@8:26 (2), clearly 5:51 was responding to the quote, "Familiarity with how the UK works is part of upper-middle to upper-class US cultural performance," not making some shocked comment about how horrible it is that "most are not apprised of the ins-and-outs of the UK university system" or even "Acting shocked that people don't know the peculiarities," though several others have clearly done that.
The comment to which 5:51 reacted implies some sort of class privilege is behind the expectation that Classics PhDs will have a basic knowledge of how Oxford and Cambridge operate. Two of the oldest and most prestigious universities in the world with deep and pervasive traditions in Classics. In my personal experience, it's not difficult to learn about how institutions in the UK operate - every time I've ever been at a conference in Classics or a sub-discipline of the field, I've met people with all sorts of background and experience. You hint at a similar experience yourself, and it sounds as if we may even know some of the same people.
As a special snowflake, I suppose I do ask more questions of colleagues than is absolutely necessary. But I also admit to being curious about lots of things, and, more importantly, I'd like to be a good advisor someday. So I can see all sorts of obvious reasons why someone might care about how the UK operates, even outside the basic "I am job" desperation that has pervaded my world. In today's job market, unlike 5:51, I admit that I AM shocked that more of us don't know more about the field and the job opportunities that are out there, but maybe that just signals how special a snowflake I really am.
Suggestion for discussion : until the corporatization of the university and academe / outcome-driven students and admin in later twentieth century, Classics was a standard part of *everyone's* education: you read Thucydides and Marcus Aurelius and knew a bit about Athens and Rome because they were perceived as relevant and necessary for a well-rounded, historically conscientious person trying to make sense of modern experiences.
Professionalization / corporatization of the university for Classics has meant more majors who are told that, as majors, their career goal must mean "becoming a Classicist", rather than just being a well-rounded person.
Folks teaching new courses that pair the classical with the contemporary, and Eidolon for that matter [so loudly disparaged by some FV'ers] are, it seems to me, doing a helluva job to MCGA by reintegrating Classics into the core curriculum of students who will *never* become Classicists, simply by making it relevant again. I see this as a *tremendous* service to our field, and a critical part of outreach to new generations of students if we do, in fact, want to save our field.
Is "Make Classics Great Again" really just "Make Classics Relevant Again"?
Presumably as practitioners of Ye Olde White Area Studies, we can turn over the intellectual heavy lifting to our betters, such as Slate. "Marx, you're doing economics wrong." What about intersectionality? What about rich people who live in gated communities but are really sympathetic to the plight of PoC?
Lol, I'm not the OP, but was there literally anything that Marx was not wrong about? Just on the level of empirical predictions, his were not only wrong but were the opposite of what actually occurred.
Yeah, Marx was literally wrong about everything, that's why his work was long ago tossed onto the trash heap of history and he has been all but forgotten. Who ever heard of a Marxist approach? MCGA!
Also, the ghost of G.E.M. de Ste. Croix wants to have a word with you.
Joining into this Marx debate... Anyone who writes as much as he did is bound to be right about SOMETHING. This is also true of my recently published book, I hope.
@5:03 Famae from about a while ago is that most of the ISAW offers were to ancient fields outside of classics. No idea when/if all of that was finalized.
re: Marx, every time i see pictures of him i think about bearded hipsters. this is not, mind you, a favorable reaction: beards should be trimmed to camp-length in the manner of a Severan or Tetrarch, if one is feeling more promiscuous perhaps a bit longer in the fashion of an Antonine.
that said i think that the Grundrisse (especially) provides a formidable critique of modern capitalism and, in tandem with Weber, some important insights to pre-industrial and tributary societies and cities including Rome. Start w/ David Harvey's commentaries on the Capital, mayhap (and always Howard Zinn). and then try some P.A. Brunt, Keith Bradley, Chris Wickham, John Haldon, etc etc.
Marxism is an interesting blend of Real News and Fake News. But the Real News is very valuable. Keep deceiving yourselves that class and class interests aren't the key thing. The MCGA agenda acknowledges this and works to transform Classics into less of a classist performance art and more of an academic discipline. MCGA!
Marxism has not been forgotten because there are still those who view existence as a zero sum game and genuinely believe that any increase in anorger’s Wealth therefore means less wealth for them. Meanwhile, capitalist societies have become unimaginably richer and the experiential gap between rich and poor has declined to an extraordinary degree. I have the same phone model that Mark Zuckerberg has. We both have access to air travel—he might fly in a private jet while I fly Southwest, but we can both fly. Today, almost everyone in America has access to a cell phone and a computer. We have access to a fantastic array of resources—can you imagine a person from even 50 years ago encountering a Kroger or a Target and realizing that this place of marvelous riches was not restricted to the wealthiest? There is a lot of work to do and a lot of lives can be bettered, but to say that Marxism will do that is to ignore a century of Marxist experiments and the utter devastation they’ve left in their wake. Venezuela, whose citizens are now dying of starvation despite sitting on the largest oil reserves in the world, is just another tragic example of Marxism in practice. (I used to be a committed socialist, by the way, but I can no longer support an ideology that has left so many corpses in its wake.)
I would agree that the greatest driver of inequality in this country is not class difference or workers vs. corporate overlords, but racial difference. 2:50pm makes a good point that less relative wealth seems not to be negatively impacting purchasing power, and given that I am a lot less concerned about economic inequality than I am about racial inequality. In fact I’d argue that the rise of Socialism in this country in the mid-20th century diverted money and people from the civil rights movement. Coincidence? Or was that racially motivated? I genuinely don’t know.
Read your history books. Your statement is way off. Not because racial injustice is not a pressing issue (it most certainly is, although many minority classicists and other academics are doing plenty better, in terms of salary, than their white peers; check the state school salaries if you don't believe me)...
...But rather, because it is a well-documented fact that the Civil Rights movement was greatly, greatly aided by the communists and socialists during the early-mid 20th Century.
Next time, do a little research before you make such patently false claims (#MCGA).
5:56 how DARE you insinuate that minorities receive preferential treatment in Classics? To get a job at minority has to be at least TWICE as good as a white classicist, given the racism of the field.
I tried to confirm 5:56's point by checking Classics faculty salaries at the two public universities with which I have been affiliated. But then I realized that neither (large department) has ANY minority faculty whose salaries I might check. Guess that answers that.
A toxic vomitorium... That’s what FV has become, and those fair and decent folk who rush to clean up the puke should be lauded but cannot be FV’s saving grace. Turn the lights out fast and set up elsewhere with accounts and pseudonyms.
Better to erase nasty comments when they’re seen and keep FV alive. For most of us there isn’t any other source of knowledge and information. This is the internet, there are going to be trolls around.
I'm still rather uncertain what actual damage being named or alluded to at FV does beyond hurting one's pride. Except in the cases of, say, the sexual abusers and perverts in the field who were mentioned not too long ago, it's not as if what is said on FV has any real world, tangible implications. Maybe I'm not as plugged-into who's who, but it took me more than a bit of searching to find out who the scholar referred to in the two recently deleted posts is. And so what? There's literally nothing that will happen as a result of me having discovered their identity.
FV does more harm than good. As for the supposed harm, I believe, quite frankly, that people need to grow a thicker skin.
