"Wow, interesting. We got way fewer (not quite 100) apps for a TT Latin job with a 2-2 teaching load. Perhaps there is a geographical bias in choosing where to apply?"
Who is speaking here? New Mexico? I'm curious to know what school this is---one, no doubt, for which I did not get an interview.
New Mexico did get around 90-something applications. I'm not sure if that's who the "we" of the December 23, 2011 2:32 PM poster is.
And December 23, 2011 4:50 PM — do tell more about the expectation of accepting the first job offered? I've never heard of this. Your department would really expect you to take a 1-year job even if you were still in the running for a tenure-track?
And December 23, 2011 4:50 PM — do tell more about the expectation of accepting the first job offered? I've never heard of this. Your department would really expect you to take a 1-year job even if you were still in the running for a tenure-track?
No, I think our precious little darling is saying that their department will expect them to accept a job this year if they are offered one, rather than allowing them to hang around the old alma mater for another year in hopes of getting a less icky one next year. So, rather than being faced with the prospect of being expected to take an icky job, they will just refrain from applying to any icky jobs at all and if they come up empty-handed will just say "Sorry, mom and dad, I tried my hardest, and I applied for everything! Can I hang around for another year?"
Dec 24, 1:37: I have heard of a few cases of schools offering positions before the APA/AHA/MLA meeting. It can put a candidate in a terribly difficult position.
Dec 23, 4:50 asked a reasonable question. I am only sorry I have no useful suggestion except ask the school for time and hope they respond fairly.
Hate to seem lazy, but I have limited resources here on a family trip. If someone cold repeat those names to write to about placement, plus what committee it is, plus their email addresses, I could, despite being low tech, through some old-guy weight at them. This would take me five minutes on a laptop or desktop but I just have the handheld right now. And of course the list shood iLife the secretary of the APA
Second that, from another tenured classicist. This might be a good Christmas present for us established types to give people who, in most cases, had it way harder than we did in the same position.
If anyone wants to raise this issue at a higher level, these are the people on the committee overseeing the Placement Service:
Erich Gruen (2009-2012), Chair Michael Lippman (2010-2013) Ilaria Marchesi (2010-2013) David S. Potter (2011-2014) Pamela Vaughn (2011-2014) Joy Connolly, ex officio Barbara Barletta (2009-2012) Betsey Robinson (2010-2013)
Apa president: Adam D. Blistein blistein@sas.upenn.edu
No idea on emails, nor am I sure those would be permitted by the powers above.
Not to derail necessary reform of the PS, but I thought this article, and comments, was much needed, especially in our field, where good scholarship takes much more time and effort than most others:
Y'all, the way the Placement Service is going to change is for you to try as hard as you can to get stable jobs, then run for the Placement Committee, then change it yourself. I know this is not a great answer to hear, particularly at this time of year, but I'm afraid that, given the fact that the powers that be have no real incentive to devote more time and effort to the APA/AIA, then it is up to you. Write yourself a little note that says, "When I have a job, I will run for the Placement Committee and change things." Stick it in that one book that you reach for most frequently. Then work as hard as you can, hope that the career fates will smile on you, and those of you who make it, remember that promise you made to yourself to change things. Then change them. Life ain't fair, and probably half of you will make it (yeah, I think half of you will actually make it) to positions where you can get elected to the Placement Committee. Then work your magic. I'm not trying to discourage the email campaign by any means, but year after year, people complain directly to APA elected officials about the PS, and NOTHING gets done. I think an email onslaught will be about as effective as Occupy XYZ has been. If you want a job done right, you're going to have to do it yourself. Best of luck.
Ritual abuse by the placement service is an integral part of your training as a classicist. As with so many things, your generation is too spoiled, sensitive, and lazy to deal with challenges that were just routine to earlier generations.
The reason why nobody changes it is that, once we've been through it, we realize in retrospect that it was a valuable character-building experience and that it would be a huge mistake to move to a system that coddles and pampers job seekers. And your generation in particular has been coddled and pampered enough as it is.
If you're being funny, try again. If serious, this tenured classicist thinks you're just offensive given what today's job seekers are facing that you never endured....especially if you are of the generations that came of age in a time when you were tenured and promoted with 2, 1, or 0 publications.
May I suggest that instead of everyone emailing the placement committee expressing displeasure, instead you email them asking for an open meeting at the 2013 APA/AIA? Perhaps graduate students and recent graduates who are interested in effecting change can put their names into a pool, and ten names can be drawn. Then those ten people can meet with the Placement Committee in Seattle. There can be an open conversation in which job candidates air their complaints and the Placement Committee lays out the restrictions (budgetary, organizational, whatever) they're facing. Then everyone can have a civil conversation about how to work around restrictions to engineer a better system. I don't think there's time to organize this for Philly, but if you start now, and you come at it from a cooperative rather than attacking angle, then you might be able to make some progress in Seattle. That's my two cents about how you should use those email addresses.
That's my two cents about how you should use those email addresses.
Talk is cheap. Wait another year to do anything? What good is a face to face meeting. We have e-mail. Better yet, let the Placement Committee make a public statement about this matter, and we can have job-seekers respond with their concerns on a forum like this one.
If you're being funny, try again. If serious, this tenured classicist thinks you're just offensive given what today's job seekers are facing that you never endured....especially if you are of the generations that came of age in a time when you were tenured and promoted with 2, 1, or 0 publications.
Look, the fact of the matter is that these youngsters have gone soft. In my day, you didn't know when your interviews were till you got to the conference, and you had to wait in line for hours just to find that out. Nobody complained, and nobody minded. We stood silently and stoically in line and when we got our schedule we were grateful. Now, can you imagine one of today's new Ph.D.s shuffling along obediently in a line for two hours? Of course not. They'd probably collapse from the exertion, or give up after five minutes so they could go complain on the internet.
The way I see it, if you're not tough enough to take the punishment the placement service dishes out, you're not tough enough for classics.
The way I see it, it's people like you who have made one of the most conservative fields of academia conservative in the worst kinds of ways. People like you also kept the Civil Rights movement from making any substantial progress for decades - the way things used to be isn't necessarily the way they should be. Or is it? Maybe there should only be 100 or fewer candidates for all those jobs out there. And maybe only white males should consider applying for those positions...nobody complained in those days, after all...
The way I see it, it's people like you who have made one of the most conservative fields of academia conservative in the worst kinds of ways.
I don’t blame the youngsters so much as I blame people like you. You’re the ones who have through your permissive attitude, lax standards, and constant mollycoddling left the current generation so effete, lazy, and entitled that they can’t patiently endure even a modest amount of gratuitous humiliation. If you cared about these people, you’d want to see them given the opportunities we had for building character and moral fiber through adversity. Instead, you want to throw them out defenseless into the world. Some educators you lot have been.
If it were up to me, I’d say get rid of the early notification and the electronic nonsense, and institute a system whereby at the conference you have to report to the placement office every morning at 6 AM or so to get in line and wait to find out what interviews you have that day (if any). It’d be an excellent test of the determination, resourcefulness, and stamina of the candidates.
Tobias, unfortunately that isn't how things work. You can email until you're blue in the face, but email is never the way to work these things out. You're going to have more success in a face to face meeting with a randomly selected committee of concerned young scholars on the market and the Placement Committee. I was speaking from experience and in the spirit of helpfulness. Ignore my advice if you will, but I encourage others to try this approach.
I was speaking from experience and in the spirit of helpfulness. Ignore my advice if you will, but I encourage others to try this approach.
I appreciate that, but it seems naive to think this could be pulled off organizationally over the time span of more than a year on the basis of some discussions on a mostly anonymous forum, whereas a distributed e-mail campaign directed to the committee could have some immediate influence.
Tobias, maybe it sounds naive to you. I therefore must assume that you are more senior than I, although I have been finished with my degree and working for longer than I care to remember. So I really was trying to use my experience with how things work in the APA/AIA bureaucracy to suggest a path that, although slower than you may like, I think will ultimately result in change. I am sorry if I offended you with what you think is my naivety, especially if you are indeed senior to me. Also, this isn't some attempt to pull rank but rather a sincere attempt to help. I know how APA/AIA committees work, I know how change is effected in these organizations, and I think that this is the way to move forward. But of course you may, regardless of rank, be more savvy about these things, and if so, then best of luck.
The thing is, when you're on the market, the placement service is an outrage, and what's more its crappiness is all wrapped up with your various emotions about you finding or not finding a job and about the whole system of pairing candidates with positions.
Then, once you have a job, you come to look on it as a annoyance that didn't really affect your life in any way apart from making you slightly more annoyed on a couple of occasions during a period of a few months. And that's why you don't see a lot of employed people rating "change the placement service" high on their agenda: I don't think anybody would mind if it improved but not many people are going to mount a crusade against an annoyance.
That said, the new on-line system, such as it is, is clearly a response to complaints last year, so maybe with more complaining you'll get some software that does scheduling, and you'll stop getting emails in which the placement staff yell at you in all caps to LEAVE THEM ALONE!!!
I'm sorry, but changing the placement service has been high on my agenda for some time. And I was frustrated as hell with the placement service all the times I was on the market - including the time I got viciously reprimanded on the phone by the PS powers that be for a mistake that an interviewing school had made. This isn't some memory from the past that has become a mere annoyance in my mind - I'm still pissed off about it. But I'm not senior or important enough to make an impact by myself. I totally agree with those of you who think that large numbers of "concern" emails are the way to force the issue. I just know, from my experience with these organizations, that "complaint" emails get brushed aside as the neuroses of desperate graduate students and postdocs, while "concern" emails, asking calmly but confidently for a face to face meeting, will be more effective and get you that face to face meeting, PS town hall, or whatever. I really am trying to help y'all, and I am far from some old fart who sympathizes with an "annoyance." I'm on your side, and I'm really trying to suggest what might be a more effective approach. I sincerely apologize if it comes off as arrogant or out of touch or anything else offensive. Really. Again, best of luck.
I'm sorry, but changing the placement service has been high on my agenda for some time. And I was frustrated as hell with the placement service all the times I was on the market - including the time I got viciously reprimanded on the phone by the PS powers that be for a mistake that an interviewing school had made. This isn't some memory from the past that has become a mere annoyance in my mind - I'm still pissed off about it.
I didn't say that there weren't people out there who weren't still, years later, consumed with rage. I said you don't see a lot of employed people rating "change the placement service" high on their agenda. That seems pretty obviously true to me. For most people, once they're done with it, the placement service was just something kind of shitty that they had to deal with a few times and that didn't actually screw up the interview-scheduling part of its function.
I'm not at all trying to argue that it's not worth changing, just to explain why there's not a lot of revolutionary fervor out there except among those currently on the receiving end of the traditional placement service treatment.
I'm not a regular on this blog at all and don't know whether this has been discussed before or not (this year or in any past year).
I write as a tenured faculty member--though I'm not involved with an active search this year--to say I find it very weird when a job applicant in the middle of an ongoing search decides to "follow" the academia.edu page that I or one of my colleagues has set up. It's creepy, seems suck-upish and makes me much less likely to want to hire the person.
I don't know how others feel about this practice but thought it would be good to warn those of you who are thinking about doing this. Others may want to sound in as well.
Although I freely admit that I haven't looked into it at all, I reflexively assumed that academia.edu was specifically meant to facilitate sucking up to each other, showing off how popular and connected you are, and other, similar wankery. I would think that it would be tough to get the etiquette right in an on-line community whose whole purpose is to give networking douchebags easier access to other networking douchebags.
But again, maybe I've got the site all wrong, and it's not like that at all.
"I reflexively assumed that academia.edu was specifically meant to facilitate sucking up to each other, showing off how popular and connected you are, and other, similar wankery."
Maybe some people use it that way (though that seems very silly) but in practice most people seem to use it as a convenient way to post their papers. I don't know anyone who uses it as facebook for academics (they have facebook for that...)
Although I freely admit that I haven't looked into it at all, I reflexively assumed that academia.edu was specifically meant to facilitate sucking up to each other, showing off how popular and connected you are, and other, similar wankery. I would think that it would be tough to get the etiquette right in an on-line community whose whole purpose is to give networking douchebags easier access to other networking douchebags.
But again, maybe I've got the site all wrong, and it's not like that at all.
the person who wrote this really misses the point of academia.edu. And in a big way.
the person who wrote this really misses the point of academia.edu. And in a big way.
That may well be. I really have just run across it incidentally and judged it by its cover. It sounds like the little suck-ups have their own opinion about its point, though.
On the other hand, whatever its other uses, it sounds like it'd be a handy little trap for weeding out annoying sycophants. Or for locating them, if that's your thing.
Exactly. So it's a shame that a kind-hearted faculty member has warned people who would so obviously begin to follow SC people after getting an interview (or applying). Now it'll be that much harder to weed out some dimwits, er, dimweeds.
In the future, let's all refrain from giving advice that can help potentially bad colleagues camouflage their flaws!
I really don't think being interested in a potential colleague's research is so damnable.
Then find out about it by some other means than telling your potential colleague that you're "following" them on the internet. Under the circumstances, there is no way that that looks like "interest in their research"; it looks like slimy sycophancy.
Also, you should refrain from sending them little Valentine's Day cards telling them that you think that they are super neat.
The hubris displayed by some senior scholars on here would make Xerxes blush. Get over yourself. 99.99% of the world could care less that you're a big, bad SC member who has inordinate power for a couple months over a dozen bright-eyed scholars. And I say this as a card carrying tenured faculty member who thanks my lucky stars each day that I just about won the lottery landing this job in the first place.
the sanctimonious blather spewed here by cretins who present themselves as being among the "senior" members of this candy-ass discipline is really telling - and reminds this poster, at least, why this field is so busted. it really is such an appealing thought that soon a lot of us will be in cramped hotel ballrooms with you losers. pathetic.
