Isn't it well known that the UMass Boston thing is an inside job? Anyways, I'm not surprised that the Wiki is silent. One of a handful of fake openings, I'm afraid.
If you have applied to Bucknell University's job opening for the 3-year Latinist, please indicate via email if you would like to be considered for the 2-year generalist/Hellenist as well (slarson@bucknell.edu). The search committee will make its final shortlist for the 2-year position (hopefully) soon after the 27th of December. In the meantime, have a happy holiday.
Depends. There are places that conduct real searches, VAPs or not. And then there are places that conduct pretty blatantly fake searches. This year has its share of those.
I'd also add that, even in instances in which a department thinks it would like to hire a VAP who is already there but runs a search anyway, they're not doing it to torment other candidates or because running a search is so much fun (everyone hates searches) but because they're required to run a search.
And to be fair, searches with no existing VAP can occasionally start out with a specific person in mind, which isn't a materially different situation. It's just that you can't guess who the person is by looking at the department's website.
I'll throw Cal State Sacramento into the conspiracy mix, they seem to have had an individual on staff who fit the bill perfectly, and there is no evidence that they even looked at other applications.
How about "relieving" yourself during the course of the interview? I hear this is endearing and might win you "kudos" with a SC that is fond of "Dirty Rotten Scoundrels"
Last year the Placement Service sent an email to tell me about interview scheduling issues on Dec. 20. Does anyone have previous experience that might give a general idea of when this sort of thing should happen this year? Or is it like everything else with the Service, i.e. "you'll hear when you hear"?
Looks like the final email will be a week later this year. From the Placement Service's description of services:
In the period December 27-31, 2010, the Placement Service will send an e-mail to any candidate who (a) has registered with the Service by October 31, 2010, and (b) has an appointment for a job interview at the upcoming Annual Meeting in San Antonio, TX (January 6-9, 2011). The e-mail will LIST ONLY the name(s) of the institution(s) that requested that interview(s) be scheduled, and the list will contain only the names of institutions who submitted their short lists to the APA office on or before December 17, 2010. PLEASE NOTE: The Placement Service will not be able to respond to individual queries about these e-mails, and scheduling information (i.e., specific dates/times) about particular interviews will NOT be given out in advance of the Annual Meeting.
Thanks for the info! I'm struck by this bit: "...scheduling information (i.e., specific dates/times) about particular interviews will NOT be given out in advance of the Annual Meeting."
Is that normal? They're basically just saying that all they're going to do is confirm the emails you've already received directly from the program that wants to interview you. No dates or times provided for interviews? In other words, they're not doing anything. Feels pretty unhelpful, to me. That's the last time I ever give the Placement Service any of my money, even if I don't land a sweet t-t gig this season!
In fairness to the PS, I'm guessing that they don't want to give out dates/times because a late school (notifying them after Dec 17) might want to interview you, and that might cause your other interview(s) to get shuffled around. Just a guess, though.
"In fairness to the PS, I'm guessing that they don't want to give out dates/times because a late school (notifying them after Dec 17) might want to interview you, and that might cause your other interview(s) to get shuffled around. Just a guess, though."
Other fields manage to do this electronically using programs such that candidates can schedule their own conference interviews, block out certain times, etc. Fields larger than ours with more variables. And these fields have not yet imploded due to frenzy and chaos. It seems that such a system would actually *help* the PS during what I can only imagine is a very stressful time to be a one-person-shop with all sides in less than pleasant moods. Please, PS - help yourself and us come into the 20th (not even 21st) century! Pdfs should not be our greatest technological advance...
The PS is a disgrace to our profession. And, another year upon us, nothing gets done about it. I suspect in 2011 it'll be more of the same: the PS as a disgrace, and nothing done about it.
"Yeah, the PS has just proved how worthless and inefficient it truly is!"
I'm not sure that is fair. It is wonderful to have all the jobs listed in a central place so that everyone has a shot at applying. Many fields are not this lucky or organized. We take that for granted.
However: the fact that we don't have much done electronically, can't simplify the interview scheduling with any of the abundant systems used by other academic fields, and in general rely on one person to organize the whole shebang is a bit ridiculous. Upgrading to more modern means of communicating information and scheduling would not only allow the PS more time to do the things that require human attention, but it would also simplify the process for everyone. We don't need an "us vs. them" to fix this. We just need updated technology and a greater sense of collaboration from both sides.
Yup, we are "PS bashers and whiners" because we expect and hold that a service we pay for delivers. And, the statement "that many fields are not this lucky and organized" is simply laughable, all attesting again to a highly deficient and sub-par "service"
If everybody mailed fresh cedar bedding and a bag of nuts to RP then maybe updates would occur faster.
The APA's reel-to-reel drive is aging, the punch cards are getting dog-eared, and everyone knows that hamsters run faster and harder with a good sleep and a protein boost.
Ok, it's not just the PS, but also those institutions that subscribe to it, which is a majority unfortunately. The whole system stinks. I would like to avoid the bad service altogether, but this failed engine has been set up in such a way, like a monopoly, that there is no incentive for improvement. What else can we do? Use some competing PS? Shouldn't Blistein do something about this and turn this ship around?
Word. A survey would be an excellent way to begin to address this issue. As would finding out how other fields run their PSes. I imagine the results would be staggering. It just doesn't make sense to run a service like this anymore.
I would like to avoid the bad service ... but this failed engine has been set up in such a way, like a monopoly, that there is no incentive for improvement. ... Shouldn't Blistein ... turn this ship around?
I'm sympathetic, but I just have to say: damn, that is one f****d up metaphor.
I suggest that those who wish to reform the PS direct their suggestions to those who might have the power to effect that: the president of the APA and Adam Blistein. Believe me, people have been trying for years to modernize the PS to no avail. Various members of the Placement Committee have brought this issue up *repeatedly* for the past years. I'm a member of a search committee now and we are unhappy with the way the PS works but have to use it as it is, since our dean will not authorize us to rent our own interview suite to conduct interviews. Perhaps a solution would be to eliminate job interviewing at the APA and have everyone arrange interviews by Skype instead.
Yeah, apparently UMass-Boston "heard us" too and immediately posted an APA interview notification! Have not seen anyone confirm either Wabash or UMass, yet, though...
I'm holding out hope on Wabash...at least until somebody confirms. Almost sorry I asked, at least then I could have had a Christmas with some hope leftover!
Anyone consider the possibility that somebody is punking us?? What are the chances that a search committee is sitting on a short list of candidates and suddenly decides to send out emails minutes after reading a blog query? How many times has this happened now?
There are two positions at Rhodes, and I know someone who has been contacted about a phone interview for one of them (unfortunately I can't remember which one).
What is the general feeling about a request for recs or a writing sample? Is it a shoe in (barring a John Hendersonian article) for an interview or are they still fumbling over the last 50 "finalists"?
Re the Portland State Job I read this on the European History blog: "I don't think so [that they will interview at the APA]: the chair of the search told me in an email that the committee should have a short-list of candidates for phone interviews in mid- to late January."
I noticed that a new wiki entry under UC Davis states that the placement service contacted people today. Was there an email sent to people who signed up for the PS and have interviews?
A little late, but for those who may not have heard: http://www.lemonde.fr/carnet/article/2010/12/19/jacqueline-de-romilly-helleniste-et-academicienne-est-morte_1455554_3382.html
Typical of this place to emphasize the negative. Every time a famous classicist dies somebody links to the obituary, but if a famous classicist is born nobody says a word about it.
Sheesh, you sound like a proud missionary talking about your little brown-faced converts. As if classics needs any more links to the West's less glorious past.
What is the possible range of candidate numbers? Mine has a letter in front of it and is only in the double digits, but I have a friend with a triple digit number and no letter in front of it. Are these both likely or is one a mistaken keystroke and we should check back?
As far as I know, everyone should have a "C" in front of a number (for candidate). I believe the number is assigned based on when you signed up. If you have a double digit number, you signed up fairly early. Most will be in the hundreds. In the past, there have been 300+ candidates.
It is a scary sign when the topic of the APA's traditional opening night panel for job candidates is... high-school teaching. Because, you all know, that's what you REALLY wanted to do when you decided to spend a decade of your life in graduate school.
Well, so goes my attempt to interview at both APAs this year! I'm stranded in Chicago, unable to get to Boston for my philosophy interviews. Can't get a flight home until tomorrow.
Anybody have any recommendations for what to do in Chicago for the next 24 hours?
Has anyone actually been asked "what is your teaching philosophy" in an interview? This is my 2nd year on the market and I have never heard anyone actually experience this question. It is not that I think that one should not have thought about one's teaching or even have a written statement as such. But this question seems ridiculously vague for the short first round interview!
I've never been asked that question, never asked it, and have never heard of it being asked. I don't know what you'd hope to learn by asking it, other than seeing how someone responds when asked a lame question, which is pretty far down the list of things you're trying to learn in an interview. You might ask "what do you think a student is supposed to come away from class X having learned" or "how would you spark students' interest in Y subject," because that could tell you something about a person's thinking about teaching, but the "teaching philosophy" question is just begging for useless platitudes, and I assume it would get them.
When looking at the history of the wiki I noticed that someone, who signed in as "Hungry Classicist," amended the number of interviews he/she has from 11 to 12. I think that that person will not be hungry very long or is perhaps misrepresenting themselves!
They are at least not hungry when it comes to APA interviews... although they might be hungry during the APA being in all those hotel rooms so much with only the bottled water on hand.
As a fairly experienced interviewer, I find questions like "What is your teaching philosophy" embarrassing. On the other hand, one does occasionally ask questions out of left field to see how people handle them. I do ask candidates what they think undergrads are supposed to get from a liberal arts/classics degree; I do ask what people think are their strengths/weaknesses as teachers; I do try to make sure that they have studied my dept.'s website and have at least some idea of how they could contribute to what we do. And to find that out, I'm perfectly happy to ask stupid questions (either by accident or deliberately) to get a sense of someone's temperament. Not all colleagues and students are geniuses, after all. I am not interviewing this year, and glad of it. Good luck to all of you who are going through it.
Just to clarify, I am still using the Hungry Classicist log in on the wiki because my computer remembers the username and password (that must be a bad sign). I wish I had 12 interviews, but that rumor is untrue. This is my fourth year on the market and I've never broken double digits for APA interviews. In fact, my update was just to let everybody know that Boise State had sent out their PFO letters, of which I had received one. I don't know about the rest of you, but this year is far worse than last year for me. Very few jobs, and very, very few interviews. Best of luck to you all.
Hungry Classicist, thanks for the feedback. I just noticed on the "history" feature of the wiki that someone who signed in as you did changed numbers of interviews from 11 to 12. I could be mistaken. Anyhow, no malice meant, I just found it funny/ironic. Good luck with your interviews! Perhaps, I'll cut in front of you trying to snag a free beer at one of the parties.
Anyone know if Bucknell finished their second shortlist yet? No pressure since it's the holidays and all, but I just wanted to ask before the New Year. My resolution is to surrender myself to the winds of fortune and stop obsessing over this lousy job market.
I wondered if maybe they weren't done w/ conf preparations yet. Supposedly they were going to post a PDF of the whole program, but I could not find that this afternoon either.
On the other hand, in previous years their method of using links meant you could not see all panels' details at once -- so this year's on-line presentation is much better, even if not in PDF format.
I'm already in San Antonio, and the APA/AIA evidently have for the first time negotiated free internet access for all of us. We're supposed to log on as if we're paying, but the charge will be waived for those registered through the APA/AIA. Or that's what the person at the front desk tells me.
Call me cynical, but it's the least they can do. I'm glad the APA managed to get something other than free meeting rooms out of the deal since we are paying ~$50 more per night than the rate one can snag online during the rest of the year. Many of you can afford to support/subsidize the APA, especially if your school is paying for most of it. The rest of us adjuncts and lecturers making $2000/class cannot.
RE: the Portland State info recently posted on the wiki. Is this information you received after asking a SC member? Or were you contacted by the SC as a potential candidate they are interested in, etc? I've not heard anything from them. And the X2 on the wiki is confusing....
Excellent news, Prof. Farnsworth! Thanks for posting. I am a poor graduate student (and candidate in need of internet access) who was fretting about the $14x3 cost. This makes my day!
I agree with previous, too: it is sad that I'm so excited, because this should be standard.
Question for those with over ten interviews. Is it even desirable to have that many, especially if the bulk are at one conference? What was the plan applying for so many jobs (some which are VAPs I'm guessing)? I have several interviews and I have my hands full trying to keep track of faculty interests, classes, etc. How can you do more than ten without sounding too generic or exhausted? Do you cram before each one? Didn't someone mention having over ten in a previous year and landing no job? Perhaps it's from getting spread too thin?
I'm not one of the ones with all those interviews (I'm already employed and have done searches in the past), but I'd like to reply to your assumptions. When I was on the market I never crammed or tried to found out much about faculty members' interests. As a search committee member I have never expected a prospective candidate to know anything about my interests, either. I would not and am not offended at all when someone asks me about them; neither are my colleagues. We know that you aren't likely to really know much about our work, much less have read lots of stuff we've written. (I actually think it's weird when a candidate outside my field mentions a paper I've done. I mean, it's nice and it's flattering, but it's also obvious to me that s/he just googled me and is trying to make a good impression.)
