I know it's not our fault, and it would be stupid of us not to take advantage (I certainly do). But don't you just feel a little bit guilty? And yes we do plenty of other things, but it's the use of Troy and Gladiator (and no doubt Clash of the Titans) that gets hundreds in the classroom and, more importantly, keeps them awake. (Don't pretend that everyone in your ancient med survey is both awake and not on facebook.)
For most of us, there's a disconnect between what we were trained to do (high-level research) and what we're paid to do (low-level teaching), between the environment in which we learned (great schools) and the environment in which we work (all kinds of schools). Our responses to that disconnect will vary according to our personalities - some will be happy to teach Troy and then get on with their commentary on Simplicius, others will be depressed to be away from the field and stuck with intro. to Rome - but I'm not sure there's a lot to be done about the disconnect. Previous posters have noted the direction in which the humanities (inc. Classics) is heading - how one deals with that is probably just as much a personal as an institutional matter.
For most of us, there's a disconnect between what we were trained to do (high-level research) and what we're paid to do (low-level teaching), between the environment in which we learned (great schools) and the environment in which we work (all kinds of schools). Our responses to that disconnect will vary according to our personalities - some will be happy to teach Troy and then get on with their commentary on Simplicius, others will be depressed to be away from the field and stuck with intro. to Rome - but I'm not sure there's a lot to be done about the disconnect.
Yes, that's true.
In fact, we're lucky to get to do any research at all. Parents, state legislatures, and taxpayers can at least sometimes be made to see some value in instruction. It's not at all clear, however, why we should be paid to do research. Shouldn't we be spending that time teaching the children of California or Minnesota or New York? And why should the hardworking citizens of the great state of Texas pay for my Simplicius commentary?
So, before the teaching of the humanities disappears within the university, we'll see the disappearance of research in the humanities from public institutions. Teaching loads will go up, and time for other activities will go down, until it's gone.
This is already happening through the widespread use of lecturers: they teach all the time, so that tenured and tenure-track faculty can have even a little time for research. As resources get tighter, the ratio of people teaching all the time to people teaching only most of the time will continue to increase (as it has already been doing for some time now).
Eventually, almost everyone is going to have to teach all the time.
This will all be made possible because no one outside of the humanities—not voters, not legislatures, not parents, not corporations—sees any reason to spend their money on supporting research in the humanities. Not on the Simplicius commentary, but also not on the most popularizing and accessible book imaginable.
This won't happen to the engineers, the geneticists, etc., because what they do can be sold to some or all of these potential constituencies.
I live in a house of ABD students, and we're comprised of philologists, historians, and archaeologists. We all follow the debates on here and discuss it in our spare time (except without tempers flaring). A while back, someone asked where clarchs were "jumping ship" to. Our two resident clarchs were saying from their experience it was more about going from humanities to social sciences than a departmental move. One of the main reasons stated was the better affirmation they got in the social sciences for conducting research. One is even currently on a NSF diss fellowship, something I do not think any philologist could win. So perhaps this will be a major driving force in splitting classics apart more than anything else, not all the nonsense we spew on here?
I would welcome a move back towards teaching as our primary job. The 19th c. German/Johns Hopkins model of the research university has so warped our priorities in this country that a corrective is in order. Fewer books, fewer articles, and tenure based on ability to be fully engaged with one's community instead of scrambling to submit the next manuscript would be a relief.
The bottom line should be our ability to attract and retain students in our courses. This high-prestige/low-education model is simply not sustainable, and it deserves to be thrown onto the midden of history. The ironic thing is that our scholarship will actually improve when it isn't being frantically generated in the service of ever-increasing and increasingly unreasonable expectations.
This high-prestige/low-education model is simply not sustainable, and it deserves to be thrown onto the midden of history.
I don't think you're hearing me. I'm talking about a glorious new low-research/low-education-but-in-a-lot-of-classes model, in which for a while we teach more and more classes and do less research (not less publication, less research), and then don't teach or do research, because just as taxpayers and corporate sponsors don't want to pay for humanities research, so in the long run they don't want to pay for humanities teaching, either.
In other words, we're not talking about switching to a neat model in which your teaching skills get all the recognition they deserve, and you can take your sweet time writing the perfect book. We're talking about throwing both what you research and what you teach, by stages, onto your "midden of history" (which is kind of appropriate, in that the Bolsheviks themselves were doomed to the same damned ash heap Trotsky said the Mensheviks were going to).
I thought y'all would be interested to hear my latest run-in with RP and the outdated Placement Service. (Please note that I am on the market for the first time and didn't know any of these regulations.)
A history department wanted to interview me, but I will not be in San Diego for AHA (which happens at the same time as the APA). So they wanted to do a phone interview during that same convention period. I thought the timing was unusual and unnecessary, but hey, if that's when the search committee is going to be together and working on it, that's fine.
So I emailed RP to ask to add this half-hour to the times I won't be available for an APA interview.
She called me this morning in a tizzy and wanted to know (I'm paraphrasing) who was encroaching on her turf.
I explained the situation, and she said that Placement Service regulations ("which are there to protect you, the candidate") prohibit me from interviewing during the convention period with any institution that is not registered with the APA Placement Service. Since I have thrown in my lot with the APA, they will not make any effort to accommodate anything else.
(Please note that RP stressed that she wasn't being lazy; she presented it as a stand on principle.)
On the other hand, if she doesn't know about the interview, it doesn't matter. So she recommended that I write back to the history department and tell them that I won't know my schedule until about the end of December and we'll have to schedule the interview then, for a time that I will at that time know I don't have an APA interview.
So. I think that this does not fall into the same category of rudeness and incompetence as people were complaining about a couple of weeks ago. (Although, she did say that she didn't have my paperwork in front of her because it was at home in her kitchen. Huh?
I suppose I recognize the value of the regulations she mentioned (or even if we don't, there are a lot of organizations that have similarly unhelpful rules, so we can't use the argument that the APA is *unusually* obfuscating the issue).
But it does seem to me that this is a really good argument for the need for a computerized, online scheduling system. That way, I could have simply added the fact that I was no longer available for this half-hour, without giving a reason, and nobody would have had a problem.
How odd. I had the same problem and she was INCREDIBLY understanding about it. Why turn around and go overboard with someone else?
But, yes, online scheduling system is right on. It would also get rid of the requirement that we all have to have our schedules in over a month before the convention, when not even all the applications have been due or reviewed yet, and it might even allow job seekers, who by nature are worried about money, to save some cash on travel and lodging.
By the way, did anyone who communicated with the APA last week about RP's email about scheduling get any responses from her or Blistein?
I had a problem strikingly similar to the one mentioned above a few years ago. It was an absolute f@(*@#$g nightmare dealing with RP at the time, and I do think it hurt me in the eyes of the other hiring folks since I seemed less than accomodating. I can understand the APA wanting to prevent Classics SCs from "going rogue" at the APA. Interfering with AHA interviews, however, is well beyond what they should worry about.
Is not Miami "going rogue" on the job market? Cannot the APA stop them, er, him?
I'm not certain, but I suspect that Miami is not interviewing at the APA at all (they merely posted an ad with them), so they don't have to follow these rules.
I'm not certain, but I suspect that Miami is not interviewing at the APA at all (they merely posted an ad with them), so they don't have to follow these rules.
Last year there were pre-APA phone interviews, pre-APA flyouts, APA interviews, post-APA flyouts, later phone interviews. Maybe they'll do less of it this year.
I may be wrong (I am not nor have I ever been affiliated with the U. of Miami) but I think what Miami does is fine, from the APA's standpoint. So long as they don't schedule interviews *at the APA itself* without going through the placement service, no foul.
RP's kitchen has played a large role in Placement Service emails before; I definitely recall an email about the scheduling process last year or the year before that mentioned the kitchen table as the site where scheduling was done. And she's mentioned it when I had my own occasion to correspond with her about my schedule.
So, most of the APA Placement Service's more important work takes place at RP's kitchen table. I do not think this is a good thing.
What is the protocol for dealing with interview offers at both the APA and AHA? I never promised the History departments that I'd be in San Diego, while I did tell the Classics departments I'd be in Anaheim. Now, however, I actually have two AHA interviews and only one APA interview. I'm not complaining, but would it be OK to swap Anaheim for San Diego?
Do it, it's obvious that classics barely has a pulse these days. Soon we will be waxing lyrical about the bygone years of the 70s and 80s that seemded so bad five years ago.
Anaheim and San Diego are 1.5 hours drive away from each other or an easy and direct train ride. I'm planning on doing APA on Thurs-Fri and AHA on Saturday. It helps that you have advance notice of the timing of AHA interviews, of course, unlike the APA.
Two days ago someone added a + to the Univ. of Southern California entry on the wiki to indicate that they had received confirmation that their application was received. Does this mean that USC only sent out such confirmations in the past 2-3 days? I don't remember getting one, but most certainly didn't get one in the past week.
Received a rejection notice from Case Western, which was above-average in terms of expression of sympathy and explanation of process. "Well-over a hundred applicants." (Unsurprising). What struck me was this:
"A surprising number of applicants were already in tenure track or even tenured positions."
What might this mean? SC's ignorance regarding the usual number of applicants seeking to change institution/geographical location? Reflection of frozen salary increases? Further attempts to destroy non-TT's already dismal futures?
Found the CWRU rejection a little impersonal and was perplexed by that same comment; it almost sounded like the committee was surprised? indignant? confused? as to why they had received so many applications. odd language.
As a current member of a search committee I can verify that Case Western's experience is not unique. We are seeing many, many more current tenure-track applicants this year than in years past. Some are Califugees, but plenty others are not.
It does it make it much harder on those without experience, especially ABD applicants. It also makes for more stressful meetings for us but that is a small price to pay. Some of us don't like the idea that the field is getting closed to younger, less experienced scholars. Others simply see this as an opportunity to land an almost instantly tenurable person. The question always remains, however, if they would actually come. If not we may fail the search and possibly lose the line. So keep in mind that those in tenure-track positions are attractive in some ways, but risky in others.
Sorry for this. It is depressing no matter how you cut it.
There is a big difference between an increase in tenure-track applicants and an increase in tenured applicants. My impression is that the recent trend towards stricter tenure requirements is starting to catch up with reality in disciplines like Classics. As someone who was lucky enough to get tenure right before a new dean raised the bar, I am sympathetic to my (slightly) younger colleagues who are expected to do even more with time that is increasingly encroached upon by administrative bullshit. In other words, I would like to know how many candidates with tenure track jobs are actually looking for a better situation, apart from concerns about tenure, and how many know that they are unlikely to make tenure in their current position and are wisely looking to reset the clock.
"In other words, I would like to know how many candidates with tenure track jobs are actually looking for a better situation, apart from concerns about tenure, and how many know that they are unlikely to make tenure in their current position and are wisely looking to reset the clock."
It is an interesting question, and one might go further. I know of several peers who have left tenured jobs or are trying to leave tenure-track positions specifically because of spouses and an inability to get a spousal hire. At the same time, I know of one person who moved because he wanted to teach at a small liberal arts college, rather than the larger, more impersonal institution that he started at. I'd be curious to know exactly what constitutes a "better situation" in the minds of these candidates. Is family life a factor/priority here? Better pay? A switch from public to private? More interest in teaching and less on research? Or vice versa? I'd be curious to hear from others what they might know about this topic...
I'll keep going on the market until the situation is resolved. I feel bad since that contributes to a top-heavy market, but I'm sure most of you can sympathize with the predicament.
Better situation = less problematic job and better geographic region
Those of us who are in TT positions understand what precious commodities they are, but, in all truth, not all jobs are created equal and not all parts of this country are conducive to the lifestyles many of us would like to live.
No, just as with jobs, not all "players" are the same. I can fully sympathize with spousal considerations and finding a better fit, but it's often not about these things for some players. There are plenty of Machiavellian, ridiculously self-serving players who are serial job changers, jumping from job to job with little real improvement. We're not talking about going from Northeast Idaho State University with a 6-6 teaching load to Elite U. And it's not about better fit, but less work and more money. Yes, less work and more money is an okay goal, but at what cost? From what I can see, classics has way too many sabretooths and sabretooth cubs in training, which might explain why the discipline is in such a shithole, even for the humanities.
Candidates who already have a TT job don't necessarily have any advantage in junior searches. Unless they also have an outstanding track record and can credibly explain in their cover letter why they are interested in a different position, they tend to set off alarm bells. Before putting them on a short list committee members will often start contacting friends digging for dirt. Also, if they have been in a TT job for two or three years and have not published much, forget about it, the newly fledged PHDs are still shiny and it is (sometimes) understood that the VAP candidates will (often) have had a much heavier teaching load.
Considering the number of TT people at state schools who have been told that they may not get reappointed because of the financial crisis, it is really ridiculous that people complain about them being on the market. They have just a little job security now in some cases as VAPs and adjuncts.
"They have just a little job security now in some cases as VAPs and adjuncts."
Have you ever been in the VAP trenches? If so, how long ago? VAPs more often than not only have one year stints at a location. That's why it's a "visiting" position. Visiting from where, I do not know. How often do you see a TT person kicked out due to no fault of their own? Eh, almost never?
Agreed, the status quo for TT people is that they stay unless they do something egregiously wrong. The status quo for a VAP is that they go unless they do something extraordinarily right. Even then, if it's a sabbatical replacement, they are almost certainly gone.
"They have just a little job security now in some cases as VAPs and adjuncts."
Anonymous 11:48 am is clearly an ignoramus when it comes to understanding the market or what it means to be a person in a VAP spot. VAP spots are tough, no matter how you slice them. yes, they keep one "in the game" but it is not an easy go and rarely is there anything that one could call "Security".
I've heard this sort of "TT'ing is almost as bad as VAP'ing" argument before, us. w/ appeal to the lack of dept./university service that VAP'ers have. What those who espouse this view generally fail to overlook is that VAP'ing usually involves adjusting to a new position while applying to new positions (i.e. time commitment and additional stress from uncertainty) and 2.) the simple fact that moving (often across the country) involves a significant amount of time and money (note that VAP'ers almost always get less of each than their TT counterparts). And, yes, I realize that there are some TT'ers who are facing the very real possibility that they probably won't get tenure because of financial reasons at their institutions. So I can understand their desire to apply to junior-level positions.
The most disturbing thing to me is the penchant for the system to propagate self-fulfilling prophecies. The new TT hire gets generous course releases, moving package, office, etc. and has people generally bending over backwards for them. In this positive, supportive environment most people can churn out scholarship and teach fairly well. On the other hand, VAPs usually have prohibitive teaching loads, little to no moving funds, poor offices and are somehow expected to publish. Faculty then pat themselves on the back saying what a great job they did hiring the TT scholar and point to their productivity. The sad thing is that many of the TT hires start to believe this nonsense that s/he obviously deserves the job sheerly by their brilliance. What the department is doing is setting themselves up to have their "brilliant" hire play the market for a job more suitable to their brilliance. The VAP on the other hand is caught in a catch-22. Don't get me wrong, the TT hire usually still has to work hard, but harder than the VAP? The humanities are a crapshoot and classics is the wart on its ass.
And it's not about better fit, but less work and more money. Yes, less work and more money is an okay goal, but at what cost?
I cannot imagine any other employment market in which someone would think that this is a reasonable question. "Hours" and "compensation" are two of the fundamental considerations in a labor market. If someone gets an equivalent job working less and getting paid more, they'd be perfectly justified in taking it, and I think many people would think they were nuts if they even hesitated to take it.
But some TT people are *just now* being told that they are not going to be reappointed, simply because of the budget. They put their time in the VAP trenches, managed to get the TT job, and are now being cast off because the state legislature couldn't get its act together. Or the endowment was over-leveraged. Or their tenured colleagues aren't pulling their weight in getting enrollments up. Or. Or. Or.
This is happening to people at all stages of the TT. This is not a matter of VAP vs. TT. This is a matter of humanities vs. sciences vs. business vs. everything else under the sun.
Wake up folks. Those of us on the market from a no-longer-TT position aren't going around pissing on VAPs or ABDs. We were all there once.
Maybe, just maybe, the honchos on the APA governing board will actually deign to address this problem as a problem facing the field as a whole, and not parts of it only. Let's sacrifice a few of those damn panels that nobody attends anyway and talk about this crap instead of bitching about it here.
I thought it was a touch snotty (many of us will find jobs -- BUT NOT ALL! Especially you damn Lucan people!), but I probably would stop short of obnoxious.
"On behalf of John Heath, Chair, and the Department of Classics at Santa Clara University, I would like to thank you very much for your application materials for our tenure-track position in Greek language and literature. Unfortunately, the search committee has decided not to interview you.
We received over 120 applications, and we were delighted with the high quality of the pool. But this also meant that many, many outstanding applicants had to be cut. Because we are a small department, our present needs (and long-term goals) require someone who specializes in Greek literature, preferably in an area that relates to our (completely) undergraduate curriculum. Thus, we were not looking for social historians, historiographers, comparativists, or linguists, much less specialists in Statius or Lucan (though we appreciate your interest as well).
We wish you all the best in your future endeavors and are certain many of you will find positions elsewhere."
Thus, we were not looking for social historians, historiographers, comparativists, or linguists, much less specialists in Statius or Lucan (though we appreciate your interest as well).
hah! that'd be funny if it didn't hit so close to home! but the job description was pretty clear, so i can understand why they were annoyed to get the second coming of a.e. housman in the applicant pool.