I used the PS back in the horrible old days of the line, the envelope with one's interview list (or not) in it, and the infamous blackboard. Yes, we all stood in line to be handed our envelopes the first night; and yes, sometimes the person behind the desk announced loudly, "Sorry, you don't have any interviews" and then we had to keep our faces under control while doing the Walk Of Shame back past the line of others waiting for THEIR envelopes. And then, since SCs continued scheduling interviews for at least the first full day of the conference, we had to walk by that ghastly blackboard to see if our number appeared on it (if it did, it meant you had another interview scheduled).
This was all hideous and still sometimes shows up in my nightmares 20 years later. But I'm not at all convinced it was more hideous than what candidates go through now. The current procedure is more like death by a thousand cuts -- every day you open your e-mail, every day you hope for interviews to be scheduled, etc. In some ways, having all the misery and humiliation lumped into the few days of the conference may have been less dreadful.
Either system was horrible, and my sympathies go out to those caught up in the current one.
Yeah...I'm going with creepy. I've been FB friends for several years with someone in a searching dept who was one of my external phd examiners. My FB account is temporarily closed until [my place in] the search is closed. Having that connection just seems strange. Either way, I doubt many candidates following this will do much +ing in the future.
It seems like the main difficulty here is that the stress candidates feel has mostly nothing to do with the Placement Service, the system it uses, or the manner in which it executes that system. The situation of trying to find employment in Classics sucks. There isn't much the Placement Service itself can do to change that.
But the PS ought to recognize that it is a hired service, paid for by candidates and hiring departments themselves, and subsidized by the dues of the organization it serves. It also needs to realize that it is a monopoly, and therefore to try very hard to avoid acting like one in terms of its efficiency and customer relations.
Do we really need to know exactly when our interviews are scheduled, assuming that we know we have one or more? No. We told the PS our availability, and they will fit us in accordingly. Do annoying, tin-ear emails really affect our ability to get hired? No, better to ignore them. Was it worse in the old days, with surprise bundles (or non-bundles) of pink-slips (really, PS, pink-slips, really?) handed to us after a sweaty, nervous wait in line, surrounded by the stench of desperation, staring at the blackboard of doom? Yes, absolutely. Has the new web service made things better? Of course. Things do get better.
All that noted, progress over time doesn't excuse current problems, which appear to outside eyes to be the result of technological incompetence, unwillingness to change, and a lack of perspective with respect to clients/customers.
The administration and executive committee APA is fully aware of all of these problems. The fact that they haven't themselves carved an hour out of this year's meeting, or next year's in Seattle, in order to address these concerns forthrightly, is mind-boggling.
Explain to us how, exactly, things are done and why. Allow us to make suggestions, even if those suggestions are shown to be inadequate, or ill-formed. If the PS had actual competition I have few doubts that we would all be voting with our feet and moving elsewhere. It doesn't, however, so we can't.
The classicists on the Placement Service committee need to take action, now. To fail to do so, in the face of so much dissatisfaction with how things are done, would be a sad abrogation of their responsibility. Email them all to remind them of this.
Doesn't this software have a button (or menu option) that automatically matches up search committee and candidate? If not, the software should be improved; if so, one wonders why that button isn't being pressed. Is there a legitimate reason, or is this all being done manually as busy work?
Along those lines, I'd love to know, if this software is indeed the problem, whether it was bought on the cheap. I can't imagine there's such a thing as non-automatable scheduling software out there, but if there is, I imagine it would be at a low, low price that would catch someone's attention.
Did the Placement Service actually do any research, and check with peer organizations what software they've been (successfully) using, or did it just use Google and click on the first ad?
If all the software does is let one manually enter scheduled interviews, as that recent mass e-mail implies, then I'd say the APA has been squandering money.
Do we really need to know exactly when our interviews are scheduled, assuming that we know we have one or more? No.
Cato, you're not displaying that wisdom for which you were rightly famous: if a candidate, especially a relatively impoverished grad, has a single interview, don't you think it best for him/her to know the date well enough in advance to have the option of staying for the minimal amount of time? The PS's current system forces too many candidates to waste too much money showing up for 3-4 days for just 1-2 interviews, or none. (And yes, you can tell the PS you're making yourself available for just a single day or two days, but many grads are nervous about doing so, and there's always the risk that the interviewing school(s) will do the same, creating problems.)
Quite simply, the only decent thing to do is to let candidates know ASAP when their interviews are, and this was one of the main reasons we were all demanding the use of scheduling software a year or two ago.
"Then find out about it by some other means than telling your potential colleague that you're "following" them on the internet. Under the circumstances, there is no way that that looks like "interest in their research"; it looks like slimy sycophancy.
Also, you should refrain from sending them little Valentine's Day cards telling them that you think that they are super neat.
Also, no fruit baskets."
In the analogy above, having an academia.edu account in the first place is equivalent to running a website listing an address to which fruit baskets should be sent.
I think you'd have to be a self-centered little turd to even think about academia.edu in this way.
In the analogy above, having an academia.edu account in the first place is equivalent to running a website listing an address to which fruit baskets should be sent.
Yes, the throwaway joke at the end was clearly an analogy that lay at the heart of my point. Jesus. My point is that once you're applying for a job at someone's institution suddenly popping up on a list that person can see of people interested in what they're up to is going to look to most people like currying favor. It's fine if you don't agree, but I think you're in a small minority, and I think it'd be harmful advice to tell candidates it's fine to do this while they're applying for a job at someone's institution.
I think you'd have to be a self-centered little turd to even think about academia.edu in this way.
"The hubris displayed by some senior scholars on here would make Xerxes blush."
Isn't that exactly what's happening when some of the sabretooths on here are demanding that we rid ourselves of anonymity? Dammit! Play by our rules where we control our pitiful little domain and can crush you for even a stray glance our way!
Yeah, refusing to play by the sabretooth dicta means total anarchy. WOW, even Kim Jong Il would blush if he wasn't proving at the moment that even the biggest sabretooth is not forever.
I have also received neither invitation nor rejection from Dallas. I assumed it was because I suck so much (100% failure for interviews this year) that Dallas just ignored my existence.
(Although I have heard of places outright rejecting some people and keeping others in limbo just in case the APA interviews are horrible. But this may just be my irrational hope).
Cato, you're not displaying that wisdom for which you were rightly famous: if a candidate, especially a relatively impoverished grad, has a single interview, don't you think it best for him/her to know the date well enough in advance to have the option of staying for the minimal amount of time? The PS's current system forces too many candidates to waste too much money showing up for 3-4 days for just 1-2 interviews, or none.
Fair point, I concede. What constitutes "well in advance" though? I once received an email informing me of an APA interview the day before I flew to the APA. I also received notifications while there (why schools can't email you themselves is beyond me, it made me not want to work for those that did that).
Unfortunately, if you are full on the market, you should plan on attending the APA, and plan on attending for the entire time. Yes, I know many will hate this advice. If, when the time comes, you really have no interviews, or only one or two, then cancel your hotel, eat the cost of canceling or rearranging your flight, and avoid the conference entirely (ask those few interested for a skype interview). But, this latter action should be undertaken only as a last resort. Given the scheduling difficulties, it seems like the best course of action is to bite the bullet early, commit to attending the entire conference, and budget accordingly.
Here are some handy tips that will have you interviewing like a pro.
1). A handshake is impersonal. It says "I don't really know you or feel comfortable with you." Wrong vibe to send out. You want these people to feel like you already know them. Instead, try giving every member of the committee a warm hug at the beginning of the interview. Not so long that it seems inappropriate: I'd say aim for 20-30 seconds per committee member on the way in and then again on the way out. If you're large and you're hugging a small interviewer, don't be afraid to just lift them up off the floor for a few seconds—it says "I'm gentle, but I'm strong as well."
2). Do you have a special talent that makes you unique and distinctive? Now's not the time to hide it. If you can sing, the midway point of the interview is a great opportunity to loosen things up and at the same time really wow the interviewers. "Firework" is a great choice, but if there's something geographically ("Sweet Home Alabama," "Coal Miner's Daughter," "Highway to Hell") or seasonally ("Simply Having a Wonderful Christmastime") appropriate that's even better. Or maybe you know a martial art? Nothing wrong with a little demonstration of some moves. If you need some space for kicking etc., just have the committee help you move the furniture out of the way (unless smashing furniture is part of the demonstration, in which case it's fine where it is). Or hey, even if you're just unusually flexible, show it off! Any little thing you can do to make yourself stand out in a committee's mind can give you an advantage in this market.
3). How to dress for an interview? The main thing is to make a choice that shows you put forth an effort out of respect for the occasion and the interviewers. There are different ways of doing that, of course, but the best option is to wear a top hat. (Obviously this will provide excellent synergy if your special talent happens to be performing magic tricks or playing the opening riff of "Sweet Child o' Mine").
4). Bonding is one opportunity the interview provides that, in my experience, too many candidates pass up. At the end of the interview, before the parting hugs, you'll often be given a chance to ask the committee some questions. A lot of candidates will just ask a pointless and boring question that nobody cares about. Blah, blah, blah. Nobody's even listening, they're just wishing you would shut up or leave or die or something—anything to stop your stupid, boring question. But a good interviewee will use this moment for bonding: "What's the most embarrassing medical condition that each of you has had? Who does each of you think is the least attractive person in this room right now? If each of you could have a superpower, which one would it be?" and so forth. You'll learn a lot about them, they'll learn a lot about each other, and you'll have a special connection with the committee that the other, boring candidates just won't.
There you have it. Four simple but surprisingly effective tips for interview success. Stick to these and you're headed straight for the top.
I also received neither a rejection email nor interview request from Dallas, so I emailed the chair just to make sure that they had in fact received my application. He replied with an extremely kind (and personalized) email explaining that another batch of rejection emails are on their way. Whoever gets the job will be lucky to have a first rate colleague.
Great. So now this blog has hit a new low with a Nazi comment.
Moving on to the main reason for my post, I figured I'd just state the obvious, which is that the idea of those of us on the market sharing interview tips is absurd. If some senior sorts want to share tips that's not unreasonable, though it could cost one of their own grads or someone they know a job. But in such a competitive market it makes no sense to be overcome by a spirit of giving. So, not that I'm the Greek God of Interviews, but I'll be keeping to myself the few primo tips I've gotten.
"If some senior sorts want to share tips that's not unreasonable," etc.
I'll bite (I've been on about five or six search committees). Here's the biggest tip and one that might surprise you the most: we don't take points off for nerves. Of course it's great to be polished and slick, but if you're nervous and stammer and such that's really okay too--we know this is a big deal for you.
But let me clarify that. Being nervous and being unprepared are two completely separate things. I've seen the latter enough to know that if you haven't rehearsed your dissertation speech or given any thought to the kind of in-translation course you'd like to teach, you're dead in the water. End of interview.
The single most two important questions you can prep answers to in advance are: (1) If you could teach any kind of course, one you've devised yourself, in translation, what would it be and how would you structure the class? The more detailed the answer, the better. (2) Do you have any questions for us? I can't tell you how many candidates have nothing to ask at the end, and to be honest I don't think we've ever hired one of them. That too tends to be a weed-out question. It doesn't really matter what you ask, as long as you ask something reasonably intelligent.
I second the previous poster, but, as a couple of times on a SC member, I'll add I really regret it's true that #2 is a good question to prep. I think it's a vapid and often pointless question. "Do you have questions for us?" The answer could truthfully be no, and not because of disinterest or anything else remotely negative.
No, I guess it doesn't really make sense for you guys to be helping each other do better in interviews.
If it's any help, there aren't really any secret tricks to doing well in an interview. The stuff you were told by, and have practiced with, the faculty who are helping you with your job search is really all there is. There's no additional hoard of wisdom. The tricky part is actually putting into practice the stuff you've already been told.
4:44, my apologies for the evidently misunderstood Nazi reference. Given the preceding honey badger comment, referring to an internet meme, I thought a comment joining it to Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies, another such meme, would be timely. I shall now quietly slink off, clutching the dead rattlesnake between my teeth.
I agree with 5:01 p.m., but will explore the issue a bit more. From my perspective, that of someone with quite a few interviews as a candidate, I think judging interviewees by whether they have a question for the committee is truly absurd. Some questions -- salary, benefits, conference travel, requirements for tenure, research budget, etc. -- make no sense to ask unless one is a finalist, or gets an offer. Others, like "How good is your library?" or "What are your students like?" are insultingly banal. In both cases, asking such questions is nothing more than asking a question for the sake of asking a question.
And the truth is, 1) There are very few questions, the answer to which might make the slightest bit of difference to the interviewee at that stage, and 2) If the SC has been doing its job it should already have covered everything important enough that a candidate might need to know on that occasion. So SC members who dismiss a candidate for not having a good question at the end are really not thinking about the situation from the candidate's point of view, and suffering from group-think.
I can say that I've had interviews for jobs that I greatly wanted, and would have jumped at if given an offer, and my lack of a substantial question at the end of the interview only meant that I was sold on the job and/or the committee had done a fine job covering any questions/concerns I had.
Are SC members truly oblivious to the points I've just made?!?
This should also go for SC members who request to "friend" on FB those who they will be interviewing. Totally inappropriate. And yes this happened to a friend of mine by a senior scholar.
Anonymous 5:52, I didn't catch that you were alluding to Godwin's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law, for all with no clue what this is), and almost cited it to you. I missed the point you were making, so it looked to me like the usual grumbling on the blog about "Princeford" grads had shifted into an insinuation about Harvard grads. But that appears not to have been the case.
Godwin's Law is the reason that I never bring Nazis into an argument; I consider it an intellectual defeat to do so.
Yes, the final question is stupid. I wouldn't change my assessment of an interview because someone didn't have one. I do however think that those who don't have a question tend to be those who have already earlier in the interview shown themselves to be totally unprepared for the interview and not to know what they're doing. And that's not surprising, because if they were well prepared one of the things they'd have done would have been to think up a good question.
