Because one can never be too careful
Please use this thread for straight-up questions and answers
regarding the assembly of dossiers, mailing practices, letters of
application, interviews, job-talks, etc. Basically anything involving
the process, from A to Z.
A sometimes useful, and oftentimes entertaining, site to check out
is the Chronicle of Higher Education's Discussion Forum. Two
particularly relevant examples are here:
The Job Seeking Experience
The Interview Process
The threads are often not apposite, but they can be a treasure-trove
of laughs and morale boosts. And don't forget to check the archives on
this site for the past few years.
74 comments:
So, is anyone else left who's dumb enough to try again this year?
I have a new paper that I consider my best work. For a variety of reasons, the marginal return professionally for this paper is very small for me. But I think it has an excellent shot a top journal, I would estimate 1/3 in JRS (I have published there before). So I am offering it for sale. Here are the details:
1. This paper is not yet posted on my website. It has not been circulated and I have not yet presented it.
2. The paper is for specialists in Latin Lit/Roman History, although I will sell it to anyone.
3. Email bids to classicspublicationforsale@gmail.com. Use a fake account and make sure to send no revealing information.
4. Your bid is for a JRS or CQ. If it ends up in CP or AJP you pay 65%. If it ends up in G&R, CJ, or Historia, you pay 35%. Other journals are negotiable. You can choose the submission path as long as it starts with one of the top journals.
5. I will contact the winning bid (or highest real bid) to arrange an in person meeting at the 2015 APA. We will never leave a paper trail.
6. Half of payment is due with a revise and resubmit. I will also make the needed changes. The final half is due with final acceptance.
7. Spare me any discussion of the ethics here. I am dead serious and I will not be commenting further. This can help get you tenure, or a job!
Out of curiosity, how can you be sure that the person who bids highest isn't really doing so with the ulterior motive of blackmailing you? After all, this is such a violation of ethics -- that word you appear not to care about -- that even a tenured faculty member would be fired for this were it to come out. Seems to me that I or anyone else could pay you, say, $500, but then turn around and get 10, 20, maybe even 100 times that amount in return for not turning whistleblower and destroying your career.
Sorry to point out the hole in your brilliant plan.
I won't bid for this, but were I to do so, then I know that an important article in JRS is easily worth $20,000, when you factor in what it can do for one's career.
So, yes, blackmail is an issue, but $500 for an article like this is a joke.
Am not the infamous Publius above, but have considered this as a more sustained solution to employment woes. Publishing things is easy; getting a job is hard. If one could get decent money selling articles, one could feed a family.
yes, this is not a meritocracy. Publishing articles in top journals alone won't get you a job or tenure. Sure, articles in good journals and books with top presses come in handy for your supporters who want to hire or tenure you. But in the end hiring and tenure decisions come down to politics, which no individual can control.
Ethics are for people not under the thumb of necessity.
Might I suggest to "Servius" that permitting that posting to remain up undermines the integrity of this blog?
And to the other poster I'll point out that if someone really ends up paying $20,000 then he/she can recoup some of that simply by telling the IRS about it, because I'd bet $500 that whoever is selling this article isn't ethical enough to declare it as income, and the IRS rewards those who report tax-evaders. (I guess the potential buyer can both blackmail AND inform the IRS. Though I guess that raises the question of whether money earned through blackmail should be reported to the IRS.)
Fuck the person talking about integrity. If you wanted to have integrity, you should have entered a profession that did not systematically exploit the younger generation and then kick them out on the street with less chance of getting a real job than an ex-con.
@ 1:23
I doubt that you weren't warned about what you were letting yourself into. But you probably thought that you were so goddamn brilliant that you would succeed where a lot of other brilliant people have failed. I suppose none talked you into a becoming classicist. You took a huge risk. Now face the consequences.
