I've often wondered what it would be like if I'd come across FV as an undergrad all those long years ago. I didn't begin the journey into academia with any illusions--I had responsible professors who gave me "the talk" about there being no jobs--this was around the time the field began to implode and one of them had some high position in the AIA and so had access to real statistics. But the effect of your professors telling you don't do it is different from hearing actual people trying and failing to secure permanent employment. In the end I managed to be one of the lucky ones, but we lucky ones are few indeed. The market will chew up and spit out most people.
@10:41, put it in there. There seems to be some group on here whose advisors gave them horrible advice about CVs. It is not "unethical" for you to list declined fellowships (my BFD advisor has two such fellowships on her CV), articles in prep or under review (how else will committees be able to trace out your future publication arc? Are they reading tea leaves or something?), low-level awards (how else will they know that you're actually making an impact on campus?), etc. If a committee doesn't value that stuff, they'll look past it. If they don't understand something, they'll ask you about it in an interview. Don't make yourself look like a weaker candidate than you are.
Personally I would not include offers I had declined (it looks like padding, to me, and distracts from the accomplishments that you did actually follow through with). I would certainly not include anything if I was merely a finalist. I get a bad impression when I read a 6-page CV that is 50% filler.
@11:21, what wording do you (or your advisor) use to make it clear that you were offered the position but declined it? I think whether or not to include these things is a matter of personal choice, but to include it without making absolutely clear that you did not accept it and follow through with the commitment is DEFINITELY unethical.
People really do list fellowship offers they received but turned down?!? What would you even call that category on your C.V.?
So, thinking logically, does that mean I can list the conference talks I was invited to give but turned down? (Or, in one case I accepted but the conference was called off because of funding.) If not, what's the difference?
This is one of the stranger things I've learned on F.V. recently. (I haven't had to know this since I have accepted all of the fellowships I have received. And that's not tricky wordplay trying to hide the fact that I have never received a fellowship offer: I simply get mine one at a time.)
Of course you list fellowships declined. There is a huge difference between getting offered a prestigious fellowship (which entails an extensive review process--often you are in the running with 600 + applicants) and getting accepted for a conference (which is peanuts in comparison). Fellowship applications and interviews also take a lot of time and energy to apply for. I would probably not list TT jobs declined, however, just for professional reasons. But if I had to turn down, for instance, Harvard SoF for a TT I would definitely include that in my CV, simply listing it in awards received with a polite "(declined)" next to it.
I was mystified and a little amused when I saw that someone at a different university lists "Program Committee Member" on their cv for a graduate conference that was held at the university I attended. I think that means they spent about an hour one time reading and ranking abstracts (I helped organize the conference and saw all the work that went into it on our end). Knowing that they put a line on their cv for an hour (maybe two) of effort makes me question everything else they list and, to be honest, their character in general.
I put the year, name of the fellowship/ institution, amount (if its a grant for fieldwork / research and not an annual fellowship), and if I decline it, I put (declined). Because there will be something in the same year that was more prestigious, it should be obvious that I declined X to hold Y. But I only list declined awards if they're significant and at the national level, not departmental fluff. This might sound counterintuitive when we some of us feel like we're faking it, but awards snowball into bigger awards.
@12:15, then you're missing out. Sure, once you're a big-deal tenured professor you don't need to put program committee member in the "service" section of your CV. But at this stage, what other major accomplishments is that line obscuring? Stop shooting yourself in the foot in service of judging other people.
If you organize a SCS panel or conference, this is worth putting in a "service" section.
I would say as a rule, short CVs with a few relevant items are much better than long CVs full of fluff. If you wonder whether you should put it on, this may be a sign that you should leave it off. Limit the CV to publications, papers presented at "adult" venues like the SCS (i.e. not grad. student conferences), competitive fellowships or grants (not funding given by department) , and teaching assignments.
I would say a graduate student could easily not have a service section at all.
^ I spent a lot of time and energy interviewing and writing up reports of interviews with ~10 prospective students/year at my undergrad institutions. That is university service and definitely goes on my CV.
I'm actually not quite as limiting as 3:16 (grad conference papers are fine, to me, though you should be aware that some people reading your CV will skim over them and look for SCS vel sim.).
My metric of whether to include something is either "a lot of time and energy" (see 3:27) or "it was an honor that someone chose me for this over so many other people." Not "I volunteered to do this and it took less than 2 hours." If I included everything I did in the latter category, even as a grad student, it would add an entire page to my CV.
I'll admit that being suspicious of this person's character over this one thing is too harsh, but I still don't think that such a tiny item belongs on a CV. Once I notice that someone has blown one thing out of proportion (this also happens with descriptions of "books in progress" that, on closer examination, show no evidence of any work beyond the dissertation phase) I tend to look askance at all of their other supposed accomplishments. I say keep the CV tidy, and find ways to slip the little things into the cover letter or into conversation during a campus visit.
One caveat about grad conference papers: If the title/topic is very similar to a paper you gave at an "adult venue" (ugh) afterwards, then you should leave the grad conference off. It looks weird when people have 6-8 items under conference papers and they are all on the same topic.
Thanks, all. 12:16 has it exactly right, the declined postdoc opportunity (A) was to hold something else (B), but I'm proud of being selected for (A) nonetheless and I think it reflects well on my career and will (hopefully) help me land a permanent job one day (ha...).
I do think its very important to stop and think if an academic career is for you. Right now, I am guessing you are in your early 20s. The notion of hanging out and talking about books and language and history sounds pretty good. You don't mind being relatively poor, having roommates, etc. But a PhD will take you into your early thirties, and it may take another four-five years to find a TT job, if you find one at all. ...
April 3, 2018 at 10:12 AM
An alternative route is to apply to all of the top programmes in the UK: you can get out before you're 30, maybe make the right connections to land a proper job (in competition with hundreds of other people who also want those jobs, but will not leave the UK), and live in the UK for a while. The down side is the debt - oh, and the huge level of open competition, and the limited job prospects. Ok, a lot of down sides... But a year to the MA (if necessary) plus 3 years research only to the PhD could be your speedboat to a really nice terminal degree with (potentially) world-wide appeal. Even if you don't care about landing an academic job afterwards. Just a reminder that there are different ways to get to different places. Again, talking to a current adviser or somebody else who knows such things will be incredibly useful. Preferably someone without a vested interest.
I would be very cautious about UK PhDs for US students. They are fast (3 years), but they are not good credentials for Americans---they assume undergrads studies one topic in college, where as many US undergrad students only have a quarter of their courses towards a major. Finally, US hiring committees tend to only like UK PhDs when they are held by British of European scholars (who bring international appeal and connections), not Americans who did an extended study abroad.
I'm a grad student going on the market for the first time next year. I was looking through older wikis out of curiosity and I was hoping for input. On last year's classics wiki, I saw cheers for UCLA sending out a "classy" rejection letter, and then jeers for another school which sent out a "patronizing letter." I'm really curious what constitutes a classy letter and what constitutes a crappy/patronizing letter, if anyone feels like commenting.
1.) Look up course schedule at said school and see who the new faculty member is.
2.) If the schedule lists "STAFF" as the instructor, call the Department. Ask them who will be the professor for the class in question. You'll see "STAFF" if the Dept had to submit the fall schedule prior to making a final decision on who the new hire would be. But, by this time almost all of the said positions are known and identities are public knowledge.
I suppose "classy" may refer to a personalized rejection, or at least one that seems as if it was written for a particular batch of applicants for a particular position, as opposed to a boiler-plate generic "we had a lot of applicants and your application has not been successful this time." I have a vague recollection of a rejection that seemed patronizing a few years back, basically saying "there were loads of applicants, and, while many of them were OK, in the end only the best people were considered for this job. Obviously, you were not one of those best people." There's a decent chance that the person who actually posted that last year will be able to give us a clearer idea of what "patronizing" meant in that context. I'm fine with a form-letter rejection letter, I know there are sometimes over 100 applicants, often even upwards of 200, but the rejection doesn't need to do anything other than tell us someone else got the job, which we probably already knew by now anyway. Telling us there were a lot of applicants has never made me feel any better, but I can see where that might be helpful for some people. But everyone's reading on these things varies, so there's probably no best practice for rejection letters, beyond not belittling the people receiving the letter.
I didn't post either a cheer or a jeer, since I think that whole section is stupid, but I can say that I remember being rejected by UCLA twice with an unusually thoughtful rejection and without the usual clichés, and since these letters came from two different search (or department?) chairs it shows that it wasn't a single individual being classy. This gave me a favorable opinion of the program -- which persists even after this year once again they didn't give me a tenure-track job to which I applied.
Usually I just read this thread for entertainment, but feel the need to respond to @5:14. I'm an American with a Ph.D. from the UK. I got a job in the US this cycle. My degree wasn't an 'extended study abroad.' It was a Ph.D. I even had to write a thesis and everything if you can believe it!
Are there downsides to doing the degree in the UK? Yes. Your network probably won't be as large, especially in terms of getting you a job back in the US. If you are not a philologist you might have to fight to be able to teach languages, but in terms of teaching in general my program was always looking for people to take on more teaching. There may be fewer conferences to put on your CV depending on your subfield. There is no tradition of giving extensive stipends in the UK, so you need to be very aware of your financial situation before you get involved in a degree.
Are there positives to doing your degree in the UK? Also yes. It's faster as noted above, but I would include the fact that most people take a 'writing up year' to finish their PhD, so you should really plan on four years on just the Ph.D. (one year masters is the norm) so you're looking at five total years. The research culture is fantastic. Expect weekly seminars from invited scholars where you can see the cutting edge of the field and are encouraged to seriously challenge their work. On that note, it is expected that in critiquing the research of others (and having your research critiqued) you will give no quarter, as none will be given to you. Yes I think this is a positive thing because it encourages better, more meaningful scholarship. Focusing for so long on your thesis allows you to explore more novel topics and approaches.
So yes, there are positives and negatives to doing your Ph.D. abroad, but my goal here was to give you a more realistic picture of those positives and negatives as someone who has been there, done it, and obtained a job back in the US (after many many many applications which I don't think is different from anyone else).
Oxbridge certainly gets the name recognition outside of the UK, so that is certainly a pro. The Ph.D. is such an individual experience it might be tough to compare beyond the statistics. I have, for example, known people that loved their time at Oxbridge, and others who thought the atmosphere was incredibly toxic. Supervisors play a huge role in what type of experience you get.
Not related to the job market, but I thought this might be a good place to get some advice. I'm preparing a paper for my first conference ever this week. My talk comes from a very long seminar paper, and I need to convert it into a 20 minute talk. I feel like it's a mess now, since I've had to condense so much/be selective about the evidence. Are conference talks always like this, something like a jumble? Or do people manage to deliver good 20 minute talks? If so, any suggestions?
@9:31pm -- you got a job, congrats! Was it TT? If so, then update the wiki.
Your experience is probably in the minority. Besides the toxicity of Oxbridge (all of my friends there hated it and regreted going), I would say this is the biggest problem with the UK DPhil: "Focusing for so long on your thesis allows you to explore more novel topics and approaches."
US PhD students have to take coursework, take modern language exams, Greek and Latin language exams, prose composition, surveys, and finally, very often oral comprehensive exams, too--not to mention several years of teaching. The UK has none of that. Anything beyond the dissertation is entirely voluntary. The problem I have with the US undergrad--UK MSt/MPhil/DPhil combination is that when I talk to these people they know nothing outside of their narrow field. They didn't get enough grounding in their undergraduate (unlike UK undergrads) and they then didn't broaden their knowledge at the Masters or DPhil stage. To be sure, they are the expert in their tiny niche, and that may well be enough to get them a job, but that may be a clear reason why US colleges are suspicious... The UK candidates that do get jobs in the US usually already have a lectureship/postdoc in the UK and have built up enough of a reputation to then cross the Atlantic.
also: don't go to the UK without getting a full ride scholarship. Paying your own way for the Masters or DPhil does not look good... it implies you weren't deemed good enough.
I also expect Brexit, if it ever happens, to destroy the higher education market in the UK (withdrawal of EU funding, e.g. in Masters students; ERC grants) and see a tsunami of (more senior) academic migration wash over the US--flooding this market even more so...
You cannot condense a full seminar paper into a 20 minute paper (and if this is for CAMWS, are the slots not 15 minutes?). It just is not possible. The best papers take a smaller, excellent case study from that larger project and flesh it out in terms of its wider significance. Lots of signposting on the argument and why it matters. And you can include some (only a few!) additional examples on your handout for a wider picture (if you have a handout) or allude to some that you're happy to discuss in the Q&A. But don't try to cover everything in a jumble; cover 1-2 good readings/analyses well. That is a good conference paper.