The best piece of advice I got when I was on the market, and one that informs my assessment of interviewees now, was this: know when to stop talking. When you're nervous, the tendency is to talk a lot (and fast), and the impulse to keep talking during an interview is understandable, since it keeps us from asking the next, unknown and therefore scary question. But you're shooting yourself in the foot if you do so, for at least two reasons. First, the more we learn about you (by asking lots of questions), the more opportunities you have to demonstrate your breadth of knowledge and preparation. Second, interviews are (among other things) windows into your teaching, and if you can't let your students (us) get a word in edgewise, that's not a good thing. So if you get interrupted, don't be offended or flustered; the SC is a) interested in hearing more from you, and b) giving you an opportunity to self-correct by answering future questions more concisely.
On a related note, and this is probably the hardest thing to do well (I still struggle with it in the Q&A period after talks and such), try really to listen to the whole question, not just the first five seconds; the temptation is to listen for a few seconds, then mentally start to formulate an answer before the questioner has finished. Then answer what the question actually was, not what you wish it had been or think it ought to have been or whatnot. A lot of interview questions will seem to come out of left field, either deliberately (to see how well you react) or because the SC member is eccentric, or whatever. Note that it's fine to pause and think, or ask for clarification.
Be honest. If someone asks about some critic, or methodology, or anything else that you simply know nothing about, don't try to fake it. No one expects you to know anything, and while admitting your ignorance may indeed hurt you, it very well may not -- but trying to pull one over on us definitely will. (To wit: I was asked in an interview whether "thing theory" had influenced my work, and I replied no, because I'd never heard of it; what was it? The SC member gave a quick sketch of it, and I formulated an answer; I ended up being a finalist.)
Be prepared for at least one interviewer to seem aggressive. Not all SCs do this "bad cop" thing, but quite a few do; relax and remember that it's just a role, and all the candidates are being pressed like that. Be respectful, listen to and think about the underlying questions, but don't be afraid to stand your ground; few SCs will want a colleague who caves too quickly, and no one is being interviewed because the SC thought their work was terrible. (That said, if you think any questioner has pointed out legitimate issues with elements of your work -- and everyone's work has weaknesses -- you can say so while still standing behind your larger project.)
Specifics are always your friend: specific critics you're in dialogue with, specific texts you'd teach, specific goals for future research, etc.
Reread your writing sample, carefully, before the interview; some SCs will ask quite specific questions about it, and you want to be fully up on the nuances both of your arguments there and how they relate to your larger project.
That's all I can come up with just now. Bear in mind that every committee is different, and in ways that you can't anticipate; all you can do is prepare sensibly, get as much and as restful sleep as possible, and come in ready to present the best version of yourself that you can.
OK, so we have established that #2 is absurd but also required...can any of the tenured-types give a good example of the kind of question you would like to have a candidate ask? One that has stood out in your mind as truly inspired over the years?
Can I ask what kind of help people are getting from their Ph.D. institution in the job search? Did you have people critiquing your letter, CV, writing sample, etc.? Practice interviews?
If my practice interview is any indication of how real interviews go, I fear for my life. Faculty members who have seemed perfectly nice and harmless in the time I've known them suddenly became rabid tigers, eagerly snatching at the most ridiculous possible interpretation of anything I began to say. They would then interrupt me mid-sentence and argue among themselves for five minutes about the implications of something I hadn't actually said at all. It was kind of like being on Famae in that way.
May I ask why the very long, detailed post I wrote last night containing advice to interviewees was deleted? (It was very briefly visible after 6:09 and before 10:06.) I spent a lot of time on it, and I thought it offered some helpful suggestions.
Thanks, 7:42 p.m. (and 12/28 4:57), I'm the OP and that's exactly the kind of thing I was hoping to get. (Though 12/27 9:58 did make me laugh my ass off, which was much appreciated, too.)
"I fear for my life. Faculty members who have seemed perfectly nice and harmless in the time I've known them suddenly became rabid tigers, eagerly snatching at the most ridiculous possible interpretation of anything I began to say. They would then interrupt me mid-sentence and argue among themselves for five minutes about the implications of something I hadn't actually said at all."
Sounds about right. They did you a great service by emulating what an actual interview will be like. I got the friendly practice interview and it did not help much (though I did greatly appreciate the gesture by my faculty).
The Reading Terminal Market is worth it, despite the hordes -- if you don't make it there, you're an idiot, since it's awesome and right next to the hotel. There's not that much else worthwhile in the immediate vicinity (as I remember -- I'm not a local, just a bored conference goer), but Nodding Head Brewery is a short walk and is a cool place for microbrews and pub food.
Does anyone know what has happened to the customary Thursday night panel at the APA on the job market? Are we collectively burying our head in the sand?
Why in the name of all that is good and holy in this world is the PS still posting expired job listings?
To be fair, I suppose the website does say "Candidates should be aware that we have a considerable backlog of positions already advertised that we need to enter into the new system. The new job listing web site will therefore probably not be complete and up-to-date until the third week in November."
You have no right to complain that the Placement Service has not copied and pasted those entries into the new Online Service yet. They only have one pair of scissors in the kitchen, and you have no idea how long it took in the old days to send a telegram announcing a new position to every single candidate in the world.
Sorry I'm weighing in a little late, but when I've been on a search committee, I've always liked candidates to have a question for us that showed potential engagement with the department or the university. Asking faculty members about their work might take up too much time; but asking,e.g., if you're from a public university, what they feel is the biggest adjustment one makes teaching at a private school; what they think are the department's closest connections outside (to comp. lit.? to history? to anthropology?) and where they think there is room for growth in the future, and so on.
I tried the growth and connections on campus question during an interview with a major R1 place. pissed off the search chair, who then became edgy and defensive. no campus visit resulted from that mess, I can tell you. Tread lightly with these silly questions.
Anything that could be interpreted as "What are you people going to do to fix your shitty department?" isn't a great idea. Also "Is there anything to do in your hick burg and how far do I have to drive to get to civilization?" Also "Are your students as stupid/spoiled/lazy as everybody says they are?" Also "Why have I never heard of any of you people?"
Asking faculty members about their work might take up too much time; but asking,e.g., if you're from a public university, what they feel is the biggest adjustment one makes teaching at a private school; what they think are the department's closest connections outside (to comp. lit.? to history? to anthropology?) and where they think there is room for growth in the future, and so on.
These are perfectly reasonable questions for an on-campus interview, but what in the hell do they have to do with a 30-min. initial interview? I mean, if I have 30-min. to show a committee that I should be one of three candidates invited to campus, why would I want to waste my time asking about the adjustment I might have to make, or with which departments they have good relations, etc.? Does my asking such questions demonstrate in any reliable way that I'll be good in the classroom, publish regularly, and not be a disaster at committee work?!? Does my failure to ask them mean I'd be a failure as a colleague, or lack interest in the job?
I don't mean this to be a criticism of the poster, but of those SC members who are so daffy as to think they should put great weight on how a candidate responds when asked if he/she has any questions.
Perhaps the right response to "Do you have any questions for us?" is "Yeah, just one: Don't you read Famae Volent?!?"
@3:28 I similarly asked an R1 last year how they would describe the identity of their department. It wasn't a complete failure, but the result was a meandering reply from the chair to the effect that they don't really have an identity as a department because they are all individuals. The problem with asking most of the questions suggested is that you are going to have at least four people in the room with four different responses.
I guess I'd say it's better to have a moment in the interview when the candidate gets to ask a question than it is to assume that the candidate doesn't have a right to ask a question.
That said, though, there aren't many "real" questions a candidate can ask, so it's a bit of a hollow exercise, and is basically just another opportunity for the committee to scrutinize the candidate.
Now, given that the "final question" moment is (and should be) enshrined in the tradition of interviewing, I actually don't think the moment is a terrible indicator of whether a candidate has their shit together: i.e., if you can't come up with a passable question despite knowing that you're expected to have one, you probably don't have your shit together. Likewise, if you showed up to the interview in just your underpants despite it being widely known that committees expect you to wear something over your underpants, it'd suggest that you didn't have your shit together.
Hmm. Perhaps my response to the question should not be if the SC reads FV, but "Isn't it already obvious based on the past 25 minutes that I have my shit together?"
Hmm. Perhaps my response to the question should not be if the SC reads FV, but "Isn't it already obvious based on the past 25 minutes that I have my shit together?"
If it's such a titanic struggle for you to think of a question, then just tell them you don't have one.
I'm sorry, but if you can't, after twenty-five years of schooling, come up with a thoughtful question on the spot in any situation -- in an interview, after a lecture, meeting your in-laws' neighbors' daughter's pet chinchilla etc. -- then, yes, I imagine you will turn out to be the type of self-involved little snot who responds to my friendly "How are you?" with a curt "Fine" and a lengthy blank stare. In other words, the worst kind of colleague. It's basic f***ing social etiquette! Why is it so hard for some classicists to act like normal people?
Why is it so hard for some classicists to act like normal people?
Because we're not normal people. Most of us are f*cked up in one way or another. In particular, dealing with other humans seems like a challenge for a lot of classicists.
Yes. If we were even moderately good at talking to other people, we would be fit for much better compensated and still quite interesting jobs (given our massive brains).
Hate to say it, παιδιά, but it's just a part of the beauty contest, a way to end on a high note. I remember getting asked the question back in the day by a department I was ambivalent about. I don't know what possessed me (might have been fatigue since it was the last interview in a long day), but I asked whether I, too, would receive a bright red tie if I joined the department (all the men wore near identical ties). Shazam, campus invite. I got a job offer before the scheduled flyback, but I wonder to this day how it would have gone.
Were you that legendary candidate that a SC member mentioned on here years ago? The context of the story was the importance of scheduling. The SC member recalled a late interview that no one wanted to do that turned into a good time by all. I guess the lesson here is to read the condition/mood of the SC and adapt rather than dive into our swimsuit contest on cruise control.
Silenus, Your abilities to judge a person and his/her collegiality based on a FV post are staggeringly inadequate. As you would learn, if you were to observe me in Philadelphia dining and drinking with my current and former colleagues.
I am more than capable of thinking of intelligent questions for SC's -- I just resent that some colleagues place so much weight on this part of the interview. And as was already pointed out, many of those questions that candidates come up with, including some examples provided in this thread, could certainly have waited until an on-campus interview.
I'm not asking you or any other senior types out there to give examples, but can any of you honestly say that there are questions about a job or department that make more sense to ask at the APA than during an on-campus interview? Are there truly questions that can't wait a few weeks, or that sour if not used right away?
I think way too much is being made of the concluding "do you have any questions?" moment. If someone comes up with an insightful, great question, well, great. If someone asks a cookie-cutter, quasi-vapid question, well, that's okay too, since we (my fellow SC member and I) recognize the artificiality of the convention. If someone says something along the lines of, "No, I think I'm good," hey, they're honest, and if the rest of the interview was good, it's not going to hurt them. Oh, and if the rest of the interview was bad, the most scintillating question asked of us wasn't going to make a difference.
Don't overthink, folks. Overthinking, stressing, and exacerbating the tension you naturally feel is far more likely to hurt you than any particular question, or non-question, in that now conventional portion of the interview.
I'm not asking you or any other senior types out there to give examples, but can any of you honestly say that there are questions about a job or department that make more sense to ask at the APA than during an on-campus interview? Are there truly questions that can't wait a few weeks, or that sour if not used right away?
Here is one:
"Can you tell me what your timeline for decisions beyond the APA looks like? When do you expect to make decisions regarding campus visits, and when might those visits take place?"
Tiger Tree, Well, sure, except the SC should cover that without prompting. This gets back to an earlier point that if the SC has done its job, there shouldn't be any urgent questions left for the candidate to ask.
I wish every SC member had Anon. 4:32's attitude. Then there'd be no problem at all.
Okay, I'm not checking this site again until next year. (Get it?) Happy new year to all!
I am more than capable of thinking of intelligent questions for SC's -- I just resent that some colleagues place so much weight on this part of the interview. And as was already pointed out, many of those questions that candidates come up with, including some examples provided in this thread, could certainly have waited until an on-campus interview.
OK then, we're done. If committees place "so much weight" on this, you'll be fine because of your awesome questions. And if you're just against it in principle, then I guess you can start writing letters or something to get search committees to stop inviting questions, or to stop caring what questions candidates ask, or to stop expecting that there'll be a question, or whatever your preferred outcome is, if you have one.
Your abilities to judge a person and his/her collegiality based on a FV post are staggeringly inadequate. As you would learn, if you were to observe me in Philadelphia dining and drinking with my current and former colleagues.
Are you sure about that? Because it seems to me that the type of ungenerous person who would ask old Silenus to observe hypothetical conviviality rather than inviting him to join in is hardly a paragon of collegiality.
But seriously, I'm not judging anyone by an FV post. If you can come up with excellent questions, then you'll do that in an interview and make a good impression. But if you blow off a question, however vapid, in an interview, then you come off like a a**hole, whether that's fair or not.
I understand that one can control their own destiny to a degree through preparation. However, I can't help but think that being a smooth operator can often be the deciding factor in an intensely competitive environment such as ours. Yeah, it's life and we want people with strong social skills, but I feel somewhat overwhelmed as someone who can't claim to excel in shooting the breeze.
I am not a schmoozer at all. AT ALL. And I ended up with a good job because the department in question is full of nice people who didn't want schmoozers or smooth operators - they'd had enough of them. Now I admit that I have a pretty awesome department, but for your sake I hope there are others out there who similarly shun smooth operators. Just be nice, kind, straightforward, and sincere. If you're interviewing with some of those smooth operator departments (and I can think of several), you aren't going to get anywhere by trying to fake them out, and if you are interviewing with a nice department, you'll shoot yourself in the foot by not being yourself. I was surprised that just being myself worked, and I know how lucky I was that I interviewed with a department where they wanted collegiality and sincerity, but it did, and even though I get paid well-below market rate, I wouldn't leave my department for all the money in the world, just because it is so enriching to work around nice people. Best of luck.