Anonymous 1:23,
Please consult the nearest dictionary regarding the meaning of the word "rationalization," paying particularly close attention to the definition(s) pertaining to human behavior. Then please obtain a bar of soap from a convenient source and shove it in your mouth, as I am unable to do so myself.
Nearer, my God, to Thee...
You people are all insane. Get some help. Servius, if you're out there, it may be wise to shut this whole thing down and stop enabling this kind of behavior. It is scaring the children. (And yes, I know that some of you out there would argue that is a good thing, but some of us still believe that Classics is a worthwhile calling, even if times are especially hard right now, as indeed they are in all professions.) Every year, the posters on this blog seem to sink a little lower. Enough is enough.
I wonder if an AJP publication is really 65% less valuable than a JRS/CQ. Is it that much harder to get into Limey periodicals?
Rationalization? Hah! I admire your tolerance for cognitive dissonance.
Classics is like meth: a whole lot of fun, and maybe even harmless if you could do it sparingly without getting addicted, but in reality extremely addicting and life-ruining. If you devote a lot of time to it, like with meth, you end up losing years of your life with nothing to show for it and no hope of future employment.
Are meth users responsible for their own actions? Should they have known that using meth was a bad idea? Of course. Does this make meth dealers stand up guys? I would submit that it does not. You are morally culpable whether or not you like it or have the talent for blithely ignoring the avalanche of human misery all around you by means of sheer self-righteousness.
For your sake, I sure hope your dissertation was not on "Metaphor and Simile in [such-and-such work/author]."
Going to graduate school in Classics is not like taking Meth. It's like training for the Olympics. Your trainers will do their very best to help you qualify, but only very few athletes do and even fewer win medals.
Should you go for it, if it's your calling? Absolutely! But don't expect to get a career out of it. Most US athletes work at Home Depot and never manage to make a living as a professional athlete.
Classics is exactly like meth: the only way to make a living on it is to start peddling it to suckers.
I do hope we are scaring the children, as they do need to be scared enough to take action in their own lives before it's too late, but I hardly think conversations on the internet will do it. They can look around at all the people they know who aren't getting hired and see the reality for themselves.
Getting into the JRS is hard, because the editors first accept the articles of their colleagues/students at Cambridge and only then consider outside submissions. This means that there are fewer slots for non-Cambridge-affiliated Yanks. This is how at was in the past. This year's issue seems to deviate from that pattern. Maybe things are changing after all.
Also, the people who get to compete in the Olympics are the people who perform the best at their sport. The people who compete in *our* "Olympics" are the people with the best connections.
It's incredibly disingenuous to imply that the distinction between those with jobs and those without is sheer ability.
Well, I don't consider the Olympics fair. Some athletes and nations systematically cheat. Others are just out of luck and get injured before the big event. There is a correlation between ability and success, but it's not straightforward and I think that this also applies to the Classics job market.
Anyway, children, the moral of the story is:
Don't try to become a Classicist unless you can fall back on a trust fund.
This is not a career for people who *need* to work.
The moral is that you need a Plan B, and that going into a relatively obscure field like Classics is always an end in itself.
If you go into Classics because you think that it's your calling, then do it. If you go into Classics because you dream of a professorial career, then you are a fool.
If you honestly think there is such a thing as a "calling", you are a fool.
I'd buy your article, only I've just loaned my last cent to a Nigerian bloke whose industrialist father's in a spot of bother. Fabulous return though.
I'm appalled by the person trying to sell an article. To me, this just shows the decline in character that you see in the current generation of Classicists. The fact of the matter is that if you're looking for a reason why it's so hard to find a job, here it is, right in front of you. Today's Classicist is either too lazy or too mercenary to do anything worthwhile. If I were a dean, Classics would be the first thing I would look to cut, and Classicists have nobody to blame but themselves.
The problem with Classics is the religious or quasi-religious fuckers who associate it with ridiculous words like "character".
enough with the moralising. if you can make some money out of a field like this and if someone can get some help out of it, well, so be it. I'd sell my book if I had not published it already.
does anybody know why Georgetown did not hire last yr? I interviewed for them and that was it. I am a Hellenist, I see now they have a Latinist position. Thanks for wasting my time last year.
