I don't understand these latest threads. Who is under the impression that there is some sort of fairness doctrine with regard to productivity and output in higher education? Or that expectations are (or should be) reasonable? If one doesn't want to write or publish, seek employment in places where this is clearly not of importance; if one wishes for the big state uni or the elite SLAC, be prepared to be dumped into the frying pan. Productive output is key - sure, maybe it should be balanced reasonably against classroom expectations, but giving into some kind of mantra that "I teach classes so writing is less important / deserves less of my time" is conceding defeat to the careerists who would dismantle the humanities and turn university into an anodyne 'how to' experience for tradecrafts, procedural science, hedge fund operation, etc. - money-making fields all but mostly devoid of a soul. thus we all must work (and ought to work) as hard as we can for as long as we can. Period.
... giving into some kind of mantra that "I teach classes so writing is less important / deserves less of my time" is conceding defeat to the careerists who would dismantle the humanities and turn university into an anodyne 'how to' experience for tradecrafts, procedural science, hedge fund operation, etc. - money-making fields all but mostly devoid of a soul. thus we all must work (and ought to work) as hard as we can for as long as we can. Period.
how does my writing a bunch of crappy articles that nobody reads protect the university from careerists?
classics: proudly embracing publish or perish, ignoring students.
Your question is a legitimate one. I think there is a point at which smaller schools will say "this is a research person." They may also be worried that you may want tenure or short-tenure-track when hired.
There are ways this can be balanced. I have been out a few years, published more than 7 articles in refereed publications, which articles colleagues generally seem to find good, and I used to run into the problem of SLACs avoiding me all the time, until I really built up the teaching side of my resume - portfolio and so on, talked mainly about that in my cover letters to SLACs, and really prepped those touchy-feely teaching questions some schools ask in interviews.
Incidentally, no one is going to take seriously a poster who uses ur for you are, Anon. 9:02...
7:07 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?
I can only speak of my experience on SCs (as I said) as a mid-career member for a mid-tier state university. I think the general point to be made is that we are looking at a pool of applicants and that outliers get extra scrutiny. Fewer articles than expected might have good explanation. For example, a string of VAP jobs with heavy teaching loads might provide a good enough explanation, provided that it has slowed things down and not stopped them completely. Too many articles/conferences/lectures also might attract scrutiny, especially if it looks like the goal is c.v.-padding or at the expense of other things (thesis completion or quality of teaching).
My guess is that few SCs (even in teaching-heavy places) would drop a candidate because of too many publications, especially at the APA stage, though this will presumably be of interest in the interview.
(The 40-40-40, btw, was an attempt at a joke. My apologies for it's poor delivery.)
40-40-40 wasn't lost on me at all. Seemed lowball, even. For example, at that mid-level mid-career position at the aforementioned "state uni" there's easily 30 hours/week of service to do most weeks. Unfortunately due to the permanent economic crisis departments like ours are in, there's no help- less than five faculty do their own copying, campus errands, advertising, web site maintenance, library-ordering, garbage emptying, whiteboard marker buying, event planning, room setup, reception shopping, speaker shuttling, student psychological counseling, etc. Next (interesting that it's next and not first), add 12+ hours of classes and mandatory office hours (both of which always overflow), not even counting prep and grading (which are now both necessarily minimalized, compromising the entire educational process, but let's tighten the belts here people!). Throw in some grad advising, recommendation letter writing (50-100 at a time each fall). Therefore, before I even get to sit down to do the first minute of research in any given week, I've already done 50, 60 70 hours of work. And I've got a super job, that I know many many people would kill for, and I'm thankful for it. But you're talking about an article per year? Sure, maybe at some places. But I think that's a bit out of step with what's happening in the real world.
@1:17. Too common a tale, sadly. And the shitty thing is that as our own research production is squeezed out, we undermine our ability to convince Deans (etc.) to give us positions and other resources.
These tales of woe sound all too familiar. I am up for tenure at an institution that sounds much like your own. My department is supportive, but Decanal and CPT expectations for research production have risen quite a bit since I was first hired. I am on the market now (fingers crossed!) in expectation of denial. Regardless of why I leave, we all know that I will not be replaced, and the work-load on my current colleagues will be increased ever more.
Somebody is very much aware of internet traditions, and s/he expects that people with PhDs or who are near PhDs do not speak/write like hormonal teenagers.
Or perhaps that's your problem with publishing an article a year?
Somebody is very much aware of internet traditions, and s/he expects that people with PhDs or who are near PhDs do not speak/write like hormonal teenagers.
Or perhaps that's your problem with publishing an article a year?
Whoa, somebody's looking for a fight. I'm not the person you were responding to. I just thought it was funny that you were sanctimoniously correcting the spelling in a lolcat caption, of all things, and so I figured you had no idea what you were talking about. But if you're assuring us that you're deliberately correcting the spelling in statements fictionally attributed to cats, then, well, hey. Knock yourself out.
To Anon. 1:17 etc. Are you guys serious? That is some serious exploitation! Now I have been in a couple of state schools. At both of these, TT-faculty might be expected to do 1-2 hours of service on some weeks - maybe 10 hours in extreme cases (interviews etc.) but no more. Teaching, office hours, preparations etc. altogether average between 0 (during a research quarter) and 15 hours/week. Recommendation writing might take some time, but then you would not be doing more than 5 students at once, and if they are applying to different schools I just need to do a few more clicking, cutting and pasting. I thought this was normal, and no I am not trolling here.
To the one surprised by service requirements: Someone has to be department chair (though that usually comes with a course reduction), and someone else has to be director of undergrads (and another for grads if there are grads). There are preparations for invited speakers, new courses or programs to create and get approved, and fundraising to do. There are committees for everything imaginable, and some actually meet. If the department is large enough, you can spread it around, but usually there are couple deadweights who do as little as possible, and adjuncts rightly can not be forced to participate. Just when you think everything is running smoothly, it's time for the 7-year department self-evaluation, or the university decides to change its mission statement, or the college of arts and sciences comes up with new protocols for teaching loads, and there's a new meeting every couple days to fight about something.
@3:19: You get a "research quarter"?!? It's partially that we're exploited, but it's also partially that you are insanely fortunate. It's the main street vs. wall street of classics.
To the departmental burdens listed above must be added university burdens. I have been on curriculum committees that have multi-hour meetings every week for one term with lots of 'home work' for each meeting. Double the work if you're chairing the committee. Serving on senate? The meetings are only once a month, but typically come with a couple hundred pages of reading (not all has to be read closely, of course). And with senate comes sub-committees. Or how about a committee planning a new campus -- hundreds upon hundreds of hours, only to be scrapped for a new vision and then hundreds of hours more. Yes, there are ways to avoid the work, but that just moves the work onto someone else. And if you're not playing ball, you're less well placed to ask for positions.
Not every week is like 1:17 describes, but I have had weeks in which almost every business hour is either in class or in committee and lunch is a sandwich eaten while going from classroom to committee room.
Actually, the Main Street vs. Wall Street of Classics is those without tenure-track jobs vs. those with. Those of us in the second category need to remember how lucky we are.
Question from a total newbie - I know one of my interviews has sent rejection letters. I don't know if they've extended campus invites, but I'd be surprised if they hadn't, since they bothered with rejections. I haven't heard either way. Does this mean I'm in some kind of limbo as an alternate?
That is almost certainly what it means. Most departments can bring out three people at most, and it is not impossible that all three would turn down the job. If there are other good candidates on the list, it would be stupid to get rid of them with a rejection. There are also other odd things that can go on in a search, like competition between a department and a dean about the nature of the position. In one case, 3 were brought out who fit the dean's desires, the department argued they weren't the best fit, and another three were brought in. So no news isn't great news, and you shouldn't sit around waiting for the phone to ring, but there is potential.
@ 9:30. Yes, what 12:12 says is correct. Indeed, it's my impression that a lot of places don't send any rejection letters until there's an offer has been formally accepted.
On spousal hires. At my university an appointee can request a spousal hire. Basically the spousal c.v. is forwarded to the department in question and they judge it to be worthy of appointment. If they reject it, that's the end of the matter. If they're interested, there will be a campus visit.
My guess, however, is that this handled differently in every university. If there is a formal policy, you can find it online. That is the first place to start. Then get in touch with the university's faculty association (or sim.) to ask advice.
Has anyone successfully negotiated a spousal hire at the junior level? Any tricks or words of wisdom about how to go about it?
Depends on what you're asking for, in what field, and from what kind of institution. (For the sake of argument I'll assume Classics.) Temp positions are obviously less difficult to get than tenure-track, though even a temp position can be desirable short-term, esp. if the courses are attractive and the pay is ok. Remember that your spouse can often get cheaper benefits (health insurance at least) through you, so the lack of benefits in his/her own right may be crappy but it shouldn't necessarily be a dealbreaker. If your spouse can stomach part time decanal work that can also open opportunities. In general state universities have been infinitely better about all of this than private universities, and obviously larger departments have more power and flexibility than smaller depts. In my experience (private and state) Chairs have been very sympathetic but their hands are tied by the institution and by dept. decision-making (i.e., if it were up to the Chair alone I think it would be much easier to get a better deal for your spouse; as always once multiple people start getting involved things have a tendency to go off the rails). The current economic situation, of course, makes spousal hiring even more problematic.
Advice on negotiation: be honest about what you want - Chairs appreciate that. Be reasonable - if the dept is three strong and financially screwed another tt line is probably not on the cards - ask by all means but don't expect miracles. Make a strong case for your spouse filling any available VAP / lecturer slot, even if it isn't their specialty (as long as they're happy to do it, of course!). Put some gentle pressure on the institution to help you out - they do want to hire you after all (e.g., are there non-departmental courses available that they could give your spouse?). Don't forget what may seem like smaller, more mundane stuff - office space, for instance, can make a significant, positive difference, loan of a computer, some kind of title for the cv even if it's pro forma, library privileges. If the institution isn't playing ball but you have to take the job make sure to ask for more salary (tough in the current climate but reasonable if only one of you is working or you have to travel long distances on a regular basis). Two downers: 1) if you're spouse is in another field much of the above becomes impossible (I just hope they they teach Economics or Contemporary ME History) 2) You may end up going on the market more frequently than you would want.
Marrying another academic doesn't reflect well on us supposedly smart people...
Thanks for the help. The spouse in this case is in another department, so the prospects are probably worse. On the other hand, I was under the impression that many institutions have a policy of splitting salaries between departments when it comes to spousal hires in separate fields -- is this not the case? And what do academic couples do in the end, if the likelihood of finding permanent positions for both in the same place is so slim?
I think split salary is sometimes an option even in the same department, and at some places there are couples "sharing" a single appointment. Also ask about connections with nearby schools -- some places at least claim to work together with other places to increase the options.
At my institution the chances for a spousal is actually greater if it's between two departments, but there is an actual policy to find the funding for that other position. As 10:28 says, the best thing is to be honest and realistic.
Re spousal hires, speaking as a Secondary Spouse: some schools (mine, e.g.) have programs but don't advise people about them until they're interested in Primary Spouse (at point an offer is made). So can be hard to see from outside whether there might be help. Best to concentrate on areas that have multiple schools, which might mean cities, coasts, or clusters (RTP, BMC/Haverford etc., Claremont group). Plan to be maximally flexible, including careers of all sorts outside academia. Two-body problem has always been tough; these days, everyone emotes about it but real live actual help is expletive rare. Anticipate lower salary than otherwise possible, because future outside offers will be rare, and univ. will think of you as the Couple For Whom They Did That Favor, and thus be less interested in accommodating you further. Anticipate some relationship strain on assumption Primary Spouse will get better treatment than Secondary Spouse, or that SS is working at local school that is less good (seen that several times). Secondary Spouse may experience some finger-pointing, on the affirmative action principle - the view that SS unfairly bagged a job. At my institution, gay/lesbian pairs or spouses are treated best, then those not married who hail from Europe, then straight and married, then North Americans not married. In other words, hard to know what to expect unless you ask. If you can find a pair at the target school and talk w/ them about their experience, that would be wise.
So, out of curiosity... Does anyone know what's happening with the USC (California, not Carolina) Roman historian search? The wiki has no information, which means USC has managed to fly under the radar. This doesn't impact me in any way, since I'm obviously not being considered, but I'm just wondering if they did indeed interview at the conference. Or perhaps the position has become senior-only, and that's why there have been no updates?
FWIW, I have solid information that the USC job, which was listed as an ancient history joint appointment between History and Classics, has been essentially taken over by the history department and that they are running the show. It was apparently all the Classics people could do to convince the History people to interview at the APA rather than the AHA, and it's the history department that is setting the selection criteria. I don't know if that's helpful to anyone, but that's what my source told me.
I recently received an email from a Lambert academic publishing fielding my interest in publishing my dissertation through them. Has anyone had any similar experiences? I'm not really interested in publishing my thesis; just want some articles out of it and then one chapter will provide the core of a book -- just wondering if anyone has ever had similar unsolicited contact.
Yes-- I recently was contacted by an acquisitions editor at Peter Lang Publishing expressing interest in publishing my dissertation. I didn't know what to make of it, as I'm not sure how this particular publisher is viewed in the field; and I feel suspicious because of the unsolicited contact. Admittedly, I'm inexperienced in the dissertation/book publishing process, but I thought it was supposed to work the other way around.
Perhaps not the ideal setup for an academic publication, but it doesn't appear to be a phishing scam. At least, I haven't seen any explanation as to why it's a scam...
I had occasion to look into Peter Lang last year when a job candidate claimed to have a contract with them. It is not technically speaking a vanity press. It has always mined its books from recent theses and dissertations, and for some disciplines - Classics among them - there is no guaranteed full peer review. In some fields, however, it is regarded as an OK press. My advice is to pass and work up the MS for a reputable academic press about which no questions will be asked.
Peter Lang's series "Studien zur klassischen Philologie" has some good things in it, many of them revised dissertations, though of course a book with a university press would generally carry more weight. Consult your advisers and senior colleagues on what counts where you are (or where you want to be).
While we're on the subject, any thoughts on Continuum Books? They have solicited me to write a book in an introductory classical authors series. I recognize some of the names on their author list, so am inclined to think they are legit, but any more feedback would be appreciated.
Continuum's a very reputable academic press. Not quite in the Routledge league but certainly an excellent press. I don't think they do many classics books though (clearly they're just starting a line) which is perhaps why it's unfamiliar?
And another question: does it matter if the university press you publish with is associated with your alma mater? I know Oxford and Cambridge have special series for good dissertations, but is it OK if you're at Princeton and publish your first book with Princeton UP, for example?
I think there's a difference between, say, Princeton publishing your book as an alum and Oxbridge. The latter has a specific line for theses so everybody knows that while the quality is usually good the polish and breadth can sometimes be lacking compared to books written by those five or ten years older. Princeton, on the other hand, doesn't have a specific line for dissertations, so your manuscript will be treated like any other both at the press and in reviews. Does that sound about right?
I don't know about alums publishing with university presses. I do know alums who have done this, and while their books are subjected to review, etc., often they are assigned to sympathetic reviewers - other alums, or even (in one instance) their adviser.
Rumor has it that the job description was written for a specific person. I won't name names, but she does Late Antique art and has been on indefinite leave from a t-t job she got in 2006.
I applied for the position but haven't heard a word, save for a very brief conversation with Alan Shapiro at AIA.
"I don't know about alums publishing with university presses. I do know alums who have done this, and while their books are subjected to review, etc., often they are assigned to sympathetic reviewers - other alums, or even (in one instance) their adviser."
I hate to say it, but this happens all the time across an informal network of universities. Classics is a small world. I've heard loads of stories about an advisor helping get their former student's book accepted at another former student's university press. Favorable book reviews also happen this way, with not overt signs of collusion since different universities are listed. If anything, I would say a Princeton alum getting Princeton Press to bite is an accomplishment since they know that scrutiny is sure to result.
FWIW, my advisor told me directly: "I'd love to publish your dissertation/book in the series I edit at Oxbridge, but it won't reflect well on you so you don't want that." Also FWIW: Me "Ok."
FWIW, my advisor told me directly: "I'd love to publish your dissertation/book in the series I edit at Oxbridge, but it won't reflect well on you so you don't want that." Also FWIW: Me "Ok."
That's right, but publishing in your advisor's series is different from publishing with the press housed at your alma mater. The faculty at your alma mater may not have any idea what's being published with the press, much less be involved in it. Nothing comes out in your advisor's series, though, without her/his active involvement at every stage.
I also got approached, and decided to to my homework -- starting with a Google Search for "Lang" and "vanity press." Lots of hits, including the links already posted above by Anon. 8:52. Also, the series editor of the US Classics line hasn't exactly published up a storm.
A friend got a similar offer and he actually went so far as to submit a MS, just to see. Whereupon he was told the book would be printed, but he'd be in charge of providing camera-ready copy and he'd have to pay a subvention of $4500.00. He declined.
As noted, Lang does have a better reputation in Classics and a handful of other disciplines, but others will regard it as a vanity press. I imagine that, if one had a Lang book on one's CV and one was up for tenure or promotion, a lot of special pleading to a college- or university-wide tenure committee would be involved.
The only person I know who has published through Lang had been on the job market for some years and was absolutely desperate for a tenure-track position. Understandable, but better to find a press no one can criticize come tenure-time.
How depressing is that Chronicle article. The question is will our field address the problem or just sweep it under the rug? Or, is just a simple case of well I got mine (TT job), so who cares?
I agree with those saying that you should avoid Lang. It is handing to a search committee or tenure committee a spear that any member can throw into your chest. It may not be personal -- "there are too many applications in the pile and we're looking for a way to thin them" or "My preferred candidate for the short-list needs the way cleared". Or worse, it could be personal, someone knows you and doesn't like you and wants you out of the way. Spend six more months shopping your mss around. (Publishers do want good mss.)
The only person I know who has published through Lang had been on the job market for some years and was absolutely desperate for a tenure-track position.
Chris Nappa, Helena Dettmer, Chris Blackwell, John Heath and Karelisa Hartiger all published in a Lang series. I don't think any of them were all that hurt at their tenuring reviews. People should consider actually doing a little checking before they make inaccurate statements. Really, people. CSP is not a vanity press, Lang is not a vanity press unless university libraries like to fill their stacks with self-published vanity books and university funds like to pay the subventions for Come on, people.
I don't have any first-person experience in this area, but I suspect that it depends on the school: some might accept those presses, but others won't. So I guess it partly depends on where one hopes to end up.
It's not just the department's opinion of Peter Lang (vel sim.) that counts for tenure review, it's what the external referees say about it that can really hurt. There is a penumbra of general suspicion about some presses, rightly or wrongly, in the discipline, esp. compared to better-known, 'prestige' presses. If a referee casts doubt on the press, it can torpedo a case or at least make it extremely difficult for a dept recommendation to overcome. When in doubt, go with another press; it's too risky and no one can control external referees.