@9:41 Thank you. Yes, it is for CAMWS. I was given a bit more time as one speaker dropped out of my panel. So it sounds like I what I need to do is try to keep the talk itself quite focused on a couple pieces of evidence, and then frontload the additional primary evidence in the handout and merely refer to it when appropriate. Is that right?
9:41 AM again. Don't put TOO MUCH extra evidence on the handout - only use it that way if you cannot do without that evidence for the wider point. Instead frontload your BEST evidence as clearly as possible and draw wider conclusions from it. It is okay - though not always an effective strategy - to say something like "In a talk of this length I cannot go into all of the detail on X, but I am happy to take questions on the wider implications of this case study in the Q&A."
A well done case study in 15 minutes is a memorable paper. People can then ask for more.
Ok, thank you! I have heard of people writing their papers on the plane to the conference. Is this just people being hyperbolic, or does this actually happen? Not that I'm going to do that.....
@11:03 Of course people often leave their papers to the last minute and write them on the plane/ at the conference. That's not good practice, though, and especially if it's your first conference you'd be better served by getting it written up in advance, then leaving yourself time to practise it, time it, work out whether you want to condense it down to notes or use a full script, run it through with a friend, think about the questions you might expect (or want to encourage), edit the handout before having to print it. Obviously it's okay to edit your paper on the plane or the night before or during coffee breaks, but if you get the prep done in advance, you can actually relax at the conference/ during the travel and network/ see friends/ make friends/ listen to other papers with a clear unpanicked head. (I also think it's rude to the conference attendees and organisers to leave the paper to the last minute and brag about it.)
Some more advice on papers, for any first-timers: if you are using PowerPoint (I used to say "if you are using slides") then your talk will take a good 10-30% longer to deliver than if you are just reading. So if you practice reading your paper and it comes to 20 minutes but you are using illustrations your paper is going to be too long.
another vote against doing a DPhil in the UK is that lots of places there are increasingly hiring US PhDs, which says a lot especially for a market that is relatively closed, and has historically tended to hire only Oxbridge DPhils. For instance, KCL has several Princeton graduates in permanent employment (including incoming Hellenic Studies director). I also think there are various US grads in JRFs in Oxbridge as well.
^ "that lots of places there are increasingly hiring US PhDs"
really? I still get the impression that they prefer UK PhDs... well, my experience has been with JRFs where roughly 95% of recipients are oxbridge. Also, who is the incoming HS director?
First-time conference presenter: If the presider said you can speak for 20 minutes, then you can only get through 10 pages of double-spaced writing (on average). Cut your seminar paper WAY down, and remember that it's a lot harder to follow an argument aurally than in writing. Give your audience lots of sign-posting to help them follow along. If anything, I'd err on the side of it seeming too simple and straightforward. If YOU feel like it's at all jumbled, they will be completely lost.
You MUST time yourself reading the paper aloud before you show up at the conference! I saw a speaker who spoke rather slowly, only got through about 1/2 of the paper, and then said "Well the internet said that people read aloud at about X words per minute." Please do not be that person! Either your presider will cut you off (best case scenario) or you will eat into other speakers' time. One time I was not able to field any questions after my paper because the presider had not cut off the person before me when they went over. It felt like a huge waste to give a paper and then not be able to gauge any reactions to it whatsoever.
Any other conference disaster stories out there? Discover midway through that you forgot to print out the other half of the talk? Missing slides? Aggressive audience member who wouldn't back down?
My solution, which works for me, is not to write out my papers. I did that my first few APA's, but now I have a handout and I have notes, and I speak from those. If time is running out then I know what to skip, and I perhaps speak a bit more quickly. I find this preferable both because I don't have to spend time writing (on the plane, or elsewhere) and I think the audience is better able to follow speech with a normal cadence than the somewhat artificial speech of a paper being read aloud.
- I chaired a panel with an aggressive panellist who went over time (he'd brought 17000 words for a 20-minute paper!) and refused to stop despite my best efforts - At a small, day-long conference without multiple simultaneous sessions (i.e. everyone went to every paper), a paper at 11.30am completely (and persuasively) destroyed half the premises of my paper, due for 2pm. I ended up totally rewriting it by hand in the toilets, in the lunch break - A friend of mine connected her laptop to the projector at the start of her talk; it promptly froze, while displaying her last few (excruciatingly intimate) conversations on instant messenger - Another friend got a nosebleed during the questions for his talk
What people who go long don't realize is that once they are 2-3 minutes over few in the audience, if anyone, will be paying attention to what they are saying, because everyone starts to wonder when they will finish, and perhaps notice the increasing unease of the organizer. So they gain nothing, look bad, and wreck things for everyone else.
First time presenter: Lots of good advice in this thread. I would add one suggestion that I've found immensely helpful. If you're reading your paper, even if you've timed it privately, choose one section/paragraph that can be cut from the talk on the fly if need be and mark it off clearly for yourself, along with a new transition to the next point if you do end up cutting. I always seem to be near the end of the panel, and folks who go before me often go over. Being able to cut a minute or two--whether it's my fault or another panelist's--without causing damage to my paper has really helped me in the past and seems to build up good will from the other panelists and my audience.
On conference papers: one other important difference between your seminar paper and this conference paper is the level of knowledge you can presume on your audience's part. If you wrote the original paper for a graduate seminar on (say) Roman historiography, you knew your professors and classmates knew the primary sources, scholarship, theoretical possibilities and (not least!) the *point* of studying these things, just as well as you did (or better). At a general conference like CAMWS there'll be people from not just close (ish) fields like Roman literature, Greek historiography, etc, but far more disparate fields too: Indo-European linguistics, modernist poetry, Cypriot archaeology. You don't need to 'dumb it down', but you *do* need to make it clear what the point of your paper is, and make sure the contour of your argument is readily perceivable. It's always worth saying, not just 'Livy', but 'the historian Livy, writing under Augustus' (vel sim.), too.
I can't believe that so many of the VAP jobs have still not notified anyone for interviews. There are some, of course, that have contacted but so many are still quiet. I would imagine that being that we're into April at this point, SCs would have to get their shit together and review applications already. Many of the jobs to which I refer had deadline dates months ago.
This leaves me with little faith that the remaining SCs will do an adequate job of selecting candidates, and will, instead, rely on the easy method of "ok, where's the Harvard assholes... let's just give them the job, since they're clearly the best."
"Chad Chaddington III and Sterling Silverspoon IV? They went to Haaaarvard and even their names scream privilege, hire them both! What do you mean their research has no relevance? Intertextuality in Euripidian and Homeric scholia and a commentary on all 48 books of Nonnus's Dionysiaca? Totally relevant and cutting-edge!
I'm not the same person that posted it above, but I don't know what Ivy League grad students you all are running into. That's not been my experience at all, and I know most at least by reputation. Inflated egos? Sure. Entitlement? You bet. Otherwise your stereotype rings a little hollow.
Crooked Cincinnati's placement record is fake news! A professor who is a former ASCSA director uses their influence to get Cincinnati students jobs. Very unfair! SCS/AIA should investigate.
Oh, get over yourselves. Unless you were accepted by Harvard/Princeton/Yale and turned them down to go to some other program you can't criticize them without just seeming pathetically jealous. I was rejected by all of them and went to grad school at a place ranked around #10-15 and feel no resentment at the time. I just resent anonymous trolls.
1:01, 12:07 here. These jackasses (or, "you jackasses"?) aren't attacking departments, you're attacking grad students at those places. Nice reading skills.
Seriously, the struggle for tenure track jobs is just as real at the Ivies. Calling whole departments of grad students and recent grad students "jackasses" and "douches" is resentful, petty, and ignorant. These people are combatting the same job market as you all. No need to name call and shame others on account of your own insecurities and perceived shortcomings.
One last piece of advice for the person asking for conference paper advice. It's true that 20 minutes just about translates to 10 pages. But I'm a person who start speaking way too quickly if I'm feeling pressed for time. So, if I'm doing 20 minutes, I do nine pages, which makes sure I speak at a reasonable pace and that I'm not stressed out about being on time. Worst comes to worst, I finish about two minutes early, and nobody's ever complained about that.
Yeah. Aim for no more than 150 words per minute, or two minutes to read a page with around 280-300 words (the norm when formatted double spaced, 12 pt font).
Question: I have just received an interview request for a 3-year VAP. However, I already accepted an offer from my current institution to stay on for another (final) year. I've heard conflicting things on whether it's acceptable to back out of an accepted offer for something "better." In this case it's not just a matter of prestige, but the other school can offer me two more years of security than my current home. It seems foolish to pass on that possibility, but also foolish to risk alienating my current chair and, I assume, other colleagues here. Does anyone have experience with this? Does it ruin relationships? Is there a risk of getting bad-mouthed to future SC's?
There's some risk, but if you have a reasonable current Chair (I did when I was in a similar position a few years ago), they won't be irrational or offended that you're looking for a longer-term commitment. This is still just an interview, after all; there's no guarantee that you'll get the job. But if you do get the job, you'll be better off, and your current department will have a huge number of available candidates to fill the void. I say go for it. I've never been on the other side of the table in this kind of situation, though, so someone on an SC or many SCs may be able to give us their perspective.
I would not pursue the 3-yr gig. You've already put in time at your current school and you *just* got an additional year where you currently are. It's a massive risk to burn a bridge where you currently are (you might need a nice letter from a colleague there soon) just to take on a VAP that (assuming you're talking about the Conn. College job) is not a guarantee of 3 years, but mentions the "possibility."
Better to finish off your current commitment and not uproot your family for a job that offers (in all reality) not much more security.
..Being said, what I *would* do, is politely decline the interview request. You are a very lucky guy to have a VAP job that is willing to offer you more time. There are countless other folks out there who also have families and do not have the option to slap away a generous hand from a current employer to take something that *may* offer an additional time.
I don't blame you for considering the Conn. College VAP, but recall that Conn. College is very much so in disarray (they had a T-T job that was cancelled and down-graded to this very VAP that you're speaking of). What kind of security are you really trading for? You already know that your current school is stable and that they are willing to work with you and extend your time.
Given how Connecticut has demonstrated itself this job year, I wouldn't consider the "3-yr" VAP to be anything more than 1. Also, it seems as if receiving yet another year form your current institution next year at this same time would be plausible.
...one further bit of advice: lay out the pros/cons and ask your wife for her gut feeling on things.
So, as if folks already don't feel discouraged about the job market, take a look at the recently posted hire for the University of North Alabama job. He received his PhD in 1997. .....1997. Nothing like waiting 21 years after the PhD to get a T-T job.
I know that the 'norm' is 4-5 years out before most either get T-T or give up, but the fact that some folks took 21 years (or stayed at it for 21 years) is deeply saddening to me. This is my first year out, and I cannot recall ever feeling so horribly shitty about myself or my prospects in life.
@8:21: I agree with 8:27. My department had a very similar situation a few years ago. We had a VAP to whom we were able to offer another year. She ended up getting a three year offer from another institution rather late in the year. No one in the department faulted her for opting to take it, and I think it would send a loud, negative message if any tenured/tenure-track faculty had faulted her for her choice. We're professionals and understand that folks have to look out for themselves. She informed us as soon as she was able and yes, we had to hustle to get another VAP in (we were interviewing in June!) and it was really inconvenient, but that's part of the job. I firmly believe that any decent professional should understand your situation. Of course, there are less than decent tenured faculty, but nonetheless you must make yourself your first priority. If you're particularly comfortable with someone in your current department, I would suggest soliciting their opinion.
I am not very aware of the Conn College classics department and have no knowledge of their current state, but if 8:44 is correct, you probably should take their questionable stability into account.
8:27's reminder that this is only an interview is important. I would recommend not saying anything to your current institution until you have a firm offer in writing in hand should you get the job and opt to take it.
1997? That's a lot of determination to have stayed at it with temporary gigs the whole while. But, sadly, I've had many profs that were just adjuncts or VAPs and who had far older PhDs than the UNA hire.
Also, it's possible that he took some time off from Academia. Moreover, he's from the UK system, where "tenure" doesn't really exist and where the academic market is shittier than it is here. I'd say that I'm more impressed that he's willing to move from London to northern Alabama !! lol
It's weird that the Conn College poster doesn't mention anything about her or his personal life, but two separate responders assume that, first of all, this person is male and, second of all, that he is married and has a family and that that family is automatically going to follow him wherever he goes. Am I missing something?
@8:57, internet trolling reveals that he was a professor in both Oregon and Aarhus before this. Whatever reality is, I bet Alabama is going to be a bit of a shock...