Shouldn't you all keep your all of your moralizing anger for the person who buys the article?
Right off hand I can think of two plausible scenarios where the seller is coming from.
First, they are tenured in a place where the marginal salary increase for productivity is so low that selling a strong piece for cash up front makes good sense. Too risky, in my opinion, but maybe they are in a tough spot financially.
Second, they have been trying to find jobs for years, and realize that they have struck out on this market. They are leaving the field. But, over the past couple of years they have poured themselves into a truly excellent piece of scholarship which will mean squat to their future employer and future life.
Think about it. Two years of hard, hard, work. How many man-hours might that be? 500? 700? Whatever it is, many fucking hours. So, if they are leaving the field anyway, why not try to earn some pay for all of that time in the library and in front of the computer? Plainly "the job market" has not responded with the coin of a job, so let "the market" respond with actual fucking coin. What happens if they are found out? Will they be exiled from the land of classics? Oh, right, they already are! So much for the blackmail problem.
Finally, with respect to the buyer, how is this really different from all of those classicists out there who rely on the labor of their spouse to help them achieve tenure and/or success in the field? All too often they are male, and they have a helpmate who, every bit as skilled as they are, can deal with footnotes, translate, write a precis, copy-edit, grade, or even ghost-write whole articles and books? We all know this happens. Is this not using the labor and skills of others for your own personal advancement? There the "purchase" is made not in cash but in something less fungible. Nonetheless, it is still a private transaction which obscures the source and improperly signals public merit.
Do we take into account these various kinds of privilege when assessing potential hires, or tenure cases? Do we discount a JRS article for a Cambridge grad, or the various journals attached to various departments that somehow seem to offer safe havens for their own products and affiliates to publish in? Of course not. A publication is a publication, and everybody looks the other way in embarrassment, just like my dog when he takes a shit as I hold his leash.
We all embrace the so-called "market" in all aspects of our lives, and point to it as a signifier of our own successes. We know the peer-review system is corrupt and broken, and yet we continue to rely on it in order to "judge" quality. This proposal seems to me just the logical extension of the corrupt practices in which we all are active and willing participants.
As for scaring the children. Good. They need to be set straight. Perhaps fewer of them will choose to enter into this world thinking that academia is a land of rainbows and unicorns. Go read your Hobbes, little ones.
Look, I'm neither the seller, nor a potential buyer, but if this gets us talking about the problems inherent in how we appraise the work necessary to succeed in the field, then I hope Servius keeps it up.
Dear Dr. Daft at the University of Toronto,
Welcome to the internet! Please know that when you request that About.Com send spam (i.e. dozens of newsletters) to a particular email address then About.Com also informs that same email address whence the request has come. About.Com provides this information in the form of the requester's IP address. Which is how I know who you are (protip: whois.temi.co.uk or whois.arin.net can be quite useful)! I will refrain from posting your name here, but I strongly suggest that you learn about internet anonymizers (anonymouse.org is a particularly good one), or even go so far as to install the TOR browser on your Macintosh. Taking these very basic steps will also prevent your department head from discovering that rather nasty porn habit of yours.
Cheers!
Clodius
It's a fun puzzle, trying to figure out who this Publius Clodius Pulcher is - sort of like trying to figure out the identity of your referee for a journal article. On the assumption that everything Clodius (hereafter C.) has said about him/herself is true, let's see if it's possible to sift through the clues. First, I set out the bare facts:
1. C. works on Latin literature/Roman History
2. C. "has published in JRS before"
3. C. plans to attend the 2015 APA (no mention of the 2014 APA, however)
4. C. would only expect a "marginal return professionally" for the paper.
Now, let's analyze C.'s posts, for some further possible information from which to draw inferences:
4. C. thinks him/herself sufficiently capable of self-evaluation to speak about a paper that is he/she considers his/her "best work", suggesting a scholar of a certain level of experience (either that, or megalomania)
5. C. evinces a pro-UK bias in journal selection. British journals JRS and CQ are at the top (surprising to see the latter - JRS's acceptance rate is substantially lower than CQ's), followed by US journals CP and AJP, and then G&R (British), CJ (American), and Historia (Continental)
6. C. speaks about the "department head", which is not typical of US departments (where "chair" is the preferred nomenclature). This designation is more common in the UK.