When you post, do you actually feel happier afterwards? Is your goal to try to reduce others to the same level of misery you feel now? Do you even have a goal? Do you ever reflect genuinely on your posts and how they affect your inner self? I find you baffling.
Why would anyone set ever foot in a Classics Dept, having seen the caliber of so many FV posters? As for those callling for it to stay open, have you truly never seen an online board where pseudonyms are used? Do you seriously think that THIS is as good as it gets? Servii, please get it together and be decisive.
I don't buy that Classics is any nastier or more vicious than other fields in the humanities or the social sciences. I think that the cloak of anonymity provided by FV gives us the anonymity and attendant safety needed to vent our spleens. Give that same cloak to anybody from other fields and you'll get the same thing, this is just how people are. Setting aside the occasional trolling or unpleasant comments, FV is an invaluable forum and for the Servii (whose work I am grateful for, btw), who are volunteers, to decide that they are going to shut it down is both irresponsible and not their decision to make.
PoliSciRumors would seem bear out 3:47's thesis about innate viciousness. If anything, FV shows how much more restrained Classicists are than the members of those other disciplines.
I also agree with 3:47 that the decision to shut down FV should not fall to those few who happen to be at the helm at this moment. Replace or extend the Serviumvirate instead.
It's so catty and pedigree-obsessed because there are few standards (at least on the 'philology' side of things) and much of what passes for scholarship is VERY FAKE NEWS.
let's use accounts that have our names on them, that we use for everything else. we can even use a #FamaeVolent or #FV tag. those hoping for another anonymous message board were born in the ... 70s? 80s? or they're just worthless trolls.
just wait for the mindful appropriation here ... like Constantine's Arch ... like Athenaeus and the Deipnosophistae ... straight outta Late Antiquity ...
Yeah twitter is the perfect new venue for FV! We can openly get into spats with the Eidolon gang, who will promptly block anybody who says anything that they object to. Even more fun, people can be on the receiving end of scolding and shaming from the Aunt Lydia of wokeness in Classics herself, the editor of Eidolon.
I come to FV to get rumors/unofficial news about jobs I applied for or am interested in, I assume others do too (i.e. "what's going on with the UChicago search?" etc., etc.). I don't see how people would offer up insider information or buzz they've heard if it's attached to a twitter handle they use all the time/ under their own name.
Whoever suggested Twitter was clearly being facetious and named it as a potential place for FV because it's the preferred social media platform of Donna Zuckerberg and the Eidolon crew. Hence the comment that followed.
It's mainly a horrible idea because the anonymity is removed. Otherwise, one would have to set up a fake account entirely dedicated to browsing an FV twitter which is pointless extra work and something I'm not even sure is entirely easy, depending on what twitter requires for one to set up an account.
Their ad claims that review is set to being 4.13, so I can imagine that they will be contacting their short-list very soon. All schools that have VAPs this late in the game have little choice but to make a mad dash to the finish line and wrap the process up ASAP.
All of the recently-posted VAP jobs on SCS whose due date is ca. the 3rd week of May, you can damn well guarantee that they already will have that (very) short list composed well before the last day of review, so that they can immediately reach out to the last strong candidates who remain in the applicant pool.
...I've been contacted by 2-3 SCs lately before the actual search ends to check in to see if I am still on the market and interested in their positions. This is my first year as a PhD on the market, so I'm not too sure how standard SCs doing that actually is, but I can imagine that it is fairly common.
Given their track record of VAPs, one can expect them to only select a semi-seasoned (2-4 years VAP experience) candidate whose PhD comes from another Ivy. It's a horrible uphill battle for us plebs from the likes of Duke, UNC, Michigan, et al. to be so graced with the option of a Ivy job.
One exception may be if one's BA was from an Ivy, since Dartmouth is (so far as Classics and History are concerned anyway) a Bachelors-only institution, they are going to be looking for one whose undergrad experience, at the least, was from a fellow Ivy.
..Just my two cents. Though, I'd love nothing more than to be completely wrong, as I applied for the gig, yet hold a BA from an inglorious state school and never had the luck to be brought into the ivies for any of my degrees. Godspeed to the underdogs!
According to the Wiki interview requests went out.
..didn’t think I stood a chance as I too am a “pleb”, but congrats to the lucky few who are being pursued further! I am thoroughly jealous but wish you the best of luck. ;)
How do the Cincinnati folks who frequent this blog feel about the departure of a core archaeology faculty member? Leaving for an entry level position at ISAW, a job that many of us (and presumably his own students) applied for?
This is my first year on the market (currently ABD), and I was lucky enough to get a couple of fly-outs (none of which led to offers, but good experience nonetheless). Looking forward to next year, I am wondering how to handle job talks on my CV. Would you leave them off? List them as invited talks?
Its great you got 2-3 fly-outs as an ABD (it took me two years on the market to get my first fly-out, and four years to get three).
But, because the talk occurs in the process of the hire, it does not count as scholarly engagement in the way that an SCS presentation or invited talk does. Listing job talks may also make it seem like you are grasping for line items on your CV.
A job talk is a a "half empty/half full" thing. Half full, because you beat out over 100 other applicants to get on campus. Half empty because after the careful scrutiny, the job went to someone else. Yes, I know from painful experience that this happens for reasons divorced from your performance. But an unkind member of an SC might note : ah, poor bastard, rejected from jobs XYZ. SCs like to think they are picking winners (hence a few privileged candidates are bombarded with multiple high level offers while the rest of us starve). Never remind them of any moment where you came in second, third or fourth, even if we all lose sometimes. Reserve your CV for unmitigated successes.
To echo what 1:50 said, never list job talks on your CV. It is also in very bad taste to list jobs that you were offered but turned down (yes, some people actually do this!).
Also, congrats for having so much attention while being just ABD and during what has been a very shit year for us all. The last thing that you'd want to do is tarnish what obviously is a very strong CV with stuff like job talks. :)
Just out of curiosity, what sub-field are you in (Greek Archaeology; Roman History; Latin Philology, etc..) ?
I'm just hoping that someone like you is not in mine, since you'll be eating *my* lunch next year no doubt! ;)
People being nice to each other, on FV?! This totally contradicts the narrative that is being spun that everyone here is a vicious, antisocial villain. Can't have that, can we?
What the hell is up with Idaho's "elimination" process here? Every few days they update candidate application status to "no longer under consideration" through various stages?
Is this normal? I ask because I've put in for it, but still show as "in progress" so I'm apparently still in the running, but is this a common practice? Seems like a very reality-TV-way of dealing with a T-T search.
the History Wiki, too, shows equally disturbed candidates. I'd estimate that at some point this week they'll have to reach out to their finalists. A colleague of mine put in for it but was 'eliminated' at first wave (4/25).
...Again, every SC is different and there is NO NORMAL. I can say that I've never seen a practice like this before, but being that it's a History Dept may account for the oddity of practice here. One can imagine that they received far more applications than they originally anticipated. That happened at SUNY-Stony Brook this year, who received about 230.
In a way, it's kind of refreshing that the *passed-on* candidates are notified first, so that they can move on.
Best of luck to you, 2:54!! It's an amazing school with a great library. The only drawback is that it's in a rather rural locale (Moscow, Idaho), but you also have Washington State about 15 mins away (Pullman, Washinton), so two very nice college towns that essentially make one expanded city, isn't that bad.