I assume that the posters you mention know who OP happens to be, and, therefore, that he is a married man with a wife/kids. It was no secret that OP was talking about Conn. College, so it isn't hard to put pieces together if you know that guy IRL and then saw this post.
I feel your pain. I interviewed for UNA, but no campus invite. It was heart-breaking because I really felt like I nailed the interview and made some good connections during it (as much as one can in a Skype interview, anyway).
Best of luck to you next year, man. The new job cycle is only 4 months away.
@8:21 PM: Do it! Just leave for greener pastures. Your department chair does not give a crap about your interests- if you come up empty-handed next year on the job market, do you think he's going to give you an additional one-year full-time gig just out of compassion for you? Think again- these department chairs just view you as a qualified warm body they can put in the classroom and will easily find someone else to take your place if they need to.
How many of us are still without any perspectives for next year? I'm apparently one of those Ivy douches (as per FV) that somehow didn't manage to cheat the system.
9:11 PM, you must be joking, yes? All the person says is that they're considering accepting an interview request, there's no way the responders could have known who they are. I, too, found it offensive that both 8:27 and 8:44 assumed the poster is a straight, married man with children. I'm not someone who tends to go in big for seeing bias in the field, but that was a pretty clear case of assuming a set of characteristics for the natural identity of a scholar.
There’s only one “3-yr” VAP out there; Connecticut. So it’s obvious what job the poster was talking about. So, it is possible that that poster’s real identity was known by others here.
Second, if you’re so easily offended maybe you should avoid the Internet.
I feel oh so bad for all the Ivy and Oxbridge people who can't get jobs. If our most elitist and privileged institutions can't get their students jobs, what's the world coming to? Hence the need to MCGA!
I'm from an Ivy League program too (and therefore I'm obviously a spoon-fed douche whose nanny has been teaching me Latin and Greek since I was four in our mansion, as per FV) and I also have nothing lined up for next year.
And just to be clear (10:47 here), I'm not saying I deserve a job more than anyone else from any other school. Maybe I do, maybe I don't. That's up to the individual search committees. I don't feel the need to demonize or mock other people on the job market, who are all in the same shitty situation as me. If someone is lucky enough to get a job, I can be happy for them and not judge them, as people here tend to do, even when they know nothing about the person besides what an internet search can tell them.
I'm the first Ivy douche from 12:23 AM. To the person who wrote 'I feel oh so bad for all the Ivy and Oxbridge people who can't get jobs.' - thank you, I appreciate the kind thought.
And now without sarcasm to other future unemployed Ivoxbridge - thanks! I fell less of a failure now.
Personally I think that there is some valid criticism of the departments at the Ivies in that the number of students is simply too many. Now, this is a criticism that can be extended to other top programs as well, since it seems to be a case of just because one can do something doesn't mean one should. In this instance just because a program can afford to have, say, around 40+ PhD students doesn't mean that it should. I'm just talking Classics proper, this doesn't count all the stupid random configurations of Classical Studies, Archaeologists in Art History programs, or weird interdisciplinary units in Archaeology or Ancient History--adding those in the numbers are even more bloated. Part of this I imagine comes from the fact that the Ivies and other wealthy schools have got deep pockets and so they can have so many students, but they shouldn't.
I wanted to express honest appreciation to the Ivy/Oxbridge doucheis for finally just coming out and admitting it. That, plus the fact that you're all just as, if not more, unemployed than everyone else...
I think this is really all the rest of us commoners ever wanted. Seriously. You're an unemployed douche? Done. Class war over.
@12:25 PM: yes, our department had a similar discussion a few years back, when they realized they admitted too many students (they haven't graduated yet, so the wave is still to come). As far as I know, the faculty was divided between those who wanted to cut down the numbers and those who wanted to continue with large cohorts.
OK, Ivy folks, non-Ivies are dealing with sentiments like, "To be fair, it is outrageous to go through a top tier program and then struggle for a permanent job when someone from a program that shouldn't even exist gets one" (verbatim quote from an earlier comment, late January).
I don't think that anyone should be criticizing anyone, but you have to admit that students coming out of top tier programs have a lot more access to jobs than those from lower-tier programs. It may not work out in every individual case, but privilege is larger than the individual case study. So, while you might not appreciate being criticized for your privilege, you must at least recognize that there's *some* truth to it. So, instead of saying that you're just like the Plumber Joes, articulate where you think there's some common ground (we're all in this garbage job market together) and also explain how you struggle in ways that those from lower tier programs might not understand because they're not in it. Foster understanding, but don't pretend that we're all in the actual same boat when it comes to access to resources, jobs, etc.
That's an awful lot of imperatives and 'you have to's' for suggesting how to start a dialogue. Let me take a stab at it.
You have to admit that we Ivy douches aren't the problem. You must recognize that Cincinnati and PhDs from 1997 are taking all of the jobs. Articulate and foster and understanding of how we must stop this plague on the field.
1:28: yes, I know we are in a privileged position. I went through all public schools and went to a very underprivileged undergrad, so coming to an Ivy program was shocking. So many resources and so much money for research trips and conferences! Also, since I additionally worked on the campus, I could save enough of money not to be afraid of starving during a potential year of unemployment. I have never pretended that I am a regular Joe. The only thing I wanted to know from FV was whether there were other people from programs like mine, who felt completely inadequate in comparison to colleagues who got good jobs early on.
Many here on FV made the argument that whenever a minority or female gets a job in academia that we ought to recognize that they had to work far harder and that they faced more opposition (some direct some indirect) than white males, and thus are deserving of more praise for equal work of their white male counterparts.
(I am paraphrasing here, but this is, essentially, the argument)
...being said, can we then say that non-Ivy folk who do get jobs (the Cincinnati Phds this year, for instance) must be looked at with higher esteem than their elisits neighbors at Harvard and Yale?
We all feel inadequate and that somehow were “fooling” everyone and have managed to sneak by with sub-par work without ever getting noticed. It’s called **imposter syndrome** and it’s quite common among successful academics. We have a support group for imposter syndrome sufferers, it’s call everyone, and we meet at the bar.
So, people who don't have anything lined up for next year...what are you planning to do in the interim if you're also planning to have another go at the market next year?
I interviewed for a position who did their last interview in the second half of March. I haven't heard anything yet, is that a bad sign? How long should I hold out hope?
I'm really over the MCGA joke, especially as FV has recently shown itself to be just as racist, sexist, bigoted, and prejudiced as the MAGA movement the joke mocks. We are no better. The lack of self-awareness is disheartening and depressing.
FV just as prejudiced as MAGA chuds?! I was under the impression that the consensus on the unofficial official stance of FVers was that we needed to toe the line and adopt the pseudo-woke slant of Eidolon types.
Maybe I'm not sharp enough, what with my non-Ivy brain and all, but what has anyone here at FV said that is anti-Semitic? There have been some questionable ideas put forward about diversity re: race and gender but I don't recall anything resembling anti-Semitism.
Oh come off it. The person in question has left the field, regardless of whether or not they continue to interact with people who have not. They are not a vulnerable junior scholar or graduate student. They are a grown-up who has created a successful, very public academia-adjacent career and online platform and in so doing they open themselves to criticism. We lowly anonymous plebs here at FV can do nothing to hurt this person.
Also, the idea that "Billionaire" is an anti-Semitic dog-whistle is ludicrous. If that were the case then that makes somebody like Bernie Sanders a self-hating Jew considering all of his attacks aimed at millionaires and billionaires.
It's not just about professional consequences, it's about basic human decency.
On another note, I don't think referring to her as a billionaire's sister is necessarily anti-Semitic. I get the negative association between Jews and wealth, but without larger context, that pretty basic comment can't be classed as "anti-Semitic."
Twinkish young "Jared Kushner" will bring peace to the Middle East and his sister will save Classics by dragging it kicking-and-screaming into the 21st Century (with pseudo-wokeness and trenchant, pseudo-profound Eidolon thinkpieces), whether it wants it or not. Much winning will be had, and with the Pax Americana in place and both America and Classics Made Great Again, we can all rest easy.
That Roosh article is fucking GARBAGE, are you KIDDING me? It's more than "a bit fucky and alt-righty." Holy fucking hell. Take a good hard look at yourself.
While I myself do find people who constantly mention Foucault (or to be honest any number of French philosophes whose theorizing informs a lot of scholarship in the humanities such as Barthes, Derrida, Bordieu, Lacan, etc.), I think that your attitude is unnecessarily caustic and it makes *you* come across as an asshole. Moreover, the dismissive attitude of the professor that you mention is what is one of the things that is wrong with the field. Not everyone is going to engage intensely with theory but to dismiss it out of hand is just plain ignorant. That the room erupted with laughter shows what kind of people are being trained in Classics, and it's not a good look.
Roosh V. is a woman hater who thinks that, despite being of Middle Eastern descent and of Islamic faith, he can be in the club with all the alt-right fascists running around these days. He's trash.
Oh, good grief. Let me try to break things down for people, since this is getting silly.
6:39, continuing a thread that was a teensy bit funny, quoted the phrase "Generic pseudo-woke views" and then made a gently cutting remark about Donna Zuckerberg, who has set herself up as a public intellectual and thus can be named openly here, just like we can name Mary Beard, Daniel Mendelsohn, etc. She is a billionaire's sister, and has also been at the forefront of shining light on some nasty corners of the internet (and the real world), especially those of the Alt-Right and other anti-Semites. She herself has been attacked by anti-Semites online rather viciously. (Google it if you want to read more.) After 6:39 wrote "Sounds like a certain social media billionaire's sister who has a PhD in Classics" there was a quick response by 6:42, "FV is getting anti-Semitic." Being someone with a finely calibrated sense of humor, to me this was obviously meant as a joke -- a very subtle and lame one, but still a joke -- basically hinting at the idea that if 6:39 was being implicitly critical of D.Z. it must be anti-Semitism. I do not believe the joke had anything to do with the stereotype of Jews being wealthy, with the idea simply being that since D.Z. has been attacked by real anti-Semites the previous comment must have been intended that way. Anyone who missed all this needs to go in for a humor tune-up, because while you might be able to detect obvious attempts at humor, such as those beginning "Knock, knock," at least some humor in its subtler forms is outside of your range.
Up to this point none of these posts has been anti-Semitic, so let's move on. And yes, I'm qualified to judge, since I'm Jewish. But you already figured that out as soon as I revealed that I have a sense of humor.
look, I'm sorry. I searched for her name + classics and that came up. I shared it, with intentions of being helpful, before looking at it. For fuck's sake, calm down.
Also, I was being factitious when saying it was a bit fucky. Man... FV needs to fucking relax.
I agree. We're all a bit on edge that it's Friday, no T-T jobs have come knocking, no new decent jobs posted this week, and the clock is running out at our current institution--be that one's ABD status, VAP gig, or (like me) a double bullshit adjunct jobs at two different schools.
You shared a misogynistic and otherwise hateful personal attack on someone in your own field, which you didn't even bother to read, and the problem is that FV posters refuse to let it lie? Don't think so.
How bad is it to reach out to a SC chair for a job that hasn't responded (seemingly, anyway if we can trust the Wiki) to anyone yet and a great deal of time has passed ?
Does one seem passionate, desperate, or cloyingly annoying for doing so ?
8:34.... calm the fuck down. OP literally apologized right away and attempted to correct his/her bad move. You can't delete or edit previous comments, so they did all that they could do.
honestly, it is just so tiresome that some of you are talking shit about named individuals who have nothing to do with you getting a job or not getting a job. These are human beings. be decent for christ's sake.
Some of us here were just trying to get up to speed (I'm the one that asked who everyone was talking about, as I felt a bit out of touch). I don't think anyone here bashed DZ or said anything insulting. There was a tasteless article linked here, but, as said multiple times now, that poster immediately apologized for not vetting the article. Aside from that, it's all been rather bland here.
Only Servius can delete posts. This is an anonymous forum that doesn't log IPs, much like 4Chan... and, actually, in quite a few ways FV is like the '/b' room of 4Chan
I gotta agree with 11:21pm. You can't just say, I didn't read it before I posted it and think you're absolved. You can't undo posting that trash. Who uses something in any context without even reading it?
I ALSO Googled her name + classics, as you said you did, and that doesn't come up on my first page of results. Interesting, it doesn't show up on my second page of results. It shows up on the third. You went to the THIRD page of Google search results -- you could hide a dead body there and no one would ever find it -- to find this thing you didn't read? You passed over TWO pages of results and none were good enough for you NOT to read but still post on this page?
At first I thought people were overreacting a bit about the article that was posted. Then I read it, the whole thing. This Roosh V. character is utter slime. He and the rest of his ilk have no place in civilized society.
