I love teaching, I love Classics, I know that this is the best job that I have had or will ever had. But I hate everyone on this board who dispenses snark, vitriol, petty complaints and useless or non-sensical advice. I hate the search committees who have no idea what they really want or need, and can't agree on anything in their own best interest. I hate the way the whole corrupt academic system wastes talent and expensive training by distributing it inefficiently. And I hate myself for constantly coming back here and posting sh**, because I just can't stop.
In response to the UNC-Asheville concerns, just wanted to put this out there: yes, a 4-4 can really suck. Been there, done that, and, fortunately, have moved on. It's a lot of time in the classroom, particularly if part of your load involves intro language classes where you're teaching 4 days of the week. However, one thing you might want to ask the committee is how many sections are involved. Is the 4-4 really a 2-2 or 3-2 but with 2 sections for one (or more) classes? If so, your (hypothetical, pending job acceptance) life will be considerably easier, at least in terms of the prep. Also UNC-Asheville is a fairly small school-- you may want to ask them about normal class size in order to get a sense of the grading loads. Just some things to ponder (and potentially bargain with)...
so the general dickishness of FV is now extending to the lists of jobs on the main board, so that a 4-4 load where you have to know two languages, history, and archaeology is said to require a "Superman/woman"? Not everyone can teach those 4 things, and a 4-4 job is demanding, but it doesn't involve outrunning a bullet, stopping a train, or leaping over the administration building in a single bound. Especially if as someone suggests there may be some repeats.
It's hilarious to watch as the September jobs get cut-and-pasted, one by one, from the APA's "most recent listings" page to the year's archive. If you refresh often enough, you can actually see the hamsters spinning in their wheels.
I wonder why I'm not optimistic about this new placement service software...
Actually the UNC Asheville job is a replacement position for an art historian. So technically it's two languages, history, archaeology, art history, marginal socio-economic groups, and writing across the curriculum. Oh, and don't forget those pesky "other duties". Piece of pie, though, huh?
Ok, I'm starting to get a bit pissed off! I graduated from UNCA and know the classics faculty there well. If you don't like the teaching load then don't apply. Stick it out and wait for that cherry job where you get paid bags of money to sit around a be smart. Every person that I had a course with in the dept is committed to teaching and have been around for a long time. And I can assure you it isn't because they can't get better (if we define better by less contact with students! WTF!) posts elsewhere. And if you are thinking of using it as a stepping stone, don't bother. They'll see you coming, and unless your game really is that smooth, they'll pass. But if you really love teaching, love students, and love classics, Asheville is an awesome place to be and as well as I can recall the faculty in all the depts are welcoming. I wouldn't have gone into classics if the faculty hadn't been so flipping cool, so you grousing lot are sure as hell not the people I would want to have learned my trade from.
Eh. Teaching is the part of my job I enjoy the most and the most consistently, but I don't think I'd like it as much if it were the only thing I had time to do. Plus, I think I'm a Hell of a lot better teacher to two classes than I'd be to four. Which is just to say that I think you can be someone who loves teaching but still legitimately have ambitions not to teach a 4-4, without that meaning you're some kind of prima donna or traitor to the cause.
@12:08: A pretty unconvincing (drunken?) impersonation of a former undergrad from someone who has ties to that program. Bravo! Misrepresenting yourself is part of the point of the internet. (Pro tip: the bit about not using the position as a stepping stone was definitely too much for the persona you'd adopted.)
Ah no, bully to you 12.20! Your incisive cynicism cut right through my BS. It is unthinkable that a former undergrad could feel any sort of fidelity or appreciation for his/her alma. What was I thinking? I'll bear that in mind that next time I pretend to be someone I am. But, I did speak out of turn and I apologize. I really don't know if they would like to hire someone hankering for better things and eager to move on. Perhaps you should apply and ask them?
Don't blame faculty for crappy teaching loads. 4-4 with high research expectation blows (though finding out if is a "real" 4-4 or not is important), but surely the classics faculty aren't the ones arguing for that load. They are getting squeezed themselves. So, take it up with the admins if you have a complaint, don't take it out on your (possibly future) colleagues.
And, for what it is worth, Asheville really is a lovely place as a town, and I bet the job would be a good one (I'm not applying, so I don't have a dog in this fight).
All of this UNC Asheville talk reminds me of a random rumor I heard years ago (et denique haec fama volabit) that they administered a translation quiz (whether Greek or Latin I can't remember) during interviews. Maybe that speaks to the fact that then (as now, apparently) they were seeking an archeolog-art-historio-socio-anthropologist and hoping and praying that that person also had at least a basic competence in the Greek and Latin.
The rumor was from a very senior person in the profession, so at the time I believed it. Having done a few interviews now, it seems far-fetched, but maybe there's someone out there who can confirm it.
1. That persona crap was a beautiful display of miscommunication. Well done.
2. If you are curious what sort of teaching load the 4-4 at UNCA actually is, just look at the current courses offered by the department. To save you the trouble, no one is doubling up on any course this semester.
In the interests of full disclosure, I just sent in an application for this job. But I didn't spend much time on it, because I'm not sure that I would really want it. Asheville is a beautiful town, though, and a job is a job.
UNCA did indeed administer sight-translation exams at the APA, back in the day. This was in, oh, I guess about 1990, 92, thereabouts. I know, because I applied for the job and took the exams.
Here's how it worked. First, you applied for the job. If they liked your letter enough for you to make the first cut, they invited you to take a sight translation exam in both languages at the APA, on the first morning. There was a room with a long table and about 10 of us sat there taking yet another translation exam of the sort we all thought we'd left behind us when we finished our PhD qualifying exams. My memory is that they had two such sessions, to allow for time conflicts, so probably about 20 people total agreed to take the test.
Then, the search committee graded the exams that afternoon. Late that first evening or early the next morning one went by the infamous blackboard (anyone else here remember that blackboard??) to see if one's number had appeared. (If one's number WAS up on the blackboard, it meant some committee wanted to do an interview.) Those who made the cut then had a normal-style APA interview.
Yes, I made the cut. No, I didn't get the job.
I did wrestle with my soul beforehand about whether or not to take their translation exam. I found the idea insulting, but I really, really, REALLY needed a job and for family reasons it had to be in the South. So I took the exam.
And yes, my children, this is a true story. By the way, I did eventually end up with a tenured position, though not at UNCA.
I was on the market at that time and desperate for a permanent job. I decided not to apply to a job at an institution that was so insecure about its judgement that it would subject applicants to such a test.
That said, any serious student of antiquity who chooses the word "slavery" to describe a 12-hour load probably needs a serious time-out (and by time-out, I don't mean a delay in a game where Andy Reid tries to remember what's supposed to happen on third-and-one)
I post this non-anonymously, in the hopes that more people will do so and be accountable for their words. I am a big fan of rhetorical hyperbole, but "slavery" is a hyperbole no sane person should every approach, and in fact, should be deeply ashamed of using.
Robin Mitchell-Boyask Chair, Classics, Temple University
Unrelated: Does anyone know what's expected in terms of application materials for the ancient history postdoc at Columbia? There's no indication in the ad, so I'm guessing just a cover letter and CV?
Regarding the Columbia postdoc: I'm just going to send a CV and cover letter, but I basically think it comes down to somehow striking the fancy of W. Harris. And, if you don't know anything about him or what it might mean to be essentially his post-doc, you might want to ask around before you apply...
I think you're implying that something about this correction was an overreaction, but I don't see it.
Now the second paragraph ("I'd like to assure classicists that I plan to return to this issue" as if we're all waiting with bated breath) is admittedly (pun intended) a little pompous.
Anytime I criticize someone's scholarship -- generally, or a specific point -- I always make it a point to go back and read what they wrote a second (and if it's in a foreign language third) time just to make sure I am not being unfair. Harris's response to the reviewer is a lesson in why this is a good policy.
Anytime I criticize someone's scholarship -- generally, or a specific point -- I always make it a point to go back and read what they wrote a second (and if it's in a foreign language third) time...
Personally, I prefer to avoid this whole issue by sticking to purely ad hominem attacks.
The wiki lists positions at the University of British Columbia and Murray State. Does anyone know where these are advertised / if they are real? I haven't seen them in the APA e-mails/website or on the Chronicle of Higher Ed.
8.34 here. I did not mean to imply that WH was wrong in his critique of the critic, just that his choice of language/tone was both less than pleasant and completely unnecessary for the making of his point.
8:34, I don't think the tone was unnecessary. The mistake of the "critic" was to imply that H's work is outdated and that H knows it. If he had simply said "it's been 20 years since H's work," there would have been no cause for any criticism. He was being a little too rhetorically cute.
Ok, so you don't find the mocking and acidic tone of a well known and respected senior scholar as he points out a clear error of a junior scholar to be "unnecessary." Well, if I may be so blunt, then you are kind of a prick too.
I mean, fair enough, a guy does not want to be misrepresented in print...but is there really the "need" to take a shot at the misrepresenter when he is so clearly the junior party? I'm sure it felt great for the much-aggrieved WH to burn the reviewer like he did, but did that really serve any constructive purpose? I realize I am naive to hope for a bit of class/grace/magnanimity from any name (big or small) in the field of Classics or Ancient History, but a prick is a prick is a prick is a prick, and it feels kind of nice to acknowledge that every once in a while.
Yes. When a tenured senior scholar is portrayed in a negative light in print, their vanity may be slightly bruised. When this happens to a junior scholar, under present conditions there is always the risk that it could ultimately mean the end of their career. But I still don't think that forgetting or being unwilling to pull punches is a sign of some underlying character flaw in a senior scholar.
When I write about younger scholars, I often leave my harsher comments out, or try to phrase them in ways that are critical but constructive. But when somebody does sloppy work, that should be pointed out, and maybe next time they won't be so sloppy. Better to have this pointed out in a response to a BMCR review than in an article or book ms. someone needs to get accepted for tenure, or in published work that reviewers or referees may slam. If you say "X says this" and you're misreading it, whether it's Pliny or a modern scholar, you need to be told not to do that. And even if it's never said to your face, if people read your work and find that you tend to mischaracterize things, your job prospects are going to be limited.
Regarding the Maryland job: does anyone know if the email prompt for references is automatic or if the department will decide if they are interested enough in a candidate to send the prompt to one's letter writers? I completed the application some time ago but none of my letter writers have received the email prompt.
All I know is that if a reviewer ever mischaracterized *my* position so badly THIS would be my response: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbB_HVcXpPk&feature=related
Meh. Reviewers ALWAYS mischaracterize one's position. (Okay, I'm exaggerating, but not all that much.)
I recently read a very positive review of my book in a very good venue, and right smack in the middle the reviewer said "Of course, Author's statement that X is the case is entirely incorrect and cannot be defended" -- when I had spent a good part of a chapter carefully arguing *against* X.
From talking to other authors, I suspect that this is very common indeed. Too many reviewers skim instead of reading, or worse. Friend of mine had a book reviewed in TLS a few years back and it was abundantly clear that the reviewer (an extremely eminent scholar) stopped reading about 2/3s of the way through the book. "One of the few flaws in Q's otherwise excellent book is that, oddly, she does not discuss blah" -- when blah was the subject of the entire last chapter and a half.
Happens all the time, usually not worth slamming the reviewer.
Junior scholars can be assholes too, you know. This isn't an ad hominem attack against anyone in particular, but merely a general observation that I know a lot of junior schools who are total douches. Doesn't mean senior scholars should retaliate rather than set an example of acceptably collegial behavior, but I just hate the stereotyping of the "silverbacks" against all these nice, sweet, eager junior scholars who are out there "revolutionizing" the field. Some of them are real dicks. And I speak as a junior scholar myself. It's more the behavior of insecure, obnoxious, pretentious junior scholars than any behavior by senior scholars that keeps me away from the APA/AIA most years. Now the senior scholars are the ones who write petty, vindictive, unprofessional reviews of my articles, so it isn't like I have a special place in my heart for them either, but basically there are tools and there are nice people, and the tool box contains scholars at all stages of their careers.
I mean, fair enough, a guy does not want to be misrepresented in print...but is there really the "need" to take a shot at the misrepresenter when he is so clearly the junior party?
I agree, though I also agree with 1:08 that it's not just a junior/senior thing. One doesn't "need" to take a shot at anybody. I have a lot of respect for people who are able to correct others in a friendly, gracious way. It's much harder to do.
"Happens all the time, usually not worth slamming the reviewer."
Reviews are usually poor, and therefore we should have low standards for reviewers? On the contrary, any reviewer who faults a book for failing to discuss a subject to which it devotes an entire chapter should be publicly scorned.
re: Baylor. The job description says a complete application includes cover letter, cv, letters of rec, transcript,teaching evals,writing sample. Under "application procedure" it only says to submit cover letter,CV, transcript and names of references. Are they implying that they'll ask for the rest from select candidates?
Posted this in the help thread, but I thought more people might see it here. Any help is appreciated!
What to SCs really want when they ask for "evidence of effective teaching"? Do they want a complete teaching portfolio? Scans of student evaluations? Does a letter from faculty evaluators count? Thanks.
What to SCs really want when they ask for "evidence of effective teaching"? Do they want a complete teaching portfolio? Scans of student evaluations? Does a letter from faculty evaluators count? Thanks.
The customary way of demonstrating this is sending full sets of student evaluations from a selection of courses (two?). That is, don't send every evaluation from every course you've ever taught, but send every evaluation from two of them. If you have additional accolades, that's good. Faculty should be talking about your teaching in any case, and their testimony generally doesn't count towards this.
re: Baylor. The job description says a complete application includes cover letter, cv, letters of rec, transcript,teaching evals,writing sample. Under "application procedure" it only says to submit cover letter,CV, transcript and names of references. Are they implying that they'll ask for the rest from select candidates?
They've clearly screwed up and listed multiple, contradictory expectations. Under the circumstances, I would contact the search chair directly. If you don't want to do that, I'd err on the side of sending the bigger packet; you won't exclude yourself that way.
Also, if my interview experience remains relevant, don't bother unless you're a Baptist or a liar.
Thanks so much 11:20 PM. All my advisers last year and my colleagues this year have completely different opinions (neither school ever asks candidates for teaching stuff), so once again I was at a loss. Appreciate the advice.
"He who pays the piper calls the tune, thus this is completely legit on Baylor's part."
Well, if by "legit" you mean legal, you're absolutely right.
If you mean "reasonable" or "according to the usual practice of religious schools", I would politely disagree. After all, we don't teach and study Christian theology or doctrine -- we teach and study pagan beliefs. As long as I don't denigrate Christianity while teaching someone about the affairs of Zeus or how to conjugate pedico, pedicare, of what possible relevance are my personal religious beliefs to my job? No more, I think, than my culture background, my sexual preferences or the color of my skin -- all of which probably affect the way I teach in some minor way, but none which make me wholly unsuitable to teach students who are not like me or prevent me for respecting the mission of the university.
Sure, most religious schools are looking for religious people, but to weed people out at the APA because they don't subscribe to your particular brand of Christianity seems pretty harsh and unusual; in my APA interviews with moderately to extremely religious schools, the topic never came up (although these weren't tenure track positions and maybe that's the difference).
Are they allowed ask such questions? Of course they are and I'm sure Baylor will. I just think it's silly.
If they want to hear about your personal relationship with J.C. during the job interview, I imagine they also open faculty meetings with a prayer and do other kinds of things that would drive me insane. I can't imagine working at a place like that. I think it's probably better to get a preview at the interview stage of what your life there would be like.
Baylor's insistence on hiring only fundamentalist Christians isn't confined to the Classics dept.; that shit is institutional. Church attendance and talking like you're Paul or C.S. Lewis all the time are *required* for tenure in any department.
They literally have Genesis 1:1 inscribed in gigantic letters at the top of their science building.
And to the person who mentioned sexual preferences above: Baylor also has a long history of homophobia (the most recent incarnation of which is selecting as President Kenneth Starr, who represented CA Prop. 8 supporters in the post-election lawsuits).
"Sure, most religious schools are looking for religious people, but to weed people out at the APA because they don't subscribe to your particular brand of Christianity seems pretty harsh and unusual;"
I've interviewed with several overtly Christian institutions, and I've never felt any burden heavier than being a visible minority in classics (Latino). In fact, being surrounded by pasty, stiff-ass, bow-tied suits making geeky Latin jokes made me much more uncomfortable than the interviewer who mentioned working in an urban soup kitchen run by Christians.
Make no mistake: there is a huge difference in kind between most of the institutions that could accurately be described as "overtly Christian" and places like Baylor.
In fact, being surrounded by pasty, stiff-ass, bow-tied suits making geeky Latin jokes made me much more uncomfortable ...
Yeah, if I felt powerful, visceral contempt for a group of people, I'd probably be uncomfortable around them too. I bet it makes interviewing tough when you're constantly trying to hide how disgusting you find the people you're in the room with.
... than the interviewer who mentioned working in an urban soup kitchen run by Christians
I don't remember anything about soup kitchens. I remember being asked about my personal relationship with Jesus.
"Church attendance and talking like you're Paul or C.S. Lewis all the time are *required* for tenure in any department."
I'm in a classics department at a Christian university. I talk more like a cross between Ned Flanders and a sober Jack Sparrow to cover both the Christian and Classics angles. It's quite hilarious but effective. I too have to admit that I was one who held contempt for most of the classics SCs I interviewed for. However, my unfiltered Jack Sparrow routine that I reserve for the APAs made me fit right in.