While it is certainly worthwhile to alert the uninformed to the vicious and pointless prejudices that infect the status obsessed academic, it would be best to avoid passing on such views unqualified, disparaging a press and, by association, authors who have produced good scholarship.
Toodle-pip,
Poldy (who has not published with Peter Lang, but who has learned from books in the Lang Classical Studies series.)
It's not just the department's opinion of Peter Lang (vel sim.) that counts for tenure review, it's what the external referees say about it that can really hurt. There is a penumbra of general suspicion about some presses, rightly or wrongly, in the discipline, esp. compared to better-known, 'prestige' presses.
One also needs to consider that presses like Lang tend to be the ones that are willing to publish revised dissertations. It is very very hard for anyone to get tenure with nothing more than a revised dissertation published. If you publish your revised dissertation and have no intention of writing another book, then you should do it on another press. But more and more university presses are hesitant to even look at a revised dissertation and are really strapped for cash and thus reluctant to bet on an unproven horse. They are nervous about investing in new authors and want new research that can cross disciplines (these are words straight from the mouths of several editors). And this is coming at a time when there is increased pressure to publish books for tenure. Watch for more first publications/revised dissertations coming out on the smaller, independent presses. And also, remember that the content of the book, who cites it and the impact on its area of research have greater weight, actually, than the press. If a book is well reviewed and cited, that is what matters.
I just want to note that all of the people listed above as publishing through Lang also had published a wide variety of articles as well and developed names for themselves. That would have balanced out any negative associations with Lang. The people who need to watch out for presses like that are people who haven't published much else. Also, remember the P&T committees are composed of scholars from all disciplines...and in some of those disciplines Lang will not be as well-regarded as Lang Classical Studies might be.
Re: publishing your manuscript. A very recent commentator says it exactly right: if you are just touching up a thesis you are likely to get it published only by Lang (in the US) or one of several German presses. I was encouraged to publish my own thesis with a German series right after it was done. I am very glad I didn't, because some years' perspective reveals all sorts of flaws that I neither saw at the time nor are sufficiently provocative that anyone would want to cite the book.
My advice is to aim high. If you really think your thesis is awesome, go for the top places. If it's solid but not totally original (be honest with yourself...) try for a few of the places down a tier. It takes time to go this way but you are attaching your name to the book and it will sit in libraries for a very long time. That's your baby. Or maybe even you, some would argue.
p.s. It's very true that Lang has snagged some books that in my opinion are really good. But on the whole it's also true that traditionally Lang has been seen as a place of later (not necessarily last) resort. It's the subvention you have to give that makes it look that way. How is that different from a place like Brill? Good question, maybe others can answer it.
The absolute place of last resort is the Edwin Mellen press, which if they're still around will probably find you and invite you to publish with them. There's a real use for the way they do some things - think highly specialized monographs on, e.g., linguistics - that would only ever go to libraries anyway. But for a more mainstream book I would advise against it.
6:35 says: "My advice is to aim high. If you really think your thesis is awesome, go for the top places. If it's solid but not totally original (be honest with yourself...) try for a few of the places down a tier."
This is odd. It suggests publishers pick works based on relative quality rather than absolute quality, and without regard to the overall shape of the list. Publishers pick works they think they can sell, that they and the referees think contribute to the discipline in question, and that can be produced in a reasonably cost-effective manner and in a reasonably cost-effective timeframe. Why second-guess the book editors? Why assume your work is drech, or that they will think it is drech? This seems very self-defeating. It also suggests there's some kind of absolute hierarchy of presses: if you talk with colleagues who have experience of several, you might be surprised by what they say.
Why are people afraid to address the elephant in the corner? Can we not see the forest from the trees?
Because if we are good enough and smart enough then gosh darnit a search committee is going to like us. Faith moves mountains, even for people fueled by external validation.
Because if we are good enough and smart enough then gosh darnit a search committee is going to like us. Faith moves mountains, even for people fueled by external validation.
Excellent. And how does one measure "good enough" and "smart enough"? Better bring those rosaries along for the faith factor.
OK, stop kidding around. Your elephant and your forest have been discussed ad nauseam on this blog. Everybody is aware of them and looking right at them and constantly talking about them. And exactly that piece you give the URL for was linked to a week or two ago.
If you feel that the elephant needs to be further addressed—and the forest, too, don't forget the forest—then go ahead. But it's not as though we've been negligent in our elephant-addressing here.
While I'm thrilled to see that the name "Hoyt" is still around seven years after the death of Hoyt Wilhelm, whom I thought to be the last of the Hoyts, I'm astounded that some jackass thinks that he/she can violate the #1 rule of this blog by naming someone who is a colleague. You should delete your post, or else it should be deleted by a moderator, post-haste.
It appears that Hoyt Pollard is an actor, and therefore not a legitimate candidate for the WVU position (?). Also, I reckon he's only a colleague if your income comes from your work in a bluegrass ensemble. May not be a bad trajectory for a failed classicist, but the point is that mention of his name probably isn't going to cause any problems for the moderators...
According to the wiki, less than half of the schools who interviewed at the APA haven't made short-lists or brought people to campus. Or is this just a sign of people being reluctant to put up what info they already know? Seems like everyone is still recovering from Anaheim.
I'd like to know about Bryn Mawr, NYU, some of the SLACS.
Oh, it's a joke! "Hoyt Pollard" is so subtle a reference that even Dennis Miller wouldn't catch it. (According to imdb.com, he was the "Boy at Gas Station" in "Deliverance." I note that this actor's popularity is up 111%, which is probably a function of people like me heading over there to see what he's been in.)
Another word on Lang from an old hand. An student of mine published his/her dissertation through them. S/he then got a tenure-track job, but was told the Lang book would not count towards tenure because of the press. So it was right back to the starting point. It will depend on the school, but in general for young classicists it would be wiser to stay away. The department will most likely not care much, but the school will.
Re: Cincinnati: Could you be more specific with your question? Are you interested in applying for a position? Are you clarch/BA arch/Phil/Hist? If you give me specific questions, I've probably got lots of answers for you, hot off the Cincy rumor mill.
Not sure what "It's what happens when you let the grubby, whiny clarchys take over a classics department" is supposed to mean (I'm guessing it's some weird inside joke), but the department does have a huge library dedicated to nearly every aspect of the field. You can probably find faculty bios on their website, so what else is there to know? I'm with Anon. January 29, 2010 11:10 AM, though, it might be worthwhile to know whether you're looking at a job there or considering entering the program as a student.
Either way, I'll disagree with the "Pass unless you have no other options" advice. Basing my guess on just the library and faculty profiles, you could do a lot worse.
The department at Cincy does have the most money of any program in the world. You will never suffer from lack of financial support while there. They are rolling in dough. Something to take into consideration, especially in times like this when institutions are cutting back on graduate student support.
In that case, I recommend you email a current phil/hist grad student for more info. As a current UC grad student, I can say that *most* of us accept this as part of our job (fielding questions from prospies) and will be happy to help you in more detail. Grad student contact info and bios can be found at http://www.classics.uc.edu/index.php/graduate/gradstudents.
So here's my general scoop: I'm phil/hist grad student at UC. I picked UC because it was fully funded for 7 years (no need for student loans, no competition for funding), and it was interdisciplinary (I like archy!). If neither of those things interests you, then there are some far more philologically minded places you could go where the program is geared specifically for phil/hist. It is true that the concerns of archaeologists often overrun those of the phil/hist students here. That said, I am delighted with the quality of the phil/hist profs, so I certainly don't feel like I've been short changed in that department (it's just that we don't have that many of them; other departments might have 15 phil/hist).
But please do contact a student (I'd give you my email, but I have this strange desire to at least pretend to protect my anonymity here). Honestly, we get these kinds of questions all the time.
You know, it's worth saying for the benefit of any prospective grad students who are reading this IN GENERAL that it's a good idea to contact current grad students in whatever programs they're thinking of applying to. They'll usually be more blunt about what life is like than the faculty...
Ditto to anonymous 1:23. Contact more than one current grad student, if you can. The students' opinions of their department will vary widely: some probably loathe it, some probably love it.
NB: Since no one told me this when I was an undergrad, I'll tell you: if/when you get accepted to a school, they will often (usually?) pay to fly you out for a visit. Do a reasonable amount of research to decide where to apply, then, once you are accepted, you can use the campus visit to talk to many grad students and get multiple perspectives (beware, though: the smart departments will make sure that prospective students meet only or mostly happy grad students).
I would amend that to say 'unless you get admitted to a top program and they give you a written offer of a future t-t line', then go do something else productive with your life. Otherwise you'll be hitching yourself to an intellectual train that is hurtling toward the bottom of a rocky gorge. With no brakes, and only crazy engineers. good luck.
I would like to amend that to say "crazy, crusty, sabretooth engineers who are about to pull the cord on their golden parachutes and land softly in Florida while the train smolders in a hellish crater."
"what are the top ten programs right now and heading into the future?"
That's the best part. You don't know who the top five will be in ten years. It's pretty easy to pick the top twenty, but programs go up and down. So you need to predict which program will be at the top in ten years along with a hot diss topic to go with it. You also need to lather on chapstick so you can have your lips permanently pasted to your advisor's ass until you get tenure. It also doesn't hurt to know CPR to make sure your advisor stays alive long enough to clear your path to tenure. Mission impossible? Use the force, Luke.
Unless you get into a top ten, maybe even top five, program, I would seriously reconsider grad school.
Second that. Yes, you'll have to figure out who's on the way down and who's on the way up, but cachet is worth quite a bit in this field. Scroll through wikis of years past and you will see quite a few folks from the current top programs snagging jobs while ABD and otherwise completely unproven. (Some of these names are now about to be denied tenure because they never lived up to the "potential" the department saw in them.) This does not happen with every job, perhaps not even the majority, but it happens often enough that it's not a bad strategy.
The wiki will also tell you something else: what schools are getting their alums jobs. Look too for schools producing PhDs at a regular rate; if a school doesn't, the alumni network will not be very strong and that's often another asset in the job search.
If this is the way our field is going, that you can only get a job if you are a graduate of the top ten, or five, graduate programs, then all of you might as well go pack your bags and do something else. For soon, intellectual inbreeding will create an inward-looking internal culture that leads to mental rigidity and ultimately obsolescence.
Deans and provosts at places other than those exalted few will pick up on that and then say to themselves "Time to save me some budget lines and cut a major, graduate program, and department! We're not getting that many majors to begin with, and our graduates aren't getting jobs, so what's the point?"
Then, those top 5 or 10 programs can flood the market all they want with their progeny, but there will be no jobs out there for them.
This also belies an unspoken truth: not every job search out there is looking for a super-top program graduate with steller recommendations from the top research specialists in the field. Some of them actually want a person who can handle a 4/4 course load and produce scholarship on a decent level while also being able to teach competently and "relate to our students," who are most certainly not the generally upper-middle class sheltered snowflakes that inhabit many an Ivy or top-tier public R1, the type that these products of the top 5 or 10 programs might have taught, if they have any real teaching experience to begin with.
The top programs do a very good job of producing good researchers who may or may not go on to produce the next great piece of scholarship, but in general they do very little to prepare would-be academics for life in the trenches, teaching 3 or 4 courses a semester including many "service" courses that are in much greater demand than that seminar on Pindar you've always wanted to give.
There are even some schools who do not want graduates of too lofty a place. They know that such a person will not stay at their place, looking at it as just a stepping stone before their reascent into the elite few, once they get their oh-so-important book out. Sometimes they do manage that, and they wind up pissing off the department, who feel like they were being used, and sometimes they don't manage it, and wind up leaving the job altogether, which, again, results in a pissed-off department who wasted a space on what they had hoped would be a future long-term colleague, not someone who cannot handle the stress and strain of a real job.
Does it help to be a product of one of the top programs? Certainly. Academics, especially in our field, can be far too hung up on pedigree, to the point where it trumps common sense, which often indicates that a particular candidate, though he/she looks stellar on paper, will not be a good fit for their own department.
Do not, however, think that being the product of a top program will guarantee you a job, and also be aware that the job you might well land will not be the same job that your advisor and other professors in your program have. The cushy 2/2 teaching mainly graduate students is something only a very few can achieve. It is not common and not likely what most people will get.
For soon, intellectual inbreeding will create an inward-looking internal culture that leads to mental rigidity and ultimately obsolescence.
Will?
they do very little to prepare would-be academics for life in the trenches, teaching 3 or 4 courses a semester including many "service" courses that are in much greater demand than that seminar on Pindar you've always wanted to give.
Yes they do, they're called archaeologists (tell me that was low-handed after the swipe at UC above...)
As someone who would be categorized as a "philologist" on this blog, let me extend an olive branch by agreeing a bit with our downtrodden clarchs. I think the top departments in the near future, those that "get it," will be ones with a top-twenty pedigree AND a balanced department. Maybe, just maybe, a department like Harvard will continue to thrive due to the H-bomb reputation. I have serious doubts. We absolutely need a breadth of scholars who cover everything from Pindar to Byzantine archaeology. Besides a top-twenty pedigree and sub-disciplinary balance, I would look for a nice spread in where the faculty are at in their careers. This presupposes that the department will have at least ten TT/tenured faculty members. I tell my undergrads to steer clear of departments that are too small and/or too top heavy (especially with terminal associate profs). If there are no junior faculty members, the department better have a darn good reason. Even then...
The whole thing sounds like the survival of the inbred to me. I know it happens in every corner of life, but I can't help but think that there are brilliant young scholars that were left out in the cold because they didn't kiss enough asses or have a diss topic faddish enough for our tastes. More mainstream disciplines allow a number of these scholars to get through but we seem a bit more short-sighted out of presumed necessity. Whether we agree with it or not, it's been decades since we've been regularly featured in mass media, unless, gulp, our clarch brethren find something like Trajan's aqueduct. Out of sight, out of mind, as I'm sure our Michigan State colleagues can tell us.
As a clarch in a pretty good position but fighting an uphill battle to get tenure, my advice more and more to my students is to pick a side. If you like archaeology but have a strong affinity for the languages, matriculate into a classics program and take archaeology courses as electives, go on digs, attend a foreign school, etc. If you love getting dirty and the languages are more of a means to an end, matriculate into an anthropology program. You'll have to be open to doing "European archaeology" or something of that sort, but geographic speciality is becoming less relevant these days in anthro. It's about your methods, skill sets, and how interesting your work is. I've seen an increasing openness to clarchs and Aegean prehistorians in anthro. My two cents.
4/4 teaching, student advising, doing research/publishing and holding a non-T/T position, is this really the wave of the future? This does not sound so rewarding, unless you are some sort of machine. Perhaps I will not go to grad school after all.
Don't forget a student body that's becoming increasingly market-driven in their outlook. "What, I can't call you at 3am to ask what's on the exam tomorrow even though I missed 80% of the lectures? FU, I'm paying $12k for this class."
Don't forget an administration that increasingly run like a corporation, where they'll happily hire ten pimple-faced recent grads to ease their load while balking at one TT hire in five years.
There are even some schools who do not want graduates of too lofty a place.
Such words were actually spoken to me - put in the kinder tones of the question "can you actually teach our not-so-good-as-Ivy students?" - at my last APA interview.
But I take this to mean that, depending on what you're looking for, a top-ten school will not necessarily be the best place for you, especially if it doesn't have the right people for you to study what you want to study.
Yeah, but the top programs certainly have an advantage. Here's a rather telling anecdote: a friend who got a Ph.D. in Sociology at Ohio State, which has one of the top programs, was told by his professors that on the job market OSU students would often be beaten out for jobs by lesser grads from Harvards and Yales and the like because presidents and provosts like to be able to dazzle parents of potential undergrads by mentioning how many Harvard/Yale/etc.-trained faculty they have. Nothing can be done about that sort mentality...
Welcome, my son, welcome to the machine. Where have you been? It's alright, we know where you've been. You've been in the pipeline, filling in time, provided with toys and 'Scouting for Boys'. You bought a guitar to punish your ma, and you didn't like school, and you know you're nobody's fool, so welcome to the machine.
was told by his professors that on the job market OSU students would often be beaten out for jobs by lesser grads from Harvards and Yales
I'm sure that this is occasionally true. I'm also sure the OSU professors can't be especially objective about this. Are all the Princeton etc. students equally good? No. But let's not pretend they're all getting jobs on the old boys' network. I've met some of them and they're really pretty smart. Astonishing, no?
As a clarch in a pretty good position but fighting an uphill battle to get tenure, my advice more and more to my students is to pick a side. If you like archaeology but have a strong affinity for the languages, matriculate into a classics program and take archaeology courses as electives, go on digs, attend a foreign school, etc. If you love getting dirty and the languages are more of a means to an end, matriculate into an anthropology program. You'll have to be open to doing "European archaeology" or something of that sort, but geographic speciality is becoming less relevant these days in anthro. It's about your methods, skill sets, and how interesting your work is. I've seen an increasing openness to clarchs and Aegean prehistorians in anthro. My two cents.
This is sound advice, but I don't see how this prevents classics departments from getting downsized and/or eliminated. If anything, I would guess that it would speed up our demise.
Are there any additional clarchs out there willing to chime in with opinions about "choosing a side?" If it would greatly benefit clarchs, I say you go for it. From where it sit, I think everyone will lose.
Re: Choosing a side I think that the advice for archaeologists to "choose a side" is good individual advice, if not quite in the way its author intended. Right now clarchs are getting (a few) jobs in Classics departments, Art History departments, and Anthro departments, and there is still a glut of PhDs seeking TT appointments. None of these disciplines, it seems to me, is eager or able to absorb many more of our products than they already are. So the notion that Clarchs should as a group should seek to align ourselves according to one or another disciplinary definition is insane and suicidal. What would help is if grad. programs did a better job of tailoring their offerings to allow students to clearly fit at least one of these three career tracks. For some time, Berkeley and Michigan have been well known for producing clarchs that can teach in classics departments, Princeton and the IFA have been known for producing clarchs that can teach in Art History departments, and only Boston University, as far as I know has really tried to regularly produce students with Anthro theory and skills. In other programs, it has been up to the individual student to define themselves, often with difficulty. So "choose a side" is good individual advice, because the more time you spend thinking about what flavor of clarch you want to be, the better the fit of the grad. school you attend and the more you'll do while there to work on Anthro theory, or semiotics, or Greek, or whatever skills that track of the discipline expects, rather than spending your time trying to do it all. No one will believe that you can do it all.
Re: This is sound advice, but I don't see how this prevents classics departments from getting downsized and/or eliminated. If anything, I would guess that it would speed up our demise.