What I'd like to ask the Santa Clara folks is, when did Greek historiography stop being Greek literature? (The rejection certainly implies that it isn't, unless they mean ancient historians.)
If someone gets an equivalent job working less and getting paid more, they'd be perfectly justified in taking it, and I think many people would think they were nuts if they even hesitated to take it.
Well said. Universities don't stop acting like corporations when humanities professors act like suckers.
We're all suckers then, like all the college football players who think they will make the NFL when in reality less than 10% make it. There are many easier rocks to squeeze for money than classics and academia.
There are many easier rocks to squeeze for money than classics and academia.
So if you're in it you shouldn't even try? If you have kids to support and if another university will pay for their college tuition it's a no-brainer. What if you can't afford to live anywhere decent but a new college happens to be in a much cheaper area? This is the kind of thing you can get from moving from one TT job to another and I don't see why anyone should be discouraged from trying to improve their situation. Should you knowingly and willingly jerk around another department? No. But, as usual on FV, we fixate on the villains and extrapolate to every case.
There are many easier rocks to squeeze for money than classics and academia.
Of course there are. Look, this isn't difficult. If you're in Classics, let's just assume that being in Classics is of overriding importance to you, and that you'd make huge sacrifices, including sacrifices of salary, in order to be in it.
Let's also stipulate that there are other things that are important to you. Your partner/family. Location. Public vs. private institution. Grad students/no grad students. Colleagues you like and you're excited to be around. All of these things matter, or may matter to you depending on your situation.
But hours and pay matter a great deal in any labor market, and rightly so. Assigning great importance to them is totally reasonable, just as it's reasonable in all other fields of employment. Wanting to spend less time making more money for doing the same thing doesn't make you a money-grubbing monster. It makes you a normal person.
Look, if you had a friend who worked at a grocery store, or as a welder, or as a customer service rep, and s/he got an offer for a job that seemed on balance comparable, but paid 7% more an hour, what would you say? "Take it?" Or "Make sure you think over all the pluses and minuses"?
Whatever you said, it probably wouldn't be "Don't even think about it, you f&^*ing mercenary!!!"
Right. Isn't that why we call it a "job market," rather than a "job patronage system" or a "job assignment lottery," or what not? (Not that we couldn't though.)
Are we really having this debate? Yes, this is our livelihood, not our philanthropic charity. If I can get an offer for a better job than the one I currently have, I will not turn it down in order to take one for the team, but behave like a rational agent and take it for myself. Is this really surprising?
Dude, chill. You sound like someone stole your prized pony. You're basically having this argument by yourself, which is quite silly since we're obviously all individuals with our own situations and predilections.
Dude, chill. You sound like someone stole your prized pony. You're basically having this argument by yourself
As one of the two or more people constituting this composite dude, I can confirm that the dude is not having the argument by himself. But it's right that there hasn't been much resistance on the other side: one instance of handwringing about where all this greed will lead, and one half-hearted "if you love money so much why don't you marry it?" So I don't think there's much need to push harder on this.
If you take all of the "Anonymous" commenters as a single person, though, I'll grant you that he sounds nuts.
Have you ever been in the VAP trenches? If so, how long ago? VAPs more often than not only have one year stints at a location. That's why it's a "visiting" position. Visiting from where, I do not know. How often do you see a TT person kicked out due to no fault of their own? Eh, almost never?
Um, I made that comment and I spent 2 years adjuncting and 4 years as a VAP at 3 different schools before I landed a TT. But I have a bunch of friends who have been told recently that their TT line job is no longer secure and that they will not be reappointed if the university budget does not improve. It doesn't matter if they meet the standards. Budget dictates. So until you have spent that many years on the market clawing and fighting to get on the TT only to then find out that it is no more secure than a 2-year appointment as a VAP like you had before, stop the whining. And seriously stop the ignorant accusation that those of us on the TT don't understand the market. Some of us know the ugliness of the market more than any of you ever will and we know far too well how ugly it is and have no desire to ever revisit it but also accept that we may not be given the choice no matter how much we publish, how much service we do and how great our evals are.
Not to change the subject here or anything, but......
Can anybody and everybody chime in on their journal submission experiences? How long does it usually take until you hear back about a decision? Are there any journals that are especially fast, or especially slow? How do you go about choosing which journal to send a submission?
I don't have pro experience (2 articles and a book chapter; phd this year) so take this for what it is worth.
For first, I found GRBS rude and sniffy but prompt. CP still hasn't gotten back to me (4 years later) but finally placed with AJPh and Barbara Gold was great to work with. For another, wanted it in Humanistica Lovaniensia but since they only do one volume each year response time was around 9 months, but feedback was great -- good people there.
I suggest going for the better journals first since even if you don't place it, you will at least have rigorous feedback to mull over. And there are some people out there who do want to help first timers (WH at IJCT has the biggest heart in the world). Be prepared for some snarky, nasty, and sometimes wayward comments though. I almost wept the first time a reviewer said anything complimentary.
As for time: assuming you don't have to make any revisions (unlikely) at least a year from submission to publication. More likely, a few years with revisions and resubmissions and intrusions. But again, not a pro speaking.
On journal submissions: not quite on topic, but a reminder that there are discussions of writing a first article at http://www.duke.edu/~jds15/grads/writing.articles.html and http://www.apaclassics.org/Publications/publish.html
and here are some acceptance rates from 2001 and 2002: http://www.apaclassics.org/profmat/2001_journals.pdf http://www.apaclassics.org/profmat/2002_journtable.pdf
Apologies to those for whom this is too well known already
Related question: you're a young scholar who's giving a presentation at a conference, at the end of which is likely to be an edited volume of proceedings - should you aim for publication in a journal instead, which everyone in your institution is telling you to do (Dean, Chair), or is it bad form to screw the conference organizer? I ask because it's hard to pass up the opportunity of an easy publication at the beginning of your career but at the same time everyone senior seems to dismissive of such things (privately, if not in print).
In my experience, proceedings volumes sorta count like working papers, so—at least in one I’ve published in—a more worked-up version of your paper is assumed to likely turn up later in a journal.
Just politely explain to the conference organizers what your chair and dean are saying. They will understand. Converting a potentially valuable peer-reviewed journal article into a worthless proceedings article is completely counterproductive.
If you're talking about a collection of papers from, say, an APA panel, then yeah, I'd say worthless.
Other, long-standing conferences who publish their proceedings (Fondation Hardt, Hellenistica Groningana) obviously ought to count for more. In the case of these, there is a degree of peer review.
the poster a few above overly generalizes about the utility of including a conference paper in a volume of conference proceedings. In some cases such a venue can provide good visibility for young scholars. True, there are trade-offs, but this is true of virtually all academic publishing.
On journals: I'd add that ZPE is quite fast in responding, so if the piece is ZPE-worthy you should consider them. I had a good experience with JRS last year, which predictably rejected my article, but did so in just a few months (3-5, maybe?), thus validating my decision to shoot for the top and then submit elsewhere. (I won't say where my article currently is, but it's now been six months. I've worked with the editor in the past, though, so I haven't lost faith.)
Regarding the conference book issue, I'm curious whether there is a significant difference in the eyes of deans/etc. between running an article in a volume entitled "Proceedings of the Congress on [Stuff]" and a book that derives from a smaller conference but is not named as such. As one who will have publications in both, just something I'm mildly curious about, even though a tenure review is not in my immediate future. (That said, if someone arranged a smallish conference and invited me to give a paper I would go into the situation *knowing* that I might be asked to submit an article to a volume, so I would think it rather poor form to refuse to do so. And if I myself ran a conference and someone refused to submit a paper this would certainly be in the back of my mind for future conferences I might organize.)
On conference papers, from a person who's written and read a number of tenure letters: if one of every three or four papers is published in a collection of essays developed from a conference, I'd say at most places that's fine, especially if the volume is refereed (if not refereed maybe I'd say one in five?). Publishing conference papers is fine as a complement to articles refereed in journals; it just looks bad if too high a percentage of your articles are not in refereed journals. Everything you publish will be read by your referees, and some of them will comment on the prestige of your journals and the quality (or lack thereof) of any volume of essays or proceedings you're in. Getting that paper "accepted" doesn't count for much, but if it's good and people say good things about it that counts. I've written a letter in which I've commented on the fact that many other people in a collection were senior/famous. And by saying "at most places that's fine" I don't mean it's fine at low-prestige places and not at higher, I mean it's fine unless the people making the judgments are dumb. But I also second the idea that you should do what you want with your papers, and not hesitate to tell an organizer if you don't want to be in a collection b/c your dept. or dean wants pieces in refereed journals.
The question of proceedings vs. refereed journal isn't a simple one, but if you want a simple answer from someone who has sat on a few tenure committees and tenure advisory panels, here is one: a refereed journal article will always count more with tenure panels, deans, most departmental colleagues, and the majority of external reviewers of scholarship, assuming the quality of the pieces is the same. And it's not a matter of someone "noticing" where something appears. Most institutions will require you to separate your refereed from your non-refereed publications in your tenure dossier, just as they will make you separate your monographs from your articles, and your articles from your miscellaneous publications (reviews & reference entries).
In that context, you need to have a publication plan, not simply be thinking of every piece you put out there as a discrete and wholly separable unit. You will be judged on the impact of your overall record in your area(s) of specialty, and that means that it may under some circumstances make perfectly good sense to have a piece appear in a volume that comes from a panel or conference.
Some random thoughts: Its presence may, for instance, give you a continued relationship with the editor, and that may come in handy. S/he may be a huge name in your field, and be able to open doors.
The other contributors could be likely outside reviewers of your work at tenure time, and in a small specialty could actually end up serving in that function (which means they won't be sneering at that publication venue in their letter).
The piece you presented might be something of a sideline, and with your current plans you don't know when you'd have time/motivation to complete it and put it through the submission/revision process--but you could turn it around pretty quickly for an edited volume where you have the motivation of essentially guaranteed acceptance and a solid deadline.
You may have a strong record of publication in high-quality refereed journals already, and as the previous poster pointed out, it's the ratio that counts above all.
There are other reasons one could imagine. The point is that your scholarly output should look coherent, even if it covers several specialties, and part of that coherency is where and how you publish. A lot of papers derived from conference papers but published as refereed articles would impress many of the colleagues I've been on panels with--they like to see the progression from paper to refereed article, and take it as proof that you are well rounded and capable of being a force in different kinds of scholarly engagement. But a lot of papers derived from conference papers and published in non-refereed volumes begin to make people wonder.
One perspective. And I'll add that I've never seen an enraged classicist go after a junior person for pursuing publication in a refereed journal instead of in a volume of proceedings. I can't claim it has never happened (far stranger things certainly have), but I would guess it is rare.
1.) Conference proceedings that are peer-reviewed would seem (IMO as past SC member) to be roughly as valuable as peer-reviewed journal articles (though there does exist an elite tier of journals that stand by themselves - CA, AJP, JRS, etc). Moreover, the proceedings may wind up being reviewed as a volume, which will provide your dean, tenure committee, vel sim. yet another metric to judge the externally-perceived quality of your work (which is the real issue behind proceedings vs. journal question, no?). If reviewed in BMCR, most of the profession will receive a summary of your argument in their email inbox. Not bad.
2.) Can't let it pass re: 1:48 above that I had an excellent (and quick) experience with GRBS, whereas I found Barbara Gold and AJP to be slow and shockingly dismissive. There was only 1 anonymous review, which had appropriate criticisms and suggestions for revision, and on that slim basis BG rejected the piece with no gentleness whatsoever and NO possibility of resubmit. Ouch.
3.) The tone of the dissatisfied-with-the-placement-service crowd saddens me. "Too inconvenient to send a fax"??? "Too expensive for priority mail"??? And yet you have the gall to sit here and act entitled to a TT position? If your attitude towards the work of obtaining a job is any indication of your attitude towards the work involved in performing the job, then you would be a bad hire.
4.) On that note: In terms of whatever crisis (economic, disciplinary, hiring, relevance) you think Classics et al. are in, one of the most important things that can be done is to maintain a positive attitude, keep your chin up, and stop giving people reasons to think poorly of you. Yeah, yeah, I know that sounds very New Agey, but once you actually join the permanent workforce, you will see what a difference it makes in your day, job, and life to have energetic, self-starting, optimistic people as colleagues - no matter HOW bad things are - than whiny, self-entitled people and those for whom the presence of a business card signals "douchebag". Besides the fact that it IS a business after all, the notion that you wouldn't want to have your contact info easily dispensed at, say, a hiring conference (it need only have name, address, email, and institution) is bizarrely out of touch with reality.
Conclusion: Again IMO, and sorry if this sounds harsh, but people who think like that don't deserve a job. I know I certainly wouldn't want them as colleagues.
I think it's hilarious when people say completely unhinged things in a matter-of-fact way. Thank you.
one of the most important things that can be done is to maintain a positive attitude, keep your chin up, and stop giving people reasons to think poorly of you.
When you wrote this, were you aware that you were going to spend most of the rest of the comment complaining about other people? Is that part of the magical positivity recipe?
...one of the most important things that can be done is to maintain a positive attitude, keep your chin up, and stop giving people reasons to think poorly of you. Yeah, yeah, I know that sounds very New Agey...
Doesn't sound New Agey. I'd just add that these countless whining posts have made me think of Tony Soprano asking, "What ever happened to Gary Cooper -- the strong, silent type?" This blog shows that there are too many people on the job market evidently incapable of keeping a stiff upper lip.
Hypothetical question from an optimistic neophyte to the Classics job market. Say that by some miracle I am offered a postdoc and a VAP, both of 2 years' duration, and both at institutions of the same caliber and standing. Which looks better to the TT SCs 2 years down the road when I do this all over again? I know the postdoc has less teaching and thus has the ancillary benefit of cranking out more research, but is one position inherently more prestigious or well-regarded than the other? Thanks!
these countless whining posts have made me think of Tony Soprano asking, "What ever happened to Gary Cooper -- the strong, silent type?"
Another thing that Gary Cooper characters were known for is going on to the Internet to complain about how other people on the Internet complain too much. I definitely remember him doing that in High Noon a couple of times, and that's basically the whole plot of Pride of the Yankees.
Yes, my post was ironic at best, hypocritical at worst. But there are a lot of job seekers here, and quite a few with what seems to me like really bad attitudes (yes, I might not have displayed the best attitude above, but I'm not trying to convince anyone to like me enough to hire me at the moment, either...). Job seekers should be cheery and positive, again just IMO. Thus, the advice is real, meant to point out a potential liability going into the market and honestly meant to help anyone who wants to take it get a job; if anyone wants to poo-poo it and make jokes about it instead, that is indeed their right.
Say that by some miracle I am offered a postdoc and a VAP, both of 2 years' duration, and both at institutions of the same caliber and standing. Which looks better to the TT SCs 2 years down the road when I do this all over again?
There's no significant difference to a search committee. In this hypothetical, I'd advise you to take the postdoc and use your extra time to make progress on your book manuscript.
If there was some expectation that a tenure-track job would be opening up at the place with the VAP, though, that would change the calculus.
I'd like to thank all the people who wrote with their opinions on conference proceedings vs. journal article - some of the most useful, balanced info I've seen offered on here. Did we all suddenly start taking our meds? Good for us...
Did we all suddenly start taking our meds? Good for us...
Don't worry, it's only because it was a completely uncontroversial question. If I were to say "future of Classics," "philology," or "foreign Ph.D.," the place would explode once again with sanctimony, passive-aggressiveness, and self-pity.
So it's a good thing I didn't say any of those things.
Ditto on Dec. 21 12:41: Anyone heard anything from Dartmouth? I noticed it wasn't on RP's list of "pending" either.
Also for those of you who have interviews with Colby: Did any of you receive an email from Dr. Roisman saying that they'll be interviewing you for the post-doc? I ask since I rec'd an email saying that they'd like to interview me for the VAP but that since I also applied for the post-doc that they would also like to speak with me about that as well. I am now wondering if they are truly interviewing for both or merely interviewing for one and seeing who fits the latter...
I hope that this isn't a misuse of the blog post. If so, my apologies. But I've noticed that in past years some schools have posted clarifications about job searches here, and I would like to offer a few comments about a recent job post, for a tenure-track line in Classics at Gonzaga University. The ad has been posted elsewhere on Famae Volent, as well as the AIA-APA site and in the Chronicle, and applications and inquiries have already begun to come in.
This note is an attempt to address some of the duplicate questions we have begun to receive. Having been on the market not long ago, and knowing full well the frustration that many of you face in this process, I'd like to clarify a few issues which will likely arise on this blog. A preemptive strike, if you will. Or better: an attempt to bring some clarity to a process that often does not seem to have it.
Here goes:
(a) The Gonzaga hire is a NEW position, created by an administration that wishes to revive its Classical Civ department. The position is fully funded, and is meant to build the program. It is not a replacement position.
(b) The position is open in terms of field, but we are primarily looking for a philologist, as specified in the AIA-APA ad. The position is meant to build up the language aspect of the program. While we WILL consider applications from other fields, demonstrated excellence in undergraduate teaching, specifically in Greek and Latin, is deemed essential for a successful candidate.
(c) The position is wide open. We WILL look at ABD candidates (as the ad states, not merely for form's sake), and we do NOT have an inside candidate whom we are considering.