I think if you spoke/acted like C.S. Lewis you would naturally fit right in with any classics department, Christian university or not. British accent, Oxbridge education, eloquent, literary, etc. I can't think of one classics department who wouldn't eat this shit up.
I think if you spoke/acted like C.S. Lewis you would naturally fit right in with any classics department, Christian university or not. British accent, Oxbridge education, eloquent, literary, etc. I can't think of one classics department who wouldn't eat this shit up.
It's the thinking like C.S. Lewis that would annoy me. Also, I wonder how many Classics departments you can think of.
I talk more like a cross between Ned Flanders and a sober Jack Sparrow to cover both the Christian and Classics angles. It's quite hilarious but effective. I too have to admit that I was one who held contempt for most of the classics SCs I interviewed for. However, my unfiltered Jack Sparrow routine that I reserve for the APAs made me fit right in.
Sorry, mate, I don't know you, but I am going to guarantee you, right now, that nobody except you has ever associated you with Jack Sparrow, and that's even if you wear eyeliner and a scarf around your head.
Also, talking like a pirate makes you fit in at the APA? I think you've been going to a different APA than I have. American Pirate Association, I guess.
The jack sparrow post almost made tea come out my nose, and I have yet to see any of the movies outside of trailers.
Lighten up, classics apologist. You sound just like some of the stereotypes getting propagated around here. Stop watching Fox News and turn to Colbert once in a while.
Also, talking like a pirate makes you fit in at the APA?
You've obviously not run into my sabretooth advisor at the APA. And if you knew who he was, you would probably wet your pants and as for an autograph (that is, until you actually met him in his tipsy, misogynist splendor)
You've obviously not run into my sabretooth advisor at the APA. And if you knew who he was, you would probably wet your pants and as for an autograph (that is, until you actually met him in his tipsy, misogynist splendor)?
Aww. That is so cute I can't believe it! I am pinching your cheek through the Internet right now. I do think I will be OK, though. But I do appreciate the tip. Also, commenting drunk is not good policy, although you're OK this time, I think.
Yep, this place has convinced me that classicists are swell folks. Too bad I'm part of a committee downsizing their department at my institution. Maybe I'll shed a tear, but I know none of my colleagues will. Good luck to you.
To the person asking about Maryland--a friend of mine told me that her references were contacted a few days ago and asked to send their letters. Maybe check with your references to see?
"Too bad I'm part of a committee downsizing their department at my institution."
Wow, I mean, really, wow! I suppose it is possible that you are just trying to wind people on here up (not very sporting during the hiring season). Otherwise it would seem gross misfeasance to put a visionary such as yourself on a committee, where her/his views of the people who work in a particular field are based on the anonymous comments of people online. Really?
Can anybody give me a good (and I mean really, really good) answer as to why the APA, hiring departments, etc. don't use this service:
http://academicjobsonline.org/ajo
The Duke Math dept. set it up, Math hiring is done using it, and many other disciplines are jumping on board. It saves time and money for everybody involved.
Just imagine, the hamsters running the "servers" at the APA could be released into the wilds of Cherry Hill, NJ. Win, win, win!
MIT is using academicjobs.org for the classics position, but I suppose that just proves your point that humanists can't seem to get their heads around technological efficiency...
Not just MIT: also the jobs at Colgate and Yale-NUS. And it's wonderful, because if you applied for MIT already you don't need to ask your letter writers to do another online rec.
Just looked at the wiki, and somebody marked (+) indicating that MIT had sent them acknowledgment of application received...now I'm worried that I somehow submitted mine wrong. My letter writers did get the prompt, though...Did anybody else (besides the person who put the + on the wiki) get an email from them?
Could the person who talks like Jack Sparrow please urgently advise where and when the American Pirate Association meets. Also the location of their job board.
@Anon 1:37 pm: I too have not received any confirmation, nor is my application marked as complete on the website, although the letters have been received. Nothing in my junk folders. Starting to panic now...
Apropos MIT. The only thing I received was the initial confirmation that I had submitted through academic-whatsit (at which time not all my docs were not in) and received. Once all the docs were submitted I did not get a second email. Received similar from YNUS. Soooo....should I/We be looking for something else?
Also, notification of not this time from Auckland received.
good to have a system wherein letters need only come in once for multiple job apps.
bad to have a system and interface reminiscent of something i am pretty sure i saw on my c.1997 netscape browser. aren't the people behind this site alleged to be some sort of scientists? shouldn't they be able to come up with an interface that doesn't suck balls in the eyes of a waste of space liberal artist (yes, i think i like this term) such as the crank writing this whiny critique?
Agreed that there's no good reason for academicjobsonline to look like ass as it does. Still, I'd rather have the sorry interface that doesn't require me to constantly pester my letter writers than the situation we're getting with the JRFs, where four or five of them will use exactly the same (pretty) interface, but your letter writers still have to upload to each individually.
Then again, considering that line of work, even a tenured job might be 2-3 years in length max. Also, hard to publish whilst swabbing decks. Bonus: department parties are off the hook.
Concerning the MIT job, on which there was some snarkiness expressed earlier, as a member of their TT faculty (and search committee), I can say the following: absolutely, your teaching will be more generalist than in a Classics dept; you will have no grad students; and yes, department members will not be up on the full intricacies of academic debates within your field. But everone in our department is in that position; for the most part, we're an ark with one of every animal. Now it's certainly true that you need to seek out people closer to (i.e., actually in) your field to serve as mentors and future letter-writers for MIT's strenuous promotion processes, but Boston is arguably the best place in North America (for my field, as I would suspect for yours) to do that. And it doesn't make conversations with your MIT colleagues worthless, since a) those outside the nitty-gritty debates of the field are often better positioned to comment on the big picture of one's arguments; and b) publishers, external fellowship committees, and tenure/promotion committees are all to some degree generalists, and formulating the stakes of one's arguments to such an audience is crucial.
As for being the bastard stepchild of the institute, of course it's true that students don't come to MIT to study Classics (or literature of any sort). But MIT has worked hard to attract undergrads with a broader range of interests than those at CalTech or Harvey Mudd, say, and I've been surprised and delighted at how committed they are to the humanities. Yes, you have to be secure enough in what you teach and study to be okay with not being their main focus; but if you are, you will have the very great joy of teaching brilliant students with quirky, interesting brains at their most relaxed and engaging. Precisely because you're *not* their main focus, they're more willing to take risks, to try something interesting and see where their insights lead them (or don't).
And in fact, students concentrating in Ancient and Medieval Studies have more than tripled, to 25 or so, in the past three to four years, and we've had clamorings for Latin since I arrived; this position is newly created precisely because of the demonstrated student interest in what you study. And while Literature is undoubtedly at the margins of MIT, that gives us a certain kind of power: precisely because we don't have an intellectual stake in turf wars between Materials Science and EECS, or the legitimacy of a new Bioengineering major, we're trusted as honest brokers ... Literature faculty hold a disproportionate number of Associate Deanships and important faculty governance positions (most recently, Assoc. Chair of the Faculty) that allow us to advocate for the humanities, broadly, and literary study in particular. Of course it's not all roses; no job is perfect; and there are plenty of times I and others gripe about this or that. But for what it's worth, it was largely for the colleagues that I chose this job over another that, on paper, looked more suited for a humanist. My colleagues have been extraordinary: we know we have to stick together to survive and thrive, and to a remarkable extent, we do.
Everything's anonymous on here, so you can trust that I'm not spouting this to curry favor with MIT ... but it's a measure of how happy I am here that I'm taking the time to compose this instead of work on my own stuff. I've been incredibly happy here; if you like the idea of teaching in a liberal arts-type environment (small classes, all undergrads) while having the resources to do serious research, then you probably would be too.
On unclear tenure expectations, I would say that they were made clear to me, but they're pretty stringent: one book out (not just contracted) from a prestigious press, and the second book 50-75% written (contract not necessary, though) to be sent out in MS to external reviewers. MIT also takes its mid-career promotion unusually seriously, with the first book expected to be done in MS, ideally though not necessarily contracted, at the end of the third year; a fair number of external letters are also expected at that stage, so making yourself known to senior people in the field early on is crucial.
The maddening thing about tenure, of course, is that there is no formula; everyone, I think (and not just at MIT), will admit that they've known cases with more than the "recommended" production that were turned back, and other, seemingly light cases that were successful. But that's what I've been told, for what it's worth. Hope it helps.
I wasn't going to apply to the MIT job (reconsidering that now, however), but I'd like to thank the SC member for a couple of helpful, humane, and thoughtful posts here. This was an example of what this place *should* be about.
Whoa, the APA has discovered the year 2001! I suppose we should congratulate them on releasing the hamsters and buying that sweet refurbished Gateway 500mhz running Windows ME!!
I do find this puzzling, however:
"The traditional listings perform a number of valuable functions for the field, but we look forward to giving active job candidates the earliest possible access to new listings."
What valuable functions can they possibly perform?
I would like to state that I asked for the job first, so by international law I have 'dibs'.
Wouldn't it be great if we could hear from all SCs ahead of time like this?
Wouldn't it be just like the internet if the MIT informant were actually a jobless Classicist in disguise? Or worse, one of the snarling sabretooths, bored in his (or her) repose?
I'm flattered to be the subject of conspiracy theories, but I can assure you that I (the MIT search committee guy/gal) am legit. (There are plenty of authenticating details in my earlier posts for the truly paranoid to check up on through the interwebs, e.g., yes, an MIT Lit prof was recently made Associate Chair of the Faculty, hardly common knowledge outside the Institute.) Mainly I was inspired to post because going through the first cut of apps, I've been so impressed by the state of the field, broadly defined (it was a broadly written ad!); so happy that we can offer one person a great job; and so sad that we can't create more jobs. Hang in there and keep the faith (it's worth remembering that Classics is *expanding* now in my very unlikely neck of the woods), but also remember that your value as a thinker, teacher, and (most important) person is not dependent on some search committee. I know that may sound glib from my privileged position, but it really is true. Your apps -- your collective commitment to hard and interesting questions, intense but personal pedagogical engagement, and community organizing of the best sort (yes, we can!) -- make me confident that however the vagaries of the search go, I'll find a great colleague, and hopefully friend. I'm really looking forward to meeting some of you at APA. Best of luck in all your endeavors till then, and beyond :)
So... What, precisely, is the use of the APA Job Placement Service as of yet? Is it just to get access to the newly posted jobs as they come up instead of on the 15th?
Is their interview coordination service at all useful?
I am, of course, presuming that they'll be slightly more swift about updating the job postings there than they were about doing it on the APA page proper...
As there have been some comments about the matter and as we did not post the information in our job announcement, I thought I might inform readers of this blog that the salary for the position in Roman archaeology at FSU that we have advertised will be in the range of $55,000.
Positions are starting to get posted on the new Placement Service website, for those who haven't checked... so far 2 jobs at U Dallas and 1 at the Joukowsky Institute. Curious to see if this is going to be supplemented by an email, I was under the impression it would be...
On the APA website, "they" are posting, slowly and laboriously, the jobs already advertised in previous months. These, we have been told, will all be posted by the second week in November. I presume that new jobs are posted automatically when departments add new postings to the system (but I am a job-searcher and do not know how that end of the software works; do adds need to be approved or are they posted immediately?).
I hope that this new software has cut out the middleman; but at least until all the previous ads for this year are added, the website will be quite sloppy. New ads will be mixed in with ones that have already been posted. And is there no way to receive automatic updates (via email or rss) when new jobs are posted?
From the friendly MIT person: yes, writing sample requests should have gone out late yesterday afternoon. I look forward to reading about Homer, Vergil, Theocritus, Catullus, Pindar, Lucian, Callimachus, Ovid, Aeschylus, Lucretius ... and that's only a very partial list. We received well over 200 applications, so if you got hit up for a writing sample, you should feel very pleased indeed.
I'll also share a bit about how the process moves on from here, since I'm quite proud of how seriously and engaged the whole department is. The files we're pursuing now get divided into two groups, as does our faculty. Each half of the faculty reviews half the files, and meets to select its top ten. We then exchange our top ten with the other faculty team, so that the entire department reads the top twenty, then meet to select ten or so of those to interview at APA.
This means that those who are contacted for an interview have been vetted by every member of the department at least once, sometimes twice (or even thrice, in the case of the first-cut committee). That means you can enter the interview secure in the confidence that a whole bunch of smart, engaged people actively wanted to meet you, even though only a small subset actually gets to at that stage.
It also means that the ultimately successful candidate will arrive in a department all of whose tenure-line members were extensively involved in her or his selection. In my experience, that helps a new colleague integrate into our distinctive intellectual climate much more readily, and also draw much-needed energy and fortitude from the knowledge that his or her colleagues, however distant their field or scholarly interests, have already committed to our new colleague's personal and professional success.
I hope that sheds some light on an often mist-shrouded process. Best of luck to all as their searches continue, here and/or elsewhere.
If you want to be snarky about my encouraging folks -- as someone else was about an apparently ill-judged emoticon in an earlier post -- or the fact that I'm proud of my department, which I am, that's your prerogative. But it might explain why so few people from search committees post here, a fact that some others were lamenting. Just sayin'.
Ok guys, just to check: people selected by MIT got email notifications from them directly, right? I assume so, but I ask because when I looked at my academicjobsonline MIT application this morning, there was a space to upload a writing sample, and I can't remember if it was there before. You all have that, too, right? (Of course they would have sent an email! I know I'm being stupid. But I had to check.)
@11:32: Yes, I did receive an email late yesterday afternoon. It read like a form email, so I assume that they send it out to everyone at the same time.
Nothing would benefit our field more than if that hacker group "Anonymous" were to reveal the names of people who use the cloak of anonymity to be total jerks, like the one attacking the MIT professor, and thus ensure that they would never get jobs. (And since the Holy Grail of nude Scarlett Johansson photos was scored by an unaffiliated hacker, what the hell else does Anonymous have left to do?)
At the risk of also being called a "dick," I'll say this Anon sort of agrees with Succinct Dick. I think it's great to have a transparent search process, but the whole "we're smart and engaged" blather is a bit much for my taste - way too self-congratulatory.
"Succinct Dick" and Dick Wannabee are both showing that they are rather inexperienced. The MIT prof's post should not be taken as arrogant boasting about their process -- it should be seen as reassurance that whoever gets the job will not be walking into a situation with unexpected dangers. Anyone who has been around a bit knows that some faculty if they do not approve of a hire will try (and too often succeed) to torpedo their new colleague. The MIT prof is obviously saying that their process seeks to avoid this. And that's the ONLY valid way to read his/her post.
In the future, perhaps certain posters should recall their Socrates (i.e., that they should not be so confident that they know what the hell they're talking about) before they write an obnoxious post, or a post sympathetic to an obnoxious post.
8:15 PM has been working her/his decoder ring too hard, I think.
That said, all the commenter in question has done is to express admiration of her/his colleagues as a means of praising the search process and of encouraging in advance those invited to an interview. That's not an especially arrogant gesture.
And: having seen even the mild repercussions of the commenter having spoken about their search here, I will never comment here about a search we have going on. I guess I probably already knew that that wasn't a great idea, but this confirms it pretty well. It's really easy to write things that will be misinterpreted and spun into a big deal, and nobody wants that for their search. Much better to communicate as frankly as possible with individual candidates as soon as possible, and leave public pronouncements alone.
A reason for optimism, despite the first rejections of the season and the disappointing mess the Placement service has made of their new site: I count 69 T-T or equivalent jobs on the Wiki thus far. If there are 11 more listed (which seems possible, right?), this year's market will have grown 33%.
Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying our troubles are over. But at least those of who have done this for a few years -- peiora passi sumus.
But how many TT classics positions for junior scholars? I'm optimistic as well, but it's tempered by positions such as AJA editor-in-chief, ASCSA admin director, archaeological science?!, Late Antique history, etc. I would describe many of these positions as the boutique variety where very few, if any, junior classicists are viable candidates.
Not the previous poster, but I know one classicist who could pass as an archaeological scientist and several who do Byzantine archaeology. Byzantine historians trained as classicists? None.
I was counting only academic positions (leaving out editors, museum directors etc.), but your point is valid. Are there 69 positions in your subspecialty? No. Of the 20 or so positions you apply for, will most of them go to those with better credentials and more experience than you? Yes. Are there tenure track jobs out there specifically for talented young Ph.Ds who lack teaching experience and publications? Only for the very, very fortunate. But I still contend that 1) if we are counting 350-400 registered placement candidates (which includes, no doubt, all sorts of antiquarians, a disgusting rabble, as Syme says), then we should count all available positions, and 2) a rising tide raises all boats. And if you are VAP, not a grad student on the market for the first time, I think there is reason to hope that you will have a better shot at T-T jobs this year -- which would not have been the case if the market had continued to decline in the aggregate.
For those who've been around the block numerous times, is the distribution of jobs what one would generally expect? I know that there are variations each other, but one would expect a general pecking order, right? So as a Greek historian, should I be expecting a longer VAP ride vs. a Latinist, all things equal?
this 'market' is volatile in all sense of that word. there is no equal, no benchmarking, no predictability. just work hard and maybe you'll get luck - but probably, you won't. those are the the facts of this rat race.
Someone out there must know why SFSU 1) didn't hire anyone last year after soliciting applications from the whole field and 2) asked that applications this year be sent to a "Hiring Committee" (a more auspicious name than "Search Committe"?) as opposed to a contact person and 3) sent out a letter of acknowledgement signed by an "Acting Chair" who is not a classicist.
