid' you mean like Jello" or something similar. But now I feel bad for exposing UBC to criticism, when what I was trying to do is point out that they have a pretty good (not top-10, but good) program. The poster who used the term 'powerhouse' probably went a little too far, but I think the general idea was that UBC has good faculty, but often people don't think about it as a graduate school option. Which was the 'diamond in the rough' thinking anyway.
the general idea was that UBC has good faculty, but often people don't think about it as a graduate school option.
I wonder if that is because it's in Canada? Do many students who do PhDs in Canada get hired back in the States? Or is it a bad move, even when considering a school of the calibre of e.g. UBC or Toronto or McMaster?
"I'm more impressed that UBC has an Egyptologist -- a number of good places don't have those."
Unless there's a separate Near Eastern, or even rarer Egyptology, department, I think this is a good move if you can make it work. It's always surprised me that we don't do more with this since Egypt plays a significant role in the ancient ethos (and as a Romanist, I won't even go into its role in the Aegean Bronze Age). I've noticed that Egyptologists tend to end up in history departments before classics (with some notable exceptions such as Howard, Tufts, Arizona, etc.)
A quick question for anyone who might have any thoughts on the subject. Someone much earlier in this blog posted USC as a 'diamond in the rough." I have stayed on the east coast for all of my academic career and as a new faculty member I do not know if I should recommend that students look into it for gradshool. I am only a little familiar with one of the faculty and not at all familiar with the rest. Thoughts?
I'm curious, was it a conscientious effort by those departments to hire an Egyptologist, or did they stumble upon them through a spousal hire or whatnot? I know it's common practice in the UK for almost every university to hire Egyptologists and Aegeanists since they they have archaeology departments/programs, but what's the rationale here?
UBC's department is not Classics-only department but also covers Near Eastern Studies (and Religious Studies), so it's not especially remarkable that they have an Egyptologist (although more surprising that they have a second one in the pipeline).
Re: UBC; note the name of the dept., CNERS, Classics, Near Eastern, and Religious Studies. This is the result of an amalgamation several years ago. There are pros and cons to such chimaeras, and this one, like all others, has had its up and downs, with units fighting for appointments, etc (they seem to have worked it out). Personally, I think a stand-alone Classics dept. is more desirable, if such a thing can be maintained (amalgamations are better than closures, of course!).
I don't know. I think there can be great value in having Near Eastern studies with Classics. Though I don't really like having modern Middle Eastern studies in the same department. Housing ancient and modern together seems more problematic than ancient studies in different regions.
I agree with the last assessment. It's not just geography that binds Egypt/Near East with classics during antiquity. It's obvious that the Greeks/Romans were intimately aware of those regions and their history and culture as it related to their own. How can you study Rome without studying Carthage? Greece without Phoenicia? Alexander without Persia? Herodotus without the Black Sea? I think it can only help us understand classical antiquity at very little cost. It would also presumably provide more opportunities for people like my wife (Minoan archaeologist), while making classics all that more relevant and valuable to academia.
Departments like that may also go further is breaking down the philology/MC/history divide that results from dividing us up into classics, history, art history and anth departments.
From Stanford to Princeton to Penn to UBC--all these departments have taken the spotlight in this discussion in one way or the other. It is absolutely legitimate for people to try to learn from others how good certain departments really are and what kind of work is being produced there. But I'm somewhat surprised that at points (not necessarily in the latest postings) some make it sound like this is a secret or at any rate something that is hard to figure out.
Given that there exists such a thing as the APA annual meeting and so many grad students give talks there, I'd expect people who care about those things to have comments that would betray some awareness of the actual research carried out in these departments as opposed to comments on the end result only (the job placement), regardless of merit.
So if you want to know what's going on, go to the APA, and go to the talks--not, of course, the year when you're on the market, but the years before and after. This is what the annual meeting is for, getting to know what's up all over. E.g. Penn had round seven grad students giving talks last time round. You want to see why they are placing well, whether they deserve it, whether you can learn something from them, just go. (Obviously I am not Penn-affiliated, which is why I use Penn as an example).
I am just saying these things cause I'm afraid--guess what--that we listen to each other when politics is discussed, but not when it's about research.
PS. USC: I would definitely consider its grad program (of course, this always depends on the fit).
Good grief. When I wrote that "a number of good places" don't have an Egyptologist I obviously was referring to institutions, not departments. This is a shame, because undergrads love to take courses on Egyptian history, so there's certainly enough demand to justify having Egyptologists on faculty.
The downside is that there are precious few jobs for Egyptologists. I shudder to think what their equivalent to FV must be like.
"Penn had round seven grad students giving talks last time round. You want to see why they are placing well, whether they deserve it, whether you can learn something from them, just go."
So does that make them a diamond, powerhouse or juggernaut? Just trying to get our terminology straight.
I wish that it was only a year, not 6-7 years on the market for some of us. Talk about years of wasted effort. I'd much rather go to talks than to be asked what Latin textbook I'd use for the hundreth time. Oh how I hate the job market!
Hey don't underestimate the difficulties of being part of an elite PhD program. Try to find the motivation to write an article when they are practically showering you with dead presidents. Plus I know I'm gonna get a TT job even if I don't apply for one. I'll probably be a cokehead by the time I graduate, unable to find meaning and motivation as my future success is predetermined.
Does anybody know if there is a regularly updated and relatively comprehensive website for conferences in Classics, Archaeology, Ancient History, etc.?
I keep on running across calls for papers too late and it is driving me nuts. The APA does a piss-poor job of maintaining their own site, but I can't find anything else out there.
The AIA website (I know, boo hiss) does a decent job with this and it's not so, ahem, retro in funtion and appearance. http://www.archaeological.org/webinfo.php?page=10154
"The APA does a piss-poor job of maintaining their own site, but I can't find anything else out there."
In my experience as conference organizer, I have noticed that the APA always posts what I submit the same day I send it in. In what way has the calls for papers section of their site let you down? Are you a member? Have you complained about it to anyone? If you identify shortcomings, maybe you can volunteer to help improve it (?)
Anyway, yes, these students have plenty of Greek too, but they want to specialize in Latin poetry and/or prose if they can.
To Anon. March 27, 2009 9:56 PM
I realize I am coming into this discussion late: I'd like to add UNC to the list of good Latin programs, both in poetry and in prose, with broad offerings should your students' interests change.
I wish our trolls wouldn't use such lame, nonsensical metaphors. It makes it very difficult to tell what kind of trouble they're trying to stir up, and I hate having to ask them for clarification. You never have to ask a proper troll what he's trying to say.
"Oh, I thought it meant something like if their new graduates didn't get a job right away, their programs were pretending that they didn't exist."
This seems like a legitimate question worth debating. What *should* a graduate program do with/for a new grad who doesn't get a job? I imagine in an ideal world, these new grads would be immediately hired as lecturers to stay on and teach. But this is the real world, and while that may happen from time to time, it's unlikely that it will ever get institutionalized across the board, for at least several reasons I can think of.
And what about new grads who don't get a job the second year, or the third, or even the fourth?
So what are some practical answers to this question?
in an ideal world, these new grads would be immediately hired as lecturers to stay on and teach.
Quaere: whether a department is any more obliged to produce temporary employment for its Ph.D.s than it is for its B.A.s, or than a law school is for its graduates.
"Quaere: whether a department is any more obliged to produce temporary employment for its Ph.D.s than it is for its B.A.s, or than a law school is for its graduates."