(d) We were informed of the new position in mid-Nov., too late to advertise properly for candidates and solicit applications before the annual meeting. For that reason we are NOT interviewing in Anaheim. The application deadline was set at Feb. 1 to allow time for people to enjoy their holidays and submit applications in January. We will review applications after Feb. 1, hold phone interviews in mid-Feb, and select 3 candidates for on-campus interviews in March.
(e) We do NOT have anyone attending the annual meeting this year. Several people have inquired about this, and there will be no opportunities to meet with department faculty in Anaheim. As the ad states, however, we will gladly answer questions via email about the school and the search, and suggest that you visit our recently updated website to read about our program and its history.
I hope that these clarifications are helpful, and that I've not violated any rules or customs by writing to you on this blog. I've done so because our department takes your interest and applications seriously and we recognize that this is a difficult year and a stressful time for you, not to mention our field in general. Our search is running a bit late in comparison with others, but it is a genuine one, with funding to back it up, and we hope that it will draw your interest.
Finally, on behalf of the search committee let me state that we are committed to running a professional search that is both transparent and respectful of our candidates, something that occurs less often than it should, according to the comments on this blog. We will do our best to maintain a clear and prompt line of communication with all of our applicants, and while I doubt that we will please everyone during the course of this search (a patent impossibility, if you follow this blog), we shall try our best to be a model search that treats you with the respect that you, as professionals and colleagues in our field, deserve. Thank you for your attention.
This is the very model of how a SC should behave. Clear, helpful and kind. It is also a very good example of how this site really can be more than a fever swamp of invective, at times.
I was going to apply anyway, but now I am even more excited about the place. Whoever gets this job will have at least one great colleague,
Gonzaga sucks. Don't apply, it is a terrible place. Just terrible. Don't waste your time sending in an application. Really. Trust me. Whatever you do, don't apply.
I got an email from Roisman, too, but it was to the opposite effect: my proper interview is for the postdoc, but he asked if we might spend a few minutes on questions for the VAP while we were at it. So perhaps he has one or the other position in mind as primary (different for each candidate), and is just covering all bases?
I'm just really curious about how Tufts can only have "half the short list." Doesn't that suggest those already asked for interviews are their preferred candidates, already?
Also, it's nice to note in RP's latest email that her family helps her schedule appointments...again, online scheduling system would be sooo much more appropriate.
Re: Tufts: the application deadline was late, 12/1, and the Placement Service wanted everything by 12/4. Since they also accepted electronic applications--someone mentioned recently this ups the number of applicants?--in addition to the openness of the ad, they likely had a bonny pile. My guess is that the half-list they got in to the APA contains interviewees of one variety of philologist, either Greek or Latin, and the forthcoming half-list the other variety.
Anyone know anything regarding USC's Roman History search? The job ad said that if a junior person were hired, he/she would be housed in either Classics OR history department. So are they interviewing at APA or AHA or both?
Based on what I know of some of the people on the Tufts short list, there is no obvious pattern that reveals that they real want to hire someone who does X.
Does Tufts even have an independent classics department? I can't attach a single name or face to a classicist there. Does a classicist run Perseus or is a linguist and a bunch of work study students?
Of course Tufts has a Classics program -- they offer an MA! And yes, there are *real* classicists walking around. Perseus is headed by somebody who also wrote a pretty darn good book on Thucydides. Granted, they do seem to have an awfully big "lecturer" roster, but I suspect that is a function of being in Boston and having access to cheap part-time labor. Of course, the Tufts model of one tenured person to 12 adjuncts might be the wave of the future. Get in on the ground floor now.
Yes, Tufts has a classics department, but your point is well taken. They are a bit low key and I can't recall any papers presented by faculty at the APA recently. Besides Perseus and several doctoral archaeology students who got their BA/MA there, I haven't heard much about them during the past 10 years.
Jesus, how dumb do you have to be to ask whether Tufts has an independent classics department? It's a small department that covers a broad range of topics so lot of young narrow people will only have heard of one or two (or none) of them, and, duh, they need to hire one more person. It's a great job.
Well, it will be an interesting interview in Anaheim. Doing some research, it doesn't look like they have any faculty under 70 years of age. Perhaps junior faculty use it as a stepping stone to better schools in the the northeast? I would be interested to hear what they think the department will look like in 10 years.
The guy who runs Perseus is definitely under 70. And if you want to know whether Tufts has an independent classics department, why not a) look at the ad, and/or b) look at Tufts's website?
Incidentally, asking what a department's 10-year or 5-year plan looks like is an acceptable question to ask in interviews (depending upon the school and the interviewers and their mood, naturally).
One more point on the question of publishing in a journal or in conference proceedings, especially for those just starting out. Some journals may take a relatively long time, but they still have their publication schedule to maintain, and so have a certain reliability. Conference proceedings (and I speak as editor as well as contributor)make their way through the various stages of preparation at the speed of the slowest contributor and, sometimes at the convenience of one or more of the editors. I had one piece "in press" for over ten years. Imagine the possibility of your piece being out of date if this should happen to you. There are departments that will begin to wonder, as it comes time for reappointment, tenure, or promotion, whether your piece will ever appear. I know one department (not a classics dept) that refused to consider anything not yet in print.
Tufts does indeed have faculty below the age of 70 - the average age of the faculty is in the 50s/60s - not uncommon for many departments. It is accurate to say the tenured faculty are not the most active in the field (understatement). Also, the chair has let the three most active scholars in the last five years go (god knows for what reason, don't get me started). I wouldn't say it's a great job owing to this last factor, but perhaps anyone doing philology will be ok there - an archaeologist will be deluged with undergraduates hungry for guidance, and I can only hope they've stopped admitting MA candidates who hope to do archaeology, considering there's no one there to work with any longer. A tip to anyone interviewing with them: be sure to ask where the department is going in the next 5-10 years, as noted above, because this has changed quite a bit recently, and is something they'd better have an answer for - and a realistic one, this time.
At Tufts, the drought actually seems to be in the 90s. Here are all the diss dates I could find for any of the faculty (I know, I know - I'm at my parents' house and bored to death).
1974 1974 1976 1977 1981 1982 1985 1990 2000 2006
Now, this doesn't take into account any gaps between undergrad and grad schools (and faculty who have left), but it probably provides a good general picture of what the department has been doing over the years. I've found that this is a fairly typical picture for the non-elite programs.
So, did something happen in the 1990s? Perhaps a bad economy in the 80s finally carried over into the 90s after some lag time? I was in primary school for almost the entire decade so I have no recollection of a bad economy.
This pretty much happens every year, but with different schools. There is down time between the end of the term and the APA so people start getting a bit stir crazy and over analyze. I'm guessing that it's the newbs in particular.
P.S. I'm guessing you're not an archaeologist by your pejorative use of the word. Why don't you say "Byzantine archaeology" and make it two for one?
Judging by the "archaeolgist's" post, it sure is swell that a wet-behind-the-ears classicist is getting a shot at a good job with nary a clue about what it takes to be an academic, besides the scholarly aspect, of course. Way to go search committees!
Dare I ask: what’s so pejorative, i.e., disparaging of material-cultural studies, about “archaeology” (December 29, 2009 3:19 PM) given the Classical Attic sense ‘antiquarian lore, ancient legends or history’ (LSJ, s.v. ἀρχαιο-λογία), which I take was 3:19’s intent?
Holy crap! I just re-kindled the Clarch vs. Philologist smack-down with a completely benign use of the word "archaeology!"
That is so awesome. For what it's worth, I AM an archaeologist! I guess I should have made some hyper-geeky comment about Anonymous 2:43's misapplication of a crude system of stratigraphic correlation regarding diss dates and Tufts hiring practices. That may have been a clearer signal of my bona fides.
Oh, shit. That's Latin ain't it? Great, now some Latinist is going to come around and bitch about my latest perjoration.
Crap! Is that a word? Now I'm really fucked. I can hear the historical linguists marching already....... I'd better grab my WHS masonry trowel and get out of this here text.
Ouch, sorry! That was such an offensive use of the word "text." So, so, so sorry. I'm leaving. Really.
Hasta la vista, baby. See you suckers at Disney World.
This hardly makes one an archaeologist, unless one is training to become one in grad school. Many of my undergrads who have no aspirations for a career in archaeology have this much dig experience. This is equivalent to someone who has just finished Intermediate Greek saying they are a Hellenist.
Re: curious about how Tufts can only have "half the short list." Doesn't that suggest those already asked for interviews are their preferred candidates, already?
Not necessarily. One way this can happen is if the committee is working on files as they are coming in rather than waiting until after the closing date and working on a whole pile. By the time the closing date comes you have a pile of 'yes', a pile of 'no', a pile of 'maybe' and all the last minute applications. Given the way closing dates, exams, and holidays interfere with the process, it doesn't surprise me at all that a department might have a group of yeses that it wants to inform right away while it works at identifying the second half of its yes list.
Despite the holidays, the end of the semester, etc., the APA should find some way of ensuring that candidates will know they have interviews before they arrive. I know that this will sound almost demanding to some, but for those of us who are just scraping by, going to the APA is an ill-afforded luxury if we don't have interviews. Now, Tufts et al. are in the buyers market and can do whatever they want, but it is still a little backwards.
So, did something happen in the 1990s? Perhaps a bad economy in the 80s finally carried over into the 90s after some lag time? I was in primary school for almost the entire decade so I have no recollection of a bad economy.
The 1980's recession was basically over by 1984 (the worst years being 1981-2), with a downturn in 1989. Can't really see that much of a delayed effect. When I started grad school in the mid-1990's, the job market was awful, or so all the professors in my department said. And then by the mid-2000's, things were definitely better. I have no idea if this year's market is better or worse than the mid-1990's.
I totally agree with the first Anon. 3:08. Tufts's deadline was Dec. 1, iirc, while St. Olaf's was Nov. 30. Schools with Dec. 15 deadlines have already requested interviews, so what's the hold-up?
I am still not sure why search committees don't bother to contact you directly. This is their first opportunity to extend an invitation to a possible long-term colleague. How much energy does it take to pick up the phone and make 12-20 phone calls, or send that many personalized emails? I'm desperate for a job, but those folks who go some little distance to humanizing this process score serious points in my book. I'll remember that.
As far a late notification. We were told by our grad advisors to book our flights and reserve our tickets back in September. If you are on the market, you are going to Anaheim, and you should have said so in your letters of application.
I do think, however, that if you only get one or two interviews and you can't afford the trip then it is OK to ask the SC for a phone interview instead. People understand. Heck, many institutions backed out of APA interviews this year. The economy sucks. Phone interviews are harder, though, so one should take that into account.
I agree with 3:08, but I don't think it should be up to the APA. Individual departments need to show more soul here. But, there is also a reasonable argument to be made that going on the market means committing to Anaheim regardless.
I am coming around to the argument that conference interviews are worthless anyway. We can have decent video conferencing. So, why not do it all that way in the first round and use some of the cash saved to fly out more than three finalists?
Safe travels to all and see you in the land of sunshine!!
From what I understand, video conferencing is so good these days with HD equipment that one forgets that people aren't in the same room. It's only a matter of time before every university has a conference room set up like this. Whether committees adopt it is a different story. This is coming from someone who doesn't understand serial VAP searches that spend thousands of dollars each year and then plead poverty for not making the position tenure track.
"How much energy does it take to pick up the phone and make 12-20 phone calls, or ....."
Making 12-20 phone calls, including pulling together the information necessary to make the call, playing phone tag with the people and their roommates/spouses/officemates, and then talking to 12-20 diverse people on the phone in a way that shows that you are interested in them and their research and teaching, without making any mistakes, and while anxiously trying to get a sense of which one of them is best for being your colleague for life, is a huge job. I'm not saying schools shouldn't do this--they should--but the ones that don't probably have limited resources and too much to do in both their professional and personal lives, and I don't mean going to the casino--I mean having lives that prohibit more than 50-60 hour work weeks in December.
I am coming around to the argument that conference interviews are worthless anyway. We can have decent video conferencing. So, why not do it all that way in the first round and use some of the cash saved to fly out more than three finalists?
The real flaw here is that you can't tell which candidates have an unpleasant odor.
even though the committee is likely to have read everything you've written
There ought to be a big question mark here. And even if they did, you shouldn't expect them to remember them clearly. I suggest you make good preparation to present a lucid, engaging and enthusiastic account of your projects, even if they are already well represented in all the application materials, because: 1) the committee will need to have their memory refreshed, and 2) ability to explain your agenda succinctly usually counts for a lot anyway.
As a recent SC member, I disagree to some extent what Perez is saying, that there is a lot of boot licking going on. Yes, there is some (always has been), but overall, if you read through the applications carefully and have a clear idea of what you and your department want/need in a colleague, it is a straightforward process.
I dislike the blase attitude which is displayed at the end of Perez's article regarding the interviews themselves, and agree with the recent comments here about how important that part of the process is. If you show up unprepared, or with an attitude that you are better than the job/school, or make no attempt to connect with a committee, or fail to show any passion for teaching and/or research, well, no amount of boot licking is going to get you that job. Or beyond the initial interview, for that matter. Candidates are quite different, a good committee pays attention, and it will spot a poser. I was on a search last year where we ended up with a dynamite new colleague -- from the phone interview to the on-campus interview, she was "on" every minute, engaged, prepared, passionate and even, to a small degree, 'in-your-face' about her own needs in teaching and research. She was also ABD, which made no difference at all given the amazing impression she left after her initial interview and visit. She was far better than many of her peers who had already completed their degrees, largely because she truly wanted the job and took every opportunity to show us that.
Regarding the recent note about phone calls, and why committees don't make 12-20 calls, well, I don't know. We DID last year, and will continue to do so. It DOES take time, but candidates appreciate it, no question. For that matter, we also take time to write thank you notes to all of your references who send personal letters to us, as opposed to the photocopied ones. Some of your referees write quite passionately on your behalf, and we want them to know that we appreciate what they do to enlighten us about your qualifications. I might suggest here that such personalized letters make a stronger impression on a committee, and those of you on the market whose schools send out letters for you that are on file might think about getting at least one prof, possibly your adviser, to write a current, personal letter on your behalf. For some of our older committee members, that can especially make a very positive difference...
Anybody see the Education section of the NYTimes this morning? The prez of MSU apparently comparing classics to elocution and animal husbandry (i.e. majors in the dustbin of history). Ouch!
Sounds about right. I think Sue Coleman nailed it in the excerpt below. In light of this, it's obvious that classics has to do a much better job packaging themes, concepts and ideas contained in literature, and not just the literature by itself.
At the same time, Dr. Coleman is wary of training students for just one thing — “creating them to do some little widget,” as she says. Michigan has begun a speaker series featuring alumni or other successful entrepreneurs who come in to talk about how their careers benefited from what Dr. Coleman calls “core knowledge.”
“We believe that we do our best for students when we give them tools to be analytical, to be able to gather information and to determine the validity of that information themselves, particularly in this world where people don’t filter for you anymore,” Dr. Coleman says. “We want to teach them how to make an argument, how to defend an argument, to make a choice.” These are the skills that liberal arts colleges in particular have prided themselves on teaching. But these colleges also say they have the hardest time explaining the link between what they teach and the kind of job and salary a student can expect on the other end."
As a former SC member, I would say that a "thank you" note to the committee is certainly proper and would be appreciated. Since there are usually older members on a committee, a short hand-written note addressed to and sent to the campus departmental address is probably the most effective way of demonstrating such thanks. You can also write to the head of the search, thank him/her, and ask him/her to send your thanks to the committee as a whole. Such notes tend to be placed in your file, and they get noticed. Email is another way to do that, but a written note is a bit more classy. Old school? Sure. But that is who we are as a discipline, and a note like that (which are sadly quite rare) will be appreciated, I assure you.
To Anon. Dec 29, 9:45 and Anon. Dec. 21, 11:24. The Brooklyn College position has been filled. You probably figured this out by now, but I'm posting just in case!
Although your official publication never actually mentions anything about this, you know as well as I that dire economic conditions and the corporatization of the university have led to a large number of Classics PhDs going without employment. Yet we should not fret, we can turn this situation to our advantage, and even use it to solve other problems bedeviling our profession at this time!
In order to give these poor over-educated souls some security and a job, I propose that we establish a system of helotage for those Ph.Ds unworthy of the lofty tenured heights that we occupy. Many might protest that this is a barbaric and unequal institution. Fair enough, but the current system has only lead to job insecurity and a dangerous potential for revolutionary agitation. Wouldn't it be better to accept reality and deploy an unequal system that will result in bountiful new opportunities?
This solution would certainly be mutually beneficial. As you well know, each year in departments around the country we scramble for warm bodies to fill out the course schedule, which often means press ganging graduate students or the burdensome and expensive process of hiring adjunct and "visiting" professors. Often we don't even know who will be teaching certain courses semester to semester. With my new proposal our Messenian associates (I think "Messenian associates" sounds more attractive than "helots") would always be at the ready to teach whatever course we ask them to. The biggest survey courses are Roman Civilization and Mythology, and since most of the jobless are in the fields of Roman Archaeology and Greek Literature, it should be easy to plug them in. Furthermore, we on the tenured side would no longer have to deal with the maddening business of educating freshman students and can thus focus our energies on pursuits more important than the shaping of young minds, such as writing monographs for a specialist audience.