"Someone out there must know why SFSU ... 3) sent out a letter of acknowledgement signed by an "Acting Chair" who is not a classicist."
Because I have ESP I can tell you that the current chair of the dept is on leave this year. Honestly, I have ESP. There is no other way I could sit in my office across the country from SFSU and find this out.
Yes, smartass, I have the same ESP/internet connection and can see that the chair is on leave. My question is rather - why is someone who wrote his dissertation on Faulkner and Garcia Marquez now acting as chair, and apparently playing a role in the "Hiring"? It's not like there are no other classicists around. But maybe there's no story here and it doesn't really matter, because I have no chance of getting the job. I was just curious, that's all.
1) They could only decide on one candidate last year; candidate took another job, and they could never agree on a second choice. Hence the failed search.
2) The dept. is split down the middle between philologists and archaeologists / historians, and they couldn't decide what they wanted in the new hire.
3) There was some bitterness because apparently this position was going to be paid higher than what any of the current faculty make, which may have contributed to 1).
I do not vouch for the truth of any of this, but am happy to participate in the spirit of the site. Let rumors fly!
This is outrageous. I can't believe you started the bitchy baseless speculation without telling me.
It looks to me as though the two full professors are both otherwise occupied, one on leave and the other with a faculty governance position ("Academic Senate Chair") that has excused her from office hours, and therefore presumably from teaching, and therefore presumably also from running searches. When you're handing out not just a job but a chair, the dean probably prefers that the search be run not by an assistant or even a recent associate but by a full professor.
I have no idea whether the rumors referenced above are true, but I don't see that they're necessary to explain anything. But I do enjoy seeing the cocky, half-assed sleuthing, so please don't stop.
A fair point, good sir, but it doesn't seem obvious to me that an associate professor couldn't serve as chair or lead a "Hiring Committee"; doesn't that happen all the time? And it also seems a general principle of collegiality that a department should be allowed to choose its own members -- unless, of course, it's shown itself incapable of doing so.
I do find Anon. 8:18 point number 3 plausible -- it wouldn't surprise me that an endowed chair would earn much much more than other faculty. Which leaves me divided as to whom to find fault with. One the one hand, it's shameful to squander a T-T job in classics -- in San Francisco, no less! -- simply because you can't come to an agreement on which of the dozen or so outstanding and well-deserving candidates in the pool ought to be your second choice. It's a CSU school, not Harvard or Yale, and there must have been a handful of candidates waiting by the phone who would have offered superior teaching, raised the research profile of the department and been almost immediately tenurable. (A friend of mine who was offered a job at CSU Los Angeles [not in Classics] was told that the requirement for tenure was a completed dissertation.)
On the other hand, why search for an endowed chair at the assistant professor level? If you're not doing a senior-level search, why not offer the chair to a tenured professor you already have as a reward for service to the department -- and then hire a junior person to fill his/her line? So I can understand the search committee's bitterness, if some of them felt passed over for the chair.
"On the other hand, why search for an endowed chair at the assistant professor level? If you're not doing a senior-level search, why not offer the chair to a tenured professor you already have as a reward for service to the department -- and then hire a junior person to fill his/her line? So I can understand the search committee's bitterness, if some of them felt passed over for the chair."
I have no knowledge of specifics here...but, generally speaking, endowed chairs come with rules attached to them. Perhaps the endowment for this chair specifically required that its occupant be hired at the assistant level? Which kind of makes sense, if the point of making the endowment was to attract the kind of candidates that normally might not take a job at a CSU (even if it is in San Francisco). That said, this would go a long way toward transforming the suggestion of present-faculty bitterness from a a state of plausibility to one of probability.
One of my best buds from grad school interviewed for the job. He couldn't run away fast enough after the interview. I asked him how bad and he said he had to fight not to walk out. He didn't know quite as much as some of you apparently do concerning the undercurrents of the search, but he knew something wasn't kosher. I'll leave it at that so as to not out him with members of last year's search committee (which was apparently the entire department - that should be a clue considering it's a CSU going through a severe budget crisis).
I have it on very reliable authority that at last year's interview... well, I don't want to say too much, for fear of outing my source. So I'm just going to write some nouns, and you can work out the rest. Puppets. Spanking. Short Creamsicle break. Much more spanking. Puppets again, briefly. Next candidate.
Perceptions. SFSU is a good job, not a great one, though I suppose any TT job gives a young classicist the tingles these days. Unfortunately, the department comes off like the moderately attractive cheerleader in high school who thinks she's all that. SFSU is a glorified community college that should be called DCSU. Yeah, it's chaired, but you'll have at least half the department apathetic at best at your hire. Good luck to whomever fills it.
Perceptions. You've just tainted a possibly decent search for a whole group of candidates. If it is that bad, let them sense it for themselves. Without outing myself or anyone in the department - and I do have first-hand, recent knowledge - it isn't a top school with a strong Classics department, and yes, the campus is more of a commuter than a residential campus, but the students are nice, many faculty members are nice, and it isn't by any means a bad place to work. I know this site is about rumors, but I just don't see any reason to taint this particular job UNLESS a candidate from this year's search comes on here, confused and complaining. Then you can let the rumors fly to give the candidate some insight - but don't prejudice candidates against the job before it's even started. You don't know if things might go better this year. No sense in having candidates go in with a feeling of dread. If they get there and are freaked out, then let the rumors fly.
For what it's worth, the three people I've known well who have actually attended SFSU -- one got a B.A. and an M.A. in Classics there -- have great things to say about the school in general and the Classics department in particular. The blowhards on this blog thumping their chests about how SFSU is a "glorified community college" are probably sitting around teaching three or four mediocre students in upper-division language courses (if they have jobs at all and aren't just ABDs in snooty, decrepit Ivy League departments that get by on the reputations of their programs from twenty-five years ago); the faculty at SFSU are teaching enthusiastic students at all levels, and by all indications doing a whole lot better as a department than some of the departments at state schools and SLACs we've heard about in the past few years that are fighting not to be terminated. Anyone considering the possibility of believing these slanderous rumors should consider the possibility that they're written by people who don't know what they're talking about and are bitter because they know they're never going to work in San Francisco.
In case you're wondering, here is a very plausible story about how a search like the one SFSU conducted last year could fail. You get over 200 applications for a very open-ended position. You select 15-20 people to interview. From that bunch, you choose three people for on-campus visits. Upon arrival, two of these three candidates turn out to do something to displease you severely; maybe they turn out to be completely unable to teach, maybe their job talk turns out to suggest that they're barely competent at research and aren't likely to do anything to improve your M.A. program. You offer the job to a third candidate, who declines. You can't bring yourself to hire either of the other two candidates. You postpone the search for next year.
This has happened. Whether it happened at SFSU, I have no idea. But in all probability neither do you, so quit pretending that spending five years in graduate school has given you some kind of professional insights and get back to worrying about whether you're going to get a job anywhere but a "glorified community college."
Why do you assume that the person who originally brought up last year's SFSU *isn't* a current candidate? Perhaps even a candidate who had heard rumors, and came hear for the specific purpose of hearing more of the same?
But, ok, let's go ahead and assume that the person who brought up the subject just wanted to air SFSU's (allegedly) dirty laundry. What's wrong with that? I must have missed the sign that said posters around here could only let rumors fly when prompted by the earnest questioning of self-identified job applicants.
"In case you're wondering, here is a very plausible story about how a search like the one SFSU conducted last year could fail. You get over 200 applications for a very open-ended position. You select 15-20 people to interview. From that bunch, you choose three people for on-campus visits. Upon arrival, two of these three candidates turn out to do something to displease you severely; maybe they turn out to be completely unable to teach, maybe their job talk turns out to suggest that they're barely competent at research and aren't likely to do anything to improve your M.A. program. You offer the job to a third candidate, who declines. You can't bring yourself to hire either of the other two candidates. You postpone the search for next year. "
Hey, I have an idea. Somebodies are trashing a department that I happen to like. In response, I will imply that two junior scholars are somehow unhireable. Of course, these are people who could probably be identified in less than a minute by using a google search and a common sense assumption about why people might have been giving public lectures for the SFSU Classics Department sometime in/around February of last year. Yeah, that seems like the fairest thing I could possibly do, since I'm all into fairness and the like.
Hey, guess what: for what it is worth, *I* happen to know one of the people who had a campus interview for the SFSU job last year, and he/she was not the one offered the job. I also happen to know that he/she is a great teacher and gives a job talk that could only suggest that he/she has a fantastic career ahead of him/her as a researcher, and that having him/her around would only improve your MA program by enormous leaps and bounds.
"I must have missed the sign that said posters around here could only let rumors fly when prompted by the earnest questioning of self-identified job applicants."
You can say what you want; you'll never be held accountable for what you say under the veil of anonymity. But don't gripe when other people call your rumors out as baseless bullshit, slam them with counter-rumors, or suggest that you do something more valuable with your time. Though you can't suffer any damage from what you say anonymously on the internet, the people you're talking about and the people who make the mistake of believing your froth certainly can. As someone with an interest in accurate information, I should be expected to be harsh to people who seem to be speaking out of their asses and spreading misinformation.
Oh, my bad. I seem to have missed the part where you were not posting anonymously. Of course, because you are speaking positively about a place that you happen to like, that means that you must be spreading information, not misinformation. Perhaps you have a friend or two at SFSU, and perhaps this gives you access to some inside info. Hey, that's great. But, guess what? That does not necessarily make your assessment of the situation there more "accurate." In fact, one might even go as far as to say that this direct connection to SFSU is likely to bias your opinion. I think I'll go ahead and suggest that job candidates are being done no good service if they are persuaded to accept your sunshine and lollipops view of SFSU Classics as the straight dope.
And, for what it is worth, prior to my reply to your post, I had not posted anything about SFSU on this board. So, you can take your self-righteous b.s. and re-direct it where appropriate.
"Hey, I have an idea. Somebodies are trashing a department that I happen to like. In response, I will imply that two junior scholars are somehow unhireable. Of course, these are people who could probably be identified in less than a minute by using a google search and a common sense assumption about why people might have been giving public lectures for the SFSU Classics Department sometime in/around February of last year. Yeah, that seems like the fairest thing I could possibly do, since I'm all into fairness and the like."
As someone trying to become a professional reader of texts, you might be a bit more careful. If I had wanted to say that this was what happened, I would have said it. What I actually did say, you'll notice, is that bad on-campus interviews provide a plausible story of how a search like the one SFSU had could fail. That story was an alternative to baseless speculations about scandalous inner conflicts in their department. So, since your friend, of whose abilities you are doubtless a scrupulous and impartially objective judge, couldn't conceivably have given a poor interview, I'll spell out my point a little more clearly for you.
SFSU's search failed in a year when there almost certainly couldn't have been a shortage of excellent candidates. Nonetheless, we do not have sufficient reasons to conclude that the search could only have failed because of departmental conflict or some other scandalous evil. It is just as plausible, and there is just as much evidence to suggest, that most of the three or four people that the department agreed to bring for on-campus interviews did not give good interviews. Since you're apparently not a fan of secondary focalization, I'll try to be crystal clear: giving a bad on-campus interview need not be a matter of being incompetent; it is simply a matter of appearing to the people who are making the decision to be unsatisfactory in some way or other. People who are trying to decide whether to invite you to come share a major part of their lives for what quite conceivably could turn out to be the rest of their careers might find you unsatisfactory because they don't like your laugh or the way you sip your coffee, let alone because they don't think you're really going to fit in well with the department on a less personal and more purely intellectual level. They don't need to be good reasons; they just have to appear strong enough to make somebody on a hiring committee unwilling to offer you a job. I'm sorry to inform you that there is sometimes a gap between reality and the subjective appraisal of reality, but even Jesus could give a bad interview.
The form of my argument is: when there is an equal dearth of evidence for two equally plausible stories X and Y, we have no reason to prefer X over Y. If you have any real objections to this reasoning, raise them. Otherwise stop your whining and your tendentious hermeneutics and accept the fact that there is no good reason to believe the rumors being barfed up on this blog about SFSUs alleged dysfunctionality.
1. Stop pretending that your connection to SF State is that a few friends of yours got a BA there, or whatever. The content of your (at least) two posts explode the plausibility of this contention.
2. My reading was careful, which is why I used the word "imply," rather than a stronger verb, when discussing the effect that your post had on the reputation of the individual junior scholars in question.
3. No matter how you spin it, it's hypocritical of you to complain about anonymous negative speculation concerning an institution by offering up an alternative brand of negative speculation concerning individuals. That this hypocrisy is probably self-interested and seemingly accompanied by a general spamming of this board is, as the kids say, weak sauce.
4. For the record, I don't actually have a friend who interviewed for the SFSU job last year. I do admit, however, that I can see how you arrived at such a naive reading of the rhetorically phrased paragraph of mine that you chose to quote.
5. Since you bring it up, there are good reasons to believe the rumors about SFSU being barfed up on this blog. The dysfunctionality of your department is hardly a secret.
6. Nevertheless, you have nothing to worry about. You have already gotten sincere applications from 50 or more candidates whom, in an alternate universe, you would have to kill to have come work for you. Just pick one of them this year, and you won't have to spend any Sundays next November spewing venom at internet strangers. You know, since you are *so* above that.
The situation described above is a dysfunctional search. I sincerely doubt that each of the other two on-campus interview candidates ate a baby or raped some kittens during their job talk. If a few minor snafus made the SC decide not to hire at all, in this market that's much more likely the *()#*#$ SC's problem.
You really expect to get a job teaching other people how to read texts closely? Read the post again: expressions like "for what it's worth" followed by reference to "three people" are calling attention to their limited evidentiary value. Nonetheless, my evidence is at least as strong as the evidence being offered on the other side. Thus, there is at least as much reason to expect to have a good experience with SFSU Classics and its people as to expect to have a bad one. If you have a real objection to this argument, let's hear it.
Your tu quoque on anonymity falls a bit flat, don't you think? To spell it out for you again, my accusation is that you -- and this is a generalized "you" meant to apply to people engaged in this behavior -- are abusing the shield of anonymity to attack non-anonymous people on slender grounds. I, on the other hand, am using my anonymity to defend non-anonymous people who are being attacked on slender grounds. If you think those two uses of anonymity merit the same evaluation, I hope never to work with you and am very glad not to have any idea who you are.
"You really expect to get a job teaching other people how to read texts closely? Read the post again: expressions like "for what it's worth" followed by reference to "three people" are calling attention to their limited evidentiary value. Nonetheless, my evidence is at least as strong as the evidence being offered on the other side. Thus, there is at least as much reason to expect to have a good experience with SFSU Classics and its people as to expect to have a bad one. If you have a real objection to this argument, let's hear it."
Sure, here goes: it's complete bullshit, the kind that it's not even worth taking the time to pick apart. Enjoy the rest of your Sunday.
I didn't realize anybody had the authority to delete anonymous posts on this blog. Funny how mine keeps disappearing. Why just mine, I wonder?
Meanwhile, I like the reversion to the old "I could do it if I wanted, but I don't want to" line. As when we were in third grade, I'll take that as an admission that don't have a response that is actually worth giving.
Facts: SFSU received hundreds of applications for a chaired position, had enough support to send the entire department to San Antonio, yet failed to hire a suitable candidate for a wide open position in a buyer's market. And it had the Bay Area going for it. Yep, it's pure bad luck and crummy finalists that sank this search.
P.S. I love how some of the posts are oddly specific but hide behind the veil of hypotheticals and supposed neutrality.
I'm in a TT job, but I know my friend who was short-listed last year wanted nothing to do with the application process this year. I'm not denying it's a job, and even a good one, but please, o anonymous one posing as an applicant yet probably resides in Daly City, get over yourself and tell SFSU classics the same thing.
So it's not a top school, it's Classics department isn't strong, and it's a commuter school, BUT the faculty and students are "nice" and it's not a terrible place to work. Anon. 10:11, that sure was a ringing endorsement for someone to move to a place where they will likely live in rent-controlled housing forever and deal with students who couldn't get into a UC school or half the other CSUs.
Anon. 10:11 here (and FWIW, this is my first reply since 10:11, and my last reply, because it gets so depressing around here) - dude, it is a job. Not the sacrament of holy matrimony. If people apply, get interviewed, and don't like it, then they can withdraw from the search, turn down an offer, or try it and quit. If living in Daly City or the Sunset isn't for you, don't apply, and if "nice" isn't enough for what you want in a university community, then don't apply. I didn't say it was a ringing endorsement, I just suggested that the new crop of applicants might as well give the search a chance, and there was no constructive reason to bash the search at this point in the game. You act like the candidates have blinders on, but they don't. My current job, three dozen people told me not to take it, primarily because of the location, and also because they thought a postdoc at a prestigious school would be a better career launcher than where I am now. Well, I got here, and I like it, and if something changes about that, then I will quit. But I'm glad as hell I applied, because it was the only job offer I got, and it turned out to be a great place. And if I'd gotten here in Year One and found myself traumatized by the environment, then I would have gone back on the market. At this point, if I quit, I'd probably just go get a different, non-academic job. But it would have been really disheartening if, when I was a candidate, I was prejudiced about the school from the start. As it was, people reserved their bashing until after I'd accepted the job, and I'm damn glad they did, or I might have taken their "sage" advice. Anyway, look, I'm not trying to silence freedom of speech or gild something that is tin, but I just think it would be more constructive and helpful to let the current crop apply and find out for themselves. I mean, some of you have said that it was so bad that people almost left the interview, and it isn't like anyone is saying SFSU isn't a school with a mostly commuter population, so who are these deluded young candidates you're trying to warn? Let them go into it hoping for the best and then judging whether it would work for them. And if it doesn't, then they have options. But trashing the whole thing from the beginning doesn't help anybody. It isn't as if you're warning a freshman girl not to go to the KEG frat house during her first weekend on campus because they put roofies in freshmeat drinks, which is kind of how it came off.