There may be no way to stop that demise. Only a select few places can continue with the current model of the classics department: a few large lectures (myth, history) that bulk up the numbers to compensate for the upper level language courses which have hardly any undergraduate majors in them. Those important service courses can always be re-located (enterprising History and Folklore/Anthro departments may argue that they could house those introductory courses just as well).
The real problem is that Classics departments don't really have any justification to offer for their continued existence beyond "these books are interesting, and it's important that we study them." Important to whom? "Why, to us, of course."
The elite and wealthy few can afford to keep ornaments and baubles around. Everyone else can't.
The real problem is that Classics departments don't really have any justification to offer for their continued existence beyond "these books are interesting, and it's important that we study them." Important to whom? "Why, to us, of course."
Well, I sincerely hope you're not a spokesperson for the discipline. If you mean that the study of pre-modern societies doesn't have much justification in the modern university, I'd disagree, though I'd also acknowledge that plenty of uninformed people share your view. It's our fault though, and we should certainly do a better job at explaining why things like archaeology and ancient history teach useful skills.
If you mean that Classics in particular lacks a good justification for its existence I'd like to know why, since I don't see why the archaeology of Peru or Norway is any better education for the average undergraduate. Last I heard university departments were supposed to educate and research, something that Classics can do just as well as any other department.
I think you answered your own question. To call oneself a "Peruvian archaeologist" would be quite silly. People would assume that you're a Peruvian national who does archaeology. I'm afraid calling oneself a Greek or Roman archaeologist is increasingly looked upon in the same manner. An archaeologist who digs in Peru would be a New World archaeologist who then specializes in a number of approaches and techniques. Yes, you have Incan and Mayan archaeology, but I don't know of anyone who would willingly call themselves a Mayan archaeologist as their primary designation as we do for a Roman archaeologist.
As we all know, the "West" is becoming less and less beholden to classics and it has never really been important in the East. I'm sure we've all encountered on a regular basis what an average person thinks when we say we study classics. The problem now is that people with clout (deans, museum directors, etc.) are starting to look at classics in the same manner. What? You study one century of Greece, a country the size of Louisiana? But you must study every aspect then, right? Er, em, cough... Yeah, right, we're going to hire the person doing interesting work in South Asia, thanks.
Probably very few people realize this, but classics galleries are just about all gone in museums now. As inane as it sounds, one world-class museum has combined it with their European collection and fired their curator. It also put their Egyptian collection into their African collection (firing their Egyptologist), and their Near Eastern with Asian. In a nutshell, this is what's happening with classics departments. The old definitions don't hold anymore and it will only get worse no matter how many Gladiators, Troys, and 300s are made.
Right now clarchs are getting (a few) jobs in Classics departments, Art History departments, and Anthro departments, and there is still a glut of PhDs seeking TT appointments. None of these disciplines, it seems to me, is eager or able to absorb many more of our products than they already are. So the notion that Clarchs should as a group should seek to align ourselves according to one or another disciplinary definition is insane and suicidal. What would help is if grad. programs did a better job of tailoring their offerings to allow students to clearly fit at least one of these three career tracks.
I think the point is that it's suicide to graduate from a classical archaeology graduate program, since there's one archaeology department in the entire country. As we all know, hires are made by departments, not programs. If you graduate with a mainstream classics degree influenced by archaeology (the dreaded classicist who gets dirty once in a while) rather than a clarch degree with classics lite training, you will have a much better chance of landing a junior TT position in classics. This is a fact. This is the same with art history and anthropology. If your degree is not issued by an art history or anthropology department, you're at a severe disadvantage when it comes to landing a job. It's actually quite a miracle that any clarch gets an anthropology job without that rubber stamp. How many classical archaeologists with an anthro degree have you seen landing a junior position in classics? I can maybe think of two. I can think of a whole bunch more going the other way.
So basically your advice is that archaeologists should give up and just be philologists who dabble in archaeology, letting the discipline be absorbed within Classics and even further marginalized, and we can be lapdogs who agree "of course we know that the Pindar courses are the most important thing in the curriculum, but would it be okay if I teach an upper level archaeology class once every five years." That may be better for philologists (though even this I very much doubt in the long run), but you are basically telling us all that unless we are primarily interested in texts, we should go fuck ourselves. Read the Ian Morris essay in Classical Greece: Ancient Histories and Modern Archaeologies and you'll see that the philologists have been largely successful in applying this strategy for over a century.
In defense of archaeology as a discipline, I'd like to point out that the reason there are classics programs around that do everything is that wealthy donors are interested in what archaeologists do, and are somehow willing to donate massive amounts of money to support that activity. Take archaeology out of a lot of departments, and you're left with people who read books, which is far less interesting to the average person (no offense to us philologists...). When someone asks my archaeologist friend what he does, they're always impressed (and faintly jealous) that he managed to fulfill his childhood dream. By contrast, when I tell them I'm a philologist, er, someone who studies old languages that nobody (in their right mind) actually speaks, they cough and try to change the subject.
Whether we like it or not, losing archaeology from our Classics programs means that we're less and less likely to get those random donations from interested parties. Sure, every once in a century some classical scholar dies, leaving their monies to support the study of some obscure Latin poet, but I'm not sure we should hold our breath waiting for that to happen.
The hilarious thing about this whole blog, for me, is the insane level of apparent hatred we have for our own colleagues. Phil/hist people are expected to hate (and have no respect for) their clarch counterparts, and those dirty diggers should be just as unhappy with us, mostly because they're jealous of our brains, training, and general superiority. Yet it seems to me that our field has survived precisely because our work supports the work of others in different sectors of the field. We call Classics a discipline, but all this does is eliminate our claims of interdisciplinarity - find me an epigrapher who doesn't rely as much on archaeology as philology, and you've found me a bad epigrapher, with no respect for their own medium. An archaeologist specializing in Roman villas had better be up on his younger Pliny, at least, if not his Horace, Varro, Virgil, and so on.
If I take anything from having read through hundreds of posts on this blog, it's that I should do a better job trying to understand what other people in my field do, so that I can learn to respect and appreciate them as scholars and teachers. If I invest all of my time in trying to bring them down, I'm just speeding the demise of our discipline, and I personally don't much look forward to working in the language department.
@Anon 1-31 1:13a What I specifically mean is that classics as a field has done a very poor job of trying to explain to…well…anybody why we should continue to exist as a separate field. I do not personally think of it as useless (otherwise, why did I spend so many years engaged in the pursuit of it, and continue to research in it?), but this is, as you know, the perception of many out there.
Anon 1-31 1:47a sums up the current state of the classics' hold on the minds of the public well. Not much of a hold left at all.
Sure, some might think paleography getting cut at a place like KCL is nothing for classics departments to worry about, but frankly, I don't think we are seen all that differently by deans and senior administrators looking to cut fields that bring in no money and serve very few students at the upper level. Large introductory lectures can always be taught by adjuncts (in their minds), so why have a classics department?
I think the problem is that classics, as a field, has to develop a reason for existence that speaks to as broad an audience as possible. The old power elite, who were steeped in the classics, is gone. Changes in educational policy and emphases have removed the protection the field once enjoyed. If upper level classics courses in the languages, the standard single-author let's read a nice bit of Vergil/Pindar/Horace/Euripides and talk about it course, are not drawing in more than 4 or 5 undergraduates (to count in graduate students who take the "graduate" versions of these same courses at the same time is fudging the numbers), while other fields can manage senior seminars that hit their class caps with more wanting to get in…we're in trouble.
Sadly, it may be that a radical rethink is needed. We need to move away from the "classics" label (classic to whom? Not to the vast majority of the population), and perhaps move towards "Ancient Mediterranean Studies" or something of that sort. And also strike a much better balance between philology, history and material culture in our field.
I'm not trying to start another one of those inane sub-specialty debates, but it is pretty clear that most of what current classics departments are offering is not what anyone else (students and senior administrators) wants. I don't like the "demand-driven" model at all, but do we want to survive as a field or not?
The future is pretty clear: history, if taught at all, will be absorbed by the history department, who might hire a single ancient/medieval historian who will be expected to teach broad surveys of ancient and medieval history. The languages, if they survive at all, will be in a Languages Department together with German (in precipitous decline), Russian (likewise), French (not in good shape) and perhaps a few others (Spanish seems to do well enough to be on its on in many places, but otherwise will be here too). You will have one person who will teach first-year Latin and might offer a tutorial in beginning Greek. Archaeologists are already running for the exits into Anthropology and Art History.
The Ivies and a few other private institutions, as well as a handful of flagship public places, will retain traditional classics departments, but even they might see the number of lines trimmed as every adminstrator looks to cut the budget however they can. I will feel sorry for anyone wishing to undertake graduate study at that point.
"Read the Ian Morris essay in Classical Greece: Ancient Histories and Modern Archaeologies and you'll see that the philologists have been largely successful in applying this strategy for over a century."
"I personally don't much look forward to working in the language department."
"Archaeologists are already running for the exits into Anthropology and Art History."
We've (as in the crusty sabretooths who are about to check out) made our bed for decades. It's now time for this latest generation to lie in it. Sucks to be the generation without a chair when the music stops.
In defense of archaeology as a discipline, I'd like to point out that the reason there are classics programs around that do everything is that wealthy donors are interested in what archaeologists do, and are somehow willing to donate massive amounts of money to support that activity. Take archaeology out of a lot of departments, and you're left with people who read books, which is far less interesting to the average person (no offense to us philologists...). When someone asks my archaeologist friend what he does, they're always impressed (and faintly jealous) that he managed to fulfill his childhood dream. By contrast, when I tell them I'm a philologist, er, someone who studies old languages that nobody (in their right mind) actually speaks, they cough and try to change the subject.
This is why it makes no bloody sense. Archaeology is classics' meal ticket to interdisciplinarity, funding, public interest, etc., but there is one or two on the faculty at best. Even as an ABD "philologist," I see the big picture enough to wonder why we can't just make the pie bigger? Does the hiring of an archaeologist prevent a philologist from getting hired? Are clarchs too narrowly defined to prevent more than a handful from getting hired by a department? Hell, there seems to be plenty of money for them that the rest of us can't hope to access. Why not hire two Roman archaeologists?
"Sadly, it may be that a radical rethink is needed. We need to move away from the "classics" label (classic to whom? Not to the vast majority of the population), and perhaps move towards "Ancient Mediterranean Studies" or something of that sort. And also strike a much better balance between philology, history and material culture in our field."
Well, who's playing ball and who's not? I still vividly remember a talk given at my alma mater dealing with classics and the Near East. We had people from NELC, anthro, art history, English, etc. show up. The only faculty member who showed up from classics was our resident historian/archaeologist.
"The languages, if they survive at all, will be in a Languages Department together with German (in precipitous decline), Russian (likewise), French (not in good shape) and perhaps a few others (Spanish seems to do well enough to be on its on in many places, but otherwise will be here too)."
Yes, the western languages are in steep decline. Arabic, Chinese, etc. is where it's at now. Regardless, you can see now why it's so enticing to group all the western languages together, including Greek and Latin. A perfect example of our foolishness is how we've rarely embraced modern Greek langauge and culture into our fold, therefore expanding our reach and relevance. I know of plenty of classics departments that have turned down or abused money given to them by the local Greek community, which is usually willing to give more than they're comfortably able to. In one case, the money was used clandestinely to hire a full-time Latin lecturer?!
Classics will indeed die, in lockstep with the assertion that it has no purpose. It deeply saddens me that WE are the ones making that assertion, and on a job-hunting blog at that!
Instead, we might assert that the study of the past explains (and helps critically interrogate) the present. The reasons why power and wealth and health are presently distributed in the pattern that they are - i.e., more to some and less to others around the globe - are directly connected to historical events and circumstances, and the Greco-Roman past as accessed through literary and material culture is (arguably) one rather good place to start investigating them.
THAT is our justification for existence, one which Peruvian archaeologists, Cormac McCarthy scholars, medieval Icelandic historians, Byzantine musicologists etc. etc. can't quite claim in exactly the same way.
And, since someone brought his earlier essay up, here's another good IM quote, since he seems to be someone who combines classics, history, and archaeology quite well (and probably wouldn't ever try to justify the study of classics with only "the texts are kinda interesting"): "Archaeology is cultural history or it is nothing. I hold this truth to be self-evident." Maybe reading essays like these might help people understand why what we do is, in fact, really important.
I think the point is that we - philologists, historians, archaeologists - have fucked ourselves (but here's looking at you especialy, crusty sabretooths). We can't trot out the good ole "we're the oldest interdisciplinary endeavor" and then quickly grab the token historian/archaeologist whenever trouble is at our gates when in fact the fossilized disciplinary foci (at least to the public - another translation of Homer, anyone?) indict us with our irrelevance to 99% of the world - and growing.
was told by his professors that on the job market OSU students would often be beaten out for jobs by lesser grads from Harvards and Yales
I'm sure that this is occasionally true. I'm also sure the OSU professors can't be especially objective about this. Are all the Princeton etc. students equally good? No. But let's not pretend they're all getting jobs on the old boys' network. I've met some of them and they're really pretty smart. Astonishing, no?
So are you being argumentative just to show off or something? Neither I nor my friend claimed that there aren't well-deserving Ivy League grads beating out OSU students for sociology jobs. Good to see our president isn't the only one arguing against strawmen these days...
Mehercle. Anon 8:50 (1/31) just said the single most sensible, proactive, intelligent thing I have seen on this blog since it's inception. For once, I regret our mass anonymity *not* because I want to throttle someone, but because I truly want to shake this person's hand and buy them a drink in San Antonio.
This is the kind of attitude we all should have if any of us want to continue to feed ourselves, and want our discipline - singular! - to continue when all of our own volumes are moldering on the shelves. Shame on the rest of you separatist bastards. I'm taking this as a warning and changing my increasingly skeptical thoughts immediately.
If you are an archaeologist and even maybe a historian, you have some cred. If you aren't...let me be blunt...go throttle yourself. As for me, I'll be gone faster than you can say Cicero if one of my CAA interviews come through.
I vote for blowing this taco stand. If you are able, I would leave. What are you waiting for? Crusty sabretooths to die off only to be replaced by young sabretooths in training? It's been the same for 100 years. The paradigm is not going to change radically. Make no mistakes about it. They WILL go down with the ship; don't go with them. Don't foolishing teach their large service courses, kiss public ass, and be forced to where a fedora at the classics outreach fair while they happily sit in their corner offices planning their next sabbatical.
Don't foolishing teach their large service courses, kiss public ass, and be forced to where a fedora at the classics outreach fair while they happily sit in their corner offices planning their next sabbatical.
Now, does anyone know what qualifies one to be a senior lecturer versus a lecturer? I'm looking at the Vanderbilt positions in particular.
I taught at a school with this distinction in title once. I think it's largely titular in difference, indicating a longer-term contract, maybe better benefits and pay, etc. Also probably more administrative responsibilities within the department than your normal VAP.
An archeologist who thinks that the non-archeologists are just people who read books that no one cares about, or that donors are only willing to give money to archaeology--how can this person not be a bad archeologist? Don't archeologists have to, like, have evidence, and the humility of a good scientist, and sufficient sample size?
"Don't archeologists have to, like, have evidence, and the humility of a good scientist, and sufficient sample size?"
Humility? In a blog having anything to do with Classics? LMFAO! Most hilarious joke to date!
But seriously, which archEologist was this? I would also like to disparage them, but can't find any entry on the blog making such claims about archeology, donors, science, or samples.
A philologist who thinks that turning up new information about the society within which their authors lived is worth derision - how can this person not be a bad philologist?
Hi, kettle.
We can run around this track for a few more centuries if y'all want. Clearly we haven't worn out our largely stupid protestations yet.
The nadir of this blog? No, I have faith we can do worse.
Humility? In a blog having anything to do with Classics? LMFAO! Most hilarious joke to date!
Impotent rage aside (and really, it wouldn't be the Internet without it, would it?), is this degree of Comic Book Guy dorkiness really representative of the Classics community?
We're not disparaging archaeologists' work; good archaeologists do great work. What was challenged was the claims that Classics depts exist because donors wanted to give money for archaeology (just false), that donors now only want to give money for archaeology (not the ones I talk to--who like archaeology, history, language, philosophy and literature in equal doses), that donors and students aren't interested in people who talk about books (people can be boring or interestign when talking about different kinds of evidence or texts), and the idea of using anecdotal evidence (the small sample size") about people getting excited by talking to one archaeologist friend to support any of this.
My own perspective, of course, may be limited by having been at four places where no one has their head up any orifices on any of these issues.
How about some advice for those of us still on the hunt. All the job market tips out there are aimed for the coveted TT job, but what about applying for temporary / sabbatical fill-in positions? For example, when it comes to cover letters, should you focus as much energy on your research as you would for a TT job? Or should your teaching experience and philosophy come first and foremost, even if it is for a position at Big Research University?
"For example, when it comes to cover letters, should you focus as much energy on your research as you would for a TT job?"
Whoa. I'm on a search committee right now, at a small liberal arts college, and we happen to be more concerned about your teaching than your research. Yes, I know, you are (probably) a grad student or recent grad and all jazzed up on your special field. But we -- and I think some other schools out there -- are concerned with what you are doing in the classroom, so you might want to read about the background of the school to which you are applying, to get a fair idea of what they want and need. ESPECIALLY if it is a non-TT job, because you are being brought in to teach, to fill classrooms, to create majors (or at least get non-major undergrads interested). Some of us really DON'T care about your research. Don't take it personally, but if you have made it this far (past ABD), you're probably a decent scholar with active research interests. We understand that. You don't have to begin every cover letter with a summary of your diss -- and you shouldn't. Be smart, study the school and its learning environment, and write accordingly...
"Be smart, study the school and its learning environment, and write accordingly..."
Precisely, for a SLAC I couldn't agree more that the focus should be teaching. But what about a temp job at a research institution? Does the temp teaching-oriented nature of the job override research considerations?? I am guessing that they are concerned with what you would bring to the classroom, but all that advice about dissertation / research is nagging my over-analyzing brain...
I have found it very useful in the cover letter for a temporary job to focus on teaching. Temporary jobs have the advantage that often you know, or can find out, what they need taught, and address that specifically in letter or interview. I would mention research, but briefly. I will usually put this after teaching, prefaced by something like: "I realize this is a temporary, teaching-oriented position, but I would like to take a moment to tell you about my research." Then really take a moment - nothing that will take longer than a minute for an SC member to read. They may not care, but it does show that you are a 2-D candidate.
Why are lists of job talks with speakers' names being posted on the FV boards? The rules of the boards under the "Three Simple Rules" thread CLEARLY state "No names, no matter what the context." If you've got to show off that you've web-stalked a department and found their job candidates, just post the link to the talks page.
This is an invitation to violation of privacy and even character assassination and general bad behavior, as we've seen happen on the FV blog in years past. I thought we'd all learned that rule by now.