Moreover, a system of helotage would help allay the fears of our pesky critics in the political arena. Politicians complain about the rising cost of tuition, but this system will save plenty of money in the long run and save us from having to spend any of our precious endowment money on such piddling trifles like undergraduate education.
This system will also ensure a great level of flexibility, something our friends in the corporate world usually benefit from but we, with our Lycurgan constitution, do not. For instance, many of our colleagues without graduate students lack people they can browbeat or pressure into house-sitting or providing child care for them at below market rates. Others actually have to stoop to the indignity of taking their own books back to the library and proctoring and writing their own exams! Contracts of helotage could include clauses that would make this kind of labor part of the overall servitude agreement (although the rather ugly word "servitude" is to be avoided.) We all know how hard it is to get good help these days.
Lastly, this system would reduce a lot of the social awkwardness in many departments stemming from a desire by non-tenured labor to be treated as social equals. The ambiguity of their current positions often confuses them into thinking that most of their tenured colleagues actually care about them as human beings, rather than seeing them as space fillers on the course schedule. Believe it or not, some of them even have the cheek to presume they could get hired on permanently! To make things easier on them, the position of "Messenian Associate" will clarify their position in the hierarchy and certainly reduce hurt feelings and misunderstandings.
I propose that we discuss this on the Mad Tea Party ride at 2pm this coming Sunday. I will be waiting in the yellow and red teacup.
Would it be useful to publicize the candidate numbers from the placement office board online? I'm just wondering if there are people who aren't at the APA who might want to confirm that they haven't in fact been invited to a last-minute interview. Depressing, sure, but better than missing an interview, right?
Since there is presently a lull in the conversation (and I hope the APA/AHA was good to all present) I would like to ask a question: What is a reasonable number of publications for a new PhD? Is there a number at which a search committee would look unfavourably on an applicant?
Past and former SC members please weigh in. And if this has been covered, sorry, first wiki.
Are you sure that this decision has been made? If I remember right -- I am not sure I do -- the APA was held in the week between Christmas and New Year's back in the mid-1990s. Is there any kind of official announcement?
Wasn't there a poll conducted recently in which the majority (at least 2/3 unless I'm completely misremembering) of APA members said they preferred the current timing of the convention? The APA can be weird but I think it's unlikely they would fly in the face of a poll they conducted within the last couple of years. So, yes, I suspect the rumor is false.
What is a reasonable number of publications for a new PhD? Is there a number at which a search committee would look unfavourably on an applicant?
Zero is a reasonable number. What matters is a good dissertation. And if the publications are hurried or half-baked, as they often are, they can be positively harmful.
I've been told by people with tenure (i.e. people who have sat on SCs) that unless you have a book you mean nothing - you could have ten articles, one article, no article: you're still just potential. (Unless you're a philosopher, in which case one decent Q&A and you're set for, oh, at least five years.)
I don't know whether that impression of the (relative lack of) importance of publications is true or not.
I'll have whatever 12:06 is smoking 'cause it must be some strong shit.
Plenty of people get hired with no publications. Classics is a field that demands more time and seasoning for research than almost any other. Look how many ABDs with zero pubs were hired in the last five years. Lots and lots. If you think having three articles out is just "potential" you are crazy. Perhaps 12:06 was talking about tenure standards (for some reason), and unfortunately the monograph has become the coin of the realm in that department -- a whole other conversations piece there. Frankly, three articles in, say, CP, CA and JRS are a heck of a lot more impressive than a monograph, imho.
Generally, more (quality) publications is better, but lack of publications isn't doom.
If you read the post you would see that that was actually the point I was making. A new PhD with no publications isn't necessarily at a huge disadvantage going up for a job against someone with considerably more experience - because in both cases, without a book, the committee sees potential rather than achievement. Whether that's a good idea or not is a different question.
There is no one answer to the issue of publications. Departments differ widely as I can attest from having served on numerous search committees at SLACS and a T1. At the latter, we seldom hired anyone who did not have an article on a topic outside the dissertation research, though there were exceptions. At a SLAC, we looked for a well written article or two, though we routinely considered candidates with no publication history. At both, we adjusted our expectations based on career age. Some of my fellow committee members gave much more weight to publications than I, others much less. The same holds for tenure: I've reviewed more files than I wish to admit, and the only thing I care about is the quality of the scholarship. I frankly can't imagine giving weight to publication venue, but as you can see from previous posts others do. So, if you haven't yet landed in a dept., it's probably a good idea to aim high just to be safe.
"A new PhD with no publications isn't necessarily at a huge disadvantage going up for a job against someone with considerably more experience - because in both cases, without a book, the committee sees potential rather than achievement."
Forgive me for asking, but how does the lack of a book signal "potential" in a way that having multiple articles in peer-reviewed journals does not? It seems that articles should get rid of the new-car smell just as easily as a monograph. What am I missing?
I know you are reporting other peoples' opinions, so it isn't fair to ask this of you, but I do find it baffling!
In my experience (a half-dozen searches for a mid-ranked, mid-sized, state university over the last ten years), an SC's expectations vary according to time since PhD. An ABD without a publication is not necessarily a problem, though something submitted would be good and there should in any case be a plan for publishing the thesis and the first few articles. Someone who is two years out from their PhD should have an article or two out or accepted and signs of more to come and signs that the monograph-from-thesis is coming. An article per year is my rule of thumb -- more than that is good, less than that is a ground for concern, and quality will always win out over quantity.
An article per year is my rule of thumb -- more than that is good, less than that is a ground for concern, and quality will always win out over quantity.
Wow. Just, fucking wow. This is an absurd standard. People like you have twisted classical scholarship into a nightmarish Fisherian runaway mechanism and have ruined our profession.
Wow. Just, fucking wow. This is an absurd standard. People like you have twisted classical scholarship into a nightmarish Fisherian runaway mechanism and have ruined our profession.
"People like you?" Please. I doubt very much that this is Anon. 9:56's standard; it's profession-wide, mentioned in tons of tenure-requirement lists, even at small schools. Generally, R1s like a book and an article a year; higher caliber SLACs and universities below R1 an article a year. And there is at least one R1 that wants THREE articles a year and a book for tenure.
I'm not saying publication standards are good for the profession - they're not, since that tends to produce shoddy work, but frankly, I don't think an article a year on average (it hardly has to be every year, so long as it evens out to one a year) is onerous, especially given the many chances in the profession to publish mediocre scholarship.
the many chances in the profession to publish mediocre scholarship
And I imagine that's why some SCs are very sceptical about measuring candidates by quantity of publications. So, in light of the previous posts, if you want to impress your Dean, publish with reckless abandon and get your merit raise. But if you want a decent job, then show that you have a coherent research strategy in a field of importance with publications in prestigious venues working towards the dissemination of those particular ideas. Wishful thinking for most of us...
YES, this job is taken. The contract is signed, the new hire is moving. I can't say it more plainly than that. The only reason I don't post this on the wiki is because I am not the new hire. Unless he gets hit by a bus, you are not getting this job.
"If some majors show a decline in enrollment, then the coursework should be updated so that students find the relevant connections between real-world applications and what they learn in the classroom."
Judging by this quote, it sounds like they understand the situation better than the crusty sabretooths currently serving as the gatekeepers of classics.
YES, this job is taken. The contract is signed, the new hire is moving. I can't say it more plainly than that. The only reason I don't post this on the wiki is because I am not the new hire. Unless he gets hit by a bus, you are not getting this job.
THIS HIRE WAS AN INSIDE JOB ANYWAY PEOPLE! GET OVER IT.
Crusty? More like rigor mortis, but instead of casting votes in Chicago, they're collecting paychecks from the university and ushering in the demise of classics as an academic unit.
Crusty? More like rigor mortis, but instead of casting votes in Chicago, they're collecting paychecks from the university and ushering in the demise of classics as an academic unit.
My diss committee sadly resembled this remark. My supervisor died shortly after I turned ABD and my one outside reader didn't make it to my defense. It made for an interesting diss.
I have tons to complain about today (esp. re research expectations), but for now I'd like to point out that the AHA seems to be able to do what the APA can't. WTF?
@Anonymous 11:50AM, the fact that they didn't hire you doesn't make the Brooklyn hire an inside job. It should be relatively easy for you to do a bit of internet sleuthing to figure out who got the job and where he was before accepting the position. Then, by using a great deal of creativity, you will probably still be able to convince yourself that it was an inside hire.
Meanwhile, there are those among us who know that it was not.
I have tons to complain about today (esp. re research expectations), but for now I'd like to point out that the AHA seems to be able to do what the APA can't. WTF?
No kidding. I interviewed at both conventions this year, and the AHA method of having SCs and candidates control their own schedules makes much, much more sense than RP's scheduling. (And if she would let us know ahead of time WHEN the interviews were - not hard, ya know, in this day and age - I could have saved the price of a hotel room for a night.)
anon 12:01 Wow. Just, fucking wow. This is an absurd standard. People like you have twisted classical scholarship into a nightmarish Fisherian runaway mechanism and have ruined our profession.
An article per year. Cui bono?
Cui bono? The sum of human knowledge, I suppose. In an institution where the expectation is 40% teaching and 40% research -- the other 40% is service -- is it really all that unreasonable to expect that someone will have one good idea per year that is shared with the world? That is, after all, half of the job.
And, frankly, the better applicants I've seen in searches meet this. Some quite handily. Since a SC is looking to appoint the best people we can in research, teaching, and service, they get extra attention. In short, the best way to get to our campus is to look like you'll be a solid researcher, a great teacher, and a responsible colleague. I doubt if we're unique in this.
In an institution where the expectation is 40% teaching and 40% research -- the other 40% is service -- is it really all that unreasonable to expect that someone will have one good idea per year that is shared with the world? That is, after all, half of the job.
Expectations = 40% teaching + 40% research + 40% service. 120/100 needed to get an A.
I think my students would agree that such a grading scale would be unreasonable.
nightmarish Fisherian may have made a typo in the math, but that doesn't vitiate his/her point. (Nor does it make the one you seem to think that you have made so cleverly.) The standard of an article a year is so common in this profession - and most humanities departments - that I don't see why there is so much resistance to those who are pointing this out. I agree that an article a year is not hard (especially crappy articles; I'm less sure about good ones). The issue is profession-wide, if not academia-wide. Arguing with Fisher ain't gonna change the facts of life.
Another factor not taken into account here or in all likelihood by many search committee members is the teaching load during these years after the degree. If one is moving from place to place and teaching a 3-3 load or higher, it seems ludicrous that the same level of publication is nevertheless expected as those in tenure track positions with a lighter teaching load, courses more likely to fit their interests, financial support for research, and pre-tenure leave. I don't know about the rest of you, but every temp contract I ever had specifically said that there were no research expectations; it is what administratively justified the heavier load. Why then should the field also punish you for having to spend more time teaching? I think the article a year mentioned here is a reasonable standard if you're teaching a 3-2 or 2-2 load; more than that including new preps and it's not realistic.
I agree that an article a year is not hard (especially crappy articles; I'm less sure about good ones). The issue is profession-wide, if not academia-wide. Arguing with Fisher ain't gonna change the facts of life.
Fair enough. Maybe my taking advantage of a math typo was underhanded. Still, your hedging here makes my point more strongly. What is the point of writing a larger number of "crappy articles?" Let me answer that. The point is to meet an arbitrary quota that has no relationship with reality. Sorry, but that is stupid. It is production for the sake of production, not knowledge. It hurts the field, distracts from more important tasks (making students excited about classics, for one), and puts ridiculous amounts of stress on us as individuals.
I don't think these are doable if for no other reason that journals take far too much time -- you can't put out an article/year simply because the refereeing system is completely broken.
I labeled our current system "runaway Fisherian" for a reason. It wasn't a throwaway phrase. I am quite serious in saying that our field's method of figuring out who ought to become employed, stay employed, and promoted, is running the field into the ground.
Look, who here thinks the current system works well? Don't defend the status quo simply by referring to the status quo! Explain why ever-escalating hiring and tenure standards are a good thing.
This back and forth is very informative (thanks to all). Since I was the one who asked the question that started this line, which didn't really get at what I was asking, I'll restate myself.
The issue discussed has been minimum publications and I'm sure that to get god status you need to be a Gibbon machine. But I'm more interested in 'too many' than 'too few' at the middle range. I'm not out of a high-end program, nor is my supervisor a star (at least not to anyone outside our easily dismissed corner of classics). I'm not bucking for an R1 or an Ivy...won't even apply. A small liberal arts college with a handful of fun and lively folks would be just bitchin' to me. Now, I like publishing articles as much as I like teaching, and I'll finish a book in a few years, God willing, despite my mongrel pedigree. I worry though that too many articles in print (mediocre or not I'll leave for others to decide) will make me less attractive to schools that value teaching over research. So, for someone gunning for a job in the middle, is there a point at which a SC will worry a candidate is just too interested in research?
937 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 401 – 600 of 937 Newer› Newest»How, exactly, are we abetting infantilization?
Troy.
I know it's not our fault, and it would be stupid of us not to take advantage (I certainly do). But don't you just feel a little bit guilty? And yes we do plenty of other things, but it's the use of Troy and Gladiator (and no doubt Clash of the Titans) that gets hundreds in the classroom and, more importantly, keeps them awake. (Don't pretend that everyone in your ancient med survey is both awake and not on facebook.)
For most of us, there's a disconnect between what we were trained to do (high-level research) and what we're paid to do (low-level teaching), between the environment in which we learned (great schools) and the environment in which we work (all kinds of schools). Our responses to that disconnect will vary according to our personalities - some will be happy to teach Troy and then get on with their commentary on Simplicius, others will be depressed to be away from the field and stuck with intro. to Rome - but I'm not sure there's a lot to be done about the disconnect. Previous posters have noted the direction in which the humanities (inc. Classics) is heading - how one deals with that is probably just as much a personal as an institutional matter.
For most of us, there's a disconnect between what we were trained to do (high-level research) and what we're paid to do (low-level teaching), between the environment in which we learned (great schools) and the environment in which we work (all kinds of schools). Our responses to that disconnect will vary according to our personalities - some will be happy to teach Troy and then get on with their commentary on Simplicius, others will be depressed to be away from the field and stuck with intro. to Rome - but I'm not sure there's a lot to be done about the disconnect.
Yes, that's true.
In fact, we're lucky to get to do any research at all. Parents, state legislatures, and taxpayers can at least sometimes be made to see some value in instruction. It's not at all clear, however, why we should be paid to do research. Shouldn't we be spending that time teaching the children of California or Minnesota or New York? And why should the hardworking citizens of the great state of Texas pay for my Simplicius commentary?
So, before the teaching of the humanities disappears within the university, we'll see the disappearance of research in the humanities from public institutions. Teaching loads will go up, and time for other activities will go down, until it's gone.
This is already happening through the widespread use of lecturers: they teach all the time, so that tenured and tenure-track faculty can have even a little time for research. As resources get tighter, the ratio of people teaching all the time to people teaching only most of the time will continue to increase (as it has already been doing for some time now).
Eventually, almost everyone is going to have to teach all the time.
This will all be made possible because no one outside of the humanities—not voters, not legislatures, not parents, not corporations—sees any reason to spend their money on supporting research in the humanities. Not on the Simplicius commentary, but also not on the most popularizing and accessible book imaginable.
This won't happen to the engineers, the geneticists, etc., because what they do can be sold to some or all of these potential constituencies.
I live in a house of ABD students, and we're comprised of philologists, historians, and archaeologists. We all follow the debates on here and discuss it in our spare time (except without tempers flaring). A while back, someone asked where clarchs were "jumping ship" to. Our two resident clarchs were saying from their experience it was more about going from humanities to social sciences than a departmental move. One of the main reasons stated was the better affirmation they got in the social sciences for conducting research. One is even currently on a NSF diss fellowship, something I do not think any philologist could win. So perhaps this will be a major driving force in splitting classics apart more than anything else, not all the nonsense we spew on here?
I would welcome a move back towards teaching as our primary job. The 19th c. German/Johns Hopkins model of the research university has so warped our priorities in this country that a corrective is in order. Fewer books, fewer articles, and tenure based on ability to be fully engaged with one's community instead of scrambling to submit the next manuscript would be a relief.
The bottom line should be our ability to attract and retain students in our courses. This high-prestige/low-education model is simply not sustainable, and it deserves to be thrown onto the midden of history. The ironic thing is that our scholarship will actually improve when it isn't being frantically generated in the service of ever-increasing and increasingly unreasonable expectations.
This high-prestige/low-education model is simply not sustainable, and it deserves to be thrown onto the midden of history.
I don't think you're hearing me. I'm talking about a glorious new low-research/low-education-but-in-a-lot-of-classes model, in which for a while we teach more and more classes and do less research (not less publication, less research), and then don't teach or do research, because just as taxpayers and corporate sponsors don't want to pay for humanities research, so in the long run they don't want to pay for humanities teaching, either.
In other words, we're not talking about switching to a neat model in which your teaching skills get all the recognition they deserve, and you can take your sweet time writing the perfect book. We're talking about throwing both what you research and what you teach, by stages, onto your "midden of history" (which is kind of appropriate, in that the Bolsheviks themselves were doomed to the same damned ash heap Trotsky said the Mensheviks were going to).
You all are quite the cheery lot this morning!