I'm happily employed and not on the market. I also know nothing about SFSU's Classics department in particular, and not much about SFSU more broadly. But I went to grad school in the Bay Area, and I freaking loved it. Yes, the cost of living sucks, but much of what's cool about the Bay Area is either free or cheap. Location shouldn't trump everything else, but for a lot of people it is, and should be, a pretty big deal. So I guess I'm endorsing the long post by Anon 10:11 and encouraging candidates to hope for the best and trust their instincts.
Let's be clear here, just in case there are people out there who live in La-La-Land: we should all be applying for every job we qualify for, regardless of how terrible. Anything else would be an appalling misunderstanding of the situation we who are on the market (even the very best of us) are in.
I have been one of the main people bitching about various things at various points, but I do it because it is fun and therapeutic. I'm still applying for all that shit and would take it in an heartbeat. You should do likewise.
"I didn't realize anybody had the authority to delete anonymous posts on this blog. Funny how mine keeps disappearing. Why just mine, I wonder?
Meanwhile, I like the reversion to the old "I could do it if I wanted, but I don't want to" line. As when we were in third grade, I'll take that as an admission that don't have a response that is actually worth giving."
Ok, now that I've spent three hours watching Tebow defy all logic, I'm ready to waste five more minutes on you.
If it makes you feel any better, I also had a couple of messages deleted as we were going back and forth. I took that as a hint that it was probably not worth continuing our pissing match. It was also becoming obvious to me that you really really like the smell of your own pee, whereas I'm just lukewarm on mine.
But, yeah, ok; you win! You are totally right about everything! And, ill nvr dare 2 sho my 3rd graderz face round hr agin, b/c thats how hard u pwnd me, bro!
"Anyway, look, I'm not trying to silence freedom of speech or gild something that is tin, but I just think it would be more constructive and helpful to let the current crop apply and find out for themselves. I mean, some of you have said that it was so bad that people almost left the interview, and it isn't like anyone is saying SFSU isn't a school with a mostly commuter population, so who are these deluded young candidates you're trying to warn? Let them go into it hoping for the best and then judging whether it would work for them. And if it doesn't, then they have options. But trashing the whole thing from the beginning doesn't help anybody. It isn't as if you're warning a freshman girl not to go to the KEG frat house during her first weekend on campus because they put roofies in freshmeat drinks, which is kind of how it came off."
OK, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here, and just assume that you've missed the entire point of this part of Famae Volent.
No - I didn't miss the point. I object to it. And if someone else can "let off steam" by telling candidates that SFSU sucks, then I can "let off steam" by saying that I find these posts unhelpful *at this stage of the game.* This stage of the game is where people bitch and moan about whether there is an inside hire already lined up. Then once you've been mistreated on an interview (and I have), you come back and bitch about it. Then there's summer, and I think it would be helpful if the bitching and moaning could start afresh with staples & the CV rather than saying that a particular school, who may have run a bad/unlucky search last year, sucks. And yeah, I know there's no time limit on rumors, I just wanted to bitch and moan that I think it is unhelpful at this stage of the game. And you disagree. And we're both allowed to post here, regardless of what we want to use the space for, as long as we don't use individual names or inflammatory attacks. I hope candidates on the market listen to me and take your posts with a grain of salt, so they go into the whole game with the best attitudes possible. That's all.
Hmm. I don't remember anyone questioning your right to post here, so let's set aside that red herring right away.
Ok. So, you don't think that virgin ABD ears should be exposed to the idea that some hiring committees/departments are complete shit shows. Hmm. I can see your point. It is really discouraging to read about how a job that you think you really want is perhaps not what you thought it was.
But, I don't remember anyone ever saying that they were talking about the SFSU Classic Department in order to be helpful to the people applying for that or any other job. It seemed more like curious people sharing tidbits of information and speculation, almost entirely to satisfy their own prurient interests. And then some paranoid person from SFSU was lurking and lost his shit (remember, just because you are paranoid, that doesn't mean you aren't right!). And that just got hilarious in all kinds of ways.
And you also came along, fearing the potentially dampened spirits that this chatter might cause. While I do think your attitude is at least a bit infantilizing, I also appreciate its sincerity. So, I'll say it with you (imagine a unified chant, like in one of those movies where the bad guy is the son of satan, and he has all these creepy robed followers): be positive, young scholars, be positive! Everything is going to work out great! Never expect a search committee to consist of some combination of a nut, a drunk, a misanthrope, a bitter middle-aged guy/lady, and a crazy old dude that thinks reading statius qualifies as a hobby!
Hey! I was trying to meet you halfway there! But, ok. Let it be known: the forces of all that is self-proclaimed good and light have tragically lost their will to grapple with the malevolent arrogance of impetuous youth. Nurse, please note the time of death; at some point posterity will want to be informed.
Btw, if you really want to do some youngsters a favor, don't just advise any of your curious students against going to grad school; refuse to ever write another letter of recommendation. If you don't want to spare them the experience of spending the better part of a decade training for a job that they probably won't be able to get, at least spare them the horrible fate of one day having their hopes and dreams of getting that job utterly dashed by some mean-spirited anonymous poster on a silly blog.
Just because posts are anonymous does not mean they are invalid. Do you dismiss your course evaluations wholesale? I venture to guess that a much higher percentage of comments on here are constructive than your average set of course evaluations. I also venture to guess that a number of faculty members are weeding through the comments and picking out tips to improve their search. Some even post on here and intimate as much. There's more than chance at play in determining whether a search is good or foul.
SFSU deserves to be piled on for running such an inept search last year. With what's at stake for all involved, it's difficult enough to run a humane interview without setting up a circus for the backdrop. Senior scholars on here claim to remember being in the same boat. Yet some of you think the best way to find a future colleague is to shove him/her into a small room and have six or seven faculty members take turns spanking the candidate. I think this is a sure fire way of weeding out great candidates for budding sabretooths. Enough with the search mobs already. Why are there more than three or four of you?
And putting the fate of a chaired junior position at a poor university/department into the hands of a search mob, all with a chip on their shoulder? Who thought this was a good idea? How are you going to find a "deserving" candidate when each interviewer expects to be blown away in their little neck of the woods while getting their ass kissed? Just because one is "nice" does not mean one's immune to vanity. I wouldn't be surprised if the dean caught on and deliberately took the search process out of the hands of the department. Instead of getting pissed off, SFSU lurkers, why don't you prove us wrong this year by running a thoughtful, humane search? You dug your own hole by running that debacle you called a search last year.
Who needs a cheers and jeers section when we have Rebel Angels? Assuming that it's not just one poster, and I've heard enough through the grapevine to think otherwise, you need to screw up big time to get this type of feedback from candidates. Yeah, it's an unfortunate pile on, but a somewhat deserved one from my perspective. What's wrong with some accountability where there's been little over the years?
Have the mistreated candidates reported this unprofessional conduct to the APA/AIA placement committee? That would seem to me to be the appropriate thing to do. Like the "powerless" graduate assistant who watched kids being molested in locker rooms. Go to the police if the infractions are serious, the placement committee being the police in this situation. I was poorly treated in several interviews, both at the meeting stage and on campus, but not so poorly treated that I felt it was worth reporting. I got piled on, forced to talk to hostile parties who simply couldn't understand why I think classics is worth studying, and there were numerous infractions - hungover search members, meetings canceled with important people with whom the other candidates got to meet, unreasonably long days, the "devil's advocate" cadre that tests me to see how I handle under pressure, and then more rounds to visit with faculty to asked totally inappropriate questions about my personal life and whether I'd choose their school over other schools.. Fun, no, but I survived, got lucky, and that's that. I accept that you think it is a service to warn new candidates about the bad parts of SFSU. I also accept that you think there needs to be accountability so this doesn't happen again. Agree there also, but that needs to go through the placement committee, whom we don't know if they read this blog. Placement Committee, please investigate the SFSU searches last and this year, and if you do indeed find credible accusations of candidate abuse, then please take action. Faculty/grad students, if you hear a credible report of placement service infractions (like the unnamed scholar who showed up to my interview with her eyes rolling back in their sockets, looking like she was about to barf all over the coffee table in the private suit), then please report them. Me, I didn't feel like I was being tortured, even though it was tough. But if an interview involved interminable verbal spanking, then speak up. Don't be that grad student who didn't grab a baseball bat and bash that coach unconscious to save the little boy in question. Don't just report it here, thinking this will work in reforming searches. Go to the police/placement committee with tje best evidence you can find.
the unnamed scholar who showed up to my interview with her eyes rolling back in their sockets, looking like she was about to barf all over the coffee table
To be fair, this is how I always feel at the APA, whether I'm hung over or not.
As if the Placement Committee or any APA committee could take any actual punitive action against tenured professors, whom only God can punish.
Face it -- there is no justice in this business except between equals. And job applicants and search committees are most certainly not equals. So sayeth Thucydides.
If universities are paying for 6+ committee members to fly out to the APA, why not cut this number in half and use this money to add a couple flybacks? You would increase both the quantity and quality of candidates, in my opinion. Yeah, it's more meetings and time out of busy schedules, but you're sure not saving money and time by rerunning a search the following year.
If universities are paying for 6+ committee members to fly out to the APA, why not cut this number in half and use this money to add a couple flybacks? You would increase both the quantity and quality of candidates, in my opinion. Yeah, it's more meetings and time out of busy schedules, but you're sure not saving money and time by rerunning a search the following year.
OK, you have no idea how many people the university was paying for (sometimes people go on their own dime) or whether any of the other members were there on other business and attended the interviews while they were there.
This is the problem with having all of your speculation needs served by people who are in or barely out of graduate school, have no idea how anything works, and think that the whole world revolves around searches. It's not their fault that they don't know anything yet, but it would be nice if they were at least aware that they might not know everything.
For what it's worth, it's not just SFSU that ran a search mob last year. Yeah, you know who you are. Are departments hoping for increased success by adding more faculty to SCs? It has all the deftness of a surgeon using a rusty hacksaw and old gum for triple bypass surgery.
O wise anon 1:10, you still haven't answered why a department needs to send all its faculty to every interview, regardless of whose dime it is. And we're not talking about a tiny department with two or three members either.
For all the talk about how candidates should keep an open mind and move on if a job is not their cup of tea, it's the departmental representatives on here who seem to be making this out to be a somber union written in blood and deserving of OCD behavior that would make Howard Hughes proud.
For all the thinly veiled allusions basically calling finalists who don't get the offer fuck-ups ("No, we're calling them candidates who just happened to fuck up!"), don't you think it increases a SC's odds of making the same impression when there are so many of you? Yeah, it might mean little to you when you have hundreds of candidates lined up and the dynamics of power are all on you side, but don't you fear that your top choice might actually have options and the one SC member barfing in her mouth might be the deciding factor?
O wise anon 1:10, you still haven't answered why a department needs to send all its faculty to every interview, regardless of whose dime it is.
You're not following. What I'm saying is that there are lots of reasons why people could be at an interview beyond being on the search committee. If I'm at the conference on other business when we're interviewing, I'll go to what interviews I can. It has nothing to do with me being "sent" to the interview. And lots of people go to the conference for reasons that have nothing to do with searches but go to at least some interviews while there. In that situation, the department is definitely not paying for their travel to the conference, and so there aren't any savings to be had from their not going to the interviews that could be put toward more campus visits.
Anon 1:36 AM "don't you think it increases a SC's odds of making the same [bad] impression when there are so many of you?"
Wow, I hope statistics and probability are not involved in your dissertation. You're assuming that all faculty have an equal chance of behaving badly in an interview. When a dept has more people than usual, it's usually the search comm. plus people who just want to be there. Since the additional people may not have to be there, they can stay away if they are hung over or sneezy or tired or bored by your topic.
I've had big interviews and I've had small interviews. I think a group of 3-4 does the best job, but a big group can mean more people get a sense of you sooner, and you of them. A big group also means you don't have the situation where a tiny group falsely claims "we all like/dislike anthro/theory/putting on plays" etc.
I think it's impossible to say. Our last hire was ABD, but had an impressive publication record. I was hired from a VAP position though. Regardless, having a strong (i.e., detailed, not just enthusiastic) teaching letter would probably help your case. I also brought a packet of syllabi and teaching materials to interviews and left it with the SCs as I left, for them to peruse or not as they chose. Some candidates did the same when we hired two years ago, and I always looked over their materials, though I don't recall that they were ever game-changers. Hope that helps.
How much teaching experience is too much, though? I've been VAPing at four different institutions for six years running. I sometimes wonder if my sell-by date for a tenure-track job has passed, and no amount of additional teaching will help. It seems like SCs want candidates to thread a needle between just enough teaching, but not too much. Just enough publications, but not. Wait. No, fuck that. There is no such thing as too many publications.
Should I take a year off to finish my book, pump out some articles? This last idea is predicated on the idea that I'm going to win the latest power-ball. But if I do that, I think I'll go to my APA interviews hung over, with a gigolo on each arm. At that point it won't matter.
For Heaven's sake, can you people go back to the old ways, and adopt Noms de plume (or noms de guerre)? How in the hell can anyone tell who's responding to whom? Back in the old days there were Tiresias, Poldy, Old Oligarch and the like. They were still anonymous, but one could at least follow a conversation. So come up with a name, or just choose a single digit.
Since I myself am not participating in your stupid SFSU discussion I'll appear to be a hypocrite and not assume a fake name myself. But if I need one, I'm sure I can come up with something.
I'm not sure what I think about this new system for listing jobs. The newly announced positions are being buried between jobs whose deadlines are long past, and I'm having to hunt for them. Can't the new stuff get a separate section?
If you're not sure what to think, let me help you: it's disappointing pile of shit. The potential is there, and maybe next year it will be great, but they just listed a job whose application deadline was July 19! And there's no way to sort by deadline! There's been nothing genuinely new in the last week or so, and yet I'm sure we'll get a email a few days after the 15th with a bunch of new listings. Yet another tardy, slapdash and lazy effort from the Placement Service.
1,406 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 1406 Newer› Newest»"What's our world coming to?"
A giant crock of shit. And it's not coming; it's already there.
F*** this. I hate it all so much.
I love teaching, I love Classics, I know that this is the best job that I have had or will ever had. But I hate everyone on this board who dispenses snark, vitriol, petty complaints and useless or non-sensical advice. I hate the search committees who have no idea what they really want or need, and can't agree on anything in their own best interest. I hate the way the whole corrupt academic system wastes talent and expensive training by distributing it inefficiently. And I hate myself for constantly coming back here and posting sh**, because I just can't stop.
There, I said it. File under "letting off steam".
Right there with you, 3:59.
In response to the UNC-Asheville concerns, just wanted to put this out there: yes, a 4-4 can really suck. Been there, done that, and, fortunately, have moved on. It's a lot of time in the classroom, particularly if part of your load involves intro language classes where you're teaching 4 days of the week. However, one thing you might want to ask the committee is how many sections are involved. Is the 4-4 really a 2-2 or 3-2 but with 2 sections for one (or more) classes? If so, your (hypothetical, pending job acceptance) life will be considerably easier, at least in terms of the prep. Also UNC-Asheville is a fairly small school-- you may want to ask them about normal class size in order to get a sense of the grading loads. Just some things to ponder (and potentially bargain with)...
Will Renie ever post the jobs when she's supposed to?
@11:32 non videtur.
Thanks, Oct. 14 2:58. I wasn't the one who asked the question, but that's a useful bit of information.
so the general dickishness of FV is now extending to the lists of jobs on the main board, so that a 4-4 load where you have to know two languages, history, and archaeology is said to require a "Superman/woman"? Not everyone can teach those 4 things, and a 4-4 job is demanding, but it doesn't involve outrunning a bullet, stopping a train, or leaping over the administration building in a single bound. Especially if as someone suggests there may be some repeats.
It's hilarious to watch as the September jobs get cut-and-pasted, one by one, from the APA's "most recent listings" page to the year's archive. If you refresh often enough, you can actually see the hamsters spinning in their wheels.
I wonder why I'm not optimistic about this new placement service software...
You forgot the desired competence in marginal socio-economic groups and teaching writing across the curriculum.
But fair enough, it was a tasteless joke. So change it; it's a wiki, after all, not the APA website. I won't take it personally.
Actually the UNC Asheville job is a replacement position for an art historian. So technically it's two languages, history, archaeology, art history, marginal socio-economic groups, and writing across the curriculum. Oh, and don't forget those pesky "other duties". Piece of pie, though, huh?
Ok, I'm starting to get a bit pissed off! I graduated from UNCA and know the classics faculty there well. If you don't like the teaching load then don't apply. Stick it out and wait for that cherry job where you get paid bags of money to sit around a be smart. Every person that I had a course with in the dept is committed to teaching and have been around for a long time. And I can assure you it isn't because they can't get better (if we define better by less contact with students! WTF!) posts elsewhere. And if you are thinking of using it as a stepping stone, don't bother. They'll see you coming, and unless your game really is that smooth, they'll pass. But if you really love teaching, love students, and love classics, Asheville is an awesome place to be and as well as I can recall the faculty in all the depts are welcoming. I wouldn't have gone into classics if the faculty hadn't been so flipping cool, so you grousing lot are sure as hell not the people I would want to have learned my trade from.