Oh, I don't personally think departments owe their grads of any degree employment, but I know quite a few folks who think they do; at some point between their first year of grad school and their final months finishing a dissertation, they begin to look on themselves as essentially the mental equals of their professors (perhaps with some justice, perhaps not) and then begin to rage that they don't have those jobs themselves. Again, I have no critique to make of the justice of this view, but I see it very, very often.
There's a difference between employing a recent jobless grad and ignoring their requests for letters, ignoring them at conferences, and the like. I've seen the second happen far too often to people who don't land something right away or land something like a part-time adjuncting gig at a school nobody's ever heard of. I would think that a program has some sort of responsibility to continue giving a little help to grads for at least a year or two.
It seems like it is in the PhD institution's own interest to help out a recent graduate, especially in a market like this. If long-term placement in the field, and the flourishing of one's graduates are desiderata (and I think they should be), then helping somebody stay afloat with a VAP or adjuncting just makes sense. Otherwise they might very well end up leaving the field, and if too many graduates do that then the department doesn't look like a good place to get a degree.
I don't think they should hire their own as tenure-track faculty, but short-time teaching can make or break somebody's career when they are just starting.
"It seems like it is in the PhD institution's own interest to help out a recent graduate, especially in a market like this."
This doesn't get to the actual question - it's just a generality. What *exactly* can/should a department do for graduates who haven't gotten a job on their own? Call up a buddy and ask them to give them one anyway? Things don't work that way (anymore, if they once did). So what concrete, actual measures - short of hiring these candidates outright - can a department do? I still don't have a clear idea about that.
Surely that depends on the department and the particular year? There can't be a policy for something like this. In general, I guess, a dept. should hire its own as lecturers (not random people from the local community or retired profs), but not necessarily VAPs and certainly not t-t. And of course there should be quality control, and a bias to those more recently done with their PhDs (not a four-year limpet). It's going to be ugly and messy, but isn't that just how things are? Hey, some places might not have so many grads, so maybe they can offer gainful employment to all, but other places are just going to have too many unemployed students. Oh yeah, grads on fellowship should get the less well-paid jobs (TFs) since it doesn't matter anyway - I'm surprised at how many departments screw that up.
Surely that depends on the department and the particular year?
Right, you can't hire lecturers for courses that don't need to be taught, with money you don't have. It's not as though unstaffed courses can be made to appear with the flick of a wand.
a dept. should hire its own as lecturers (not random people from the local community or retired profs), but not necessarily VAPs and certainly not t-t.
Fortunately, I don't think there's likely to be a plague of administrations creating new t-t positions just so that departments can keep their recent Ph.D.s employed.
In fact, I feel pretty sure I'd be right in saying that, if such a thing has ever happened, it hasn't happened within the past half century.
I was just saying that it would be nice if advisers continued to update letters and support candidates who took a year or so to find a job - not create jobs for them. You would be surprised how many advisers don't bother to update reference letters for students who don't get a great job right away - and I'm just talking about a year to 18 months out from the PhD. It really sinks a candidate's application when the letter is clearly written well before the candidate finished his or her PhD, and the person's CV clearly shows that s/he graduated a year ago. The impression is that the adviser thinks this person isn't even worth a letter update - and maybe they aren't, but I see it so frequently, I can't believe it's always the case.
Oh, I just meant that if there was a going position (not a newly created one!) depts probably shouldn't offer it in-house to protect their students. But it's not a major point since I doubt there's anywhere that'd go down that road.
Not that anyone's still reading, but I just wanted to say that in all the Stanford fuss no one thought to mention how reassuring it is that a classicist can still compete for prestigious national fellowships across disciplines. I really don't want this comment to raise a firestorm of invidia - to be honest I'm a little jealous myself - but I hope I'm big enough to recognize a good achievement and congratulate the person for it. It's good for our field.
Yes, that was what I was referring to. I'm glad someone else feels the same way. I just don't recall anyone having said it at the time and I thought it would be appropriate to say something now, at a safe distance from all the carping. Sorry if I was too vague.
Anyone with word on the Chicago Society of Fellows? I've received so many rejections I can't even remember whether I got a letter from them in the first place...
Strike that. I know the person who got the postdoc, not the VAP position at McMaster. For all I know, that's still a go. I didn't realize they were running three searches. Must be all that beer and hockey money.
No, it is not my "opinion." Though I am neither the candidate (who is currently overseas and off e-mail/internet) nor a search committee member, I am quite certain that I know more about this situation than the person who violated FV's guidelines with that wiki posting. Is that clear enough for you, or do you require my Social Security Number, three references and a urine sample in order to check on whether I am to be trusted in this matter?
While it is true that the job has been offered, it has not yet been accepted. Period.
This is one of the dangers of posting any other name but your own. While the wiki doesn't have any enforceable rules, like FV does, we should refrain from speculative posting as much as possible.
It looks very unlikely that we are going to be allowed to hire a replacement at Emory this year, but we have not yet sent out rejections, because there are still a couple of funding opportunities that we are waiting to hear about first. Very sorry about the situation and wish I had better news.
I can't believe Michigan snagged Syme. Even dead he'll contribute a great deal to the program.Yeah, he narrowly beat out Arnaldo Momigliano, who I hear is now begging for that slot at South Dakota State. It is an incredibly tough year. The third finalist, Togo Salmon, has decided to drop out of the field and become an electrician. Wise move.
Bad hire if you ask me. Ron's checked out these past few years, as anyone can tell from the steady decline in publications. On the other hand it may be a good fit, he's kinda like the GM of classicists.
This sounds like it could have been written by a denizen of FV...
I was especially amused to read that he thinks $5000 a course is the bottom of the adjunct scale. Clearly he has been enjoying the comfort of the tenure system he decries much too long to actually have any idea of conditions on the market.
Anybody else out there send in an abstract to the Diachrony Conference at Duke?
I sent one in and never heard back. No acknowledgment of receipt, nothing... Is this the usual practice or should I write and ask them whether they even received my abstract?
Dear Duke, Getting rejected for jobs by being ignored is bad enough. Please don't add insult to injuries by not even sending out a quick email to everybody saying "thanks for submitting, blah blah blah" when they apply to participate in a conference! Sincerely, Nemo
Not hearing back about abstracts is pretty common, in my experience - I've found out more than once that I have been accepted/rejected only when the program is put online. But it's pretty goshdarn rude. (Are we allowed to swear in here? It's pretty fucking rude.)
Your repeated violation of the Verbal Morality Statute has caused me to notify the American Philological Association. Please remain where you are for your reprimand.
Since the season is over except for some last-minute VAPs, can people start filling in the many blanks and "rumor mill" entries? Surely it's okay at this point in the process?
Since the season is over except for some last-minute VAPs, can people start filling in the many blanks and "rumor mill" entries? Surely it's okay at this point in the process?Can I just ask what our position is on unofficial hires, spring jobs that weren't advertised with the APA, but where places went back to an earlier applicant pool or gave them to their grad students (or the nearest big university's grads)? Should we list them on the wiki or not?
I think we should list as much as possible on the wiki. Even if a job wasn't officially advertised, it would be useful, simply as a historical document, to have the wiki as complete as we can make it.
This is basically it. Even the searches that are not listed as complete on the wiki are likely over, or in their final stages. As it is, teaching schedules for the next semester have already been finalized at most institutions. Letters of appointment have already be sent out and returned. People have to start planning their relocation.
All that remains is to gather the data from this year and try to divine what little anyone can about the process from available information.