Does the last poster work at Michigan State? Their vision of our future certainly sounds like what is going on there now with Classics.
I thought y'all would be interested to hear my latest run-in with RP and the outdated Placement Service. (Please note that I am on the market for the first time and didn't know any of these regulations.)
A history department wanted to interview me, but I will not be in San Diego for AHA (which happens at the same time as the APA). So they wanted to do a phone interview during that same convention period. I thought the timing was unusual and unnecessary, but hey, if that's when the search committee is going to be together and working on it, that's fine.
So I emailed RP to ask to add this half-hour to the times I won't be available for an APA interview.
She called me this morning in a tizzy and wanted to know (I'm paraphrasing) who was encroaching on her turf.
I explained the situation, and she said that Placement Service regulations ("which are there to protect you, the candidate") prohibit me from interviewing during the convention period with any institution that is not registered with the APA Placement Service. Since I have thrown in my lot with the APA, they will not make any effort to accommodate anything else.
(Please note that RP stressed that she wasn't being lazy; she presented it as a stand on principle.)
On the other hand, if she doesn't know about the interview, it doesn't matter. So she recommended that I write back to the history department and tell them that I won't know my schedule until about the end of December and we'll have to schedule the interview then, for a time that I will at that time know I don't have an APA interview.
So. I think that this does not fall into the same category of rudeness and incompetence as people were complaining about a couple of weeks ago. (Although, she did say that she didn't have my paperwork in front of her because it was at home in her kitchen. Huh?
I suppose I recognize the value of the regulations she mentioned (or even if we don't, there are a lot of organizations that have similarly unhelpful rules, so we can't use the argument that the APA is *unusually* obfuscating the issue).
But it does seem to me that this is a really good argument for the need for a computerized, online scheduling system. That way, I could have simply added the fact that I was no longer available for this half-hour, without giving a reason, and nobody would have had a problem.
Anyhoo, just thought I'd share.
Any word on Brown interviews? They asked for writing samples a long time ago...
Anon. 10:52:
How odd. I had the same problem and she was INCREDIBLY understanding about it. Why turn around and go overboard with someone else?
But, yes, online scheduling system is right on. It would also get rid of the requirement that we all have to have our schedules in over a month before the convention, when not even all the applications have been due or reviewed yet, and it might even allow job seekers, who by nature are worried about money, to save some cash on travel and lodging.
By the way, did anyone who communicated with the APA last week about RP's email about scheduling get any responses from her or Blistein?
I had a problem strikingly similar to the one mentioned above a few years ago. It was an absolute f@(*@#$g nightmare dealing with RP at the time, and I do think it hurt me in the eyes of the other hiring folks since I seemed less than accomodating. I can understand the APA wanting to prevent Classics SCs from "going rogue" at the APA. Interfering with AHA interviews, however, is well beyond what they should worry about.
Same thing at 10:52 - had the same encounter my first time on the market a few years ago.
Is not Miami "going rogue" on the job market? Cannot the APA stop them, er, him?
Really, what Miami's behavior shows is that schools do not have to play by any rules, while we candidates do.
she did say that she didn't have my paperwork in front of her because it was at home in her kitchen.
Well, at least she didn't leave it at the casino.
I think "kitchen" is code for "casino."
Is not Miami "going rogue" on the job market? Cannot the APA stop them, er, him?
I'm not certain, but I suspect that Miami is not interviewing at the APA at all (they merely posted an ad with them), so they don't have to follow these rules.
Well, that will be remedied soon enough, that is, if Miami wants to advertise with the APA in the future.
I'm not certain, but I suspect that Miami is not interviewing at the APA at all (they merely posted an ad with them), so they don't have to follow these rules.
Last year there were pre-APA phone interviews, pre-APA flyouts, APA interviews, post-APA flyouts, later phone interviews. Maybe they'll do less of it this year.
Sheesh, is Miami just being thorough or are they fans of Survivor?
I may be wrong (I am not nor have I ever been affiliated with the U. of Miami) but I think what Miami does is fine, from the APA's standpoint. So long as they don't schedule interviews *at the APA itself* without going through the placement service, no foul.
RP's kitchen has played a large role in Placement Service emails before; I definitely recall an email about the scheduling process last year or the year before that mentioned the kitchen table as the site where scheduling was done. And she's mentioned it when I had my own occasion to correspond with her about my schedule.
So, most of the APA Placement Service's more important work takes place at RP's kitchen table. I do not think this is a good thing.
Sounds about right for a discipline stuck in the 50s.
So, most of the APA Placement Service's more important work takes place at RP's kitchen table. I do not think this is a good thing.
What, you want her to move the operation to the bathroom?
Imagine if RP's greyhound ate all our availability forms while she was at the casino.
I must be getting boggle-eyed, because I thought you said something about RP taking the Greyhound to the Casino in Reno. I'm on that bus!
I must be getting boggle-eyed, because I thought you said something about RP taking the Greyhound to the Casino in Reno. I'm on that bus!
Fortunately the forms have no monetary value, so at least they can't be gambled away.
That's it, folks! Hope you like the taste of catfood!
Hey, guys, guess what? I am in Reno and, let me tell you, my luck is better at the slots than on this thing called a market!
What is the protocol for dealing with interview offers at both the APA and AHA? I never promised the History departments that I'd be in San Diego, while I did tell the Classics departments I'd be in Anaheim. Now, however, I actually have two AHA interviews and only one APA interview. I'm not complaining, but would it be OK to swap Anaheim for San Diego?
Do it, it's obvious that classics barely has a pulse these days. Soon we will be waxing lyrical about the bygone years of the 70s and 80s that seemded so bad five years ago.
Now, however, I actually have two AHA interviews and only one APA interview. I'm not complaining, but would it be OK to swap Anaheim for San Diego?
They're not that far apart. If you can afford it and the interviews are spaced right, you could rent a car and do both.
Anaheim and San Diego are 1.5 hours drive away from each other or an easy and direct train ride. I'm planning on doing APA on Thurs-Fri and AHA on Saturday. It helps that you have advance notice of the timing of AHA interviews, of course, unlike the APA.
Two days ago someone added a + to the Univ. of Southern California entry on the wiki to indicate that they had received confirmation that their application was received. Does this mean that USC only sent out such confirmations in the past 2-3 days? I don't remember getting one, but most certainly didn't get one in the past week.
Anaheim and San Diego are 1.5 hours drive away from each other or an easy and direct train ride.
I'm also splitting time between the two. The train is only $22 and 2.5 hours, with (I'm told) gorgeous Pacific views.
First-time AHA interviewees may find this introductory video useful.
Of course, you may have to explain to RP why you need to change your APA schedule...
Received a rejection notice from Case Western, which was above-average in terms of expression of sympathy and explanation of process. "Well-over a hundred applicants." (Unsurprising). What struck me was this:
"A surprising number of applicants were already in tenure track or even tenured positions."
What might this mean? SC's ignorance regarding the usual number of applicants seeking to change institution/geographical location? Reflection of frozen salary increases? Further attempts to destroy non-TT's already dismal futures?
Found the CWRU rejection a little impersonal and was perplexed by that same comment; it almost sounded like the committee was surprised? indignant? confused? as to why they had received so many applications. odd language.
As a current member of a search committee I can verify that Case Western's experience is not unique. We are seeing many, many more current tenure-track applicants this year than in years past. Some are Califugees, but plenty others are not.
It does it make it much harder on those without experience, especially ABD applicants. It also makes for more stressful meetings for us but that is a small price to pay. Some of us don't like the idea that the field is getting closed to younger, less experienced scholars. Others simply see this as an opportunity to land an almost instantly tenurable person. The question always remains, however, if they would actually come. If not we may fail the search and possibly lose the line. So keep in mind that those in tenure-track positions are attractive in some ways, but risky in others.
Sorry for this. It is depressing no matter how you cut it.
There is a big difference between an increase in tenure-track applicants and an increase in tenured applicants. My impression is that the recent trend towards stricter tenure requirements is starting to catch up with reality in disciplines like Classics. As someone who was lucky enough to get tenure right before a new dean raised the bar, I am sympathetic to my (slightly) younger colleagues who are expected to do even more with time that is increasingly encroached upon by administrative bullshit. In other words, I would like to know how many candidates with tenure track jobs are actually looking for a better situation, apart from concerns about tenure, and how many know that they are unlikely to make tenure in their current position and are wisely looking to reset the clock.
"In other words, I would like to know how many candidates with tenure track jobs are actually looking for a better situation, apart from concerns about tenure, and how many know that they are unlikely to make tenure in their current position and are wisely looking to reset the clock."
It is an interesting question, and one might go further. I know of several peers who have left tenured jobs or are trying to leave tenure-track positions specifically because of spouses and an inability to get a spousal hire. At the same time, I know of one person who moved because he wanted to teach at a small liberal arts college, rather than the larger, more impersonal institution that he started at. I'd be curious to know exactly what constitutes a "better situation" in the minds of these candidates. Is family life a factor/priority here? Better pay? A switch from public to private? More interest in teaching and less on research? Or vice versa? I'd be curious to hear from others what they might know about this topic...
"better situation" = working near spouse
I'll keep going on the market until the situation is resolved. I feel bad since that contributes to a top-heavy market, but I'm sure most of you can sympathize with the predicament.
MLA jobs off 35% this year alone:
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/12/17/mla
So it's not just Classics.
Better situation = less problematic job and better geographic region
Those of us who are in TT positions understand what precious commodities they are, but, in all truth, not all jobs are created equal and not all parts of this country are conducive to the lifestyles many of us would like to live.
don't hate the players, hate the game
Why was the Santa Clara rejection letter "obnoxious" -- at least according to the wiki?
"don't hate the players, hate the game"
No, just as with jobs, not all "players" are the same. I can fully sympathize with spousal considerations and finding a better fit, but it's often not about these things for some players. There are plenty of Machiavellian, ridiculously self-serving players who are serial job changers, jumping from job to job with little real improvement. We're not talking about going from Northeast Idaho State University with a 6-6 teaching load to Elite U. And it's not about better fit, but less work and more money. Yes, less work and more money is an okay goal, but at what cost? From what I can see, classics has way too many sabretooths and sabretooth cubs in training, which might explain why the discipline is in such a shithole, even for the humanities.
Candidates who already have a TT job don't necessarily have any advantage in junior searches. Unless they also have an outstanding track record and can credibly explain in their cover letter why they are interested in a different position, they tend to set off alarm bells. Before putting them on a short list committee members will often start contacting friends digging for dirt. Also, if they have been in a TT job for two or three years and have not published much, forget about it, the newly fledged PHDs are still shiny and it is (sometimes) understood that the VAP candidates will (often) have had a much heavier teaching load.
Considering the number of TT people at state schools who have been told that they may not get reappointed because of the financial crisis, it is really ridiculous that people complain about them being on the market. They have just a little job security now in some cases as VAPs and adjuncts.
"They have just a little job security now in some cases as VAPs and adjuncts."
Have you ever been in the VAP trenches? If so, how long ago? VAPs more often than not only have one year stints at a location. That's why it's a "visiting" position. Visiting from where, I do not know. How often do you see a TT person kicked out due to no fault of their own? Eh, almost never?
It's getting more and more ridiculous on here.
Agreed, the status quo for TT people is that they stay unless they do something egregiously wrong. The status quo for a VAP is that they go unless they do something extraordinarily right. Even then, if it's a sabbatical replacement, they are almost certainly gone.
"They have just a little job security now in some cases as VAPs and adjuncts."
Anonymous 11:48 am is clearly an ignoramus when it comes to understanding the market or what it means to be a person in a VAP spot. VAP spots are tough, no matter how you slice them. yes, they keep one "in the game" but it is not an easy go and rarely is there anything that one could call "Security".
I've heard this sort of "TT'ing is almost as bad as VAP'ing" argument before, us. w/ appeal to the lack of dept./university service that VAP'ers have. What those who espouse this view generally fail to overlook is that VAP'ing usually involves adjusting to a new position while applying to new positions (i.e. time commitment and additional stress from uncertainty) and 2.) the simple fact that moving (often across the country) involves a significant amount of time and money (note that VAP'ers almost always get less of each than their TT counterparts). And, yes, I realize that there are some TT'ers who are facing the very real possibility that they probably won't get tenure because of financial reasons at their institutions. So I can understand their desire to apply to junior-level positions.
Doesn't mean I have to like it though.
The most disturbing thing to me is the penchant for the system to propagate self-fulfilling prophecies. The new TT hire gets generous course releases, moving package, office, etc. and has people generally bending over backwards for them. In this positive, supportive environment most people can churn out scholarship and teach fairly well. On the other hand, VAPs usually have prohibitive teaching loads, little to no moving funds, poor offices and are somehow expected to publish. Faculty then pat themselves on the back saying what a great job they did hiring the TT scholar and point to their productivity. The sad thing is that many of the TT hires start to believe this nonsense that s/he obviously deserves the job sheerly by their brilliance. What the department is doing is setting themselves up to have their "brilliant" hire play the market for a job more suitable to their brilliance. The VAP on the other hand is caught in a catch-22. Don't get me wrong, the TT hire usually still has to work hard, but harder than the VAP? The humanities are a crapshoot and classics is the wart on its ass.
And it's not about better fit, but less work and more money. Yes, less work and more money is an okay goal, but at what cost?
I cannot imagine any other employment market in which someone would think that this is a reasonable question. "Hours" and "compensation" are two of the fundamental considerations in a labor market. If someone gets an equivalent job working less and getting paid more, they'd be perfectly justified in taking it, and I think many people would think they were nuts if they even hesitated to take it.
VAPs have it harder. Period.
But some TT people are *just now* being told that they are not going to be reappointed, simply because of the budget. They put their time in the VAP trenches, managed to get the TT job, and are now being cast off because the state legislature couldn't get its act together. Or the endowment was over-leveraged. Or their tenured colleagues aren't pulling their weight in getting enrollments up. Or. Or. Or.
This is happening to people at all stages of the TT. This is not a matter of VAP vs. TT. This is a matter of humanities vs. sciences vs. business vs. everything else under the sun.
Wake up folks. Those of us on the market from a no-longer-TT position aren't going around pissing on VAPs or ABDs. We were all there once.
Maybe, just maybe, the honchos on the APA governing board will actually deign to address this problem as a problem facing the field as a whole, and not parts of it only. Let's sacrifice a few of those damn panels that nobody attends anyway and talk about this crap instead of bitching about it here.
Re: Santa Clara "obnoxious" rejection letter
I thought it was a touch snotty (many of us will find jobs -- BUT NOT ALL! Especially you damn Lucan people!), but I probably would stop short of obnoxious.
"On behalf of John Heath, Chair, and the Department of Classics at Santa Clara University, I would like to thank you very much for your application materials for our tenure-track position in Greek language and literature. Unfortunately, the search committee has decided not to interview you.
We received over 120 applications, and we were delighted with the high quality of the pool. But this also meant that many, many outstanding applicants had to be cut. Because we are a small department, our present needs (and long-term goals) require someone who specializes in Greek literature, preferably in an area that relates to our (completely) undergraduate curriculum. Thus, we were not looking for social historians, historiographers, comparativists, or linguists, much less specialists in Statius or Lucan (though we appreciate your interest as well).
We wish you all the best in your future endeavors and are certain many of you will find positions elsewhere."
Forget profit-minded business models and larger economic forces... it's the damn Lucan and Statius specialists who are destroying the field!
Thus, we were not looking for social historians, historiographers, comparativists, or linguists, much less specialists in Statius or Lucan (though we appreciate your interest as well).
hah! that'd be funny if it didn't hit so close to home! but the job description was pretty clear, so i can understand why they were annoyed to get the second coming of a.e. housman in the applicant pool.
What I'd like to ask the Santa Clara folks is, when did Greek historiography stop being Greek literature? (The rejection certainly implies that it isn't, unless they mean ancient historians.)
"...much less specialists in Statius or Lucan..."
Ouch! Ouch! A very palpable hit! And here I am getting conferred tomorrow for a diss on Statius. Where is the love?!
Oh c'mon already. Greek literature = Homer and/or Tragedy. The rest is derivative.
Re: 517, you forgot Pindar.
RE: Santa Clara's rejection letter
Obnoxious? Really? I actually thought it was nice of them to point out that their list of finalists was dictated by an undergraduate-only curriculum.
And why would someone who works on Statius or Lucan apply for a Hellenist position? Has your work on sorry Latin damaged your ability to read English?
For an obnoxious, passive-aggressive email, see RP.
No. Pindar is just Homer dropping acid after a football game.
If someone gets an equivalent job working less and getting paid more, they'd be perfectly justified in taking it, and I think many people would think they were nuts if they even hesitated to take it.
Well said. Universities don't stop acting like corporations when humanities professors act like suckers.
We're all suckers then, like all the college football players who think they will make the NFL when in reality less than 10% make it. There are many easier rocks to squeeze for money than classics and academia.
There are many easier rocks to squeeze for money than classics and academia.
So if you're in it you shouldn't even try? If you have kids to support and if another university will pay for their college tuition it's a no-brainer. What if you can't afford to live anywhere decent but a new college happens to be in a much cheaper area? This is the kind of thing you can get from moving from one TT job to another and I don't see why anyone should be discouraged from trying to improve their situation. Should you knowingly and willingly jerk around another department? No. But, as usual on FV, we fixate on the villains and extrapolate to every case.