The person who posted it said it was an accident, just a random article he didn't read that came up casually on his search of the subject's name + classics. But as an earlier poster noted, it is not an article that just shows up at the top of a search. It seems like it was a pointed decision to post it.
It shows up as the second to last result at the bottom of page two for me when I searched for the name plus "classics." Not something a quick search for basic info turns up.
I'm not defending the article at all, but it shows up for me the same as it does for 12:28. It is also the first hit that is not by her, a press release about her work, or from a blog (i.e. it's the first "published" piece regarding her by what, at first glance--before clicking--seems an unrelated third party non-blogger). If I were looking for information on her, I would have definitely clicked this, though as many have pointed out the article is disgusting.
I also tried the search. It comes up first for me as well. Not sure why some people have different experiences with this, but I’m using Firefox and Google for what it’s worth.
Also, everyone, including 8:17, agree that the article is shit, so I’m not sure why we’re still talking about this.
Doesn’t google adjust your results based on the types of sites you visit and read? That might be why. Though that suggests disturbing reading patterns for those whose hits had it show up first.
in the same sessions, yes. but if you have your settings so that firefox deletes all browsing history at exit (which most folks do), google has no prior record of your browsing history.
only if you have people browsing online with their history and cookies from previous times online still there would google be able to 'suggest' certain sites on a search
I have my settings as such, plus I use a VPN and I, too, had that shit article come up first when I just tried the search thing, and I can assure you that I never read that kind of trash.
not everyone seems to agree it was accidentally posted, which is probably why we are still talking about it. if we're not all aware that some people on here are apparently trolls seeking to discredit classicists, our colleagues, then we're in trouble. the "article" posted doesn't have a professional-looking layout or design, is poorly written, and even a quick glance at the content makes it pretty clear what it's all about. the only way it was an accident is either the person who posted it didn't even open the article at all or he's an idiot who can't assess the value of his sources, which is unlikely given that we're all trained in that specific thing.
... regardless, what's the point of keeping this conversation going? The poster apologized right away; we all make dumb mistakes, and I don't want to see FV overloaded with meaningless debate on this, it's beyond stupid. It really is. It's rather obvious that the poster *would* have deleted that post once they realized what it really was if they could. But we can't do that. All that one can do is exactly what they did: apologize and take responsibility for the post.
..what else do we have to gain here?
Second, the person attacked in that article (in a shameful way, might I add) *is* a public figure who chose to be a public figure. It's sad, but all public figures are scrutinized horribly about anything and everything, whether it's their actions, statements, appearance, associates, etc.. are we really going to keep devoting time to the shit-stain that wrote that article, thereby giving him (and that "article") a platform?
...Let's go back to what FV is about: talking about jobs, rumors of jobs, and questions about what we're all going through. Let's leave the activism and whining elsewhere
"How bad is it to reach out to a SC chair for a job that hasn't responded (seemingly, anyway if we can trust the Wiki) to anyone yet and a great deal of time has passed ?"
You have to allow a certain amount of time after an on-campus interview. E.g. you might have been the first of three candidates, who were interviewed over two weeks. Then the committee needs one or two weeks to make a decision. That is the point where you'll hear something if you were the #1 choice. It could drag on longer with you still in the game if #1 gets a second offer but that's extremely rare. More normal is that the offer is made, someone accepts, and then the slooooooow machinery of the administration takes over: getting it all approved at all the various levels, producing the official letter, mailing it, waiting for candidate to receive it, sign it, send it back. It might not be "official" until a couple months after the interview, maybe even longer. A chair normally won't contact the other candidates to say sorry, no dice, until all that is done. So, I would just assume a month after an interview if I hadn't heard anything that I did not get the job, it went to someone else. I would just accept that and not bother contacting a chair unless I had another job offer, but if it is genuinely causing stress you could reach out (and be prepared for an answer based on the scenario described above).
To go back to what FV is all about... what's up with the CUNY hire: looks like a complete inside job! They should have gotten a lot of stellar candidates since it's a job in NYC; why settle for one of your own PhDs? I can find nothing about this guy on the internet beyond his degrees and teaching... On that note, combined with the UNA hire, does this suggest that geography doesn't always play a role? i.e. UNA didn't hire someone from the south, CUNY hired one of their own, when they could have attracted top candidates from top programs around the world (let's face it, CUNY is not a top program in ancient history; they have a few strong faculty, whom I really respect, but the PhD program isn't stellar).
The CUNY job was for CUNY-Queensborough, which is a community college. I'm not too sure how many other folks put in for it, and if they've had that guy there for a number of years and he meshed well, he's a safe bet.
I interviewed for both the UNA and CUNY job this year, and one common denominator that I can say is that both SCs asked me the same question a dozen times a dozen different ways: "will you ever leave us for a better job?"
If you're asking about the Dickinson VAP, I also would like to know what's going on with it. Application due date and the beginning of review was March 15. Given that so many other schools have had due dates come and go since then and have already contacted applicants (e.g., Tulane's insane turn-around time) it is really frustrating that some SCs are far slower than others.
Thanks for the update on Dickinson. Though you also just ruined my day, lol
... That was one the few hold-outs that I had for VAPs that was up my alley as an ancient historian and my inbox is empty; even though I just got done hitting 'refresh' a few dozen times and checked my spam folder. :/
I'm a prof who has come onto this site for the first time. The casual nastiness, personal attacks, bigotry and immaturity make me wonder how the benefits of FV can outweigh the downsides. It also paints a picture of the field that is mean, petty, myopic, whinging, and largely unhireable. In other words, FV is doing everyone on the job market a huge disservice.
^^^when was the last time you were on the job market? Because unless it was recently, you probably have no idea how bad things have been for a decade now. The poor state of the job market, along with other issues involved in hiring that exacerbate it, make people rightly angry.
Let's also not forget that professors, especially those with the protection of tenure, international profiles, and positions at elite schools, could actually work to change the state of the job market if they wanted to. Push to shrink grad programs, make the hiring process less onerous on candidates, voice opposition to shameless cash-grabs like the post-bac since it just allows more people into an already saturated field, and push back against money-grubbing administrators.
As usual, the casual indifference to the plight of the jobless by the tenured professoriat—and their self-congratulatory obliviousness to their own privilege—knows no bounds. I was told twice this year, by two separate tenured professors at good institutions, that they “knew what I was going through” or “could feel my pain” because they had applied for senior positions and not advanced beyond the interview stage. I mean, wtf.
If the above Louise is the Classicist I think it is, she received her PhD in the 80’s. I doubt she has ever had to wonder where her next paycheck was coming from, or how she will feed and provide healthcare for her family in the coming year. Many people on FV are living paycheck to paycheck. Some are living without health insurance. Many are facing unemployment next year. I am lucky enough to have another year at my (temporary) job, but I, like most of us, don’t receive a paycheck over the summer and so am anticipating another few months of digging myself deeper in debt with no prospects of digging myself out anytime soon. Many people are desperately trying to produce scholarship while teaching 4x4 loads, teaching at multiple institutions, teaching high school. Please, lurking professors, come out of the woodwork to tell us more about how “unhireable” we are.
When I did my MA years ago I remember a professor who was on the market in the early 90s talking about how they had such a hard time choosing where they wanted to work because they'd had around six t-t offers. This person did their PhD at Catholic U, for what it's worth. It must have been a real struggle in the bad old days to have jobs just falling into anybody's hands.
The last few posters are missing the point. Most of my friends and colleagues in the field are familiar with FV, and we occasionally talk about it in real life. Most of these are recent PhDs; some have jobs, some don’t. In my circles, extreme frustration and stress about the terrible job market is universal. The things Louise mentioned (“casual nastiness, personal attacks, bigotry and immaturity”) are NOT universal. Those not logical responses to the bad job market. So when you respond to any criticism with some version of “talk to me when YOU haven’t landed a job,” you should know that even your jobless peers are appalled and ashamed of you. The bitterness, negatively, cruelty, and sense of entitlement that oozes off the screen here is not something that just happens to everyone who is struggling. Those are disturbing traits, and I for one wish I knew how many unique commenters are on here so I could get a better sense of how many of you are among us.
Considering that there are over 3,000 comments at this point for this cycle, I imagine that there's dozens of regular commenters and probably a few times that number who are occasional commenters. The mix is people who already have permanent jobs, people with temporary positions on the market, people finishing up grad school going on the market, and probably a few less advanced grad students who stumble across the site.
If you're hoping that it's just a few trolls here responsible for all the thousands of comments and that the bitter, jaded, nasty attitude that many of us here have is therefore not representative, then I think that you have another thing coming. It is a toxic bunch, and the attitudes are justified.
This is something I'd like to know too! Earlier posts here seemed to intimate that both schools had made offers to the same individual - were both schools turned down by that person?
I think the criticism of casual nastiness and immaturity is accurate lately. But anybody who uses the term "whinging" to describe the plight of desperate job-seekers in April deserves the response they will inevitably get here for their sheer inhumanity.
4,546 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 3001 – 3200 of 4546 Newer› Newest»I've often wondered what it would be like if I'd come across FV as an undergrad all those long years ago. I didn't begin the journey into academia with any illusions--I had responsible professors who gave me "the talk" about there being no jobs--this was around the time the field began to implode and one of them had some high position in the AIA and so had access to real statistics. But the effect of your professors telling you don't do it is different from hearing actual people trying and failing to secure permanent employment. In the end I managed to be one of the lucky ones, but we lucky ones are few indeed. The market will chew up and spit out most people.
@10:41, put it in there. There seems to be some group on here whose advisors gave them horrible advice about CVs. It is not "unethical" for you to list declined fellowships (my BFD advisor has two such fellowships on her CV), articles in prep or under review (how else will committees be able to trace out your future publication arc? Are they reading tea leaves or something?), low-level awards (how else will they know that you're actually making an impact on campus?), etc. If a committee doesn't value that stuff, they'll look past it. If they don't understand something, they'll ask you about it in an interview. Don't make yourself look like a weaker candidate than you are.
Does one add prestigious fellowships for which one was a finalist but not a recipient?
Personally I would not include offers I had declined (it looks like padding, to me, and distracts from the accomplishments that you did actually follow through with). I would certainly not include anything if I was merely a finalist. I get a bad impression when I read a 6-page CV that is 50% filler.
@11:21, what wording do you (or your advisor) use to make it clear that you were offered the position but declined it? I think whether or not to include these things is a matter of personal choice, but to include it without making absolutely clear that you did not accept it and follow through with the commitment is DEFINITELY unethical.
People really do list fellowship offers they received but turned down?!? What would you even call that category on your C.V.?
So, thinking logically, does that mean I can list the conference talks I was invited to give but turned down? (Or, in one case I accepted but the conference was called off because of funding.) If not, what's the difference?
This is one of the stranger things I've learned on F.V. recently. (I haven't had to know this since I have accepted all of the fellowships I have received. And that's not tricky wordplay trying to hide the fact that I have never received a fellowship offer: I simply get mine one at a time.)
Of course you list fellowships declined. There is a huge difference between getting offered a prestigious fellowship (which entails an extensive review process--often you are in the running with 600 + applicants) and getting accepted for a conference (which is peanuts in comparison). Fellowship applications and interviews also take a lot of time and energy to apply for. I would probably not list TT jobs declined, however, just for professional reasons.
But if I had to turn down, for instance, Harvard SoF for a TT I would definitely include that in my CV, simply listing it in awards received with a polite "(declined)" next to it.
I was mystified and a little amused when I saw that someone at a different university lists "Program Committee Member" on their cv for a graduate conference that was held at the university I attended. I think that means they spent about an hour one time reading and ranking abstracts (I helped organize the conference and saw all the work that went into it on our end). Knowing that they put a line on their cv for an hour (maybe two) of effort makes me question everything else they list and, to be honest, their character in general.
I put the year, name of the fellowship/ institution, amount (if its a grant for fieldwork / research and not an annual fellowship), and if I decline it, I put (declined). Because there will be something in the same year that was more prestigious, it should be obvious that I declined X to hold Y. But I only list declined awards if they're significant and at the national level, not departmental fluff. This might sound counterintuitive when we some of us feel like we're faking it, but awards snowball into bigger awards.
@12:15, then you're missing out. Sure, once you're a big-deal tenured professor you don't need to put program committee member in the "service" section of your CV. But at this stage, what other major accomplishments is that line obscuring? Stop shooting yourself in the foot in service of judging other people.
If you organize a SCS panel or conference, this is worth putting in a "service" section.
I would say as a rule, short CVs with a few relevant items are much better than long CVs full of fluff. If you wonder whether you should put it on, this may be a sign that you should leave it off. Limit the CV to publications, papers presented at "adult" venues like the SCS (i.e. not grad. student conferences), competitive fellowships or grants (not funding given by department) , and teaching assignments.