Eh. Teaching is the part of my job I enjoy the most and the most consistently, but I don't think I'd like it as much if it were the only thing I had time to do. Plus, I think I'm a Hell of a lot better teacher to two classes than I'd be to four. Which is just to say that I think you can be someone who loves teaching but still legitimately have ambitions not to teach a 4-4, without that meaning you're some kind of prima donna or traitor to the cause.
@12:08:
A pretty unconvincing (drunken?) impersonation of a former undergrad from someone who has ties to that program. Bravo! Misrepresenting yourself is part of the point of the internet. (Pro tip: the bit about not using the position as a stepping stone was definitely too much for the persona you'd adopted.)
@ October 19, 2011 12:20 AM
Oh, snap.
Ah no, bully to you 12.20! Your incisive cynicism cut right through my BS. It is unthinkable that a former undergrad could feel any sort of fidelity or appreciation for his/her alma. What was I thinking? I'll bear that in mind that next time I pretend to be someone I am. But, I did speak out of turn and I apologize. I really don't know if they would like to hire someone hankering for better things and eager to move on. Perhaps you should apply and ask them?
"Ah no, bully to you 12.20!"
Using the British period instead of the American colon to indicate time did not really help your case that you were an Asheville undergrad.
Wow...you really can learn a lot about people by looking at their colons!
That's fine. Whether I am or I am not a UNCA grad has no bearing on the outcome of the search. But good luck to those who apply.
And the Least. Convincing. Persona. Ever. award goes to *name redacted*.
I may have to print this string out and use it as a teaching tool.
No ties to UNCA, so take this or leave it.
Don't blame faculty for crappy teaching loads. 4-4 with high research expectation blows (though finding out if is a "real" 4-4 or not is important), but surely the classics faculty aren't the ones arguing for that load. They are getting squeezed themselves. So, take it up with the admins if you have a complaint, don't take it out on your (possibly future) colleagues.
And, for what it is worth, Asheville really is a lovely place as a town, and I bet the job would be a good one (I'm not applying, so I don't have a dog in this fight).
All of this UNC Asheville talk reminds me of a random rumor I heard years ago (et denique haec fama volabit) that they administered a translation quiz (whether Greek or Latin I can't remember) during interviews. Maybe that speaks to the fact that then (as now, apparently) they were seeking an archeolog-art-historio-socio-anthropologist and hoping and praying that that person also had at least a basic competence in the Greek and Latin.
The rumor was from a very senior person in the profession, so at the time I believed it. Having done a few interviews now, it seems far-fetched, but maybe there's someone out there who can confirm it.
1. That persona crap was a beautiful display of miscommunication. Well done.
2. If you are curious what sort of teaching load the 4-4 at UNCA actually is, just look at the current courses offered by the department. To save you the trouble, no one is doubling up on any course this semester.
In the interests of full disclosure, I just sent in an application for this job. But I didn't spend much time on it, because I'm not sure that I would really want it. Asheville is a beautiful town, though, and a job is a job.
Let me pile on the UNCA job by pointing out that they have a lecturer on staff who would be just *perfect* for this job they are advertising...
UNCA did indeed administer sight-translation exams at the APA, back in the day. This was in, oh, I guess about 1990, 92, thereabouts. I know, because I applied for the job and took the exams.
Here's how it worked. First, you applied for the job. If they liked your letter enough for you to make the first cut, they invited you to take a sight translation exam in both languages at the APA, on the first morning. There was a room with a long table and about 10 of us sat there taking yet another translation exam of the sort we all thought we'd left behind us when we finished our PhD qualifying exams. My memory is that they had two such sessions, to allow for time conflicts, so probably about 20 people total agreed to take the test.
Then, the search committee graded the exams that afternoon. Late that first evening or early the next morning one went by the infamous blackboard (anyone else here remember that blackboard??) to see if one's number had appeared. (If one's number WAS up on the blackboard, it meant some committee wanted to do an interview.) Those who made the cut then had a normal-style APA interview.
Yes, I made the cut. No, I didn't get the job.
I did wrestle with my soul beforehand about whether or not to take their translation exam. I found the idea insulting, but I really, really, REALLY needed a job and for family reasons it had to be in the South. So I took the exam.
And yes, my children, this is a true story. By the way, I did eventually end up with a tenured position, though not at UNCA.
Wow. I was kind of hoping it wasn't true. But ... wow.
Treating applicants as children two decades ago does seem broadly consistent with treating them as slaves now.
Whoa. 2:48, that frackin' sucks.
Just. Whoa.
But, looking at the market now, I'd have to say that I'd sit for that exam. It shames me to admit it.
I'm applying to the UNCA job and I'll be so happy to even get an interview.
I was on the market at that time and desperate for a permanent job. I decided not to apply to a job at an institution that was so insecure about its judgement that it would subject applicants to such a test.
That said, any serious student of antiquity who chooses the word "slavery" to describe a 12-hour load probably needs a serious time-out (and by time-out, I don't mean a delay in a game where Andy Reid tries to remember what's supposed to happen on third-and-one)
I post this non-anonymously, in the hopes that more people will do so and be accountable for their words. I am a big fan of rhetorical hyperbole, but "slavery" is a hyperbole no sane person should every approach, and in fact, should be deeply ashamed of using.
Robin Mitchell-Boyask
Chair, Classics, Temple University
Unrelated: Does anyone know what's expected in terms of application materials for the ancient history postdoc at Columbia? There's no indication in the ad, so I'm guessing just a cover letter and CV?
Regarding the Columbia postdoc: I'm just going to send a CV and cover letter, but I basically think it comes down to somehow striking the fancy of W. Harris. And, if you don't know anything about him or what it might mean to be essentially his post-doc, you might want to ask around before you apply...
@ the two above
you could start by reading how he reacts in print to junior scholars who take his name in vain...
http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2009/2009-08-02.html
@8:34
I think you're implying that something about this correction was an overreaction, but I don't see it.
Now the second paragraph ("I'd like to assure classicists that I plan to return to this issue" as if we're all waiting with bated breath) is admittedly (pun intended) a little pompous.
Anytime I criticize someone's scholarship -- generally, or a specific point -- I always make it a point to go back and read what they wrote a second (and if it's in a foreign language third) time just to make sure I am not being unfair. Harris's response to the reviewer is a lesson in why this is a good policy.
Anytime I criticize someone's scholarship -- generally, or a specific point -- I always make it a point to go back and read what they wrote a second (and if it's in a foreign language third) time...
Personally, I prefer to avoid this whole issue by sticking to purely ad hominem attacks.
The wiki lists positions at the University of British Columbia and Murray State. Does anyone know where these are advertised / if they are real? I haven't seen them in the APA e-mails/website or on the Chronicle of Higher Ed.
Murray State:
http://famaevolent.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=jobs2011&action=display&thread=386
UBC:
http://www.cnrs.ubc.ca/assistant-professor-greek-language-and-literature-tenure-track
8.34 here. I did not mean to imply that WH was wrong in his critique of the critic, just that his choice of language/tone was both less than pleasant and completely unnecessary for the making of his point.
8:34, I don't think the tone was unnecessary. The mistake of the "critic" was to imply that H's work is outdated and that H knows it. If he had simply said "it's been 20 years since H's work," there would have been no cause for any criticism. He was being a little too rhetorically cute.
Ok, so you don't find the mocking and acidic tone of a well known and respected senior scholar as he points out a clear error of a junior scholar to be "unnecessary." Well, if I may be so blunt, then you are kind of a prick too.
I mean, fair enough, a guy does not want to be misrepresented in print...but is there really the "need" to take a shot at the misrepresenter when he is so clearly the junior party? I'm sure it felt great for the much-aggrieved WH to burn the reviewer like he did, but did that really serve any constructive purpose? I realize I am naive to hope for a bit of class/grace/magnanimity from any name (big or small) in the field of Classics or Ancient History, but a prick is a prick is a prick is a prick, and it feels kind of nice to acknowledge that every once in a while.
Yes. When a tenured senior scholar is portrayed in a negative light in print, their vanity may be slightly bruised. When this happens to a junior scholar, under present conditions there is always the risk that it could ultimately mean the end of their career. But I still don't think that forgetting or being unwilling to pull punches is a sign of some underlying character flaw in a senior scholar.
When I write about younger scholars, I often leave my harsher comments out, or try to phrase them in ways that are critical but constructive. But when somebody does sloppy work, that should be pointed out, and maybe next time they won't be so sloppy. Better to have this pointed out in a response to a BMCR review than in an article or book ms. someone needs to get accepted for tenure, or in published work that reviewers or referees may slam. If you say "X says this" and you're misreading it, whether it's Pliny or a modern scholar, you need to be told not to do that. And even if it's never said to your face, if people read your work and find that you tend to mischaracterize things, your job prospects are going to be limited.
Regarding the Maryland job: does anyone know if the email prompt for references is automatic or if the department will decide if they are interested enough in a candidate to send the prompt to one's letter writers? I completed the application some time ago but none of my letter writers have received the email prompt.
All I know is that if a reviewer ever mischaracterized *my* position so badly THIS would be my response: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbB_HVcXpPk&feature=related
Meh. Reviewers ALWAYS mischaracterize one's position. (Okay, I'm exaggerating, but not all that much.)
I recently read a very positive review of my book in a very good venue, and right smack in the middle the reviewer said "Of course, Author's statement that X is the case is entirely incorrect and cannot be defended" -- when I had spent a good part of a chapter carefully arguing *against* X.
From talking to other authors, I suspect that this is very common indeed. Too many reviewers skim instead of reading, or worse. Friend of mine had a book reviewed in TLS a few years back and it was abundantly clear that the reviewer (an extremely eminent scholar) stopped reading about 2/3s of the way through the book. "One of the few flaws in Q's otherwise excellent book is that, oddly, she does not discuss blah" -- when blah was the subject of the entire last chapter and a half.
Happens all the time, usually not worth slamming the reviewer.
Junior scholars can be assholes too, you know. This isn't an ad hominem attack against anyone in particular, but merely a general observation that I know a lot of junior schools who are total douches. Doesn't mean senior scholars should retaliate rather than set an example of acceptably collegial behavior, but I just hate the stereotyping of the "silverbacks" against all these nice, sweet, eager junior scholars who are out there "revolutionizing" the field. Some of them are real dicks. And I speak as a junior scholar myself. It's more the behavior of insecure, obnoxious, pretentious junior scholars than any behavior by senior scholars that keeps me away from the APA/AIA most years. Now the senior scholars are the ones who write petty, vindictive, unprofessional reviews of my articles, so it isn't like I have a special place in my heart for them either, but basically there are tools and there are nice people, and the tool box contains scholars at all stages of their careers.
I mean, fair enough, a guy does not want to be misrepresented in print...but is there really the "need" to take a shot at the misrepresenter when he is so clearly the junior party?
I agree, though I also agree with 1:08 that it's not just a junior/senior thing. One doesn't "need" to take a shot at anybody. I have a lot of respect for people who are able to correct others in a friendly, gracious way. It's much harder to do.
"Happens all the time, usually not worth slamming the reviewer."
Reviews are usually poor, and therefore we should have low standards for reviewers? On the contrary, any reviewer who faults a book for failing to discuss a subject to which it devotes an entire chapter should be publicly scorned.
re: Baylor. The job description says a complete application includes cover letter, cv, letters of rec, transcript,teaching evals,writing sample. Under "application procedure" it only says to submit cover letter,CV, transcript and names of references. Are they implying that they'll ask for the rest from select candidates?
Posted this in the help thread, but I thought more people might see it here. Any help is appreciated!
What to SCs really want when they ask for "evidence of effective teaching"? Do they want a complete teaching portfolio? Scans of student evaluations? Does a letter from faculty evaluators count? Thanks.
What to SCs really want when they ask for "evidence of effective teaching"? Do they want a complete teaching portfolio? Scans of student evaluations? Does a letter from faculty evaluators count? Thanks.
The customary way of demonstrating this is sending full sets of student evaluations from a selection of courses (two?). That is, don't send every evaluation from every course you've ever taught, but send every evaluation from two of them. If you have additional accolades, that's good. Faculty should be talking about your teaching in any case, and their testimony generally doesn't count towards this.
re: Baylor. The job description says a complete application includes cover letter, cv, letters of rec, transcript,teaching evals,writing sample. Under "application procedure" it only says to submit cover letter,CV, transcript and names of references. Are they implying that they'll ask for the rest from select candidates?
They've clearly screwed up and listed multiple, contradictory expectations. Under the circumstances, I would contact the search chair directly. If you don't want to do that, I'd err on the side of sending the bigger packet; you won't exclude yourself that way.
Also, if my interview experience remains relevant, don't bother unless you're a Baptist or a liar.
"Also, if my interview experience remains relevant, don't bother unless you're a Baptist or a liar."
I can confirm this.
Thanks so much 11:20 PM. All my advisers last year and my colleagues this year have completely different opinions (neither school ever asks candidates for teaching stuff), so once again I was at a loss. Appreciate the advice.
Re Baylor:
You don't have to be a Baptist, but be prepared to talk about your "personal relationship with Jesus Christ" if you land an interview.
In other words, Catholics need not apply.
He who pays the piper calls the tune, thus this is completely legit on Baylor's part.
"He who pays the piper calls the tune, thus this is completely legit on Baylor's part."
Well, if by "legit" you mean legal, you're absolutely right.
If you mean "reasonable" or "according to the usual practice of religious schools", I would politely disagree. After all, we don't teach and study Christian theology or doctrine -- we teach and study pagan beliefs. As long as I don't denigrate Christianity while teaching someone about the affairs of Zeus or how to conjugate pedico, pedicare, of what possible relevance are my personal religious beliefs to my job? No more, I think, than my culture background, my sexual preferences or the color of my skin -- all of which probably affect the way I teach in some minor way, but none which make me wholly unsuitable to teach students who are not like me or prevent me for respecting the mission of the university.
Sure, most religious schools are looking for religious people, but to weed people out at the APA because they don't subscribe to your particular brand of Christianity seems pretty harsh and unusual; in my APA interviews with moderately to extremely religious schools, the topic never came up (although these weren't tenure track positions and maybe that's the difference).
Are they allowed ask such questions? Of course they are and I'm sure Baylor will. I just think it's silly.
If they want to hear about your personal relationship with J.C. during the job interview, I imagine they also open faculty meetings with a prayer and do other kinds of things that would drive me insane. I can't imagine working at a place like that. I think it's probably better to get a preview at the interview stage of what your life there would be like.
Baylor's insistence on hiring only fundamentalist Christians isn't confined to the Classics dept.; that shit is institutional. Church attendance and talking like you're Paul or C.S. Lewis all the time are *required* for tenure in any department.
They literally have Genesis 1:1 inscribed in gigantic letters at the top of their science building.
And to the person who mentioned sexual preferences above: Baylor also has a long history of homophobia (the most recent incarnation of which is selecting as President Kenneth Starr, who represented CA Prop. 8 supporters in the post-election lawsuits).
"Sure, most religious schools are looking for religious people, but to weed people out at the APA because they don't subscribe to your particular brand of Christianity seems pretty harsh and unusual;"
I've interviewed with several overtly Christian institutions, and I've never felt any burden heavier than being a visible minority in classics (Latino). In fact, being surrounded by pasty, stiff-ass, bow-tied suits making geeky Latin jokes made me much more uncomfortable than the interviewer who mentioned working in an urban soup kitchen run by Christians.
Make no mistake: there is a huge difference in kind between most of the institutions that could accurately be described as "overtly Christian" and places like Baylor.
In fact, being surrounded by pasty, stiff-ass, bow-tied suits making geeky Latin jokes made me much more uncomfortable ...
Yeah, if I felt powerful, visceral contempt for a group of people, I'd probably be uncomfortable around them too. I bet it makes interviewing tough when you're constantly trying to hide how disgusting you find the people you're in the room with.
... than the interviewer who mentioned working in an urban soup kitchen run by Christians
I don't remember anything about soup kitchens. I remember being asked about my personal relationship with Jesus.
"Church attendance and talking like you're Paul or C.S. Lewis all the time are *required* for tenure in any department."
I'm in a classics department at a Christian university. I talk more like a cross between Ned Flanders and a sober Jack Sparrow to cover both the Christian and Classics angles. It's quite hilarious but effective. I too have to admit that I was one who held contempt for most of the classics SCs I interviewed for. However, my unfiltered Jack Sparrow routine that I reserve for the APAs made me fit right in.
I think if you spoke/acted like C.S. Lewis you would naturally fit right in with any classics department, Christian university or not. British accent, Oxbridge education, eloquent, literary, etc. I can't think of one classics department who wouldn't eat this shit up.
I think if you spoke/acted like C.S. Lewis you would naturally fit right in with any classics department, Christian university or not. British accent, Oxbridge education, eloquent, literary, etc. I can't think of one classics department who wouldn't eat this shit up.
It's the thinking like C.S. Lewis that would annoy me. Also, I wonder how many Classics departments you can think of.
I talk more like a cross between Ned Flanders and a sober Jack Sparrow to cover both the Christian and Classics angles. It's quite hilarious but effective. I too have to admit that I was one who held contempt for most of the classics SCs I interviewed for. However, my unfiltered Jack Sparrow routine that I reserve for the APAs made me fit right in.
Sorry, mate, I don't know you, but I am going to guarantee you, right now, that nobody except you has ever associated you with Jack Sparrow, and that's even if you wear eyeliner and a scarf around your head.