Well, being outgoing, confident, and easy to talk to is helpful no matter what your job is, because in general human beings respond well to those qualities. This is just the way the world works.
However, if there is one place in this world where nerds and dorks and wallflowers have a chance, it's in Classics. So to all of the dorks out there: don't despair.
Wow, do some of you just despise our discipline and the bulk of its practitioners? Why stay where you're so miserable? Because of some perceived sunk costs?
It's one thing to be sociable, genuine and friendly, and another thing to be worthy of a Heineken commercial. Yes, you can't be a total social dunce in a discipline that's traditionally valued refinement, but you don't have to be the most interesting man in the world either. If you "bring the goods" in this day and age, you have a better chance than ever of succeeding. Look at all the recent billionaires. Most of them are tech nerds with a passable level of refinement. I don't think classics is as far behind as you think.
And I'm sure some fratri-/sorori- cide. If some of the curmudgeons speak up, I hope some felinicide as well. It's the humane thing to do for all involved.
O APA, quando te aspiciam? Your fluorescent lights, your ill-fitting suits, your furtive glances at name-tags, your awkward elevator rides, your gut-wrenching encounters with acquaintances at the door of the interview suite -- all so I can find from the wiki in January that the job(s) went to someone else. God and bourbon, give me the strength to persevere!
Done! The overall objective (as understood from the lyrics) of f***ing the SCs into submission remains the same, but now my gender has changed. I'll make a more convincing lady, anyway.
Standing in line at the Starbucks in the Marriott. Three people in a row ahead of me ordered Venti sized drinks. All three pronounced it "Wenti." Yep, we're at a classics conference.
To those about to rock their interviews, I salute you.
Didn't defecate! Me, too! Worst case scenario averted. Rock on. (Except, amazingly, defecating on myself or others is actually not my worst case interview scenario.)
Can't believe how quickly some committees are making campus invite decisions. Either they know exactly what they want, or people really f***ed up in interviews. Or both?
I'm actually surprised at how few schools have issued campus invites (that we know of). The SC saw everyone, so assuming they were delegated by their dept to make the decisions, why wouldn't they move fast, while the impressions are still fresh in their minds?
I agree that speed is good, especially from the hiring side of things. If you all agree that you've found the right person (or the top three, or whatever), why wait? Ideally you want to make an offer before anyone else can. But conditions have to be just right, it seems to me, to make such speedy agreement possible.
To be sure: speed may say as much about the various interview teams' ability to work together, and the smoothness of situations back home, as it does about the candidates being interviewed.
Okay, I guess the rookies out there are revealing themselves... It is quite common for SC's to make their decisions on the final day of the conference, sometimes even notifying candidates that day. It is also common for SC's to have to run their decisions past colleagues and/or administrators after returning to campus. Absolutely nothing can be read into a department's nature by how quickly they invite people to campus.
speed may say as much about the various interview teams' ability to work together, and the smoothness of situations back home, as it does about the candidates being interviewed.
Maybe I'm just old-fashioned, but I don't think search committees should be taking speed at all, whether or not they work well together.
I've been on SCs for several positions, classics and otherwise, but until I read this post I'd never even heard of an SC making on-campus decisions by the end of the conference. I agree it would be a great idea, but it isn't possible with the way many (most?) SCs are set up.
At my SLAC, the SC consists of 5 or 6 people. 2 or *perhaps* 3 of them get funded to go to the APA (or equivalent). That subcommittee then returns to campus and reports back to the full committee, and the full committee has a meeting to hear the subcommittee's report, discuss at length (it's usually a 2-hour meeting minimum), and decide whom to invite to campus. Since our semester doesn't start until after MLK day, the full SC very likely doesn't even meet to draw up the list until a good week or 10 days after the APA.
So, don't assume that you didn't make the cut if you haven't heard anything yet. Maddening as the wait is, many institutions have set (and slow) schedules for these things.
By far the more common pattern is for the invitations to be issued after additional consultation, of various kinds, back at the hiring institution. In some cases, this won't be possible until classes have started again and people are back in town.
If a school invites more than one person out for an on-campus interview, do they extend all of those invitations at once or in waves?
Usually all at once.
Sometimes visiting positions are one at a time to save cash: the committee invites their first choice, if the first choice doesn't flop then they make an offer, if the offer is accepted then they only had to pay for one fly-out. If it doesn't work, they move onto #2. I've never heard of this happening for a TT, though, because schools will usually fork out the cash for 3 fly-outs.
One would think that the "sorry, you're not getting a fly-out" e-mails would be almost as prompt, since SCs are dealing with such a small number of rejectees. Is that not the case?
One would think that the "sorry, you're not getting a fly-out" e-mails would be almost as prompt, since SCs are dealing with such a small number of rejectees. Is that not the case?
There are three scenarios: 1) The committee sends out the 3 invites and the 7ish "you're not on our short-list" emails at the same time (or rather, in succession, starting with the good news).
2) The procedure is dictated by higher-ups (i.e., the dean's office), and the committee is not allowed to send out any kind of "rejection" like info until the post is filled.
3) The committee is allowed to send such an email, but they choose not to, because if they don't like their top three, they can move on to numbers 4 and 5 and hope that numbers 4 and 5 don't know they were 4th and 5th choice.
But in the days of the wiki, option 3 is fruitless, because we all know everything.
It's funny how things that surprise me about the market are totally de rigueur to some one else. I mean, I've been at this for years and years, have sent out hundreds of applications, had all different sorts of interviews and really thought I had seen it all -- except a T-T offer, of course. Yet I'm still naive about so many things. She's a rough beast, my friends.
I can tell you this, however: do not expect a prompt or friendly PFO letter or phone call, even if you had a nice APA interview or campus visit. Sometimes you'll receive proper consideration, sometimes you won't. Practices and institutional guidelines vary widely.
public service announcement: if you are considering a career in any field of ancient Mediterranean studies, please, for the love of the gods, think long and hard if you want to mess yourself up in this way. at least make your choice an informed one.
this announcement brought to you by many long-suffering job seekers.
I see some places have sent out rejection emails post-APA. I'm in the odd position of having had an APA interview, but have received neither campus invite nor rejection. Anybody out there care to speculate as to why? How does this bloody process work?
I've been in that same spot multiple times - interview, saw invites and rejections posted on wiki, never received anything. in one notable case, I never heard from the school again. Ever. I gave the chair the devil eye in the elevator the other day, in fact, but I think he was too clueless to remember me. The process does not work well.
They might also be stringing you along as a backup candidate, in case they don't like their initial invitees. Some schools will let you know if this is the case, but many won't. Good luck!
Also, we are still very early in this process. Look at the above posts -- some schools take quite a while to get back in touch with candidates, even their top choices for the position. Although some schools have already resumed, many others have not. There is still time, even in the most pessimistic view.
I reiterate my previous statement: the world of PFO letters is merely a pale imitation of the world of civilized and polite discourse. Even if your interviewers were perfectly friendly, you may never hear from them again, or hear late, or get a cold and impersonal letter, or any number of things, for god knows what reason. If you learn of invites from the wiki, you're very likely (but not always!) out of the running. If there is nothing on the wiki, the committee is very likely (but not always!) still deliberating. Be patient.
May we please agree to ban Twittering and blogging during conference talks? As boring as some talks are, and as much as I understand Pannapacker's points about side conversations being more interesting and leading to some productive social networking, I think this is just rude and distracting to all involved. Perhaps the APA/AIA could just schedule a bit more time between talks to enable online discussions of the talks you've just heard. But please don't Twitter/blog WHILE the talk is in progress. I'd find that distracting, either as an audience member or as a speaker, and you're likely to miss a valuable point as you're snickering at Tweeted responses. Please let's not go down that path.
I'm not sure how accurate the wiki is for flyouts. I know of several jobs that have issued flyout requests to candidates that are not on the wiki yet and probably won't be. The SC is not updating and neither are the candidates for various reasons (including not using the wiki). So at this stage there is an additional level of obfuscation that stays until someone is hired or a search fails.
If the Davidson and MIT reps are still reading, just a shout-out for running great APA interviews. Sad not to be a finalist, but I enjoyed the conversations.
Not to me, but their rep posted a while back that they're not allowed to notify people of rejections until their top choice has officially accepted. Sounds like that's a fairly typical procedure, and since both they and Davidson have at least one flyback posted on the wiki, I'm assuming I'm out.
Did anyone catch Cincinnati's timetable for deciding on campus visits? I didn't ask, and I'm certainly not going to e-mail now and risk marking myself as desperate...
I heard a rumor that they decided on their list and wrote it down on a little piece of note paper, but then accidentally used the piece of paper to spit a piece of gum into and then threw away the gummy paper, but then remembered that the paper had the list on it and went to get the paper out of the trash, but it was kind of gross by then from being in the trash, plus the gum was obscuring most of the list and you know how hard it is to get gum off of things, so they just put the paper back in the trash and now they're just going to call off the search and try again next year, except nobody on the committee will be allowed to chew gum next time.
that's the ball game for this lowly job seeker. another year of interviews and no campus invites. time to give it up. this career path is barely tenable for the stout-hearted ... what next?
There probably some very nice high school Latin jobs out there right now if you have the right experience and mentality, and if you get on Carney Sandoe right now. Choose carefully, however. By the way, this post is in no way ironic and derogatory; high school Latin is definitely my back-up in case college doesn't work out.
I venture to speculate, though, that having a PhD may be a liability as much as an asset when trying to get a high school job, even if you can demonstrate a genuine enthusiasm for teaching. Not to be a Debbie Downer. I may be wrong--hopefully so!
Do you mind if I ask about the basis for your confidence? I'm not asking in a snarky way at all. I'm genuinely curious, because Googling of faculty lists at prep schools (both garden variety and elite) suggests otherwise. But of course that's hardly a thorough survey, and I'd be happy to have it proven wrong (preferably with some helpful specifics!) by someone in the know.
I heard the Renaissance Faire is hiring. There's an especially strong demand for wenches that speak Latin with a Cockney flavour. I have the Latin part down, but it's a pity that I'm neither blonde nor busty. Epic fail once again. First Philadelphia and now this.
1,406 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 1001 – 1200 of 1406 Newer› Newest»I would venture to say that even in this awful market, there are those who would hesitate to apply to both those places.
Dallas, anyone?
"Wow, interesting. We got way fewer (not quite 100) apps for a TT Latin job with a 2-2 teaching load. Perhaps there is a geographical bias in choosing where to apply?"
Who is speaking here? New Mexico? I'm curious to know what school this is---one, no doubt, for which I did not get an interview.
"Dallas, anyone?"
It was all a dream. Sheesh, we're really behind the times here.
New Mexico did get around 90-something applications. I'm not sure if that's who the "we" of the December 23, 2011 2:32 PM poster is.
And December 23, 2011 4:50 PM — do tell more about the expectation of accepting the first job offered? I've never heard of this. Your department would really expect you to take a 1-year job even if you were still in the running for a tenure-track?
And December 23, 2011 4:50 PM — do tell more about the expectation of accepting the first job offered? I've never heard of this. Your department would really expect you to take a 1-year job even if you were still in the running for a tenure-track?
No, I think our precious little darling is saying that their department will expect them to accept a job this year if they are offered one, rather than allowing them to hang around the old alma mater for another year in hopes of getting a less icky one next year. So, rather than being faced with the prospect of being expected to take an icky job, they will just refrain from applying to any icky jobs at all and if they come up empty-handed will just say "Sorry, mom and dad, I tried my hardest, and I applied for everything! Can I hang around for another year?"
Someone needs to get their shark jumped.
Dec 24, 1:37: I have heard of a few cases of schools offering positions before the APA/AHA/MLA meeting. It can put a candidate in a terribly difficult position.
Dec 23, 4:50 asked a reasonable question. I am only sorry I have no useful suggestion except ask the school for time and hope they respond fairly.
Hate to seem lazy, but I have limited resources here on a family trip. If someone cold repeat those names to write to about placement, plus what committee it is, plus their email addresses, I could, despite being low tech, through some old-guy weight at them. This would take me five minutes on a laptop or desktop but I just have the handheld right now. And of course the list shood iLife the secretary of the APA
Second that, from another tenured classicist. This might be a good Christmas present for us established types to give people who, in most cases, had it way harder than we did in the same position.
If anyone wants to raise this issue at a higher level, these are the people on the committee overseeing the Placement Service:
Erich Gruen (2009-2012), Chair
Michael Lippman (2010-2013)
Ilaria Marchesi (2010-2013)
David S. Potter (2011-2014)
Pamela Vaughn (2011-2014)
Joy Connolly, ex officio
Barbara Barletta (2009-2012)
Betsey Robinson (2010-2013)
Apa president:
Adam D. Blistein blistein@sas.upenn.edu
No idea on emails, nor am I sure those would be permitted by the powers above.
I can provide this one: Barbara Barletta, bbarletta@arts.ufl.edu
Not to derail necessary reform of the PS, but I thought this article, and comments, was much needed, especially in our field, where good scholarship takes much more time and effort than most others:
http://chronicle.com/article/Fast-Food-Scholarship/130049/
Y'all, the way the Placement Service is going to change is for you to try as hard as you can to get stable jobs, then run for the Placement Committee, then change it yourself. I know this is not a great answer to hear, particularly at this time of year, but I'm afraid that, given the fact that the powers that be have no real incentive to devote more time and effort to the APA/AIA, then it is up to you. Write yourself a little note that says, "When I have a job, I will run for the Placement Committee and change things." Stick it in that one book that you reach for most frequently. Then work as hard as you can, hope that the career fates will smile on you, and those of you who make it, remember that promise you made to yourself to change things. Then change them. Life ain't fair, and probably half of you will make it (yeah, I think half of you will actually make it) to positions where you can get elected to the Placement Committee. Then work your magic. I'm not trying to discourage the email campaign by any means, but year after year, people complain directly to APA elected officials about the PS, and NOTHING gets done. I think an email onslaught will be about as effective as Occupy XYZ has been. If you want a job done right, you're going to have to do it yourself. Best of luck.