Clearly a post has been (rightfully) deleted- a post with the names of people giving job talks at a university/college. Could someone who saw/made this post do as suggested and give the URL link instead?
Don't you find this blog's "constitution" about the availability of information a little ironic, since it purports to counter the lack of transparency in the field in all other arenas?
I don't know how long you've been reading FV, but no names been a policy since the beginning. And in years past, when names have been brought up, or people pretty clearly identified by all but name, there has been a lot of unpleasant bashing.
Names on a shortlist are usually something that anyone with an internet connection and a little time to waste can find out easily. I see no need to post them here or on the boards. If nothing else, it's courtesy towards one's colleagues, who may not want their named bandied about on the internet and subjected to discussions of their fitness for a job or claims 'f "internal candidate! no wonder s/he got the job."
If you want to name names, start your own blog. You'll see it can pretty nasty pretty quickly.
Thank you for letting us know about the problems on the FV Boards.
The "No Names" policy is long-standing and non-negotiable.
Comments here too often do degenerate into tedious sniping. Even so, we have resisted from more directed editorial interventions, holding the belief that even raucous, wide-ranging discussions are ultimately healthy and beneficial.
Combination of graduate school, unbelievable departmental strife*, and reading these comments has once again put suicide on the "possible/probable alternatives" list.
* yes, worse than your department
wtf did I do with my life?
This post isn't melodrama; it's desperation, guilt, and an Oedipal moment of clarity. The atmosphere here is cheery compared with other places.
would have been better not to have been born. at least then I wouldn't have to live & die with the knowledge that a simple choice to study the classics has wasted my talent, the best years of my life, taxpayers' money, and university resources. Would that I could unsee, plodding into the future with no weight of foreboding. But apparently I tied the millstone around my own neck at the age of 14, blinded by the glory of the past.
P, I wouldn't be so harsh with myself. It's like watching a victim of a ponzi scheme killing himself while the perp sleeps at night without a guilty conscience. Yes, it especially sucks when the "payoff" you envisioned was a total mirage, but do try to focus on the real, albeit minor, payoffs that weren't a part of the sell. I know this is how I've moved on and produced some opportunites for a brighter future. GL
There are many ways to lead a happy life, Pollux. Many! So what if being an academic isn't one of them. Chaucer knew this: "What sholde he studie, and make hymselven wood, Upon a book in cloystre alwey to poure...". And it killed Casaubon: "He died in great suffering on the 1st of July 1614. His complaint was an organic and congenital malformation of the bladder; but his end was hastened by an unhealthy life of over-study..." If you are in gradschool finish -- sprint to the end and get the fuck out. If you are finished, have a drink, get laid, find God. Surely there is more to life than Thoth's library stuffed with coffined papyri! Isn't it a truth in evolution that specialization leads to extinction? We shouldn't think of ourselves as one-trick hedgehogs.
Thanks for the comments, especially considering that my melodrama was posted in a depressed, sodden haze.
It's difficult not to feel immensely stupid for choosing a path that once seemed above the grime, the filth that now appears to coat every surface in sight.
I'm becoming utterly spent, a fish thrashing vigorously but hopelessly - entangled as it is in a fine net.
We all need to sprint. And get laid. Or sprint to get laid. Just get me out of this hellhole and away from its resident demons. Sometimes it seems that Virgil is leading me to the ninth circle, that I have to see and experience the worst of the worst before climbing back out of the pit.
Pollux, I pretty much feel the same way (except I'm too much of a coward to consider suicide). I've been around for a while, gotten close to t-t jobs often but never been the chosen one. I've fulfilled all other professional obligations expected me - researching, publishing well, teaching well, advising, attending conferences. Etc. Frankly I'm not interested in putting any more of my time and effort into preserving the terrible system academia often is, so this is my last year on the market. I decided that well before starting this year's applications, so by now I'm used to the idea. But I felt exactly the same way you did a few months ago. I don't know whether you don't have a t-t job or a difficult professional situation, but figure out what else you might enjoy doing, and go for that. Focus on the benefits you got from the field - study abroad, friendships, spouse, etc. Sell all your classics books, or use them as doorstops. You'll feel liberated.
No, no...don't sell your books. Nothing (for me) was so sweet as spending a lazy evening eating apples, reading Virgil, and knowing I would never again be tested on him. Though, I admit to some slightly uncomfortable pangs of grief that there was no one with whom I could share the sidesplitting too-much-ness of 'largoque umectat flumine uultum'. And you might want to write something for shits and giggles after the funk fades.
Just out of curiosity: how many of you would bother to write/publish knowing that a TT or even stable work is not going to happen? Who would for fun?
Pollux, let me just say that years after leaving classics, various benefits of my time in grad school have emerged - some personal, some work-related. I have more free time than I would have otherwise, more friends, more hobbies. At the moment the time you've spent in school is a much larger percentage of your life than that period will be twenty or thirty years from now. Please be of good cheer.
Just out of curiosity: how many of you would bother to write/publish knowing that a TT or even stable work is not going to happen? Who would for fun?
I certainly would: I'm giving the academic path all I can but if it doesn't work out I'll still write and research, and try to get published: I love what I do, and even if I can't do it full-time I'll still pursue it in my spare time. Surely we all feel the same, right? It's not like anyone becomes an academic for the money, after all...
I'd also continue to read, think things over, and be "engaged." My rate of publication, however, would be much less since I wouldn't feel forced to publish for the sake of publishing. I'd like to think that the quality of my work would be much, much higher since I could choose my battles carefully, and spend more time articulating my positions. The current system results in a vomitorium of "scholarly product" beneficial only to the status-seeking game amongst institutions. To no longer be a pawn in that game could be liberating.
As I've been involved in a T-T search this year, I'd like to offer a few observations that might prove helpful to those of you either on the market, or going to be there soon. These are comments generated through discussion with the entire T-T committee, and might be of value to some of you out there. I apologize if they sound critical or picky; they are meant to be helpful and give you a sense of what is and is not acceptable (to our school, at least)...
(a) Please use large font size (at least 12) in your letters and CVs. If we can't read it, we won't read it. Also, please observe 1-inch margins in your cover letters...
(b) Keep the discussion of your research shorter. This, of course, depends upon the school. But a lot of us want to hear about your teaching, so think about the school and its needs, please. If teaching is an important component of the job, discuss teaching FIRST in your cover letter...
(c) If you choose to use Interfolio to disseminate your materials, DO NOT have them send a cover letter for you. This screams "Your school really isn't good enough for me to consider spending any time personalizing my papers and I haven't done any research on your program." PERSONALIZE your letters more than just inserting the name of the school. Committees appreciate this. If you don't engage the committee with at least a sense that you have done some research, you will be off the short list very quickly.
(d) Proof your letters. The worst errors actually appear in the reference letters (you wouldn't believe the carelessness there), but there is no excuse for sloppiness.
(e) Don't overpad your CV. Only include publications that have been accepted by a press and are in press. Working on a submission does NOT count as a publication. For that matter, do NOT list talks that you haven't presented yet. If you do so, make it clear that you were invited to give the talk, that does count for something.
The comments from "A Concerned Colleague" are helpful, and he/she should be thanked for taking the time to make them. But I would disagree with the suggestion that you not list works in progress on a c.v., or talks that have not been given yet. These should be clearly labeled, and don't count for much, and they are not "publications," but if someone is working on an article or talk that I can ask about in a interview at the APA or on campus, that can be a good chance to see how the person discusses something other than the diss. And if the person mainly works in an area far from mine but is doing an article closer to my area, that could lead to (literally has led to) an interesting discussion. Still, the advice not to "pad" is good--don't have too many of these, and remember to prune that list next year depending on whether things panned out.
Fair enough. And I didn't mean to imply that works in progress were not important, since it IS important to know where the candidate is going in terms of research interests and a candidate should make that clear to a committee. No question. But I (and some others on the committee) personally find it more effective when the candidate discusses his/her current and future interests in his/her letter of application, as many choose to do. To include such material on a CV seems like filler. For those people completing their diss, we KNOW you probably haven't had time to publish, that's fine. But we had several people list three or four ideas that they were germinating, far from actual publication, and it seemed a bit much. Again, just my two cents...
Thanks to the previous two posters for advice. It would be helpful to know what kind of institution you work for. In my experience (at an Ivy and a SLAC) the (variously composed) hiring committees seemed not to be overly concerned about most of the considerations listed, except the SLAC committees, rather obviously, preferred a bit more on teaching (but they still wanted to hear about research). In other words, best to follow the tips of the two posters but not every committee has the same standards - so don't freak out if you've organized/formatted your cv differently. (But don't try to be interesting in your formatting/fonts - that usually ends badly - take a look at the Placement book if you don't believe me... Clearly some frustrated amateur graphic designers out there.)
I definitely see where "concerned colleague" is coming from, but if I may, what is the big deal with using interfolio to send your cover letter? How does that show a lack of personalization? If you are going to spend the money to send references and other materials using their service, what is the harm in including the whole packet? You can easily personalize your cover letter for each school and upload it....
Mostly, this upsets me because I HAD to use interfolio as I am located overseas, and it would have been atrociously expensive and unreliable to snail mail back to the US using a reliable express service. I worried about my applications being dismissed unfairly by crotchety committee members - looks like my fears may have been right...
Regarding Interfolio, I did not mean to imply that your letters were being dismissed automatically. At least, I certainly hope that no committee would do that -- ours did not. But what I found in comparing the Interfolio letters with those sent directly by candidates was that the latter tended to personalize the letters to the institutions to a higher degree, thereby engaging the committee's interest more fully. If you choose to use Interfolio, fine. But be sure to personalize your letters; many of those that came from Interfolio read more like form letters than sincere applications of interest...
"PERSONALIZE your letters more than just inserting the name of the school."
This type of request for personalization, I admit, has often left me confused.
What sort of research and personalization should candidates really do, aside from addressing the (sometimes vague) needs listed in the job advertisement and generally distinguishing between small, teaching focused schools and large research focused schools?
What sort of things is the candidate to discover? The research and teaching tendencies of current faculty? The school's mission statement?
When does the effort outpace the reward?
Incidentally, a letter from interfolio does not mean that they are not personalized. I have no choice but to use it as that is how my school sends out letters of rec., but I write and upload a specific letter for each school (although admittedly of differing degrees of personalization)
On sending cover letters through Interfolio, I have never done this, but I know those who do, and what they do is write a cover letter for each individual school, upload it to Interfolio, and include that in the packet for that school. (Your Interfolio account has plenty of space for all this.) I don't think this is what Concerned Colleague is referring to, but to generic cover letters sent through Interfolio. You wouldn't do that if you were mailing everything yourself, so why do it through Interfolio?
I agree completely: the problem of generic cover letters has nothing to do with interfolio. One can just as easily send generic cover letters by hand, but there seems to be some vague sense by concerned colleague (not to pick on you personally, but you raised the issue) that interfolio = lack of effort on the candidate's part.
It's about time that we bring our field technologically into the 21st century. Interfolio is a lifesaver for certain candidates, or simply required by many universities for references. Let's try and not let our deep seated anti-technological biases creep into evaluating potential colleagues.
There are no deep-seated biases here against technology. I was one of the first people in the country to teach online, I'm well aware of how useful technology can be. In fact, had Interfolio been around when I was on the market, I have the suspicion that I would have used it too, and have been glad to have the convenience. I just believe that some people take that convenience for granted. If not that, then I have to presume that they don't care enough about the job to put time or effort into crafting a letter that looks more like a form...
In fact, to answer what Anon 2/15 4:46 asked, there are many ways to personalize a letter, most of which can be determined by simple common sense. Here are a few examples:
(a) If the school has a mission statement prominently on the website and mentions it in numerous places, such as a department webpage, then pay attention. The school obviously takes it seriously (or needs to give it lip service), and wants a candidate to address the concerns of the mission.
(b) Discern what the teaching load at the school is. That will help you figure out the priorities of the faculty, or at least what their burdens are, and to shape your letter accordingly. Those of you in a large research institution, or who went to a selective SLAC: 2-2 teaching load is NOT a normal load. Do not presume that it is, or seem to do so in your letter.
(c) Note the size of the department and use it to your advantage in the letter. Use some judgment here: even if you want to, don't expect to teach Greek epigraphy at a very small program of 2-3 professors who are obviously trying to cover the basics. Ask yourself what is needed and what is popular, not necessarily what you want and what your special field is.
(d) Note the location of the school, and have something to say about that, if relevant. Yeah, most people will go anywhere for a job. But if you have something useful to say, chime in. One person wrote that they had a cousin attend our school and had visited - it showed us that they knew something about us, they weren't applying blind. Useful? Probably not. But it certainly stuck, all of the committee noticed it...
(e) Rework your CV to reflect the priorities of the school. If it is a school where you will do a lot of teaching, put teaching higher up on your CV. Put research and publication lower. Get the information that a committee member wants to his/her attention as quickly as possible.
Those are just a couple of ideas that might work. And one more: try some humor. Really. Some of the best teaching statements I read had something fun to say. To me that reflects a sense of humor, of delight, and someone who will likely be fun in the classroom. Yes, I'm at a SLAC, so perhaps it is something that only we prize. But it does tell me something about the person, and that's all to the candidate's advantage...
A Concerned Colleague wrote: "For that matter, do NOT list talks that you haven't presented yet. If you do so, make it clear that you were invited to give the talk, that does count for something."
Could you clarify what you mean by invited: where do "refereed" talks (APA, CANE, etc.) fall in this scheme? You proposed the talk to the APA, e.g., then technically by accepting they invited you to come give it. Is that the category you mean? I'm trying to think what an UN-invited talk looks like. ??
My sense is -- and you can see this on a number of CVs -- that "uninvited talks" are basically *in-house* grad talks. I made this mistake at one point, and one of my advisers rightly jumped on it. FWIW, if you're junior, be prepared to explain any non-APA, CAMWS, CAAS, etc. talks, esp. if they're grad student conferences, which are technically peer-reviewed, but tend to invite more suspicion (wrongly, I think) than other peer-reviewed, but non-professional, conferences.
I remember last year that somebody on FV criticized the practice of listing job talks on a CV. I have to agree; while "invited," they're not *invited* "invited." And what's the benefit in any case? If it was at a SLAC, you're more or less advertising that you were a finalist, but didn't get the job (not necessarily bad, but not unambiguously good as well). If it's at a research institution, I could see the temptation, but why risk having to address the context of that particular talk in an interview setting?
Basically, I'd simply list talks given in peer-reviewed contexts (i.e. CFP, "blind" refereeing, etc.) and be done with it.
If you're on the market and don't have any talks, please note that CAMWS is an extremely good and useful venue. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that CAMWS is a better (albeit less prestigious) place to give a paper than the meat market that is the APA....
937 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 601 – 800 of 937 Newer› Newest»I don't understand these latest threads. Who is under the impression that there is some sort of fairness doctrine with regard to productivity and output in higher education? Or that expectations are (or should be) reasonable? If one doesn't want to write or publish, seek employment in places where this is clearly not of importance; if one wishes for the big state uni or the elite SLAC, be prepared to be dumped into the frying pan. Productive output is key - sure, maybe it should be balanced reasonably against classroom expectations, but giving into some kind of mantra that "I teach classes so writing is less important / deserves less of my time" is conceding defeat to the careerists who would dismantle the humanities and turn university into an anodyne 'how to' experience for tradecrafts, procedural science, hedge fund operation, etc. - money-making fields all but mostly devoid of a soul. thus we all must work (and ought to work) as hard as we can for as long as we can. Period.
... giving into some kind of mantra that "I teach classes so writing is less important / deserves less of my time" is conceding defeat to the careerists who would dismantle the humanities and turn university into an anodyne 'how to' experience for tradecrafts, procedural science, hedge fund operation, etc. - money-making fields all but mostly devoid of a soul. thus we all must work (and ought to work) as hard as we can for as long as we can. Period.
how does my writing a bunch of crappy articles that nobody reads protect the university from careerists?
classics: proudly embracing publish or perish, ignoring students.
ur doing it wrong!
Re: Brooklyn College
The hire has been hit by a bus! Bring in the next monkey.
To Anon. 7:07 am:
Your question is a legitimate one. I think there is a point at which smaller schools will say "this is a research person." They may also be worried that you may want tenure or short-tenure-track when hired.
There are ways this can be balanced. I have been out a few years, published more than 7 articles in refereed publications, which articles colleagues generally seem to find good, and I used to run into the problem of SLACs avoiding me all the time, until I really built up the teaching side of my resume - portfolio and so on, talked mainly about that in my cover letters to SLACs, and really prepped those touchy-feely teaching questions some schools ask in interviews.
Incidentally, no one is going to take seriously a poster who uses ur for you are, Anon. 9:02...
7:07 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?
I can only speak of my experience on SCs (as I said) as a mid-career member for a mid-tier state university. I think the general point to be made is that we are looking at a pool of applicants and that outliers get extra scrutiny. Fewer articles than expected might have good explanation. For example, a string of VAP jobs with heavy teaching loads might provide a good enough explanation, provided that it has slowed things down and not stopped them completely. Too many articles/conferences/lectures also might attract scrutiny, especially if it looks like the goal is c.v.-padding or at the expense of other things (thesis completion or quality of teaching).
My guess is that few SCs (even in teaching-heavy places) would drop a candidate because of too many publications, especially at the APA stage, though this will presumably be of interest in the interview.
(The 40-40-40, btw, was an attempt at a joke. My apologies for it's poor delivery.)
nightmarish Fisherian, don't apologize -- those of us drowning in service got the joke (I've often heard the breakdown as 50-50-50).
40-40-40 wasn't lost on me at all. Seemed lowball, even. For example, at that mid-level mid-career position at the aforementioned "state uni" there's easily 30 hours/week of service to do most weeks. Unfortunately due to the permanent economic crisis departments like ours are in, there's no help- less than five faculty do their own copying, campus errands, advertising, web site maintenance, library-ordering, garbage emptying, whiteboard marker buying, event planning, room setup, reception shopping, speaker shuttling, student psychological counseling, etc. Next (interesting that it's next and not first), add 12+ hours of classes and mandatory office hours (both of which always overflow), not even counting prep and grading (which are now both necessarily minimalized, compromising the entire educational process, but let's tighten the belts here people!). Throw in some grad advising, recommendation letter writing (50-100 at a time each fall). Therefore, before I even get to sit down to do the first minute of research in any given week, I've already done 50, 60 70 hours of work. And I've got a super job, that I know many many people would kill for, and I'm thankful for it. But you're talking about an article per year? Sure, maybe at some places. But I think that's a bit out of step with what's happening in the real world.
@1:17. Too common a tale, sadly. And the shitty thing is that as our own research production is squeezed out, we undermine our ability to convince Deans (etc.) to give us positions and other resources.
@ 1:17 & 1:58.
Oimoi talas!