There are many easier rocks to squeeze for money than classics and academia.
Of course there are. Look, this isn't difficult. If you're in Classics, let's just assume that being in Classics is of overriding importance to you, and that you'd make huge sacrifices, including sacrifices of salary, in order to be in it.
Let's also stipulate that there are other things that are important to you. Your partner/family. Location. Public vs. private institution. Grad students/no grad students. Colleagues you like and you're excited to be around. All of these things matter, or may matter to you depending on your situation.
But hours and pay matter a great deal in any labor market, and rightly so. Assigning great importance to them is totally reasonable, just as it's reasonable in all other fields of employment. Wanting to spend less time making more money for doing the same thing doesn't make you a money-grubbing monster. It makes you a normal person.
Look, if you had a friend who worked at a grocery store, or as a welder, or as a customer service rep, and s/he got an offer for a job that seemed on balance comparable, but paid 7% more an hour, what would you say? "Take it?" Or "Make sure you think over all the pluses and minuses"?
Whatever you said, it probably wouldn't be "Don't even think about it, you f&^*ing mercenary!!!"
Right. Isn't that why we call it a "job market," rather than a "job patronage system" or a "job assignment lottery," or what not? (Not that we couldn't though.)
Are we really having this debate? Yes, this is our livelihood, not our philanthropic charity. If I can get an offer for a better job than the one I currently have, I will not turn it down in order to take one for the team, but behave like a rational agent and take it for myself. Is this really surprising?
Dude, chill. You sound like someone stole your prized pony. You're basically having this argument by yourself, which is quite silly since we're obviously all individuals with our own situations and predilections.
Dude, chill. You sound like someone stole your prized pony. You're basically having this argument by yourself
As one of the two or more people constituting this composite dude, I can confirm that the dude is not having the argument by himself. But it's right that there hasn't been much resistance on the other side: one instance of handwringing about where all this greed will lead, and one half-hearted "if you love money so much why don't you marry it?" So I don't think there's much need to push harder on this.
If you take all of the "Anonymous" commenters as a single person, though, I'll grant you that he sounds nuts.
Only one person sounds nuts to me...
Have you ever been in the VAP trenches? If so, how long ago? VAPs more often than not only have one year stints at a location. That's why it's a "visiting" position. Visiting from where, I do not know. How often do you see a TT person kicked out due to no fault of their own? Eh, almost never?
Um, I made that comment and I spent 2 years adjuncting and 4 years as a VAP at 3 different schools before I landed a TT. But I have a bunch of friends who have been told recently that their TT line job is no longer secure and that they will not be reappointed if the university budget does not improve. It doesn't matter if they meet the standards. Budget dictates. So until you have spent that many years on the market clawing and fighting to get on the TT only to then find out that it is no more secure than a 2-year appointment as a VAP like you had before, stop the whining. And seriously stop the ignorant accusation that those of us on the TT don't understand the market. Some of us know the ugliness of the market more than any of you ever will and we know far too well how ugly it is and have no desire to ever revisit it but also accept that we may not be given the choice no matter how much we publish, how much service we do and how great our evals are.
Not to change the subject here or anything, but......
Can anybody and everybody chime in on their journal submission experiences? How long does it usually take until you hear back about a decision? Are there any journals that are especially fast, or especially slow? How do you go about choosing which journal to send a submission?
Happy Holidays!!
please change the subject...re submissions:
I don't have pro experience (2 articles and a book chapter; phd this year) so take this for what it is worth.
For first, I found GRBS rude and sniffy but prompt. CP still hasn't gotten back to me (4 years later) but finally placed with AJPh and Barbara Gold was great to work with. For another, wanted it in Humanistica Lovaniensia but since they only do one volume each year response time was around 9 months, but feedback was great -- good people there.
I suggest going for the better journals first since even if you don't place it, you will at least have rigorous feedback to mull over. And there are some people out there who do want to help first timers (WH at IJCT has the biggest heart in the world). Be prepared for some snarky, nasty, and sometimes wayward comments though. I almost wept the first time a reviewer said anything complimentary.
As for time: assuming you don't have to make any revisions (unlikely) at least a year from submission to publication. More likely, a few years with revisions and resubmissions and intrusions. But again, not a pro speaking.
On journal submissions: not quite on topic, but a reminder that there are discussions of writing a first article at
http://www.duke.edu/~jds15/grads/writing.articles.html
and
http://www.apaclassics.org/Publications/publish.html
and here are some acceptance rates from 2001 and 2002:
http://www.apaclassics.org/profmat/2001_journals.pdf
http://www.apaclassics.org/profmat/2002_journtable.pdf
Apologies to those for whom this is too well known already
Related question: you're a young scholar who's giving a presentation at a conference, at the end of which is likely to be an edited volume of proceedings - should you aim for publication in a journal instead, which everyone in your institution is telling you to do (Dean, Chair), or is it bad form to screw the conference organizer? I ask because it's hard to pass up the opportunity of an easy publication at the beginning of your career but at the same time everyone senior seems to dismissive of such things (privately, if not in print).
Awkwardness:
In my experience, proceedings volumes sorta count like working papers, so—at least in one I’ve published in—a more worked-up version of your paper is assumed to likely turn up later in a journal.
Just politely explain to the conference organizers what your chair and dean are saying. They will understand. Converting a potentially valuable peer-reviewed journal article into a worthless proceedings article is completely counterproductive.
conference papers
There are some, and there are others.
If you're talking about a collection of papers from, say, an APA panel, then yeah, I'd say worthless.
Other, long-standing conferences who publish their proceedings (Fondation Hardt, Hellenistica Groningana) obviously ought to count for more. In the case of these, there is a degree of peer review.
the poster a few above overly generalizes about the utility of including a conference paper in a volume of conference proceedings. In some cases such a venue can provide good visibility for young scholars. True, there are trade-offs, but this is true of virtually all academic publishing.
On journals: I'd add that ZPE is quite fast in responding, so if the piece is ZPE-worthy you should consider them. I had a good experience with JRS last year, which predictably rejected my article, but did so in just a few months (3-5, maybe?), thus validating my decision to shoot for the top and then submit elsewhere. (I won't say where my article currently is, but it's now been six months. I've worked with the editor in the past, though, so I haven't lost faith.)
Regarding the conference book issue, I'm curious whether there is a significant difference in the eyes of deans/etc. between running an article in a volume entitled "Proceedings of the Congress on [Stuff]" and a book that derives from a smaller conference but is not named as such. As one who will have publications in both, just something I'm mildly curious about, even though a tenure review is not in my immediate future. (That said, if someone arranged a smallish conference and invited me to give a paper I would go into the situation *knowing* that I might be asked to submit an article to a volume, so I would think it rather poor form to refuse to do so. And if I myself ran a conference and someone refused to submit a paper this would certainly be in the back of my mind for future conferences I might organize.)
I've had very prompt acceptances from both CQ (2 months) and JHS (4 months).
Could you please use 'response' instead of 'acceptance'? I'm feeling pretty shitty about all this success. Good for all of you though.
On conference papers, from a person who's written and read a number of tenure letters: if one of every three or four papers is published in a collection of essays developed from a conference, I'd say at most places that's fine, especially if the volume is refereed (if not refereed maybe I'd say one in five?). Publishing conference papers is fine as a complement to articles refereed in journals; it just looks bad if too high a percentage of your articles are not in refereed journals. Everything you publish will be read by your referees, and some of them will comment on the prestige of your journals and the quality (or lack thereof) of any volume of essays or proceedings you're in. Getting that paper "accepted" doesn't count for much, but if it's good and people say good things about it that counts. I've written a letter in which I've commented on the fact that many other people in a collection were senior/famous.
And by saying "at most places that's fine" I don't mean it's fine at low-prestige places and not at higher, I mean it's fine unless the people making the judgments are dumb.
But I also second the idea that you should do what you want with your papers, and not hesitate to tell an organizer if you don't want to be in a collection b/c your dept. or dean wants pieces in refereed journals.
The question of proceedings vs. refereed journal isn't a simple one, but if you want a simple answer from someone who has sat on a few tenure committees and tenure advisory panels, here is one: a refereed journal article will always count more with tenure panels, deans, most departmental colleagues, and the majority of external reviewers of scholarship, assuming the quality of the pieces is the same. And it's not a matter of someone "noticing" where something appears. Most institutions will require you to separate your refereed from your non-refereed publications in your tenure dossier, just as they will make you separate your monographs from your articles, and your articles from your miscellaneous publications (reviews & reference entries).
In that context, you need to have a publication plan, not simply be thinking of every piece you put out there as a discrete and wholly separable unit. You will be judged on the impact of your overall record in your area(s) of specialty, and that means that it may under some circumstances make perfectly good sense to have a piece appear in a volume that comes from a panel or conference.
Some random thoughts:
Its presence may, for instance, give you a continued relationship with the editor, and that may come in handy. S/he may be a huge name in your field, and be able to open doors.
The other contributors could be likely outside reviewers of your work at tenure time, and in a small specialty could actually end up serving in that function (which means they won't be sneering at that publication venue in their letter).
The piece you presented might be something of a sideline, and with your current plans you don't know when you'd have time/motivation to complete it and put it through the submission/revision process--but you could turn it around pretty quickly for an edited volume where you have the motivation of essentially guaranteed acceptance and a solid deadline.
You may have a strong record of publication in high-quality refereed journals already, and as the previous poster pointed out, it's the ratio that counts above all.
There are other reasons one could imagine. The point is that your scholarly output should look coherent, even if it covers several specialties, and part of that coherency is where and how you publish. A lot of papers derived from conference papers but published as refereed articles would impress many of the colleagues I've been on panels with--they like to see the progression from paper to refereed article, and take it as proof that you are well rounded and capable of being a force in different kinds of scholarly engagement. But a lot of papers derived from conference papers and published in non-refereed volumes begin to make people wonder.
One perspective. And I'll add that I've never seen an enraged classicist go after a junior person for pursuing publication in a refereed journal instead of in a volume of proceedings. I can't claim it has never happened (far stranger things certainly have), but I would guess it is rare.
Four points:
1.) Conference proceedings that are peer-reviewed would seem (IMO as past SC member) to be roughly as valuable as peer-reviewed journal articles (though there does exist an elite tier of journals that stand by themselves - CA, AJP, JRS, etc). Moreover, the proceedings may wind up being reviewed as a volume, which will provide your dean, tenure committee, vel sim. yet another metric to judge the externally-perceived quality of your work (which is the real issue behind proceedings vs. journal question, no?). If reviewed in BMCR, most of the profession will receive a summary of your argument in their email inbox. Not bad.
2.) Can't let it pass re: 1:48 above that I had an excellent (and quick) experience with GRBS, whereas I found Barbara Gold and AJP to be slow and shockingly dismissive. There was only 1 anonymous review, which had appropriate criticisms and suggestions for revision, and on that slim basis BG rejected the piece with no gentleness whatsoever and NO possibility of resubmit. Ouch.
3.) The tone of the dissatisfied-with-the-placement-service crowd saddens me. "Too inconvenient to send a fax"??? "Too expensive for priority mail"??? And yet you have the gall to sit here and act entitled to a TT position? If your attitude towards the work of obtaining a job is any indication of your attitude towards the work involved in performing the job, then you would be a bad hire.
4.) On that note: In terms of whatever crisis (economic, disciplinary, hiring, relevance) you think Classics et al. are in, one of the most important things that can be done is to maintain a positive attitude, keep your chin up, and stop giving people reasons to think poorly of you. Yeah, yeah, I know that sounds very New Agey, but once you actually join the permanent workforce, you will see what a difference it makes in your day, job, and life to have energetic, self-starting, optimistic people as colleagues - no matter HOW bad things are - than whiny, self-entitled people and those for whom the presence of a business card signals "douchebag". Besides the fact that it IS a business after all, the notion that you wouldn't want to have your contact info easily dispensed at, say, a hiring conference (it need only have name, address, email, and institution) is bizarrely out of touch with reality.
Conclusion: Again IMO, and sorry if this sounds harsh, but people who think like that don't deserve a job. I know I certainly wouldn't want them as colleagues.
people who think like that don't deserve a job
I think it's hilarious when people say completely unhinged things in a matter-of-fact way. Thank you.
one of the most important things that can be done is to maintain a positive attitude, keep your chin up, and stop giving people reasons to think poorly of you.
When you wrote this, were you aware that you were going to spend most of the rest of the comment complaining about other people? Is that part of the magical positivity recipe?
...one of the most important things that can be done is to maintain a positive attitude, keep your chin up, and stop giving people reasons to think poorly of you. Yeah, yeah, I know that sounds very New Agey...
Doesn't sound New Agey. I'd just add that these countless whining posts have made me think of Tony Soprano asking, "What ever happened to Gary Cooper -- the strong, silent type?" This blog shows that there are too many people on the job market evidently incapable of keeping a stiff upper lip.
Hypothetical question from an optimistic neophyte to the Classics job market. Say that by some miracle I am offered a postdoc and a VAP, both of 2 years' duration, and both at institutions of the same caliber and standing. Which looks better to the TT SCs 2 years down the road when I do this all over again? I know the postdoc has less teaching and thus has the ancillary benefit of cranking out more research, but is one position inherently more prestigious or well-regarded than the other? Thanks!
these countless whining posts have made me think of Tony Soprano asking, "What ever happened to Gary Cooper -- the strong, silent type?"
Another thing that Gary Cooper characters were known for is going on to the Internet to complain about how other people on the Internet complain too much. I definitely remember him doing that in High Noon a couple of times, and that's basically the whole plot of Pride of the Yankees.
When will all the madness end?
Yes, my post was ironic at best, hypocritical at worst. But there are a lot of job seekers here, and quite a few with what seems to me like really bad attitudes (yes, I might not have displayed the best attitude above, but I'm not trying to convince anyone to like me enough to hire me at the moment, either...). Job seekers should be cheery and positive, again just IMO. Thus, the advice is real, meant to point out a potential liability going into the market and honestly meant to help anyone who wants to take it get a job; if anyone wants to poo-poo it and make jokes about it instead, that is indeed their right.
Say that by some miracle I am offered a postdoc and a VAP, both of 2 years' duration, and both at institutions of the same caliber and standing. Which looks better to the TT SCs 2 years down the road when I do this all over again?
There's no significant difference to a search committee. In this hypothetical, I'd advise you to take the postdoc and use your extra time to make progress on your book manuscript.
If there was some expectation that a tenure-track job would be opening up at the place with the VAP, though, that would change the calculus.
I'd like to thank all the people who wrote with their opinions on conference proceedings vs. journal article - some of the most useful, balanced info I've seen offered on here. Did we all suddenly start taking our meds? Good for us...
Did we all suddenly start taking our meds? Good for us...
Don't worry, it's only because it was a completely uncontroversial question. If I were to say "future of Classics," "philology," or "foreign Ph.D.," the place would explode once again with sanctimony, passive-aggressiveness, and self-pity.
So it's a good thing I didn't say any of those things.
Anyone know anything about the status of the USC position? It wasn't listed on RP's list of late submissions.
Ditto for Dartmouth. ???
anyone hired for the brooklyn college position? was this not to begin almost immediately?
Unclear whether Dartmouth or Columbia will actually interview at the APA. Has anybody been contacted?
Ditto on Dec. 21 12:41: Anyone heard anything from Dartmouth? I noticed it wasn't on RP's list of "pending" either.
Also for those of you who have interviews with Colby: Did any of you receive an email from Dr. Roisman saying that they'll be interviewing you for the post-doc? I ask since I rec'd an email saying that they'd like to interview me for the VAP but that since I also applied for the post-doc that they would also like to speak with me about that as well. I am now wondering if they are truly interviewing for both or merely interviewing for one and seeing who fits the latter...
Dartmouth probably not interviewing at APA
Dear Colleagues -
I hope that this isn't a misuse of the blog post. If so, my apologies. But I've noticed that in past years some schools have posted clarifications about job searches here, and I would like to offer a few comments about a recent job post, for a tenure-track line in Classics at Gonzaga University. The ad has been posted elsewhere on Famae Volent, as well as the AIA-APA site and in the Chronicle, and applications and inquiries have already begun to come in.
This note is an attempt to address some of the duplicate questions we have begun to receive. Having been on the market not long ago, and knowing full well the frustration that many of you face in this process, I'd like to clarify a few issues which will likely arise on this blog. A preemptive strike, if you will. Or better: an attempt to bring some clarity to a process that often does not seem to have it.
Here goes:
(a) The Gonzaga hire is a NEW position, created by an administration that wishes to revive its Classical Civ department. The position is fully funded, and is meant to build the program. It is not a replacement position.
(b) The position is open in terms of field, but we are primarily looking for a philologist, as specified in the AIA-APA ad. The position is meant to build up the language aspect of the program. While we WILL consider applications from other fields, demonstrated excellence in undergraduate teaching, specifically in Greek and Latin, is deemed essential for a successful candidate.
(c) The position is wide open. We WILL look at ABD candidates (as the ad states, not merely for form's sake), and we do NOT have an inside candidate whom we are considering.
(d) We were informed of the new position in mid-Nov., too late to advertise properly for candidates and solicit applications before the annual meeting. For that reason we are NOT interviewing in Anaheim. The application deadline was set at Feb. 1 to allow time for people to enjoy their holidays and submit applications in January. We will review applications after Feb. 1, hold phone interviews in mid-Feb, and select 3 candidates for on-campus interviews in March.