Also, talking like a pirate makes you fit in at the APA? I think you've been going to a different APA than I have. American Pirate Association, I guess.
The jack sparrow post almost made tea come out my nose, and I have yet to see any of the movies outside of trailers.
Lighten up, classics apologist. You sound just like some of the stereotypes getting propagated around here. Stop watching Fox News and turn to Colbert once in a while.
Also, talking like a pirate makes you fit in at the APA?
You've obviously not run into my sabretooth advisor at the APA. And if you knew who he was, you would probably wet your pants and as for an autograph (that is, until you actually met him in his tipsy, misogynist splendor)
You've obviously not run into my sabretooth advisor at the APA. And if you knew who he was, you would probably wet your pants and as for an autograph (that is, until you actually met him in his tipsy, misogynist splendor)?
Aww. That is so cute I can't believe it! I am pinching your cheek through the Internet right now. I do think I will be OK, though. But I do appreciate the tip. Also, commenting drunk is not good policy, although you're OK this time, I think.
Yep, this place has convinced me that classicists are swell folks. Too bad I'm part of a committee downsizing their department at my institution. Maybe I'll shed a tear, but I know none of my colleagues will. Good luck to you.
"Too bad I'm part of a committee downsizing their department at my institution."
Please spare us, oh Great One!
To the person asking about Maryland--a friend of mine told me that her references were contacted a few days ago and asked to send their letters. Maybe check with your references to see?
"Too bad I'm part of a committee downsizing their department at my institution."
Wow, I mean, really, wow! I suppose it is possible that you are just trying to wind people on here up (not very sporting during the hiring season). Otherwise it would seem gross misfeasance to put a visionary such as yourself on a committee, where her/his views of the people who work in a particular field are based on the anonymous comments of people online. Really?
The self-proclaimed down-sizer is a troll. Be kind, do not feed. They grow dependent on handouts and then can't survive in the wild.
Can anybody give me a good (and I mean really, really good) answer as to why the APA, hiring departments, etc. don't use this service:
http://academicjobsonline.org/ajo
The Duke Math dept. set it up, Math hiring is done using it, and many other disciplines are jumping on board. It saves time and money for everybody involved.
Just imagine, the hamsters running the "servers" at the APA could be released into the wilds of Cherry Hill, NJ. Win, win, win!
MIT is using academicjobs.org for the classics position, but I suppose that just proves your point that humanists can't seem to get their heads around technological efficiency...
Not just MIT: also the jobs at Colgate and Yale-NUS. And it's wonderful, because if you applied for MIT already you don't need to ask your letter writers to do another online rec.
Just looked at the wiki, and somebody marked (+) indicating that MIT had sent them acknowledgment of application received...now I'm worried that I somehow submitted mine wrong. My letter writers did get the prompt, though...Did anybody else (besides the person who put the + on the wiki) get an email from them?
RE: MIT
Check you junk mail filter. That's where my acknowledgement ended up.
Could the person who talks like Jack Sparrow please urgently advise where and when the American Pirate Association meets. Also the location of their job board.
If pirates ran our discipline, it would probably be smoother sailing with less injustices.
*fewer
and at least one metaphor too far
Who called the pirate police?
ARRRRRH!
@Anon 1:37 pm: I too have not received any confirmation, nor is my application marked as complete on the website, although the letters have been received. Nothing in my junk folders. Starting to panic now...
Apropos MIT. The only thing I received was the initial confirmation that I had submitted through academic-whatsit (at which time not all my docs were not in) and received. Once all the docs were submitted I did not get a second email. Received similar from YNUS. Soooo....should I/We be looking for something else?
Also, notification of not this time from Auckland received.
re: academicjobsonline.org
good to have a system wherein letters need only come in once for multiple job apps.
bad to have a system and interface reminiscent of something i am pretty sure i saw on my c.1997 netscape browser. aren't the people behind this site alleged to be some sort of scientists? shouldn't they be able to come up with an interface that doesn't suck balls in the eyes of a waste of space liberal artist (yes, i think i like this term) such as the crank writing this whiny critique?
Agreed that there's no good reason for academicjobsonline to look like ass as it does. Still, I'd rather have the sorry interface that doesn't require me to constantly pester my letter writers than the situation we're getting with the JRFs, where four or five of them will use exactly the same (pretty) interface, but your letter writers still have to upload to each individually.
Good news: there *is* an American Pirate Association:
http://www.bilgemunky.com/dutchman/winner_2004.html
Bad news: they have no TT positions.
Then again, considering that line of work, even a tenured job might be 2-3 years in length max. Also, hard to publish whilst swabbing decks. Bonus: department parties are off the hook.
Concerning the MIT job, on which there was some snarkiness expressed earlier, as a member of their TT faculty (and search committee), I can say the following: absolutely, your teaching will be more generalist than in a Classics dept; you will have no grad students; and yes, department members will not be up on the full intricacies of academic debates within your field. But everone in our department is in that position; for the most part, we're an ark with one of every animal. Now it's certainly true that you need to seek out people closer to (i.e., actually in) your field to serve as mentors and future letter-writers for MIT's strenuous promotion processes, but Boston is arguably the best place in North America (for my field, as I would suspect for yours) to do that. And it doesn't make conversations with your MIT colleagues worthless, since a) those outside the nitty-gritty debates of the field are often better positioned to comment on the big picture of one's arguments; and b) publishers, external fellowship committees, and tenure/promotion committees are all to some degree generalists, and formulating the stakes of one's arguments to such an audience is crucial.
As for being the bastard stepchild of the institute, of course it's true that students don't come to MIT to study Classics (or literature of any sort). But MIT has worked hard to attract undergrads with a broader range of interests than those at CalTech or Harvey Mudd, say, and I've been surprised and delighted at how committed they are to the humanities. Yes, you have to be secure enough in what you teach and study to be okay with not being their main focus; but if you are, you will have the very great joy of teaching brilliant students with quirky, interesting brains at their most relaxed and engaging. Precisely because you're *not* their main focus, they're more willing to take risks, to try something interesting and see where their insights lead them (or don't).
And in fact, students concentrating in Ancient and Medieval Studies have more than tripled, to 25 or so, in the past three to four years, and we've had clamorings for Latin since I arrived; this position is newly created precisely because of the demonstrated student interest in what you study. And while Literature is undoubtedly at the margins of MIT, that gives us a certain kind of power: precisely because we don't have an intellectual stake in turf wars between Materials Science and EECS, or the legitimacy of a new Bioengineering major, we're trusted as honest brokers ... Literature faculty hold a disproportionate number of Associate Deanships and important faculty governance positions (most recently, Assoc. Chair of the Faculty) that allow us to advocate for the humanities, broadly, and literary study in particular. Of course it's not all roses; no job is perfect; and there are plenty of times I and others gripe about this or that. But for what it's worth, it was largely for the colleagues that I chose this job over another that, on paper, looked more suited for a humanist. My colleagues have been extraordinary: we know we have to stick together to survive and thrive, and to a remarkable extent, we do.
Everything's anonymous on here, so you can trust that I'm not spouting this to curry favor with MIT ... but it's a measure of how happy I am here that I'm taking the time to compose this instead of work on my own stuff. I've been incredibly happy here; if you like the idea of teaching in a liberal arts-type environment (small classes, all undergrads) while having the resources to do serious research, then you probably would be too.
UMich extended app deadline.....any rumor about that?
re: U of Oregon job. What kind of additional materials were requested?
For the anonymous MIT rep: there have been some grumblings about the difficulty of getting tenure at MIT.
In Classics, being the unwanted step-child is typical, so I fear that less than unclear tenure standards.
Oh, and can I have the job?
No, no, pick me! Seriously, that sounds great. Especially the friendly colleagues who stick together part.
On unclear tenure expectations, I would say that they were made clear to me, but they're pretty stringent: one book out (not just contracted) from a prestigious press, and the second book 50-75% written (contract not necessary, though) to be sent out in MS to external reviewers. MIT also takes its mid-career promotion unusually seriously, with the first book expected to be done in MS, ideally though not necessarily contracted, at the end of the third year; a fair number of external letters are also expected at that stage, so making yourself known to senior people in the field early on is crucial.
The maddening thing about tenure, of course, is that there is no formula; everyone, I think (and not just at MIT), will admit that they've known cases with more than the "recommended" production that were turned back, and other, seemingly light cases that were successful. But that's what I've been told, for what it's worth. Hope it helps.
I wasn't going to apply to the MIT job (reconsidering that now, however), but I'd like to thank the SC member for a couple of helpful, humane, and thoughtful posts here. This was an example of what this place *should* be about.
Thank you. Seriously.
New Placement Service website is up!
http://placement.apaclassics.org/
Pretty cool, too.
Whoa, the APA has discovered the year 2001! I suppose we should congratulate them on releasing the hamsters and buying that sweet refurbished Gateway 500mhz running Windows ME!!
I do find this puzzling, however:
"The traditional listings perform a number of valuable functions for the field, but we look forward to giving active job candidates the earliest possible access to new listings."
What valuable functions can they possibly perform?
that content is (eventually) free to see
Thank you again, MIT informant.
I would like to state that I asked for the job first, so by international law I have 'dibs'.
Wouldn't it be great if we could hear from all SCs ahead of time like this?
Wouldn't it be just like the internet if the MIT informant were actually a jobless Classicist in disguise? Or worse, one of the snarling sabretooths, bored in his (or her) repose?
Why would a jobless Classicist be trying to get us all to apply for a job we might not have been interested in before?
hey, don't start crapping all over peoples' paranoid, illogical conspiracy theories!!!!!!
The nuttiness of that idea actually brightened my day!
BTW, Servius, nice job on the Robertson Davies references. Classy and apropos, esp. the Rebel Angels.
I'm flattered to be the subject of conspiracy theories, but I can assure you that I (the MIT search committee guy/gal) am legit. (There are plenty of authenticating details in my earlier posts for the truly paranoid to check up on through the interwebs, e.g., yes, an MIT Lit prof was recently made Associate Chair of the Faculty, hardly common knowledge outside the Institute.) Mainly I was inspired to post because going through the first cut of apps, I've been so impressed by the state of the field, broadly defined (it was a broadly written ad!); so happy that we can offer one person a great job; and so sad that we can't create more jobs. Hang in there and keep the faith (it's worth remembering that Classics is *expanding* now in my very unlikely neck of the woods), but also remember that your value as a thinker, teacher, and (most important) person is not dependent on some search committee. I know that may sound glib from my privileged position, but it really is true. Your apps -- your collective commitment to hard and interesting questions, intense but personal pedagogical engagement, and community organizing of the best sort (yes, we can!) -- make me confident that however the vagaries of the search go, I'll find a great colleague, and hopefully friend. I'm really looking forward to meeting some of you at APA. Best of luck in all your endeavors till then, and beyond :)
that's a shame. the nicest, most sincere post in the history of fv, and it is ruined by the senseless addition of an emoticon.
Emoticon aside, it really was nice to see a SC member taking the time to post on here. Thanks for the refreshing change, MIT person.
So... What, precisely, is the use of the APA Job Placement Service as of yet? Is it just to get access to the newly posted jobs as they come up instead of on the 15th?
Is their interview coordination service at all useful?
I am, of course, presuming that they'll be slightly more swift about updating the job postings there than they were about doing it on the APA page proper...
As there have been some comments about the matter and as we did not post the information in our job announcement, I thought I might inform readers of this blog that the salary for the position in Roman archaeology at FSU that we have advertised will be in the range of $55,000.
John Marincola, Chair, Classics Department
Positions are starting to get posted on the new Placement Service website, for those who haven't checked... so far 2 jobs at U Dallas and 1 at the Joukowsky Institute. Curious to see if this is going to be supplemented by an email, I was under the impression it would be...
More are up now (VAPs at Wake Forest and Univ. of MO). Oddly, they've also stuck the ICCS job up there, for which the deadline was Sept. 9.
On the APA website, "they" are posting, slowly and laboriously, the jobs already advertised in previous months. These, we have been told, will all be posted by the second week in November. I presume that new jobs are posted automatically when departments add new postings to the system (but I am a job-searcher and do not know how that end of the software works; do adds need to be approved or are they posted immediately?).
I hope that this new software has cut out the middleman; but at least until all the previous ads for this year are added, the website will be quite sloppy. New ads will be mixed in with ones that have already been posted. And is there no way to receive automatic updates (via email or rss) when new jobs are posted?
Friendly MIT person -- have writing samples been requested? The anticipation is killing some of us...
It's killed me several times; I'm typing to you now as a ghost of a ghost in the machine.
has your corpse been solicited for writing samples from MIT?
From the friendly MIT person: yes, writing sample requests should have gone out late yesterday afternoon. I look forward to reading about Homer, Vergil, Theocritus, Catullus, Pindar, Lucian, Callimachus, Ovid, Aeschylus, Lucretius ... and that's only a very partial list. We received well over 200 applications, so if you got hit up for a writing sample, you should feel very pleased indeed.
I'll also share a bit about how the process moves on from here, since I'm quite proud of how seriously and engaged the whole department is. The files we're pursuing now get divided into two groups, as does our faculty. Each half of the faculty reviews half the files, and meets to select its top ten. We then exchange our top ten with the other faculty team, so that the entire department reads the top twenty, then meet to select ten or so of those to interview at APA.
This means that those who are contacted for an interview have been vetted by every member of the department at least once, sometimes twice (or even thrice, in the case of the first-cut committee). That means you can enter the interview secure in the confidence that a whole bunch of smart, engaged people actively wanted to meet you, even though only a small subset actually gets to at that stage.
It also means that the ultimately successful candidate will arrive in a department all of whose tenure-line members were extensively involved in her or his selection. In my experience, that helps a new colleague integrate into our distinctive intellectual climate much more readily, and also draw much-needed energy and fortitude from the knowledge that his or her colleagues, however distant their field or scholarly interests, have already committed to our new colleague's personal and professional success.
I hope that sheds some light on an often mist-shrouded process. Best of luck to all as their searches continue, here and/or elsewhere.
"Friendly MIT Prof"'s post more succinctly:
We're really cool. And we're really smart. And you should feel really cool and smart if we contact you.
*shrug*
If you want to be snarky about my encouraging folks -- as someone else was about an apparently ill-judged emoticon in an earlier post -- or the fact that I'm proud of my department, which I am, that's your prerogative. But it might explain why so few people from search committees post here, a fact that some others were lamenting. Just sayin'.
Anon 8:00's post more succinctly:
I'm a bitter dick who is best ignored.
Ok guys, just to check: people selected by MIT got email notifications from them directly, right? I assume so, but I ask because when I looked at my academicjobsonline MIT application this morning, there was a space to upload a writing sample, and I can't remember if it was there before. You all have that, too, right? (Of course they would have sent an email! I know I'm being stupid. But I had to check.)
@11:32: Yes, I did receive an email late yesterday afternoon. It read like a form email, so I assume that they send it out to everyone at the same time.
Thanks, 11:42, good to know for sure. (And congrats to you!)
Nothing would benefit our field more than if that hacker group "Anonymous" were to reveal the names of people who use the cloak of anonymity to be total jerks, like the one attacking the MIT professor, and thus ensure that they would never get jobs. (And since the Holy Grail of nude Scarlett Johansson photos was scored by an unaffiliated hacker, what the hell else does Anonymous have left to do?)
At the risk of also being called a "dick," I'll say this Anon sort of agrees with Succinct Dick. I think it's great to have a transparent search process, but the whole "we're smart and engaged" blather is a bit much for my taste - way too self-congratulatory.
"Succinct Dick" and Dick Wannabee are both showing that they are rather inexperienced. The MIT prof's post should not be taken as arrogant boasting about their process -- it should be seen as reassurance that whoever gets the job will not be walking into a situation with unexpected dangers. Anyone who has been around a bit knows that some faculty if they do not approve of a hire will try (and too often succeed) to torpedo their new colleague. The MIT prof is obviously saying that their process seeks to avoid this. And that's the ONLY valid way to read his/her post.
In the future, perhaps certain posters should recall their Socrates (i.e., that they should not be so confident that they know what the hell they're talking about) before they write an obnoxious post, or a post sympathetic to an obnoxious post.
If we etymologize overliterally, all (or at least the vast majority of) dicks are succinct.
8:15 PM has been working her/his decoder ring too hard, I think.
That said, all the commenter in question has done is to express admiration of her/his colleagues as a means of praising the search process and of encouraging in advance those invited to an interview. That's not an especially arrogant gesture.
And: having seen even the mild repercussions of the commenter having spoken about their search here, I will never comment here about a search we have going on. I guess I probably already knew that that wasn't a great idea, but this confirms it pretty well. It's really easy to write things that will be misinterpreted and spun into a big deal, and nobody wants that for their search. Much better to communicate as frankly as possible with individual candidates as soon as possible, and leave public pronouncements alone.
A reason for optimism, despite the first rejections of the season and the disappointing mess the Placement service has made of their new site: I count 69 T-T or equivalent jobs on the Wiki thus far. If there are 11 more listed (which seems possible, right?), this year's market will have grown 33%.
Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying our troubles are over. But at least those of who have done this for a few years -- peiora passi sumus.
But how many TT classics positions for junior scholars? I'm optimistic as well, but it's tempered by positions such as AJA editor-in-chief, ASCSA admin director, archaeological science?!, Late Antique history, etc. I would describe many of these positions as the boutique variety where very few, if any, junior classicists are viable candidates.
Because, of course, no junior scholars study Late Antique history.