Exciting, too, that the History Dept there is starting an ancient program. What a great thing to be able to help design that.
If you're looking for a larger city that's not too far of a commute to Moscow, look at Lewiston. It's a decent-sized city and only about 25 min commute up 95 to get to U-Idaho.
...Beautiful part of the country, btw. Essentially no diversity, though, so be prepared for that if that's a factor on your radar.
Also, good luck, 2:54! (to follow the new *niceness* trend on FV as of late)
For job talks on the CV, doesn't it depend on the format? Surely there's a difference between a widely, publicly advertised lecture and a half-hour presentation to the search committee and a few other faculty members.
Put it on your CV at your own risk. It's not customary to put these kinds of things on one's CV. Take a look at any tenured prof or T-T prof and I'd doubt one would see "job talks" listed on their CV.
I imagine that this is an issue for folks with otherwise very little to show on their CV, but in this case it is far better to have it not mentioned. It will never win over a SC nor will it ever put you in better light to a SC, but it most assuredly will make a great many SC members cringe.
Avoid putting a job talk on your CV. Period. It can ONLY hurt your chances and never will it help. At best, it would be a neutral element. Don't sabotage yourself; the market is harsh enough as it is.
Re jobs talk on CV: If the lecture is part of a search process, do not put it on a CV, period. It is true that most jobs talks are more intensive than say, a 20 minute SCS talk. Indeed, many job talks are also often better attended than invited talks at the same institution.
But, because it is an audition, it doesn't count as a performance.
Also, it is worth reiterating, that even if you give a bang up job talk, if you don't get the job you are advertising a failure. They will associate the talk with you not getting a job. They may look up the person who did get the job, and mutter if their institution would have hired the person who beat you out. A CV should never advertise failure, even if a job talk represents you getting tantalizingly close to the finish line.
Also, as I stressed before, it looks a little desperate. If you feel compelled to list job talks, the question might be why you don;'t have more peer reviewed articles, SCS presentations, etc. And if you do have these things, adding the line item of a job talk really won't matter all that much.
Hmmm... interesting. There is no "job talks" section on a cv of course. But how would one know if a CV line was a job talk and not some other invited lecture, without being really dialed in to (past years on) the market? In fact, I just looked at the CVs of two senior scholars in my department and they both include (under lectures) the job talk for their current position, as well as others given around the same time for which they received an offer, but not for earlier job(s) or to my knowledge other jobs for which they may have been finalists without receiving an offer. So this may confirm your "rule" against advertising failure. But to me, if you have given a lecture that was publicly advertised it seems weird NOT to put it on the CV, whether it was a job talk or not. That said, I seem to be in the minority.
So, firstly, senior professors were hired in chummier, happier times. They could get away with things that we couldn't. In many ways, saying "But Senior X" did it" does mean it is good practice in today's hyper competitive, impacted market. Remember, Senior Professor X was hired in the 1990s on the basis of two chapters of his unfinished dissertation.
Also, in rare occasions (mostly senior hires, but a few years ago also a high profile junior hire), a job talk is cloaked in the guise of an invited talk. This is usually when the committee either does not want to go through a formal process, or wants to vet the hire outside of the senior process. If this happens (and this applies to maybe 1% of hires), then there is little wrong with putting an invited talk (that was a stealth job talk) on a CV. But this would be a limited exception to an otherwise iron clad rule.
Most SCs will know the searches that took place in the preceding years; they scope out the Classics wiki like the rest of us, and follow the new hires. Announcing yourself as a failed candidate in a recent search is not good strategy.
I am tenured. have been tenured at two places. I put job talks on my CV. They are still there, just not as job talks. As talks, invited. "Subject Talk: Awesomeness," Other University you might have heard of (2018). Never been called on it.
Tenured person here. When I was on the market my advisers told me to include them, but I always felt odd about it so I didn't. When I went up for tenure, my faculty mentor was shocked that I didn't initially include them on my dossier CV. As someone who's been on SCs, I'd raise an eyebrow at a cluster of invited talks in January/February on a CV and probably think they're likely job talks. In any case, it wouldn't really influence my opinion of an app either way.
In my Dept (Ivy), tenured professors DO include job talks on their very public CVs, I just checked this. They list the most impressive and also the lackluster, and mark them as job talks. Because these are, after all, scholarly talks that showcase ones research in a very meaningful way.
My guess is that the people advising against putting job talks on a CV have very few job talks of their own to list, and do not understand the great efforts involved. These are very labor intensive talks that reflect very well upon the individual, regardless of outcome.
Again, I must stress that what works for golden senior Ivy scholars may not be the best advice for junior candidates navigating a brutal job market.
Also, in some instances, they may be listing these as "invited" talks to disguise to their departmental colleagues moments where they considered jumping ship (or tried to obtain a counter-offer to negotiate up their salary).
And besides, someone with tenure at an Ivy League can pretty much do whatever they want.
I know what a lot of work goes into the job talk, and I've done my share. An hour long job talk is far more intensive than any SCS presentation or even invited talk to a friendly audience. Yes, you are also disseminating your scholarship.
But.....
1) Listing job talks make you look like you are padding your resume. 2) Listing job talks from last year reminds next years SCs of your unsuccessful candidacy. 3) The job talk was about a larger functional process, unlike a conference paper or invited talk, where the talk is the main event.
All of which just goes to show there is no set formula for what works, even if some things seem really silly to some of us. If you don't need to pad your cv, don't. If you do, find a clever way to do so, like April 30, 2018 at 6:39 PM has done, above. The idea that someone might be "called" on any of this is confusing to me, because I don't know who would call anyone or what that would even mean. Can anyone clarify what that would look like, apart from an applicant not making the cut?
I've seen a few successful TT candidates in the last few years include job talks from previous seasons on their CVs. They got jobs. At least at my institution, it indicates that you are sought after, even if you didn't ultimately land the position. Of course, this can cut both ways, especially if you SC members who are insecure about their own Department in relation to other universities... I'd say if you have some kind of connection to the job talk university --even just geographical proximity-- then I'd include it. If/when you have a TT job, then include all of them.
As someone who has had double digit campus interviews with job talks, I do not have them nor have I ever put them on my CV. It would make the invited talks section of the C.V. unwieldy and it gives a list to all of every job you failed to get. Especially awkward when a search fails a search rather than hire you. I’ve also seen people put job talks on when they gave the same talkover multiple years. Same title over and over and over. The idea that these are invited talks is odd as it is only one component of what you are there for.
As someone on an SC, it turns me off when I see what are obviously job talks listed as invited talks (what ABD gets "invited" to give a stand-alone talk at a prestigious institution?!). It looks pretentious, and like resume padding.
I had old job talks on my CV and got a bunch of interviews and a TT job this year. My adviser has all of her job talks on her CV as well. This seems like a YMMV situation.
@9:06: You really are quite something if you get irked simply by seeing someone's CV that lists a couple of job talks they've given -- even if it appears as padding. Surely there are more important things in our field and in the general state of academia to get annoyed over.
@9.06: I was invited to give two stand-alone talks at 'prestigious institutions' (that were not my own) while I was ABD -- I finished in 2016, so this is recent. So, maybe you might want to not rush to judgment?