I would say, concentrate on presenting yourself and your own work to the committees you're interviewing with, rather than trying to memorize who we are or what we do. And good luck!
Live from San Antonio - Here's an interesting follow-up to the rumor about UMass-Boston being an inside job - they're still on the board at the placement service. Maybe this is because they never submitted a full list? I'll be interested to see if they hire the person I think they want.
Has anyone else found the interview suites to be repressive? They're tiny and filled with overstuffed furniture making them a bit too cozy, especially when you have seach committees with 5+ people. It also doesn't help that some of them are too warm. Search committees, I know some of you get caught up in the moment unwittingly making an interview feel more like an interrogation, but can't someone check the thermostat. Also, I think putting a candidate in the big overstuffed chair in the MIDDLE of the tiny room is a bit too much as well. Feign professionalism and collegiality even though you hold all the power right now?
As a member of a search committee interviewing at San Antonio, I can attest that we at least were not feigning collegiality by offering the comfortable armchair in the middle of the room to candidates. Interviews are nerve-wracking for candidates in even the best of times, and we've all been there ourselves. I enjoyed meeting and talking with the candidates who are all clearly extremely well qualified and nice people to boot.
Indeed, as a member of a search committee interviewing in San Antonio, I found the suites to have no very good way to set up the furniture in the room. Please believe that for my colleagues and I, at least, some thought and consideration went into trying to make the environment as comfortable as possible for everyone, candidates included. Some water and some mini-conference rooms would have been much nicer, though.
Do search committees keep in mind that as interviwing conditions worsen for candidates, the higher the potential for stressing qualities that might have relatively little to do with future success? I understand that 30 minutes interviews are limited and not ideal, but I found a previous statement from a senior scholar a bit disturbing - that busting a candidate's chops for 30 minutes somehow correlates well with how a person will handle the stresses of an academic year. S/he mentioned a fondness for questions from left field to try and fluster candidates, to test their mettle. Is this a widely held sentiment by senior scholars? I've never interviewed job applicants, but it smacks of a quick and dirty way to handle matters, like a Civil War surgeon with a hacksaw. If committees have applied this method consistently across the board and produced superior colleagues, hats off to you; I've learned something new today.
I was on the market very recently, I did get a good, albeit stressful job, and I just wanted to say that as outrageous as hiring practices and market conditions are, really the healthiest and most helpful thing you can do is hope that you can fix them when you get to that point and just plow ahead with your own work. And trust me, this is coming from someone who was hopeless and desperate just a couple of years ago and got really lucky. My job's still not secure, and the pressures and stresses have only gotten worse, but all there is to do is put the angst aside and plow ahead. Maybe it will work, maybe I'll be out of a job a year from now, but it is so much better for your head, your health, your relationships, and your productivity when you do so. I come by here once in a while to see how things are, and it seems like it's the same as it ever was - tough, discouraging, and scary. Best of luck to all of you.
S/he mentioned a fondness for questions from left field to try and fluster candidates, to test their mettle. Is this a widely held sentiment by senior scholars? I've never interviewed job applicants, but it smacks of a quick and dirty way to handle matters, like a Civil War surgeon with a hacksaw.
No, I don't think that's a normal practice (and having re-read the comment you're referring to I'm not sure that's quite what the commenter was talking about: asking a question that's not on the "list of standard questions" to see how someone responds isn't the same time as deliberately trying to fluster a candidate in order to eliminate them efficiently).
What are the conventions about thank you notes? Are they appropriate after the APA interview stage, or do you wait and do them if you are lucky enough to go to campus?
Someone asked whether "a fondness for questions from left field to try and fluster candidates, to test their mettle" was "a widely held sentiment by senior scholars." I'd say that 30 minutes of questions from left field would be unusual, but if you don't ask some questions from left field you mostly are dealing with memorized answers to predictable questions. And the ability to handle questions from left field is not just related to "mettle;" it can also be a sign of intelligence. Wacky questions come up a lot in both research (when suddenly evidence points in a different direction from your long-held plans) and especially teaching: "Why didn't they just give Helen back?" "Isn't this just like ____ that I just learned about in another course?" "Isn't talking about this topic sinful?" "What are your qualifications for teaching the course?"
Bigger schools usually don't need to check with deans. At least some of them will make up their short lists while still at the convention and call the finalists before the whole thing is over.
A good half of my job market info comes from Facebook, but I don't feel right posting, "Campus fly-out extended. (Source: someone's FB status update)." So how do we deal with the Facebook factor? Ignore it, since our friends could be lying (or innocently mistaken)?
I know that our general policy is to only post for ourselves, not for other people, but it seems like there is a wealth of fairly-concrete information that isn't getting shared.
I say post it. Information is the purpose of the wiki. Things have been posted in the past that don't pertain directly with the poster. If it's a mistake, it will be corrected.
Imagine a parallel universe in which there were a ton of classical archaeology departments and almost no classics departments. In such a world, the archy departments might wish to hire a token "language" person. Rather than hiring them on the basis of their training and capabilities in dealing with ancient literature, which the archaeologists are ill-equipped to assess, a variety of extrinsic factors, including their willingness to teach other department offerings that the current faculty do not want to teach, are used to hire them. Would this model likely result in the hiring of the most talented and theoretically informed philologists positioned for acceptance among other humanists who study literature? The result for archaeologists is that there is a big difference between what classics departments call an archaeologist and what someone who has actually trained in archaeology calls an archaeologist. Some of the major figures in American excavations have no training in the broader discipline of archaeology, and little or no experience outside of the big dig they started working on while a student. Why would anthropologists consider a field that so blithely ignores their disciplinary training relevant to them?
Whoever posted this was spot on. At the risk of inciting vitriol instead of constructive discussion, I think the issue of classical archaeology needs to be addressed in North America in the coming years.
This is only my second year on the market, but as an archaeologist with some training in the UK, the interviews I had in San Antonio were disappointing to say the least. I'm not talking about the generalist positions calling for someone who dabbles in material culture. I'm talking about the ads that explicitly call for archaeologists. What passage from [insert Roman author] would I use to teach [insert advanced Latin class]? Really? I'm not talking about one question, but the vast majority of the time spent on language/lit questions. If this is truly what departments are looking for, grad programs will continue to produce people who can fill them - generalists who dabble in material culture but don't stand a chance of participating in archaeological discourse outside the classical world.
It's *okay* at the moment with old school boomers near retirement filling most of the positions and living in their clarch bubble, but who will fill them down the road? People trained in Europe? Or will these positions become non-archaeological? Pseudo-archaeological? I'm sure these senior scholars held their own 30-40 years ago in the greater archaeological community, but very few can do so today. Younger archaeologists generally do not have the safety of a large project to hide their methodological deficiencies.
If it's just ignorance on the part of classics departments, perhaps the AIA needs to publish a guide for archaeological searches just as they do for the tenure process for archaeologists? Maybe departments don't really desire a well-trained archaeologist but someone who merely projects a veneer of interdisciplinarity and cooperation with other disciplines?
Again, I'm not here to criticize but to understand. I truly care about classical studies in North America and wish it to thrive; I just don't get what the discipline is doing to foster classical archaeology besides knee-jerk reactions to outside threats to their existence.
Imagine a parallel universe in which there were a ton of classical archaeology departments and almost no classics departments. In such a world, the archy departments might wish to hire a token "language" person. Rather than hiring them on the basis of their training and capabilities in dealing with ancient literature, which the archaeologists are ill-equipped to assess, a variety of extrinsic factors, including their willingness to teach other department offerings that the current faculty do not want to teach, are used to hire them. Would this model likely result in the hiring of the most talented and theoretically informed philologists positioned for acceptance among other humanists who study literature? The result for archaeologists is that there is a big difference between what classics departments call an archaeologist and what someone who has actually trained in archaeology calls an archaeologist. Some of the major figures in American excavations have no training in the broader discipline of archaeology, and little or no experience outside of the big dig they started working on while a student. Why would anthropologists consider a field that so blithely ignores their disciplinary training relevant to them?
Whoever posted the previous comment was spot on. At the risk of inciting vitriol instead of constructive discussion, I think the issue of classical archaeology needs to be addressed in North America in the coming years.
This is only my second year on the market, but as an archaeologist with some training in the UK, the interviews I had in San Antonio were disappointing to say the least. I'm not talking about the generalist positions calling for someone who dabbles in material culture. I'm talking about the ads that explicitly called for archaeologists.
What passage from (insert Roman/Greek author) would you use to teach (insert advanced Latin/Greek class)?
Really? I'm not talking about one question, but the vast majority of the time spent on language-lit questions. If this is truly what departments are looking for, grad programs will continue to produce people who can fill them - generalists who dabble in material culture but don't stand a chance of participating in archaeological discourse outside the classical world.
It's okay at the moment with old school boomers near retirement filling most of the positions and living in their clarch bubble, but who will fill them down the road? People trained in Europe? Or will these positions become non-archaeological? Pseudo-archaeological? I'm sure these senior scholars held their own 30-40 years ago in the greater archaeological community, but very few can do so today. Younger archaeologists generally do not have the safety of a large project with minions to hide their methodological deficiencies.
If it's just ignorance on the part of classics departments, perhaps the AIA needs to publish a guide for archaeological searches just as they do for the tenure process for archaeologists? Maybe departments don't really desire a well-trained archaeologist but someone who merely projects a veneer of interdisciplinarity and cooperation with other disciplines?
Again, I'm not here to criticize but to understand. I truly care about classical studies in North America and wish it to thrive; I just don't get what the discipline is doing to foster classical archaeology besides knee-jerk reactions to outside threats to their existence.
When (if) an invitation is extended to visit a campus and the candidate is expected to give an 50-60 minute talk on their research at a school with strong emphasis on teaching, how welcome (well-received) would a power point presentation be? Or do people tend to stick to reading off the page? Thoughts? Opinions? Preferences?
Don't talk for 50-60 minutes, but 40 minutes at most. For a teaching school try to ditch the script and deliver the talk as if you were doing a class for upper-level majors. You need to show that you can engage the undergrads, while at the same time delivering on the content. Others may disagree, but I think the standard research job-talk is a real stinker for teaching oriented institutions. Delivering a great talk without notes (and with power-point images, maps, etc.) will set you out from the crowd (of 3).
You should first ask the school if they can easily accommodate a power point. Some schools have sadly out-of-date technology.
If they can do it, I say go for it: giving a talk with visual aids is a lot like teaching a class with visual aids. If you can do it well, and hold the students' attention, it will give the faculty a good idea of how you would do teaching a big lecture class.
Can somebody confirm that Millsaps has in fact sent out campus invites? I thought my APA meeting with them kicked ass, but nada thusfar...... Sometimes I don't trust the wiki.
I double confirm. A good friend of mine got a campus invite (since it isn't me, I'm not going to change the wiki to x2. For all I know, maybe my friend is the original poster).
Visual aids are fine and pp is not out of left field. I have to respond to the SLAC prof and say that I have recently seen two searches at SLAC schools and one candidate won out over others, giving a very standard and rather humdrum paper. Another candidate gave a nice pp talk from memory, but that person was nervous (probably b/c of the memory thing) and I think it killed them. The same thing happened for another search at a different school except that time the guy gave a brilliant paper with only notes... still he lost out to someone who read their paper but in a very dramatic manner. In other words, you NEVER know what the audience will like. I would do what you are most comfortable with.
I once heard something about ISAW having interviews for those one-year visiting scholar positions. Does anyone know if that really happens, or do they just base their decisions on applications+references?
I probably have no shot, but would at least like to know how small that shot is, as would be indicated if I learned there'd already been interviews.
Pretty sure ISAW doesn't interview. I've never heard of them, and since CHS, Loeb, NHC, etc. don't it would be surprising if NHS does. No news is good news so far.
On that note, CHS has sent out acceptances for next year, so no news is bad news in that case!
Not even close. Many searches have to go through deans, provosts, etc. and won't contact for a couple of weeks. Don't abandon hope until early March, or until somebody sends you a PFO.
What does it mean if campus invites and rejections were sent out after the APA but you got neither? Do I still hold out hope or did they just forget about me?
Newbie two, it's surprisingly common (at least in my experience) to drop off a list and never get a response at all, even after an interview. I'd wait a few days and then ask. Be warned though, if they've overlooked you, the news is probably not going to be good.
It might also mean you were second-string for the campus interview. Too good to say no immediately, not good enough to make first-string. But if the finalists all suck, or accept other offers, you might very well get the call. No news is definitely better than a rejection, but not as good as a campus invite.
1. As previously stated, all the campus invites can suck. It happens more often than you think. It reflects the imperfect science that is the 30-minutes APA interview. One can befuddle and charm a committee for 30 minutes; it's much more difficult over 2 days. Sometimes a search is cancelled after one round, but two factors mitigate against this. A department never knows when a search will be approved again and there is often little, if any, drop off with the next group of candidates.