7. *Yet*, C. uses American spelling with the word "anonymizers" (rather than UK "anonymisers") and abbreviates the word "doctor" with "Dr." rather than "Dr", which is the British convention.
8. C. has more interest in computers than many of us (and certainly more than poor Dr. Daft) and inclines towards Macs (although C. prefers the old-fashioned term "Macintosh")
9. C. has a quick sense of humor.
10. C. might actually know who Publius Clodius Pulcher really was.
Based on this evidence alone, I think I can venture a very good guess at the identity of our friend Clodius. But I refuse to break Servius' rules. Sorry!
I don't care about who this buffoon selling an article is, but I am interested in knowing who Publius Clodius Pulcher really was.
So, who was he?
There is of course, always the possibility that this whole article-selling enterprise was an attempt to sabotage the career of the person who can be identified from the information outlined above.
Classics! For when you want your life to have an "I, Claudius" level of political manipulation.
Servius, please don't delete this thread. This is the most original, interesting and timely topic to grace the pages of Famae Volent since the Archaeologists took their ball and bat and went home.
Cornelius Nepos is the prince of the blog for his post above.
where did the archaeologists go? (link please)
To hell, where they belong!
Yeah, it's all very, very funny. What the children out there should know is that publications are important, but that none gets hired or tenured because of his publication record. If a department doesn't want you, you won't get hired or tenured, no matter how well you are published. It's very easy to belittle someone's work, and it takes virtually no effort to convince a non-specialist ad-hoc committee or a dean to drop a candidate, even when the department is on his side. Publish as much and as well as you can, but be aware that this is no guarantee for anything.
Right. Fundamentally, Classics is not a meritocracy but an oligarchy. Success or failure mostly depends on one's relationship with the leading oligarchs.
Now let's go find some metics, this field needs more moola.
Four points:
1a) To anyone so amoral as to think that there is nothing wrong with Clodius Pulcher's proposal I would simply ask how this is any different from one of your students buying a term paper for your class off the internet, and what you would do about it if you found out. (I would ask this same question of Clodius Pulcher himself, if he -- I assume it's a he because presumably women have less need to know how to use the internet anonymously -- had not kindly requested that we not discuss ethics with him.)
1b) If that didn't convince the amoral among you, I'll make the point that if someone actually does buy this article and it is indeed JRS-worthy (rather than "spongeworthy," in the Augustan sense), and that helps that someone land a job that he/she otherwise would not have, this happens at the expense of someone else, i.e. the runner-up. If it helps someone get tenure who might otherwise have been denied tenure it indirectly costs someone a job, assuming that if he/she have been denied tenure the department eventually would have been authorized to hire a replacement. Only if it is used to get a tenured person a promotion is there no chance of a more deserving person losing out at a job.
3) The person several posts up complaining about how jobs go to people with connections might not have done sufficient analysis. Since very, very few of us are *born* with connections in the world of classics -- there are some, e.g. a prominent British archaeologist whose father is a very distinguished Greek historian -- it means that those of us who do have connections earn them at some point. Perhaps you're upset that the good jobs go to "Princeford" (to use the local parlance) grads. Well, those grads got to those top programs by excelling as undergrads -- some at top schools that they got into because they excelled in high school, others at lesser schools, where they showed themselves worthy of being at top programs, and others admittedly because they excelled at schools that they got into because of family status and connections (e.g., as "legacies"). Now, OF COURSE there are excellent people who somehow did not get into top programs, and top programs have produced more than a few duds. But it's not like those who do have the connections you complain about just obtained them through magical conjuration. (I write this as one who is on the market again this year, did not go to one of the topmost programs, and yet does have some enviable connections.)