Putting job talks on your CV can only hurt. Yes, there are some people with cushy TT who made this error. But they got their jobs despite this, not because of this. No SC decision was ever based on having one more invited talk.
(Note, in general no one cares about talks. They are proof of scholarly engagement, but mean nothing unless backed up by publications. Ideally every talk should be an article or book either published or in process. Indeed, a candidate with a lengthy list of talks and no publications suggests they are someone good a burning through a travel budget but not good at producing peer reviewed scholarship.)
And as you can see on this forum, there are SC members who will judge you negatively for putting job talks on CVs. The risks are real, the rewards nil.
Someone ought to at least make it clear here that there is a difference between a section of job talks identified as such, and mixing them in among real talks. If you are going to have them on your C.V. then be honest about it.
Along similar lines, I do not include on my C.V. home departmental talks, since more than once the place at which I've been VAP'ing has had me give a talk about my work, and while I know that's a real talk, it just isn't the same as being invited elsewhere. (Though perhaps I don't yet have a real job because committees notice the absence of these and think, "Even his own colleagues don't want to hear him talk!")
If you look at the recent ISAW job talks, for instance, these were advertised as lectures open to the public; I think it would be reasonable to put this category of job talk on your CV as an invited lecture. I have given a good number of job talks, but not one of these and consequently don't have any job talks on my CV. For what it's worth I also think talks could be divided into different sub-categories or labelled as such on your CV - Invited lecture v.conference with peer-review acceptance v. public outreach talks etc. I am guessing some version of this is the norm for most of us, but just in case ...
I would be interested in hearing a reason in favor of not listing job talks as talks on a cv, as opposed to the report of a vague prejudice against so listing them. There are, after all, excellent reasons to list them, including the fact that they are talks (!) and are, in general, considerably more difficult to get than a slot at a conference. I mean perhaps some folks here also think that you just must dress formally when teaching...etc., but all such *rules* are more than a bit absurd and reflect more on the person who insists on them than anyone else.
It's clear that there is no good justification for a norm against listing job talks on the CV except that most job talks don't result in offers, and it's awkward to advertise something that you "failed" at (even though just being a finalist is, in some ways, a notable achievement). In some fields, for example, like philosophy, I believe it is customary to include job talks; in others, there may be an equally strong norm against doing so. It's unfortunate that Classics clearly falls in between, because some people will include job talks and be scoffed at (although, given the overall lack of a set disciplinary norm for how to organize a classics CV, and the fact that most CVs I've seen include something embarrassing on them--like guest-teaching a class listed as an "invited lecture"--I am skeptical about whether the proverbial dustbinning of an application over some CV faux pas ever really occurs) while others will leave off something that should clearly find a place on the CV. That said, even in the case of the ISAW lectures mentioned above (which were widely advertised public lectures, as we all saw, and brought in people from far afield) I guess it's safer just to omit job talks from a CV, even if any real downside is a remote possibility.
I think that the above discussion is just one of many examples that demonstrates why we need FV. This is the kind of feedback and discussion that one can't get from just talking to their advisor, since theirs is just one viewpoint and perspective. It is clear that on this particular topic people in the discipline have a variety of opinions and FV provides a place for theses to be discussed.
Ask any (esp. young) female professor. Dressing formally to lecture is absolutely a rule. We need to squeeze out every last drop of possible respect bc the social deck is stacked against us as a knowledgeable authority from the get-go.
I don't have a strong opinion about job talks on CVs but I want to push back against 12:28 PM's claim that "in general no one cares about talks" and that they "mean nothing unless backed up by publications."
It's probably true that nine talks on the same subject won't get you anywhere if you can't also publish on that one thing, and if you want a job at an R1 or an Ivy or at certain 'prestigious' SLACs then you will have to publish your butt off.
However, there are places (believe it or not) that value teaching over publishing. If you're going for a teaching-heavy generalist position, they might value a list of talks that shows the range of topics you can cover proficiently, even if only a few of them have resulted/will result in publications. This is the case at my current (TT) job and at the last place where I VAPed.
On the subject of respect while teaching, what are FV's thoughts on what your students should address you as?
As a young male scholar I'm fine with my students calling me by my first name, but perhaps this is because I already assume a certain level of respect?
As a youngish female scholar, my students' grades improve when I insist that they call me Dr. _________. It also discourages inappropriate behavior from my male students.
@6:04 what do you think is the connection between what your students call you and the improvement in their grades? It's a really interesting correlation
As a new PhD, and one fresh to the job market, there are few job requirements that I've seen advertised that I, to be honest, have no idea what they mean. I'm hoping that FV can help iron these out.
What, specifically, is meant by the following job responsibilities:
1.) University service
2.) Outreach/extension
3.) Contributions to the interdisciplinary life of the university community
1. This just means that you'll be expected to serve on a variety of university-wide committees (something every place expects of a TT faculty member). These may vary from instructional assessment committees to tech committees to undergrad research promotion committees. You do not need to address this in a job letter (it would look weird if you did), but if you ever served on departmental or university committees as a grad student you'd put that in your CV under service.
2. Not sure about extension, but community outreach can be a big deal to some colleges, e.g. things like speaking to a general audience in a public forum, doing charity work that is somehow related to your field (e.g., a friend taught a summer course for inner city youth on mythology), that sort of thing. Also, if you run an online site that popularizes Classics in some way, include it. If you haven't done any, don't worry and don't point out that you haven't done any in letter. If you have, include in your CV. If you've done some sort of big deal public outreach, you could talk about it in your letter, but only if it's a really big deal.
3. This varies depending on the university. At mine, we hold faculty interdisciplinary seminars and reading groups, or serve as experts on a panels or presentations that somehow relate to our fields. It could also include offering cross-listed courses (e.g., I teach an "American Mythologies" course that is cross-listed in American Studies, Classics, and English. Again, not something you need to address if you haven't done much interdisciplinary work as a grad student, but if you have, you could point it out.
As a former SC member, I wouldn't expect most candidates to have much to talk about with any of the three, but if they do, it's a positive (though not one that outweigh a light teaching or pub record).
I'd echo most of what 9:22 said, with the caveat that I would encourage you to reference these three items in your letter provided that:
1) you have something to say about them and 2) the ad/dept gives you some reason to think these things are of special interest (e.g., community outreach is mentioned in the ad)
There are ways to efficiently work these into your letter, and several times in my service on SCs it has been those added elements that really made a candidate "shine" and caused them to be added to the initial interview list.
The crazy thing is when ads for one-year positions say they expect service. Which should never be expected, unless it's something like helping out with classics club events.
10:14: I suspect that's boilerplate controlled by HR and that a department would not actually expect this but for the ad hoc sorts of situations you mention. When my department puts out ads for TTs or VAPS, only about 20% of the language actually comes from us. The rest is a format that our uni uses for all ads whether we like it or not. If you apply for a job that has a requirement like that in it, I'd not put much stock in it until the SC confirms it. I've held a few VAPs in the past and some offered service opportunities (some I took, as I thought they would help my apps for TTs), but all were understanding when I turned some requests down.
/I'm not affiliated with any ongoing search at the moment.
If you are being paid per course as an adjunct, you should refuse to do service unless you are compensated for it by contract. If you are true VAP making 75,000 a year with health benefits, then some service might not be unreasonable. But most VAPs are not real VAPs, which was supposed to mean the pay and prestige of a assistant professor, even without the TT trajectory.