Dear tenured folks who care,
WE love you.
Joint Committee (With AIA) on Placement
gruene@berkeley.edu, mlippman@email.arizona.edu, ilaria.marchesi@hofstra.edu,
dsp@umich.edu,
pamelav@sfsu.edu,
joyc@nyu.edu,
barletta@ufl.edu,
betsey.a.robinson@vanderbilt.edu
Ritual abuse by the placement service is an integral part of your training as a classicist. As with so many things, your generation is too spoiled, sensitive, and lazy to deal with challenges that were just routine to earlier generations.
The reason why nobody changes it is that, once we've been through it, we realize in retrospect that it was a valuable character-building experience and that it would be a huge mistake to move to a system that coddles and pampers job seekers. And your generation in particular has been coddled and pampered enough as it is.
If you're being funny, try again. If serious, this tenured classicist thinks you're just offensive given what today's job seekers are facing that you never endured....especially if you are of the generations that came of age in a time when you were tenured and promoted with 2, 1, or 0 publications.
May I suggest that instead of everyone emailing the placement committee expressing displeasure, instead you email them asking for an open meeting at the 2013 APA/AIA? Perhaps graduate students and recent graduates who are interested in effecting change can put their names into a pool, and ten names can be drawn. Then those ten people can meet with the Placement Committee in Seattle. There can be an open conversation in which job candidates air their complaints and the Placement Committee lays out the restrictions (budgetary, organizational, whatever) they're facing. Then everyone can have a civil conversation about how to work around restrictions to engineer a better system. I don't think there's time to organize this for Philly, but if you start now, and you come at it from a cooperative rather than attacking angle, then you might be able to make some progress in Seattle. That's my two cents about how you should use those email addresses.
That's my two cents about how you should use those email addresses.
Talk is cheap. Wait another year to do anything? What good is a face to face meeting. We have e-mail. Better yet, let the Placement Committee make a public statement about this matter, and we can have job-seekers respond with their concerns on a forum like this one.
If you're being funny, try again. If serious, this tenured classicist thinks you're just offensive given what today's job seekers are facing that you never endured....especially if you are of the generations that came of age in a time when you were tenured and promoted with 2, 1, or 0 publications.
Look, the fact of the matter is that these youngsters have gone soft. In my day, you didn't know when your interviews were till you got to the conference, and you had to wait in line for hours just to find that out. Nobody complained, and nobody minded. We stood silently and stoically in line and when we got our schedule we were grateful. Now, can you imagine one of today's new Ph.D.s shuffling along obediently in a line for two hours? Of course not. They'd probably collapse from the exertion, or give up after five minutes so they could go complain on the internet.
The way I see it, if you're not tough enough to take the punishment the placement service dishes out, you're not tough enough for classics.
This is Sparta!
The way I see it, it's people like you who have made one of the most conservative fields of academia conservative in the worst kinds of ways. People like you also kept the Civil Rights movement from making any substantial progress for decades - the way things used to be isn't necessarily the way they should be. Or is it? Maybe there should only be 100 or fewer candidates for all those jobs out there. And maybe only white males should consider applying for those positions...nobody complained in those days, after all...
The way I see it, it's people like you who have made one of the most conservative fields of academia conservative in the worst kinds of ways.
I don’t blame the youngsters so much as I blame people like you. You’re the ones who have through your permissive attitude, lax standards, and constant mollycoddling left the current generation so effete, lazy, and entitled that they can’t patiently endure even a modest amount of gratuitous humiliation. If you cared about these people, you’d want to see them given the opportunities we had for building character and moral fiber through adversity. Instead, you want to throw them out defenseless into the world. Some educators you lot have been.
If it were up to me, I’d say get rid of the early notification and the electronic nonsense, and institute a system whereby at the conference you have to report to the placement office every morning at 6 AM or so to get in line and wait to find out what interviews you have that day (if any). It’d be an excellent test of the determination, resourcefulness, and stamina of the candidates.
Spending Christmas eve alone, you old curmudgeon? None of the "youngsters" want to keep you company?
Are people really believing that the "old curmudgeon" troll is genuine? Really?
Maybe they're meta-trolling.
Tobias, unfortunately that isn't how things work. You can email until you're blue in the face, but email is never the way to work these things out. You're going to have more success in a face to face meeting with a randomly selected committee of concerned young scholars on the market and the Placement Committee. I was speaking from experience and in the spirit of helpfulness. Ignore my advice if you will, but I encourage others to try this approach.
I was speaking from experience and in the spirit of helpfulness. Ignore my advice if you will, but I encourage others to try this approach.
I appreciate that, but it seems naive to think this could be pulled off organizationally over the time span of more than a year on the basis of some discussions on a mostly anonymous forum, whereas a distributed e-mail campaign directed to the committee could have some immediate influence.
In other words, Occupy Placement Service.
Isn't there a group trying to do that at the mla?
Tobias, maybe it sounds naive to you. I therefore must assume that you are more senior than I, although I have been finished with my degree and working for longer than I care to remember. So I really was trying to use my experience with how things work in the APA/AIA bureaucracy to suggest a path that, although slower than you may like, I think will ultimately result in change. I am sorry if I offended you with what you think is my naivety, especially if you are indeed senior to me. Also, this isn't some attempt to pull rank but rather a sincere attempt to help. I know how APA/AIA committees work, I know how change is effected in these organizations, and I think that this is the way to move forward. But of course you may, regardless of rank, be more savvy about these things, and if so, then best of luck.
The thing is, when you're on the market, the placement service is an outrage, and what's more its crappiness is all wrapped up with your various emotions about you finding or not finding a job and about the whole system of pairing candidates with positions.
Then, once you have a job, you come to look on it as a annoyance that didn't really affect your life in any way apart from making you slightly more annoyed on a couple of occasions during a period of a few months. And that's why you don't see a lot of employed people rating "change the placement service" high on their agenda: I don't think anybody would mind if it improved but not many people are going to mount a crusade against an annoyance.
That said, the new on-line system, such as it is, is clearly a response to complaints last year, so maybe with more complaining you'll get some software that does scheduling, and you'll stop getting emails in which the placement staff yell at you in all caps to LEAVE THEM ALONE!!!
I'm sorry, but changing the placement service has been high on my agenda for some time. And I was frustrated as hell with the placement service all the times I was on the market - including the time I got viciously reprimanded on the phone by the PS powers that be for a mistake that an interviewing school had made. This isn't some memory from the past that has become a mere annoyance in my mind - I'm still pissed off about it. But I'm not senior or important enough to make an impact by myself. I totally agree with those of you who think that large numbers of "concern" emails are the way to force the issue. I just know, from my experience with these organizations, that "complaint" emails get brushed aside as the neuroses of desperate graduate students and postdocs, while "concern" emails, asking calmly but confidently for a face to face meeting, will be more effective and get you that face to face meeting, PS town hall, or whatever. I really am trying to help y'all, and I am far from some old fart who sympathizes with an "annoyance." I'm on your side, and I'm really trying to suggest what might be a more effective approach. I sincerely apologize if it comes off as arrogant or out of touch or anything else offensive. Really. Again, best of luck.
I'm sorry, but changing the placement service has been high on my agenda for some time. And I was frustrated as hell with the placement service all the times I was on the market - including the time I got viciously reprimanded on the phone by the PS powers that be for a mistake that an interviewing school had made. This isn't some memory from the past that has become a mere annoyance in my mind - I'm still pissed off about it.
I didn't say that there weren't people out there who weren't still, years later, consumed with rage. I said you don't see a lot of employed people rating "change the placement service" high on their agenda. That seems pretty obviously true to me. For most people, once they're done with it, the placement service was just something kind of shitty that they had to deal with a few times and that didn't actually screw up the interview-scheduling part of its function.
I'm not at all trying to argue that it's not worth changing, just to explain why there's not a lot of revolutionary fervor out there except among those currently on the receiving end of the traditional placement service treatment.
Hello all,
I'm not a regular on this blog at all and don't know whether this has been discussed before or not (this year or in any past year).
I write as a tenured faculty member--though I'm not involved with an active search this year--to say I find it very weird when a job applicant in the middle of an ongoing search decides to "follow" the academia.edu page that I or one of my colleagues has set up. It's creepy, seems suck-upish and makes me much less likely to want to hire the person.
I don't know how others feel about this practice but thought it would be good to warn those of you who are thinking about doing this. Others may want to sound in as well.
Although I freely admit that I haven't looked into it at all, I reflexively assumed that academia.edu was specifically meant to facilitate sucking up to each other, showing off how popular and connected you are, and other, similar wankery. I would think that it would be tough to get the etiquette right in an on-line community whose whole purpose is to give networking douchebags easier access to other networking douchebags.
But again, maybe I've got the site all wrong, and it's not like that at all.
"I reflexively assumed that academia.edu was specifically meant to facilitate sucking up to each other, showing off how popular and connected you are, and other, similar wankery."
Maybe some people use it that way (though that seems very silly) but in practice most people seem to use it as a convenient way to post their papers. I don't know anyone who uses it as facebook for academics (they have facebook for that...)
Although I freely admit that I haven't looked into it at all, I reflexively assumed that academia.edu was specifically meant to facilitate sucking up to each other, showing off how popular and connected you are, and other, similar wankery. I would think that it would be tough to get the etiquette right in an on-line community whose whole purpose is to give networking douchebags easier access to other networking douchebags.
But again, maybe I've got the site all wrong, and it's not like that at all.
the person who wrote this really misses the point of academia.edu. And in a big way.
the person who wrote this really misses the point of academia.edu. And in a big way.
That may well be. I really have just run across it incidentally and judged it by its cover. It sounds like the little suck-ups have their own opinion about its point, though.
On the other hand, whatever its other uses, it sounds like it'd be a handy little trap for weeding out annoying sycophants. Or for locating them, if that's your thing.
Exactly. So it's a shame that a kind-hearted faculty member has warned people who would so obviously begin to follow SC people after getting an interview (or applying). Now it'll be that much harder to weed out some dimwits, er, dimweeds.
In the future, let's all refrain from giving advice that can help potentially bad colleagues camouflage their flaws!
I really don't think being interested in a potential colleague's research is so damnable.
I really don't think being interested in a potential colleague's research is so damnable.
Then find out about it by some other means than telling your potential colleague that you're "following" them on the internet. Under the circumstances, there is no way that that looks like "interest in their research"; it looks like slimy sycophancy.
Also, you should refrain from sending them little Valentine's Day cards telling them that you think that they are super neat.
Also, no fruit baskets.
The hubris displayed by some senior scholars on here would make Xerxes blush. Get over yourself. 99.99% of the world could care less that you're a big, bad SC member who has inordinate power for a couple months over a dozen bright-eyed scholars. And I say this as a card carrying tenured faculty member who thanks my lucky stars each day that I just about won the lottery landing this job in the first place.
the sanctimonious blather spewed here by cretins who present themselves as being among the "senior" members of this candy-ass discipline is really telling - and reminds this poster, at least, why this field is so busted. it really is such an appealing thought that soon a lot of us will be in cramped hotel ballrooms with you losers. pathetic.
I used the PS back in the horrible old days of the line, the envelope with one's interview list (or not) in it, and the infamous blackboard. Yes, we all stood in line to be handed our envelopes the first night; and yes, sometimes the person behind the desk announced loudly, "Sorry, you don't have any interviews" and then we had to keep our faces under control while doing the Walk Of Shame back past the line of others waiting for THEIR envelopes. And then, since SCs continued scheduling interviews for at least the first full day of the conference, we had to walk by that ghastly blackboard to see if our number appeared on it (if it did, it meant you had another interview scheduled).
This was all hideous and still sometimes shows up in my nightmares 20 years later. But I'm not at all convinced it was more hideous than what candidates go through now. The current procedure is more like death by a thousand cuts -- every day you open your e-mail, every day you hope for interviews to be scheduled, etc. In some ways, having all the misery and humiliation lumped into the few days of the conference may have been less dreadful.
Either system was horrible, and my sympathies go out to those caught up in the current one.
Yeah...I'm going with creepy. I've been FB friends for several years with someone in a searching dept who was one of my external phd examiners. My FB account is temporarily closed until [my place in] the search is closed. Having that connection just seems strange. Either way, I doubt many candidates following this will do much +ing in the future.
It seems like the main difficulty here is that the stress candidates feel has mostly nothing to do with the Placement Service, the system it uses, or the manner in which it executes that system. The situation of trying to find employment in Classics sucks. There isn't much the Placement Service itself can do to change that.
But the PS ought to recognize that it is a hired service, paid for by candidates and hiring departments themselves, and subsidized by the dues of the organization it serves. It also needs to realize that it is a monopoly, and therefore to try very hard to avoid acting like one in terms of its efficiency and customer relations.
Do we really need to know exactly when our interviews are scheduled, assuming that we know we have one or more? No. We told the PS our availability, and they will fit us in accordingly. Do annoying, tin-ear emails really affect our ability to get hired? No, better to ignore them. Was it worse in the old days, with surprise bundles (or non-bundles) of pink-slips (really, PS, pink-slips, really?) handed to us after a sweaty, nervous wait in line, surrounded by the stench of desperation, staring at the blackboard of doom? Yes, absolutely. Has the new web service made things better? Of course. Things do get better.
All that noted, progress over time doesn't excuse current problems, which appear to outside eyes to be the result of technological incompetence, unwillingness to change, and a lack of perspective with respect to clients/customers.
The administration and executive committee APA is fully aware of all of these problems. The fact that they haven't themselves carved an hour out of this year's meeting, or next year's in Seattle, in order to address these concerns forthrightly, is mind-boggling.