Can I just say that I'm not a fan of the human resources rejections? (Got one this morning from "UC" and it took a while to figure out WHICH UC it was.) I much prefer a rejection from someone actually affiliated with the Classics department.
Well, there's one way to settle the UC question. Is there anyone out there who applied for one position and not the other, and if they didn't apply for the VAP, did they get the email? Or if they didn't apply for the tt, did they get the email? Etc. Anyone on here such a being, or know such a being?
If yesterday the SC was still reading files, a rejection email seems very soon for the VAP.
28UC2629 was the tenure-track position. That's the position number in my rejection email, and presumably also everyone else's (I also applied for the VAP). The wiki needs correcting.
I didn't get a job this year, but my significant other landed a plum one, so I'm taken care of for now. I'll write, maybe adjunct in the vicinity (if I can), and enjoy a leisured life for now.
Where I am, there isn't even enough funding for my department to hire recent grads to teach one class. Classes traditionally taught by vistors will now be done by standing faculty. The best we can do is extend a non-paying affiliation that allows them to get library access and at least have something on paper that will let them apply for jobs next year. I believeat least one grad is walking away. Whether search committees view a titular, non-teaching role as a severe deficiency remains to be seen.
"Whether search committees view a titular, non-teaching role as a severe deficiency remains to be seen."
It would be hard to say; in general, I don't think it would be as bad as nothing, esp. if they can give it a prestigious title, but I think in the next year or two SCs will be more understanding of what's been happening, and look more favorably on these things.
I have heard of recent graduates who went on unemployment for a year or two in hopes of avoiding any perceived stigmas attached to teaching secondary school. I think this is a poor choice, though: an entirely blank year on a CV is very noticeable.
How did they pull that off? When you go on unemployment you're supposed to show that you're actively looking for work. (Remember the "Seinfeld" episode and Vanderlay Industries?)
"Looks like someone in the Job Announcements thread doesn't in which thread to post. Or know how to use a dictionary."
Do you really think a dictionary would have a definition of "virtuality" that matches whatever the people at Penn who are behind this nonsense intend the word to mean?
Unbelievable that someone out there STILL doesn't know our rules concerning not outing recent job recipients on the wiki, especially on the basis of a rumor. I've taken care of it.
Penn State announced their job in the June 1 ads. They said review of apps would start asap. I have no problem believing it's been accepted. At this stage, everyone is desperate. Still, the name should not have gone on the wiki.
Responding to "May 21 Anonymous": The two Cincinnati VAP's have been filled. That rumor was true on May 21, but contracts were held up in the dean's office for a month. Current rumor: contracts were signed this week.
Though it might be a bit anecdotal, do people have approximate figures for how their department did this year in placement?
You don't need to name departments. I know it's a bit grey, but since we're not naming names, can we not inflate numbers by counting lectureships within the same university or one down the street that typically hires your grads as a safety net? While we're at it, we should probably only include recent grads, and not those who "upgraded" or moved on to other jobs due to tenure issues.
I think a percentage/fraction would tell a much clearer story than saying "three of our grads" got jobs. This might be a nice placement for a small program, but I don't think it would be for a large program, as someone just suggested.
My program had 7/7 in bona fide TT or VAP positions advertised by the APA. BUT there is at least one ABD I know who decided to delay the degree by a year, so it might be 7/8 depending on your point of view. There might be a recent grad here or there I missed who didn't land a job, but I can't imagine it's more than a couple. So I would say anywhere from 70-100% for my program. Great year!
My large, state school program had, I believe, 3 recent grads on the market. One got a nice SLAC VAP at a very good school. I'm not sure about the other two but I would guess they didn't get good positions as nothing is traveling through the grapevine. So, 33% for now. FWIW, I would say our program is very good though probably not what one would call elite except on a good day.
I think a percentage/fraction would tell a much clearer story than saying "three of our grads" got jobs. This might be a nice placement for a small program, but I don't think it would be for a large program, as someone just suggested.
True enough. But my point was that unless I'm reading the wiki wrong (and could easily be), it looks like the Michigan placements just finished their degrees (Mich is the only institution listed). Which struck me as impressive in this market. Not that I've been on the market for three years, am this year unemployed, and so am bitter about this-year Ph.D.s beating me out for jobs. Because I'm not. =)
"Your interest in the Visiting Assistant Professor (A&S Classics) position number 29UC3713 in the department of A&S Classics has been received and reviewed."
Perhaps it's just me, but wouldn't there be something to be said for substituting "application for" for "interest in" in this sentence? I would point this out to the sender, but I suspect that Human Resources at the University of Cincinnati is not a "real person."
please god, can someone tell me why sign up for the placement service cannot be done via an ONLINE form. not to say I'm not grateful that the placement service has mastered the art of making PDFs (and yes, at least it isn't another carbon triplicate), but really.
I'm not aware of the saga to which you allude but the information was incorrect. I happened to look at the Wiki list a few weeks ago and noted that. Thank you to the individual who removed it. I can imagine how the rumor came about, but it is only unsubstantiated rumor.
Please remember, DO NOT name/list/mention/mumble names on this site. I just removed a post (which seemed to be more appropriate to the wiki) simply because it named who had received a certain job.
1,771 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 1601 – 1771 of 1771I'm not surprised by the Big Ten schools or any other public school in the rust belt.
Wisconsin was a bit of an anamoly. They made some shrewd hires after WWII but haven't been able to keep up financially nor with the quality of students. Michigan is actually the abnormal one by somehow defying the state's cratering economy. They have held their position for the most part, but schools such as Virginia and UCLA are on the verge of passing it and Berkeley is far enough ahead that it's not realistically a peer anymore. Regardless of how the university is doing, the classics department itself is more than holding its own, of course.
Illinois is a bit of a puzzle. It can draw great students from Chicago and the state is obviously doing better financially than MI, but it's never quite achieved top-public status, except for maybe in engineering and business.
Maybe Cornell, Northwestern, Virginia, Vanderbilt, Georgia, Washington, Iowa, Buffalo, Arizona, Penn State, and Florida State? I don't think Arizona and Penn State have a Ph.D. program out of the group.
Does this mean that you think the schools above are good places to go, or burned out husks to be avoided? Sorry if I'm dense but I'm not sure I understand which you meant here.
I'm also curious what the original poster meant as an alum of one of the schools listed. BTW, Penn State does have a PhD program. Of the list, I'd put my money on Cornell and Virginia. Cornell is always Ivy, and Virginia's main problem for years has been that they didn't produce PhDs consistently enough to make an impact on the field. That seems to be changing with an expansion in the department now.
If the question is still on Latin, I think both of those places are good Latin prose/poetry places.
I'm curious, how is UVA expanding? Faculty? Facilities? Program? Who initiated the expansion and how well is the administration supporting it?
You can't really be serious that UVA is surpassing Michigan. They have half the faculty, little or no real archaeology, no papyri, etc. Who are you going to study Homer with? Please.
I don't know about Arizona and FSU, despite their strong programs in classics. Both are in similar positions - schools in states that don't traditionally support education very well. They are also both in small cities that are geographically isolated - ASU and UF definitely have a leg up in this regard. They are also the two hardest hit states when it comes to real estate. I don't see either having the mandate nor financial resources to ever become "diamonds," no matter how rough.
"You can't really be serious that UVA is surpassing Michigan. They have half the faculty, little or no real archaeology, no papyri, etc. Who are you going to study Homer with? Please."