A VAP making $75,000 is staggeringly lucky. At my SLAC, t-t asst. profs. start at about $60,000, and no-one breaks the $75,000 mark until they're granted tenure and promoted to Associate Prof (and not always then). And no, we're not in a particularly low Cost of LIving area. Not exceptionally high, but not particularly low.
@5:19pm: Most women and PoC cannot risk losing credibility (if they have any) with students by going by their first names or dressing casually for lecture. When men do those things, they perpetuate the gap between themselves and their female and PoC colleagues, who don't have the same luxuries of self-presentation. If men are interested in being allies, they should insist on following the same standards of dress and address that their female and PoC colleagues are almost required to follow. Otherwise, as a young male (white?) scholar, you can probably do whatever you want. (Some white men choose the Dr./Prof. label for personal reasons, which is also OK, but for someone in your position, it's not actually *necessary* in order for you to be recognized as an authority when you stand in front of the classroom, just a matter of choice/preference.)
So far as my fellow PhD candidates during grad school are concerned (a top 5), the males would dress in khaki shorts and polo shirts or even t-shirts with goofy images and phrases on them, often wore sandals and some even wore baseball hats regularly to classes that they TA'd for. Students saw this, but didn't seem to ever not give full and complete respect to their male TAs. The females, on the other hand, all dressed in very professional attire and struggled to get even slight respect from their students.
It's a struggle for females in academia, especially if they are not much older than undergrads (or even *look* of similar age). I can only imagine how little most undergrads would respect a female TA or young prof who dressed comparably to undergrad girls (Yoga pants with 'PINK' across the back, Ugg boots, an oversized hoodie, etc..). Male TAs and young profs can literally wear anything within reason that they desire and never really have to worry about how they'll be perceived.
I can also imagine that being a black female TA or young prof is even more difficult to work with in this regard. I don't think, however, that an Asian, Latino, Black, or any other non-white male really has too much to worry about with regards to how they dress--again, so long as it's within reason--and how it corresponds to undergrad respect, though I'm sure some element may be there. In my experience and given the many conversations that I've had with numerous colleagues of various races/genders, there's a very stark divide between male:female, little difference for white/non-white males, but an additional gap exists for non-white females.
...I don't think that the answer (if there actually is one) is to ask all male TAs and young profs to dress formally, so that *we're all in it together* or something. Doing so does little, if anything at all, to address the underlying prejudices that exist in peoples' mind with regards to gender:qualification. Having us all in suits/dresses only masks the issue and actually conflates the problem by reaffirming any association between exterior appearance and interior acumen.
A better reaction is to work to break such prejudices. So, just as many male TAs and young profs dress in casual clothing and may be rather dissimilar to undergrads when in the crowd on campus, females should do the same. By dressing like Hillary Clinton, yes, it is true, you may be setting yourself apart from the 18-22 year old females on campus, but you are only conforming to the false perception of "smart, successful women deserving of respect look LIKE THIS" and are, in many ways, only making real progress all the more difficult.
For what it's worth, I, as a white male VAP, never dress in clothing that I personally don't interpret as fitting a prof; as I always were dress shoes, shirt/tie, or button down shirt with jacket, etc.. I do this, however, not to garner more respect or authority from students, but because I feel most comfortable when dressing as such for what I'm currently doing. When I'm doing an oil change on my car I wear old jeans and an old t-shirt (maybe even a rock concert T). Now, I admit that if I were to, dressed as such, bump into a student of mine at the auto parts store while wearing a Slayer shirt, I'd feel a massive drop in my authority, but that likely stems far more from my own (perceived) interpretation by said student than anything concrete.
Thank you, white male @9:44, for informing me that I (as a young professional woman) am to blame for society's faults and am standing in the way of progress by dressing the same way you choose to dress. It's hard enough to get students to stop calling me "Miss ___" (sometimes even after multiple corrections). You think dressing like one of them is going to make things easier? Or that I should have to endure even more disrespect just to disrupt their expectations of what a 'smart' woman looks like? How about YOU help teach YOUR students that women are deserving of respect no matter how they dress.
RE: 8:25. I hope you aren't suggesting a de facto dress code for classicists and perhaps academics more generally. Beyond the other costs of imposing a dress code, such unwritten rules also, as I presume you're aware, always privilege insiders. Accordingly, if you were to actually apply such a dress code - even in relatively low-stakes cases like your own private estimation of a visiting speaker - you will end up discriminating against people on the basis of things such as their class, national background, disabilities, and so on. More generally, I agree completely that our society's sexism makes academia, like so many other aspects of life, more difficult for women and that we should work tirelessly to change that. I don't see how mandating, or even encouraging, that male and female academics dress in the ways that you would prefer would do anything to improve it.
I think we're all making the same argument here, more or less. Namely: it is absolutely classist and frankly absurd that female professors are evaluated more on dress and class performance than male professors are, but for many women trying to navigate their day-to-day lives, formal "Hilary Clinton-esque" dress (I personally go for more of a Michelle Obama look) is often a useful way to navigate these problems. The question is: how do we shift student stereotypes to create a more egalitarian teaching and learning experience?
I never said that any woman is to blame. There exists an expectation in society that professional women look like 'x', we can all agree on that. So, you can either dress like 'x' and follow convention or not dress like 'x' and buck convention. Both options have consequences: conforming=perpetuating the problem; bucking=present uncomfortably may happen.
YOU are not to blame. 1,000s of years of societal preconceptions are to blame. But, *you are to blame* for how you chose to interact with the preconception.
I never said that dressing like an undergrad girl would make a professional woman's life any easier, only that by doing so, you set the stage for a long-run change at the expense of short-run inconvenience. You can't shout for all of society to change while passively acknowledging and subscribing to the very convention that you want to see changed.
Sounds like 11:01 has got their knickers in a twist.
As a non-white male, I never got the impression that I was any less respected by the students way back when I was a TA and then young professor. My outfit generally consisted of jeans, sneakers, and a button front shirt. To be quite honest, if you know your material and it comes across that you do, I don't think that you should have a problem with students. When I was a TA one of my fellow students, a white female who's easily in the top five smartest people I've ever met, wore shorts, t-shirts, and flip-flops to teach. You'd better believe that her students didn't give her any shit because it was clear that she knew the material backward and forward and was orders of magnitude smarter than most of them would ever be.
As a white male VAP, I make a point of wearing a shirt, slacks, tie and dress shoes when I teach. This is slightly dressier than the TT professors at the same institution.
I do this for two reasons. Firstly, my own self respect as one of the downtrodden members of the profession.
Secondly, I do think there are strong reasons why we should dress professionally (and I admit that it is easier to do so for men, although I do hate neckties). One of the social aspects of college is that it teaches undergraduates how to be middle class professionals. A professor should be a role model for how a middle class professional comports themselves. The notion that you might dress somewhat formally to present before a group is part of this lesson.
@ 9.44/11.36: I think the issue I'm having with your way of framing the discussion is the "short-run inconvenience" line. If (as we know to be true) women have a harder time commanding respect in classrooms, and are judged more harshly on student course evaluations; and if (as we assume to be true) lower course evaluations can hurt job applications as well as tenure files, than I'd say that the potential consequences that women in the profession fear are not just short-run inconveniences or present uncomfortabilities, but instead long-term career damage for the individual.