2. There are candidates with multiple campus invites. As people have stated before, you only need, and can only accept, one job. Every year there are a select few with multiple job offers. They need time to decide, counteroffer, etc. This can take weeks. Candidates 2 and 3 can wait, holding captive their own job offers, or accept another offer. In the meantime, if candidate 1 declines, this can lead to scrambling by the department, especially if candidates 2-3 are off the market.
So hold out some hope and be prepared in February and March for last-minute flybacks. It's how I got my job years ago.
As for how long a job talk should be, don't guess, ask. Some people may shine at a teaching school by talking without notes, but many people will not and should have either notes or (my preference) everything written out, although it should be delivered as though you were talking to them and with tons of eye contact. Everyone's always impressed when someone speaks without notes, but when they think about whether it's a good argument, sometimes the people without notes come up short, or are thought to have wandered. It's also hard to judge time when you talk without notes or a script. Even at most teaching schools, the faculty will want to know not only whether you can explain things clearly to undergraduates, but also whether you can make a good argument--which relates both to teaching and to research. And if possible practice the talk with an audience, preferably before faculty and fellow students, but if necessary before one or two friend. And proofread your handout as if your life depending on it.
Does anyone know if the Queensborough CC job in Ancient History has been canceled? It seems to be impossible to apply for it any longer, and it's not clear whether that's an issue of the due date having changed or something else in the system.
Re: the Queensborough CC Ancient search, they conducted some interviews at the AHA and will be conducting more by phone over the coming weeks. It hasn't been cancelled.
If you're asked to give a teaching presentation (for undergrads) at a R1 institution, does this mean primarily a lecture-style session or a classroom discussion?
On Job Talks: I have never given a public lecture, job talk or not, without a verbatim script, jokes and all, but that's me. Others can do it with notes, or with nothing. The important thing is to pick your format and do it well: if you have a full text and never look up, it can be the best lecture in the world and you won't get the job. If you talk without notes and sound like an idiot, that won't do either. The audience will expect you to be nervous and not to be an expert performer (yet); they will make allowances. It's much more important to handle problems well and calmly--whether it's a glitch in PowerPoint or a missing page of your text or stumbling over a word--than picking any one method of delivery. And how you handle questions is, ultimately, at least as important as how you deliver the lecture. But practice the talk. When I began, I used to mark split times; write 'slow down' in my margins; put accents on any word I could mispronounce; and so on. Expect to be nervous; expect some confusion and even rudeness; and be ready to handle them.
Some places specifically ask you not to read your paper.
On a different note, moral dilemma here. I've got a friend/colleague who is dying because of the waiting (to hear from places). This person claims that they just want to know and does not know about the WIKI, so do I tell them about it? This is especially bad since the WIKI WILL bring bad news. Opinions? Thoughts?
Tell them about the wiki. They can then decide whether or not to use it. Personally, I find it liberating to know that I have no chances as soon as possible. Wikijection is much kinder than limbo.
No, YOU don't tell them about the wiki: you bet that person a lot of money that the school in question has already invited people to campus, and then have someone else inform him/her of the wiki's existence. It might be cruel of you to insist on odds, though.
I suppose someone should point out that a "job talk" and "teaching a class while doing an on campus interview" are very different things. I doubt very much that anyone reads off a script in the latter situation, while many, if not most, would do so in the former.
Yes, if a friend (or a friend of a friend) says they have a campus invite on their facebook page (seems weird to me), I think that is dependable, and should be used to update the wiki. Just my $.02
If you have more than one campus visit, and you are trying to schedule them, do you tell each school that you are visiting other places, and if so, do you tell them where you have other visits?
Is there anyone else out there who was told s/he would have an APA/Skype interview with Roanoke College and then never had said interview? I see that they have now made campus invitations and wonder why I spent time prepping an interview with them. Any point in complaining the APA about this?
I did. It seems that Roanoke dishonored more than one interview request. They seem to have dismissed candidates on no better grounds than their name fell in the wrong half of the alphabet. Oh, and good luck in getting a coherent explanation from them.
We really need to complain to the AHA about Roanoke, since they are a history department and could give a rat's ass what the APA has to say. The AHA is another matter, however. Somebody who knows Gruen should ask him to contact his counterpart at the AHA to give the smackdown on Roanoke. This is bullshit.
Roanoke are clearly in violation of the AHA's standards of professional conduct, which state that all candidates be treated fairly and equally (which I assume excludes simply stopping halfway through the interviews and skipping to the campus ones to save time). What is less clear is who deals with this sort of thing at the AHA and what they do about it. Anyone know?
Seems to me this is something that could be brought to the attention of the higher-ups at Roanoke. The dean for academic affairs, maybe. If it's a delinquant department, their administration should look into it, for their own sake. If it's institutional, then only the AHA can deal with it and probably not very effectively.
I too was offered a Skype interview by Roanoke in December, because I planned to go to the APA rather than the AHA. I discovered yesterday (after considerable chasing) that they had effectively reneged on their offer of an interview. I wrote politely to the Dean of the College (Vice-President) at Roanoke, and received a prompt but very bland response indicating he felt they had done nothing wrong, they had acted with his explicit approval and he commended the department for their ‘honesty’ in letting me know that my application was going nowhere after all rather than stringing me along. This is completely disingenuous, as they offered no information at all, and I had to pry it out of them on the basis that I already know they had arranged campus visits for some applicants. I also wrote to the APA. I think the more complaints both Roanoke and the APA get from unhappy candidates, the better, and if anyone knows the appropriate route to follow with the AHA, then complaints in that direction can only help. The fact that these were Skype interviews seems to cloud the issue in some eyes. If they had arranged conference interviews and cancelled half of them because they felt they had already spoken to enough qualified candidates, the reaction would have been outrage.
I'd complain about Roanoke to my AHA reps, but I still haven't been rejected, so I think I still have a shot at the job (isn't that why they keep some of us off the long list, but don't reject us straight up?)...
Seriously, though, what a horrible way to run a search! I guess they found a ringer in the original round of interviews and didn't want to waste any more of their time on the search. Some faculty apparently have no conscience, and no memory of what it was like to be on the market.
I know we're all freaked out about where our next meal is going to come from and might consider selling our first born children for a TT position, but let's face it --if they're running such a cruel and unethical search (and even the higher ups seem to have no qualms about doing it) then we're all better off with a VAP somewhere where our colleagues will behave like human beings.
I can't believe that the dean at Roanoke had the audacity to "commend the department's honesty". They sent me the most vague, run-around, nonsensical emails to try to avoid admitting what they had done. Were it not for the wiki, I would still have no clear picture of what had happened. Honesty my ass. If it's so above board, why not man up, explain and apologize? Are they going to say nothing until we get a rejection in the mail?
The SC hopes to hire "the two best people [i.e., philologists]," regardless of specialty. I suspect that all of these Hellenist/Latinist counters, while they may reveal actual trends, reflect no conscious designs of the committee.
Isn't this a bit redundant and obvious. Eat it, arkyologists!
I was merely specifying that, since the job ad is for philologists, they mean "two best philologists," even though the actual quote was "two best people." I'm not an archy-hater. I bet there are lots of swell archys out there. Cincy has five excellent archys on the faculty, and a number of gainfully employed recent archy PhDs.
Point #2 Has anybody heard anything about the Uni Cincinnati Latinist line?
There is no Cincinnati "Latinist" position! Can I be more clear? There are two Cincinnati "philologist" positions. They made a single short list (not one Latinist short list and one Hellenist short list), with five people on it. From the wiki, it looks like notifications already went out.
What is wrong with some of you? Really. Are archaeologists that revolting to your existence? Why? I swear, I've never encountered an academic enterprise with members this intolerant and derogatory of colleagues. Why even go through the motions of supporting archaeologists? Who's forcing you?
What is wrong with some of you? Really. Are archaeologists that revolting to your existence?
Stop with the persecution complex. Except for the people who are obviously jesting (obvious to me, at any rate), you'll notice that no one ever says, "I'm a phil and I think archs are inferior!" Rather, what people mostly say is, "I'm an archy, and I'm certain that all phils hate me!" Archy-hatred is oft-assumed and seldom demonstrated.
Usually these conversations start with, "I'm an archy, and I can't get a job!" Then someone chimes in with, "Well, there are more phil jobs than archy jobs."
And then we descend into (unproductive) madness. We can discuss the merits of the current proportions until we are blue in the face, but the fact remains that there are fewer archy than phil positions, but - mirabile dictu! - fewer archy PhDs than phil PhDs.
If you can't get a job, its not because phil-oriented SCs hate archy. Its because *lots* of people aren't getting jobs. Including phils. Believe me. Unemployment knows no discipline.
could we, like, um, move on? why derail a new and interesting debate/lament about the enforceability of aha ethical standards with recitations of the usual debate, actual job rumors notwithstanding?
you'll notice that no one ever says, "I'm a phil and I think archs are inferior!" Rather, what people mostly say is, "I'm an archy, and I'm certain that all phils hate me!" Archy-hatred is oft-assumed and seldom demonstrated.
Huh? Really? Did you catch the chain of events here?
First some idiot said, "Isn't this a bit redundant and obvious. Eat it, arkyologists!" There was no archaeologist starting off with a complaint. After a fairly benign reply by Token Archaeologist basically shaking off what you call "jesting," some other idiot (or maybe the same idiot?) said, "The only good archy is an unemployed archy." So someone then objects to this inane comment with a stronger reply and archaeologists are now the whining instigators? Sometimes, I really wonder if there is hope for classics. No, not the humanities in general, but just classics.
Did anyone actually receive a rejection from Roanjoke? I see that one of you lovely people has passed our plight onto the chronicle, where you state that they canceled the interviews- I've heard no such thing. Incidentally, the chronicle response surprised me. I had no idea that so many academics would defend to the death the right of search committees to act like assholes.
Anonymous 10:43, I'm afraid that if you haven't heard that your Roanoke interview is cancelled, it is because they have been even ruder to you than to those of us that wrote asking about our status. I was told that "it was not possible to skype interview everyone as we had hoped." Still not sure what they mean by "everyone," precisely. Oh they haven't officially rejected us yet, but seeing as how they have already issued campus invites, there is no reason for foolish optimism.
(10.43 here) 12.37, thanks, but I wasn't implying optimism -in fact, in light of recent events I have a crisp 20 on the current VAP at RC, if anyone would like to take that wager- I was just wondering if they had actually bothered to issue information, or only selectively to those who chased them.
First some idiot said, "Isn't this a bit redundant and obvious. Eat it, arkyologists!" There was no archaeologist starting off with a complaint. After a fairly benign reply by Token Archaeologist basically shaking off what you call "jesting," some other idiot (or maybe the same idiot?) said, "The only good archy is an unemployed archy."
If someone spells "archaeologist" as "arkyologist," it's a pretty good indication that it is a joke. It's not just "what [some people] call jesting," it is jesting! I bet "Token Archaeologist" even knew it was jesting.
As for the reply, "The only good archy is an unemployed archy." Again, the comment is so over the top that it is clear to me that someone is trying (and succeeding!) to get your dander up. Hyperbole is usually a pretty good clue that someone is pulling your leg.
Are we really having a fight about "who started it"? I guess so. No conflict existed until someone misinterpreted something: The *original* comment was, "two best people [i.e. philologists]." The "arkyologist" commenter chose to point out, in a humorous way, that it was poorly worded and *begging* to be misinterpreted. The original poster agreed, and clarified that "two best people" had to mean philologists since the job ad was for philologists, not because phils are inherently superior.
Sooner or later, voila! A conflict is born out of nothing! Not because someone legitimately insulted an archy, but because an archy believed a legitimate insult existed where there was none.
If you keep going, actual insults *will* fly, because when people *believe* they are being attacked, they turn into assholes.
Since we seem to want to go there, here are some "made up" insults that have appeared in previous posts. Sure, some of them may have been intended as light-hearted and humorous barbs. But laughing them off might be easier for the non-archaeologists than for the archaeologists, especially in the absence of emoticons. If some of you are unaware that a lot of lit/hist people don't particularly like classical archaeologists, then either it's because you rarely see an interaction between them (segregation), or because you live in a place, imagined or extremely enviable, where these creatures can all get along and appreciate the contribution each group has to offer. That's not where I live, though, and my interactions with a broad range of "classicists" in all disciplines give me the distinct sense that there is a strong anti-archaeology streak among older faculty and among current students. Denying that it exists doesn't quite do the trick; maybe you'd like to emphasize that the anti-archaeologists are in the minority instead. Enjoy the "neutral" and "funny" comments pasted below.