These tales of woe sound all too familiar. I am up for tenure at an institution that sounds much like your own. My department is supportive, but Decanal and CPT expectations for research production have risen quite a bit since I was first hired. I am on the market now (fingers crossed!) in expectation of denial. Regardless of why I leave, we all know that I will not be replaced, and the work-load on my current colleagues will be increased ever more.
On and on it goes, where it stops, nobody knows.
Incidentally, no one is going to take seriously a poster who uses ur for you are, Anon. 9:02...
Uh oh! Sounds like somebody is not aware of all internet traditions.
Somebody is very much aware of internet traditions, and s/he expects that people with PhDs or who are near PhDs do not speak/write like hormonal teenagers.
Or perhaps that's your problem with publishing an article a year?
An article a year and I can have tenure?
Somebody is very much aware of internet traditions, and s/he expects that people with PhDs or who are near PhDs do not speak/write like hormonal teenagers.
Or perhaps that's your problem with publishing an article a year?
Whoa, somebody's looking for a fight. I'm not the person you were responding to. I just thought it was funny that you were sanctimoniously correcting the spelling in a lolcat caption, of all things, and so I figured you had no idea what you were talking about. But if you're assuring us that you're deliberately correcting the spelling in statements fictionally attributed to cats, then, well, hey. Knock yourself out.
Sounds like somebody is not aware of all internet traditions.
Please don't feed the troll.
To Anon. 1:17 etc.
Are you guys serious? That is some serious exploitation!
Now I have been in a couple of state schools. At both of these, TT-faculty might be expected to do 1-2 hours of service on some weeks - maybe 10 hours in extreme cases (interviews etc.) but no more. Teaching, office hours, preparations etc. altogether average between 0 (during a research quarter) and 15 hours/week. Recommendation writing might take some time, but then you would not be doing more than 5 students at once, and if they are applying to different schools I just need to do a few more clicking, cutting and pasting. I thought this was normal, and no I am not trolling here.
where are the trolls? have i entered some fantasy blog?
Trolls? I am your man!
To the one surprised by service requirements:
Someone has to be department chair (though that usually comes with a course reduction), and someone else has to be director of undergrads (and another for grads if there are grads). There are preparations for invited speakers, new courses or programs to create and get approved, and fundraising to do. There are committees for everything imaginable, and some actually meet. If the department is large enough, you can spread it around, but usually there are couple deadweights who do as little as possible, and adjuncts rightly can not be forced to participate. Just when you think everything is running smoothly, it's time for the 7-year department self-evaluation, or the university decides to change its mission statement, or the college of arts and sciences comes up with new protocols for teaching loads, and there's a new meeting every couple days to fight about something.
@3:19: You get a "research quarter"?!? It's partially that we're exploited, but it's also partially that you are insanely fortunate. It's the main street vs. wall street of classics.
To the departmental burdens listed above must be added university burdens. I have been on curriculum committees that have multi-hour meetings every week for one term with lots of 'home work' for each meeting. Double the work if you're chairing the committee. Serving on senate? The meetings are only once a month, but typically come with a couple hundred pages of reading (not all has to be read closely, of course). And with senate comes sub-committees. Or how about a committee planning a new campus -- hundreds upon hundreds of hours, only to be scrapped for a new vision and then hundreds of hours more. Yes, there are ways to avoid the work, but that just moves the work onto someone else. And if you're not playing ball, you're less well placed to ask for positions.
Not every week is like 1:17 describes, but I have had weeks in which almost every business hour is either in class or in committee and lunch is a sandwich eaten while going from classroom to committee room.
It's the main street vs. wall street of classics.
Actually, the Main Street vs. Wall Street of Classics is those without tenure-track jobs vs. those with. Those of us in the second category need to remember how lucky we are.
"how lucky we are"
Indeed. But nothing wrong with letting those coming up what they're getting into.
Question from a total newbie - I know one of my interviews has sent rejection letters. I don't know if they've extended campus invites, but I'd be surprised if they hadn't, since they bothered with rejections. I haven't heard either way. Does this mean I'm in some kind of limbo as an alternate?
That is almost certainly what it means. Most departments can bring out three people at most, and it is not impossible that all three would turn down the job. If there are other good candidates on the list, it would be stupid to get rid of them with a rejection. There are also other odd things that can go on in a search, like competition between a department and a dean about the nature of the position. In one case, 3 were brought out who fit the dean's desires, the department argued they weren't the best fit, and another three were brought in. So no news isn't great news, and you shouldn't sit around waiting for the phone to ring, but there is potential.
@ 9:30. Yes, what 12:12 says is correct. Indeed, it's my impression that a lot of places don't send any rejection letters until there's an offer has been formally accepted.
Has anyone successfully negotiated a spousal hire at the junior level? Any tricks or words of wisdom about how to go about it?
On spousal hires. At my university an appointee can request a spousal hire. Basically the spousal c.v. is forwarded to the department in question and they judge it to be worthy of appointment. If they reject it, that's the end of the matter. If they're interested, there will be a campus visit.
My guess, however, is that this handled differently in every university. If there is a formal policy, you can find it online. That is the first place to start. Then get in touch with the university's faculty association (or sim.) to ask advice.
Has anyone successfully negotiated a spousal hire at the junior level? Any tricks or words of wisdom about how to go about it?
Depends on what you're asking for, in what field, and from what kind of institution. (For the sake of argument I'll assume Classics.) Temp positions are obviously less difficult to get than tenure-track, though even a temp position can be desirable short-term, esp. if the courses are attractive and the pay is ok. Remember that your spouse can often get cheaper benefits (health insurance at least) through you, so the lack of benefits in his/her own right may be crappy but it shouldn't necessarily be a dealbreaker. If your spouse can stomach part time decanal work that can also open opportunities. In general state universities have been infinitely better about all of this than private universities, and obviously larger departments have more power and flexibility than smaller depts. In my experience (private and state) Chairs have been very sympathetic but their hands are tied by the institution and by dept. decision-making (i.e., if it were up to the Chair alone I think it would be much easier to get a better deal for your spouse; as always once multiple people start getting involved things have a tendency to go off the rails). The current economic situation, of course, makes spousal hiring even more problematic.
Advice on negotiation: be honest about what you want - Chairs appreciate that. Be reasonable - if the dept is three strong and financially screwed another tt line is probably not on the cards - ask by all means but don't expect miracles. Make a strong case for your spouse filling any available VAP / lecturer slot, even if it isn't their specialty (as long as they're happy to do it, of course!). Put some gentle pressure on the institution to help you out - they do want to hire you after all (e.g., are there non-departmental courses available that they could give your spouse?). Don't forget what may seem like smaller, more mundane stuff - office space, for instance, can make a significant, positive difference, loan of a computer, some kind of title for the cv even if it's pro forma, library privileges. If the institution isn't playing ball but you have to take the job make sure to ask for more salary (tough in the current climate but reasonable if only one of you is working or you have to travel long distances on a regular basis). Two downers: 1) if you're spouse is in another field much of the above becomes impossible (I just hope they they teach Economics or Contemporary ME History) 2) You may end up going on the market more frequently than you would want.
Marrying another academic doesn't reflect well on us supposedly smart people...
Thanks for the help. The spouse in this case is in another department, so the prospects are probably worse. On the other hand, I was under the impression that many institutions have a policy of splitting salaries between departments when it comes to spousal hires in separate fields -- is this not the case? And what do academic couples do in the end, if the likelihood of finding permanent positions for both in the same place is so slim?
I think split salary is sometimes an option even in the same department, and at some places there are couples "sharing" a single appointment. Also ask about connections with nearby schools -- some places at least claim to work together with other places to increase the options.
Celibacy is the key here, people!
And what do academic couples do in the end, if the likelihood of finding permanent positions for both in the same place is so slim?
Focus on cities and gird yourself for a career in administration.
Administration? That is so depressing.
At my institution the chances for a spousal is actually greater if it's between two departments, but there is an actual policy to find the funding for that other position. As 10:28 says, the best thing is to be honest and realistic.
Re spousal hires, speaking as a Secondary Spouse: some schools (mine, e.g.) have programs but don't advise people about them until they're interested in Primary Spouse (at point an offer is made). So can be hard to see from outside whether there might be help. Best to concentrate on areas that have multiple schools, which might mean cities, coasts, or clusters (RTP, BMC/Haverford etc., Claremont group).
Plan to be maximally flexible, including careers of all sorts outside academia. Two-body problem has always been tough; these days, everyone emotes about it but real live actual help is expletive rare. Anticipate lower salary than otherwise possible, because future outside offers will be rare, and univ. will think of you as the Couple For Whom They Did That Favor, and thus be less interested in accommodating you further. Anticipate some relationship strain on assumption Primary Spouse will get better treatment than Secondary Spouse, or that SS is working at local school that is less good (seen that several times). Secondary Spouse may experience some finger-pointing, on the affirmative action principle - the view that SS unfairly bagged a job. At my institution, gay/lesbian pairs or spouses are treated best, then those not married who hail from Europe, then straight and married, then North Americans not married. In other words, hard to know what to expect unless you ask. If you can find a pair at the target school and talk w/ them about their experience, that would be wise.
So, out of curiosity... Does anyone know what's happening with the USC (California, not Carolina) Roman historian search? The wiki has no information, which means USC has managed to fly under the radar. This doesn't impact me in any way, since I'm obviously not being considered, but I'm just wondering if they did indeed interview at the conference. Or perhaps the position has become senior-only, and that's why there have been no updates?
USC did interview at least one person in Anaheim but might not have run things through the Placement Service.
FWIW, I have solid information that the USC job, which was listed as an ancient history joint appointment between History and Classics, has been essentially taken over by the history department and that they are running the show. It was apparently all the Classics people could do to convince the History people to interview at the APA rather than the AHA, and it's the history department that is setting the selection criteria. I don't know if that's helpful to anyone, but that's what my source told me.
Anyone out there with info. on the open rank Roman art / Classics search at Johns Hopkins?
I recently received an email from a Lambert academic publishing fielding my interest in publishing my dissertation through them. Has anyone had any similar experiences? I'm not really interested in publishing my thesis; just want some articles out of it and then one chapter will provide the core of a book -- just wondering if anyone has ever had similar unsolicited contact.
Yes-- I recently was contacted by an acquisitions editor at Peter Lang Publishing expressing interest in publishing my dissertation. I didn't know what to make of it, as I'm not sure how this particular publisher is viewed in the field; and I feel suspicious because of the unsolicited contact. Admittedly, I'm inexperienced in the dissertation/book publishing process, but I thought it was supposed to work the other way around.
"I DON'T WANT TO BELONG TO ANY CLUB
THAT WILL ACCEPT ME AS A MEMBER."
That should just about answer your question...
Those are vanity presses.
I had a similar contact from Lambert, and here's what I found when I tried to figure out if this was a legitimate company:
http://www.writingnetwork.edu.au/content/email-lap-offering-publish-my-masters-thesis
http://chronicle.com/forums/index.php/topic,45997.0.html
Perhaps not the ideal setup for an academic publication, but it doesn't appear to be a phishing scam. At least, I haven't seen any explanation as to why it's a scam...
I had occasion to look into Peter Lang last year when a job candidate claimed to have a contract with them. It is not technically speaking a vanity press. It has always mined its books from recent theses and dissertations, and for some disciplines - Classics among them - there is no guaranteed full peer review. In some fields, however, it is regarded as an OK press. My advice is to pass and work up the MS for a reputable academic press about which no questions will be asked.
Peter Lang's series "Studien zur klassischen Philologie" has some good things in it, many of them revised dissertations, though of course a book with a university press would generally carry more weight. Consult your advisers and senior colleagues on what counts where you are (or where you want to be).
While we're on the subject, any thoughts on Continuum Books? They have solicited me to write a book in an introductory classical authors series. I recognize some of the names on their author list, so am inclined to think they are legit, but any more feedback would be appreciated.
Continuum's a very reputable academic press. Not quite in the Routledge league but certainly an excellent press. I don't think they do many classics books though (clearly they're just starting a line) which is perhaps why it's unfamiliar?
And another question: does it matter if the university press you publish with is associated with your alma mater? I know Oxford and Cambridge have special series for good dissertations, but is it OK if you're at Princeton and publish your first book with Princeton UP, for example?
I think there's a difference between, say, Princeton publishing your book as an alum and Oxbridge. The latter has a specific line for theses so everybody knows that while the quality is usually good the polish and breadth can sometimes be lacking compared to books written by those five or ten years older. Princeton, on the other hand, doesn't have a specific line for dissertations, so your manuscript will be treated like any other both at the press and in reviews. Does that sound about right?
I don't know about alums publishing with university presses. I do know alums who have done this, and while their books are subjected to review, etc., often they are assigned to sympathetic reviewers - other alums, or even (in one instance) their adviser.
Re: Johns Hopkins ancient art position
Rumor has it that the job description was written for a specific person. I won't name names, but she does Late Antique art and has been on indefinite leave from a t-t job she got in 2006.
I applied for the position but haven't heard a word, save for a very brief conversation with Alan Shapiro at AIA.
"I don't know about alums publishing with university presses. I do know alums who have done this, and while their books are subjected to review, etc., often they are assigned to sympathetic reviewers - other alums, or even (in one instance) their adviser."
I hate to say it, but this happens all the time across an informal network of universities. Classics is a small world. I've heard loads of stories about an advisor helping get their former student's book accepted at another former student's university press. Favorable book reviews also happen this way, with not overt signs of collusion since different universities are listed. If anything, I would say a Princeton alum getting Princeton Press to bite is an accomplishment since they know that scrutiny is sure to result.
FWIW, my advisor told me directly: "I'd love to publish your dissertation/book in the series I edit at Oxbridge, but it won't reflect well on you so you don't want that." Also FWIW: Me "Ok."
FWIW, my advisor told me directly: "I'd love to publish your dissertation/book in the series I edit at Oxbridge, but it won't reflect well on you so you don't want that." Also FWIW: Me "Ok."
That's right, but publishing in your advisor's series is different from publishing with the press housed at your alma mater. The faculty at your alma mater may not have any idea what's being published with the press, much less be involved in it. Nothing comes out in your advisor's series, though, without her/his active involvement at every stage.
Re. Lang:
I also got approached, and decided to to my homework -- starting with a Google Search for "Lang" and "vanity press." Lots of hits, including the links already posted above by Anon. 8:52. Also, the series editor of the US Classics line hasn't exactly published up a storm.
A friend got a similar offer and he actually went so far as to submit a MS, just to see. Whereupon he was told the book would be printed, but he'd be in charge of providing camera-ready copy and he'd have to pay a subvention of $4500.00. He declined.
As noted, Lang does have a better reputation in Classics and a handful of other disciplines, but others will regard it as a vanity press. I imagine that, if one had a Lang book on one's CV and one was up for tenure or promotion, a lot of special pleading to a college- or university-wide tenure committee would be involved.
The only person I know who has published through Lang had been on the job market for some years and was absolutely desperate for a tenure-track position. Understandable, but better to find a press no one can criticize come tenure-time.
any rumors or reports on the archaeology job at SUNY Buffalo?
RE Lang: Don't do it. P&T comms. see it (rightly) as a vanity press. It won't get you anywhere and wastes your hard-earned manuscript.
Buffalo: meeting this week or next methinks.
Anyone know anything about the West Virginia search timeline?
Attention recent graduates and seniors!! How far and how many of your colleagues are you willing to throw off our sinking ship?
http://chronicle.com/article/Dodging-the-Anvil/63274/
How depressing is that Chronicle article. The question is will our field address the problem or just sweep it under the rug? Or, is just a simple case of well I got mine (TT job), so who cares?
I agree with those saying that you should avoid Lang. It is handing to a search committee or tenure committee a spear that any member can throw into your chest. It may not be personal -- "there are too many applications in the pile and we're looking for a way to thin them" or "My preferred candidate for the short-list needs the way cleared". Or worse, it could be personal, someone knows you and doesn't like you and wants you out of the way. Spend six more months shopping your mss around. (Publishers do want good mss.)
Does anyone have any insights into where things stand with ISAW's visiting fellowships? Has anyone been notified yet?
Lol, I still have an application going with ISAW from 2007, on which I never received a final answer...
Does anyone have any insights into where things stand with ISAW's visiting fellowships? Has anyone been notified yet?
The acknowledgment letter mentioned January for notification. None of the people I know who applied have heard yet.
The only person I know who has published through Lang had been on the job market for some years and was absolutely desperate for a tenure-track position.
Chris Nappa, Helena Dettmer, Chris Blackwell, John Heath and Karelisa Hartiger all published in a Lang series. I don't think any of them were all that hurt at their tenuring reviews. People should consider actually doing a little checking before they make inaccurate statements. Really, people. CSP is not a vanity press, Lang is not a vanity press unless university libraries like to fill their stacks with self-published vanity books and university funds like to pay the subventions for Come on, people.
I don't have any first-person experience in this area, but I suspect that it depends on the school: some might accept those presses, but others won't. So I guess it partly depends on where one hopes to end up.
It's not just the department's opinion of Peter Lang (vel sim.) that counts for tenure review, it's what the external referees say about it that can really hurt. There is a penumbra of general suspicion about some presses, rightly or wrongly, in the discipline, esp. compared to better-known, 'prestige' presses. If a referee casts doubt on the press, it can torpedo a case or at least make it extremely difficult for a dept recommendation to overcome. When in doubt, go with another press; it's too risky and no one can control external referees.
Re: Publishing and Presses
While it is certainly worthwhile to alert the uninformed to the vicious and pointless prejudices that infect the status obsessed academic, it would be best to avoid passing on such views unqualified, disparaging a press and, by association, authors who have produced good scholarship.
Toodle-pip,
Poldy (who has not published with Peter Lang, but who has learned from books in the Lang Classical Studies series.)
It's not just the department's opinion of Peter Lang (vel sim.) that counts for tenure review, it's what the external referees say about it that can really hurt. There is a penumbra of general suspicion about some presses, rightly or wrongly, in the discipline, esp. compared to better-known, 'prestige' presses.
One also needs to consider that presses like Lang tend to be the ones that are willing to publish revised dissertations. It is very very hard for anyone to get tenure with nothing more than a revised dissertation published. If you publish your revised dissertation and have no intention of writing another book, then you should do it on another press. But more and more university presses are hesitant to even look at a revised dissertation and are really strapped for cash and thus reluctant to bet on an unproven horse. They are nervous about investing in new authors and want new research that can cross disciplines (these are words straight from the mouths of several editors). And this is coming at a time when there is increased pressure to publish books for tenure. Watch for more first publications/revised dissertations coming out on the smaller, independent presses. And also, remember that the content of the book, who cites it and the impact on its area of research have greater weight, actually, than the press. If a book is well reviewed and cited, that is what matters.