Not the previous poster, but I know one classicist who could pass as an archaeological scientist and several who do Byzantine archaeology. Byzantine historians trained as classicists? None.
I was counting only academic positions (leaving out editors, museum directors etc.), but your point is valid. Are there 69 positions in your subspecialty? No. Of the 20 or so positions you apply for, will most of them go to those with better credentials and more experience than you? Yes. Are there tenure track jobs out there specifically for talented young Ph.Ds who lack teaching experience and publications? Only for the very, very fortunate. But I still contend that 1) if we are counting 350-400 registered placement candidates (which includes, no doubt, all sorts of antiquarians, a disgusting rabble, as Syme says), then we should count all available positions, and 2) a rising tide raises all boats. And if you are VAP, not a grad student on the market for the first time, I think there is reason to hope that you will have a better shot at T-T jobs this year -- which would not have been the case if the market had continued to decline in the aggregate.
For those who've been around the block numerous times, is the distribution of jobs what one would generally expect? I know that there are variations each other, but one would expect a general pecking order, right? So as a Greek historian, should I be expecting a longer VAP ride vs. a Latinist, all things equal?
this 'market' is volatile in all sense of that word. there is no equal, no benchmarking, no predictability. just work hard and maybe you'll get luck - but probably, you won't. those are the the facts of this rat race.
Someone out there must know why SFSU
1) didn't hire anyone last year after soliciting applications from the whole field and
2) asked that applications this year be sent to a "Hiring Committee" (a more auspicious name than "Search Committe"?) as opposed to a contact person and
3) sent out a letter of acknowledgement signed by an "Acting Chair" who is not a classicist.
There must be a great story here. Anyone?
"Someone out there must know why SFSU
...
3) sent out a letter of acknowledgement signed by an "Acting Chair" who is not a classicist."
Because I have ESP I can tell you that the current chair of the dept is on leave this year. Honestly, I have ESP. There is no other way I could sit in my office across the country from SFSU and find this out.
Yes, smartass, I have the same ESP/internet connection and can see that the chair is on leave. My question is rather - why is someone who wrote his dissertation on Faulkner and Garcia Marquez now acting as chair, and apparently playing a role in the "Hiring"? It's not like there are no other classicists around. But maybe there's no story here and it doesn't really matter, because I have no chance of getting the job. I was just curious, that's all.
Things I've heard:
1) They could only decide on one candidate last year; candidate took another job, and they could never agree on a second choice. Hence the failed search.
2) The dept. is split down the middle between philologists and archaeologists / historians, and they couldn't decide what they wanted in the new hire.
3) There was some bitterness because apparently this position was going to be paid higher than what any of the current faculty make, which may have contributed to 1).
I do not vouch for the truth of any of this, but am happy to participate in the spirit of the site. Let rumors fly!
This is outrageous. I can't believe you started the bitchy baseless speculation without telling me.
It looks to me as though the two full professors are both otherwise occupied, one on leave and the other with a faculty governance position ("Academic Senate Chair") that has excused her from office hours, and therefore presumably from teaching, and therefore presumably also from running searches. When you're handing out not just a job but a chair, the dean probably prefers that the search be run not by an assistant or even a recent associate but by a full professor.
I have no idea whether the rumors referenced above are true, but I don't see that they're necessary to explain anything. But I do enjoy seeing the cocky, half-assed sleuthing, so please don't stop.
A fair point, good sir, but it doesn't seem obvious to me that an associate professor couldn't serve as chair or lead a "Hiring Committee"; doesn't that happen all the time? And it also seems a general principle of collegiality that a department should be allowed to choose its own members -- unless, of course, it's shown itself incapable of doing so.
I do find Anon. 8:18 point number 3 plausible -- it wouldn't surprise me that an endowed chair would earn much much more than other faculty. Which leaves me divided as to whom to find fault with. One the one hand, it's shameful to squander a T-T job in classics -- in San Francisco, no less! -- simply because you can't come to an agreement on which of the dozen or so outstanding and well-deserving candidates in the pool ought to be your second choice. It's a CSU school, not Harvard or Yale, and there must have been a handful of candidates waiting by the phone who would have offered superior teaching, raised the research profile of the department and been almost immediately tenurable. (A friend of mine who was offered a job at CSU Los Angeles [not in Classics] was told that the requirement for tenure was a completed dissertation.)
On the other hand, why search for an endowed chair at the assistant professor level? If you're not doing a senior-level search, why not offer the chair to a tenured professor you already have as a reward for service to the department -- and then hire a junior person to fill his/her line? So I can understand the search committee's bitterness, if some of them felt passed over for the chair.
Ah, this is such fun ...
"On the other hand, why search for an endowed chair at the assistant professor level? If you're not doing a senior-level search, why not offer the chair to a tenured professor you already have as a reward for service to the department -- and then hire a junior person to fill his/her line? So I can understand the search committee's bitterness, if some of them felt passed over for the chair."
I have no knowledge of specifics here...but, generally speaking, endowed chairs come with rules attached to them. Perhaps the endowment for this chair specifically required that its occupant be hired at the assistant level? Which kind of makes sense, if the point of making the endowment was to attract the kind of candidates that normally might not take a job at a CSU (even if it is in San Francisco). That said, this would go a long way toward transforming the suggestion of present-faculty bitterness from a a state of plausibility to one of probability.
One of my best buds from grad school interviewed for the job. He couldn't run away fast enough after the interview. I asked him how bad and he said he had to fight not to walk out. He didn't know quite as much as some of you apparently do concerning the undercurrents of the search, but he knew something wasn't kosher. I'll leave it at that so as to not out him with members of last year's search committee (which was apparently the entire department - that should be a clue considering it's a CSU going through a severe budget crisis).
I have it on very reliable authority that at last year's interview... well, I don't want to say too much, for fear of outing my source. So I'm just going to write some nouns, and you can work out the rest. Puppets. Spanking. Short Creamsicle break. Much more spanking. Puppets again, briefly. Next candidate.
Enough said.
Perceptions. SFSU is a good job, not a great one, though I suppose any TT job gives a young classicist the tingles these days. Unfortunately, the department comes off like the moderately attractive cheerleader in high school who thinks she's all that. SFSU is a glorified community college that should be called DCSU. Yeah, it's chaired, but you'll have at least half the department apathetic at best at your hire. Good luck to whomever fills it.
Perceptions. You've just tainted a possibly decent search for a whole group of candidates. If it is that bad, let them sense it for themselves. Without outing myself or anyone in the department - and I do have first-hand, recent knowledge - it isn't a top school with a strong Classics department, and yes, the campus is more of a commuter than a residential campus, but the students are nice, many faculty members are nice, and it isn't by any means a bad place to work. I know this site is about rumors, but I just don't see any reason to taint this particular job UNLESS a candidate from this year's search comes on here, confused and complaining. Then you can let the rumors fly to give the candidate some insight - but don't prejudice candidates against the job before it's even started. You don't know if things might go better this year. No sense in having candidates go in with a feeling of dread. If they get there and are freaked out, then let the rumors fly.
For what it's worth, the three people I've known well who have actually attended SFSU -- one got a B.A. and an M.A. in Classics there -- have great things to say about the school in general and the Classics department in particular. The blowhards on this blog thumping their chests about how SFSU is a "glorified community college" are probably sitting around teaching three or four mediocre students in upper-division language courses (if they have jobs at all and aren't just ABDs in snooty, decrepit Ivy League departments that get by on the reputations of their programs from twenty-five years ago); the faculty at SFSU are teaching enthusiastic students at all levels, and by all indications doing a whole lot better as a department than some of the departments at state schools and SLACs we've heard about in the past few years that are fighting not to be terminated. Anyone considering the possibility of believing these slanderous rumors should consider the possibility that they're written by people who don't know what they're talking about and are bitter because they know they're never going to work in San Francisco.
In case you're wondering, here is a very plausible story about how a search like the one SFSU conducted last year could fail. You get over 200 applications for a very open-ended position. You select 15-20 people to interview. From that bunch, you choose three people for on-campus visits. Upon arrival, two of these three candidates turn out to do something to displease you severely; maybe they turn out to be completely unable to teach, maybe their job talk turns out to suggest that they're barely competent at research and aren't likely to do anything to improve your M.A. program. You offer the job to a third candidate, who declines. You can't bring yourself to hire either of the other two candidates. You postpone the search for next year.
This has happened. Whether it happened at SFSU, I have no idea. But in all probability neither do you, so quit pretending that spending five years in graduate school has given you some kind of professional insights and get back to worrying about whether you're going to get a job anywhere but a "glorified community college."
^Nailed it in one.
Why do you assume that the person who originally brought up last year's SFSU *isn't* a current candidate? Perhaps even a candidate who had heard rumors, and came hear for the specific purpose of hearing more of the same?
But, ok, let's go ahead and assume that the person who brought up the subject just wanted to air SFSU's (allegedly) dirty laundry. What's wrong with that? I must have missed the sign that said posters around here could only let rumors fly when prompted by the earnest questioning of self-identified job applicants.
"Good luck to whomever fills it."
Before you next pose as a classicist in the know, you should learn how relative pronouns work.
"In case you're wondering, here is a very plausible story about how a search like the one SFSU conducted last year could fail. You get over 200 applications for a very open-ended position. You select 15-20 people to interview. From that bunch, you choose three people for on-campus visits. Upon arrival, two of these three candidates turn out to do something to displease you severely; maybe they turn out to be completely unable to teach, maybe their job talk turns out to suggest that they're barely competent at research and aren't likely to do anything to improve your M.A. program. You offer the job to a third candidate, who declines. You can't bring yourself to hire either of the other two candidates. You postpone the search for next year. "
Hey, I have an idea. Somebodies are trashing a department that I happen to like. In response, I will imply that two junior scholars are somehow unhireable. Of course, these are people who could probably be identified in less than a minute by using a google search and a common sense assumption about why people might have been giving public lectures for the SFSU Classics Department sometime in/around February of last year. Yeah, that seems like the fairest thing I could possibly do, since I'm all into fairness and the like.
Hey, guess what: for what it is worth, *I* happen to know one of the people who had a campus interview for the SFSU job last year, and he/she was not the one offered the job. I also happen to know that he/she is a great teacher and gives a job talk that could only suggest that he/she has a fantastic career ahead of him/her as a researcher, and that having him/her around would only improve your MA program by enormous leaps and bounds.
"I must have missed the sign that said posters around here could only let rumors fly when prompted by the earnest questioning of self-identified job applicants."
You can say what you want; you'll never be held accountable for what you say under the veil of anonymity. But don't gripe when other people call your rumors out as baseless bullshit, slam them with counter-rumors, or suggest that you do something more valuable with your time. Though you can't suffer any damage from what you say anonymously on the internet, the people you're talking about and the people who make the mistake of believing your froth certainly can. As someone with an interest in accurate information, I should be expected to be harsh to people who seem to be speaking out of their asses and spreading misinformation.
^nailed it in one!
Oh, my bad. I seem to have missed the part where you were not posting anonymously. Of course, because you are speaking positively about a place that you happen to like, that means that you must be spreading information, not misinformation. Perhaps you have a friend or two at SFSU, and perhaps this gives you access to some inside info. Hey, that's great. But, guess what? That does not necessarily make your assessment of the situation there more "accurate." In fact, one might even go as far as to say that this direct connection to SFSU is likely to bias your opinion. I think I'll go ahead and suggest that job candidates are being done no good service if they are persuaded to accept your sunshine and lollipops view of SFSU Classics as the straight dope.
And, for what it is worth, prior to my reply to your post, I had not posted anything about SFSU on this board. So, you can take your self-righteous b.s. and re-direct it where appropriate.
"Hey, I have an idea. Somebodies are trashing a department that I happen to like. In response, I will imply that two junior scholars are somehow unhireable. Of course, these are people who could probably be identified in less than a minute by using a google search and a common sense assumption about why people might have been giving public lectures for the SFSU Classics Department sometime in/around February of last year. Yeah, that seems like the fairest thing I could possibly do, since I'm all into fairness and the like."
As someone trying to become a professional reader of texts, you might be a bit more careful. If I had wanted to say that this was what happened, I would have said it. What I actually did say, you'll notice, is that bad on-campus interviews provide a plausible story of how a search like the one SFSU had could fail. That story was an alternative to baseless speculations about scandalous inner conflicts in their department. So, since your friend, of whose abilities you are doubtless a scrupulous and impartially objective judge, couldn't conceivably have given a poor interview, I'll spell out my point a little more clearly for you.
SFSU's search failed in a year when there almost certainly couldn't have been a shortage of excellent candidates. Nonetheless, we do not have sufficient reasons to conclude that the search could only have failed because of departmental conflict or some other scandalous evil. It is just as plausible, and there is just as much evidence to suggest, that most of the three or four people that the department agreed to bring for on-campus interviews did not give good interviews. Since you're apparently not a fan of secondary focalization, I'll try to be crystal clear: giving a bad on-campus interview need not be a matter of being incompetent; it is simply a matter of appearing to the people who are making the decision to be unsatisfactory in some way or other. People who are trying to decide whether to invite you to come share a major part of their lives for what quite conceivably could turn out to be the rest of their careers might find you unsatisfactory because they don't like your laugh or the way you sip your coffee, let alone because they don't think you're really going to fit in well with the department on a less personal and more purely intellectual level. They don't need to be good reasons; they just have to appear strong enough to make somebody on a hiring committee unwilling to offer you a job. I'm sorry to inform you that there is sometimes a gap between reality and the subjective appraisal of reality, but even Jesus could give a bad interview.
The form of my argument is: when there is an equal dearth of evidence for two equally plausible stories X and Y, we have no reason to prefer X over Y. If you have any real objections to this reasoning, raise them. Otherwise stop your whining and your tendentious hermeneutics and accept the fact that there is no good reason to believe the rumors being barfed up on this blog about SFSUs alleged dysfunctionality.
A few things:
1. Stop pretending that your connection to SF State is that a few friends of yours got a BA there, or whatever. The content of your (at least) two posts explode the plausibility of this contention.
2. My reading was careful, which is why I used the word "imply," rather than a stronger verb, when discussing the effect that your post had on the reputation of the individual junior scholars in question.
3. No matter how you spin it, it's hypocritical of you to complain about anonymous negative speculation concerning an institution by offering up an alternative brand of negative speculation concerning individuals. That this hypocrisy is probably self-interested and seemingly accompanied by a general spamming of this board is, as the kids say, weak sauce.
4. For the record, I don't actually have a friend who interviewed for the SFSU job last year. I do admit, however, that I can see how you arrived at such a naive reading of the rhetorically phrased paragraph of mine that you chose to quote.
5. Since you bring it up, there are good reasons to believe the rumors about SFSU being barfed up on this blog. The dysfunctionality of your department is hardly a secret.
6. Nevertheless, you have nothing to worry about. You have already gotten sincere applications from 50 or more candidates whom, in an alternate universe, you would have to kill to have come work for you. Just pick one of them this year, and you won't have to spend any Sundays next November spewing venom at internet strangers. You know, since you are *so* above that.
Br.
The situation described above is a dysfunctional search. I sincerely doubt that each of the other two on-campus interview candidates ate a baby or raped some kittens during their job talk. If a few minor snafus made the SC decide not to hire at all, in this market that's much more likely the *()#*#$ SC's problem.
"sunshine and lollipops..."
You really expect to get a job teaching other people how to read texts closely? Read the post again: expressions like "for what it's worth" followed by reference to "three people" are calling attention to their limited evidentiary value. Nonetheless, my evidence is at least as strong as the evidence being offered on the other side. Thus, there is at least as much reason to expect to have a good experience with SFSU Classics and its people as to expect to have a bad one. If you have a real objection to this argument, let's hear it.
Your tu quoque on anonymity falls a bit flat, don't you think? To spell it out for you again, my accusation is that you -- and this is a generalized "you" meant to apply to people engaged in this behavior -- are abusing the shield of anonymity to attack non-anonymous people on slender grounds. I, on the other hand, am using my anonymity to defend non-anonymous people who are being attacked on slender grounds. If you think those two uses of anonymity merit the same evaluation, I hope never to work with you and am very glad not to have any idea who you are.
"You really expect to get a job teaching other people how to read texts closely? Read the post again: expressions like "for what it's worth" followed by reference to "three people" are calling attention to their limited evidentiary value. Nonetheless, my evidence is at least as strong as the evidence being offered on the other side. Thus, there is at least as much reason to expect to have a good experience with SFSU Classics and its people as to expect to have a bad one. If you have a real objection to this argument, let's hear it."
Sure, here goes: it's complete bullshit, the kind that it's not even worth taking the time to pick apart. Enjoy the rest of your Sunday.
I didn't realize anybody had the authority to delete anonymous posts on this blog. Funny how mine keeps disappearing. Why just mine, I wonder?
Meanwhile, I like the reversion to the old "I could do it if I wanted, but I don't want to" line. As when we were in third grade, I'll take that as an admission that don't have a response that is actually worth giving.
I didn't realize anybody had the authority to delete anonymous posts on this blog.
Servius can. Maybe he/she was annoyed that you keep posting "^nailed it in one!" a few minutes after each of your own posts.
Facts: SFSU received hundreds of applications for a chaired position, had enough support to send the entire department to San Antonio, yet failed to hire a suitable candidate for a wide open position in a buyer's market. And it had the Bay Area going for it. Yep, it's pure bad luck and crummy finalists that sank this search.
P.S. I love how some of the posts are oddly specific but hide behind the veil of hypotheticals and supposed neutrality.