Klaatu said... Regardless, no matter how committed a classics department is to interdisciplinarity, I can't imagine any that would pick an archaeologist over a lit person (unless it's defcon 1 - i.e. about to be shut down or merged.) September 14, 2010 12:02 PM
Anonymous said... If you freakin historians and archaeologists are so unhappy, why don't you leave already? Good riddance. September 21, 2010 7:53 PM
Anonymous said... Ditto that, especially if you're the one with several interviews. You know the system in broken when an archaeologist is getting more interviews than a true classicist. December 12, 2010 7:46 PM
Juvenal said... Question for all you Clarchs out there:
Are you "willing and able" to teach BOTH ancient languages?
If you aren't, then quit bitching, or go convince an Anthro program to hire you.
The way this philologist (who has to teach a bunch of big lecture courses on top of two languages, btw) sees it is that Clarchs have much lower publishing requirements, they refuse to teach two languages, they moan and groan about teaching even one, and then they top it all off with complaints about the job market! Help carry the load a little more and maybe Classics wouldn't be hemorrhaging FTEs.
If you precious, GIS-savvy, snowflakes can't find jobs, blame nothing other than your rotten appraisal of our field's hiring terrain. December 13, 2010 9:41 AM
Anonymous said... Maybe an archaeologist posted it as a positive? Ha, couldn't resist jabbing our little dirt-faced brethren! December 24, 2010 2:56 PM
Second that. I was expected to teach large survey courses (including both Greek and Roman arch), both languages at all levels, and get a book under contract before tenure. So yeah, I'm really not sympathetic to clarch whining.
Anonymous said... Second that. I was expected to teach large survey courses (including both Greek and Roman arch), both languages at all levels, and get a book under contract before tenure. So yeah, I'm really not sympathetic to clarch whining. January 22, 2011 12:55 PM
You might want to reread the above post (which appears to be a series of collected comments) and then re-define your complaint about these strawman clarchs that are constantly whining.
"The way this philologist (who has to teach a bunch of big lecture courses on top of two languages, btw) sees it is that Clarchs have much lower publishing requirements, they refuse to teach two languages, they moan and groan about teaching even one, and then they top it all off with complaints about the job market! Help carry the load a little more and maybe Classics wouldn't be hemorrhaging FTEs."
Why don't we redefine the "load" and maybe we'll be more relevant in the 21sth century? Citing the lack of language instructors as the main reason for losing FTEs is short-sighted at best, blind at worst. Many of us younger folk are demanding cross-pollination and diversity not to be PC, but to alleviate a symptom that appears terminal judging by the comments on here. So treat the disease, not just the symptom. Hiring privileged Bill Huxtable Latinist is not the answer. Deans aren't cutting classics in a vacuum. It's always done by committee and classicists rarely collaborate and make friends with those sitting on these committees, making us sitting ducks. So go look for these innovative people like every other freaking discipline instead of hiring people who are basically Latin/Greek instructors. Deans will not enthusiastically approve these lines in good or bad times. As much as we would like to think we're special for knowing a couple dead languages, there are way more of us than practicality dictates, let alone demand. As a dean recently asked me, "Who's really doing vital research in your disicpline, exploring uncharted waters?" I hate to say it as an ancient historian, but it's pretty much our archaeology brethren whether we like it or not. Flame on.
No, I think you're pretty much spot on. It explains why almost all the jobs seem to be at elite schools or glorified community colleges. The elite schools, driven by tradition, can afford to fund the same old classics while the latter schools are looking for language instructors, no innovative research needed. Where are all the jobs at top state schools? Non-elite SLACs? If Michigan State and Trinity are any indication, they're not coming back without some reforms in our fundamental structure and long term outlook. In other words, NEVER.
And, no, I'm not saying the answer is as simple as hiring more archaeologists. It's a place to start since many of us are forced to be interdiscplinary from the get-go and we're kicking around. Why aren't more people doing things like classical reception/tradition? Cultural heritage? I think it's a bit disingenous to say they don't exist when have little chance of getting hired unless they fit the classic definition of a classicist AND they do X. We're also told as grad students, "You won't get a job if you go that direction." Kind of a self fulfilling excuse, eh?
Shut up, all of you. We get it. You hate us for holding the keys to classics. Tough shit. You should have studied your Latin and Greek instead of piddling around with GIS and microscopes. Now do us all a favor and go to anthropology. Wait? They won't take you. Too fucking bad for making a unfortunate disciplinary choice.
fuck you, January 22, 2011 2:46 PM, and all of your colonialist greek and latin brethren. good riddance once you are all downsized to nonexistence. and i have a phd specialization in latin literature.
"So go look for these innovative people like every other freaking discipline instead of hiring people who are basically Latin/Greek instructors. Deans will not enthusiastically approve these lines in good or bad times."
Well said. I would change this to DEMAND innovative people. I say this as a Hellenist who was told the "you will never get a job doing this" line for what I thought was a kick ass idea in grad school. I really love my advisor and his generation, who are swell people for the most part, but I must say in retrospect that they largely failed our discipline as academia transitioned through the last 40 years.
If Michigan State and Trinity are any indication, they're not coming back without some reforms in our fundamental structure and long term outlook.
As a Trinity alum, I can agree with this. The time for change is before you reach the precipice, not when decisions have been made and petitions and Facebook pages matter little.
I'm still curious about the Whitman job in "Classics and Environmental Humanities". Seems like a really odd combination of interests. Wonder how many applicants they got? Can anyone who had an APA interview with them shed any light on the position?
All we hear from the archaeologists is that we philologists do nothing of value, and that all the world's problems would be solved if every philologist were to be replaced with an archaeologist. Yet I cannot help noting that you never hear philologists question the value of what classical archaeologists do. Indeed, most of us regard the work of archaeologists as a diverting little supplement to the study of Greco-Roman antiquity! I for one should be very sorry if there were no more classical archaeologists. It hardly seems fair, then, to blame philologists for the disgraceful incivility that you see on display on this website.
"Yet I cannot help noting that you never hear philologists question the value of what classical archaeologists do. Indeed, most of us regard the work of archaeologists as a diverting little supplement to the study of Greco-Roman antiquity!"
Your attempt at a cute, tongue in cheek jab at the archaeologist belies the truth that you, too, are part of the problem. You have enjoyed a long life as an ostrich if you think the greek/latin types don't disparage those who focus on the material world. There is no solution, and no hope for harmony. I only predict that in the long run it will be easier to find archae types in unis than it will to find stuck in the mud people who believe only in the supremacy of the text and the dogmatic, 18th century notion that somehow only one who studies the ancient languages - and nothing more - can have a worthwhile or salutary experience when it comes to the study of classical antiquity. The texts are important, yes, and they give all of us invaluable information and insight; if you want the study of the greco-roman world to hang around, however, it is high time to start thinking about the interdisciplinary approach and ways to builds bridges instead of reinforcing the old fences. And if all you think is that archaeology is an amusing sideline to 'classics', then you are a dope.
We are so far up the creek and out of touch with reality (judging by some of the "concerned" statements on here) that I think it's utterly irresponsible to encourage the vast majority of college students into graduate studies. We might as well be training them in phrenology. You really think deans are going to start handing out classics lines once the economy picks up? Academia is rebooting and reassessing itself after this close scrape and we've done little to convince deans of any critical role we play. I'm afraid that classics is to most administrators what archaeology is to classics - an amusing sideline and little more.
All we hear from the archaeologists is that we philologists do nothing of value, and that all the world's problems would be solved if every philologist were to be replaced with an archaeologist.
Talk about selective processing. I don't think any classical archaeologist would say that philologists do nothing of value and that every one should be replaced by one of their own. This has not been my experience no matter how much they have been shat upon. I think they, along with a bunch of us "philologists," are asking for a wider perspective and less of this us vs. them mentality.
I can say this as a Latinist with a dear friend who survived the trenches of grad school with me. I can say unequivocably that it's absolutely unfair that I landed a TT job at a flagship state school straight out of school while he's still trudging through VAPs. I not talking about the general unfairness that pervades how any of us get a job, but a system that stacks the cards against him. He's the exact type of person classics should be falling over each other to hire. I'm convinced that most disciplines would have done so. He can teach Greek better than I can and can hold his own in Latin. He's also an ace Greek history teacher and can teach the full complement of archaeology courses, easily veering off into methodology and theory. He's received off the chart reviews at every VAP stop and does absolutely cutting edge research that a bunch of other disciplines can relate to - art history, anthro, Near East studies, East Asian studies, history, and even the sciences! He's well funded and takes students overseas every summer. Yet, he languishes, I'm convinced, because he does not fit our typical description of a classicist - talking the smooth talk and convincing ourselves that we know and do more than we do.
We are forgetting something, I think. As long as high schools continue to teach Latin, there will be a need for philologists, well, Latinists, at least, to train future high school Latin teachers. Greek really isn't taught all that much at the secondary level and archaeology, well, I don't know, but probably not all that much.
If an undergraduate wants a career in classics, from a market-oriented view, shouldn't we advise him or her to be a Latinist?
The fact of the matter is that a good translation is more than sufficient for any legitimate purpose. And basically everything has been translated already. The dirty little secret that the philologists keep dancing around is that we don't need philology anymore. Maybe keep a half a dozen of them to translate the stuff that nobody has gotten round to yet, and another half dozen to translate new papyri and inscriptions.
Ahem, it's not that much of a secret anymore. Have you read any of the recent search requests submitted by a department? Despite all the smoke and mirrors explaining why another philologist is needed, very few deans fall for it now. The "we've always had one" bit is especially played out.
1,431 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 601 – 800 of 1431 Newer› Newest»The PS is under no obligation to do anything for you if you didn't pay for its services.
If you like to bash the PS so much, cough up the cash to buy the listings.
Isn't it well known that the UMass Boston thing is an inside job? Anyways, I'm not surprised that the Wiki is silent. One of a handful of fake openings, I'm afraid.
Please note:
If you have applied to Bucknell University's job opening for the 3-year Latinist, please indicate via email if you would like to be considered for the 2-year generalist/Hellenist as well (slarson@bucknell.edu). The search committee will make its final shortlist for the 2-year position (hopefully) soon after the 27th of December. In the meantime, have a happy holiday.
to Anon @9:30:
I did not realize/know this. Oh well, sad...thanks for the info...
Yeah, "sad", especially if you get called for an interview!!
How would 99% of us know this?
Here we go again with "insider" candidates. What schools will be the target this year? So far we have UMass-Boston. Any others out there?
There are "internal" candidates, and there are "inside" candidates. Don't assume that somebody is the latter just because they are the former.
There are few things more sucky than applying for a tenure-track job at the place where you are a current VAP.
Depends. There are places that conduct real searches, VAPs or not. And then there are places that conduct pretty blatantly fake searches. This year has its share of those.
I'd also add that, even in instances in which a department thinks it would like to hire a VAP who is already there but runs a search anyway, they're not doing it to torment other candidates or because running a search is so much fun (everyone hates searches) but because they're required to run a search.
And to be fair, searches with no existing VAP can occasionally start out with a specific person in mind, which isn't a materially different situation. It's just that you can't guess who the person is by looking at the department's website.
And then there are the schools that wish to keep their own graduate students on. We may have one or two of those this year as well.
I'll throw Cal State Sacramento into the conspiracy mix, they seem to have had an individual on staff who fit the bill perfectly, and there is no evidence that they even looked at other applications.
In my view Cal State should be ashamed of itself. The ad was ridiculous and the speed of the process even more so. At least try to pretend.
Interesting thread on "fake" searches (where they already have an inside candidate in mind) over at the Chronicle:
Here
UMass-Boston interview request has been posted!
In light of current info, I am relieved not to be a part of the farce that will be the interview!
I'd be relieved too.
How about "relieving" yourself during the course of the interview? I hear this is endearing and might win you "kudos" with a SC that is fond of "Dirty Rotten Scoundrels"
The true paranoids might say that UMass Boston was only posted after this thread to divert attention.
Yes, paranoid, but I like it (x1)
To Anon @12:59:
Hell, anyone who has the bowels to do so can be my colleague any day!
"The PS is under no obligation to do anything for you if you didn't pay for its services.
If you like to bash the PS so much, cough up the cash to buy the listings."
Thanks to RP (and AB) for this helpful advice.
Last year the Placement Service sent an email to tell me about interview scheduling issues on Dec. 20. Does anyone have previous experience that might give a general idea of when this sort of thing should happen this year? Or is it like everything else with the Service, i.e. "you'll hear when you hear"?
Looks like the final email will be a week later this year. From the Placement Service's description of services:
In the period December 27-31, 2010, the Placement Service will send an e-mail to any candidate who (a) has registered with the Service by October 31, 2010, and (b) has an appointment for a job interview at the upcoming Annual Meeting in San Antonio, TX (January 6-9, 2011). The e-mail will LIST ONLY the name(s) of the institution(s) that requested that interview(s) be scheduled, and the list will contain only the names of institutions who submitted their short lists to the APA office on or before December 17, 2010. PLEASE NOTE: The Placement Service will not be able to respond to individual queries about these e-mails, and scheduling information (i.e., specific dates/times) about particular interviews will NOT be given out in advance of the Annual Meeting.
Thanks for the info! I'm struck by this bit: "...scheduling information (i.e., specific dates/times) about particular interviews will NOT be given out in advance of the Annual Meeting."