I would say a graduate student could easily not have a service section at all.
^ I spent a lot of time and energy interviewing and writing up reports of interviews with ~10 prospective students/year at my undergrad institutions. That is university service and definitely goes on my CV.
12:15 here.
I'm actually not quite as limiting as 3:16 (grad conference papers are fine, to me, though you should be aware that some people reading your CV will skim over them and look for SCS vel sim.).
My metric of whether to include something is either "a lot of time and energy" (see 3:27) or "it was an honor that someone chose me for this over so many other people." Not "I volunteered to do this and it took less than 2 hours." If I included everything I did in the latter category, even as a grad student, it would add an entire page to my CV.
I'll admit that being suspicious of this person's character over this one thing is too harsh, but I still don't think that such a tiny item belongs on a CV. Once I notice that someone has blown one thing out of proportion (this also happens with descriptions of "books in progress" that, on closer examination, show no evidence of any work beyond the dissertation phase) I tend to look askance at all of their other supposed accomplishments. I say keep the CV tidy, and find ways to slip the little things into the cover letter or into conversation during a campus visit.
12:15/3:55 again (sorry).
One caveat about grad conference papers: If the title/topic is very similar to a paper you gave at an "adult venue" (ugh) afterwards, then you should leave the grad conference off. It looks weird when people have 6-8 items under conference papers and they are all on the same topic.
Come on, update the Wiki with who got jobs that have been offered and accepted for over a month!!!
you first!!
10:41 here.
Thanks, all. 12:16 has it exactly right, the declined postdoc opportunity (A) was to hold something else (B), but I'm proud of being selected for (A) nonetheless and I think it reflects well on my career and will (hopefully) help me land a permanent job one day (ha...).
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Dear undergraduate
I do think its very important to stop and think if an academic career is for you. Right now, I am guessing you are in your early 20s. The notion of hanging out and talking about books and language and history sounds pretty good. You don't mind being relatively poor, having roommates, etc. But a PhD will take you into your early thirties, and it may take another four-five years to find a TT job, if you find one at all. ...
April 3, 2018 at 10:12 AM
An alternative route is to apply to all of the top programmes in the UK: you can get out before you're 30, maybe make the right connections to land a proper job (in competition with hundreds of other people who also want those jobs, but will not leave the UK), and live in the UK for a while. The down side is the debt - oh, and the huge level of open competition, and the limited job prospects. Ok, a lot of down sides... But a year to the MA (if necessary) plus 3 years research only to the PhD could be your speedboat to a really nice terminal degree with (potentially) world-wide appeal. Even if you don't care about landing an academic job afterwards. Just a reminder that there are different ways to get to different places. Again, talking to a current adviser or somebody else who knows such things will be incredibly useful. Preferably someone without a vested interest.
I would be very cautious about UK PhDs for US students. They are fast (3 years), but they are not good credentials for Americans---they assume undergrads studies one topic in college, where as many US undergrad students only have a quarter of their courses towards a major. Finally, US hiring committees tend to only like UK PhDs when they are held by British of European scholars (who bring international appeal and connections), not Americans who did an extended study abroad.
Additionally, UK degrees generally offer fewer opportunities for teaching experience, which can adversely affect one's employment prospects.
I'm a grad student going on the market for the first time next year. I was looking through older wikis out of curiosity and I was hoping for input. On last year's classics wiki, I saw cheers for UCLA sending out a "classy" rejection letter, and then jeers for another school which sent out a "patronizing letter." I'm really curious what constitutes a classy letter and what constitutes a crappy/patronizing letter, if anyone feels like commenting.
Re: Updating Wiki with names....
All that one has to do is one of two things:
1.) Look up course schedule at said school and see who the new faculty member is.
2.) If the schedule lists "STAFF" as the instructor, call the Department. Ask them who will be the professor for the class in question. You'll see "STAFF" if the Dept had to submit the fall schedule prior to making a final decision on who the new hire would be. But, by this time almost all of the said positions are known and identities are public knowledge.
I suppose "classy" may refer to a personalized rejection, or at least one that seems as if it was written for a particular batch of applicants for a particular position, as opposed to a boiler-plate generic "we had a lot of applicants and your application has not been successful this time." I have a vague recollection of a rejection that seemed patronizing a few years back, basically saying "there were loads of applicants, and, while many of them were OK, in the end only the best people were considered for this job. Obviously, you were not one of those best people." There's a decent chance that the person who actually posted that last year will be able to give us a clearer idea of what "patronizing" meant in that context. I'm fine with a form-letter rejection letter, I know there are sometimes over 100 applicants, often even upwards of 200, but the rejection doesn't need to do anything other than tell us someone else got the job, which we probably already knew by now anyway. Telling us there were a lot of applicants has never made me feel any better, but I can see where that might be helpful for some people. But everyone's reading on these things varies, so there's probably no best practice for rejection letters, beyond not belittling the people receiving the letter.
I didn't post either a cheer or a jeer, since I think that whole section is stupid, but I can say that I remember being rejected by UCLA twice with an unusually thoughtful rejection and without the usual clichés, and since these letters came from two different search (or department?) chairs it shows that it wasn't a single individual being classy. This gave me a favorable opinion of the program -- which persists even after this year once again they didn't give me a tenure-track job to which I applied.
Usually I just read this thread for entertainment, but feel the need to respond to @5:14. I'm an American with a Ph.D. from the UK. I got a job in the US this cycle. My degree wasn't an 'extended study abroad.' It was a Ph.D. I even had to write a thesis and everything if you can believe it!
Are there downsides to doing the degree in the UK? Yes.
Your network probably won't be as large, especially in terms of getting you a job back in the US.
If you are not a philologist you might have to fight to be able to teach languages, but in terms of teaching in general my program was always looking for people to take on more teaching.
There may be fewer conferences to put on your CV depending on your subfield.
There is no tradition of giving extensive stipends in the UK, so you need to be very aware of your financial situation before you get involved in a degree.
Are there positives to doing your degree in the UK? Also yes.
It's faster as noted above, but I would include the fact that most people take a 'writing up year' to finish their PhD, so you should really plan on four years on just the Ph.D. (one year masters is the norm) so you're looking at five total years.
The research culture is fantastic. Expect weekly seminars from invited scholars where you can see the cutting edge of the field and are encouraged to seriously challenge their work.
On that note, it is expected that in critiquing the research of others (and having your research critiqued) you will give no quarter, as none will be given to you. Yes I think this is a positive thing because it encourages better, more meaningful scholarship.
Focusing for so long on your thesis allows you to explore more novel topics and approaches.
So yes, there are positives and negatives to doing your Ph.D. abroad, but my goal here was to give you a more realistic picture of those positives and negatives as someone who has been there, done it, and obtained a job back in the US (after many many many applications which I don't think is different from anyone else).
It would be interesting to also weigh the pros and cons at Oxbridge vs. other UK universities.
Oxbridge certainly gets the name recognition outside of the UK, so that is certainly a pro. The Ph.D. is such an individual experience it might be tough to compare beyond the statistics. I have, for example, known people that loved their time at Oxbridge, and others who thought the atmosphere was incredibly toxic. Supervisors play a huge role in what type of experience you get.
Not related to the job market, but I thought this might be a good place to get some advice.
I'm preparing a paper for my first conference ever this week. My talk comes from a very long seminar paper, and I need to convert it into a 20 minute talk. I feel like it's a mess now, since I've had to condense so much/be selective about the evidence. Are conference talks always like this, something like a jumble? Or do people manage to deliver good 20 minute talks? If so, any suggestions?
@9:31pm -- you got a job, congrats! Was it TT? If so, then update the wiki.
Your experience is probably in the minority. Besides the toxicity of Oxbridge (all of my friends there hated it and regreted going), I would say this is the biggest problem with the UK DPhil: "Focusing for so long on your thesis allows you to explore more novel topics and approaches."
US PhD students have to take coursework, take modern language exams, Greek and Latin language exams, prose composition, surveys, and finally, very often oral comprehensive exams, too--not to mention several years of teaching. The UK has none of that. Anything beyond the dissertation is entirely voluntary. The problem I have with the US undergrad--UK MSt/MPhil/DPhil combination is that when I talk to these people they know nothing outside of their narrow field. They didn't get enough grounding in their undergraduate (unlike UK undergrads) and they then didn't broaden their knowledge at the Masters or DPhil stage. To be sure, they are the expert in their tiny niche, and that may well be enough to get them a job, but that may be a clear reason why US colleges are suspicious... The UK candidates that do get jobs in the US usually already have a lectureship/postdoc in the UK and have built up enough of a reputation to then cross the Atlantic.
also: don't go to the UK without getting a full ride scholarship. Paying your own way for the Masters or DPhil does not look good... it implies you weren't deemed good enough.
I also expect Brexit, if it ever happens, to destroy the higher education market in the UK (withdrawal of EU funding, e.g. in Masters students; ERC grants) and see a tsunami of (more senior) academic migration wash over the US--flooding this market even more so...
@9:01 AM
You cannot condense a full seminar paper into a 20 minute paper (and if this is for CAMWS, are the slots not 15 minutes?). It just is not possible. The best papers take a smaller, excellent case study from that larger project and flesh it out in terms of its wider significance. Lots of signposting on the argument and why it matters. And you can include some (only a few!) additional examples on your handout for a wider picture (if you have a handout) or allude to some that you're happy to discuss in the Q&A. But don't try to cover everything in a jumble; cover 1-2 good readings/analyses well. That is a good conference paper.
@9:41
Thank you. Yes, it is for CAMWS. I was given a bit more time as one speaker dropped out of my panel. So it sounds like I what I need to do is try to keep the talk itself quite focused on a couple pieces of evidence, and then frontload the additional primary evidence in the handout and merely refer to it when appropriate. Is that right?
9:41 AM again. Don't put TOO MUCH extra evidence on the handout - only use it that way if you cannot do without that evidence for the wider point. Instead frontload your BEST evidence as clearly as possible and draw wider conclusions from it. It is okay - though not always an effective strategy - to say something like "In a talk of this length I cannot go into all of the detail on X, but I am happy to take questions on the wider implications of this case study in the Q&A."
A well done case study in 15 minutes is a memorable paper. People can then ask for more.
Ok, thank you! I have heard of people writing their papers on the plane to the conference. Is this just people being hyperbolic, or does this actually happen? Not that I'm going to do that.....
Writing on the plane to the conference is working WAY ahead of time...!
I prefer to start writing my paper during my panel's introduction (no need to pay attention there, anyway...)
@11:03 Of course people often leave their papers to the last minute and write them on the plane/ at the conference. That's not good practice, though, and especially if it's your first conference you'd be better served by getting it written up in advance, then leaving yourself time to practise it, time it, work out whether you want to condense it down to notes or use a full script, run it through with a friend, think about the questions you might expect (or want to encourage), edit the handout before having to print it. Obviously it's okay to edit your paper on the plane or the night before or during coffee breaks, but if you get the prep done in advance, you can actually relax at the conference/ during the travel and network/ see friends/ make friends/ listen to other papers with a clear unpanicked head. (I also think it's rude to the conference attendees and organisers to leave the paper to the last minute and brag about it.)
Some more advice on papers, for any first-timers: if you are using PowerPoint (I used to say "if you are using slides") then your talk will take a good 10-30% longer to deliver than if you are just reading. So if you practice reading your paper and it comes to 20 minutes but you are using illustrations your paper is going to be too long.
@ 9:16 AM and others on the UK:
another vote against doing a DPhil in the UK is that lots of places there are increasingly hiring US PhDs, which says a lot especially for a market that is relatively closed, and has historically tended to hire only Oxbridge DPhils. For instance, KCL has several Princeton graduates in permanent employment (including incoming Hellenic Studies director). I also think there are various US grads in JRFs in Oxbridge as well.
^ "that lots of places there are increasingly hiring US PhDs"
really? I still get the impression that they prefer UK PhDs... well, my experience has been with JRFs where roughly 95% of recipients are oxbridge.
Also, who is the incoming HS director?
@11:49:
https://www.kcl.ac.uk/artshums/depts/classics/newsrecords/2018/Professor-Gonda-van-Steen-announced-as-next-Koraes-Chair.aspx
@11:31, I agree completely -- nothing worse than bumping into someone at APA bragging all smugly about not having yet written their paper.
First-time conference presenter: If the presider said you can speak for 20 minutes, then you can only get through 10 pages of double-spaced writing (on average). Cut your seminar paper WAY down, and remember that it's a lot harder to follow an argument aurally than in writing. Give your audience lots of sign-posting to help them follow along. If anything, I'd err on the side of it seeming too simple and straightforward. If YOU feel like it's at all jumbled, they will be completely lost.