4) I believe that Servius can leave up the original post but delete the e-mail address. At least, that's what I would do if I were some sort of Latin scholiast wannabe.
And anyone who wants to guess at my identity only needs to recognize that there are few among us who are both longwinded when posting and capable of making as clever a joke as my "spongeworthy" line. (And if anyone wants to buy jokes from me that can be posted on Famae Volent, just send an anonymous e-mail with your bid to classicistwhothinksheisfunnyandmayindeedbe@gmail.com. Your jokes will be ready at the 2015 APA meeting.)
@spongebob
you must be Pulcher's alter ego. In my twenty years in the field I have never come across a classicist who is that pompous and self-righteous, and that's saying a lot!
Don't you have anything better to do than feeding your own troll?
Come now! Of course ole' spongy's pretty pompous, but you haven't been in the game too long if you think she is exceptionally so. Exceptionally pompous around Classicists is carrying around a scepter and telling people to kiss your pinky ring.
Basically, we're a bunch of total dicks who were told we were smart our whole lives but then picked a profession no one cares about, and within that profession, most likely had to take a job at Shithead College for Stupids. Is it any wonder we spend our whole lives roaming around looking for opportunities to imply that we are ever so smart?
So, not a good interview outfit then?
I am definitely contemplating declining any interviews I get and becoming a hobo, just so I can reject someone else for once in my fucking miserable life.
That'll show 'em.
How feasible is it to interview at the APA while getting away with not registering?
I don't exactly have $170 sitting around.
From what I've heard, that should be possible. The only place where they strictly enforce registration is the book fair and maybe major talks/plenaries/blah. If your interview is being arranged through the APA (rather than AIA), my understanding is that you'll need to register with the APA job service (meh) in order for them to book you an interview. But if your interviewers are arranging the time etc. directly with you, don't bother with the official stuff.
It's impossible for words to describe what is necessary to those who do not know what horror means. Horror... Horror has a face... and you must make a friend of horror. Horror and moral terror are your friends. If they are not, then they are enemies to be feared.
I wrote my post with deliberate pomposity so that a friend would recognize that it was my post -- my pomposity featured one or two private jokes/allusions.
With that said, at the risk of being accused of pomposity, I'll just say that anyone who could read my post and think I must be Clodius Pulcher's sock puppet is so poor at close readings of texts that I can only hope that his/her professional efforts are devoted to joining pottery sherds or counting pig bones at altars, or some such thing.
God, I hope every classics department gets shut down if even 10% of you folks are like this.
Anonymous @ 12:19: I did this my first year on the market when the cost of my airfare wiped out my savings, and I had no problems. Bear up beneath the double blow of not being allowed in the book room and of lacking one of those snazzy name tags, and you should be fine.
some schools require that you sign up with the placement service, which is $55 for non-members. But you really don't have to register for the conference, unless you want a name tag. I think everyone in the field understands that going to the APA is a big expense for grad students and un- and underemployed classicists. If you have a regular position though, you are expected to register.
There are many reasons to criticize the tenure system, but some of the comments here have toppled over into fantasy-land. No, tenure decisions are NOT controlled by "politics."
At my SLAC, the college-wide tenure and promotion committee evaluates tenure files from all departments. There are an equal number of scientists, social scientist, and humanists on the committee, so every committee member has to evaluate the dossiers of candidates way outside their own discipline.