Explain to us how, exactly, things are done and why. Allow us to make suggestions, even if those suggestions are shown to be inadequate, or ill-formed. If the PS had actual competition I have few doubts that we would all be voting with our feet and moving elsewhere. It doesn't, however, so we can't.
The classicists on the Placement Service committee need to take action, now. To fail to do so, in the face of so much dissatisfaction with how things are done, would be a sad abrogation of their responsibility. Email them all to remind them of this.
Doesn't this software have a button (or menu option) that automatically matches up search committee and candidate? If not, the software should be improved; if so, one wonders why that button isn't being pressed. Is there a legitimate reason, or is this all being done manually as busy work?
Along those lines, I'd love to know, if this software is indeed the problem, whether it was bought on the cheap. I can't imagine there's such a thing as non-automatable scheduling software out there, but if there is, I imagine it would be at a low, low price that would catch someone's attention.
Did the Placement Service actually do any research, and check with peer organizations what software they've been (successfully) using, or did it just use Google and click on the first ad?
If all the software does is let one manually enter scheduled interviews, as that recent mass e-mail implies, then I'd say the APA has been squandering money.
Do we really need to know exactly when our interviews are scheduled, assuming that we know we have one or more? No.
Cato, you're not displaying that wisdom for which you were rightly famous: if a candidate, especially a relatively impoverished grad, has a single interview, don't you think it best for him/her to know the date well enough in advance to have the option of staying for the minimal amount of time? The PS's current system forces too many candidates to waste too much money showing up for 3-4 days for just 1-2 interviews, or none. (And yes, you can tell the PS you're making yourself available for just a single day or two days, but many grads are nervous about doing so, and there's always the risk that the interviewing school(s) will do the same, creating problems.)
Quite simply, the only decent thing to do is to let candidates know ASAP when their interviews are, and this was one of the main reasons we were all demanding the use of scheduling software a year or two ago.
has anyone scored an interview for the archaeology job at Brown U.?
"Then find out about it by some other means than telling your potential colleague that you're "following" them on the internet. Under the circumstances, there is no way that that looks like "interest in their research"; it looks like slimy sycophancy.
Also, you should refrain from sending them little Valentine's Day cards telling them that you think that they are super neat.
Also, no fruit baskets."
In the analogy above, having an academia.edu account in the first place is equivalent to running a website listing an address to which fruit baskets should be sent.
I think you'd have to be a self-centered little turd to even think about academia.edu in this way.
In the analogy above, having an academia.edu account in the first place is equivalent to running a website listing an address to which fruit baskets should be sent.
Yes, the throwaway joke at the end was clearly an analogy that lay at the heart of my point. Jesus. My point is that once you're applying for a job at someone's institution suddenly popping up on a list that person can see of people interested in what they're up to is going to look to most people like currying favor. It's fine if you don't agree, but I think you're in a small minority, and I think it'd be harmful advice to tell candidates it's fine to do this while they're applying for a job at someone's institution.
I think you'd have to be a self-centered little turd to even think about academia.edu in this way.
Oh, settle down.
Random condescension toward frustrated, near-suicidal job seekers is always justified as long as it's for the sake of a throw-away joke. My apologies.
"The hubris displayed by some senior scholars on here would make Xerxes blush."
Isn't that exactly what's happening when some of the sabretooths on here are demanding that we rid ourselves of anonymity? Dammit! Play by our rules where we control our pitiful little domain and can crush you for even a stray glance our way!
Rules? Where we're going, we don't need rules!
some of the sabretooths on here are demanding that we rid ourselves of anonymity?
?
Yeah, refusing to play by the sabretooth dicta means total anarchy. WOW, even Kim Jong Il would blush if he wasn't proving at the moment that even the biggest sabretooth is not forever.
Has anyone else received neither an interview request nor a rejection from Dallas?
I have also received neither invitation nor rejection from Dallas. I assumed it was because I suck so much (100% failure for interviews this year) that Dallas just ignored my existence.
(Although I have heard of places outright rejecting some people and keeping others in limbo just in case the APA interviews are horrible. But this may just be my irrational hope).
Here's to interviewing myself in Philadelphia!
Interview dos and don'ts. Let's hear 'em!
Cato, you're not displaying that wisdom for which you were rightly famous: if a candidate, especially a relatively impoverished grad, has a single interview, don't you think it best for him/her to know the date well enough in advance to have the option of staying for the minimal amount of time? The PS's current system forces too many candidates to waste too much money showing up for 3-4 days for just 1-2 interviews, or none.
Fair point, I concede. What constitutes "well in advance" though? I once received an email informing me of an APA interview the day before I flew to the APA. I also received notifications while there (why schools can't email you themselves is beyond me, it made me not want to work for those that did that).
Unfortunately, if you are full on the market, you should plan on attending the APA, and plan on attending for the entire time. Yes, I know many will hate this advice. If, when the time comes, you really have no interviews, or only one or two, then cancel your hotel, eat the cost of canceling or rearranging your flight, and avoid the conference entirely (ask those few interested for a skype interview). But, this latter action should be undertaken only as a last resort. Given the scheduling difficulties, it seems like the best course of action is to bite the bullet early, commit to attending the entire conference, and budget accordingly.
Interview dos and don'ts. Let's hear 'em!
Here are some handy tips that will have you interviewing like a pro.
1). A handshake is impersonal. It says "I don't really know you or feel comfortable with you." Wrong vibe to send out. You want these people to feel like you already know them. Instead, try giving every member of the committee a warm hug at the beginning of the interview. Not so long that it seems inappropriate: I'd say aim for 20-30 seconds per committee member on the way in and then again on the way out. If you're large and you're hugging a small interviewer, don't be afraid to just lift them up off the floor for a few seconds—it says "I'm gentle, but I'm strong as well."
2). Do you have a special talent that makes you unique and distinctive? Now's not the time to hide it. If you can sing, the midway point of the interview is a great opportunity to loosen things up and at the same time really wow the interviewers. "Firework" is a great choice, but if there's something geographically ("Sweet Home Alabama," "Coal Miner's Daughter," "Highway to Hell") or seasonally ("Simply Having a Wonderful Christmastime") appropriate that's even better. Or maybe you know a martial art? Nothing wrong with a little demonstration of some moves. If you need some space for kicking etc., just have the committee help you move the furniture out of the way (unless smashing furniture is part of the demonstration, in which case it's fine where it is). Or hey, even if you're just unusually flexible, show it off! Any little thing you can do to make yourself stand out in a committee's mind can give you an advantage in this market.
3). How to dress for an interview? The main thing is to make a choice that shows you put forth an effort out of respect for the occasion and the interviewers. There are different ways of doing that, of course, but the best option is to wear a top hat. (Obviously this will provide excellent synergy if your special talent happens to be performing magic tricks or playing the opening riff of "Sweet Child o' Mine").
4). Bonding is one opportunity the interview provides that, in my experience, too many candidates pass up. At the end of the interview, before the parting hugs, you'll often be given a chance to ask the committee some questions. A lot of candidates will just ask a pointless and boring question that nobody cares about. Blah, blah, blah. Nobody's even listening, they're just wishing you would shut up or leave or die or something—anything to stop your stupid, boring question. But a good interviewee will use this moment for bonding: "What's the most embarrassing medical condition that each of you has had? Who does each of you think is the least attractive person in this room right now? If each of you could have a superpower, which one would it be?" and so forth. You'll learn a lot about them, they'll learn a lot about each other, and you'll have a special connection with the committee that the other, boring candidates just won't.
There you have it. Four simple but surprisingly effective tips for interview success. Stick to these and you're headed straight for the top.
I also received neither a rejection email nor interview request from Dallas, so I emailed the chair just to make sure that they had in fact received my application. He replied with an extremely kind (and personalized) email explaining that another batch of rejection emails are on their way. Whoever gets the job will be lucky to have a first rate colleague.
9:58, my (top) hat is off to you. An inspired post.
Thanks to the Dallas responders. I figured as much, but irrational hope is my copilot.
And yes, 9:58 wins the Internet.
You have no chance to survive make your time.
Harvard grad doesn't care. Harvard grad don't give a shit.
I wondered how long it would be before the honey badger made an appearance....
In a tiny Nazi uniform.
Great. So now this blog has hit a new low with a Nazi comment.
Moving on to the main reason for my post, I figured I'd just state the obvious, which is that the idea of those of us on the market sharing interview tips is absurd. If some senior sorts want to share tips that's not unreasonable, though it could cost one of their own grads or someone they know a job. But in such a competitive market it makes no sense to be overcome by a spirit of giving. So, not that I'm the Greek God of Interviews, but I'll be keeping to myself the few primo tips I've gotten.
"If some senior sorts want to share tips that's not unreasonable,"
etc.
I'll bite (I've been on about five or six search committees). Here's the biggest tip and one that might surprise you the most: we don't take points off for nerves. Of course it's great to be polished and slick, but if you're nervous and stammer and such that's really okay too--we know this is a big deal for you.
But let me clarify that. Being nervous and being unprepared are two completely separate things. I've seen the latter enough to know that if you haven't rehearsed your dissertation speech or given any thought to the kind of in-translation course you'd like to teach, you're dead in the water. End of interview.
The single most two important questions you can prep answers to in advance are:
(1) If you could teach any kind of course, one you've devised yourself, in translation, what would it be and how would you structure the class? The more detailed the answer, the better.
(2) Do you have any questions for us? I can't tell you how many candidates have nothing to ask at the end, and to be honest I don't think we've ever hired one of them. That too tends to be a weed-out question. It doesn't really matter what you ask, as long as you ask something reasonably intelligent.
Good luck to all!
I second the previous poster, but, as a couple of times on a SC member, I'll add I really regret it's true that #2 is a good question to prep. I think it's a vapid and often pointless question. "Do you have questions for us?" The answer could truthfully be no, and not because of disinterest or anything else remotely negative.
No, I guess it doesn't really make sense for you guys to be helping each other do better in interviews.
If it's any help, there aren't really any secret tricks to doing well in an interview. The stuff you were told by, and have practiced with, the faculty who are helping you with your job search is really all there is. There's no additional hoard of wisdom. The tricky part is actually putting into practice the stuff you've already been told.
4:44, my apologies for the evidently misunderstood Nazi reference. Given the preceding honey badger comment, referring to an internet meme, I thought a comment joining it to Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies, another such meme, would be timely. I shall now quietly slink off, clutching the dead rattlesnake between my teeth.
I agree with 5:01 p.m., but will explore the issue a bit more. From my perspective, that of someone with quite a few interviews as a candidate, I think judging interviewees by whether they have a question for the committee is truly absurd. Some questions -- salary, benefits, conference travel, requirements for tenure, research budget, etc. -- make no sense to ask unless one is a finalist, or gets an offer. Others, like "How good is your library?" or "What are your students like?" are insultingly banal. In both cases, asking such questions is nothing more than asking a question for the sake of asking a question.
And the truth is,
1) There are very few questions, the answer to which might make the slightest bit of difference to the interviewee at that stage, and
2) If the SC has been doing its job it should already have covered everything important enough that a candidate might need to know on that occasion.
So SC members who dismiss a candidate for not having a good question at the end are really not thinking about the situation from the candidate's point of view, and suffering from group-think.
I can say that I've had interviews for jobs that I greatly wanted, and would have jumped at if given an offer, and my lack of a substantial question at the end of the interview only meant that I was sold on the job and/or the committee had done a fine job covering any questions/concerns I had.
Are SC members truly oblivious to the points I've just made?!?
@ December 26, 2011 4:11 PM
This should also go for SC members who request to "friend" on FB those who they will be interviewing. Totally inappropriate. And yes this happened to a friend of mine by a senior scholar.
Anonymous 5:52,
I didn't catch that you were alluding to Godwin's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law, for all with no clue what this is), and almost cited it to you. I missed the point you were making, so it looked to me like the usual grumbling on the blog about "Princeford" grads had shifted into an insinuation about Harvard grads. But that appears not to have been the case.
Godwin's Law is the reason that I never bring Nazis into an argument; I consider it an intellectual defeat to do so.
Yes, the final question is stupid. I wouldn't change my assessment of an interview because someone didn't have one. I do however think that those who don't have a question tend to be those who have already earlier in the interview shown themselves to be totally unprepared for the interview and not to know what they're doing. And that's not surprising, because if they were well prepared one of the things they'd have done would have been to think up a good question.
The best piece of advice I got when I was on the market, and one that informs my assessment of interviewees now, was this: know when to stop talking. When you're nervous, the tendency is to talk a lot (and fast), and the impulse to keep talking during an interview is understandable, since it keeps us from asking the next, unknown and therefore scary question. But you're shooting yourself in the foot if you do so, for at least two reasons. First, the more we learn about you (by asking lots of questions), the more opportunities you have to demonstrate your breadth of knowledge and preparation. Second, interviews are (among other things) windows into your teaching, and if you can't let your students (us) get a word in edgewise, that's not a good thing. So if you get interrupted, don't be offended or flustered; the SC is a) interested in hearing more from you, and b) giving you an opportunity to self-correct by answering future questions more concisely.
On a related note, and this is probably the hardest thing to do well (I still struggle with it in the Q&A period after talks and such), try really to listen to the whole question, not just the first five seconds; the temptation is to listen for a few seconds, then mentally start to formulate an answer before the questioner has finished. Then answer what the question actually was, not what you wish it had been or think it ought to have been or whatnot. A lot of interview questions will seem to come out of left field, either deliberately (to see how well you react) or because the SC member is eccentric, or whatever. Note that it's fine to pause and think, or ask for clarification.