And, I'd also like to point out that this is not just about the opinions of students and their evaluations, but also those of senior members of the profession. When I was a grad student at at T5 in very recent years, I had comments from faculty members on my teaching evaluations that I "looked the part" -- a consequence of several years spent in the bowels of corporate America before grad school, and a corresponding wardrobe. I have no doubt that their perceptions of me through the lens of my attire contributed to their overall picture of me as a scholar, although I'm not saying that was the only thing they were paying attention to.
We should never be blaming disenfranchised groups for acquiescing to (often unspoken but clearly signaled) societal dictates in order to progress.That's like telling women that they can't be feminists if they wear bras and lipstick.
Disenfranchised groups are not in a position of power to change the game. We have to adhere to the rules perfectly to be able to even play at all. "Burn it all down and resist" is great rhetoric, but actually exercising that as a viable option only comes from a place of privilege.
-from a young, female POC, who plays the game even though the rules are BS, bc I need to survive
"To be quite honest, if you know your material and it comes across that you do, I don't think that you should have a problem with students."
So, all of the women who have trouble with commanding respect from students -- statistically, the majority of women in academia -- are only having trouble because they don't know their stuff or are bad at communicating it?
It is also important to make sure to refer to colleagues by their professional titles when talking to students about them. So, not "Oh, you should talk to Jane about that" but "Oh, you should talk to Dr. Smith about that," as an example. To get into the habit of reminding students at all times that everyone in the department is a professional. Language is important, as I hope we can all agree in a field that's so language-based.
This is obviously speaking from a position of privilege, but personally I find that people who make a point of being called 'Dr.' come off as insecure. I came from a department where every faculty member insisted on being called by their first name, even by undergraduates, and the graduate students took after their example. I don't recall anyone ever having an issue with this. You're the one at the front of the room. If your students do not respect you then that is on you.
"This is obviously speaking from a position of privilege..."
So much so that you don't recognize how completely and offensively wrong you are--one of the very definitions of speaking from a position of privilege.
The Dr./Prof. thing is also institutional. At my grad institution and my first job, everyone went by their first names. At my TT job, everyone across the campus used Dr. or Prof. It's just part of the institutional culture. While I didn't mind in theory if students called me by my first name, I soon discovered that they only actually did so when they were male and wanted something from me (I'm a young female). It happened several times that male students came to my office wanting things like grade changes and only then would use my first name, while they would generally call my male colleagues only Dr. So and so. It was annoying, so I put an end to it.
The idea that you need a title to get respect is not sound, I agree, but at the same time the way that titles can be refused by others can be a clear sign of disrespect. Now I only go by Dr., because to do otherwise would stick out on this particular campus.
Yes, one thing important to note in both issues of dress and address is the institutional culture of your university and department. If there is a formal culture of using academic titles and dress up, do so, at least until your well established enough deviate from the established culture. And if you are in an informal department, where everyone wears flip flops and goes by Steve, well, hang loose. When in Rome.....
You can acknowledge privilege without getting defensive or trying to explain it away by saying that the women with the problems just don't know their stuff, or they're not confident, or they're doing something else wrong. Scientists have literally proven that this is not true. Yes, things are different person to person -- some women have no/few problems, some men have problems -- but the bigger issue is real and proven, scientifically and anecdotally.
A few questions with regards to the (few) remaining TTs and VAPs...
Concordia University. They run this ad every year, and every year there is no data on the Wiki. I can imagine that non-Canadians are *never* hired, but does anyone know anything concrete on this?
UC-Berkeley. They, also, run the same ad every year. Every, single year. Asking for Greek and Roman History instructors, yet it seems that every year they never hire anyone. ??
T-T job at Ashland University. Any word on what's happening here?
T-T job at Florida Southern College. Any word on what's happening here?
T-T job at Mississippi State University. Any word on what's happening here?
(Dr./Mr./Prof./Herr) CN said there was no dept. need at UC-Berkeley for this year. Last year there was, which brought back a former grad student before he moved on to a T-T job (though his spot is now presumably resumed by scholar-on-leave). Kudos to the former student for a well-deserved promotion. The call this year was a standard call for an adjunct pool, I think.
Ashland University apparently had their last Skype last week, and offered at that time a timeline of 2 weeks before word would be sent out re:visits (sorry to make this into an SAT question - I think the answer is we'll all find out next week). So best of luck to all involved (but most of luck to me, I guess).
The rest of those universities can go kick rocks/suck eggs/take long walks off short piers.
Every year Berkeley History (and sometimes Classics) does a "pool" ad, even if there are no specific jobs available. The application is good for up to three years. The bad news is the lecture pool tends to be heavily recruited from Berkeley's own unemployed PhDs, although occasionally they do hire from outside.
Interviewed for Florida Southern. My takeaway was that the SC was totally clueless. Three members and each asked two questions. One member asked me “have you ever been to Florida and if so, what did you think of it?” Another member asked “so, we have our majors take a focused course in the fall where they learn appropriate historiography and apply it to a predetermined topic. Then in the spring they select a specific topic of their choosing, using the skills they learned in the fall, and write their senior capstone. How would you change this?”
Concordia will simply never hire a non-Canadian for a VAP.
Berkeley, I talked to yesterday, they said that they have no need for a Greek/Roman historian for the fall, but might for the spring.
The UC Berkeley post is ALWAYS given to unemployed Berkeley PhDs to keep them afloat another year or two (and pays very little). Other top programs can afford to do the same with their unemployed PhDs. To me, FWIW, this seems to be a great draw of top PhD programs.
Hmmm the Cincinnati departure is interesting, but I figured that's who it was when someone mentioned an archaeologist there jumping ship. For one, the "Heavy" in the department whom everyone here accuses of twisting arms to get Cincinnati students jobs is close to retirement age already, and the other two Greek archaeologists are already tenured and full professor respectively.
Re titles: Many years ago, when I (female) was a newly-fledged PhD and an adjunct, I shared an office with another adjunct who had an MA, and was male. Students INVARIABLY addressed my male colleague, without the PhD, as "Dr. X." They INVARIABLY addressed me, with the PhD, as "Mrs. Y." Given that my surname is my birthname, not my husband's name, under no circumstances would it be correct to call me "Mrs. Y," but students would not then (and in my experience will not now) use "Ms." This made it pretty clear to me that "Dr." is a title of respect, and that in the students' minds that respect was strongly gender-linked. And once I realized that, I began insisting on being addressed as "Dr." and have insisted on it ever since.
Using either "Doctor" or "Professor" recognizes our professional standing and has the added advantage of removing gender and questions of marital status from the form of address. Using "Mr." is unmarked for marital status, but women still get asked ALL THE TIME "Are you Miss or Mrs.?" and there is still a great deal of resistance to Ms.. Those of us who have the right to push back against that nonsense by claiming the title "Dr." should, in my opinion, do so.
When asked "Are you Miss or Mrs.?" you should always respond, "I'm sorry, but it's far more polite to simply use Ms. when in doubt than to inquire unprompted about a woman's marital status, don't you think?" That usually learns em quick.