You MUST time yourself reading the paper aloud before you show up at the conference! I saw a speaker who spoke rather slowly, only got through about 1/2 of the paper, and then said "Well the internet said that people read aloud at about X words per minute." Please do not be that person! Either your presider will cut you off (best case scenario) or you will eat into other speakers' time. One time I was not able to field any questions after my paper because the presider had not cut off the person before me when they went over. It felt like a huge waste to give a paper and then not be able to gauge any reactions to it whatsoever.
Any other conference disaster stories out there? Discover midway through that you forgot to print out the other half of the talk? Missing slides? Aggressive audience member who wouldn't back down?
My solution, which works for me, is not to write out my papers. I did that my first few APA's, but now I have a handout and I have notes, and I speak from those. If time is running out then I know what to skip, and I perhaps speak a bit more quickly. I find this preferable both because I don't have to spend time writing (on the plane, or elsewhere) and I think the audience is better able to follow speech with a normal cadence than the somewhat artificial speech of a paper being read aloud.
But don't try this the first time!
Oh, conference disaster stories...
- I chaired a panel with an aggressive panellist who went over time (he'd brought 17000 words for a 20-minute paper!) and refused to stop despite my best efforts
- At a small, day-long conference without multiple simultaneous sessions (i.e. everyone went to every paper), a paper at 11.30am completely (and persuasively) destroyed half the premises of my paper, due for 2pm. I ended up totally rewriting it by hand in the toilets, in the lunch break
- A friend of mine connected her laptop to the projector at the start of her talk; it promptly froze, while displaying her last few (excruciatingly intimate) conversations on instant messenger
- Another friend got a nosebleed during the questions for his talk
... but, @11:03, you're going to be just fine...
@12:38 Definitely the best thing to do, but not for beginners!
What people who go long don't realize is that once they are 2-3 minutes over few in the audience, if anyone, will be paying attention to what they are saying, because everyone starts to wonder when they will finish, and perhaps notice the increasing unease of the organizer. So they gain nothing, look bad, and wreck things for everyone else.
"That was a great paper! If only it were five minutes longer!"
Said nobody, ever.
First time presenter: Lots of good advice in this thread. I would add one suggestion that I've found immensely helpful. If you're reading your paper, even if you've timed it privately, choose one section/paragraph that can be cut from the talk on the fly if need be and mark it off clearly for yourself, along with a new transition to the next point if you do end up cutting. I always seem to be near the end of the panel, and folks who go before me often go over. Being able to cut a minute or two--whether it's my fault or another panelist's--without causing damage to my paper has really helped me in the past and seems to build up good will from the other panelists and my audience.
On conference papers: one other important difference between your seminar paper and this conference paper is the level of knowledge you can presume on your audience's part. If you wrote the original paper for a graduate seminar on (say) Roman historiography, you knew your professors and classmates knew the primary sources, scholarship, theoretical possibilities and (not least!) the *point* of studying these things, just as well as you did (or better). At a general conference like CAMWS there'll be people from not just close (ish) fields like Roman literature, Greek historiography, etc, but far more disparate fields too: Indo-European linguistics, modernist poetry, Cypriot archaeology. You don't need to 'dumb it down', but you *do* need to make it clear what the point of your paper is, and make sure the contour of your argument is readily perceivable. It's always worth saying, not just 'Livy', but 'the historian Livy, writing under Augustus' (vel sim.), too.
What happens when you revise and resubmit a piece for CP? Does it go back to the referee?
CP sends the paper back to both referees. Split decisions are automatic rejections.
Wow.
I can't believe that so many of the VAP jobs have still not notified anyone for interviews. There are some, of course, that have contacted but so many are still quiet. I would imagine that being that we're into April at this point, SCs would have to get their shit together and review applications already. Many of the jobs to which I refer had deadline dates months ago.
This leaves me with little faith that the remaining SCs will do an adequate job of selecting candidates, and will, instead, rely on the easy method of "ok, where's the Harvard assholes... let's just give them the job, since they're clearly the best."
"Chad Chaddington III and Sterling Silverspoon IV? They went to Haaaarvard and even their names scream privilege, hire them both! What do you mean their research has no relevance? Intertextuality in Euripidian and Homeric scholia and a commentary on all 48 books of Nonnus's Dionysiaca? Totally relevant and cutting-edge!
I'm not the same person that posted it above, but I don't know what Ivy League grad students you all are running into. That's not been my experience at all, and I know most at least by reputation. Inflated egos? Sure. Entitlement? You bet. Otherwise your stereotype rings a little hollow.
MCGA!
Why are people complaining? The Ivies are tremendous, they have the best students, really, the best. Very good brains.
Very nice students. Like, smart people. MERIT BASED APPROACH.
Crooked Cincinnati's placement record is fake news! A professor who is a former ASCSA director uses their influence to get Cincinnati students jobs. Very unfair! SCS/AIA should investigate.
The grapes on that privileged ivy vine must be sour, I wouldn't eat them even if I could reach them!
What does that even mean?
The whiter the Ivy grape, the...more bitter the privilege?
I’m all for bashing the over privileged Ivy douches, but does anyone have any insight into any of the remaining (and silent) VAP positions?
Oh, get over yourselves. Unless you were accepted by Harvard/Princeton/Yale and turned them down to go to some other program you can't criticize them without just seeming pathetically jealous. I was rejected by all of them and went to grad school at a place ranked around #10-15 and feel no resentment at the time. I just resent anonymous trolls.
oops, "felt no resentment"
And still don't.
@11:30: I heard Amherst made an offer which was accepted.
Yes, jealousy, that must be it! Any criticism of the Ivy departments is actually fake news because it is rooted in jealousy! MCGA!
1:01, 12:07 here. These jackasses (or, "you jackasses"?) aren't attacking departments, you're attacking grad students at those places. Nice reading skills.
Seriously, the struggle for tenure track jobs is just as real at the Ivies. Calling whole departments of grad students and recent grad students "jackasses" and "douches" is resentful, petty, and ignorant. These people are combatting the same job market as you all. No need to name call and shame others on account of your own insecurities and perceived shortcomings.
Anyone have any buzz on Furman?
One last piece of advice for the person asking for conference paper advice. It's true that 20 minutes just about translates to 10 pages. But I'm a person who start speaking way too quickly if I'm feeling pressed for time. So, if I'm doing 20 minutes, I do nine pages, which makes sure I speak at a reasonable pace and that I'm not stressed out about being on time. Worst comes to worst, I finish about two minutes early, and nobody's ever complained about that.
A 15 minute phone interview with 4 committee members. Can there be a worse configuration for an interview? Madness...
^omg, I had the same experience, maybe the same position? It was so awkward.
Wait, ivy produces grapes? I can't even... let's at least not mix our metaphors. I like my wine unmixed.
DRINK UR WINE UNDER MYRTLE.
Pseudo-Porphyrio comments that 'myrtle' is 'ALLEGORICE DICTUM.' it refers to cincinnati by contrast with the ivies.
MCGA!
@4:14: 9 pages double spaced 12 point font?
Yeah. Aim for no more than 150 words per minute, or two minutes to read a page with around 280-300 words (the norm when formatted double spaced, 12 pt font).
But most importantly, practice.
Can we please cut the MCGA crap? Some of you don't know when to let a joke(?) go.
Prepare it at 12 points to estimate length, but then perhaps print it at 14. You don't always know what the lighting situation will be.
Question: I have just received an interview request for a 3-year VAP. However, I already accepted an offer from my current institution to stay on for another (final) year. I've heard conflicting things on whether it's acceptable to back out of an accepted offer for something "better." In this case it's not just a matter of prestige, but the other school can offer me two more years of security than my current home. It seems foolish to pass on that possibility, but also foolish to risk alienating my current chair and, I assume, other colleagues here. Does anyone have experience with this? Does it ruin relationships? Is there a risk of getting bad-mouthed to future SC's?
There's some risk, but if you have a reasonable current Chair (I did when I was in a similar position a few years ago), they won't be irrational or offended that you're looking for a longer-term commitment. This is still just an interview, after all; there's no guarantee that you'll get the job. But if you do get the job, you'll be better off, and your current department will have a huge number of available candidates to fill the void. I say go for it. I've never been on the other side of the table in this kind of situation, though, so someone on an SC or many SCs may be able to give us their perspective.
@8:21,
I would not pursue the 3-yr gig. You've already put in time at your current school and you *just* got an additional year where you currently are. It's a massive risk to burn a bridge where you currently are (you might need a nice letter from a colleague there soon) just to take on a VAP that (assuming you're talking about the Conn. College job) is not a guarantee of 3 years, but mentions the "possibility."
Better to finish off your current commitment and not uproot your family for a job that offers (in all reality) not much more security.
..Being said, what I *would* do, is politely decline the interview request. You are a very lucky guy to have a VAP job that is willing to offer you more time. There are countless other folks out there who also have families and do not have the option to slap away a generous hand from a current employer to take something that *may* offer an additional time.
I don't blame you for considering the Conn. College VAP, but recall that Conn. College is very much so in disarray (they had a T-T job that was cancelled and down-graded to this very VAP that you're speaking of). What kind of security are you really trading for? You already know that your current school is stable and that they are willing to work with you and extend your time.
^^^ I agree with 8:44.
Given how Connecticut has demonstrated itself this job year, I wouldn't consider the "3-yr" VAP to be anything more than 1. Also, it seems as if receiving yet another year form your current institution next year at this same time would be plausible.
...one further bit of advice: lay out the pros/cons and ask your wife for her gut feeling on things.
So, as if folks already don't feel discouraged about the job market, take a look at the recently posted hire for the University of North Alabama job. He received his PhD in 1997. .....1997. Nothing like waiting 21 years after the PhD to get a T-T job.
I know that the 'norm' is 4-5 years out before most either get T-T or give up, but the fact that some folks took 21 years (or stayed at it for 21 years) is deeply saddening to me. This is my first year out, and I cannot recall ever feeling so horribly shitty about myself or my prospects in life.
@8:21: I agree with 8:27. My department had a very similar situation a few years ago. We had a VAP to whom we were able to offer another year. She ended up getting a three year offer from another institution rather late in the year. No one in the department faulted her for opting to take it, and I think it would send a loud, negative message if any tenured/tenure-track faculty had faulted her for her choice. We're professionals and understand that folks have to look out for themselves. She informed us as soon as she was able and yes, we had to hustle to get another VAP in (we were interviewing in June!) and it was really inconvenient, but that's part of the job. I firmly believe that any decent professional should understand your situation. Of course, there are less than decent tenured faculty, but nonetheless you must make yourself your first priority. If you're particularly comfortable with someone in your current department, I would suggest soliciting their opinion.
I am not very aware of the Conn College classics department and have no knowledge of their current state, but if 8:44 is correct, you probably should take their questionable stability into account.
8:27's reminder that this is only an interview is important. I would recommend not saying anything to your current institution until you have a firm offer in writing in hand should you get the job and opt to take it.
1997? That's a lot of determination to have stayed at it with temporary gigs the whole while. But, sadly, I've had many profs that were just adjuncts or VAPs and who had far older PhDs than the UNA hire.
Also, it's possible that he took some time off from Academia. Moreover, he's from the UK system, where "tenure" doesn't really exist and where the academic market is shittier than it is here. I'd say that I'm more impressed that he's willing to move from London to northern Alabama !! lol
It's weird that the Conn College poster doesn't mention anything about her or his personal life, but two separate responders assume that, first of all, this person is male and, second of all, that he is married and has a family and that that family is automatically going to follow him wherever he goes. Am I missing something?
@8:57, internet trolling reveals that he was a professor in both Oregon and Aarhus before this. Whatever reality is, I bet Alabama is going to be a bit of a shock...
8:57 Yeah, that hurt as one of the other campus invites. But so it goes...
@ 9:03,
I assume that the posters you mention know who OP happens to be, and, therefore, that he is a married man with a wife/kids. It was no secret that OP was talking about Conn. College, so it isn't hard to put pieces together if you know that guy IRL and then saw this post.
@9:05,
I feel your pain. I interviewed for UNA, but no campus invite. It was heart-breaking because I really felt like I nailed the interview and made some good connections during it (as much as one can in a Skype interview, anyway).
Best of luck to you next year, man. The new job cycle is only 4 months away.
@8:21 PM: Do it! Just leave for greener pastures. Your department chair does not give a crap about your interests- if you come up empty-handed next year on the job market, do you think he's going to give you an additional one-year full-time gig just out of compassion for you? Think again- these department chairs just view you as a qualified warm body they can put in the classroom and will easily find someone else to take your place if they need to.