Be honest. If someone asks about some critic, or methodology, or anything else that you simply know nothing about, don't try to fake it. No one expects you to know anything, and while admitting your ignorance may indeed hurt you, it very well may not -- but trying to pull one over on us definitely will. (To wit: I was asked in an interview whether "thing theory" had influenced my work, and I replied no, because I'd never heard of it; what was it? The SC member gave a quick sketch of it, and I formulated an answer; I ended up being a finalist.)
Be prepared for at least one interviewer to seem aggressive. Not all SCs do this "bad cop" thing, but quite a few do; relax and remember that it's just a role, and all the candidates are being pressed like that. Be respectful, listen to and think about the underlying questions, but don't be afraid to stand your ground; few SCs will want a colleague who caves too quickly, and no one is being interviewed because the SC thought their work was terrible. (That said, if you think any questioner has pointed out legitimate issues with elements of your work -- and everyone's work has weaknesses -- you can say so while still standing behind your larger project.)
Specifics are always your friend: specific critics you're in dialogue with, specific texts you'd teach, specific goals for future research, etc.
Reread your writing sample, carefully, before the interview; some SCs will ask quite specific questions about it, and you want to be fully up on the nuances both of your arguments there and how they relate to your larger project.
That's all I can come up with just now. Bear in mind that every committee is different, and in ways that you can't anticipate; all you can do is prepare sensibly, get as much and as restful sleep as possible, and come in ready to present the best version of yourself that you can.
Hope that helps!!
Holy shit. I should start preparing for my interviews!
OK, so we have established that #2 is absurd but also required...can any of the tenured-types give a good example of the kind of question you would like to have a candidate ask? One that has stood out in your mind as truly inspired over the years?
Can I ask what kind of help people are getting from their Ph.D. institution in the job search? Did you have people critiquing your letter, CV, writing sample, etc.? Practice interviews?
All of the above.
ditto, at least for my first year on the market. Although my practice interview resembled actual interviews very little in the end.
If my practice interview is any indication of how real interviews go, I fear for my life. Faculty members who have seemed perfectly nice and harmless in the time I've known them suddenly became rabid tigers, eagerly snatching at the most ridiculous possible interpretation of anything I began to say. They would then interrupt me mid-sentence and argue among themselves for five minutes about the implications of something I hadn't actually said at all. It was kind of like being on Famae in that way.
May I ask why the very long, detailed post I wrote last night containing advice to interviewees was deleted? (It was very briefly visible after 6:09 and before 10:06.) I spent a lot of time on it, and I thought it offered some helpful suggestions.
That post appears to have returned, and it does indeed contain much good advice, especially the bit about knowing when to stop talking.
Yes, thank you to the administrator(s) of the site for re-posting it. I hope it proves helpful to folks.
Thanks, 7:42 p.m. (and 12/28 4:57), I'm the OP and that's exactly the kind of thing I was hoping to get. (Though 12/27 9:58 did make me laugh my ass off, which was much appreciated, too.)
"I fear for my life. Faculty members who have seemed perfectly nice and harmless in the time I've known them suddenly became rabid tigers, eagerly snatching at the most ridiculous possible interpretation of anything I began to say. They would then interrupt me mid-sentence and argue among themselves for five minutes about the implications of something I hadn't actually said at all."
Sounds about right. They did you a great service by emulating what an actual interview will be like. I got the friendly practice interview and it did not help much (though I did greatly appreciate the gesture by my faculty).
Any advice on food and drink options in Philly which are off the beaten path (i.e. not filled with hordes of other classicists)?
“Any advice on food and drink options in Philly which are off the beaten path (i.e. not filled with hordes of other classicists)?”
depends on your price range. Tinto Winebar on Rittenhouse Square is pretty fabulous.
The Reading Terminal Market is worth it, despite the hordes -- if you don't make it there, you're an idiot, since it's awesome and right next to the hotel. There's not that much else worthwhile in the immediate vicinity (as I remember -- I'm not a local, just a bored conference goer), but Nodding Head Brewery is a short walk and is a cool place for microbrews and pub food.
Does anyone know what has happened to the customary Thursday night panel at the APA on the job market? Are we collectively burying our head in the sand?
Why in the name of all that is good and holy in this world is the PS still posting expired job listings?
To be fair, I suppose the website does say "Candidates should be aware that we have a considerable backlog of positions already advertised that we need to enter into the new system. The new job listing web site will therefore probably not be complete and up-to-date until the third week in November."
That puts them in the clear, right? Oh, wait...
You have no right to complain that the Placement Service has not copied and pasted those entries into the new Online Service yet. They only have one pair of scissors in the kitchen, and you have no idea how long it took in the old days to send a telegram announcing a new position to every single candidate in the world.
Sorry I'm weighing in a little late, but when I've been on a search committee, I've always liked candidates to have a question for us that showed potential engagement with the department or the university. Asking faculty members about their work might take up too much time; but asking,e.g., if you're from a public university, what they feel is the biggest adjustment one makes teaching at a private school; what they think are the department's closest connections outside (to comp. lit.? to history? to anthropology?) and where they think there is room for growth in the future, and so on.
Good luck, everyone.
I tried the growth and connections on campus question during an interview with a major R1 place. pissed off the search chair, who then became edgy and defensive. no campus visit resulted from that mess, I can tell you. Tread lightly with these silly questions.
Thank you, sincerely, for those tips! I will shamelessly use them and hope for the best!
Oh, woops, didn't see that last one before I got all thankful. Ugh. Such a mine field.
Anything that could be interpreted as "What are you people going to do to fix your shitty department?" isn't a great idea. Also "Is there anything to do in your hick burg and how far do I have to drive to get to civilization?" Also "Are your students as stupid/spoiled/lazy as everybody says they are?" Also "Why have I never heard of any of you people?"
This one worked for me:
"Will I have to do as little as you all did in order to get tenure?"
Asking faculty members about their work might take up too much time; but asking,e.g., if you're from a public university, what they feel is the biggest adjustment one makes teaching at a private school; what they think are the department's closest connections outside (to comp. lit.? to history? to anthropology?) and where they think there is room for growth in the future, and so on.
These are perfectly reasonable questions for an on-campus interview, but what in the hell do they have to do with a 30-min. initial interview? I mean, if I have 30-min. to show a committee that I should be one of three candidates invited to campus, why would I want to waste my time asking about the adjustment I might have to make, or with which departments they have good relations, etc.? Does my asking such questions demonstrate in any reliable way that I'll be good in the classroom, publish regularly, and not be a disaster at committee work?!? Does my failure to ask them mean I'd be a failure as a colleague, or lack interest in the job?
I don't mean this to be a criticism of the poster, but of those SC members who are so daffy as to think they should put great weight on how a candidate responds when asked if he/she has any questions.
Perhaps the right response to "Do you have any questions for us?" is "Yeah, just one: Don't you read Famae Volent?!?"
> Nailed it in one!
Here's one failsafe response: "If you were in my shoes, what question would you ask and what is its answer?"
@3:28 I similarly asked an R1 last year how they would describe the identity of their department. It wasn't a complete failure, but the result was a meandering reply from the chair to the effect that they don't really have an identity as a department because they are all individuals. The problem with asking most of the questions suggested is that you are going to have at least four people in the room with four different responses.
I guess I'd say it's better to have a moment in the interview when the candidate gets to ask a question than it is to assume that the candidate doesn't have a right to ask a question.
That said, though, there aren't many "real" questions a candidate can ask, so it's a bit of a hollow exercise, and is basically just another opportunity for the committee to scrutinize the candidate.
Now, given that the "final question" moment is (and should be) enshrined in the tradition of interviewing, I actually don't think the moment is a terrible indicator of whether a candidate has their shit together: i.e., if you can't come up with a passable question despite knowing that you're expected to have one, you probably don't have your shit together. Likewise, if you showed up to the interview in just your underpants despite it being widely known that committees expect you to wear something over your underpants, it'd suggest that you didn't have your shit together.
Hmm. Perhaps my response to the question should not be if the SC reads FV, but "Isn't it already obvious based on the past 25 minutes that I have my shit together?"
Hmm. Perhaps my response to the question should not be if the SC reads FV, but "Isn't it already obvious based on the past 25 minutes that I have my shit together?"
If it's such a titanic struggle for you to think of a question, then just tell them you don't have one.
I'm sorry, but if you can't, after twenty-five years of schooling, come up with a thoughtful question on the spot in any situation -- in an interview, after a lecture, meeting your in-laws' neighbors' daughter's pet chinchilla etc. -- then, yes, I imagine you will turn out to be the type of self-involved little snot who responds to my friendly "How are you?" with a curt "Fine" and a lengthy blank stare. In other words, the worst kind of colleague. It's basic f***ing social etiquette! Why is it so hard for some classicists to act like normal people?
Why is it so hard for some classicists to act like normal people?
Because we're not normal people. Most of us are f*cked up in one way or another. In particular, dealing with other humans seems like a challenge for a lot of classicists.
Yes. If we were even moderately good at talking to other people, we would be fit for much better compensated and still quite interesting jobs (given our massive brains).
Different sc members will feel differently, but this sc member still thinks the "do you have any questions for us" is vapid and near pointless.
Hate to say it, παιδιά, but it's just a part of the beauty contest, a way to end on a high note. I remember getting asked the question back in the day by a department I was ambivalent about. I don't know what possessed me (might have been fatigue since it was the last interview in a long day), but I asked whether I, too, would receive a bright red tie if I joined the department (all the men wore near identical ties). Shazam, campus invite. I got a job offer before the scheduled flyback, but I wonder to this day how it would have gone.
παιδία, silly!
παιδία, silly!
The commenter was clearly using the Modern Greek for "guys," so the accent is fine.
This is what happens when you keep your pedantry on a hair-trigger.
Were you that legendary candidate that a SC member mentioned on here years ago? The context of the story was the importance of scheduling. The SC member recalled a late interview that no one wanted to do that turned into a good time by all. I guess the lesson here is to read the condition/mood of the SC and adapt rather than dive into our swimsuit contest on cruise control.
Silenus,
Your abilities to judge a person and his/her collegiality based on a FV post are staggeringly inadequate. As you would learn, if you were to observe me in Philadelphia dining and drinking with my current and former colleagues.
I am more than capable of thinking of intelligent questions for SC's -- I just resent that some colleagues place so much weight on this part of the interview. And as was already pointed out, many of those questions that candidates come up with, including some examples provided in this thread, could certainly have waited until an on-campus interview.
I'm not asking you or any other senior types out there to give examples, but can any of you honestly say that there are questions about a job or department that make more sense to ask at the APA than during an on-campus interview? Are there truly questions that can't wait a few weeks, or that sour if not used right away?
I think way too much is being made of the concluding "do you have any questions?" moment. If someone comes up with an insightful, great question, well, great. If someone asks a cookie-cutter, quasi-vapid question, well, that's okay too, since we (my fellow SC member and I) recognize the artificiality of the convention. If someone says something along the lines of, "No, I think I'm good," hey, they're honest, and if the rest of the interview was good, it's not going to hurt them. Oh, and if the rest of the interview was bad, the most scintillating question asked of us wasn't going to make a difference.
Don't overthink, folks. Overthinking, stressing, and exacerbating the tension you naturally feel is far more likely to hurt you than any particular question, or non-question, in that now conventional portion of the interview.
Just my perspective!!
I'm not asking you or any other senior types out there to give examples, but can any of you honestly say that there are questions about a job or department that make more sense to ask at the APA than during an on-campus interview? Are there truly questions that can't wait a few weeks, or that sour if not used right away?
Here is one:
"Can you tell me what your timeline for decisions beyond the APA looks like? When do you expect to make decisions regarding campus visits, and when might those visits take place?"
Tiger Tree,
Well, sure, except the SC should cover that without prompting. This gets back to an earlier point that if the SC has done its job, there shouldn't be any urgent questions left for the candidate to ask.
I wish every SC member had Anon. 4:32's attitude. Then there'd be no problem at all.
Okay, I'm not checking this site again until next year. (Get it?) Happy new year to all!
I am more than capable of thinking of intelligent questions for SC's -- I just resent that some colleagues place so much weight on this part of the interview. And as was already pointed out, many of those questions that candidates come up with, including some examples provided in this thread, could certainly have waited until an on-campus interview.
OK then, we're done. If committees place "so much weight" on this, you'll be fine because of your awesome questions. And if you're just against it in principle, then I guess you can start writing letters or something to get search committees to stop inviting questions, or to stop caring what questions candidates ask, or to stop expecting that there'll be a question, or whatever your preferred outcome is, if you have one.
Any thoughts on the advisability of going to interviews buzzed so as to appear less nervous?
I was thinking of a quick Xanax and a martini before heading in. You know, just to take the edge off.
Your abilities to judge a person and his/her collegiality based on a FV post are staggeringly inadequate. As you would learn, if you were to observe me in Philadelphia dining and drinking with my current and former colleagues.
Are you sure about that? Because it seems to me that the type of ungenerous person who would ask old Silenus to observe hypothetical conviviality rather than inviting him to join in is hardly a paragon of collegiality.
But seriously, I'm not judging anyone by an FV post. If you can come up with excellent questions, then you'll do that in an interview and make a good impression. But if you blow off a question, however vapid, in an interview, then you come off like a a**hole, whether that's fair or not.
I understand that one can control their own destiny to a degree through preparation. However, I can't help but think that being a smooth operator can often be the deciding factor in an intensely competitive environment such as ours. Yeah, it's life and we want people with strong social skills, but I feel somewhat overwhelmed as someone who can't claim to excel in shooting the breeze.
To the last poster:
I am not a schmoozer at all. AT ALL. And I ended up with a good job because the department in question is full of nice people who didn't want schmoozers or smooth operators - they'd had enough of them. Now I admit that I have a pretty awesome department, but for your sake I hope there are others out there who similarly shun smooth operators. Just be nice, kind, straightforward, and sincere. If you're interviewing with some of those smooth operator departments (and I can think of several), you aren't going to get anywhere by trying to fake them out, and if you are interviewing with a nice department, you'll shoot yourself in the foot by not being yourself. I was surprised that just being myself worked, and I know how lucky I was that I interviewed with a department where they wanted collegiality and sincerity, but it did, and even though I get paid well-below market rate, I wouldn't leave my department for all the money in the world, just because it is so enriching to work around nice people. Best of luck.