The departmental recommendation for or against tenure is only one small part of each candidate's dossier. Over the last few years here, some candidates have been denied tenure though their departments supported granting it, and some have been given tenure though their departments argued against it. For the college committee, the crucial, sine qua non items are 1) extremely strong teaching; 2) several peer-reviewed publications; 3) adequate service to the college (e.g., committee work) Without peer-reviewed publications, you can't get tenure here, no matter how good or beloved a teacher you are or how much service you do. You have to check off all three boxes. But, conversely, the tenure/promotion committee here could not deny tenure to someone who had peer-reviewed publications, excellent teaching, and adequate service.
There's no mechanism for us deny tenure on "political" grounds (or even on grounds of "collegiality".) In fact, when I served on this committee I was quite surprised at just how strict, clear, and inflexible the rules are. If we had tried to deny tenure to someone who had peer-reviewed publications and excellent teaching and service, we would have been overruled by the Dean and the President. When the committee makes a decision on each case, it has to write an explanation of the grounds on which it made the decision. There's no way the committee could get away with an explanation saying "Despite his number of peer-reviewed articles, we vote to deny …" unless the person in question were a lousy teacher (and widely known to be such) or had performed next to no college service.
As for the suggestion of "selling" a publishable article, I assume it's a spoof. If it's meant seriously, then no-one but a fool would even consider it. Yes, if the trick worked it could help get you tenure. But if you were found out (as you very likely would be), that would be grounds for dismissal from your tenured position. Writing your own articles is not only morally and ethically correct, it's also prudent.
I'm sure the above poster knows how tenure and promotion works at his/her institution, but there is hardly any room to extrapolate from that one example to a broader conclusion that politics does not enter into tenure decisions elsewhere.
Those politics don't even have to be departmental; high-level administrators can and do interfere with tenure decisions at some institutions.
The tenure system differs from institution to institution. This applies to details (like whether the candidate gets to see outside letters or no) to major differences in the process. Some institutions have tenure and promotion committees, others don't. Some have an appeals mechanism, others don't. Some have very clear rules and others don't. Especially at top-ranked schools, tenure decisions can be frivolous. There are a number of very well published scholars with excellent teaching records who have been denied tenure.
As far as I see it, the main difference is between private and public universities. At private universities the rules are often vague and give a lot of leeway to the administration. At public institutions the process is typically more transparent. In a nutshell, there is no tenure system. There are tenure systems, and a young assistant professor has to figure out how her institution handles tenure cases.
I know of cases that cleared the department and the tenure and promotion committee only to be shot down by the dean or the provost. I even know of a case where a university president took it upon himself to scuttle a tenure case, even though this is normally well below his pay grade.
I'm sorry, but you can rig a tenure case. If you want your candidate to get tenure, you make sure that the outside referees will be sympathetic. If you want to bring someone down, you make sure that there will be a couple of hatchet jobs. Maybe outside letters don't play a major role at your institution, but they do at most major research universities.These schools won't be satisfied with a certain number of peer-reviewed publications, but want to hear that the tenure candidate is a "leader in the field". And they want to read this more than five times from actual leaders in the field.
Who is the "you" who gets to choose the outside letter writers in order to rig a case? I'm genuinely curious. Here (same SLAC I posted about above) the candidate submits a list of possible outside reviewers, with descriptions of their qualifications and of their relationship (if any) with the candidate. The Dean then chooses 4 writers off of that list. If not enough reviewers can be found from that list, the Dean asks the candidate for more suggestions. Since the department gets no say whatsoever in who the outside reviewers will be and the Dean chooses from a list provided by the candidate, I'm not sure who would be doing the rigging or inviting "hatchet jobs" to write.
But, yes, it's different at different places. I was trying, in my first post, to push back against the sweeping assumptions of previous writers that ALL tenure-decisions are "political" by pointing out that there are places where they aren't.
rbtAt many institutions, the tenure committee picks the letter writers. The candidate can make suggestions, but the committee is not a all bound by these suggestions. Also, most R1 institutions want to see at least eight letters, at some places even up to twelve. These letters have to come from peer and peer plus institutions and there are strict conflict of interest rule, which exclude former advisors or close collaborators. This leaves a lot of room for manipulation. At some universities, the dean can also commission letters herself to complement the letters solicited by the department, which is usually the kiss of death.
how do we figure out the venue of interviews? I have only the time on my APA page. thanks.
how do we figure out the venue of interviews?