Is that normal? They're basically just saying that all they're going to do is confirm the emails you've already received directly from the program that wants to interview you. No dates or times provided for interviews? In other words, they're not doing anything. Feels pretty unhelpful, to me. That's the last time I ever give the Placement Service any of my money, even if I don't land a sweet t-t gig this season!
In fairness to the PS, I'm guessing that they don't want to give out dates/times because a late school (notifying them after Dec 17) might want to interview you, and that might cause your other interview(s) to get shuffled around. Just a guess, though.
"In fairness to the PS, I'm guessing that they don't want to give out dates/times because a late school (notifying them after Dec 17) might want to interview you, and that might cause your other interview(s) to get shuffled around. Just a guess, though."
Other fields manage to do this electronically using programs such that candidates can schedule their own conference interviews, block out certain times, etc. Fields larger than ours with more variables. And these fields have not yet imploded due to frenzy and chaos. It seems that such a system would actually *help* the PS during what I can only imagine is a very stressful time to be a one-person-shop with all sides in less than pleasant moods. Please, PS - help yourself and us come into the 20th (not even 21st) century! Pdfs should not be our greatest technological advance...
The PS is a disgrace to our profession. And, another year upon us, nothing gets done about it. I suspect in 2011 it'll be more of the same: the PS as a disgrace, and nothing done about it.
Yeah, the PS has just proved how worthless and inefficient it truly is!
Well the PS bashers and whiners got their wish, looks like Dec jobs are posted now. Not that you were whining to see very much.
"Yeah, the PS has just proved how worthless and inefficient it truly is!"
I'm not sure that is fair. It is wonderful to have all the jobs listed in a central place so that everyone has a shot at applying. Many fields are not this lucky or organized. We take that for granted.
However: the fact that we don't have much done electronically, can't simplify the interview scheduling with any of the abundant systems used by other academic fields, and in general rely on one person to organize the whole shebang is a bit ridiculous. Upgrading to more modern means of communicating information and scheduling would not only allow the PS more time to do the things that require human attention, but it would also simplify the process for everyone. We don't need an "us vs. them" to fix this. We just need updated technology and a greater sense of collaboration from both sides.
Yup, we are "PS bashers and whiners" because we expect and hold that a service we pay for delivers. And, the statement "that many fields are not this lucky and organized" is simply laughable, all attesting again to a highly deficient and sub-par "service"
If everybody mailed fresh cedar bedding and a bag of nuts to RP then maybe updates would occur faster.
The APA's reel-to-reel drive is aging, the punch cards are getting dog-eared, and everyone knows that hamsters run faster and harder with a good sleep and a protein boost.
Ok, it's not just the PS, but also those institutions that subscribe to it, which is a majority unfortunately.
The whole system stinks. I would like to avoid the bad service altogether, but this failed engine has been set up in such a way, like a monopoly, that there is no incentive for improvement. What else can we do? Use some competing PS? Shouldn't Blistein do something about this and turn this ship around?
Riddle me this, B(at)listei(ma)n:
Why can't the PS post jobs as they come in rather than waiting to post them once (or maybe twice) each month?
Why can't the PS use an automated scheduling site to arrange interview slots?
Why can't the APA put up a wiki-like website so institutions can post their info early, if the PS is incapable of doing this themselves?
Why can't the PS punish/loudly shame schools that fail to arrange interviews prior to, say, December 20th ('cause plane tickets ain't free)?
Why does the APA not give a rat's ass about how terrible the PS is, and why the people who pay for it hate it?
Why can't the APA send out a survey to the field asking how the PS can be improved, and then listen to that survey (hint: use email, it's fast)?
Anybody else have riddles for Batman?
I've paid for the PS four years running now and my rage grows ever greater every year.
Word. A survey would be an excellent way to begin to address this issue. As would finding out how other fields run their PSes. I imagine the results would be staggering. It just doesn't make sense to run a service like this anymore.
I would like to avoid the bad service ... but this failed engine has been set up in such a way, like a monopoly, that there is no incentive for improvement. ... Shouldn't Blistein ... turn this ship around?
I'm sympathetic, but I just have to say: damn, that is one f****d up metaphor.
Amen, Cato!!
I suggest that those who wish to reform the PS direct their suggestions to those who might have the power to effect that: the president of the APA and Adam Blistein. Believe me, people have been trying for years to modernize the PS to no avail. Various members of the Placement Committee have brought this issue up *repeatedly* for the past years. I'm a member of a search committee now and we are unhappy with the way the PS works but have to use it as it is, since our dean will not authorize us to rent our own interview suite to conduct interviews. Perhaps a solution would be to eliminate job interviewing at the APA and have everyone arrange interviews by Skype instead.
Anybody know what the Wabash folks are up to in their search? Are they interviewing at APA/AIA?
Taking their sweet time.
I thought Wabash wasn't interviewing at the APA, but waiting until February.
Well clearly they heard us!
Yeah, apparently UMass-Boston "heard us" too and immediately posted an APA interview notification! Have not seen anyone confirm either Wabash or UMass, yet, though...
Any word on Rhodes, for the sake of those of us who in depseration applied for absolutely everything?
I'm holding out hope on Wabash...at least until somebody confirms. Almost sorry I asked, at least then I could have had a Christmas with some hope leftover!
Anyone consider the possibility that somebody is punking us?? What are the chances that a search committee is sitting on a short list of candidates and suddenly decides to send out emails minutes after reading a blog query? How many times has this happened now?
Maybe more to the point, how many search committees are really sitting around discussing their shortlists this week?
There are two positions at Rhodes, and I know someone who has been contacted about a phone interview for one of them (unfortunately I can't remember which one).
I can confirm that Wabash sent out APA interview confirmations through email at noon today.
I'm guessing the phone interview is for the Rhodes job posted on the wiki?
I can also confirm that Wabash sent out e-mails.
Anyone hear anything from Portland State?
What is the general feeling about a request for recs or a writing sample? Is it a shoe in (barring a John Hendersonian article) for an interview or are they still fumbling over the last 50 "finalists"?
Re the Portland State Job
I read this on the European History blog:
"I don't think so [that they will interview at the APA]: the chair of the search told me in an email that the committee should have a short-list of candidates for phone interviews in mid- to late January."
thought it might help to let people know.
I noticed that a new wiki entry under UC Davis states that the placement service contacted people today. Was there an email sent to people who signed up for the PS and have interviews?
I got just such an email from RP this morning, with interviewing institutions and my candidate ID #.
Did the placement service send out the "kitchen closed" email?
Awww...I want my PS email! Why do I always feel like a third-rate citizen when somebody else gets speedier treatment than I do?
Wait, I haven't even received the general pre-convention interview information yet and people are receiving individual emails?
You all are aware that RP does all the hiring for all the positions, right? Right?
?
A little late, but for those who may not have heard: http://www.lemonde.fr/carnet/article/2010/12/19/jacqueline-de-romilly-helleniste-et-academicienne-est-morte_1455554_3382.html
Typical of this place to emphasize the negative. Every time a famous classicist dies somebody links to the obituary, but if a famous classicist is born nobody says a word about it.
Maybe an archaeologist posted it as a positive? Ha, couldn't resist jabbing our little dirt-faced brethren!
Sheesh, you sound like a proud missionary talking about your little brown-faced converts. As if classics needs any more links to the West's less glorious past.
What is the possible range of candidate numbers? Mine has a letter in front of it and is only in the double digits, but I have a friend with a triple digit number and no letter in front of it. Are these both likely or is one a mistaken keystroke and we should check back?
As far as I know, everyone should have a "C" in front of a number (for candidate). I believe the number is assigned based on when you signed up. If you have a double digit number, you signed up fairly early. Most will be in the hundreds. In the past, there have been 300+ candidates.
It is a scary sign when the topic of the APA's traditional opening night panel for job candidates is... high-school teaching. Because, you all know, that's what you REALLY wanted to do when you decided to spend a decade of your life in graduate school.
Well, so goes my attempt to interview at both APAs this year! I'm stranded in Chicago, unable to get to Boston for my philosophy interviews. Can't get a flight home until tomorrow.
Anybody have any recommendations for what to do in Chicago for the next 24 hours?
Has anybody heard anything from or about Carthage College's opening? Just wondering.
Has anyone actually been asked "what is your teaching philosophy" in an interview? This is my 2nd year on the market and I have never heard anyone actually experience this question. It is not that I think that one should not have thought about one's teaching or even have a written statement as such. But this question seems ridiculously vague for the short first round interview!
it happens - be prepared as you *never* know what the interviewers will ask, esp. those who live in left field ...
I've never been asked that question, never asked it, and have never heard of it being asked. I don't know what you'd hope to learn by asking it, other than seeing how someone responds when asked a lame question, which is pretty far down the list of things you're trying to learn in an interview. You might ask "what do you think a student is supposed to come away from class X having learned" or "how would you spark students' interest in Y subject," because that could tell you something about a person's thinking about teaching, but the "teaching philosophy" question is just begging for useless platitudes, and I assume it would get them.
When looking at the history of the wiki I noticed that someone, who signed in as "Hungry Classicist," amended the number of interviews he/she has from 11 to 12. I think that that person will not be hungry very long or is perhaps misrepresenting themselves!
They are at least not hungry when it comes to APA interviews... although they might be hungry during the APA being in all those hotel rooms so much with only the bottled water on hand.
Hungry Classicist... Wasn't that the default log in name for the wiki 3 years ago?
As a fairly experienced interviewer, I find questions like "What is your teaching philosophy" embarrassing. On the other hand, one does occasionally ask questions out of left field to see how people handle them. I do ask candidates what they think undergrads are supposed to get from a liberal arts/classics degree; I do ask what people think are their strengths/weaknesses as teachers; I do try to make sure that they have studied my dept.'s website and have at least some idea of how they could contribute to what we do. And to find that out, I'm perfectly happy to ask stupid questions (either by accident or deliberately) to get a sense of someone's temperament. Not all colleagues and students are geniuses, after all.
I am not interviewing this year, and glad of it. Good luck to all of you who are going through it.
Just to clarify, I am still using the Hungry Classicist log in on the wiki because my computer remembers the username and password (that must be a bad sign). I wish I had 12 interviews, but that rumor is untrue. This is my fourth year on the market and I've never broken double digits for APA interviews. In fact, my update was just to let everybody know that Boise State had sent out their PFO letters, of which I had received one. I don't know about the rest of you, but this year is far worse than last year for me. Very few jobs, and very, very few interviews. Best of luck to you all.
What does PFO stand for?
Never mind! Found it at Urban Dictionary: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=PFO
My previous Google searches had only given me "Patent Foramen Ovale." "Please F*** Off" makes much more sense in the job search context :)
Hungry Classicist, thanks for the feedback. I just noticed on the "history" feature of the wiki that someone who signed in as you did changed numbers of interviews from 11 to 12. I could be mistaken. Anyhow, no malice meant, I just found it funny/ironic. Good luck with your interviews! Perhaps, I'll cut in front of you trying to snag a free beer at one of the parties.
Anyone know if Bucknell finished their second shortlist yet? No pressure since it's the holidays and all, but I just wanted to ask before the New Year. My resolution is to surrender myself to the winds of fortune and stop obsessing over this lousy job market.
According to the wiki, Bucknell sent out the 2nd wave of interviews on New Year's Day.
To the SC member "who just thinks [the wiki] is standard now," yeah, it might be for academia in general, but for classics it's nuclear physics judging by how the placement service is run. We finally rid ourselves of triplicate forms only to replace them belatedly with pdfs (when everyone else is going online). The pdfs weren't even done right. I wouldn't be so blasé about advancement, not when classics is involved.
Does the AIA not post paper abstracts online anymore?
I guess we regress....
I wondered if maybe they weren't done w/ conf preparations yet. Supposedly they were going to post a PDF of the whole program, but I could not find that this afternoon either.
On the other hand, in previous years their method of using links meant you could not see all panels' details at once -- so this year's on-line presentation is much better, even if not in PDF format.
Good news, everyone!
I'm already in San Antonio, and the APA/AIA evidently have for the first time negotiated free internet access for all of us. We're supposed to log on as if we're paying, but the charge will be waived for those registered through the APA/AIA. Or that's what the person at the front desk tells me.
Call me cynical, but it's the least they can do. I'm glad the APA managed to get something other than free meeting rooms out of the deal since we are paying ~$50 more per night than the rate one can snag online during the rest of the year. Many of you can afford to support/subsidize the APA, especially if your school is paying for most of it. The rest of us adjuncts and lecturers making $2000/class cannot.
RE: the Portland State info recently posted on the wiki. Is this information you received after asking a SC member? Or were you contacted by the SC as a potential candidate they are interested in, etc? I've not heard anything from them. And the X2 on the wiki is confusing....
Excellent news, Prof. Farnsworth! Thanks for posting. I am a poor graduate student (and candidate in need of internet access) who was fretting about the $14x3 cost. This makes my day!