I just want to note that all of the people listed above as publishing through Lang also had published a wide variety of articles as well and developed names for themselves. That would have balanced out any negative associations with Lang. The people who need to watch out for presses like that are people who haven't published much else. Also, remember the P&T committees are composed of scholars from all disciplines...and in some of those disciplines Lang will not be as well-regarded as Lang Classical Studies might be.
Hello all,
Re: publishing your manuscript. A very recent commentator says it exactly right: if you are just touching up a thesis you are likely to get it published only by Lang (in the US) or one of several German presses. I was encouraged to publish my own thesis with a German series right after it was done. I am very glad I didn't, because some years' perspective reveals all sorts of flaws that I neither saw at the time nor are sufficiently provocative that anyone would want to cite the book.
My advice is to aim high. If you really think your thesis is awesome, go for the top places. If it's solid but not totally original (be honest with yourself...) try for a few of the places down a tier. It takes time to go this way but you are attaching your name to the book and it will sit in libraries for a very long time. That's your baby. Or maybe even you, some would argue.
p.s. It's very true that Lang has snagged some books that in my opinion are really good. But on the whole it's also true that traditionally Lang has been seen as a place of later (not necessarily last) resort. It's the subvention you have to give that makes it look that way. How is that different from a place like Brill? Good question, maybe others can answer it.
The absolute place of last resort is the Edwin Mellen press, which if they're still around will probably find you and invite you to publish with them. There's a real use for the way they do some things - think highly specialized monographs on, e.g., linguistics - that would only ever go to libraries anyway. But for a more mainstream book I would advise against it.
6:35 says: "My advice is to aim high. If you really think your thesis is awesome, go for the top places. If it's solid but not totally original (be honest with yourself...) try for a few of the places down a tier."
This is odd. It suggests publishers pick works based on relative quality rather than absolute quality, and without regard to the overall shape of the list. Publishers pick works they think they can sell, that they and the referees think contribute to the discipline in question, and that can be produced in a reasonably cost-effective manner and in a reasonably cost-effective timeframe.
Why second-guess the book editors? Why assume your work is drech, or that they will think it is drech? This seems very self-defeating. It also suggests there's some kind of absolute hierarchy of presses: if you talk with colleagues who have experience of several, you might be surprised by what they say.
Why are people afraid to address the elephant in the corner? Can we not see the forest from the trees?
http://chronicle.com/article/Dodging-the-Anvil/63274/
How is that different from a place like Brill? Good question, maybe others can answer it.
Brill books cost about 3-4 times more?
Why are people afraid to address the elephant in the corner? Can we not see the forest from the trees?
Because if we are good enough and smart enough then gosh darnit a search committee is going to like us. Faith moves mountains, even for people fueled by external validation.
Because if we are good enough and smart enough then gosh darnit a search committee is going to like us. Faith moves mountains, even for people fueled by external validation.
Excellent. And how does one measure "good enough" and "smart enough"? Better bring those rosaries along for the faith factor.
Has anyone heard anything from Northern Illinois or West Virginia since the AHA?
Has anyone heard anything from Northern Illinois or West Virginia since the AHA?
I hear Hoyt Pollard has the inside at West Virginia...
Why are people afraid to address the elephant in the corner? Can we not see the forest from the trees?
http://chronicle.com/article/Dodging-the-Anvil/63274/
OK, stop kidding around. Your elephant and your forest have been discussed ad nauseam on this blog. Everybody is aware of them and looking right at them and constantly talking about them. And exactly that piece you give the URL for was linked to a week or two ago.
If you feel that the elephant needs to be further addressed—and the forest, too, don't forget the forest—then go ahead. But it's not as though we've been negligent in our elephant-addressing here.
I just read that article and was struck by how stupid the person writing it is And I quote:
"...automation of nonadministrative functions such as grading and advising."
If we could find a machine to do non-scantron grading for us, don't ya think we would have by now? Most of us don't get TAs.
"Elephants" "forests" "stupid people": sounds like a land of make-believe.
Please, people, let's devote this blog to more important issues?
While I'm thrilled to see that the name "Hoyt" is still around seven years after the death of Hoyt Wilhelm, whom I thought to be the last of the Hoyts, I'm astounded that some jackass thinks that he/she can violate the #1 rule of this blog by naming someone who is a colleague. You should delete your post, or else it should be deleted by a moderator, post-haste.
It appears that Hoyt Pollard is an actor, and therefore not a legitimate candidate for the WVU position (?). Also, I reckon he's only a colleague if your income comes from your work in a bluegrass ensemble. May not be a bad trajectory for a failed classicist, but the point is that mention of his name probably isn't going to cause any problems for the moderators...
Hoyt Pollard is indeed the inside candidate.
What's more, they've promised a spousal hire to accompany him: N. Beatty.
Way to go Mountaineers!
Nice one, North Georgia Expat!
According to the wiki, less than half of the schools who interviewed at the APA haven't made short-lists or brought people to campus. Or is this just a sign of people being reluctant to put up what info they already know? Seems like everyone is still recovering from Anaheim.
I'd like to know about Bryn Mawr, NYU, some of the SLACS.
Oh, it's a joke! "Hoyt Pollard" is so subtle a reference that even Dennis Miller wouldn't catch it. (According to imdb.com, he was the "Boy at Gas Station" in "Deliverance." I note that this actor's popularity is up 111%, which is probably a function of people like me heading over there to see what he's been in.)
I take back the "jackass" remark.
Another word on Lang from an old hand. An student of mine published his/her dissertation through them. S/he then got a tenure-track job, but was told the Lang book would not count towards tenure because of the press. So it was right back to the starting point. It will depend on the school, but in general for young classicists it would be wiser to stay away. The department will most likely not care much, but the school will.
Both Bryn Mawr and NYU have sent out rejection emails to those who didn't make the final round, so I assume they've extended campus invitations.
please sire, a little news? some scrap of information?
does anybody know/think anything about cincinnati as a department?
It's what happens when you let the grubby, whiny clarchys take over a classics department. Pass unless you have no other options.
Anon Jan 29 12:09
Re: Cincinnati: Could you be more specific with your question? Are you interested in applying for a position? Are you clarch/BA arch/Phil/Hist? If you give me specific questions, I've probably got lots of answers for you, hot off the Cincy rumor mill.
Re: Cincinnati
Not sure what "It's what happens when you let the grubby, whiny clarchys take over a classics department" is supposed to mean (I'm guessing it's some weird inside joke), but the department does have a huge library dedicated to nearly every aspect of the field. You can probably find faculty bios on their website, so what else is there to know? I'm with Anon. January 29, 2010 11:10 AM, though, it might be worthwhile to know whether you're looking at a job there or considering entering the program as a student.
Either way, I'll disagree with the "Pass unless you have no other options" advice. Basing my guess on just the library and faculty profiles, you could do a lot worse.
Why, indeed, do you ask? Cincinnati hasn't advertised any position this year, yet. Do you know something the rest of us don't?
interested as a possible phil/hist graduate student applicant for next year (most likely). no nothing about the job scene (sorry!)
It's what happens when you let the grubby, whiny clarchys take over a classics department. Pass unless you have no other options.
Ooooohhhh! Time to nuke some popcorn, sit back, and enjoy!
The department at Cincy does have the most money of any program in the world. You will never suffer from lack of financial support while there. They are rolling in dough. Something to take into consideration, especially in times like this when institutions are cutting back on graduate student support.
"does anybody know/think anything about cincinnati as a department?"
i try very hard not to.
Re: Cincinnati, anon 11:31am poster
In that case, I recommend you email a current phil/hist grad student for more info. As a current UC grad student, I can say that *most* of us accept this as part of our job (fielding questions from prospies) and will be happy to help you in more detail. Grad student contact info and bios can be found at http://www.classics.uc.edu/index.php/graduate/gradstudents.
So here's my general scoop:
I'm phil/hist grad student at UC. I picked UC because it was fully funded for 7 years (no need for student loans, no competition for funding), and it was interdisciplinary (I like archy!). If neither of those things interests you, then there are some far more philologically minded places you could go where the program is geared specifically for phil/hist. It is true that the concerns of archaeologists often overrun those of the phil/hist students here. That said, I am delighted with the quality of the phil/hist profs, so I certainly don't feel like I've been short changed in that department (it's just that we don't have that many of them; other departments might have 15 phil/hist).
But please do contact a student (I'd give you my email, but I have this strange desire to at least pretend to protect my anonymity here). Honestly, we get these kinds of questions all the time.
You know, it's worth saying for the benefit of any prospective grad students who are reading this IN GENERAL that it's a good idea to contact current grad students in whatever programs they're thinking of applying to. They'll usually be more blunt about what life is like than the faculty...
Ditto to anonymous 1:23. Contact more than one current grad student, if you can. The students' opinions of their department will vary widely: some probably loathe it, some probably love it.
NB: Since no one told me this when I was an undergrad, I'll tell you: if/when you get accepted to a school, they will often (usually?) pay to fly you out for a visit. Do a reasonable amount of research to decide where to apply, then, once you are accepted, you can use the campus visit to talk to many grad students and get multiple perspectives (beware, though: the smart departments will make sure that prospective students meet only or mostly happy grad students).
Unless you get into a top ten, maybe even top five, program, I would seriously reconsider grad school.
I would amend that to say 'unless you get admitted to a top program and they give you a written offer of a future t-t line', then go do something else productive with your life. Otherwise you'll be hitching yourself to an intellectual train that is hurtling toward the bottom of a rocky gorge. With no brakes, and only crazy engineers. good luck.
what are the top ten programs right now and heading into the future?
I would like to amend that to say "crazy, crusty, sabretooth engineers who are about to pull the cord on their golden parachutes and land softly in Florida while the train smolders in a hellish crater."
"what are the top ten programs right now and heading into the future?"
That's the best part. You don't know who the top five will be in ten years. It's pretty easy to pick the top twenty, but programs go up and down. So you need to predict which program will be at the top in ten years along with a hot diss topic to go with it. You also need to lather on chapstick so you can have your lips permanently pasted to your advisor's ass until you get tenure. It also doesn't hurt to know CPR to make sure your advisor stays alive long enough to clear your path to tenure. Mission impossible? Use the force, Luke.
Unless you get into a top ten, maybe even top five, program, I would seriously reconsider grad school.
Second that. Yes, you'll have to figure out who's on the way down and who's on the way up, but cachet is worth quite a bit in this field. Scroll through wikis of years past and you will see quite a few folks from the current top programs snagging jobs while ABD and otherwise completely unproven. (Some of these names are now about to be denied tenure because they never lived up to the "potential" the department saw in them.) This does not happen with every job, perhaps not even the majority, but it happens often enough that it's not a bad strategy.
The wiki will also tell you something else: what schools are getting their alums jobs. Look too for schools producing PhDs at a regular rate; if a school doesn't, the alumni network will not be very strong and that's often another asset in the job search.
If this is the way our field is going, that you can only get a job if you are a graduate of the top ten, or five, graduate programs, then all of you might as well go pack your bags and do something else. For soon, intellectual inbreeding will create an inward-looking internal culture that leads to mental rigidity and ultimately obsolescence.
Deans and provosts at places other than those exalted few will pick up on that and then say to themselves "Time to save me some budget lines and cut a major, graduate program, and department! We're not getting that many majors to begin with, and our graduates aren't getting jobs, so what's the point?"
Then, those top 5 or 10 programs can flood the market all they want with their progeny, but there will be no jobs out there for them.
This also belies an unspoken truth: not every job search out there is looking for a super-top program graduate with steller recommendations from the top research specialists in the field. Some of them actually want a person who can handle a 4/4 course load and produce scholarship on a decent level while also being able to teach competently and "relate to our students," who are most certainly not the generally upper-middle class sheltered snowflakes that inhabit many an Ivy or top-tier public R1, the type that these products of the top 5 or 10 programs might have taught, if they have any real teaching experience to begin with.
The top programs do a very good job of producing good researchers who may or may not go on to produce the next great piece of scholarship, but in general they do very little to prepare would-be academics for life in the trenches, teaching 3 or 4 courses a semester including many "service" courses that are in much greater demand than that seminar on Pindar you've always wanted to give.
There are even some schools who do not want graduates of too lofty a place. They know that such a person will not stay at their place, looking at it as just a stepping stone before their reascent into the elite few, once they get their oh-so-important book out. Sometimes they do manage that, and they wind up pissing off the department, who feel like they were being used, and sometimes they don't manage it, and wind up leaving the job altogether, which, again, results in a pissed-off department who wasted a space on what they had hoped would be a future long-term colleague, not someone who cannot handle the stress and strain of a real job.
Does it help to be a product of one of the top programs? Certainly. Academics, especially in our field, can be far too hung up on pedigree, to the point where it trumps common sense, which often indicates that a particular candidate, though he/she looks stellar on paper, will not be a good fit for their own department.
Do not, however, think that being the product of a top program will guarantee you a job, and also be aware that the job you might well land will not be the same job that your advisor and other professors in your program have. The cushy 2/2 teaching mainly graduate students is something only a very few can achieve. It is not common and not likely what most people will get.
For soon, intellectual inbreeding will create an inward-looking internal culture that leads to mental rigidity and ultimately obsolescence.
Will?
they do very little to prepare would-be academics for life in the trenches, teaching 3 or 4 courses a semester including many "service" courses that are in much greater demand than that seminar on Pindar you've always wanted to give.
Yes they do, they're called archaeologists (tell me that was low-handed after the swipe at UC above...)
As someone who would be categorized as a "philologist" on this blog, let me extend an olive branch by agreeing a bit with our downtrodden clarchs. I think the top departments in the near future, those that "get it," will be ones with a top-twenty pedigree AND a balanced department. Maybe, just maybe, a department like Harvard will continue to thrive due to the H-bomb reputation. I have serious doubts. We absolutely need a breadth of scholars who cover everything from Pindar to Byzantine archaeology. Besides a top-twenty pedigree and sub-disciplinary balance, I would look for a nice spread in where the faculty are at in their careers. This presupposes that the department will have at least ten TT/tenured faculty members. I tell my undergrads to steer clear of departments that are too small and/or too top heavy (especially with terminal associate profs). If there are no junior faculty members, the department better have a darn good reason. Even then...
The whole thing sounds like the survival of the inbred to me. I know it happens in every corner of life, but I can't help but think that there are brilliant young scholars that were left out in the cold because they didn't kiss enough asses or have a diss topic faddish enough for our tastes. More mainstream disciplines allow a number of these scholars to get through but we seem a bit more short-sighted out of presumed necessity. Whether we agree with it or not, it's been decades since we've been regularly featured in mass media, unless, gulp, our clarch brethren find something like Trajan's aqueduct. Out of sight, out of mind, as I'm sure our Michigan State colleagues can tell us.
As a clarch in a pretty good position but fighting an uphill battle to get tenure, my advice more and more to my students is to pick a side. If you like archaeology but have a strong affinity for the languages, matriculate into a classics program and take archaeology courses as electives, go on digs, attend a foreign school, etc. If you love getting dirty and the languages are more of a means to an end, matriculate into an anthropology program. You'll have to be open to doing "European archaeology" or something of that sort, but geographic speciality is becoming less relevant these days in anthro. It's about your methods, skill sets, and how interesting your work is. I've seen an increasing openness to clarchs and Aegean prehistorians in anthro. My two cents.
4/4 teaching, student advising, doing research/publishing and holding a non-T/T position, is this really the wave of the future? This does not sound so rewarding, unless you are some sort of machine. Perhaps I will not go to grad school after all.
Don't forget a student body that's becoming increasingly market-driven in their outlook. "What, I can't call you at 3am to ask what's on the exam tomorrow even though I missed 80% of the lectures? FU, I'm paying $12k for this class."
Don't forget an administration that increasingly run like a corporation, where they'll happily hire ten pimple-faced recent grads to ease their load while balking at one TT hire in five years.
Yep, welcome to the machine.
Hey, we're not all pimple-faced!
There are even some schools who do not want graduates of too lofty a place.
Such words were actually spoken to me - put in the kinder tones of the question "can you actually teach our not-so-good-as-Ivy students?" - at my last APA interview.
But I take this to mean that, depending on what you're looking for, a top-ten school will not necessarily be the best place for you, especially if it doesn't have the right people for you to study what you want to study.
Yeah, but the top programs certainly have an advantage. Here's a rather telling anecdote: a friend who got a Ph.D. in Sociology at Ohio State, which has one of the top programs, was told by his professors that on the job market OSU students would often be beaten out for jobs by lesser grads from Harvards and Yales and the like because presidents and provosts like to be able to dazzle parents of potential undergrads by mentioning how many Harvard/Yale/etc.-trained faculty they have. Nothing can be done about that sort mentality...
Yep, welcome to the machine...
Welcome, my son, welcome to the machine.
Where have you been? It's alright, we know where you've been.
You've been in the pipeline, filling in time,
provided with toys and 'Scouting for Boys'.
You bought a guitar to punish your ma,
and you didn't like school, and you know you're nobody's fool,
so welcome to the machine.
4/4 teaching, student advising, doing research/publishing and holding a non-T/T position, is this really the wave of the future?
Wasn't that the Arizona State job description?
/
was told by his professors that on the job market OSU students would often be beaten out for jobs by lesser grads from Harvards and Yales
I'm sure that this is occasionally true. I'm also sure the OSU professors can't be especially objective about this. Are all the Princeton etc. students equally good? No. But let's not pretend they're all getting jobs on the old boys' network. I've met some of them and they're really pretty smart. Astonishing, no?
As a clarch in a pretty good position but fighting an uphill battle to get tenure, my advice more and more to my students is to pick a side. If you like archaeology but have a strong affinity for the languages, matriculate into a classics program and take archaeology courses as electives, go on digs, attend a foreign school, etc. If you love getting dirty and the languages are more of a means to an end, matriculate into an anthropology program. You'll have to be open to doing "European archaeology" or something of that sort, but geographic speciality is becoming less relevant these days in anthro. It's about your methods, skill sets, and how interesting your work is. I've seen an increasing openness to clarchs and Aegean prehistorians in anthro. My two cents.
This is sound advice, but I don't see how this prevents classics departments from getting downsized and/or eliminated. If anything, I would guess that it would speed up our demise.
Are there any additional clarchs out there willing to chime in with opinions about "choosing a side?" If it would greatly benefit clarchs, I say you go for it. From where it sit, I think everyone will lose.