Speaking of the next job cycle, how much do you people adjust your materials from year to year? Start from scratch? Just try to update where relevant?
How many of us are still without any perspectives for next year? I'm apparently one of those Ivy douches (as per FV) that somehow didn't manage to cheat the system.
9:11 PM, you must be joking, yes? All the person says is that they're considering accepting an interview request, there's no way the responders could have known who they are. I, too, found it offensive that both 8:27 and 8:44 assumed the poster is a straight, married man with children. I'm not someone who tends to go in big for seeing bias in the field, but that was a pretty clear case of assuming a set of characteristics for the natural identity of a scholar.
@12:23 I'm an Oxbridge douche (again per FV) and have nothing in place for next year. You're not alone.
@12:23,
There’s only one “3-yr” VAP out there; Connecticut. So it’s obvious what job the poster was talking about. So, it is possible that that poster’s real identity was known by others here.
Second, if you’re so easily offended maybe you should avoid the Internet.
I feel oh so bad for all the Ivy and Oxbridge people who can't get jobs. If our most elitist and privileged institutions can't get their students jobs, what's the world coming to? Hence the need to MCGA!
@12:23
I'm from an Ivy League program too (and therefore I'm obviously a spoon-fed douche whose nanny has been teaching me Latin and Greek since I was four in our mansion, as per FV) and I also have nothing lined up for next year.
And just to be clear (10:47 here), I'm not saying I deserve a job more than anyone else from any other school. Maybe I do, maybe I don't. That's up to the individual search committees. I don't feel the need to demonize or mock other people on the job market, who are all in the same shitty situation as me. If someone is lucky enough to get a job, I can be happy for them and not judge them, as people here tend to do, even when they know nothing about the person besides what an internet search can tell them.
@12:23 AM, thanks for calling out heteronormativity. I, for one, appreciate it.
I'm the first Ivy douche from 12:23 AM. To the person who wrote 'I feel oh so bad for all the Ivy and Oxbridge people who can't get jobs.' - thank you, I appreciate the kind thought.
And now without sarcasm to other future unemployed Ivoxbridge - thanks! I fell less of a failure now.
Personally I think that there is some valid criticism of the departments at the Ivies in that the number of students is simply too many. Now, this is a criticism that can be extended to other top programs as well, since it seems to be a case of just because one can do something doesn't mean one should. In this instance just because a program can afford to have, say, around 40+ PhD students doesn't mean that it should. I'm just talking Classics proper, this doesn't count all the stupid random configurations of Classical Studies, Archaeologists in Art History programs, or weird interdisciplinary units in Archaeology or Ancient History--adding those in the numbers are even more bloated. Part of this I imagine comes from the fact that the Ivies and other wealthy schools have got deep pockets and so they can have so many students, but they shouldn't.
I wanted to express honest appreciation to the Ivy/Oxbridge doucheis for finally just coming out and admitting it. That, plus the fact that you're all just as, if not more, unemployed than everyone else...
I think this is really all the rest of us commoners ever wanted. Seriously. You're an unemployed douche? Done. Class war over.
@12:25 PM: yes, our department had a similar discussion a few years back, when they realized they admitted too many students (they haven't graduated yet, so the wave is still to come). As far as I know, the faculty was divided between those who wanted to cut down the numbers and those who wanted to continue with large cohorts.
OK, Ivy folks, non-Ivies are dealing with sentiments like, "To be fair, it is outrageous to go through a top tier program and then struggle for a permanent job when someone from a program that shouldn't even exist gets one" (verbatim quote from an earlier comment, late January).
I don't think that anyone should be criticizing anyone, but you have to admit that students coming out of top tier programs have a lot more access to jobs than those from lower-tier programs. It may not work out in every individual case, but privilege is larger than the individual case study. So, while you might not appreciate being criticized for your privilege, you must at least recognize that there's *some* truth to it. So, instead of saying that you're just like the Plumber Joes, articulate where you think there's some common ground (we're all in this garbage job market together) and also explain how you struggle in ways that those from lower tier programs might not understand because they're not in it. Foster understanding, but don't pretend that we're all in the actual same boat when it comes to access to resources, jobs, etc.
That's an awful lot of imperatives and 'you have to's' for suggesting how to start a dialogue. Let me take a stab at it.
You have to admit that we Ivy douches aren't the problem. You must recognize that Cincinnati and PhDs from 1997 are taking all of the jobs. Articulate and foster and understanding of how we must stop this plague on the field.
1:28: yes, I know we are in a privileged position. I went through all public schools and went to a very underprivileged undergrad, so coming to an Ivy program was shocking. So many resources and so much money for research trips and conferences! Also, since I additionally worked on the campus, I could save enough of money not to be afraid of starving during a potential year of unemployment. I have never pretended that I am a regular Joe. The only thing I wanted to know from FV was whether there were other people from programs like mine, who felt completely inadequate in comparison to colleagues who got good jobs early on.
Many here on FV made the argument that whenever a minority or female gets a job in academia that we ought to recognize that they had to work far harder and that they faced more opposition (some direct some indirect) than white males, and thus are deserving of more praise for equal work of their white male counterparts.
(I am paraphrasing here, but this is, essentially, the argument)
...being said, can we then say that non-Ivy folk who do get jobs (the Cincinnati Phds this year, for instance) must be looked at with higher esteem than their elisits neighbors at Harvard and Yale?
@1:55,
We all feel inadequate and that somehow were “fooling” everyone and have managed to sneak by with sub-par work without ever getting noticed. It’s called **imposter syndrome** and it’s quite common among successful academics. We have a support group for imposter syndrome sufferers, it’s call everyone, and we meet at the bar.
So, people who don't have anything lined up for next year...what are you planning to do in the interim if you're also planning to have another go at the market next year?
Cincinnati PhDs and people with PhDs from the 1990s are eating our lunch!
Here's what I say: an Ivy grad in every t-t position! Embrace incestuous hiring practices and oblivion! Only then can we MCGA!
@2:37 I still count some 13 jobs to apply for - let's talk in a month (about the time when I was hired for my current position last year)
I interviewed for a position who did their last interview in the second half of March. I haven't heard anything yet, is that a bad sign? How long should I hold out hope?
I'm really over the MCGA joke, especially as FV has recently shown itself to be just as racist, sexist, bigoted, and prejudiced as the MAGA movement the joke mocks. We are no better. The lack of self-awareness is disheartening and depressing.
^^Agreed. I have to hope it's the same obnoxious person over and over. In any case I'm exhausted by it.
FV just as prejudiced as MAGA chuds?! I was under the impression that the consensus on the unofficial official stance of FVers was that we needed to toe the line and adopt the pseudo-woke slant of Eidolon types.
I feel sorry for those who don't share my views. They aren't true Classicists.
What are your views?
Generic pseudo-woke views.
"Generic pseudo-woke views"
Sounds like a certain social media billionaire's sister who has a PhD in Classics.
FV is getting anti-Semitic
Maybe I'm not sharp enough, what with my non-Ivy brain and all, but what has anyone here at FV said that is anti-Semitic? There have been some questionable ideas put forward about diversity re: race and gender but I don't recall anything resembling anti-Semitism.
"Billionaire" is an anti-Semitic dog whistle.
^^ is this actually a serious comment? Because I honestly can't tell any more.
@6:39 sounds like a personal attack against a fellow (very identifiable) scholar that should not have been posted.
Oh come off it. The person in question has left the field, regardless of whether or not they continue to interact with people who have not. They are not a vulnerable junior scholar or graduate student. They are a grown-up who has created a successful, very public academia-adjacent career and online platform and in so doing they open themselves to criticism. We lowly anonymous plebs here at FV can do nothing to hurt this person.
Also, the idea that "Billionaire" is an anti-Semitic dog-whistle is ludicrous. If that were the case then that makes somebody like Bernie Sanders a self-hating Jew considering all of his
attacks aimed at millionaires and billionaires.
It's not just about professional consequences, it's about basic human decency.
On another note, I don't think referring to her as a billionaire's sister is necessarily anti-Semitic. I get the negative association between Jews and wealth, but without larger context, that pretty basic comment can't be classed as "anti-Semitic."
Who’s the billionaire social media person ?
how dumb are you people
JARED KUSHNER
Twinkish young "Jared Kushner" will bring peace to the Middle East and his sister will save Classics by dragging it kicking-and-screaming into the 21st Century (with pseudo-wokeness and trenchant, pseudo-profound Eidolon thinkpieces), whether it wants it or not. Much winning will be had, and with the Pax Americana in place and both America and Classics Made Great Again, we can all rest easy.
never heard of Kushner's sister before this, and still don't give a shit
The person in question who runs Eidolon is NOT Jared Kushner's sister--the commenters above are just taking the piss.
^^^^ sorry. I didn't look at that article all the way before sharing. 0.0
it's a bit fucky and alt-righty. Sorry.
That Roosh article is fucking GARBAGE, are you KIDDING me? It's more than "a bit fucky and alt-righty." Holy fucking hell. Take a good hard look at yourself.
@ 8:13 PM:
While I myself do find people who constantly mention Foucault (or to be honest any number of French philosophes whose theorizing informs a lot of scholarship in the humanities such as Barthes, Derrida, Bordieu, Lacan, etc.), I think that your attitude is unnecessarily caustic and it makes *you* come across as an asshole. Moreover, the dismissive attitude of the professor that you mention is what is one of the things that is wrong with the field. Not everyone is going to engage intensely with theory but to dismiss it out of hand is just plain ignorant. That the room erupted with laughter shows what kind of people are being trained in Classics, and it's not a good look.
"didn't look at that article all the way"?? It STARTS with fat-shaming, what more did you need to assess the credibility of your source?
Roosh V. is a woman hater who thinks that, despite being of Middle Eastern descent and of Islamic faith, he can be in the club with all the alt-right fascists running around these days. He's trash.
“Don’t think or discriminate, just mask your insecurities with the old walk-away technique. That’s how I got a tenure track job. AHAHAHAHAHA!”
Oh, good grief. Let me try to break things down for people, since this is getting silly.
6:39, continuing a thread that was a teensy bit funny, quoted the phrase "Generic pseudo-woke views" and then made a gently cutting remark about Donna Zuckerberg, who has set herself up as a public intellectual and thus can be named openly here, just like we can name Mary Beard, Daniel Mendelsohn, etc. She is a billionaire's sister, and has also been at the forefront of shining light on some nasty corners of the internet (and the real world), especially those of the Alt-Right and other anti-Semites. She herself has been attacked by anti-Semites online rather viciously. (Google it if you want to read more.) After 6:39 wrote "Sounds like a certain social media billionaire's sister who has a PhD in Classics" there was a quick response by 6:42, "FV is getting anti-Semitic." Being someone with a finely calibrated sense of humor, to me this was obviously meant as a joke -- a very subtle and lame one, but still a joke -- basically hinting at the idea that if 6:39 was being implicitly critical of D.Z. it must be anti-Semitism. I do not believe the joke had anything to do with the stereotype of Jews being wealthy, with the idea simply being that since D.Z. has been attacked by real anti-Semites the previous comment must have been intended that way. Anyone who missed all this needs to go in for a humor tune-up, because while you might be able to detect obvious attempts at humor, such as those beginning "Knock, knock," at least some humor in its subtler forms is outside of your range.
Up to this point none of these posts has been anti-Semitic, so let's move on. And yes, I'm qualified to judge, since I'm Jewish. But you already figured that out as soon as I revealed that I have a sense of humor.
8:17 here...
look, I'm sorry. I searched for her name + classics and that came up. I shared it, with intentions of being helpful, before looking at it. For fuck's sake, calm down.
Also, I was being factitious when saying it was a bit fucky. Man... FV needs to fucking relax.
@8:29,
I agree. We're all a bit on edge that it's Friday, no T-T jobs have come knocking, no new decent jobs posted this week, and the clock is running out at our current institution--be that one's ABD status, VAP gig, or (like me) a double bullshit adjunct jobs at two different schools.
...I think all of our nerves are shot.
You shared a misogynistic and otherwise hateful personal attack on someone in your own field, which you didn't even bother to read, and the problem is that FV posters refuse to let it lie? Don't think so.
Serious question..
How bad is it to reach out to a SC chair for a job that hasn't responded (seemingly, anyway if we can trust the Wiki) to anyone yet and a great deal of time has passed ?
Does one seem passionate, desperate, or cloyingly annoying for doing so ?
8:34.... calm the fuck down. OP literally apologized right away and attempted to correct his/her bad move. You can't delete or edit previous comments, so they did all that they could do.
honestly, it is just so tiresome that some of you are talking shit about named individuals who have nothing to do with you getting a job or not getting a job. These are human beings. be decent for christ's sake.