I agree with previous, too: it is sad that I'm so excited, because this should be standard.
Question for those with over ten interviews. Is it even desirable to have that many, especially if the bulk are at one conference? What was the plan applying for so many jobs (some which are VAPs I'm guessing)? I have several interviews and I have my hands full trying to keep track of faculty interests, classes, etc. How can you do more than ten without sounding too generic or exhausted? Do you cram before each one? Didn't someone mention having over ten in a previous year and landing no job? Perhaps it's from getting spread too thin?
I'm not one of the ones with all those interviews (I'm already employed and have done searches in the past), but I'd like to reply to your assumptions. When I was on the market I never crammed or tried to found out much about faculty members' interests. As a search committee member I have never expected a prospective candidate to know anything about my interests, either. I would not and am not offended at all when someone asks me about them; neither are my colleagues. We know that you aren't likely to really know much about our work, much less have read lots of stuff we've written. (I actually think it's weird when a candidate outside my field mentions a paper I've done. I mean, it's nice and it's flattering, but it's also obvious to me that s/he just googled me and is trying to make a good impression.)
I would say, concentrate on presenting yourself and your own work to the committees you're interviewing with, rather than trying to memorize who we are or what we do. And good luck!
Live from San Antonio -
Here's an interesting follow-up to the rumor about UMass-Boston being an inside job - they're still on the board at the placement service. Maybe this is because they never submitted a full list? I'll be interested to see if they hire the person I think they want.
Has anyone else found the interview suites to be repressive? They're tiny and filled with overstuffed furniture making them a bit too cozy, especially when you have seach committees with 5+ people. It also doesn't help that some of them are too warm. Search committees, I know some of you get caught up in the moment unwittingly making an interview feel more like an interrogation, but can't someone check the thermostat. Also, I think putting a candidate in the big overstuffed chair in the MIDDLE of the tiny room is a bit too much as well. Feign professionalism and collegiality even though you hold all the power right now?
Yeah, they're not great. My main gripe is the lack of water. This is only my second year interviewing, but I assumed water was standard practice.
As a member of a search committee interviewing at San Antonio, I can attest that we at least were not feigning collegiality by offering the comfortable armchair in the middle of the room to candidates. Interviews are nerve-wracking for candidates in even the best of times, and we've all been there ourselves. I enjoyed meeting and talking with the candidates who are all clearly extremely well qualified and nice people to boot.
Indeed, as a member of a search committee interviewing in San Antonio, I found the suites to have no very good way to set up the furniture in the room. Please believe that for my colleagues and I, at least, some thought and consideration went into trying to make the environment as comfortable as possible for everyone, candidates included. Some water and some mini-conference rooms would have been much nicer, though.
Do search committees keep in mind that as interviwing conditions worsen for candidates, the higher the potential for stressing qualities that might have relatively little to do with future success? I understand that 30 minutes interviews are limited and not ideal, but I found a previous statement from a senior scholar a bit disturbing - that busting a candidate's chops for 30 minutes somehow correlates well with how a person will handle the stresses of an academic year. S/he mentioned a fondness for questions from left field to try and fluster candidates, to test their mettle. Is this a widely held sentiment by senior scholars? I've never interviewed job applicants, but it smacks of a quick and dirty way to handle matters, like a Civil War surgeon with a hacksaw. If committees have applied this method consistently across the board and produced superior colleagues, hats off to you; I've learned something new today.
I was on the market very recently, I did get a good, albeit stressful job, and I just wanted to say that as outrageous as hiring practices and market conditions are, really the healthiest and most helpful thing you can do is hope that you can fix them when you get to that point and just plow ahead with your own work. And trust me, this is coming from someone who was hopeless and desperate just a couple of years ago and got really lucky. My job's still not secure, and the pressures and stresses have only gotten worse, but all there is to do is put the angst aside and plow ahead. Maybe it will work, maybe I'll be out of a job a year from now, but it is so much better for your head, your health, your relationships, and your productivity when you do so. I come by here once in a while to see how things are, and it seems like it's the same as it ever was - tough, discouraging, and scary. Best of luck to all of you.
S/he mentioned a fondness for questions from left field to try and fluster candidates, to test their mettle. Is this a widely held sentiment by senior scholars? I've never interviewed job applicants, but it smacks of a quick and dirty way to handle matters, like a Civil War surgeon with a hacksaw.
No, I don't think that's a normal practice (and having re-read the comment you're referring to I'm not sure that's quite what the commenter was talking about: asking a question that's not on the "list of standard questions" to see how someone responds isn't the same time as deliberately trying to fluster a candidate in order to eliminate them efficiently).
What are the conventions about thank you notes? Are they appropriate after the APA interview stage, or do you wait and do them if you are lucky enough to go to campus?
Someone asked whether "a fondness for questions from left field to try and fluster candidates, to test their mettle" was "a widely held sentiment by senior scholars." I'd say that 30 minutes of questions from left field would be unusual, but if you don't ask some questions from left field you mostly are dealing with memorized answers to predictable questions. And the ability to handle questions from left field is not just related to "mettle;" it can also be a sign of intelligence. Wacky questions come up a lot in both research (when suddenly evidence points in a different direction from your long-held plans) and especially teaching: "Why didn't they just give Helen back?" "Isn't this just like ____ that I just learned about in another course?" "Isn't talking about this topic sinful?" "What are your qualifications for teaching the course?"
Wow, some search committees have already made their decisions concerning campus visits? Don't they need to check with deans first?
Bigger schools usually don't need to check with deans. At least some of them will make up their short lists while still at the convention and call the finalists before the whole thing is over.
A good half of my job market info comes from Facebook, but I don't feel right posting, "Campus fly-out extended. (Source: someone's FB status update)." So how do we deal with the Facebook factor? Ignore it, since our friends could be lying (or innocently mistaken)?
I know that our general policy is to only post for ourselves, not for other people, but it seems like there is a wealth of fairly-concrete information that isn't getting shared.
I say post it. Information is the purpose of the wiki. Things have been posted in the past that don't pertain directly with the poster. If it's a mistake, it will be corrected.
Yes, as long as names aren't posted, I think it's fair game.
Many thanks to those who have posted so far.
Imagine a parallel universe in which there were a ton of classical archaeology departments and almost no classics departments. In such a world, the archy departments might wish to hire a token "language" person. Rather than hiring them on the basis of their training and capabilities in dealing with ancient literature, which the archaeologists are ill-equipped to assess, a variety of extrinsic factors, including their willingness to teach other department offerings that the current faculty do not want to teach, are used to hire them. Would this model likely result in the hiring of the most talented and theoretically informed philologists positioned for acceptance among other humanists who study literature? The result for archaeologists is that there is a big difference between what classics departments call an archaeologist and what someone who has actually trained in archaeology calls an archaeologist. Some of the major figures in American excavations have no training in the broader discipline of archaeology, and little or no experience outside of the big dig they started working on while a student. Why would anthropologists consider a field that so blithely ignores their disciplinary training relevant to them?
Whoever posted this was spot on. At the risk of inciting vitriol instead of constructive discussion, I think the issue of classical archaeology needs to be addressed in North America in the coming years.
This is only my second year on the market, but as an archaeologist with some training in the UK, the interviews I had in San Antonio were disappointing to say the least. I'm not talking about the generalist positions calling for someone who dabbles in material culture. I'm talking about the ads that explicitly call for archaeologists. What passage from [insert Roman author] would I use to teach [insert advanced Latin class]? Really? I'm not talking about one question, but the vast majority of the time spent on language/lit questions. If this is truly what departments are looking for, grad programs will continue to produce people who can fill them - generalists who dabble in material culture but don't stand a chance of participating in archaeological discourse outside the classical world.
It's *okay* at the moment with old school boomers near retirement filling most of the positions and living in their clarch bubble, but who will fill them down the road? People trained in Europe? Or will these positions become non-archaeological? Pseudo-archaeological? I'm sure these senior scholars held their own 30-40 years ago in the greater archaeological community, but very few can do so today. Younger archaeologists generally do not have the safety of a large project to hide their methodological deficiencies.
If it's just ignorance on the part of classics departments, perhaps the AIA needs to publish a guide for archaeological searches just as they do for the tenure process for archaeologists? Maybe departments don't really desire a well-trained archaeologist but someone who merely projects a veneer of interdisciplinarity and cooperation with other disciplines?
Again, I'm not here to criticize but to understand. I truly care about classical studies in North America and wish it to thrive; I just don't get what the discipline is doing to foster classical archaeology besides knee-jerk reactions to outside threats to their existence.
Imagine a parallel universe in which there were a ton of classical archaeology departments and almost no classics departments. In such a world, the archy departments might wish to hire a token "language" person. Rather than hiring them on the basis of their training and capabilities in dealing with ancient literature, which the archaeologists are ill-equipped to assess, a variety of extrinsic factors, including their willingness to teach other department offerings that the current faculty do not want to teach, are used to hire them. Would this model likely result in the hiring of the most talented and theoretically informed philologists positioned for acceptance among other humanists who study literature? The result for archaeologists is that there is a big difference between what classics departments call an archaeologist and what someone who has actually trained in archaeology calls an archaeologist. Some of the major figures in American excavations have no training in the broader discipline of archaeology, and little or no experience outside of the big dig they started working on while a student. Why would anthropologists consider a field that so blithely ignores their disciplinary training relevant to them?
Whoever posted the previous comment was spot on. At the risk of inciting vitriol instead of constructive discussion, I think the issue of classical archaeology needs to be addressed in North America in the coming years.
This is only my second year on the market, but as an archaeologist with some training in the UK, the interviews I had in San Antonio were disappointing to say the least. I'm not talking about the generalist positions calling for someone who dabbles in material culture. I'm talking about the ads that explicitly called for archaeologists.
What passage from (insert Roman/Greek author) would you use to teach (insert advanced Latin/Greek class)?
Really? I'm not talking about one question, but the vast majority of the time spent on language-lit questions. If this is truly what departments are looking for, grad programs will continue to produce people who can fill them - generalists who dabble in material culture but don't stand a chance of participating in archaeological discourse outside the classical world.
It's okay at the moment with old school boomers near retirement filling most of the positions and living in their clarch bubble, but who will fill them down the road? People trained in Europe? Or will these positions become non-archaeological? Pseudo-archaeological? I'm sure these senior scholars held their own 30-40 years ago in the greater archaeological community, but very few can do so today. Younger archaeologists generally do not have the safety of a large project with minions to hide their methodological deficiencies.
If it's just ignorance on the part of classics departments, perhaps the AIA needs to publish a guide for archaeological searches just as they do for the tenure process for archaeologists? Maybe departments don't really desire a well-trained archaeologist but someone who merely projects a veneer of interdisciplinarity and cooperation with other disciplines?
Again, I'm not here to criticize but to understand. I truly care about classical studies in North America and wish it to thrive; I just don't get what the discipline is doing to foster classical archaeology besides knee-jerk reactions to outside threats to their existence.
When (if) an invitation is extended to visit a campus and the candidate is expected to give an 50-60 minute talk on their research at a school with strong emphasis on teaching, how welcome (well-received) would a power point presentation be? Or do people tend to stick to reading off the page? Thoughts? Opinions? Preferences?
In response to above.
Don't talk for 50-60 minutes, but 40 minutes at most. For a teaching school try to ditch the script and deliver the talk as if you were doing a class for upper-level majors. You need to show that you can engage the undergrads, while at the same time delivering on the content. Others may disagree, but I think the standard research job-talk is a real stinker for teaching oriented institutions. Delivering a great talk without notes (and with power-point images, maps, etc.) will set you out from the crowd (of 3).
Good luck!
You should first ask the school if they can easily accommodate a power point. Some schools have sadly out-of-date technology.
If they can do it, I say go for it: giving a talk with visual aids is a lot like teaching a class with visual aids. If you can do it well, and hold the students' attention, it will give the faculty a good idea of how you would do teaching a big lecture class.
Can somebody confirm that Millsaps has in fact sent out campus invites? I thought my APA meeting with them kicked ass, but nada thusfar...... Sometimes I don't trust the wiki.
I double confirm. A good friend of mine got a campus invite (since it isn't me, I'm not going to change the wiki to x2. For all I know, maybe my friend is the original poster).
Visual aids are fine and pp is not out of left field. I have to respond to the SLAC prof and say that I have recently seen two searches at SLAC schools and one candidate won out over others, giving a very standard and rather humdrum paper. Another candidate gave a nice pp talk from memory, but that person was nervous (probably b/c of the memory thing) and I think it killed them. The same thing happened for another search at a different school except that time the guy gave a brilliant paper with only notes... still he lost out to someone who read their paper but in a very dramatic manner. In other words, you NEVER know what the audience will like. I would do what you are most comfortable with.
I once heard something about ISAW having interviews for those one-year visiting scholar positions. Does anyone know if that really happens, or do they just base their decisions on applications+references?
I probably have no shot, but would at least like to know how small that shot is, as would be indicated if I learned there'd already been interviews.