Not the OP, but if you study the post, the person was talking about the universities as a whole, not the individual programs. I'm not sure about UVA, but I agree that U of M has been outpaced by Cal and is more on par with UCLA. If I had a crystal ball, I would say that UCLA as a university will surpass U of M within 20 years. Things are pointing in that direction.
What's up with the defensive, belligerent, chip-on-shoulder Michigan people on here? This is definitely not the first time this has happened. Get over yourself and join the discussion constructively.
The point about distinguishing university reputation from departmental reputation (e.g. Michigan) is a good one. Two examples illustrating either side of this spring to mind: Cincinnati as a university is fairly middling, but the Classics dept. there stands out. Harvard, on the other hand, now has a fairly middling dept. compared to the reputation the university as a whole has. This used to be the case with Yale, but they have made a great deal of progress in the last few years as a department. I'm sure there are others out there, but those are the ones I can think of prior to coffee.
"You can't really be serious that UVA is surpassing Michigan. They have half the faculty, little or no real archaeology, no papyri, etc. Who are you going to study Homer with? Please."
Actually, Jenny Clay is the Homerist at UVA. You may have heard of her (recent APA president, several books, etc.). This is not to say that UVA is surpassing Michigan, but they do have amazing faculty, and would be a great option for students interested in philology.
Actually, Jenny Clay is the Homerist at UVA. You may have heard of her (recent APA president, several books, etc.). This is not to say that UVA is surpassing Michigan, but they do have amazing faculty, and would be a great option for students interested in philology.
That's exactly right, they are excellent philologists. You don't want to go there if you want to do archaeology (or rather you want to go to their art history department). And, hey, Michigan person, since when did having papyrology become the determinant of whether a department was any good???
UVa. has expanded from 7 faculty just a few years ago to 11 now, several of them big names (not just Clay), some of the rest close to being big names, and the university has been very involved in that. They did quite well on the market last year, if you go back and check the results, certainly the best they've done lately. They have a thriving grad program, in which students are now finishing consistently, as the OP noted, and giving the market PhDs consistently is very important, in terms of developing reputation and creating alumni networking. They've just moved into a new building with expanded facilities, they have decent relationships with other departments. I'm not saying they're better than any other given school, but they have definitely improved.
The university as a whole, of course, is best known in Virginia and environs, but it does have national name recognition.
And I'll add, the archaeologists in the art history department are closely affiliated with digs or research in Pompeii and Morgantina, and have trained several PhDs of their own lately. So, Michigan person, maybe you should do a little research before you sound off. Not everything has to be under one roof for a program to be great.
CAESAR'S PALACE: TONIGHT!!
One Night Only!!!
"Public Ivy" Cage Matches!
Come see Wolverines rend Cavaliers.... Bears bite Badgers.... Longhorns lance Bruins
Who will survive the festivities, merely to be trammeled by .....
The One, The Only, The Tree?
Above, someone remarked that this wasn't really the forum for grad school recommendations, and that broaching that topic would only lead to a food fight.
So, obviously, they were way off.
re: leading to a food fight
Perhaps some good came with the inevitable silliness?
tinkerty-tonk
Re: Cage fight
Vegas odds w/ scouting report
Wolverines are 3:1 favorite over Cavaliers.
Despite the size mismatch, Wolverines' numbers, ferocity, and pugnacity are too much for the Cavaliers.
Bears are 10:1 favorite over Badgers.
Bears have the decisive advantage in nearly all categories. Badgers are not helped by Bucky's grotesquely overpuffed chest.
Longhorns are 3:2 favorite over Bruins.
Nearly evenly matched in all areas, Longhorns' success depends on the appearance of sabre-toothed tigers, whose thirst for novel blood will likely outweigh their established taste for steer.
2:1 that the Stanford Tree will be drunk:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/02/16/MNGUNH9P9A6.DTL
"She wasn't doing anything offensive,'' Urmy said. "She was just jumping and dancing. The tree's movement is usually consistent with that of someone who's had something to drink.''
Dear Fellow Travelers,
I'd like to take this opportunity to re-direct our collective fear and loathing to a richer and far more deserving set of targets:
Peer-reviewed journals
"Why", you may ask?
Well, because our current system is broken, and those of us trying to get jobs, as well as those others trying to keep the ones they have, are getting screwed. This cuts across sub-discipline, graduate program, or place of (un/under/quasi)employment. We are all connected by this problem, and we need to speak up because the senior scholars in this field are not doing so.
Many journals have obscene backlogs for publication. This is a problem, but not a tragedy. Most journals have absurdly long turn-around times when it comes to acceptance or decline. This is a farce and a tragedy. E.g. I once waited 14 months for an editor to finally tell me to go f*#k myself, and “all the best!” 14 months as that work grew more stale and difficult to revise. 14 months to receive a few paragraphs, total, of relatively useless comments from 3 different reviewers, none of whom offered anything constructive. 14 months of precious, precious time flushed down the toilet because reviewers are either overworked or lazy. This kind of stuff is career-killing. How can one expect to have any chance at even getting a job if our work is held up in the pipeline so long? We are caught between a higher set of expectations from SCs and deans, and a system that makes it harder and harder to actually get anything into print. In short, we are screwed and we’ve got to do something about it!
Instead of fighting about stooopid shit like whose grad program is better we should be raising a stink about tenured folks falling down on their jobs by 1) failing to accept and/or 2) then review submissions in a timely and thoughtful manner.
In recognition of this I am hereby submitting this online petition. Copy it and email it to the tenured scholar of your choice, but make sure and cc the APA board every time you do so.
Dear Old Fart,
Do you want to make sure that your own tenure-line is replaced by the administration? Are you at all interested in seeing that the young assistant professor down the hall has more than a snowball’s chance in hell of earning tenure (if for no other reason than so that you don’t lose yet another FTE to the Economics Dept.)? Do you give a rat’s ass about the future of our field?
If you answered “Yes!” to any one of these questions, then please do some actual service to the profession. Please don’t actively fuck up everybody else’s chances by free-riding on a system that enabled you to get where you are today.
Sincerely,
Young Scholar of Your Choice
Get ready for some self-righteous references to cannibalism. Note to boomers - we don't want your wrinkly old flesh - just trying to help you get a life while you still have some lead left in that pencil. So take out your sabretooth dentures, back out of campus slowly, and travel a bit. Go adopt an African orphan or family since you probably didn't find time to start a family. Visit the rock n roll hall of fame. Do something other than coming into campus twice a week to grumble at students and terrorize junior faculty.
How about an authors' bill of rights? Participation by journals would be voluntary. Not all would participate, but at least you'd know before submitting whether you are taking a gamble that your work will be held hostage for a couple of years.
Authors' Bill of Rights
1. Within 7 days of submitting an article, the author will receive an acknowledgment of the submission. Exception: times during which the journal's offices are closed. Dates of office closing will be clearly posted on the journal's website or printed in its guidelines for contributors.
2. Within 30 days of the acknowledgment, the author will receive an initial response, indicating whether the submission will be rejected, accepted with mandatory changes, or accepted, possibly with changes, some of which may be mandatory.
3. Within 90 days of the acknowledgment, the author will receive reader reports (except in the case of rejection due to lack of compatibility with the journal's mission, e.g. an article having nothing to do with Vergil submitted to Vergilius). In this case, rejection would have taken place within 30 days of submission and the author would have been informed that there would be no comments.
4. An editor will not demand that an article meet his/her journal's specifications for formatting, bibliographical style, etc. until that article has been accepted.