As a female let me say that whenever I hear another women refer to herself as Ms. (“Mizz”), I think that it sounds horribly bitchy and it does little to be a neutral statement of marital status, as most women who use it give off the impression of being single. It’s similar to being on the stand in a courtroom and pleading the 5th to every question; yes, it may be neutral but it heavily implies guilt.
I associate Ms. with an old maid who never married or had kids, is bitter and angry, and the kind of person to ask to speak with the manager at any given opportunity.
Being single is the equivalent of admitting guilt? Ms. implies old maid?
When are we going to start viewing women as more than their marital status? All I want is for no one to care either way, and Ms. starts the process towards that social conception. My identity is not dependent on my marital status.
There are a lot of regionalisms mixed up in this Ms./Mrs./Miss thing. I grew up in a non-English speaking house in the South, and I honestly didn't understand the distinctions between the pronunciations until well into my time at college-- the people I heard around me in childhood pronounced Mrs. and Ms. the same way, and didn't really use Miss at all, and I never stopped to think about it. I didn't fully understand the standard English conventions until I was corrected by one of the women in a place I worked at during college, who was really offended that I was calling her Ms. so-and-so even though I knew she was married.
All of these terms are LOADED for women. Nothing is neutral, and nothing is positive. If she's Ms., she's apparently a bitch or an old maid (or both?). If she's Prof. or Dr., she's insecure and trying too hard. If she's Mrs., she's too attached to her husband. If she goes by her first name, she's informal and unprofessional. Regardless, she doesn't know her stuff, which is why she can't command a classroom. I cannot for the life of me understand why women think there's a culture problem in academia (I know it's not limited to academia, but that's what we're talking about here).
Add to this the problem that if ever a solution is suggested, the women to follow whatever that solution is has to then deal with backlash from other women who are comfortable and perfectly happy with the status quo, thereby making the “progressive” women seem like men-hating feminists. It’s a lose-lose situation. It really is.
As a guy let me just say that I never want my students to call me Mr.. it sounds disrespectful to me in the classroom. Dr. sounds dickish and first name basis stuff is asinine, imo. “Professor” all the way. So, I don’t really get why females are too upset: use “Professor” and all’s well.
&c. ideas about this. I don't care if you know one woman who doesn't mind it, or no one has told you this before. I assume that most people here understand the importance of language and terminology and I'm appalled to have seen this multiple times now.
12:51, Yeah, agreed (and I can't believe there are people out there who think it's right to go with anything other than Dr./Prof.; must be the sorts of people who will ruin their children by wanting to be best friends with them instead of parental figures). But what about those of us who are officially lecturers rather than VAP's, AP's, etc.? Then Dr. is the only option that's fully accurate.
Young woman here. I prefer Dr., as it is a gender-neutral title that I earned; I would not correct a student if they used Prof. but would not use it myself to, e.g., sign an email. In small classes, I am comfortable with students using my first name (and in fact that was the norm at my undergraduate and graduate institutions). However, I think this conversation has shown that the practice of being on a first-name basis with teachers is more privileged than I realized.
As for "Ms." being a sign of bitchiness or an "old maid"--? I honestly do not know any person my age who would use Mrs. I think of Ms. as being the default for women unless they say otherwise (or have a higher degree, in which case Dr.).
@12:51 You forgot your " /s ". See what happens when you forget your " /s "? We end up with posts like 1:03. For everyone's safety, always remember to close your sarcasm tags.
The Roman historian they hired along with two other T-Ts seems to have disappeared from their Faculty page. I know that person has stoked a lot of controversy, but if they are no longer at USC, may we'll see another USC search next year?
There is no sarcasm evident in 12:51's post. It was a call for people to default to the gender neutral terms like Dr./Prof., which is also an earned title. The content of the post was generally fine, it's just the grating term, which, by the way, several (other?) people have used. It's dehumanizing and also weird.
Or maybe quit policing people's use of language instead?
Throughout the entire above conversation people have been using BOTH male and female as nouns. All of the arguments made against using female as a noun can be levelled at using male as a noun, and honestly it's all so tedious that I can't be bothered to care. This is an entirely separate issue from whether one should demand that students call them Dr./Professor.
The conversation on how to address professors is made even weirder when you have places like U. of Virginia where the tradition is that all faculty are supposed to be called Mr./Ms., but most faculty don't follow it anymore. When I was a student I always defaulted to calling everyone Professor unless I was told otherwise, simply because some of my instructors were grad students who didn't yet have a PhD and of course some faculty had MFA degrees which are obviously not doctorates.
Language is important, and it is relevant as we talk about how terms are loaded with all sorts of assumptions and biases. The kinds of people who refer to human women as "females" are likely also the kinds of people who've internalized all kinds of other negative attitudes about their colleagues, students, friends, et al.
If you're even offended by a person saying "female" then maybe you should re-evaluate your life. To say that you're "appalled" at people using it as a noun is beyond asinine and you show a deep level of immaturity and close-mindedness in your fault-finding among everyone.
As far as I know, the ancient historian who got hired by USC decided to stay at their previous institution, which is why they disappeared from the website. I don't know what happened to this year's search though.
I know that job gossip is relevant and important, but not at the expense of other conversations about the state of the field. These conversations are important for a lot of people, men and women.
No, using "female" as a noun is generally weird and fucked up. It suggests a bizarre aversion to the word "woman" while focusing attention on bodily existence instead of regular ol' personhood; it implies that the speaker views the "females of the species" as interchangeable and/or inscrutable; and it's just weird. Maybe you don't mean it that way, but language is for communication, and that's how you sound to most non-misogynists. It's not about our being "offended" (not the right concept at all, but nice try) but about how you come across.
Personally I recoil when a man refers to women as "females," for exactly the reasons that others have stated. In every case here we are discussing adult women-- what is your aversion to referring to us as such? Is it "language policing" to discourage people from using the n word? (And no, I'm not saying that they are equivalent terms, so please don't go there.)
If you respect women, you will listen to us when we say that "female" as a noun has a negative connotation and you'll make an effort to stop doing it. If you dig in your heels and refuse to make this tiny change in your vocabulary, just know that a decent percentage of your students and colleagues moving forward will have the same reaction we do every time you use it, and that you will lose respect and professional opportunities as a result. Then again, if you're that obstinate and have that much disregard for others, I'm sure you reveal it in other ways and they probably already know to stay away from you.
I'm not one of the women above who have already commented on this, in case you're wondering.
Just to add a slightly different perhaps class-based take on the 'female' vs 'women' lexical warfare. When my wife was an officer in the army, it was common to distinguish between soldiers from enlisted up into high officer ranks (full colonels) as using 'female'. It always struck me as strange because, of course, the term 'male' was considered a redundancy.
I guess 'Female' master sergeant sounds better than Master Sergeant woman? I don't know.
I don't even know whether I am arguing for or against, just offering that in one context what seems normal is actually insidious; which may mean that in another what seems insidious is normal? Is there an aversion of using a noun as an adjective and vice versa?
And then there is the gender vs sex distinction. The only way to win, I think, is to ask how people like to be described.