Pretty sure ISAW doesn't interview. I've never heard of them, and since CHS, Loeb, NHC, etc. don't it would be surprising if NHS does. No news is good news so far.
On that note, CHS has sent out acceptances for next year, so no news is bad news in that case!
It's been a week, so is it safe to say that the vast majority of campus invites have been issued for programs that interviewed at the APA?
Not even close. Many searches have to go through deans, provosts, etc. and won't contact for a couple of weeks. Don't abandon hope until early March, or until somebody sends you a PFO.
What does it mean if campus invites and rejections were sent out after the APA but you got neither? Do I still hold out hope or did they just forget about me?
Newbie two, it's surprisingly common (at least in my experience) to drop off a list and never get a response at all, even after an interview. I'd wait a few days and then ask. Be warned though, if they've overlooked you, the news is probably not going to be good.
Newbie Two,
It might also mean you were second-string for the campus interview. Too good to say no immediately, not good enough to make first-string. But if the finalists all suck, or accept other offers, you might very well get the call. No news is definitely better than a rejection, but not as good as a campus invite.
Also, check your spam folder....
I would hold out hope for two reasons.
1. As previously stated, all the campus invites can suck. It happens more often than you think. It reflects the imperfect science that is the 30-minutes APA interview. One can befuddle and charm a committee for 30 minutes; it's much more difficult over 2 days. Sometimes a search is cancelled after one round, but two factors mitigate against this. A department never knows when a search will be approved again and there is often little, if any, drop off with the next group of candidates.
2. There are candidates with multiple campus invites. As people have stated before, you only need, and can only accept, one job. Every year there are a select few with multiple job offers. They need time to decide, counteroffer, etc. This can take weeks. Candidates 2 and 3 can wait, holding captive their own job offers, or accept another offer. In the meantime, if candidate 1 declines, this can lead to scrambling by the department, especially if candidates 2-3 are off the market.
So hold out some hope and be prepared in February and March for last-minute flybacks. It's how I got my job years ago.
Dear Stephanie Larson,
Will you marry me?
I can be man or woman, whatever your desires, just give me a few months to iron out the details.
If the way you run a search is any indication of how you handle a relationship you are the woman of my dreams! :+)
Sincerely,
Bucknell Applicant
Gross.
About the CHS fellowship notifications...did these come via email or snail mail? Also, have they sent rejections yet or just acceptances?
Thanks.
Am I to assume Bucky got a campus interview? Otherwise I'm quite confused.
As for how long a job talk should be, don't guess, ask. Some people may shine at a teaching school by talking without notes, but many people will not and should have either notes or (my preference) everything written out, although it should be delivered as though you were talking to them and with tons of eye contact. Everyone's always impressed when someone speaks without notes, but when they think about whether it's a good argument, sometimes the people without notes come up short, or are thought to have wandered. It's also hard to judge time when you talk without notes or a script. Even at most teaching schools, the faculty will want to know not only whether you can explain things clearly to undergraduates, but also whether you can make a good argument--which relates both to teaching and to research. And if possible practice the talk with an audience, preferably before faculty and fellow students, but if necessary before one or two friend. And proofread your handout as if your life depending on it.
Does anyone know if the Queensborough CC job in Ancient History has been canceled? It seems to be impossible to apply for it any longer, and it's not clear whether that's an issue of the due date having changed or something else in the system.
Re: the Queensborough CC Ancient search, they conducted some interviews at the AHA and will be conducting more by phone over the coming weeks. It hasn't been cancelled.
If you're asked to give a teaching presentation (for undergrads) at a R1 institution, does this mean primarily a lecture-style session or a classroom discussion?
On Job Talks:
I have never given a public lecture, job talk or not, without a verbatim script, jokes and all, but that's me. Others can do it with notes, or with nothing. The important thing is to pick your format and do it well: if you have a full text and never look up, it can be the best lecture in the world and you won't get the job. If you talk without notes and sound like an idiot, that won't do either. The audience will expect you to be nervous and not to be an expert performer (yet); they will make allowances. It's much more important to handle problems well and calmly--whether it's a glitch in PowerPoint or a missing page of your text or stumbling over a word--than picking any one method of delivery. And how you handle questions is, ultimately, at least as important as how you deliver the lecture.
But practice the talk. When I began, I used to mark split times; write 'slow down' in my margins; put accents on any word I could mispronounce; and so on. Expect to be nervous; expect some confusion and even rudeness; and be ready to handle them.
Some places specifically ask you not to read your paper.
On a different note, moral dilemma here. I've got a friend/colleague who is dying because of the waiting (to hear from places). This person claims that they just want to know and does not know about the WIKI, so do I tell them about it? This is especially bad since the WIKI WILL bring bad news. Opinions? Thoughts?
Tell them about the wiki. They can then decide whether or not to use it. Personally, I find it liberating to know that I have no chances as soon as possible. Wikijection is much kinder than limbo.
No, YOU don't tell them about the wiki: you bet that person a lot of money that the school in question has already invited people to campus, and then have someone else inform him/her of the wiki's existence. It might be cruel of you to insist on odds, though.
Tell them; their anxious wait will be over and they can move on.
That person who said he/she always does in talks exactly the kinds of specific things I always tell my student that I do in talks was not me.
I suppose someone should point out that a "job talk" and "teaching a class while doing an on campus interview" are very different things. I doubt very much that anyone reads off a script in the latter situation, while many, if not most, would do so in the former.
On CHS fellowships: phone calls were made in late December and official letters received early January. Don't know about rejections.
So have we decided to update the wiki with Facebook entries?
Yes, if a friend (or a friend of a friend) says they have a campus invite on their facebook page (seems weird to me), I think that is dependable, and should be used to update the wiki. Just my $.02
What if it's not an update per se by the individual but mentioned in wall-to-wall banter?
Is Renie supposed to be posting new job listings on the 15th or is that done? I know Grinnell is out there, has anyone heard of other positions?
If you have more than one campus visit, and you are trying to schedule them, do you tell each school that you are visiting other places, and if so, do you tell them where you have other visits?
Is there anyone else out there who was told s/he would have an APA/Skype interview with Roanoke College and then never had said interview? I see that they have now made campus invitations and wonder why I spent time prepping an interview with them. Any point in complaining the APA about this?
I did. It seems that Roanoke dishonored more than one interview request. They seem to have dismissed candidates on no better grounds than their name fell in the wrong half of the alphabet. Oh, and good luck in getting a coherent explanation from them.
Definitely complain about the unethical behavior of Roanoke to Erich Gruen, chair of the Placement Committee.
We really need to complain to the AHA about Roanoke, since they are a history department and could give a rat's ass what the APA has to say. The AHA is another matter, however. Somebody who knows Gruen should ask him to contact his counterpart at the AHA to give the smackdown on Roanoke. This is bullshit.
Roanoke are clearly in violation of the AHA's standards of professional conduct, which state that all candidates be treated fairly and equally (which I assume excludes simply stopping halfway through the interviews and skipping to the campus ones to save time). What is less clear is who deals with this sort of thing at the AHA and what they do about it. Anyone know?
Following up on my previous question re: CHS...I got a PFO letter, so at least some rejections have been sent.
Seems to me this is something that could be brought to the attention of the higher-ups at Roanoke. The dean for academic affairs, maybe. If it's a delinquant department, their administration should look into it, for their own sake. If it's institutional, then only the AHA can deal with it and probably not very effectively.
I too was offered a Skype interview by Roanoke in December, because I planned to go to the APA rather than the AHA. I discovered yesterday (after considerable chasing) that they had effectively reneged on their offer of an interview. I wrote politely to the Dean of the College (Vice-President) at Roanoke, and received a prompt but very bland response indicating he felt they had done nothing wrong, they had acted with his explicit approval and he commended the department for their ‘honesty’ in letting me know that my application was going nowhere after all rather than stringing me along. This is completely disingenuous, as they offered no information at all, and I had to pry it out of them on the basis that I already know they had arranged campus visits for some applicants. I also wrote to the APA. I think the more complaints both Roanoke and the APA get from unhappy candidates, the better, and if anyone knows the appropriate route to follow with the AHA, then complaints in that direction can only help. The fact that these were Skype interviews seems to cloud the issue in some eyes. If they had arranged conference interviews and cancelled half of them because they felt they had already spoken to enough qualified candidates, the reaction would have been outrage.
I'd complain about Roanoke to my AHA reps, but I still haven't been rejected, so I think I still have a shot at the job (isn't that why they keep some of us off the long list, but don't reject us straight up?)...
Seriously, though, what a horrible way to run a search! I guess they found a ringer in the original round of interviews and didn't want to waste any more of their time on the search. Some faculty apparently have no conscience, and no memory of what it was like to be on the market.
I know we're all freaked out about where our next meal is going to come from and might consider selling our first born children for a TT position, but let's face it --if they're running such a cruel and unethical search (and even the higher ups seem to have no qualms about doing it) then we're all better off with a VAP somewhere where our colleagues will behave like human beings.
I can't believe that the dean at Roanoke had the audacity to "commend the department's honesty". They sent me the most vague, run-around, nonsensical emails to try to avoid admitting what they had done. Were it not for the wiki, I would still have no clear picture of what had happened. Honesty my ass. If it's so above board, why not man up, explain and apologize? Are they going to say nothing until we get a rejection in the mail?
Cincinnati scoop:
The SC hopes to hire "the two best people [i.e., philologists]," regardless of specialty. I suspect that all of these Hellenist/Latinist counters, while they may reveal actual trends, reflect no conscious designs of the committee.
the two best people [i.e., philologists]
Isn't this a bit redundant and obvious. Eat it, arkyologists!
Wow, I can just feel the love. Why don't you just come out and say what you're really thinking?
Has anybody heard anything (in terms of campus invitation) about the Uni Cincinnati Latinist line?
Isn't this a bit redundant and obvious. Eat it, arkyologists!
I was merely specifying that, since the job ad is for philologists, they mean "two best philologists," even though the actual quote was "two best people." I'm not an archy-hater. I bet there are lots of swell archys out there. Cincy has five excellent archys on the faculty, and a number of gainfully employed recent archy PhDs.
Point #2
Has anybody heard anything about the Uni Cincinnati Latinist line?
There is no Cincinnati "Latinist" position! Can I be more clear? There are two Cincinnati "philologist" positions. They made a single short list (not one Latinist short list and one Hellenist short list), with five people on it. From the wiki, it looks like notifications already went out.
The only good archy is an unemployed archy.
What is wrong with some of you? Really. Are archaeologists that revolting to your existence? Why? I swear, I've never encountered an academic enterprise with members this intolerant and derogatory of colleagues. Why even go through the motions of supporting archaeologists? Who's forcing you?
I smell a troll. Why not just ignore the people who come on here only to bait others into a meaningless trading of ignorant insults?
What is wrong with some of you? Really. Are archaeologists that revolting to your existence?
Stop with the persecution complex. Except for the people who are obviously jesting (obvious to me, at any rate), you'll notice that no one ever says, "I'm a phil and I think archs are inferior!" Rather, what people mostly say is, "I'm an archy, and I'm certain that all phils hate me!" Archy-hatred is oft-assumed and seldom demonstrated.
Usually these conversations start with, "I'm an archy, and I can't get a job!" Then someone chimes in with, "Well, there are more phil jobs than archy jobs."
And then we descend into (unproductive) madness. We can discuss the merits of the current proportions until we are blue in the face, but the fact remains that there are fewer archy than phil positions, but - mirabile dictu! - fewer archy PhDs than phil PhDs.
If you can't get a job, its not because phil-oriented SCs hate archy. Its because *lots* of people aren't getting jobs. Including phils. Believe me. Unemployment knows no discipline.
could we, like, um, move on? why derail a new and interesting debate/lament about the enforceability of aha ethical standards with recitations of the usual debate, actual job rumors notwithstanding?
you'll notice that no one ever says, "I'm a phil and I think archs are inferior!" Rather, what people mostly say is, "I'm an archy, and I'm certain that all phils hate me!" Archy-hatred is oft-assumed and seldom demonstrated.
Huh? Really? Did you catch the chain of events here?
First some idiot said, "Isn't this a bit redundant and obvious. Eat it, arkyologists!" There was no archaeologist starting off with a complaint. After a fairly benign reply by Token Archaeologist basically shaking off what you call "jesting," some other idiot (or maybe the same idiot?) said, "The only good archy is an unemployed archy." So someone then objects to this inane comment with a stronger reply and archaeologists are now the whining instigators? Sometimes, I really wonder if there is hope for classics. No, not the humanities in general, but just classics.
Who is more likely to be a Republican, an archaeologist or a philologist?
Did anyone actually receive a rejection from Roanjoke? I see that one of you lovely people has passed our plight onto the chronicle, where you state that they canceled the interviews- I've heard no such thing. Incidentally, the chronicle response surprised me. I had no idea that so many academics would defend to the death the right of search committees to act like assholes.
"Who is more likely to be a Republican, an archaeologist or a philologist?"
I had no idea I was joining the RNC when I chose classics as a profession. I would make a Palin joke here but it would name names.