5. An editor who agrees to abide by the Authors' Bill of Rights will post the document on his/her journal's website, if the journal has a website. Such journals will also be identified in the list of journals on the APA website.
Authors' Responsibilities
1. An author will not have an article simultaneously under consideration at multiple journals without the knowledge and permission of all involved editors.
2. If an author needs to withdraw an article from consideration before an initial response has been given, the editor should be notified at once.
3. If an author chooses to withdraw an article after the initial response, the editor must be notified within 7 days of that response.
4. An author must meet deadlines set for revisions.
5. An author must comply with the written policies of the journal.
Did I miss it, or did no one mention Yale's Latin? That's stronger than most places, especially for prose. (I'm not associated with Yale, but do know some of the players.)
Can the person who suggested that the University of British Columbia is a diamond in the rough expand on what they see its potential being. Is it just their fairly recent senior Latin hire or does it have other merits?
Note to boomers - we don't want your wrinkly old flesh - just trying to help you get a life while you still have some lead left in that pencil.
Oh, man, I've got a good thirty years or so left till retirement, but if I were retirement age right now I'd hang on for another five years just in hopes of keeping this person from getting a job.
I like the Author's Bill of Rights idea! Especially good is the suggestion that journals not worry about formatting until they've accepted the article. It is quite tiresome having to re-format things each time you submit, often all for not.
Did I miss it, or did no one mention Yale's Latin?
Another institution that has quietly placed very well for a number of years (even before all the recent hires). Maybe keeping a low profile can have an upside? Plus the graduate students I know there are literally rolling in it. Recession? What recession? Bastards. (That was friendly, as the people in question will understand.)
RE: UBC - I don't know - I don't want to put up people's names for us to debate whether they're good or not, but just go look at the faculty list - they have some good, solid scholars.
Wow, no kidding - UBC is a powerhouse for Latin. I hadn't thought to look there, but I will definitely encourage students to consider it.
Re: Powerhouse for Latin
I like that. It's like saying you're the king of D-III Lacrosse.
UBC is a powerhouse for Latin
That might be going a bit far. I agree it's good and it has potential to be even better, plus it's in a very nice place, but 'powerhouse' suggests it's the equivalent of Princeton, which I think most people will agree it is not (yet).
Sigh...this is why I didn't want to post any specific information about UBC. You can't say anything nice around here without having someone respond with a snarky comeback. I never claimed UBC was a powerhouse in anything - I merely said that if you go look through their faculty bios, they have some really solid scholars. I knew someone would reply with the equivalent of "If by 'solid' you mean like Jello" or something similar. But now I feel bad for exposing UBC to criticism, when what I was trying to do is point out that they have a pretty good (not top-10, but good) program. The poster who used the term 'powerhouse' probably went a little too far, but I think the general idea was that UBC has good faculty, but often people don't think about it as a graduate school option. Which was the 'diamond in the rough' thinking anyway.
the general idea was that UBC has good faculty, but often people don't think about it as a graduate school option.
I wonder if that is because it's in Canada? Do many students who do PhDs in Canada get hired back in the States? Or is it a bad move, even when considering a school of the calibre of e.g. UBC or Toronto or McMaster?
I'm more impressed that UBC has an Egyptologist -- a number of good places don't have those.
"I'm more impressed that UBC has an Egyptologist -- a number of good places don't have those."
Unless there's a separate Near Eastern, or even rarer Egyptology, department, I think this is a good move if you can make it work. It's always surprised me that we don't do more with this since Egypt plays a significant role in the ancient ethos (and as a Romanist, I won't even go into its role in the Aegean Bronze Age). I've noticed that Egyptologists tend to end up in history departments before classics (with some notable exceptions such as Howard, Tufts, Arizona, etc.)
A quick question for anyone who might have any thoughts on the subject. Someone much earlier in this blog posted USC as a 'diamond in the rough." I have stayed on the east coast for all of my academic career and as a new faculty member I do not know if I should recommend that students look into it for gradshool. I am only a little familiar with one of the faculty and not at all familiar with the rest. Thoughts?
I'm curious, was it a conscientious effort by those departments to hire an Egyptologist, or did they stumble upon them through a spousal hire or whatnot? I know it's common practice in the UK for almost every university to hire Egyptologists and Aegeanists since they they have archaeology departments/programs, but what's the rationale here?
UBC's department is not Classics-only department but also covers Near Eastern Studies (and Religious Studies), so it's not especially remarkable that they have an Egyptologist (although more surprising that they have a second one in the pipeline).
Re: UBC; note the name of the dept., CNERS, Classics, Near Eastern, and Religious Studies. This is the result of an amalgamation several years ago. There are pros and cons to such chimaeras, and this one, like all others, has had its up and downs, with units fighting for appointments, etc (they seem to have worked it out). Personally, I think a stand-alone Classics dept. is more desirable, if such a thing can be maintained (amalgamations are better than closures, of course!).
I don't know. I think there can be great value in having Near Eastern studies with Classics. Though I don't really like having modern Middle Eastern studies in the same department. Housing ancient and modern together seems more problematic than ancient studies in different regions.
I agree with the last assessment. It's not just geography that binds Egypt/Near East with classics during antiquity. It's obvious that the Greeks/Romans were intimately aware of those regions and their history and culture as it related to their own. How can you study Rome without studying Carthage? Greece without Phoenicia? Alexander without Persia? Herodotus without the Black Sea? I think it can only help us understand classical antiquity at very little cost. It would also presumably provide more opportunities for people like my wife (Minoan archaeologist), while making classics all that more relevant and valuable to academia.
Departments like that may also go further is breaking down the philology/MC/history divide that results from dividing us up into classics, history, art history and anth departments.
From Stanford to Princeton to Penn to UBC--all these departments have taken the spotlight in this discussion in one way or the other. It is absolutely legitimate for people to try to learn from others how good certain departments really are and what kind of work is being produced there. But I'm somewhat surprised that at points (not necessarily in the latest postings) some make it sound like this is a secret or at any rate something that is hard to figure out.
Given that there exists such a thing as the APA annual meeting and so many grad students give talks there, I'd expect people who care about those things to have comments that would betray some awareness of the actual research carried out in these departments as opposed to comments on the end result only (the job placement), regardless of merit.
So if you want to know what's going on, go to the APA, and go to the talks--not, of course, the year when you're on the market, but the years before and after. This is what the annual meeting is for, getting to know what's up all over. E.g. Penn had round seven grad students giving talks last time round. You want to see why they are placing well, whether they deserve it, whether you can learn something from them, just go. (Obviously I am not Penn-affiliated, which is why I use Penn as an example).
I am just saying these things cause I'm afraid--guess what--that we listen to each other when politics is discussed, but not when it's about research.
PS.
USC: I would definitely consider its grad program (of course, this always depends on the fit).
Good grief. When I wrote that "a number of good places" don't have an Egyptologist I obviously was referring to institutions, not departments. This is a shame, because undergrads love to take courses on Egyptian history, so there's certainly enough demand to justify having Egyptologists on faculty.
The downside is that there are precious few jobs for Egyptologists. I shudder to think what their equivalent to FV must be like.
"I shudder to think what their equivalent to FV must be like."
I don't think they could say anything of substance without getting identified. How many are on the market in any given year? 5?
"Penn had round seven grad students giving talks last time round. You want to see why they are placing well, whether they deserve it, whether you can learn something from them, just go."