(e) We do NOT have anyone attending the annual meeting this year. Several people have inquired about this, and there will be no opportunities to meet with department faculty in Anaheim. As the ad states, however, we will gladly answer questions via email about the school and the search, and suggest that you visit our recently updated website to read about our program and its history.
I hope that these clarifications are helpful, and that I've not violated any rules or customs by writing to you on this blog. I've done so because our department takes your interest and applications seriously and we recognize that this is a difficult year and a stressful time for you, not to mention our field in general. Our search is running a bit late in comparison with others, but it is a genuine one, with funding to back it up, and we hope that it will draw your interest.
Finally, on behalf of the search committee let me state that we are committed to running a professional search that is both transparent and respectful of our candidates, something that occurs less often than it should, according to the comments on this blog. We will do our best to maintain a clear and prompt line of communication with all of our applicants, and while I doubt that we will please everyone during the course of this search (a patent impossibility, if you follow this blog), we shall try our best to be a model search that treats you with the respect that you, as professionals and colleagues in our field, deserve. Thank you for your attention.
Kudos to Gonzaga! Thanks!!
Thank you Gonzaga!
I wasn't going to apply for your job. I now will. From what I can see from those around me, Jesuits are tons of fun.
I hope Gonzaga is ready to receive 300+ applications!
Talk about state lottery odds...
Thank you, O Gonzaga SC member!
This is the very model of how a SC should behave. Clear, helpful and kind. It is also a very good example of how this site really can be more than a fever swamp of invective, at times.
I was going to apply anyway, but now I am even more excited about the place. Whoever gets this job will have at least one great colleague,
invective is therapeutic. don't knock it.
Hey, there.
Yeah, you, Dr. Barista.
Psssst. Psssst. Yo.
Gonzaga sucks. Don't apply, it is a terrible place. Just terrible. Don't waste your time sending in an application. Really. Trust me. Whatever you do, don't apply.
Yeah, "Gonzaga sucks". Nice smoke screen.
By the way, the Classics sucks. Just quit and thereby increase my chances for a job.
Re: 12.21 1:31 Colby
I got an email from Roisman, too, but it was to the opposite effect: my proper interview is for the postdoc, but he asked if we might spend a few minutes on questions for the VAP while we were at it. So perhaps he has one or the other position in mind as primary (different for each candidate), and is just covering all bases?
Merry Christmas, fellow job-seekers! See you all in Anaheim in a couple of weeks.
I'm just really curious about how Tufts can only have "half the short list." Doesn't that suggest those already asked for interviews are their preferred candidates, already?
Also, it's nice to note in RP's latest email that her family helps her schedule appointments...again, online scheduling system would be sooo much more appropriate.
No kidding about RP. Even the veneer of professionalism would be much appreciated.
Re: Tufts: the application deadline was late, 12/1, and the Placement Service wanted everything by 12/4. Since they also accepted electronic applications--someone mentioned recently this ups the number of applicants?--in addition to the openness of the ad, they likely had a bonny pile. My guess is that the half-list they got in to the APA contains interviewees of one variety of philologist, either Greek or Latin, and the forthcoming half-list the other variety.
I know both Latinists and Hellenists with Tufts interviews. Maybe they did e-apps first, then paper apps...?
Anyone know anything regarding USC's Roman History search? The job ad said that if a junior person were hired, he/she would be housed in either Classics OR history department. So are they interviewing at APA or AHA or both?
Based on what I know of some of the people on the Tufts short list, there is no obvious pattern that reveals that they real want to hire someone who does X.
Does Tufts even have an independent classics department? I can't attach a single name or face to a classicist there. Does a classicist run Perseus or is a linguist and a bunch of work study students?
Of course Tufts has a Classics program -- they offer an MA! And yes, there are *real* classicists walking around. Perseus is headed by somebody who also wrote a pretty darn good book on Thucydides. Granted, they do seem to have an awfully big "lecturer" roster, but I suspect that is a function of being in Boston and having access to cheap part-time labor. Of course, the Tufts model of one tenured person to 12 adjuncts might be the wave of the future. Get in on the ground floor now.
Yes, Tufts has a classics department, but your point is well taken. They are a bit low key and I can't recall any papers presented by faculty at the APA recently. Besides Perseus and several doctoral archaeology students who got their BA/MA there, I haven't heard much about them during the past 10 years.
Jesus, how dumb do you have to be to ask whether Tufts has an independent classics department? It's a small department that covers a broad range of topics so lot of young narrow people will only have heard of one or two (or none) of them, and, duh, they need to hire one more person. It's a great job.
Well, it will be an interesting interview in Anaheim. Doing some research, it doesn't look like they have any faculty under 70 years of age. Perhaps junior faculty use it as a stepping stone to better schools in the the northeast? I would be interested to hear what they think the department will look like in 10 years.
The guy who runs Perseus is definitely under 70. And if you want to know whether Tufts has an independent classics department, why not a) look at the ad, and/or b) look at Tufts's website?
Incidentally, asking what a department's 10-year or 5-year plan looks like is an acceptable question to ask in interviews (depending upon the school and the interviewers and their mood, naturally).
Swap the H for a P and you're in Anaheim:
http://tinyurl.com/y8c44dw
One more point on the question of publishing in a journal or in conference proceedings, especially for those just starting out. Some journals may take a relatively long time, but they still have their publication schedule to maintain, and so have a certain reliability. Conference proceedings (and I speak as editor as well as contributor)make their way through the various stages of preparation at the speed of the slowest contributor and, sometimes at the convenience of one or more of the editors. I had one piece "in press" for over ten years. Imagine the possibility of your piece being out of date if this should happen to you.
There are departments that will begin to wonder, as it comes time for reappointment, tenure, or promotion, whether your piece will ever appear. I know one department (not a classics dept) that refused to consider anything not yet in print.
I’d be interested to hear responses from any current search committee members here to “Perez from Pennsylvania Leads Off Our MLA Coverage. ‘Full On Boot Licking’ Interviews Set to Commence,” Rate Your Studens (Sunday, 27 December 2009).
Tufts does indeed have faculty below the age of 70 - the average age of the faculty is in the 50s/60s - not uncommon for many departments. It is accurate to say the tenured faculty are not the most active in the field (understatement). Also, the chair has let the three most active scholars in the last five years go (god knows for what reason, don't get me started). I wouldn't say it's a great job owing to this last factor, but perhaps anyone doing philology will be ok there - an archaeologist will be deluged with undergraduates hungry for guidance, and I can only hope they've stopped admitting MA candidates who hope to do archaeology, considering there's no one there to work with any longer. A tip to anyone interviewing with them: be sure to ask where the department is going in the next 5-10 years, as noted above, because this has changed quite a bit recently, and is something they'd better have an answer for - and a realistic one, this time.
Researching the departments that have scheduled interviews with me, I see that Tufts is a bit older, but it's pretty normal as someone suggested.
Sheesh, did classics hire anyone in the 80s? Almost all the tenured faculty degrees seem to be from the 70s (and earlier!) and 90s.
At Tufts, the drought actually seems to be in the 90s. Here are all the diss dates I could find for any of the faculty (I know, I know - I'm at my parents' house and bored to death).
1974
1974
1976
1977
1981
1982
1985
1990
2000
2006
Now, this doesn't take into account any gaps between undergrad and grad schools (and faculty who have left), but it probably provides a good general picture of what the department has been doing over the years. I've found that this is a fairly typical picture for the non-elite programs.
So, did something happen in the 1990s? Perhaps a bad economy in the 80s finally carried over into the 90s after some lag time? I was in primary school for almost the entire decade so I have no recollection of a bad economy.
Does anybody else find this archaeology of the Tufts Classics department slightly odd?
What, exactly, is the point here?
Due diligence is one thing. This is just creepy.
This pretty much happens every year, but with different schools. There is down time between the end of the term and the APA so people start getting a bit stir crazy and over analyze. I'm guessing that it's the newbs in particular.
P.S. I'm guessing you're not an archaeologist by your pejorative use of the word. Why don't you say "Byzantine archaeology" and make it two for one?
Judging by the "archaeolgist's" post, it sure is swell that a wet-behind-the-ears classicist is getting a shot at a good job with nary a clue about what it takes to be an academic, besides the scholarly aspect, of course. Way to go search committees!
Dare I ask: what’s so pejorative, i.e., disparaging of material-cultural studies, about “archaeology” (December 29, 2009 3:19 PM) given the Classical Attic sense ‘antiquarian lore, ancient legends or history’ (LSJ, s.v. ἀρχαιο-λογία), which I take was 3:19’s intent?
And people wonder why classics will only exist at a dozen elite schools in 50 years?
Holy crap! I just re-kindled the Clarch vs. Philologist smack-down with a completely benign use of the word "archaeology!"
That is so awesome. For what it's worth, I AM an archaeologist! I guess I should have made some hyper-geeky comment about Anonymous 2:43's misapplication of a crude system of stratigraphic correlation regarding diss dates and Tufts hiring practices. That may have been a clearer signal of my bona fides.
Oh, shit. That's Latin ain't it? Great, now some Latinist is going to come around and bitch about my latest perjoration.
Crap! Is that a word? Now I'm really fucked. I can hear the historical linguists marching already....... I'd better grab my WHS masonry trowel and get out of this here text.
Ouch, sorry! That was such an offensive use of the word "text." So, so, so sorry. I'm leaving. Really.
Hasta la vista, baby. See you suckers at Disney World.
:-)
Errata:
Please read "Land" for "World."
XOXO
You dig for two weeks at Corinth and you're an archaeologist now? No wonder our resident clarch knows jack shit about archaeology.
Sorry, 6:55. Nice try.
I never went to the ASCSA, so no Corinth experience.
Two seasons in Israel, one in Italy. That info prolly outs me, but whatev.
I'm not the "resident clarch," so far as I know.
Re: archaeologia de Tuftensibus: 2:43 was indeed trying to dig up some dirt. :P
For the bored, wanna take a poll?
http://www.blogpoll.com/poll/view_Poll.php?type=java&poll_id=178555
(Blogger doesn't allow javascript in the comments.)
655 thinks 319 is somebody at Tufts. Nice.
"Two seasons in Israel, one in Italy."
This hardly makes one an archaeologist, unless one is training to become one in grad school. Many of my undergrads who have no aspirations for a career in archaeology have this much dig experience. This is equivalent to someone who has just finished Intermediate Greek saying they are a Hellenist.
So, let me get this straight.
Until you have the Ph.D. you can't call yourself a classicist, or archaeologist, or anything else?
You mean to say that I've been lying to my parents and siblings this whole time about who I am?
Crap.
I'm presuming that the Brooklyn College position is in the books?
Re: curious about how Tufts can only have "half the short list." Doesn't that suggest those already asked for interviews are their preferred candidates, already?
Not necessarily. One way this can happen is if the committee is working on files as they are coming in rather than waiting until after the closing date and working on a whole pile. By the time the closing date comes you have a pile of 'yes', a pile of 'no', a pile of 'maybe' and all the last minute applications. Given the way closing dates, exams, and holidays interfere with the process, it doesn't surprise me at all that a department might have a group of yeses that it wants to inform right away while it works at identifying the second half of its yes list.
Despite the holidays, the end of the semester, etc., the APA should find some way of ensuring that candidates will know they have interviews before they arrive. I know that this will sound almost demanding to some, but for those of us who are just scraping by, going to the APA is an ill-afforded luxury if we don't have interviews. Now, Tufts et al. are in the buyers market and can do whatever they want, but it is still a little backwards.
So, did something happen in the 1990s? Perhaps a bad economy in the 80s finally carried over into the 90s after some lag time? I was in primary school for almost the entire decade so I have no recollection of a bad economy.
The 1980's recession was basically over by 1984 (the worst years being 1981-2), with a downturn in 1989. Can't really see that much of a delayed effect. When I started grad school in the mid-1990's, the job market was awful, or so all the professors in my department said. And then by the mid-2000's, things were definitely better. I have no idea if this year's market is better or worse than the mid-1990's.
I totally agree with the first Anon. 3:08. Tufts's deadline was Dec. 1, iirc, while St. Olaf's was Nov. 30. Schools with Dec. 15 deadlines have already requested interviews, so what's the hold-up?
Give the committees a break. The average age is probably 65. Let's see how fast you move when you're slamming down prune juice and sporting Depends.
On interview notification.
I am still not sure why search committees don't bother to contact you directly. This is their first opportunity to extend an invitation to a possible long-term colleague. How much energy does it take to pick up the phone and make 12-20 phone calls, or send that many personalized emails? I'm desperate for a job, but those folks who go some little distance to humanizing this process score serious points in my book. I'll remember that.
As far a late notification. We were told by our grad advisors to book our flights and reserve our tickets back in September. If you are on the market, you are going to Anaheim, and you should have said so in your letters of application.
I do think, however, that if you only get one or two interviews and you can't afford the trip then it is OK to ask the SC for a phone interview instead. People understand. Heck, many institutions backed out of APA interviews this year. The economy sucks. Phone interviews are harder, though, so one should take that into account.
I agree with 3:08, but I don't think it should be up to the APA. Individual departments need to show more soul here. But, there is also a reasonable argument to be made that going on the market means committing to Anaheim regardless.
I am coming around to the argument that conference interviews are worthless anyway. We can have decent video conferencing. So, why not do it all that way in the first round and use some of the cash saved to fly out more than three finalists?
Safe travels to all and see you in the land of sunshine!!
From what I understand, video conferencing is so good these days with HD equipment that one forgets that people aren't in the same room. It's only a matter of time before every university has a conference room set up like this. Whether committees adopt it is a different story. This is coming from someone who doesn't understand serial VAP searches that spend thousands of dollars each year and then plead poverty for not making the position tenure track.
Someone other than me knows who Archytas is!
"How much energy does it take to pick up the phone and make 12-20 phone calls, or ....."
Making 12-20 phone calls, including pulling together the information necessary to make the call, playing phone tag with the people and their roommates/spouses/officemates, and then talking to 12-20 diverse people on the phone in a way that shows that you are interested in them and their research and teaching, without making any mistakes, and while anxiously trying to get a sense of which one of them is best for being your colleague for life, is a huge job. I'm not saying schools shouldn't do this--they should--but the ones that don't probably have limited resources and too much to do in both their professional and personal lives, and I don't mean going to the casino--I mean having lives that prohibit more than 50-60 hour work weeks in December.
I am coming around to the argument that conference interviews are worthless anyway. We can have decent video conferencing. So, why not do it all that way in the first round and use some of the cash saved to fly out more than three finalists?
The real flaw here is that you can't tell which candidates have an unpleasant odor.
even though the committee is likely to have read everything you've written
There ought to be a big question mark here. And even if they did, you shouldn't expect them to remember them clearly. I suggest you make good preparation to present a lucid, engaging and enthusiastic account of your projects, even if they are already well represented in all the application materials, because: 1) the committee will need to have their memory refreshed, and 2) ability to explain your agenda succinctly usually counts for a lot anyway.
Sorry y'all for the above post. Didn't realize that what I was replying to was months old.
Sorry y'all for the above post. Didn't realize that what I was replying to was months old.
No apology necessary. FVers love revisiting the seemingly deceased ad nauseam... Perhaps we should rename the blog umbrae volent?
Happy New Year everybody.
Replying to 12.27.09 9:25 on Perez:
As a recent SC member, I disagree to some extent what Perez is saying, that there is a lot of boot licking going on. Yes, there is some (always has been), but overall, if you read through the applications carefully and have a clear idea of what you and your department want/need in a colleague, it is a straightforward process.
I dislike the blase attitude which is displayed at the end of Perez's article regarding the interviews themselves, and agree with the recent comments here about how important that part of the process is. If you show up unprepared, or with an attitude that you are better than the job/school, or make no attempt to connect with a committee, or fail to show any passion for teaching and/or research, well, no amount of boot licking is going to get you that job. Or beyond the initial interview, for that matter. Candidates are quite different, a good committee pays attention, and it will spot a poser. I was on a search last year where we ended up with a dynamite new colleague -- from the phone interview to the on-campus interview, she was "on" every minute, engaged, prepared, passionate and even, to a small degree, 'in-your-face' about her own needs in teaching and research. She was also ABD, which made no difference at all given the amazing impression she left after her initial interview and visit. She was far better than many of her peers who had already completed their degrees, largely because she truly wanted the job and took every opportunity to show us that.
Regarding the recent note about phone calls, and why committees don't make 12-20 calls, well, I don't know. We DID last year, and will continue to do so. It DOES take time, but candidates appreciate it, no question. For that matter, we also take time to write thank you notes to all of your references who send personal letters to us, as opposed to the photocopied ones. Some of your referees write quite passionately on your behalf, and we want them to know that we appreciate what they do to enlighten us about your qualifications. I might suggest here that such personalized letters make a stronger impression on a committee, and those of you on the market whose schools send out letters for you that are on file might think about getting at least one prof, possibly your adviser, to write a current, personal letter on your behalf. For some of our older committee members, that can especially make a very positive difference...
Happy New Year to all, and good hunting...
December 27, 2009 9:25 PM thanks January 1, 2010 1:01 PM!
Speaking of thank-you notes, what is the protocol for thanking interviewers after an interview? Yes or no? By surface mail or email?