Re: Choosing a side
I think that the advice for archaeologists to "choose a side" is good individual advice, if not quite in the way its author intended. Right now clarchs are getting (a few) jobs in Classics departments, Art History departments, and Anthro departments, and there is still a glut of PhDs seeking TT appointments. None of these disciplines, it seems to me, is eager or able to absorb many more of our products than they already are. So the notion that Clarchs should as a group should seek to align ourselves according to one or another disciplinary definition is insane and suicidal. What would help is if grad. programs did a better job of tailoring their offerings to allow students to clearly fit at least one of these three career tracks. For some time, Berkeley and Michigan have been well known for producing clarchs that can teach in classics departments, Princeton and the IFA have been known for producing clarchs that can teach in Art History departments, and only Boston University, as far as I know has really tried to regularly produce students with Anthro theory and skills. In other programs, it has been up to the individual student to define themselves, often with difficulty. So "choose a side" is good individual advice, because the more time you spend thinking about what flavor of clarch you want to be, the better the fit of the grad. school you attend and the more you'll do while there to work on Anthro theory, or semiotics, or Greek, or whatever skills that track of the discipline expects, rather than spending your time trying to do it all. No one will believe that you can do it all.
Re: This is sound advice, but I don't see how this prevents classics departments from getting downsized and/or eliminated. If anything, I would guess that it would speed up our demise.
There may be no way to stop that demise. Only a select few places can continue with the current model of the classics department: a few large lectures (myth, history) that bulk up the numbers to compensate for the upper level language courses which have hardly any undergraduate majors in them. Those important service courses can always be re-located (enterprising History and Folklore/Anthro departments may argue that they could house those introductory courses just as well).
The real problem is that Classics departments don't really have any justification to offer for their continued existence beyond "these books are interesting, and it's important that we study them." Important to whom? "Why, to us, of course."
The elite and wealthy few can afford to keep ornaments and baubles around. Everyone else can't.
re: notifications on SUNY-Buffalo Roman archae. job:
anyone know how many finalists? means of notification?
The real problem is that Classics departments don't really have any justification to offer for their continued existence beyond "these books are interesting, and it's important that we study them." Important to whom? "Why, to us, of course."
Well, I sincerely hope you're not a spokesperson for the discipline. If you mean that the study of pre-modern societies doesn't have much justification in the modern university, I'd disagree, though I'd also acknowledge that plenty of uninformed people share your view. It's our fault though, and we should certainly do a better job at explaining why things like archaeology and ancient history teach useful skills.
If you mean that Classics in particular lacks a good justification for its existence I'd like to know why, since I don't see why the archaeology of Peru or Norway is any better education for the average undergraduate. Last I heard university departments were supposed to educate and research, something that Classics can do just as well as any other department.
I think you answered your own question. To call oneself a "Peruvian archaeologist" would be quite silly. People would assume that you're a Peruvian national who does archaeology. I'm afraid calling oneself a Greek or Roman archaeologist is increasingly looked upon in the same manner. An archaeologist who digs in Peru would be a New World archaeologist who then specializes in a number of approaches and techniques. Yes, you have Incan and Mayan archaeology, but I don't know of anyone who would willingly call themselves a Mayan archaeologist as their primary designation as we do for a Roman archaeologist.
As we all know, the "West" is becoming less and less beholden to classics and it has never really been important in the East. I'm sure we've all encountered on a regular basis what an average person thinks when we say we study classics. The problem now is that people with clout (deans, museum directors, etc.) are starting to look at classics in the same manner. What? You study one century of Greece, a country the size of Louisiana? But you must study every aspect then, right? Er, em, cough... Yeah, right, we're going to hire the person doing interesting work in South Asia, thanks.
Probably very few people realize this, but classics galleries are just about all gone in museums now. As inane as it sounds, one world-class museum has combined it with their European collection and fired their curator. It also put their Egyptian collection into their African collection (firing their Egyptologist), and their Near Eastern with Asian. In a nutshell, this is what's happening with classics departments. The old definitions don't hold anymore and it will only get worse no matter how many Gladiators, Troys, and 300s are made.
Right now clarchs are getting (a few) jobs in Classics departments, Art History departments, and Anthro departments, and there is still a glut of PhDs seeking TT appointments. None of these disciplines, it seems to me, is eager or able to absorb many more of our products than they already are. So the notion that Clarchs should as a group should seek to align ourselves according to one or another disciplinary definition is insane and suicidal. What would help is if grad. programs did a better job of tailoring their offerings to allow students to clearly fit at least one of these three career tracks.
I think the point is that it's suicide to graduate from a classical archaeology graduate program, since there's one archaeology department in the entire country. As we all know, hires are made by departments, not programs. If you graduate with a mainstream classics degree influenced by archaeology (the dreaded classicist who gets dirty once in a while) rather than a clarch degree with classics lite training, you will have a much better chance of landing a junior TT position in classics. This is a fact. This is the same with art history and anthropology. If your degree is not issued by an art history or anthropology department, you're at a severe disadvantage when it comes to landing a job. It's actually quite a miracle that any clarch gets an anthropology job without that rubber stamp. How many classical archaeologists with an anthro degree have you seen landing a junior position in classics? I can maybe think of two. I can think of a whole bunch more going the other way.
So basically your advice is that archaeologists should give up and just be philologists who dabble in archaeology, letting the discipline be absorbed within Classics and even further marginalized, and we can be lapdogs who agree "of course we know that the Pindar courses are the most important thing in the curriculum, but would it be okay if I teach an upper level archaeology class once every five years." That may be better for philologists (though even this I very much doubt in the long run), but you are basically telling us all that unless we are primarily interested in texts, we should go fuck ourselves. Read the Ian Morris essay in Classical Greece: Ancient Histories and Modern Archaeologies and you'll see that the philologists have been largely successful in applying this strategy for over a century.
A few observations:
In defense of archaeology as a discipline, I'd like to point out that the reason there are classics programs around that do everything is that wealthy donors are interested in what archaeologists do, and are somehow willing to donate massive amounts of money to support that activity. Take archaeology out of a lot of departments, and you're left with people who read books, which is far less interesting to the average person (no offense to us philologists...). When someone asks my archaeologist friend what he does, they're always impressed (and faintly jealous) that he managed to fulfill his childhood dream. By contrast, when I tell them I'm a philologist, er, someone who studies old languages that nobody (in their right mind) actually speaks, they cough and try to change the subject.
Whether we like it or not, losing archaeology from our Classics programs means that we're less and less likely to get those random donations from interested parties. Sure, every once in a century some classical scholar dies, leaving their monies to support the study of some obscure Latin poet, but I'm not sure we should hold our breath waiting for that to happen.
The hilarious thing about this whole blog, for me, is the insane level of apparent hatred we have for our own colleagues. Phil/hist people are expected to hate (and have no respect for) their clarch counterparts, and those dirty diggers should be just as unhappy with us, mostly because they're jealous of our brains, training, and general superiority. Yet it seems to me that our field has survived precisely because our work supports the work of others in different sectors of the field. We call Classics a discipline, but all this does is eliminate our claims of interdisciplinarity - find me an epigrapher who doesn't rely as much on archaeology as philology, and you've found me a bad epigrapher, with no respect for their own medium. An archaeologist specializing in Roman villas had better be up on his younger Pliny, at least, if not his Horace, Varro, Virgil, and so on.
If I take anything from having read through hundreds of posts on this blog, it's that I should do a better job trying to understand what other people in my field do, so that I can learn to respect and appreciate them as scholars and teachers. If I invest all of my time in trying to bring them down, I'm just speeding the demise of our discipline, and I personally don't much look forward to working in the language department.
@Anon 1-31 1:13a What I specifically mean is that classics as a field has done a very poor job of trying to explain to…well…anybody why we should continue to exist as a separate field. I do not personally think of it as useless (otherwise, why did I spend so many years engaged in the pursuit of it, and continue to research in it?), but this is, as you know, the perception of many out there.
Anon 1-31 1:47a sums up the current state of the classics' hold on the minds of the public well. Not much of a hold left at all.
And from across the water, we see the thin end of the wedge: KCL to cut Chair in Paleography
Sure, some might think paleography getting cut at a place like KCL is nothing for classics departments to worry about, but frankly, I don't think we are seen all that differently by deans and senior administrators looking to cut fields that bring in no money and serve very few students at the upper level. Large introductory lectures can always be taught by adjuncts (in their minds), so why have a classics department?
I think the problem is that classics, as a field, has to develop a reason for existence that speaks to as broad an audience as possible. The old power elite, who were steeped in the classics, is gone. Changes in educational policy and emphases have removed the protection the field once enjoyed. If upper level classics courses in the languages, the standard single-author let's read a nice bit of Vergil/Pindar/Horace/Euripides and talk about it course, are not drawing in more than 4 or 5 undergraduates (to count in graduate students who take the "graduate" versions of these same courses at the same time is fudging the numbers), while other fields can manage senior seminars that hit their class caps with more wanting to get in…we're in trouble.
Sadly, it may be that a radical rethink is needed. We need to move away from the "classics" label (classic to whom? Not to the vast majority of the population), and perhaps move towards "Ancient Mediterranean Studies" or something of that sort. And also strike a much better balance between philology, history and material culture in our field.
I'm not trying to start another one of those inane sub-specialty debates, but it is pretty clear that most of what current classics departments are offering is not what anyone else (students and senior administrators) wants. I don't like the "demand-driven" model at all, but do we want to survive as a field or not?
The future is pretty clear: history, if taught at all, will be absorbed by the history department, who might hire a single ancient/medieval historian who will be expected to teach broad surveys of ancient and medieval history. The languages, if they survive at all, will be in a Languages Department together with German (in precipitous decline), Russian (likewise), French (not in good shape) and perhaps a few others (Spanish seems to do well enough to be on its on in many places, but otherwise will be here too). You will have one person who will teach first-year Latin and might offer a tutorial in beginning Greek. Archaeologists are already running for the exits into Anthropology and Art History.
The Ivies and a few other private institutions, as well as a handful of flagship public places, will retain traditional classics departments, but even they might see the number of lines trimmed as every adminstrator looks to cut the budget however they can. I will feel sorry for anyone wishing to undertake graduate study at that point.
Hamilton College lists a possible one-year on higher ed jobs.
"Read the Ian Morris essay in Classical Greece: Ancient Histories and Modern Archaeologies and you'll see that the philologists have been largely successful in applying this strategy for over a century."
"I personally don't much look forward to working in the language department."
"Archaeologists are already running for the exits into Anthropology and Art History."
We've (as in the crusty sabretooths who are about to check out) made our bed for decades. It's now time for this latest generation to lie in it. Sucks to be the generation without a chair when the music stops.
In defense of archaeology as a discipline, I'd like to point out that the reason there are classics programs around that do everything is that wealthy donors are interested in what archaeologists do, and are somehow willing to donate massive amounts of money to support that activity. Take archaeology out of a lot of departments, and you're left with people who read books, which is far less interesting to the average person (no offense to us philologists...). When someone asks my archaeologist friend what he does, they're always impressed (and faintly jealous) that he managed to fulfill his childhood dream. By contrast, when I tell them I'm a philologist, er, someone who studies old languages that nobody (in their right mind) actually speaks, they cough and try to change the subject.
This is why it makes no bloody sense. Archaeology is classics' meal ticket to interdisciplinarity, funding, public interest, etc., but there is one or two on the faculty at best. Even as an ABD "philologist," I see the big picture enough to wonder why we can't just make the pie bigger? Does the hiring of an archaeologist prevent a philologist from getting hired? Are clarchs too narrowly defined to prevent more than a handful from getting hired by a department? Hell, there seems to be plenty of money for them that the rest of us can't hope to access. Why not hire two Roman archaeologists?
"Sadly, it may be that a radical rethink is needed. We need to move away from the "classics" label (classic to whom? Not to the vast majority of the population), and perhaps move towards "Ancient Mediterranean Studies" or something of that sort. And also strike a much better balance between philology, history and material culture in our field."
Well, who's playing ball and who's not? I still vividly remember a talk given at my alma mater dealing with classics and the Near East. We had people from NELC, anthro, art history, English, etc. show up. The only faculty member who showed up from classics was our resident historian/archaeologist.
"The languages, if they survive at all, will be in a Languages Department together with German (in precipitous decline), Russian (likewise), French (not in good shape) and perhaps a few others (Spanish seems to do well enough to be on its on in many places, but otherwise will be here too)."
Yes, the western languages are in steep decline. Arabic, Chinese, etc. is where it's at now. Regardless, you can see now why it's so enticing to group all the western languages together, including Greek and Latin. A perfect example of our foolishness is how we've rarely embraced modern Greek langauge and culture into our fold, therefore expanding our reach and relevance. I know of plenty of classics departments that have turned down or abused money given to them by the local Greek community, which is usually willing to give more than they're comfortably able to. In one case, the money was used clandestinely to hire a full-time Latin lecturer?!
Classics will indeed die, in lockstep with the assertion that it has no purpose. It deeply saddens me that WE are the ones making that assertion, and on a job-hunting blog at that!
Instead, we might assert that the study of the past explains (and helps critically interrogate) the present. The reasons why power and wealth and health are presently distributed in the pattern that they are - i.e., more to some and less to others around the globe - are directly connected to historical events and circumstances, and the Greco-Roman past as accessed through literary and material culture is (arguably) one rather good place to start investigating them.
THAT is our justification for existence, one which Peruvian archaeologists, Cormac McCarthy scholars, medieval Icelandic historians, Byzantine musicologists etc. etc. can't quite claim in exactly the same way.
And, since someone brought his earlier essay up, here's another good IM quote, since he seems to be someone who combines classics, history, and archaeology quite well (and probably wouldn't ever try to justify the study of classics with only "the texts are kinda interesting"): "Archaeology is cultural history or it is nothing. I hold this truth to be self-evident." Maybe reading essays like these might help people understand why what we do is, in fact, really important.
Pax.
I think the point is that we - philologists, historians, archaeologists - have fucked ourselves (but here's looking at you especialy, crusty sabretooths). We can't trot out the good ole "we're the oldest interdisciplinary endeavor" and then quickly grab the token historian/archaeologist whenever trouble is at our gates when in fact the fossilized disciplinary foci (at least to the public - another translation of Homer, anyone?) indict us with our irrelevance to 99% of the world - and growing.
was told by his professors that on the job market OSU students would often be beaten out for jobs by lesser grads from Harvards and Yales
I'm sure that this is occasionally true. I'm also sure the OSU professors can't be especially objective about this. Are all the Princeton etc. students equally good? No. But let's not pretend they're all getting jobs on the old boys' network. I've met some of them and they're really pretty smart. Astonishing, no?
So are you being argumentative just to show off or something? Neither I nor my friend claimed that there aren't well-deserving Ivy League grads beating out OSU students for sociology jobs. Good to see our president isn't the only one arguing against strawmen these days...
Mehercle. Anon 8:50 (1/31) just said the single most sensible, proactive, intelligent thing I have seen on this blog since it's inception. For once, I regret our mass anonymity *not* because I want to throttle someone, but because I truly want to shake this person's hand and buy them a drink in San Antonio.
This is the kind of attitude we all should have if any of us want to continue to feed ourselves, and want our discipline - singular! - to continue when all of our own volumes are moldering on the shelves. Shame on the rest of you separatist bastards. I'm taking this as a warning and changing my increasingly skeptical thoughts immediately.
[puts down trowel and dusts off clothes]
I'm sorry, but what does "mehercle" mean?
[grins, then ducks]
" Shame on the rest of you separatist bastards."
If you are an archaeologist and even maybe a historian, you have some cred. If you aren't...let me be blunt...go throttle yourself. As for me, I'll be gone faster than you can say Cicero if one of my CAA interviews come through.
If you are an archaeologist and even maybe a historian, you have some cred. If you aren't...let me be blunt...go throttle yourself.
Really? I think this is escalating the flame war a little prematurely. You have to let these things build.
Also, who says "go throttle yourself"?
I vote for blowing this taco stand. If you are able, I would leave. What are you waiting for? Crusty sabretooths to die off only to be replaced by young sabretooths in training? It's been the same for 100 years. The paradigm is not going to change radically. Make no mistakes about it. They WILL go down with the ship; don't go with them. Don't foolishing teach their large service courses, kiss public ass, and be forced to where a fedora at the classics outreach fair while they happily sit in their corner offices planning their next sabbatical.
Last philologist turn the lights off.
Dear Morpheus:
Sounds great. Leaving, that is. But what do I do instead?
Kick some agent sabretooth ass?
Free Your Mind
Listen to Morpheus!
Never foolishing where a fedora ware a bowler wood do!
I wish I had the faintest idea what all of you were talking about.
Now, does anyone know what qualifies one to be a senior lecturer versus a lecturer? I'm looking at the Vanderbilt positions in particular.
Good to see our president isn't the only one arguing against strawmen these days...
That passes for insult these days?
Don't foolishing teach their large service courses, kiss public ass, and be forced to where a fedora at the classics outreach fair while they happily sit in their corner offices planning their next sabbatical.
I'll have one of whatever this guy had.
Good to see our president isn't the only one arguing against strawmen these days...
That passes for insult these days?
I guess, if you're bizarrely obsessed with the president.
Now, does anyone know what qualifies one to be a senior lecturer versus a lecturer? I'm looking at the Vanderbilt positions in particular.
I taught at a school with this distinction in title once. I think it's largely titular in difference, indicating a longer-term contract, maybe better benefits and pay, etc. Also probably more administrative responsibilities within the department than your normal VAP.
That passes for insult these days?
Your mom passes for insult these days.
Your mom passes for insult these days.
The nadir of this blog? No, I have faith we can do worse.
An archeologist who thinks that the non-archeologists are just people who read books that no one cares about, or that donors are only willing to give money to archaeology--how can this person not be a bad archeologist? Don't archeologists have to, like, have evidence, and the humility of a good scientist, and sufficient sample size?
"Don't archeologists have to, like, have evidence, and the humility of a good scientist, and sufficient sample size?"
Humility? In a blog having anything to do with Classics? LMFAO! Most hilarious joke to date!
But seriously, which archEologist was this? I would also like to disparage them, but can't find any entry on the blog making such claims about archeology, donors, science, or samples.
A philologist who thinks that turning up new information about the society within which their authors lived is worth derision - how can this person not be a bad philologist?
Hi, kettle.
We can run around this track for a few more centuries if y'all want. Clearly we haven't worn out our largely stupid protestations yet.
The nadir of this blog? No, I have faith we can do worse.
Humility? In a blog having anything to do with Classics? LMFAO! Most hilarious joke to date!
Impotent rage aside (and really, it wouldn't be the Internet without it, would it?), is this degree of Comic Book Guy dorkiness really representative of the Classics community?
Ah. Ah, I see. Never mind.
We're not disparaging archaeologists' work; good archaeologists do great work. What was challenged was the claims that Classics depts exist because donors wanted to give money for archaeology (just false), that donors now only want to give money for archaeology (not the ones I talk to--who like archaeology, history, language, philosophy and literature in equal doses), that donors and students aren't interested in people who talk about books (people can be boring or interestign when talking about different kinds of evidence or texts), and the idea of using anecdotal evidence (the small sample size") about people getting excited by talking to one archaeologist friend to support any of this.