So does that make them a diamond, powerhouse or juggernaut? Just trying to get our terminology straight.
"not the year you are on the market"
I wish that it was only a year, not 6-7 years on the market for some of us. Talk about years of wasted effort. I'd much rather go to talks than to be asked what Latin textbook I'd use for the hundreth time. Oh how I hate the job market!
May I suggest that we expand FV to include Egyptology, Assyriology, and other ancient disciplines next year?
Yes, if only the job market only lasted for one year. Must be the non-elite Phd...
So does that make them a diamond, powerhouse or juggernaut? Just trying to get our terminology straight.
Just for the record, I believe they're technically a "sequined juggerhouse."
Instead of sabretooths, do they have jugheads?
Hey don't underestimate the difficulties of being part of an elite PhD program. Try to find the motivation to write an article when they are practically showering you with dead presidents. Plus I know I'm gonna get a TT job even if I don't apply for one. I'll probably be a cokehead by the time I graduate, unable to find meaning and motivation as my future success is predetermined.
This place just gets stranger and stranger.
Cocaine is a hell of a drug.
Who can afford coke? It's probably white-out from the office supply closet.
Anyone know who got the Williams archaeology job? It was offered & accepted back on 2/18 according to the wiki.
http://wiki.williams.edu/display/facom/New+Faculty+2009-2010;jsessionid=4B8FF9948C4BE3B4FF88F286D6108206
White-out is a hell of a drug.
Does anybody know if there is a regularly updated and relatively comprehensive website for conferences in Classics, Archaeology, Ancient History, etc.?
I keep on running across calls for papers too late and it is driving me nuts. The APA does a piss-poor job of maintaining their own site, but I can't find anything else out there.
Thanks!
The AIA website (I know, boo hiss) does a decent job with this and it's not so, ahem, retro in funtion and appearance. http://www.archaeological.org/webinfo.php?page=10154
You are dissing the AIA because ....?
The AIA's site is based on people submitting CFPs and announcements on their own, so the AIA isn't actively collecting and posting these.
"The APA does a piss-poor job of maintaining their own site, but I can't find anything else out there."
In my experience as conference organizer, I have noticed that the APA always posts what I submit the same day I send it in. In what way has the calls for papers section of their site let you down? Are you a member? Have you complained about it to anyone? If you identify shortcomings, maybe you can volunteer to help improve it (?)
Do you think University of Phoenix on-line might offer me a PhD in Famae Volent Studies?
The Brits have a mailing list, which often posts US stuff. It's archived here: http://listserv.liv.ac.uk/archives/classicists.html
Anyway, yes, these students have plenty of Greek too, but they want to specialize in Latin poetry and/or prose if they can.
To Anon. March 27, 2009 9:56 PM
I realize I am coming into this discussion late: I'd like to add UNC to the list of good Latin programs, both in poetry and in prose, with broad offerings should your students' interests change.
Lots of schools eating their young or the recent hatchlings in their nests.
Let's name names, shall we?
There hasn't been enough gnashing of the teeth lately.
Lots of schools eating their young or the recent hatchlings in their nests.
Am I the only one who has no idea what this sentence means?
Lots of schools eating their young or the recent hatchlings in their nests.
Young = their own PhDs
Hatchings = PhDs from other institutions already teaching there
In other words, inside/internal candidates. Lots of them this year.
Lots of schools eating their young or the recent hatchlings in their nests.
So?
Anonymous of April 2, 2009 10:58 AM
=
TROLL
----
Beware!
I wish our trolls wouldn't use such lame, nonsensical metaphors. It makes it very difficult to tell what kind of trouble they're trying to stir up, and I hate having to ask them for clarification. You never have to ask a proper troll what he's trying to say.
Oh, I thought it meant something like if their new graduates didn't get a job right away, their programs were pretending that they didn't exist.
I agree, the eating thing is not the correct metaphor. That is, unless you think being eaten is good in the same way that getting a job is good.
"Oh, I thought it meant something like if their new graduates didn't get a job right away, their programs were pretending that they didn't exist."
This seems like a legitimate question worth debating. What *should* a graduate program do with/for a new grad who doesn't get a job? I imagine in an ideal world, these new grads would be immediately hired as lecturers to stay on and teach. But this is the real world, and while that may happen from time to time, it's unlikely that it will ever get institutionalized across the board, for at least several reasons I can think of.
And what about new grads who don't get a job the second year, or the third, or even the fourth?
So what are some practical answers to this question?
in an ideal world, these new grads would be immediately hired as lecturers to stay on and teach.
Quaere: whether a department is any more obliged to produce temporary employment for its Ph.D.s than it is for its B.A.s, or than a law school is for its graduates.
"Quaere: whether a department is any more obliged to produce temporary employment for its Ph.D.s than it is for its B.A.s, or than a law school is for its graduates."
Oh, I don't personally think departments owe their grads of any degree employment, but I know quite a few folks who think they do; at some point between their first year of grad school and their final months finishing a dissertation, they begin to look on themselves as essentially the mental equals of their professors (perhaps with some justice, perhaps not) and then begin to rage that they don't have those jobs themselves. Again, I have no critique to make of the justice of this view, but I see it very, very often.
There's a difference between employing a recent jobless grad and ignoring their requests for letters, ignoring them at conferences, and the like. I've seen the second happen far too often to people who don't land something right away or land something like a part-time adjuncting gig at a school nobody's ever heard of. I would think that a program has some sort of responsibility to continue giving a little help to grads for at least a year or two.
It seems like it is in the PhD institution's own interest to help out a recent graduate, especially in a market like this. If long-term placement in the field, and the flourishing of one's graduates are desiderata (and I think they should be), then helping somebody stay afloat with a VAP or adjuncting just makes sense. Otherwise they might very well end up leaving the field, and if too many graduates do that then the department doesn't look like a good place to get a degree.
I don't think they should hire their own as tenure-track faculty, but short-time teaching can make or break somebody's career when they are just starting.
"It seems like it is in the PhD institution's own interest to help out a recent graduate, especially in a market like this."
This doesn't get to the actual question - it's just a generality. What *exactly* can/should a department do for graduates who haven't gotten a job on their own? Call up a buddy and ask them to give them one anyway? Things don't work that way (anymore, if they once did). So what concrete, actual measures - short of hiring these candidates outright - can a department do? I still don't have a clear idea about that.
Surely that depends on the department and the particular year? There can't be a policy for something like this. In general, I guess, a dept. should hire its own as lecturers (not random people from the local community or retired profs), but not necessarily VAPs and certainly not t-t. And of course there should be quality control, and a bias to those more recently done with their PhDs (not a four-year limpet). It's going to be ugly and messy, but isn't that just how things are? Hey, some places might not have so many grads, so maybe they can offer gainful employment to all, but other places are just going to have too many unemployed students. Oh yeah, grads on fellowship should get the less well-paid jobs (TFs) since it doesn't matter anyway - I'm surprised at how many departments screw that up.
Surely that depends on the department and the particular year?
Right, you can't hire lecturers for courses that don't need to be taught, with money you don't have. It's not as though unstaffed courses can be made to appear with the flick of a wand.
a dept. should hire its own as lecturers (not random people from the local community or retired profs), but not necessarily VAPs and certainly not t-t.
Fortunately, I don't think there's likely to be a plague of administrations creating new t-t positions just so that departments can keep their recent Ph.D.s employed.
In fact, I feel pretty sure I'd be right in saying that, if such a thing has ever happened, it hasn't happened within the past half century.