Speaking of thank-you notes, what is the protocol for thanking interviewers after an interview? Yes or no? By surface mail or email?
I like to invite my interviewers to join my twitter feed. Keeps it short and sweet and nobody's out of the loop.
Anybody see the Education section of the NYTimes this morning? The prez of MSU apparently comparing classics to elocution and animal husbandry (i.e. majors in the dustbin of history). Ouch!
Sounds about right. I think Sue Coleman nailed it in the excerpt below. In light of this, it's obvious that classics has to do a much better job packaging themes, concepts and ideas contained in literature, and not just the literature by itself.
At the same time, Dr. Coleman is wary of training students for just one thing — “creating them to do some little widget,” as she says. Michigan has begun a speaker series featuring alumni or other successful entrepreneurs who come in to talk about how their careers benefited from what Dr. Coleman calls “core knowledge.”
“We believe that we do our best for students when we give them tools to be analytical, to be able to gather information and to determine the validity of that information themselves, particularly in this world where people don’t filter for you anymore,” Dr. Coleman says. “We want to teach them how to make an argument, how to defend an argument, to make a choice.” These are the skills that liberal arts colleges in particular have prided themselves on teaching. But these colleges also say they have the hardest time explaining the link between what they teach and the kind of job and salary a student can expect on the other end."
As a former SC member, I would say that a "thank you" note to the committee is certainly proper and would be appreciated. Since there are usually older members on a committee, a short hand-written note addressed to and sent to the campus departmental address is probably the most effective way of demonstrating such thanks. You can also write to the head of the search, thank him/her, and ask him/her to send your thanks to the committee as a whole. Such notes tend to be placed in your file, and they get noticed. Email is another way to do that, but a written note is a bit more classy. Old school? Sure. But that is who we are as a discipline, and a note like that (which are sadly quite rare) will be appreciated, I assure you.
The AHA released statistics for the history job market in advance of the annual meeting down in San Diego:
http://tinyurl.com/yabl4du
Does the APA keep statistics like this? Would it even be worthwhile to *know* exactly how *fast* the profession is falling off a cliff?
To Anon. Dec 29, 9:45 and Anon. Dec. 21, 11:24. The Brooklyn College position has been filled. You probably figured this out by now, but I'm posting just in case!
Re: Brooklyn College
The job has been offered, but has it been accepted already?
Dear APA Overlords,
Although your official publication never actually mentions anything about this, you know as well as I that dire economic conditions and the corporatization of the university have led to a large number of Classics PhDs going without employment. Yet we should not fret, we can turn this situation to our advantage, and even use it to solve other problems bedeviling our profession at this time!
In order to give these poor over-educated souls some security and a job, I propose that we establish a system of helotage for those Ph.Ds unworthy of the lofty tenured heights that we occupy. Many might protest that this is a barbaric and unequal institution. Fair enough, but the current system has only lead to job insecurity and a dangerous potential for revolutionary agitation. Wouldn't it be better to accept reality and deploy an unequal system that will result in bountiful new opportunities?
This solution would certainly be mutually beneficial. As you well know, each year in departments around the country we scramble for warm bodies to fill out the course schedule, which often means press ganging graduate students or the burdensome and expensive process of hiring adjunct and "visiting" professors. Often we don't even know who will be teaching certain courses semester to semester. With my new proposal our Messenian associates (I think "Messenian associates" sounds more attractive than "helots") would always be at the ready to teach whatever course we ask them to. The biggest survey courses are Roman Civilization and Mythology, and since most of the jobless are in the fields of Roman Archaeology and Greek Literature, it should be easy to plug them in. Furthermore, we on the tenured side would no longer have to deal with the maddening business of educating freshman students and can thus focus our energies on pursuits more important than the shaping of young minds, such as writing monographs for a specialist audience.
Moreover, a system of helotage would help allay the fears of our pesky critics in the political arena. Politicians complain about the rising cost of tuition, but this system will save plenty of money in the long run and save us from having to spend any of our precious endowment money on such piddling trifles like undergraduate education.
This system will also ensure a great level of flexibility, something our friends in the corporate world usually benefit from but we, with our Lycurgan constitution, do not. For instance, many of our colleagues without graduate students lack people they can browbeat or pressure into house-sitting or providing child care for them at below market rates. Others actually have to stoop to the indignity of taking their own books back to the library and proctoring and writing their own exams! Contracts of helotage could include clauses that would make this kind of labor part of the overall servitude agreement (although the rather ugly word "servitude" is to be avoided.) We all know how hard it is to get good help these days.
Lastly, this system would reduce a lot of the social awkwardness in many departments stemming from a desire by non-tenured labor to be treated as social equals. The ambiguity of their current positions often confuses them into thinking that most of their tenured colleagues actually care about them as human beings, rather than seeing them as space fillers on the course schedule. Believe it or not, some of them even have the cheek to presume they could get hired on permanently! To make things easier on them, the position of "Messenian Associate" will clarify their position in the hierarchy and certainly reduce hurt feelings and misunderstandings.
I propose that we discuss this on the Mad Tea Party ride at 2pm this coming Sunday. I will be waiting in the yellow and red teacup.
Cheers,
Ioannis Okus
Would it be useful to publicize the candidate numbers from the placement office board online? I'm just wondering if there are people who aren't at the APA who might want to confirm that they haven't in fact been invited to a last-minute interview. Depressing, sure, but better than missing an interview, right?
Since there is presently a lull in the conversation (and I hope the APA/AHA was good to all present) I would like to ask a question: What is a reasonable number of publications for a new PhD? Is there a number at which a search committee would look unfavourably on an applicant?
Past and former SC members please weigh in. And if this has been covered, sorry, first wiki.
Apparently some APA board voted in Anaheim to hold future conventions in the period between Christmas and New Year's.
Good bye holidays with the family....
Are you sure that this decision has been made? If I remember right -- I am not sure I do -- the APA was held in the week between Christmas and New Year's back in the mid-1990s. Is there any kind of official announcement?
I guarantee you that this rumor, like many in this forum, is 100% wrong.
Wasn't there a poll conducted recently in which the majority (at least 2/3 unless I'm completely misremembering) of APA members said they preferred the current timing of the convention? The APA can be weird but I think it's unlikely they would fly in the face of a poll they conducted within the last couple of years. So, yes, I suspect the rumor is false.
What is a reasonable number of publications for a new PhD? Is there a number at which a search committee would look unfavourably on an applicant?
Zero is a reasonable number. What matters is a good dissertation. And if the publications are hurried or half-baked, as they often are, they can be positively harmful.
I've been told by people with tenure (i.e. people who have sat on SCs) that unless you have a book you mean nothing - you could have ten articles, one article, no article: you're still just potential. (Unless you're a philosopher, in which case one decent Q&A and you're set for, oh, at least five years.)
I don't know whether that impression of the (relative lack of) importance of publications is true or not.
I'll have whatever 12:06 is smoking 'cause it must be some strong shit.
Plenty of people get hired with no publications. Classics is a field that demands more time and seasoning for research than almost any other. Look how many ABDs with zero pubs were hired in the last five years. Lots and lots. If you think having three articles out is just "potential" you are crazy. Perhaps 12:06 was talking about tenure standards (for some reason), and unfortunately the monograph has become the coin of the realm in that department -- a whole other conversations piece there. Frankly, three articles in, say, CP, CA and JRS are a heck of a lot more impressive than a monograph, imho.
Generally, more (quality) publications is better, but lack of publications isn't doom.
If you read the post you would see that that was actually the point I was making. A new PhD with no publications isn't necessarily at a huge disadvantage going up for a job against someone with considerably more experience - because in both cases, without a book, the committee sees potential rather than achievement. Whether that's a good idea or not is a different question.
There is no one answer to the issue of publications. Departments differ widely as I can attest from having served on numerous search committees at SLACS and a T1. At the latter, we seldom hired anyone who did not have an article on a topic outside the dissertation research, though there were exceptions. At a SLAC, we looked for a well written article or two, though we routinely considered candidates with no publication history. At both, we adjusted our expectations based on career age. Some of my fellow committee members gave much more weight to publications than I, others much less. The same holds for tenure: I've reviewed more files than I wish to admit, and the only thing I care about is the quality of the scholarship. I frankly can't imagine giving weight to publication venue, but as you can see from previous posts others do. So, if you haven't yet landed in a dept., it's probably a good idea to aim high just to be safe.
"A new PhD with no publications isn't necessarily at a huge disadvantage going up for a job against someone with considerably more experience - because in both cases, without a book, the committee sees potential rather than achievement."
Forgive me for asking, but how does the lack of a book signal "potential" in a way that having multiple articles in peer-reviewed journals does not? It seems that articles should get rid of the new-car smell just as easily as a monograph. What am I missing?
I know you are reporting other peoples' opinions, so it isn't fair to ask this of you, but I do find it baffling!
In my experience (a half-dozen searches for a mid-ranked, mid-sized, state university over the last ten years), an SC's expectations vary according to time since PhD. An ABD without a publication is not necessarily a problem, though something submitted would be good and there should in any case be a plan for publishing the thesis and the first few articles. Someone who is two years out from their PhD should have an article or two out or accepted and signs of more to come and signs that the monograph-from-thesis is coming. An article per year is my rule of thumb -- more than that is good, less than that is a ground for concern, and quality will always win out over quantity.
An article per year is my rule of thumb -- more than that is good, less than that is a ground for concern, and quality will always win out over quantity.
Wow. Just, fucking wow. This is an absurd standard. People like you have twisted classical scholarship into a nightmarish Fisherian runaway mechanism and have ruined our profession.
An article per year. Cui bono?
Wow. Just, fucking wow. This is an absurd standard. People like you have twisted classical scholarship into a nightmarish Fisherian runaway mechanism and have ruined our profession.
"People like you?" Please. I doubt very much that this is Anon. 9:56's standard; it's profession-wide, mentioned in tons of tenure-requirement lists, even at small schools. Generally, R1s like a book and an article a year; higher caliber SLACs and universities below R1 an article a year. And there is at least one R1 that wants THREE articles a year and a book for tenure.
I'm not saying publication standards are good for the profession - they're not, since that tends to produce shoddy work, but frankly, I don't think an article a year on average (it hardly has to be every year, so long as it evens out to one a year) is onerous, especially given the many chances in the profession to publish mediocre scholarship.
the many chances in the profession to publish mediocre scholarship
And I imagine that's why some SCs are very sceptical about measuring candidates by quantity of publications. So, in light of the previous posts, if you want to impress your Dean, publish with reckless abandon and get your merit raise. But if you want a decent job, then show that you have a coherent research strategy in a field of importance with publications in prestigious venues working towards the dissemination of those particular ideas. Wishful thinking for most of us...
To Anon Jan 4 2:08
Re: Brooklyn College
YES, this job is taken. The contract is signed, the new hire is moving. I can't say it more plainly than that. The only reason I don't post this on the wiki is because I am not the new hire. Unless he gets hit by a bus, you are not getting this job.
The Michigan Daily has recently published an opinion column "Don't Cut the Classics" based on the situation at MSU.
http://www.michigandaily.com/content/daily-dont-you-cut-my-major
"If some majors show a decline in enrollment, then the coursework should be updated so that students find the relevant connections between real-world applications and what they learn in the classroom."
Judging by this quote, it sounds like they understand the situation better than the crusty sabretooths currently serving as the gatekeepers of classics.
Re: Brooklyn College
YES, this job is taken. The contract is signed, the new hire is moving. I can't say it more plainly than that. The only reason I don't post this on the wiki is because I am not the new hire. Unless he gets hit by a bus, you are not getting this job.
THIS HIRE WAS AN INSIDE JOB ANYWAY PEOPLE! GET OVER IT.
"Crusty Sabretooths" - what a great moniker!
Re: Brooklyn College
Seriously, we're now directing our angst towards a spring semester VAP position? Really, people, this is what we've come down to? Really?
Crusty? More like rigor mortis, but instead of casting votes in Chicago, they're collecting paychecks from the university and ushering in the demise of classics as an academic unit.
Crusty? More like rigor mortis, but instead of casting votes in Chicago, they're collecting paychecks from the university and ushering in the demise of classics as an academic unit.
My diss committee sadly resembled this remark. My supervisor died shortly after I turned ABD and my one outside reader didn't make it to my defense. It made for an interesting diss.
I have tons to complain about today (esp. re research expectations), but for now I'd like to point out that the AHA seems to be able to do what the APA can't. WTF?
@Anonymous 11:50AM, the fact that they didn't hire you doesn't make the Brooklyn hire an inside job. It should be relatively easy for you to do a bit of internet sleuthing to figure out who got the job and where he was before accepting the position. Then, by using a great deal of creativity, you will probably still be able to convince yourself that it was an inside hire.
Meanwhile, there are those among us who know that it was not.
I have tons to complain about today (esp. re research expectations), but for now I'd like to point out that the AHA seems to be able to do what the APA can't. WTF?
No kidding. I interviewed at both conventions this year, and the AHA method of having SCs and candidates control their own schedules makes much, much more sense than RP's scheduling. (And if she would let us know ahead of time WHEN the interviews were - not hard, ya know, in this day and age - I could have saved the price of a hotel room for a night.)
I'm anon 9:56.
anon 12:01 Wow. Just, fucking wow. This is an absurd standard. People like you have twisted classical scholarship into a nightmarish Fisherian runaway mechanism and have ruined our profession.
An article per year. Cui bono?
Cui bono? The sum of human knowledge, I suppose. In an institution where the expectation is 40% teaching and 40% research -- the other 40% is service -- is it really all that unreasonable to expect that someone will have one good idea per year that is shared with the world? That is, after all, half of the job.
And, frankly, the better applicants I've seen in searches meet this. Some quite handily. Since a SC is looking to appoint the best people we can in research, teaching, and service, they get extra attention. In short, the best way to get to our campus is to look like you'll be a solid researcher, a great teacher, and a responsible colleague. I doubt if we're unique in this.
In an institution where the expectation is 40% teaching and 40% research -- the other 40% is service -- is it really all that unreasonable to expect that someone will have one good idea per year that is shared with the world? That is, after all, half of the job.
Expectations = 40% teaching + 40% research + 40% service. 120/100 needed to get an A.
I think my students would agree that such a grading scale would be unreasonable.
I rest my case.
Anon. 8:55 -
nightmarish Fisherian may have made a typo in the math, but that doesn't vitiate his/her point. (Nor does it make the one you seem to think that you have made so cleverly.) The standard of an article a year is so common in this profession - and most humanities departments - that I don't see why there is so much resistance to those who are pointing this out. I agree that an article a year is not hard (especially crappy articles; I'm less sure about good ones). The issue is profession-wide, if not academia-wide. Arguing with Fisher ain't gonna change the facts of life.
Another factor not taken into account here or in all likelihood by many search committee members is the teaching load during these years after the degree. If one is moving from place to place and teaching a 3-3 load or higher, it seems ludicrous that the same level of publication is nevertheless expected as those in tenure track positions with a lighter teaching load, courses more likely to fit their interests, financial support for research, and pre-tenure leave. I don't know about the rest of you, but every temp contract I ever had specifically said that there were no research expectations; it is what administratively justified the heavier load. Why then should the field also punish you for having to spend more time teaching? I think the article a year mentioned here is a reasonable standard if you're teaching a 3-2 or 2-2 load; more than that including new preps and it's not realistic.
I agree that an article a year is not hard (especially crappy articles; I'm less sure about good ones). The issue is profession-wide, if not academia-wide. Arguing with Fisher ain't gonna change the facts of life.
Fair enough. Maybe my taking advantage of a math typo was underhanded. Still, your hedging here makes my point more strongly. What is the point of writing a larger number of "crappy articles?" Let me answer that. The point is to meet an arbitrary quota that has no relationship with reality. Sorry, but that is stupid. It is production for the sake of production, not knowledge. It hurts the field, distracts from more important tasks (making students excited about classics, for one), and puts ridiculous amounts of stress on us as individuals.
I don't think these are doable if for no other reason that journals take far too much time -- you can't put out an article/year simply because the refereeing system is completely broken.
I labeled our current system "runaway Fisherian" for a reason. It wasn't a throwaway phrase. I am quite serious in saying that our field's method of figuring out who ought to become employed, stay employed, and promoted, is running the field into the ground.
Look, who here thinks the current system works well? Don't defend the status quo simply by referring to the status quo! Explain why ever-escalating hiring and tenure standards are a good thing.
This back and forth is very informative (thanks to all). Since I was the one who asked the question that started this line, which didn't really get at what I was asking, I'll restate myself.
The issue discussed has been minimum publications and I'm sure that to get god status you need to be a Gibbon machine. But I'm more interested in 'too many' than 'too few' at the middle range. I'm not out of a high-end program, nor is my supervisor a star (at least not to anyone outside our easily dismissed corner of classics). I'm not bucking for an R1 or an Ivy...won't even apply. A small liberal arts college with a handful of fun and lively folks would be just bitchin' to me. Now, I like publishing articles as much as I like teaching, and I'll finish a book in a few years, God willing, despite my mongrel pedigree. I worry though that too many articles in print (mediocre or not I'll leave for others to decide) will make me less attractive to schools that value teaching over research. So, for someone gunning for a job in the middle, is there a point at which a SC will worry a candidate is just too interested in research?
Post a Comment