Well, being outgoing, confident, and easy to talk to is helpful no matter what your job is, because in general human beings respond well to those qualities. This is just the way the world works.
However, if there is one place in this world where nerds and dorks and wallflowers have a chance, it's in Classics. So to all of the dorks out there: don't despair.
Wow, do some of you just despise our discipline and the bulk of its practitioners? Why stay where you're so miserable? Because of some perceived sunk costs?
It's one thing to be sociable, genuine and friendly, and another thing to be worthy of a Heineken commercial. Yes, you can't be a total social dunce in a discipline that's traditionally valued refinement, but you don't have to be the most interesting man in the world either. If you "bring the goods" in this day and age, you have a better chance than ever of succeeding. Look at all the recent billionaires. Most of them are tech nerds with a passable level of refinement. I don't think classics is as far behind as you think.
^LOL! Spoken like a true first year grad student.
Anyone want to live blog the APA? Tell those of us who aren't going to be there about interesting papers, panels, books, etc?
Maybe some of this will show up under #aiaapa on Twitter? But something more substantial would be nice too.
Anyone know if Utah intends to interview at the APA?
Or what's going on with Lady Margaret Hall?
Utah will not be interviewing at the APA. When they will be interviewing remains to be decided.
Change the abbreviation, and this poem from the Chronicle feels all too familiar.
what's going on with Lady Margaret Hall?
Ladies never tell.
It's almost time for the Classics family reunion, sisters and brothers!
There will be incest.
And I'm sure some fratri-/sorori- cide. If some of the curmudgeons speak up, I hope some felinicide as well. It's the humane thing to do for all involved.
O APA, quando te aspiciam? Your fluorescent lights, your ill-fitting suits, your furtive glances at name-tags, your awkward elevator rides, your gut-wrenching encounters with acquaintances at the door of the interview suite -- all so I can find from the wiki in January that the job(s) went to someone else. God and bourbon, give me the strength to persevere!
Is it weird to prepare for the APA by putting on one's suit and singing and dancing to Taio Cruz's "Dynamite" in front of the mirror?
I think it's great, 6:44. And if you can do it like this, I pretty much guarantee you'll get the job:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjCLQaTFXx0&feature=related
As a nod to our would-be profession, maybe do it in Latin or Greek?
It sure beats crying in one's car.
but can it compete with wearing the suit while sitting in the car crying?
I'm doing the Taio Cruz thing again. I think I need help...
I suggest switching to Ke$ha, "Tik Tok." That's what most of us put on for the pre-APA mirror performance.
Done! The overall objective (as understood from the lyrics) of f***ing the SCs into submission remains the same, but now my gender has changed. I'll make a more convincing lady, anyway.
At the risk of stating the obvious:
http://youtu.be/DP3MFBzMH2o
This seems appropriate:
http://theoatmeal.com/comics/interviewees
At least we're all better than these guys, fellow sufferers! Amirite??
Standing in line at the Starbucks in the Marriott. Three people in a row ahead of me ordered Venti sized drinks. All three pronounced it "Wenti." Yep, we're at a classics conference.
To those about to rock their interviews, I salute you.
What about those of who already have rocked our interviews? Or at least made it through them without defecating on ourselves or others?
Didn't defecate! Me, too! Worst case scenario averted. Rock on. (Except, amazingly, defecating on myself or others is actually not my worst case interview scenario.)
Whoa, whoa. Nobody said anything about not defecating at all. I just didn't defecate on myself or others.
The ceiling didn't get off so easily.
Can't believe how quickly some committees are making campus invite decisions. Either they know exactly what they want, or people really f***ed up in interviews. Or both?
I'm actually surprised at how few schools have issued campus invites (that we know of). The SC saw everyone, so assuming they were delegated by their dept to make the decisions, why wouldn't they move fast, while the impressions are still fresh in their minds?
so assuming they were delegated by their dept to make the decisions
It's not a carte blanche, though. They still usually need to report back to their colleagues, and to get approval from the dean.
I agree that speed is good, especially from the hiring side of things. If you all agree that you've found the right person (or the top three, or whatever), why wait? Ideally you want to make an offer before anyone else can. But conditions have to be just right, it seems to me, to make such speedy agreement possible.
To be sure: speed may say as much about the various interview teams' ability to work together, and the smoothness of situations back home, as it does about the candidates being interviewed.
Okay, I guess the rookies out there are revealing themselves... It is quite common for SC's to make their decisions on the final day of the conference, sometimes even notifying candidates that day. It is also common for SC's to have to run their decisions past colleagues and/or administrators after returning to campus. Absolutely nothing can be read into a department's nature by how quickly they invite people to campus.
Thanks, Tiger Tree, for a classic post.
speed may say as much about the various interview teams' ability to work together, and the smoothness of situations back home, as it does about the candidates being interviewed.
Maybe I'm just old-fashioned, but I don't think search committees should be taking speed at all, whether or not they work well together.
I've been on SCs for several positions, classics and otherwise, but until I read this post I'd never even heard of an SC making on-campus decisions by the end of the conference. I agree it would be a great idea, but it isn't possible with the way many (most?) SCs are set up.
At my SLAC, the SC consists of 5 or 6 people. 2 or *perhaps* 3 of them get funded to go to the APA (or equivalent). That subcommittee then returns to campus and reports back to the full committee, and the full committee has a meeting to hear the subcommittee's report, discuss at length (it's usually a 2-hour meeting minimum), and decide whom to invite to campus. Since our semester doesn't start until after MLK day, the full SC very likely doesn't even meet to draw up the list until a good week or 10 days after the APA.
So, don't assume that you didn't make the cut if you haven't heard anything yet. Maddening as the wait is, many institutions have set (and slow) schedules for these things.
Different strokes for different schools then, it sounds like! Good luck to us all ... as I pour myself a second bourbon.....
By far the more common pattern is for the invitations to be issued after additional consultation, of various kinds, back at the hiring institution. In some cases, this won't be possible until classes have started again and people are back in town.
Sad that no one's used the blog from the wiki (or this one) to dish about various interview experiences....
*stirs the pot*
Rookie question:
If a school invites more than one person out for an on-campus interview, do they extend all of those invitations at once or in waves?
Hope springs eternal...
If a school invites more than one person out for an on-campus interview, do they extend all of those invitations at once or in waves?
Usually all at once.
Sometimes visiting positions are one at a time to save cash: the committee invites their first choice, if the first choice doesn't flop then they make an offer, if the offer is accepted then they only had to pay for one fly-out. If it doesn't work, they move onto #2. I've never heard of this happening for a TT, though, because schools will usually fork out the cash for 3 fly-outs.
One would think that the "sorry, you're not getting a fly-out" e-mails would be almost as prompt, since SCs are dealing with such a small number of rejectees. Is that not the case?
One would think that the "sorry, you're not getting a fly-out" e-mails would be almost as prompt, since SCs are dealing with such a small number of rejectees. Is that not the case?
There are three scenarios:
1) The committee sends out the 3 invites and the 7ish "you're not on our short-list" emails at the same time (or rather, in succession, starting with the good news).
2) The procedure is dictated by higher-ups (i.e., the dean's office), and the committee is not allowed to send out any kind of "rejection" like info until the post is filled.
3) The committee is allowed to send such an email, but they choose not to, because if they don't like their top three, they can move on to numbers 4 and 5 and hope that numbers 4 and 5 don't know they were 4th and 5th choice.
But in the days of the wiki, option 3 is fruitless, because we all know everything.
It's funny how things that surprise me about the market are totally de rigueur to some one else. I mean, I've been at this for years and years, have sent out hundreds of applications, had all different sorts of interviews and really thought I had seen it all -- except a T-T offer, of course. Yet I'm still naive about so many things. She's a rough beast, my friends.
I can tell you this, however: do not expect a prompt or friendly PFO letter or phone call, even if you had a nice APA interview or campus visit. Sometimes you'll receive proper consideration, sometimes you won't. Practices and institutional guidelines vary widely.
In lots of places the SC follows college/university protocol. The guidelines at mine are 'no rejection letters until someone is hired.'
Note to self: next time I interview, pack Mitt Romney Face Bronzer. Seems to work.
public service announcement: if you are considering a career in any field of ancient Mediterranean studies, please, for the love of the gods, think long and hard if you want to mess yourself up in this way. at least make your choice an informed one.
this announcement brought to you by many long-suffering job seekers.
i second that sentiment.
wish i had had my eyes open a bit wider a bit earlier on in this slog.
i'd be even stronger - considering a career in ancient Medi. studies? don't do it. not worth it.
^Nailed it in one.
I see some places have sent out rejection emails post-APA. I'm in the odd position of having had an APA interview, but have received neither campus invite nor rejection. Anybody out there care to speculate as to why? How does this bloody process work?
@Bumfia.
I've been in that same spot multiple times - interview, saw invites and rejections posted on wiki, never received anything. in one notable case, I never heard from the school again. Ever. I gave the chair the devil eye in the elevator the other day, in fact, but I think he was too clueless to remember me. The process does not work well.
@Bumfia
They might also be stringing you along as a backup candidate, in case they don't like their initial invitees. Some schools will let you know if this is the case, but many won't. Good luck!
@Bumfia
Also, we are still very early in this process. Look at the above posts -- some schools take quite a while to get back in touch with candidates, even their top choices for the position. Although some schools have already resumed, many others have not. There is still time, even in the most pessimistic view.
I reiterate my previous statement: the world of PFO letters is merely a pale imitation of the world of civilized and polite discourse. Even if your interviewers were perfectly friendly, you may never hear from them again, or hear late, or get a cold and impersonal letter, or any number of things, for god knows what reason. If you learn of invites from the wiki, you're very likely (but not always!) out of the running. If there is nothing on the wiki, the committee is very likely (but not always!) still deliberating. Be patient.
May we please agree to ban Twittering and blogging during conference talks? As boring as some talks are, and as much as I understand Pannapacker's points about side conversations being more interesting and leading to some productive social networking, I think this is just rude and distracting to all involved. Perhaps the APA/AIA could just schedule a bit more time between talks to enable online discussions of the talks you've just heard. But please don't Twitter/blog WHILE the talk is in progress. I'd find that distracting, either as an audience member or as a speaker, and you're likely to miss a valuable point as you're snickering at Tweeted responses. Please let's not go down that path.
chronicle.com/blogs/brainstorm/pannapacker-at-the-mla-4-twitter-is-scholarship/42936
I'm not sure how accurate the wiki is for flyouts. I know of several jobs that have issued flyout requests to candidates that are not on the wiki yet and probably won't be. The SC is not updating and neither are the candidates for various reasons (including not using the wiki). So at this stage there is an additional level of obfuscation that stays until someone is hired or a search fails.
If you know this info, would you consider putting it on the wiki? A coup de grace is a nice courtesy.
Seconding the above. There is no reason not to simply state that flyouts have been arranged at school x, y, and z.
If the Davidson and MIT reps are still reading, just a shout-out for running great APA interviews. Sad not to be a finalist, but I enjoyed the conversations.
has MIT emailed rejections to the remaining interviewees?
Not to me, but their rep posted a while back that they're not allowed to notify people of rejections until their top choice has officially accepted. Sounds like that's a fairly typical procedure, and since both they and Davidson have at least one flyback posted on the wiki, I'm assuming I'm out.
Did anyone catch Cincinnati's timetable for deciding on campus visits? I didn't ask, and I'm certainly not going to e-mail now and risk marking myself as desperate...
...though obviously I am.
I believe Cincinnati fly-out decisions have been made for both positions, though I do not know if those selected have been notified.
I heard that they asked for more information from some that they interviewed, but that may have already been digested and sorted out by now.
I heard a rumor that they decided on their list and wrote it down on a little piece of note paper, but then accidentally used the piece of paper to spit a piece of gum into and then threw away the gummy paper, but then remembered that the paper had the list on it and went to get the paper out of the trash, but it was kind of gross by then from being in the trash, plus the gum was obscuring most of the list and you know how hard it is to get gum off of things, so they just put the paper back in the trash and now they're just going to call off the search and try again next year, except nobody on the committee will be allowed to chew gum next time.
But like I say, that's just a rumor.
Has anyone heard from UWO?
Another gum issue. That's what the rumors are saying, anyway.
Why can't you search committees stay off of the gum?!? Try a mint for once, you freaks.
that's the ball game for this lowly job seeker. another year of interviews and no campus invites. time to give it up. this career path is barely tenable for the stout-hearted ... what next?
There probably some very nice high school Latin jobs out there right now if you have the right experience and mentality, and if you get on Carney Sandoe right now. Choose carefully, however. By the way, this post is in no way ironic and derogatory; high school Latin is definitely my back-up in case college doesn't work out.
I venture to speculate, though, that having a PhD may be a liability as much as an asset when trying to get a high school job, even if you can demonstrate a genuine enthusiasm for teaching. Not to be a Debbie Downer. I may be wrong--hopefully so!
Many prep schools only want Latin teachers with a PhD, and will consider an MA. It is in no way a liability for those that love teaching.
Do you mind if I ask about the basis for your confidence? I'm not asking in a snarky way at all. I'm genuinely curious, because Googling of faculty lists at prep schools (both garden variety and elite) suggests otherwise. But of course that's hardly a thorough survey, and I'd be happy to have it proven wrong (preferably with some helpful specifics!) by someone in the know.
I heard the Renaissance Faire is hiring. There's an especially strong demand for wenches that speak Latin with a Cockney flavour. I have the Latin part down, but it's a pity that I'm neither blonde nor busty. Epic fail once again. First Philadelphia and now this.
Post a Comment