Anonymous 10:43,
I'm afraid that if you haven't heard that your Roanoke interview is cancelled, it is because they have been even ruder to you than to those of us that wrote asking about our status. I was told that "it was not possible to skype interview everyone as we had hoped." Still not sure what they mean by "everyone," precisely. Oh they haven't officially rejected us yet, but seeing as how they have already issued campus invites, there is no reason for foolish optimism.
(10.43 here) 12.37, thanks, but I wasn't implying optimism -in fact, in light of recent events I have a crisp 20 on the current VAP at RC, if anyone would like to take that wager- I was just wondering if they had actually bothered to issue information, or only selectively to those who chased them.
First some idiot said, "Isn't this a bit redundant and obvious. Eat it, arkyologists!" There was no archaeologist starting off with a complaint. After a fairly benign reply by Token Archaeologist basically shaking off what you call "jesting," some other idiot (or maybe the same idiot?) said, "The only good archy is an unemployed archy."
If someone spells "archaeologist" as "arkyologist," it's a pretty good indication that it is a joke. It's not just "what [some people] call jesting," it is jesting! I bet "Token Archaeologist" even knew it was jesting.
As for the reply, "The only good archy is an unemployed archy." Again, the comment is so over the top that it is clear to me that someone is trying (and succeeding!) to get your dander up. Hyperbole is usually a pretty good clue that someone is pulling your leg.
Are we really having a fight about "who started it"? I guess so. No conflict existed until someone misinterpreted something: The *original* comment was, "two best people [i.e. philologists]." The "arkyologist" commenter chose to point out, in a humorous way, that it was poorly worded and *begging* to be misinterpreted. The original poster agreed, and clarified that "two best people" had to mean philologists since the job ad was for philologists, not because phils are inherently superior.
Sooner or later, voila! A conflict is born out of nothing! Not because someone legitimately insulted an archy, but because an archy believed a legitimate insult existed where there was none.
If you keep going, actual insults *will* fly, because when people *believe* they are being attacked, they turn into assholes.
Well said, annoyed @ 10.42! Besides, equating the Internet to real life is generally a bad idea. And also occasionally disappointing...
The "two best philologist" are ones who attend a Giffords rally.
Since we seem to want to go there, here are some "made up" insults that have appeared in previous posts. Sure, some of them may have been intended as light-hearted and humorous barbs. But laughing them off might be easier for the non-archaeologists than for the archaeologists, especially in the absence of emoticons. If some of you are unaware that a lot of lit/hist people don't particularly like classical archaeologists, then either it's because you rarely see an interaction between them (segregation), or because you live in a place, imagined or extremely enviable, where these creatures can all get along and appreciate the contribution each group has to offer. That's not where I live, though, and my interactions with a broad range of "classicists" in all disciplines give me the distinct sense that there is a strong anti-archaeology streak among older faculty and among current students. Denying that it exists doesn't quite do the trick; maybe you'd like to emphasize that the anti-archaeologists are in the minority instead. Enjoy the "neutral" and "funny" comments pasted below.
Klaatu said...
Regardless, no matter how committed a classics department is to interdisciplinarity, I can't imagine any that would pick an archaeologist over a lit person (unless it's defcon 1 - i.e. about to be shut down or merged.)
September 14, 2010 12:02 PM
Anonymous said...
If you freakin historians and archaeologists are so unhappy, why don't you leave already? Good riddance.
September 21, 2010 7:53 PM
Anonymous said...
Ditto that, especially if you're the one with several interviews. You know the system in broken when an archaeologist is getting more interviews than a true classicist.
December 12, 2010 7:46 PM
Juvenal said...
Question for all you Clarchs out there:
Are you "willing and able" to teach BOTH ancient languages?
If you aren't, then quit bitching, or go convince an Anthro program to hire you.
The way this philologist (who has to teach a bunch of big lecture courses on top of two languages, btw) sees it is that Clarchs have much lower publishing requirements, they refuse to teach two languages, they moan and groan about teaching even one, and then they top it all off with complaints about the job market! Help carry the load a little more and maybe Classics wouldn't be hemorrhaging FTEs.
If you precious, GIS-savvy, snowflakes can't find jobs, blame nothing other than your rotten appraisal of our field's hiring terrain.
December 13, 2010 9:41 AM
Anonymous said...
Maybe an archaeologist posted it as a positive? Ha, couldn't resist jabbing our little dirt-faced brethren!
December 24, 2010 2:56 PM
Second that. I was expected to teach large survey courses (including both Greek and Roman arch), both languages at all levels, and get a book under contract before tenure. So yeah, I'm really not sympathetic to clarch whining.
Anonymous said...
Second that. I was expected to teach large survey courses (including both Greek and Roman arch), both languages at all levels, and get a book under contract before tenure. So yeah, I'm really not sympathetic to clarch whining.
January 22, 2011 12:55 PM
You might want to reread the above post (which appears to be a series of collected comments) and then re-define your complaint about these strawman clarchs that are constantly whining.
"The way this philologist (who has to teach a bunch of big lecture courses on top of two languages, btw) sees it is that Clarchs have much lower publishing requirements, they refuse to teach two languages, they moan and groan about teaching even one, and then they top it all off with complaints about the job market! Help carry the load a little more and maybe Classics wouldn't be hemorrhaging FTEs."
Why don't we redefine the "load" and maybe we'll be more relevant in the 21sth century? Citing the lack of language instructors as the main reason for losing FTEs is short-sighted at best, blind at worst. Many of us younger folk are demanding cross-pollination and diversity not to be PC, but to alleviate a symptom that appears terminal judging by the comments on here. So treat the disease, not just the symptom. Hiring privileged Bill Huxtable Latinist is not the answer. Deans aren't cutting classics in a vacuum. It's always done by committee and classicists rarely collaborate and make friends with those sitting on these committees, making us sitting ducks. So go look for these innovative people like every other freaking discipline instead of hiring people who are basically Latin/Greek instructors. Deans will not enthusiastically approve these lines in good or bad times. As much as we would like to think we're special for knowing a couple dead languages, there are way more of us than practicality dictates, let alone demand. As a dean recently asked me, "Who's really doing vital research in your disicpline, exploring uncharted waters?" I hate to say it as an ancient historian, but it's pretty much our archaeology brethren whether we like it or not. Flame on.
No, I think you're pretty much spot on. It explains why almost all the jobs seem to be at elite schools or glorified community colleges. The elite schools, driven by tradition, can afford to fund the same old classics while the latter schools are looking for language instructors, no innovative research needed. Where are all the jobs at top state schools? Non-elite SLACs? If Michigan State and Trinity are any indication, they're not coming back without some reforms in our fundamental structure and long term outlook. In other words, NEVER.
And, no, I'm not saying the answer is as simple as hiring more archaeologists. It's a place to start since many of us are forced to be interdiscplinary from the get-go and we're kicking around. Why aren't more people doing things like classical reception/tradition? Cultural heritage? I think it's a bit disingenous to say they don't exist when have little chance of getting hired unless they fit the classic definition of a classicist AND they do X. We're also told as grad students, "You won't get a job if you go that direction." Kind of a self fulfilling excuse, eh?
Shut up, all of you. We get it. You hate us for holding the keys to classics. Tough shit. You should have studied your Latin and Greek instead of piddling around with GIS and microscopes. Now do us all a favor and go to anthropology. Wait? They won't take you. Too fucking bad for making a unfortunate disciplinary choice.
fuck you, January 22, 2011 2:46 PM, and all of your colonialist greek and latin brethren. good riddance once you are all downsized to nonexistence. and i have a phd specialization in latin literature.
Now where's that hilarious individual who claimed that the anti-archy feeling is entirely imagined by the archaeologists?
And thanks Anon. January 22, 2011 2:59 PM, you stole the letters right out from under my fingers!
Wow, if 2:46 is jesting, I wouldn't want to piss him off.
"So go look for these innovative people like every other freaking discipline instead of hiring people who are basically Latin/Greek instructors. Deans will not enthusiastically approve these lines in good or bad times."
Well said. I would change this to DEMAND innovative people. I say this as a Hellenist who was told the "you will never get a job doing this" line for what I thought was a kick ass idea in grad school. I really love my advisor and his generation, who are swell people for the most part, but I must say in retrospect that they largely failed our discipline as academia transitioned through the last 40 years.
If Michigan State and Trinity are any indication, they're not coming back without some reforms in our fundamental structure and long term outlook.
As a Trinity alum, I can agree with this. The time for change is before you reach the precipice, not when decisions have been made and petitions and Facebook pages matter little.
Innovation is for when you get a tenured position at Princeford. Once you're the next Kathleen Coleman, you can do whatever you want.
Ain't that some shit?
I'm still curious about the Whitman job in "Classics and Environmental Humanities". Seems like a really odd combination of interests. Wonder how many applicants they got? Can anyone who had an APA interview with them shed any light on the position?
All we hear from the archaeologists is that we philologists do nothing of value, and that all the world's problems would be solved if every philologist were to be replaced with an archaeologist. Yet I cannot help noting that you never hear philologists question the value of what classical archaeologists do. Indeed, most of us regard the work of archaeologists as a diverting little supplement to the study of Greco-Roman antiquity! I for one should be very sorry if there were no more classical archaeologists. It hardly seems fair, then, to blame philologists for the disgraceful incivility that you see on display on this website.
To 'Concerned Philologist':
"Yet I cannot help noting that you never hear philologists question the value of what classical archaeologists do. Indeed, most of us regard the work of archaeologists as a diverting little supplement to the study of Greco-Roman antiquity!"
Your attempt at a cute, tongue in cheek jab at the archaeologist belies the truth that you, too, are part of the problem. You have enjoyed a long life as an ostrich if you think the greek/latin types don't disparage those who focus on the material world. There is no solution, and no hope for harmony. I only predict that in the long run it will be easier to find archae types in unis than it will to find stuck in the mud people who believe only in the supremacy of the text and the dogmatic, 18th century notion that somehow only one who studies the ancient languages - and nothing more - can have a worthwhile or salutary experience when it comes to the study of classical antiquity. The texts are important, yes, and they give all of us invaluable information and insight; if you want the study of the greco-roman world to hang around, however, it is high time to start thinking about the interdisciplinary approach and ways to builds bridges instead of reinforcing the old fences. And if all you think is that archaeology is an amusing sideline to 'classics', then you are a dope.
We are so far up the creek and out of touch with reality (judging by some of the "concerned" statements on here) that I think it's utterly irresponsible to encourage the vast majority of college students into graduate studies. We might as well be training them in phrenology. You really think deans are going to start handing out classics lines once the economy picks up? Academia is rebooting and reassessing itself after this close scrape and we've done little to convince deans of any critical role we play. I'm afraid that classics is to most administrators what archaeology is to classics - an amusing sideline and little more.
All we hear from the archaeologists is that we philologists do nothing of value, and that all the world's problems would be solved if every philologist were to be replaced with an archaeologist.
Talk about selective processing. I don't think any classical archaeologist would say that philologists do nothing of value and that every one should be replaced by one of their own. This has not been my experience no matter how much they have been shat upon. I think they, along with a bunch of us "philologists," are asking for a wider perspective and less of this us vs. them mentality.
I can say this as a Latinist with a dear friend who survived the trenches of grad school with me. I can say unequivocably that it's absolutely unfair that I landed a TT job at a flagship state school straight out of school while he's still trudging through VAPs. I not talking about the general unfairness that pervades how any of us get a job, but a system that stacks the cards against him. He's the exact type of person classics should be falling over each other to hire. I'm convinced that most disciplines would have done so. He can teach Greek better than I can and can hold his own in Latin. He's also an ace Greek history teacher and can teach the full complement of archaeology courses, easily veering off into methodology and theory. He's received off the chart reviews at every VAP stop and does absolutely cutting edge research that a bunch of other disciplines can relate to - art history, anthro, Near East studies, East Asian studies, history, and even the sciences! He's well funded and takes students overseas every summer. Yet, he languishes, I'm convinced, because he does not fit our typical description of a classicist - talking the smooth talk and convincing ourselves that we know and do more than we do.
We are forgetting something, I think. As long as high schools continue to teach Latin, there will be a need for philologists, well, Latinists, at least, to train future high school Latin teachers. Greek really isn't taught all that much at the secondary level and archaeology, well, I don't know, but probably not all that much.
If an undergraduate wants a career in classics, from a market-oriented view, shouldn't we advise him or her to be a Latinist?
The fact of the matter is that a good translation is more than sufficient for any legitimate purpose. And basically everything has been translated already. The dirty little secret that the philologists keep dancing around is that we don't need philology anymore. Maybe keep a half a dozen of them to translate the stuff that nobody has gotten round to yet, and another half dozen to translate new papyri and inscriptions.
So, hmm, Roanoke, yeah?
Ahem, it's not that much of a secret anymore. Have you read any of the recent search requests submitted by a department? Despite all the smoke and mirrors explaining why another philologist is needed, very few deans fall for it now. The "we've always had one" bit is especially played out.
Post a Comment