Some of us here were just trying to get up to speed (I'm the one that asked who everyone was talking about, as I felt a bit out of touch). I don't think anyone here bashed DZ or said anything insulting. There was a tasteless article linked here, but, as said multiple times now, that poster immediately apologized for not vetting the article. Aside from that, it's all been rather bland here.
@8:17 PM/8:21 If you genuinely regret using the link, please go back to the 8:17 post and delete it from this forum
As an earlier poster noted, you can't delete comments. Probably you should just read what you post before you post it.
Only Servius can delete posts. This is an anonymous forum that doesn't log IPs, much like 4Chan... and, actually, in quite a few ways FV is like the '/b' room of 4Chan
@8:17 Shame on you. What a horrible thing to do to a colleague. Regardless of what you think of Eidolon, you owe Donna an apology.
I gotta agree with 11:21pm. You can't just say, I didn't read it before I posted it and think you're absolved. You can't undo posting that trash. Who uses something in any context without even reading it?
I ALSO Googled her name + classics, as you said you did, and that doesn't come up on my first page of results. Interesting, it doesn't show up on my second page of results. It shows up on the third. You went to the THIRD page of Google search results -- you could hide a dead body there and no one would ever find it -- to find this thing you didn't read? You passed over TWO pages of results and none were good enough for you NOT to read but still post on this page?
At first I thought people were overreacting a bit about the article that was posted. Then I read it, the whole thing. This Roosh V. character is utter slime. He and the rest of his ilk have no place in civilized society.
The person who posted it said it was an accident, just a random article he didn't read that came up casually on his search of the subject's name + classics. But as an earlier poster noted, it is not an article that just shows up at the top of a search. It seems like it was a pointed decision to post it.
It shows up as the second to last result at the bottom of page two for me when I searched for the name plus "classics." Not something a quick search for basic info turns up.
I'm not defending the article at all, but it shows up for me the same as it does for 12:28. It is also the first hit that is not by her, a press release about her work, or from a blog (i.e. it's the first "published" piece regarding her by what, at first glance--before clicking--seems an unrelated third party non-blogger). If I were looking for information on her, I would have definitely clicked this, though as many have pointed out the article is disgusting.
I also tried the search. It comes up first for me as well. Not sure why some people have different experiences with this, but I’m using Firefox and Google for what it’s worth.
Also, everyone, including 8:17, agree that the article is shit, so I’m not sure why we’re still talking about this.
Doesn’t google adjust your results based on the types of sites you visit and read? That might be why. Though that suggests disturbing reading patterns for those whose hits had it show up first.
@6:34,
in the same sessions, yes. but if you have your settings so that firefox deletes all browsing history at exit (which most folks do), google has no prior record of your browsing history.
only if you have people browsing online with their history and cookies from previous times online still there would google be able to 'suggest' certain sites on a search
I have my settings as such, plus I use a VPN and I, too, had that shit article come up first when I just tried the search thing, and I can assure you that I never read that kind of trash.
Can we stop talking about that fucking (accidentally) posted link for fuck's sake ?
not everyone seems to agree it was accidentally posted, which is probably why we are still talking about it. if we're not all aware that some people on here are apparently trolls seeking to discredit classicists, our colleagues, then we're in trouble. the "article" posted doesn't have a professional-looking layout or design, is poorly written, and even a quick glance at the content makes it pretty clear what it's all about. the only way it was an accident is either the person who posted it didn't even open the article at all or he's an idiot who can't assess the value of his sources, which is unlikely given that we're all trained in that specific thing.
... regardless, what's the point of keeping this conversation going? The poster apologized right away; we all make dumb mistakes, and I don't want to see FV overloaded with meaningless debate on this, it's beyond stupid. It really is. It's rather obvious that the poster *would* have deleted that post once they realized what it really was if they could. But we can't do that. All that one can do is exactly what they did: apologize and take responsibility for the post.
..what else do we have to gain here?
Second, the person attacked in that article (in a shameful way, might I add) *is* a public figure who chose to be a public figure. It's sad, but all public figures are scrutinized horribly about anything and everything, whether it's their actions, statements, appearance, associates, etc.. are we really going to keep devoting time to the shit-stain that wrote that article, thereby giving him (and that "article") a platform?
...Let's go back to what FV is about: talking about jobs, rumors of jobs, and questions about what we're all going through. Let's leave the activism and whining elsewhere
"How bad is it to reach out to a SC chair for a job that hasn't responded (seemingly, anyway if we can trust the Wiki) to anyone yet and a great deal of time has passed ?"
You have to allow a certain amount of time after an on-campus interview. E.g. you might have been the first of three candidates, who were interviewed over two weeks. Then the committee needs one or two weeks to make a decision. That is the point where you'll hear something if you were the #1 choice. It could drag on longer with you still in the game if #1 gets a second offer but that's extremely rare. More normal is that the offer is made, someone accepts, and then the slooooooow machinery of the administration takes over: getting it all approved at all the various levels, producing the official letter, mailing it, waiting for candidate to receive it, sign it, send it back. It might not be "official" until a couple months after the interview, maybe even longer. A chair normally won't contact the other candidates to say sorry, no dice, until all that is done. So, I would just assume a month after an interview if I hadn't heard anything that I did not get the job, it went to someone else. I would just accept that and not bother contacting a chair unless I had another job offer, but if it is genuinely causing stress you could reach out (and be prepared for an answer based on the scenario described above).
@ 10:14,
I'm OP..
Thanks for the reply, but I'm asking about a VAP job that's deadline was almost a month ago.
To go back to what FV is all about... what's up with the CUNY hire: looks like a complete inside job! They should have gotten a lot of stellar candidates since it's a job in NYC; why settle for one of your own PhDs? I can find nothing about this guy on the internet beyond his degrees and teaching... On that note, combined with the UNA hire, does this suggest that geography doesn't always play a role? i.e. UNA didn't hire someone from the south, CUNY hired one of their own, when they could have attracted top candidates from top programs around the world (let's face it, CUNY is not a top program in ancient history; they have a few strong faculty, whom I really respect, but the PhD program isn't stellar).
@10:26,
The CUNY job was for CUNY-Queensborough, which is a community college. I'm not too sure how many other folks put in for it, and if they've had that guy there for a number of years and he meshed well, he's a safe bet.
I interviewed for both the UNA and CUNY job this year, and one common denominator that I can say is that both SCs asked me the same question a dozen times a dozen different ways: "will you ever leave us for a better job?"
@ 10:24,
If you're asking about the Dickinson VAP, I also would like to know what's going on with it. Application due date and the beginning of review was March 15. Given that so many other schools have had due dates come and go since then and have already contacted applicants (e.g., Tulane's insane turn-around time) it is really frustrating that some SCs are far slower than others.
@10:24 etc. You might also check when the school in question's spring break is. This could delay things.
If a school had their last on-campus visit two weeks ago and I haven't heard, is it fair to guess I'm not their top choice?
I've received an interview request from Dickinson for one of the VAPs. Just updated wiki now.
@12:57,
Thanks for the update on Dickinson. Though you also just ruined my day, lol
... That was one the few hold-outs that I had for VAPs that was up my alley as an ancient historian and my inbox is empty; even though I just got done hitting 'refresh' a few dozen times and checked my spam folder. :/
Congrats though, 12:57. I wish you luck.
Why the &^%$( have the specific references to a certain classicist-editor from yesterday not been deleted???
@2:37,
Because nobody here directly ridiculed her.
AND she is a public figure that chose a public life. Servius does not delete comments on public figures.
I just deleted an immature joke instead of posting it. You are all most welcome.
I'm a prof who has come onto this site for the first time. The casual nastiness, personal attacks, bigotry and immaturity make me wonder how the benefits of FV can outweigh the downsides. It also paints a picture of the field that is mean, petty, myopic, whinging, and largely unhireable. In other words, FV is doing everyone on the job market a huge disservice.
^^^when was the last time you were on the job market? Because unless it was recently, you probably have no idea how bad things have been for a decade now. The poor state of the job market, along with other issues involved in hiring that exacerbate it, make people rightly angry.
the field is a cesspool. TOUT COMPRENDRE CEST TOUT PARDONNER.
Let's also not forget that professors, especially those with the protection of tenure, international profiles, and positions at elite schools, could actually work to change the state of the job market if they wanted to. Push to shrink grad programs, make the hiring process less onerous on candidates, voice opposition to shameless cash-grabs like the post-bac since it just allows more people into an already saturated field, and push back against money-grubbing administrators.
As usual, the casual indifference to the plight of the jobless by the tenured professoriat—and their self-congratulatory obliviousness to their own privilege—knows no bounds. I was told twice this year, by two separate tenured professors at good institutions, that they “knew what I was going through” or “could feel my pain” because they had applied for senior positions and not advanced beyond the interview stage. I mean, wtf.
If the above Louise is the Classicist I think it is, she received her PhD in the 80’s. I doubt she has ever had to wonder where her next paycheck was coming from, or how she will feed and provide healthcare for her family in the coming year. Many people on FV are living paycheck to paycheck. Some are living without health insurance. Many are facing unemployment next year. I am lucky enough to have another year at my (temporary) job, but I, like most of us, don’t receive a paycheck over the summer and so am anticipating another few months of digging myself deeper in debt with no prospects of digging myself out anytime soon. Many people are desperately trying to produce scholarship while teaching 4x4 loads, teaching at multiple institutions, teaching high school. Please, lurking professors, come out of the woodwork to tell us more about how “unhireable” we are.
When I did my MA years ago I remember a professor who was on the market in the early 90s talking about how they had such a hard time choosing where they wanted to work because they'd had around six t-t offers. This person did their PhD at Catholic U, for what it's worth. It must have been a real struggle in the bad old days to have jobs just falling into anybody's hands.
Anyone know what is happening w/ Columbia and Chicago? Are they really both on their second choice offers?
The last few posters are missing the point. Most of my friends and colleagues in the field are familiar with FV, and we occasionally talk about it in real life. Most of these are recent PhDs; some have jobs, some don’t. In my circles, extreme frustration and stress about the terrible job market is universal. The things Louise mentioned (“casual nastiness, personal attacks, bigotry and immaturity”) are NOT universal. Those not logical responses to the bad job market. So when you respond to any criticism with some version of “talk to me when YOU haven’t landed a job,” you should know that even your jobless peers are appalled and ashamed of you. The bitterness, negatively, cruelty, and sense of entitlement that oozes off the screen here is not something that just happens to everyone who is struggling. Those are disturbing traits, and I for one wish I knew how many unique commenters are on here so I could get a better sense of how many of you are among us.
^^^ Thank you. Yes, yes, and yes to @8:08.
We're all younger than you.
We're all on your lawn.
We're all eating your lunch.
That help?
The Classics professoriate is experiencing at 24/7 "deplorables moment."
Considering that there are over 3,000 comments at this point for this cycle, I imagine that there's dozens of regular commenters and probably a few times that number who are occasional commenters. The mix is people who already have permanent jobs, people with temporary positions on the market, people finishing up grad school going on the market, and probably a few less advanced grad students who stumble across the site.
If you're hoping that it's just a few trolls here responsible for all the thousands of comments and that the bitter, jaded, nasty attitude that many of us here have is therefore not representative, then I think that you have another thing coming. It is a toxic bunch, and the attitudes are justified.
Hey, but at least we're not a judgmental bunch, right?
Disagreeing with DZ is an anti-semitic dog whistling
White people are the problem. I feel sorry for you if you can't see that.
Long live diversity
QED
I am outraged that someone named a junior scholar on FV. The above reference to this Jared Kushner fellow need to be deleted post-haste.
LOL
What I want to know is where you can buy an anti-Semitic dog that knows how to whistle. Sounds like a great party trick!
^^Just post a craigslist ad offeringr a 3-yr Classics VAP and you’ll have lots of options.
@8:02 re: Columbia/Chicago:
This is something I'd like to know too! Earlier posts here seemed to intimate that both schools had made offers to the same individual - were both schools turned down by that person?
I hate it here and I keep coming back. I assume I am not alone.
^same
I think the criticism of casual nastiness and immaturity is accurate lately. But anybody who uses the term "whinging" to describe the plight of desperate job-seekers in April deserves the response they will inevitably get here for their sheer inhumanity.
Any news on UCLA, NYU, FSU and Johns Hopkins? Are they all fighting over the same one or two people?
Also, why did it take USC 3 months to move from Skype interviews to campus visit invitations?
And wow.. what a position to be in if the first choice candidates at Stanford, Chicago, and Columbia (reportedly) turned them down.
Post a Comment