I was just saying that it would be nice if advisers continued to update letters and support candidates who took a year or so to find a job - not create jobs for them. You would be surprised how many advisers don't bother to update reference letters for students who don't get a great job right away - and I'm just talking about a year to 18 months out from the PhD. It really sinks a candidate's application when the letter is clearly written well before the candidate finished his or her PhD, and the person's CV clearly shows that s/he graduated a year ago. The impression is that the adviser thinks this person isn't even worth a letter update - and maybe they aren't, but I see it so frequently, I can't believe it's always the case.
Oh, I just meant that if there was a going position (not a newly created one!) depts probably shouldn't offer it in-house to protect their students. But it's not a major point since I doubt there's anywhere that'd go down that road.
Not that anyone's still reading, but I just wanted to say that in all the Stanford fuss no one thought to mention how reassuring it is that a classicist can still compete for prestigious national fellowships across disciplines. I really don't want this comment to raise a firestorm of invidia - to be honest I'm a little jealous myself - but I hope I'm big enough to recognize a good achievement and congratulate the person for it. It's good for our field.
What fellowship? Stanford fuss? That was like 1000 posts and 3 months ago. You need to clarify for others when you think out loud.
I bet they are referring to the Harvard Society of Fellows, but that is just a guess.
And yes, it is great when Classicists win these things, it is good for the field, good for us all.
And yes, I am quite jealous!! ;-)
But kudos to the person who won it, it is an amazing opportunity.
Yes, that was what I was referring to. I'm glad someone else feels the same way. I just don't recall anyone having said it at the time and I thought it would be appropriate to say something now, at a safe distance from all the carping. Sorry if I was too vague.
It's good to see that someone is still squirreling away at the wiki.
Anyone with word on the Chicago Society of Fellows? I've received so many rejections I can't even remember whether I got a letter from them in the first place...
Anybody out there have any contact from McMaster for their search for a VAP in Archaeology & Latin? These threads seem to have gone cold ...
I'm pretty sure that the McMaster Latin/archaeology VAP position has been offered. Sorry.
Strike that. I know the person who got the postdoc, not the VAP position at McMaster. For all I know, that's still a go. I didn't realize they were running three searches. Must be all that beer and hockey money.
Why does someone keep removing the info about who got the Michigan job?
Because I am 99.9% certain that the job offer has NOT been accepted. I'm close enough to the situation that I would know.
And I don't believe for a second that a rejection e-mail in mid-Feb. said otherwise.
That's just your opinion.
And I don't believe for a second that a rejection e-mail in mid-Feb. said otherwise.Really? Why not? Inquiring minds want to know.
Why does someone keep removing the info about who got the Michigan job?Because the job is not yet accepted (see wiki guidelines).
No, it is not my "opinion." Though I am neither the candidate (who is currently overseas and off e-mail/internet) nor a search committee member, I am quite certain that I know more about this situation than the person who violated FV's guidelines with that wiki posting. Is that clear enough for you, or do you require my Social Security Number, three references and a urine sample in order to check on whether I am to be trusted in this matter?
Re: Michigan Position
While it is true that the job has been offered, it has not yet been accepted. Period.
This is one of the dangers of posting any other name but your own. While the wiki doesn't have any enforceable rules, like FV does, we should refrain from speculative posting as much as possible.
out of curiosity - does anyone know anything about the statuses of the UT Austin searches?
At least one of the jobs had to be re-offered, but at this time, both have been accepted. But this is fourth-hand info, best taken cum grano.
Emory?
Re: UT
but at this time, both have been accepted.One of the offers (to the best of my knowledge not a "re-offer") hasn't been accepted yet.
What about Emory? Nice people, too hot, terrible traffic, financed by high fructose corn syrup.
Anything else we can help with?
Gasp! Not high fructose corn syrup!
It looks very unlikely that we are going to be allowed to hire a replacement at Emory this year, but we have not yet sent out rejections, because there are still a couple of funding opportunities that we are waiting to hear about first. Very sorry about the situation and wish I had better news.
Re: UT
Neither job was reoffered.
One job has been accepted.
As for the other job, well, things are, like, in progress, man.
I can't believe Michigan snagged Syme. Even dead he'll contribute a great deal to the program.
I can't believe Michigan snagged Syme. Even dead he'll contribute a great deal to the program.Yeah, he narrowly beat out Arnaldo Momigliano, who I hear is now begging for that slot at South Dakota State. It is an incredibly tough year. The third finalist, Togo Salmon, has decided to drop out of the field and become an electrician. Wise move.
Looks like somebody's started a bit early.
William Holden?
Michigan's hire casts a real pallor over the department. Syme and Shackleton-Bailey will never get along!
Dare I ask if you mean cast a pall over?
Bad hire if you ask me. Ron's checked out these past few years, as anyone can tell from the steady decline in publications. On the other hand it may be a good fit, he's kinda like the GM of classicists.
Dare I ask if you mean cast a pall over?Surely that was only a typological error.
This sounds like it could have been written by a denizen of FV...
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/27/opinion/27taylor.html?_r=1
This sounds like it could have been written by a denizen of FV...
I was especially amused to read that he thinks $5000 a course is the bottom of the adjunct scale. Clearly he has been enjoying the comfort of the tenure system he decries much too long to actually have any idea of conditions on the market.
Anybody else out there send in an abstract to the Diachrony Conference at Duke?
I sent one in and never heard back. No acknowledgment of receipt, nothing... Is this the usual practice or should I write and ask them whether they even received my abstract?
Dear Duke,
Getting rejected for jobs by being ignored is bad enough. Please don't add insult to injuries by not even sending out a quick email to everybody saying "thanks for submitting, blah blah blah" when they apply to participate in a conference!
Sincerely, Nemo
I also submitted an abstract and didn't receive a submission receipt confirmation. They're probably to busy to bother...I figured it was just me.
Not hearing back about abstracts is pretty common, in my experience - I've found out more than once that I have been accepted/rejected only when the program is put online. But it's pretty goshdarn rude. (Are we allowed to swear in here? It's pretty fucking rude.)
Anonymous 4:02, you are fined one credit for a violation of the Verbal Morality Statute.
Looks like there's a new shepherd in town.
Fuck excessively rude conference organizers and fuck the Moral Statue Machines they rode in on.
Your repeated violation of the Verbal Morality Statute has caused me to notify the American Philological Association. Please remain where you are for your reprimand.
Fuck the Moral Statute Machine, and fuck its little sister, the Morale Statute Machine.
Syme says,"Die."
Since the season is over except for some last-minute VAPs, can people start filling in the many blanks and "rumor mill" entries? Surely it's okay at this point in the process?
And does anyone know anything about Berea College? It was due a month ago.
Since the season is over except for some last-minute VAPs, can people start filling in the many blanks and "rumor mill" entries? Surely it's okay at this point in the process?Can I just ask what our position is on unofficial hires, spring jobs that weren't advertised with the APA, but where places went back to an earlier applicant pool or gave them to their grad students (or the nearest big university's grads)? Should we list them on the wiki or not?
I think we should list as much as possible on the wiki. Even if a job wasn't officially advertised, it would be useful, simply as a historical document, to have the wiki as complete as we can make it.
For those interested there has been some contact from Duke on the Diachrony conference (regarding acceptance at least....)
So, is this it? Are there likely to be any more jobs other than the last minute kind in which a nearby grad student is tapped to fill in?