So... with all the SFSU bashing going on, none of you applied, right?
Because I'll sure as hell take the job.
I'm in a TT job, but I know my friend who was short-listed last year wanted nothing to do with the application process this year. I'm not denying it's a job, and even a good one, but please, o anonymous one posing as an applicant yet probably resides in Daly City, get over yourself and tell SFSU classics the same thing.
So it's not a top school, it's Classics department isn't strong, and it's a commuter school, BUT the faculty and students are "nice" and it's not a terrible place to work. Anon. 10:11, that sure was a ringing endorsement for someone to move to a place where they will likely live in rent-controlled housing forever and deal with students who couldn't get into a UC school or half the other CSUs.
Anon. 10:11 here (and FWIW, this is my first reply since 10:11, and my last reply, because it gets so depressing around here) - dude, it is a job. Not the sacrament of holy matrimony. If people apply, get interviewed, and don't like it, then they can withdraw from the search, turn down an offer, or try it and quit. If living in Daly City or the Sunset isn't for you, don't apply, and if "nice" isn't enough for what you want in a university community, then don't apply. I didn't say it was a ringing endorsement, I just suggested that the new crop of applicants might as well give the search a chance, and there was no constructive reason to bash the search at this point in the game. You act like the candidates have blinders on, but they don't. My current job, three dozen people told me not to take it, primarily because of the location, and also because they thought a postdoc at a prestigious school would be a better career launcher than where I am now. Well, I got here, and I like it, and if something changes about that, then I will quit. But I'm glad as hell I applied, because it was the only job offer I got, and it turned out to be a great place. And if I'd gotten here in Year One and found myself traumatized by the environment, then I would have gone back on the market. At this point, if I quit, I'd probably just go get a different, non-academic job. But it would have been really disheartening if, when I was a candidate, I was prejudiced about the school from the start. As it was, people reserved their bashing until after I'd accepted the job, and I'm damn glad they did, or I might have taken their "sage" advice. Anyway, look, I'm not trying to silence freedom of speech or gild something that is tin, but I just think it would be more constructive and helpful to let the current crop apply and find out for themselves. I mean, some of you have said that it was so bad that people almost left the interview, and it isn't like anyone is saying SFSU isn't a school with a mostly commuter population, so who are these deluded young candidates you're trying to warn? Let them go into it hoping for the best and then judging whether it would work for them. And if it doesn't, then they have options. But trashing the whole thing from the beginning doesn't help anybody. It isn't as if you're warning a freshman girl not to go to the KEG frat house during her first weekend on campus because they put roofies in freshmeat drinks, which is kind of how it came off.
I'm happily employed and not on the market. I also know nothing about SFSU's Classics department in particular, and not much about SFSU more broadly. But I went to grad school in the Bay Area, and I freaking loved it. Yes, the cost of living sucks, but much of what's cool about the Bay Area is either free or cheap. Location shouldn't trump everything else, but for a lot of people it is, and should be, a pretty big deal. So I guess I'm endorsing the long post by Anon 10:11 and encouraging candidates to hope for the best and trust their instincts.
Let's be clear here, just in case there are people out there who live in La-La-Land: we should all be applying for every job we qualify for, regardless of how terrible. Anything else would be an appalling misunderstanding of the situation we who are on the market (even the very best of us) are in.
I have been one of the main people bitching about various things at various points, but I do it because it is fun and therapeutic. I'm still applying for all that shit and would take it in an heartbeat. You should do likewise.
"I didn't realize anybody had the authority to delete anonymous posts on this blog. Funny how mine keeps disappearing. Why just mine, I wonder?
Meanwhile, I like the reversion to the old "I could do it if I wanted, but I don't want to" line. As when we were in third grade, I'll take that as an admission that don't have a response that is actually worth giving."
Ok, now that I've spent three hours watching Tebow defy all logic, I'm ready to waste five more minutes on you.
If it makes you feel any better, I also had a couple of messages deleted as we were going back and forth. I took that as a hint that it was probably not worth continuing our pissing match. It was also becoming obvious to me that you really really like the smell of your own pee, whereas I'm just lukewarm on mine.
But, yeah, ok; you win! You are totally right about everything! And, ill nvr dare 2 sho my 3rd graderz face round hr agin, b/c thats how hard u pwnd me, bro!
"Anyway, look, I'm not trying to silence freedom of speech or gild something that is tin, but I just think it would be more constructive and helpful to let the current crop apply and find out for themselves. I mean, some of you have said that it was so bad that people almost left the interview, and it isn't like anyone is saying SFSU isn't a school with a mostly commuter population, so who are these deluded young candidates you're trying to warn? Let them go into it hoping for the best and then judging whether it would work for them. And if it doesn't, then they have options. But trashing the whole thing from the beginning doesn't help anybody. It isn't as if you're warning a freshman girl not to go to the KEG frat house during her first weekend on campus because they put roofies in freshmeat drinks, which is kind of how it came off."
OK, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here, and just assume that you've missed the entire point of this part of Famae Volent.
No - I didn't miss the point. I object to it. And if someone else can "let off steam" by telling candidates that SFSU sucks, then I can "let off steam" by saying that I find these posts unhelpful *at this stage of the game.* This stage of the game is where people bitch and moan about whether there is an inside hire already lined up. Then once you've been mistreated on an interview (and I have), you come back and bitch about it. Then there's summer, and I think it would be helpful if the bitching and moaning could start afresh with staples & the CV rather than saying that a particular school, who may have run a bad/unlucky search last year, sucks. And yeah, I know there's no time limit on rumors, I just wanted to bitch and moan that I think it is unhelpful at this stage of the game. And you disagree. And we're both allowed to post here, regardless of what we want to use the space for, as long as we don't use individual names or inflammatory attacks. I hope candidates on the market listen to me and take your posts with a grain of salt, so they go into the whole game with the best attitudes possible. That's all.
Hmm. I don't remember anyone questioning your right to post here, so let's set aside that red herring right away.
Ok. So, you don't think that virgin ABD ears should be exposed to the idea that some hiring committees/departments are complete shit shows. Hmm. I can see your point. It is really discouraging to read about how a job that you think you really want is perhaps not what you thought it was.
But, I don't remember anyone ever saying that they were talking about the SFSU Classic Department in order to be helpful to the people applying for that or any other job. It seemed more like curious people sharing tidbits of information and speculation, almost entirely to satisfy their own prurient interests. And then some paranoid person from SFSU was lurking and lost his shit (remember, just because you are paranoid, that doesn't mean you aren't right!). And that just got hilarious in all kinds of ways.
And you also came along, fearing the potentially dampened spirits that this chatter might cause. While I do think your attitude is at least a bit infantilizing, I also appreciate its sincerity. So, I'll say it with you (imagine a unified chant, like in one of those movies where the bad guy is the son of satan, and he has all these creepy robed followers): be positive, young scholars, be positive! Everything is going to work out great! Never expect a search committee to consist of some combination of a nut, a drunk, a misanthrope, a bitter middle-aged guy/lady, and a crazy old dude that thinks reading statius qualifies as a hobby!
Okay. You win. I am crushed.
Best of luck to all of you whom I "infantilized."
Sincerely,
One of those faculty members who shouldn't bother trying to tangle with the superior intellects who like to spew venom here
I suggest the dean did it, in the library, with a candlestick.
Hey! I was trying to meet you halfway there! But, ok. Let it be known: the forces of all that is self-proclaimed good and light have tragically lost their will to grapple with the malevolent arrogance of impetuous youth. Nurse, please note the time of death; at some point posterity will want to be informed.
Btw, if you really want to do some youngsters a favor, don't just advise any of your curious students against going to grad school; refuse to ever write another letter of recommendation. If you don't want to spare them the experience of spending the better part of a decade training for a job that they probably won't be able to get, at least spare them the horrible fate of one day having their hopes and dreams of getting that job utterly dashed by some mean-spirited anonymous poster on a silly blog.
"I suggest the dean did it, in the library, with a candlestick."
What, we're talking about the cum stain on the rug now?
"What, we're talking about the cum stain on the rug now?"
No, he stopped posting a few hours back. Try to keep up!
Just because posts are anonymous does not mean they are invalid. Do you dismiss your course evaluations wholesale? I venture to guess that a much higher percentage of comments on here are constructive than your average set of course evaluations. I also venture to guess that a number of faculty members are weeding through the comments and picking out tips to improve their search. Some even post on here and intimate as much. There's more than chance at play in determining whether a search is good or foul.
SFSU deserves to be piled on for running such an inept search last year. With what's at stake for all involved, it's difficult enough to run a humane interview without setting up a circus for the backdrop. Senior scholars on here claim to remember being in the same boat. Yet some of you think the best way to find a future colleague is to shove him/her into a small room and have six or seven faculty members take turns spanking the candidate. I think this is a sure fire way of weeding out great candidates for budding sabretooths. Enough with the search mobs already. Why are there more than three or four of you?
And putting the fate of a chaired junior position at a poor university/department into the hands of a search mob, all with a chip on their shoulder? Who thought this was a good idea? How are you going to find a "deserving" candidate when each interviewer expects to be blown away in their little neck of the woods while getting their ass kissed? Just because one is "nice" does not mean one's immune to vanity. I wouldn't be surprised if the dean caught on and deliberately took the search process out of the hands of the department. Instead of getting pissed off, SFSU lurkers, why don't you prove us wrong this year by running a thoughtful, humane search? You dug your own hole by running that debacle you called a search last year.
Who needs a cheers and jeers section when we have Rebel Angels? Assuming that it's not just one poster, and I've heard enough through the grapevine to think otherwise, you need to screw up big time to get this type of feedback from candidates. Yeah, it's an unfortunate pile on, but a somewhat deserved one from my perspective. What's wrong with some accountability where there's been little over the years?
Have the mistreated candidates reported this unprofessional conduct to the APA/AIA placement committee? That would seem to me to be the appropriate thing to do. Like the "powerless" graduate assistant who watched kids being molested in locker rooms. Go to the police if the infractions are serious, the placement committee being the police in this situation. I was poorly treated in several interviews, both at the meeting stage and on campus, but not so poorly treated that I felt it was worth reporting. I got piled on, forced to talk to hostile parties who simply couldn't understand why I think classics is worth studying, and there were numerous infractions - hungover search members, meetings canceled with important people with whom the other candidates got to meet, unreasonably long days, the "devil's advocate" cadre that tests me to see how I handle under pressure, and then more rounds to visit with faculty to asked totally inappropriate questions about my personal life and whether I'd choose their school over other schools.. Fun, no, but I survived, got lucky, and that's that. I accept that you think it is a service to warn new candidates about the bad parts of SFSU. I also accept that you think there needs to be accountability so this doesn't happen again. Agree there also, but that needs to go through the placement committee, whom we don't know if they read this blog. Placement Committee, please investigate the SFSU searches last and this year, and if you do indeed find credible accusations of candidate abuse, then please take action. Faculty/grad students, if you hear a credible report of placement service infractions (like the unnamed scholar who showed up to my interview with her eyes rolling back in their sockets, looking like she was about to barf all over the coffee table in the private suit), then please report them. Me, I didn't feel like I was being tortured, even though it was tough. But if an interview involved interminable verbal spanking, then speak up. Don't be that grad student who didn't grab a baseball bat and bash that coach unconscious to save the little boy in question. Don't just report it here, thinking this will work in reforming searches. Go to the police/placement committee with tje best evidence you can find.
You need some serious meds, 9:42.
the unnamed scholar who showed up to my interview with her eyes rolling back in their sockets, looking like she was about to barf all over the coffee table
To be fair, this is how I always feel at the APA, whether I'm hung over or not.
As if the Placement Committee or any APA committee could take any actual punitive action against tenured professors, whom only God can punish.
Face it -- there is no justice in this business except between equals. And job applicants and search committees are most certainly not equals. So sayeth Thucydides.
^nailed it in one!
If universities are paying for 6+ committee members to fly out to the APA, why not cut this number in half and use this money to add a couple flybacks? You would increase both the quantity and quality of candidates, in my opinion. Yeah, it's more meetings and time out of busy schedules, but you're sure not saving money and time by rerunning a search the following year.
If universities are paying for 6+ committee members to fly out to the APA, why not cut this number in half and use this money to add a couple flybacks? You would increase both the quantity and quality of candidates, in my opinion. Yeah, it's more meetings and time out of busy schedules, but you're sure not saving money and time by rerunning a search the following year.
OK, you have no idea how many people the university was paying for (sometimes people go on their own dime) or whether any of the other members were there on other business and attended the interviews while they were there.
This is the problem with having all of your speculation needs served by people who are in or barely out of graduate school, have no idea how anything works, and think that the whole world revolves around searches. It's not their fault that they don't know anything yet, but it would be nice if they were at least aware that they might not know everything.
For what it's worth, it's not just SFSU that ran a search mob last year. Yeah, you know who you are. Are departments hoping for increased success by adding more faculty to SCs? It has all the deftness of a surgeon using a rusty hacksaw and old gum for triple bypass surgery.
O wise anon 1:10, you still haven't answered why a department needs to send all its faculty to every interview, regardless of whose dime it is. And we're not talking about a tiny department with two or three members either.
Because they can and don't trust each other?
For all the talk about how candidates should keep an open mind and move on if a job is not their cup of tea, it's the departmental representatives on here who seem to be making this out to be a somber union written in blood and deserving of OCD behavior that would make Howard Hughes proud.
For all the thinly veiled allusions basically calling finalists who don't get the offer fuck-ups ("No, we're calling them candidates who just happened to fuck up!"), don't you think it increases a SC's odds of making the same impression when there are so many of you? Yeah, it might mean little to you when you have hundreds of candidates lined up and the dynamics of power are all on you side, but don't you fear that your top choice might actually have options and the one SC member barfing in her mouth might be the deciding factor?
O wise anon 1:10, you still haven't answered why a department needs to send all its faculty to every interview, regardless of whose dime it is.
You're not following. What I'm saying is that there are lots of reasons why people could be at an interview beyond being on the search committee. If I'm at the conference on other business when we're interviewing, I'll go to what interviews I can. It has nothing to do with me being "sent" to the interview. And lots of people go to the conference for reasons that have nothing to do with searches but go to at least some interviews while there. In that situation, the department is definitely not paying for their travel to the conference, and so there aren't any savings to be had from their not going to the interviews that could be put toward more campus visits.
Anon 1:36 AM
"don't you think it increases a SC's odds of making the same [bad] impression when there are so many of you?"
Wow, I hope statistics and probability are not involved in your dissertation. You're assuming that all faculty have an equal chance of behaving badly in an interview. When a dept has more people than usual, it's usually the search comm. plus people who just want to be there. Since the additional people may not have to be there, they can stay away if they are hung over or sneezy or tired or bored by your topic.
I've had big interviews and I've had small interviews. I think a group of 3-4 does the best job, but a big group can mean more people get a sense of you sooner, and you of them. A big group also means you don't have the situation where a tiny group falsely claims "we all like/dislike anthro/theory/putting on plays" etc.
Question: just how likely is it than an ABD grad student could land a T-T job at a teaching university (SLAC, etc.)?
(an) Answer: Not great. Better if you have experience teaching that is more than just TA'ing.
In any case, you'd be a fool not to apply.
I think it's impossible to say. Our last hire was ABD, but had an impressive publication record. I was hired from a VAP position though. Regardless, having a strong (i.e., detailed, not just enthusiastic) teaching letter would probably help your case. I also brought a packet of syllabi and teaching materials to interviews and left it with the SCs as I left, for them to peruse or not as they chose. Some candidates did the same when we hired two years ago, and I always looked over their materials, though I don't recall that they were ever game-changers. Hope that helps.
How much teaching experience is too much, though? I've been VAPing at four different institutions for six years running. I sometimes wonder if my sell-by date for a tenure-track job has passed, and no amount of additional teaching will help. It seems like SCs want candidates to thread a needle between just enough teaching, but not too much. Just enough publications, but not. Wait. No, fuck that. There is no such thing as too many publications.
Should I take a year off to finish my book, pump out some articles? This last idea is predicated on the idea that I'm going to win the latest power-ball. But if I do that, I think I'll go to my APA interviews hung over, with a gigolo on each arm. At that point it won't matter.
Our last hire was ABD, but had an impressive publication record.
There are ABD's with impressive publication records?! Good grief.
For Heaven's sake, can you people go back to the old ways, and adopt Noms de plume (or noms de guerre)? How in the hell can anyone tell who's responding to whom? Back in the old days there were Tiresias, Poldy, Old Oligarch and the like. They were still anonymous, but one could at least follow a conversation. So come up with a name, or just choose a single digit.
Since I myself am not participating in your stupid SFSU discussion I'll appear to be a hypocrite and not assume a fake name myself. But if I need one, I'm sure I can come up with something.
I'm not sure what I think about this new system for listing jobs. The newly announced positions are being buried between jobs whose deadlines are long past, and I'm having to hunt for them. Can't the new stuff get a separate section?
If you're not sure what to think, let me help you: it's disappointing pile of shit. The potential is there, and maybe next year it will be great, but they just listed a job whose application deadline was July 19! And there's no way to sort by deadline! There's been nothing genuinely new in the last week or so, and yet I'm sure we'll get a email a few days after the 15th with a bunch of new listings. Yet another tardy, slapdash and lazy effort from the Placement Service.
The Rollins job seems pretty new; I check regularly, and this is the first time I've noticed it.
But I could have missed it on the last run-through, buried as it is in a pile of jobs I applied for months ago.
Post a Comment