My own perspective, of course, may be limited by having been at four places where no one has their head up any orifices on any of these issues.
Save Paleography at Kings:
Go here and sign the online petition.
How about some advice for those of us still on the hunt. All the job market tips out there are aimed for the coveted TT job, but what about applying for temporary / sabbatical fill-in positions? For example, when it comes to cover letters, should you focus as much energy on your research as you would for a TT job? Or should your teaching experience and philosophy come first and foremost, even if it is for a position at Big Research University?
"For example, when it comes to cover letters, should you focus as much energy on your research as you would for a TT job?"
Whoa. I'm on a search committee right now, at a small liberal arts college, and we happen to be more concerned about your teaching than your research. Yes, I know, you are (probably) a grad student or recent grad and all jazzed up on your special field. But we -- and I think some other schools out there -- are concerned with what you are doing in the classroom, so you might want to read about the background of the school to which you are applying, to get a fair idea of what they want and need. ESPECIALLY if it is a non-TT job, because you are being brought in to teach, to fill classrooms, to create majors (or at least get non-major undergrads interested). Some of us really DON'T care about your research. Don't take it personally, but if you have made it this far (past ABD), you're probably a decent scholar with active research interests. We understand that. You don't have to begin every cover letter with a summary of your diss -- and you shouldn't. Be smart, study the school and its learning environment, and write accordingly...
"Be smart, study the school and its learning environment, and write accordingly..."
Precisely, for a SLAC I couldn't agree more that the focus should be teaching. But what about a temp job at a research institution? Does the temp teaching-oriented nature of the job override research considerations?? I am guessing that they are concerned with what you would bring to the classroom, but all that advice about dissertation / research is nagging my over-analyzing brain...
Re: Temporary Jobs
I have found it very useful in the cover letter for a temporary job to focus on teaching. Temporary jobs have the advantage that often you know, or can find out, what they need taught, and address that specifically in letter or interview. I would mention research, but briefly. I will usually put this after teaching, prefaced by something like: "I realize this is a temporary, teaching-oriented position, but I would like to take a moment to tell you about my research." Then really take a moment - nothing that will take longer than a minute for an SC member to read. They may not care, but it does show that you are a 2-D candidate.
For those of you who complain about adjuncting and think it is bad for our field. You should be so lucky:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/31/jobs/31search.html?8dpc
Why are lists of job talks with speakers' names being posted on the FV boards? The rules of the boards under the "Three Simple Rules" thread CLEARLY state "No names, no matter what the context." If you've got to show off that you've web-stalked a department and found their job candidates, just post the link to the talks page.
This is an invitation to violation of privacy and even character assassination and general bad behavior, as we've seen happen on the FV blog in years past. I thought we'd all learned that rule by now.
Clearly a post has been (rightfully) deleted- a post with the names of people giving job talks at a university/college. Could someone who saw/made this post do as suggested and give the URL link instead?
Neither of the posts with names that I saw have been deleted.
How do people feel about linking to talks lists?
I'd love to know who is a candidate where?
Don't you find this blog's "constitution" about the availability of information a little ironic, since it purports to counter the lack of transparency in the field in all other arenas?
Anon. 11:19:
I don't know how long you've been reading FV, but no names been a policy since the beginning. And in years past, when names have been brought up, or people pretty clearly identified by all but name, there has been a lot of unpleasant bashing.
Names on a shortlist are usually something that anyone with an internet connection and a little time to waste can find out easily. I see no need to post them here or on the boards. If nothing else, it's courtesy towards one's colleagues, who may not want their named bandied about on the internet and subjected to discussions of their fitness for a job or claims 'f "internal candidate! no wonder s/he got the job."
If you want to name names, start your own blog. You'll see it can pretty nasty pretty quickly.
Anon. 11:25:
It's a shame it degrades to that level, right?
Thank you for letting us know about the problems on the FV Boards.
The "No Names" policy is long-standing and non-negotiable.
Comments here too often do degenerate into tedious sniping. Even so, we have resisted from more directed editorial interventions, holding the belief that even raucous, wide-ranging discussions are ultimately healthy and beneficial.
Nonetheless, we still strongly believe that everyone must refrain from dragging actual, living exampla into the melée. Classics is a very small, albeit diverse, family. All members of this family ought to enjoy a basic right to privacy.
If you wish to discuss this policy here, please be our guests. We simply ask that you avoid using any names while doing so.
Sincerely Yours,
The Latest Servii,
I'd like to find this guy and tell him thanks for telling it like it is.
Tough to imagine a professional process that could be more warped than this one or based more on the wrong things.
Just to introduce some perspective:
It's murder out there for people who want tenure-track jobs as Classicists. And as humanities professors in general. And as professors.
But it's murder out there for anyone who wants to trade their labor for wages and benefits.
Just really, really f*cking bad.
This thread is also interesting (albeit depressingly familiar).
Combination of graduate school, unbelievable departmental strife*, and reading these comments has once again put suicide on the "possible/probable alternatives" list.
* yes, worse than your department
wtf did I do with my life?
This post isn't melodrama; it's desperation, guilt, and an Oedipal moment of clarity. The atmosphere here is cheery compared with other places.
would have been better not to have been born. at least then I wouldn't have to live & die with the knowledge that a simple choice to study the classics has wasted my talent, the best years of my life, taxpayers' money, and university resources. Would that I could unsee, plodding into the future with no weight of foreboding. But apparently I tied the millstone around my own neck at the age of 14, blinded by the glory of the past.
P, I wouldn't be so harsh with myself. It's like watching a victim of a ponzi scheme killing himself while the perp sleeps at night without a guilty conscience. Yes, it especially sucks when the "payoff" you envisioned was a total mirage, but do try to focus on the real, albeit minor, payoffs that weren't a part of the sell. I know this is how I've moved on and produced some opportunites for a brighter future. GL
There are many ways to lead a happy life, Pollux. Many! So what if being an academic isn't one of them. Chaucer knew this: "What sholde he studie, and make hymselven wood, Upon a book in cloystre alwey to poure...". And it killed Casaubon: "He died in great suffering on the 1st of July 1614. His complaint was an organic and congenital malformation of the bladder; but his end was hastened by an unhealthy life of over-study..." If you are in gradschool finish -- sprint to the end and get the fuck out. If you are finished, have a drink, get laid, find God. Surely there is more to life than Thoth's library stuffed with coffined papyri! Isn't it a truth in evolution that specialization leads to extinction? We shouldn't think of ourselves as one-trick hedgehogs.
Thanks for the comments, especially considering that my melodrama was posted in a depressed, sodden haze.
It's difficult not to feel immensely stupid for choosing a path that once seemed above the grime, the filth that now appears to coat every surface in sight.
I'm becoming utterly spent, a fish thrashing vigorously but hopelessly - entangled as it is in a fine net.
We all need to sprint. And get laid. Or sprint to get laid. Just get me out of this hellhole and away from its resident demons. Sometimes it seems that Virgil is leading me to the ninth circle, that I have to see and experience the worst of the worst before climbing back out of the pit.
Pollux, I pretty much feel the same way (except I'm too much of a coward to consider suicide). I've been around for a while, gotten close to t-t jobs often but never been the chosen one. I've fulfilled all other professional obligations expected me - researching, publishing well, teaching well, advising, attending conferences. Etc. Frankly I'm not interested in putting any more of my time and effort into preserving the terrible system academia often is, so this is my last year on the market. I decided that well before starting this year's applications, so by now I'm used to the idea. But I felt exactly the same way you did a few months ago. I don't know whether you don't have a t-t job or a difficult professional situation, but figure out what else you might enjoy doing, and go for that. Focus on the benefits you got from the field - study abroad, friendships, spouse, etc. Sell all your classics books, or use them as doorstops. You'll feel liberated.
To Pollux and all the rest...
See how frustration has led to this craziness in Alabama:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/14/us/14alabama.html?hp
No, no...don't sell your books. Nothing (for me) was so sweet as spending a lazy evening eating apples, reading Virgil, and knowing I would never again be tested on him. Though, I admit to some slightly uncomfortable pangs of grief that there was no one with whom I could share the sidesplitting too-much-ness of 'largoque umectat flumine uultum'. And you might want to write something for shits and giggles after the funk fades.
Just out of curiosity: how many of you would bother to write/publish knowing that a TT or even stable work is not going to happen? Who would for fun?
Pollux, let me just say that years after leaving classics, various benefits of my time in grad school have emerged - some personal, some work-related. I have more free time than I would have otherwise, more friends, more hobbies. At the moment the time you've spent in school is a much larger percentage of your life than that period will be twenty or thirty years from now. Please be of good cheer.
See how frustration has led to this craziness in Alabama
No, "frustration" over tenure does not "lead" to multiple homicide. Being really f*cked up in the head and having firearms leads to multiple homicide.
Just out of curiosity: how many of you would bother to write/publish knowing that a TT or even stable work is not going to happen? Who would for fun?
I certainly would: I'm giving the academic path all I can but if it doesn't work out I'll still write and research, and try to get published: I love what I do, and even if I can't do it full-time I'll still pursue it in my spare time. Surely we all feel the same, right? It's not like anyone becomes an academic for the money, after all...
I'd also continue to read, think things over, and be "engaged." My rate of publication, however, would be much less since I wouldn't feel forced to publish for the sake of publishing. I'd like to think that the quality of my work would be much, much higher since I could choose my battles carefully, and spend more time articulating my positions. The current system results in a vomitorium of "scholarly product" beneficial only to the status-seeking game amongst institutions. To no longer be a pawn in that game could be liberating.
On an entirely different note/thread:
As I've been involved in a T-T search this year, I'd like to offer a few observations that might prove helpful to those of you either on the market, or going to be there soon. These are comments generated through discussion with the entire T-T committee, and might be of value to some of you out there. I apologize if they sound critical or picky; they are meant to be helpful and give you a sense of what is and is not acceptable (to our school, at least)...
(a) Please use large font size (at least 12) in your letters and CVs. If we can't read it, we won't read it. Also, please observe 1-inch margins in your cover letters...
(b) Keep the discussion of your research shorter. This, of course, depends upon the school. But a lot of us want to hear about your teaching, so think about the school and its needs, please. If teaching is an important component of the job, discuss teaching FIRST in your cover letter...
(c) If you choose to use Interfolio to disseminate your materials, DO NOT have them send a cover letter for you. This screams "Your school really isn't good enough for me to consider spending any time personalizing my papers and I haven't done any research on your program." PERSONALIZE your letters more than just inserting the name of the school. Committees appreciate this. If you don't engage the committee with at least a sense that you have done some research, you will be off the short list very quickly.
(d) Proof your letters. The worst errors actually appear in the reference letters (you wouldn't believe the carelessness there), but there is no excuse for sloppiness.
(e) Don't overpad your CV. Only include publications that have been accepted by a press and are in press. Working on a submission does NOT count as a publication. For that matter, do NOT list talks that you haven't presented yet. If you do so, make it clear that you were invited to give the talk, that does count for something.
Thanks. - A Concerned Colleague
The comments from "A Concerned Colleague" are helpful, and he/she should be thanked for taking the time to make them. But I would disagree with the suggestion that you not list works in progress on a c.v., or talks that have not been given yet. These should be clearly labeled, and don't count for much, and they are not "publications," but if someone is working on an article or talk that I can ask about in a interview at the APA or on campus, that can be a good chance to see how the person discusses something other than the diss. And if the person mainly works in an area far from mine but is doing an article closer to my area, that could lead to (literally has led to) an interesting discussion. Still, the advice not to "pad" is good--don't have too many of these, and remember to prune that list next year depending on whether things panned out.
Fair enough. And I didn't mean to imply that works in progress were not important, since it IS important to know where the candidate is going in terms of research interests and a candidate should make that clear to a committee. No question. But I (and some others on the committee) personally find it more effective when the candidate discusses his/her current and future interests in his/her letter of application, as many choose to do. To include such material on a CV seems like filler. For those people completing their diss, we KNOW you probably haven't had time to publish, that's fine. But we had several people list three or four ideas that they were germinating, far from actual publication, and it seemed a bit much. Again, just my two cents...
A Concerned Colleague
Thanks to the previous two posters for advice. It would be helpful to know what kind of institution you work for. In my experience (at an Ivy and a SLAC) the (variously composed) hiring committees seemed not to be overly concerned about most of the considerations listed, except the SLAC committees, rather obviously, preferred a bit more on teaching (but they still wanted to hear about research). In other words, best to follow the tips of the two posters but not every committee has the same standards - so don't freak out if you've organized/formatted your cv differently. (But don't try to be interesting in your formatting/fonts - that usually ends badly - take a look at the Placement book if you don't believe me... Clearly some frustrated amateur graphic designers out there.)
I definitely see where "concerned colleague" is coming from, but if I may, what is the big deal with using interfolio to send your cover letter? How does that show a lack of personalization? If you are going to spend the money to send references and other materials using their service, what is the harm in including the whole packet? You can easily personalize your cover letter for each school and upload it....
Mostly, this upsets me because I HAD to use interfolio as I am located overseas, and it would have been atrociously expensive and unreliable to snail mail back to the US using a reliable express service. I worried about my applications being dismissed unfairly by crotchety committee members - looks like my fears may have been right...
Regarding Interfolio, I did not mean to imply that your letters were being dismissed automatically. At least, I certainly hope that no committee would do that -- ours did not. But what I found in comparing the Interfolio letters with those sent directly by candidates was that the latter tended to personalize the letters to the institutions to a higher degree, thereby engaging the committee's interest more fully. If you choose to use Interfolio, fine. But be sure to personalize your letters; many of those that came from Interfolio read more like form letters than sincere applications of interest...
Concerned Colleague
"PERSONALIZE your letters more than just inserting the name of the school."
This type of request for personalization, I admit, has often left me confused.
What sort of research and personalization should candidates really do, aside from addressing the (sometimes vague) needs listed in the job advertisement and generally distinguishing between small, teaching focused schools and large research focused schools?
What sort of things is the candidate to discover? The research and teaching tendencies of current faculty? The school's mission statement?
When does the effort outpace the reward?
Incidentally, a letter from interfolio does not mean that they are not personalized. I have no choice but to use it as that is how my school sends out letters of rec., but I write and upload a specific letter for each school (although admittedly of differing degrees of personalization)
On sending cover letters through Interfolio, I have never done this, but I know those who do, and what they do is write a cover letter for each individual school, upload it to Interfolio, and include that in the packet for that school. (Your Interfolio account has plenty of space for all this.) I don't think this is what Concerned Colleague is referring to, but to generic cover letters sent through Interfolio. You wouldn't do that if you were mailing everything yourself, so why do it through Interfolio?
I agree completely: the problem of generic cover letters has nothing to do with interfolio. One can just as easily send generic cover letters by hand, but there seems to be some vague sense by concerned colleague (not to pick on you personally, but you raised the issue) that interfolio = lack of effort on the candidate's part.
It's about time that we bring our field technologically into the 21st century. Interfolio is a lifesaver for certain candidates, or simply required by many universities for references. Let's try and not let our deep seated anti-technological biases creep into evaluating potential colleagues.
There are no deep-seated biases here against technology. I was one of the first people in the country to teach online, I'm well aware of how useful technology can be. In fact, had Interfolio been around when I was on the market, I have the suspicion that I would have used it too, and have been glad to have the convenience. I just believe that some people take that convenience for granted. If not that, then I have to presume that they don't care enough about the job to put time or effort into crafting a letter that looks more like a form...
In fact, to answer what Anon 2/15 4:46 asked, there are many ways to personalize a letter, most of which can be determined by simple common sense. Here are a few examples:
(a) If the school has a mission statement prominently on the website and mentions it in numerous places, such as a department webpage, then pay attention. The school obviously takes it seriously (or needs to give it lip service), and wants a candidate to address the concerns of the mission.
(b) Discern what the teaching load at the school is. That will help you figure out the priorities of the faculty, or at least what their burdens are, and to shape your letter accordingly. Those of you in a large research institution, or who went to a selective SLAC: 2-2 teaching load is NOT a normal load. Do not presume that it is, or seem to do so in your letter.
(c) Note the size of the department and use it to your advantage in the letter. Use some judgment here: even if you want to, don't expect to teach Greek epigraphy at a very small program of 2-3 professors who are obviously trying to cover the basics. Ask yourself what is needed and what is popular, not necessarily what you want and what your special field is.
(d) Note the location of the school, and have something to say about that, if relevant. Yeah, most people will go anywhere for a job. But if you have something useful to say, chime in. One person wrote that they had a cousin attend our school and had visited - it showed us that they knew something about us, they weren't applying blind. Useful? Probably not. But it certainly stuck, all of the committee noticed it...
(e) Rework your CV to reflect the priorities of the school. If it is a school where you will do a lot of teaching, put teaching higher up on your CV. Put research and publication lower. Get the information that a committee member wants to his/her attention as quickly as possible.
Those are just a couple of ideas that might work. And one more: try some humor. Really. Some of the best teaching statements I read had something fun to say. To me that reflects a sense of humor, of delight, and someone who will likely be fun in the classroom. Yes, I'm at a SLAC, so perhaps it is something that only we prize. But it does tell me something about the person, and that's all to the candidate's advantage...
Concerned Colleague
A Concerned Colleague wrote:
"For that matter, do NOT list talks that you haven't presented yet. If you do so, make it clear that you were invited to give the talk, that does count for something."
Could you clarify what you mean by invited: where do "refereed" talks (APA, CANE, etc.) fall in this scheme? You proposed the talk to the APA, e.g., then technically by accepting they invited you to come give it. Is that the category you mean? I'm trying to think what an UN-invited talk looks like. ??
My sense is -- and you can see this on a number of CVs -- that "uninvited talks" are basically *in-house* grad talks. I made this mistake at one point, and one of my advisers rightly jumped on it. FWIW, if you're junior, be prepared to explain any non-APA, CAMWS, CAAS, etc. talks, esp. if they're grad student conferences, which are technically peer-reviewed, but tend to invite more suspicion (wrongly, I think) than other peer-reviewed, but non-professional, conferences.
I remember last year that somebody on FV criticized the practice of listing job talks on a CV. I have to agree; while "invited," they're not *invited* "invited." And what's the benefit in any case? If it was at a SLAC, you're more or less advertising that you were a finalist, but didn't get the job (not necessarily bad, but not unambiguously good as well). If it's at a research institution, I could see the temptation, but why risk having to address the context of that particular talk in an interview setting?
Basically, I'd simply list talks given in peer-reviewed contexts (i.e. CFP, "blind" refereeing, etc.) and be done with it.
If you're on the market and don't have any talks, please note that CAMWS is an extremely good and useful venue. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that CAMWS is a better (albeit less prestigious) place to give a paper than the meat market that is the APA....
Post a Comment