Haruspicy. Preferably performed in the middle of the Hyatt lobby.
But in all seriousness, the room information should be posted in your calendar at some point before the meetings. Although, from what I've heard, this has not been without issue in recent years. So, best to have your sacrificial victims lined up, just in case.
Speaking of such things, if anyone is interested in a curse tablet etching party at the APA, let me know. It's bring your own sheet of lead, but we'll all go together to wedge them in the door jambs of especially hostile search committee members or candidates who are getting entirely too many interviews.
There are indeed many different rules for tenure letters, but one common system is for the candidate to provide a list of X from which the dept. will pick X-2, while also coming up with X-2 names of its own. It's also not impossible for a chair or senior colleague to find out informally whether the candidate has any enemies, who would not be good choices. There is still a little room for departments to slant the process, but not too too much.
venue of interview? some will be in a dept's suite, the room number of which will not be known until they check in, or in an interview room, which also may not be assigned until they arrive.
Uh, a certain someone just outed themselves on the Wiki. Better fix that!
What do you mean? Are you talking about the username on the edit? Or does this have something to do with why someone deleted edits 271-273?
Sometimes I really hate the wiki.
I was talking about the edits associated with the username. I guess it doesn't out them, but I find it interesting nonetheless.
I Don't know what is going on with the UMass deletions. People are annoying.
I originally posted about not getting a rejection email from them - there had been some mix up in mailing the app so I thought maybe I had fucked up and it had never gotten there.
But I've gotten the email since then and I've never been so pleased to see a rejection email in my life. So I suppose the UMass edits can stay dead.
All the universities I know well handle tenure letters differently. In my own tenure case, most of my letter writers were not on my list. Still, the letters were all very good, because my tenure committee had chosen the letter writers very carefully.
This will usually get you tenure, but there are exceptions. At many high end schools, the process is so secretive that senior administrators have a lot of influence over tenure decisions and can overrule departments and university-wide committees with relative ease.
how many yrs should one spend looking for a job before giving in? anybody?
Two years with nary a nibble and I'd call it over. If you can string together some temporary gigs, however, this buys you some time. After five years then your degree date starts to work against you in the search for a tenure track position, unless you've managed to get a book and a number of top-notch articles out.
That sounds about right. This is year three for me, and after this I'm definitely out unless the unexpected happens.
I also have to agree with 12:11. I went on the market in 2009, and by luck found some teaching work outside classics. I've managed about an article/chapter a year and have a book prospectus out for review now. I applied for a few jobs this year and came up with nothing. If a decent university press is interested in my book, I have decided that next year will be my last try. If I can't find a decent job with 6 respectable articles, good teaching, and a completed book out for review (the anticipated stage for next year) there really isn't much more I can do. I can't change the school, the degree, the adviser, or my research area. And I've seen enough bitter part-timers and adjuncts hanging on for a decade to know that isn't for me. Possible alternatives: pharmaceutical sales, university administration, publishing, poor reader of books in the Mediterranean.
Does anyone know what happens if you didn't update your interview availability on the placement service calendar before the deadline? I didn't bother because I thought I had struck out, but I just found out I was mistaken. I've updated it now, but does the missed deadline mean that the system won't be able to schedule me? Or will they just assume I'm available at all times?
FRAGRACTA HOLD TINIC PLAYERS IN SINGAPORE - iTanium
The FRAGRACTA SINGAPORE game is a game on a oakley titanium glasses mobile phone ford titanium ecosport that titanium solvent trap monocore combines the elements titanium cup of classic fishing titanium grinder games and is a real test of
Post a Comment