This is basically it. Even the searches that are not listed as complete on the wiki are likely over, or in their final stages. As it is, teaching schedules for the next semester have already been finalized at most institutions. Letters of appointment have already be sent out and returned. People have to start planning their relocation.
All that remains is to gather the data from this year and try to divine what little anyone can about the process from available information.
If anyone applied for the MIT Mellon, the search committee's timetable is mid- to late May.
In case anyone is wondering, I emailed Cincinnati this morning about their search and the SC is still reading files.
If past markets are any indication, a few European positions will be advertised in June.
Can I just say that I'm not a fan of the human resources rejections? (Got one this morning from "UC" and it took a while to figure out WHICH UC it was.) I much prefer a rejection from someone actually affiliated with the Classics department.
If you applied to the UC job, you applied through Human Resources (the online application). It's not unreasonable for them to email you.
re, UCincinnati JobPerhaps the better question would be Which job precisely did the rejection email refer to?
According to the Wiki, at least one person felt that it was the VAP position. The one I received specified the "Assistant Professor" position.
Well, there's one way to settle the UC question. Is there anyone out there who applied for one position and not the other, and if they didn't apply for the VAP, did they get the email? Or if they didn't apply for the tt, did they get the email? Etc. Anyone on here such a being, or know such a being?
If yesterday the SC was still reading files, a rejection email seems very soon for the VAP.
28UC2629 was the tenure-track position. That's the position number in my rejection email, and presumably also everyone else's (I also applied for the VAP). The wiki needs correcting.
I'll second that. I applied for the tenure-track but not the visiting position, and I got the same absurd e-mail.
Rumor has it that both VAP's at Cincinnati have been filled. Anyone know more?
While you can, get out.
For those who didn't get jobs this year, how many are planning to leave the field completely?
I didn't get a job this year, but my significant other landed a plum one, so I'm taken care of for now. I'll write, maybe adjunct in the vicinity (if I can), and enjoy a leisured life for now.
Where I am, there isn't even enough funding for my department to hire recent grads to teach one class. Classes traditionally taught by vistors will now be done by standing faculty. The best we can do is extend a non-paying affiliation that allows them to get library access and at least have something on paper that will let them apply for jobs next year. I believeat least one grad is walking away. Whether search committees view a titular, non-teaching role as a severe deficiency remains to be seen.
"Whether search committees view a titular, non-teaching role as a severe deficiency remains to be seen."
It would be hard to say; in general, I don't think it would be as bad as nothing, esp. if they can give it a prestigious title, but I think in the next year or two SCs will be more understanding of what's been happening, and look more favorably on these things.
I have heard of recent graduates who went on unemployment for a year or two in hopes of avoiding any perceived stigmas attached to teaching secondary school. I think this is a poor choice, though: an entirely blank year on a CV is very noticeable.
How did they pull that off? When you go on unemployment you're supposed to show that you're actively looking for work. (Remember the "Seinfeld" episode and Vanderlay Industries?)
Must have been in a blue state...
Hey guys it's Joe the Plumber!
Looks like someone in the Job Announcements thread doesn't in which thread to post. Or know how to use a dictionary.
Tired I am of all the bullshit. No tomorrow for us will there be.
"Looks like someone in the Job Announcements thread doesn't in which thread to post. Or know how to use a dictionary."
Do you really think a dictionary would have a definition of "virtuality" that matches whatever the people at Penn who are behind this nonsense intend the word to mean?
It's good to see that some jobs are still trickling at this exceedingly late hour!
Penn State already filled its one year? Michigan placed THREE DAMN CANDIDATES THIS YEAR?
Wiki is not my friend.
Unbelievable that someone out there STILL doesn't know our rules concerning not outing recent job recipients on the wiki, especially on the basis of a rumor. I've taken care of it.
Penn State just announced the one-year in the last APA bulletin; I seriously doubt it's already accepted.
Penn State announced their job in the June 1 ads. They said review of apps would start asap. I have no problem believing it's been accepted. At this stage, everyone is desperate. Still, the name should not have gone on the wiki.
Michigan placed THREE DAMN CANDIDATES THIS YEAR?
Not a big surprise. Michigan always does well.
3 out of what? Probably 20+ candidates looking for jobs...not so hot, not just for Michigan, but classics in general.
Responding to "May 21 Anonymous": The two Cincinnati VAP's have been filled. That rumor was true on May 21, but contracts were held up in the dean's office for a month. Current rumor: contracts were signed this week.
Though it might be a bit anecdotal, do people have approximate figures for how their department did this year in placement?
You don't need to name departments. I know it's a bit grey, but since we're not naming names, can we not inflate numbers by counting lectureships within the same university or one down the street that typically hires your grads as a safety net? While we're at it, we should probably only include recent grads, and not those who "upgraded" or moved on to other jobs due to tenure issues.
I think a percentage/fraction would tell a much clearer story than saying "three of our grads" got jobs. This might be a nice placement for a small program, but I don't think it would be for a large program, as someone just suggested.
My program had 7/7 in bona fide TT or VAP positions advertised by the APA. BUT there is at least one ABD I know who decided to delay the degree by a year, so it might be 7/8 depending on your point of view. There might be a recent grad here or there I missed who didn't land a job, but I can't imagine it's more than a couple. So I would say anywhere from 70-100% for my program. Great year!
My large, state school program had, I believe, 3 recent grads on the market. One got a nice SLAC VAP at a very good school. I'm not sure about the other two but I would guess they didn't get good positions as nothing is traveling through the grapevine. So, 33% for now. FWIW, I would say our program is very good though probably not what one would call elite except on a good day.
I think a percentage/fraction would tell a much clearer story than saying "three of our grads" got jobs. This might be a nice placement for a small program, but I don't think it would be for a large program, as someone just suggested.
True enough. But my point was that unless I'm reading the wiki wrong (and could easily be), it looks like the Michigan placements just finished their degrees (Mich is the only institution listed). Which struck me as impressive in this market. Not that I've been on the market for three years, am this year unemployed, and so am bitter about this-year Ph.D.s beating me out for jobs. Because I'm not. =)
Michigan shilling is so 2008.
"Your interest in the Visiting Assistant Professor (A&S Classics) position number 29UC3713 in the department of A&S Classics has been received and reviewed."
Perhaps it's just me, but wouldn't there be something to be said for substituting "application for" for "interest in" in this sentence? I would point this out to the sender, but I suspect that Human Resources at the University of Cincinnati is not a "real person."
UM
Michigan is actually underrepresented-- also took home the art history job at Hunter College (NYC).
Hail! to the victors valiant
Hail! to the conqu'ring heroes
Hail! Hail! to Michigan
there are two jobs @ Carleton for 2010. See the Chron (and Carleton website).
please god, can someone tell me why sign up for the placement service cannot be done via an ONLINE form. not to say I'm not grateful that the placement service has mastered the art of making PDFs (and yes, at least it isn't another carbon triplicate), but really.
What's going on with the UTexas 3rd job/erasure saga on the wiki?
I'm not aware of the saga to which you allude but the information was incorrect. I happened to look at the Wiki list a few weeks ago and noted that. Thank you to the individual who removed it. I can imagine how the rumor came about, but it is only unsubstantiated rumor.
Anyone know anything about the Miami lecturer position?
Anyone know anything about the NYU one-year/three-year position?
Please remember, DO NOT name/list/mention/mumble names on this site. I just removed a post (which seemed to be more appropriate to the wiki) simply because it named who had received a certain job.
This policy will be strictly enforced.
Yours,
Servius
Post a Comment