I think it's a pretty safe default to assume that women prefer to be humanized? Just make a small change to your vocabulary and use "woman" instead of "female." If it's relevant to refer to the sex/gender of someone, you can obviously use "female" as an adjective. "I would prefer to see a female doctor" (not woman doctor), but "That woman is a doctor." But if it's not relevant, maybe just leave it out and not make it seem like terms like "master sergeant" or "doctor" or "pilot" or "firefighter" or whatever are objectively coded male or female.
Is this a problem in the real world? I can't remember hearing anyone use "female" as a noun for "woman," other than perhaps in some scientific/sociological study, or some other somewhat technical context. I think I've also heard it on TV or in movies, as part of urban slang. Are there really people at universities, or else other parts of society, doing using "female" when "woman" would be the normal thing to say?
Women being dehumanized and marginalized is not exactly a "molehill." *You* can't see why this is important because you don't experience it, but that doesn't mean it's not important.
I mean, if you want to die on this hill, that's your prerogative. There are, however, a variety of more pressing concerns facing the field that I'd like to see addressed rather than people policing language and getting bent out of shape over innocuous terminology.
The terminology betrays the other, bigger problems, including the issues related to student evaluations, which are used to the disadvantage of women in hiring, tenure, and promotion decisions, and the general culture of the academy for women. The fact that this turned into such a big discussion shows the extent of the problem. It *is* a small thing, and the conversation could have gone:
Woman: Don't use "female" as a noun, here's a list of valid reasons why. Man: Oh, I didn't realize I was doing it, let alone that there were such problems with it. Easy switch. Woman: Thanks, mate. Man: Literally no problem just to use a different word.
The feminists here were not the ones turning this into a mountain. There was a quick note about not using that word, and then a bunch of duudes defending its use. THEY are the ones who turned it into a *thing.*
@6:59, you realize that most archaeologists have taken 5-6 years of Latin and Greek to qualify for their degrees, right? You know, a sufficient amount to learn basic parts of speech?
My first year of grad school I gave a seminar paper that used both textual and archaeological evidence to examine a philological question. I showed a picture of the Athenian Agora and realized that none of my classmates had ever looked at an archaeological plan before. They couldn't recognize one of the most basic archaeological sites in the discipline. That's like an archaeologist who hasn't read the Odyssey. These are people now applying for generalist jobs.
A philologist once used a photograph of the Temple of Olympian Zeus in Athens (with the Acropolis in the background...) when talking about the Temple of Zeus at Olympia. Another didn't know that there were different column orders and couldn't tell the difference between them. Yet ANOTHER presented a paper on peploi in plays presented at the Theater of Dionysos in Athens in the later 5th century BCE and was unaware of the peplos scene on the Parthenon frieze. Not all philologists, of course, but it would be great if philologists were required to have an equivalent understanding of archaeology/material culture as archaeologists are of languages.
4,546 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 3601 – 3800 of 4546 Newer› Newest»These are great points! I like the way you think! MCGA!
@8:26 (2), clearly 5:51 was responding to the quote, "Familiarity with how the UK works is part of upper-middle to upper-class US cultural performance," not making some shocked comment about how horrible it is that "most are not apprised of the ins-and-outs of the UK university system" or even "Acting shocked that people don't know the peculiarities," though several others have clearly done that.
The comment to which 5:51 reacted implies some sort of class privilege is behind the expectation that Classics PhDs will have a basic knowledge of how Oxford and Cambridge operate. Two of the oldest and most prestigious universities in the world with deep and pervasive traditions in Classics. In my personal experience, it's not difficult to learn about how institutions in the UK operate - every time I've ever been at a conference in Classics or a sub-discipline of the field, I've met people with all sorts of background and experience. You hint at a similar experience yourself, and it sounds as if we may even know some of the same people.
As a special snowflake, I suppose I do ask more questions of colleagues than is absolutely necessary. But I also admit to being curious about lots of things, and, more importantly, I'd like to be a good advisor someday. So I can see all sorts of obvious reasons why someone might care about how the UK operates, even outside the basic "I am job" desperation that has pervaded my world. In today's job market, unlike 5:51, I admit that I AM shocked that more of us don't know more about the field and the job opportunities that are out there, but maybe that just signals how special a snowflake I really am.
Any update on @6:22pm's claim of a Cincinnati prof getting the ISAW position?
@9:49 PM
I dub thee "smugflake."
Suggestion for discussion : until the corporatization of the university and academe / outcome-driven students and admin in later twentieth century, Classics was a standard part of *everyone's* education: you read Thucydides and Marcus Aurelius and knew a bit about Athens and Rome because they were perceived as relevant and necessary for a well-rounded, historically conscientious person trying to make sense of modern experiences.
Professionalization / corporatization of the university for Classics has meant more majors who are told that, as majors, their career goal must mean "becoming a Classicist", rather than just being a well-rounded person.
Folks teaching new courses that pair the classical with the contemporary, and Eidolon for that matter [so loudly disparaged by some FV'ers] are, it seems to me, doing a helluva job to MCGA by reintegrating Classics into the core curriculum of students who will *never* become Classicists, simply by making it relevant again. I see this as a *tremendous* service to our field, and a critical part of outreach to new generations of students if we do, in fact, want to save our field.
Is "Make Classics Great Again" really just "Make Classics Relevant Again"?
There is definitely overlap between Eidolon and MCGA - and possibly room for coalition-building on some issues.
To whomever said, facetiously, "I love how we can turn every little thing into class warfare.":
I'd love to hear you explain further why Marx is wrong.
Presumably as practitioners of Ye Olde White Area Studies, we can turn over the intellectual heavy lifting to our betters, such as Slate. "Marx, you're doing economics wrong." What about intersectionality? What about rich people who live in gated communities but are really sympathetic to the plight of PoC?
My close reading of Tacitus shows that Marx was wrong about Roman society. MCGA!
Re: Joukowsky Postdoc,
They contacted shortlist folks last week
Classical reception watch: Is Kanye becoming the Horace/Vergil to POTUS' Augustus? 'My MAGA hat is signed.'
When an advertised position is contingent upon needs/funding, at what point do you get to know that they will actually make offers?
Lol, I'm not the OP, but was there literally anything that Marx was not wrong about? Just on the level of empirical predictions, his were not only wrong but were the opposite of what actually occurred.
"Literally"
Yeah, Marx was literally wrong about everything, that's why his work was long ago tossed onto the trash heap of history and he has been all but forgotten. Who ever heard of a Marxist approach? MCGA!
Also, the ghost of G.E.M. de Ste. Croix wants to have a word with you.
Any idea when the new VAPs for ISAW will be presented?
Joining into this Marx debate... Anyone who writes as much as he did is bound to be right about SOMETHING. This is also true of my recently published book, I hope.
Congrats on the book, 7:09!
@5:03 Famae from about a while ago is that most of the ISAW offers were to ancient fields outside of classics. No idea when/if all of that was finalized.
re: Marx, every time i see pictures of him i think about bearded hipsters. this is not, mind you, a favorable reaction: beards should be trimmed to camp-length in the manner of a Severan or Tetrarch, if one is feeling more promiscuous perhaps a bit longer in the fashion of an Antonine.
that said i think that the Grundrisse (especially) provides a formidable critique of modern capitalism and, in tandem with Weber, some important insights to pre-industrial and tributary societies and cities including Rome. Start w/ David Harvey's commentaries on the Capital, mayhap (and always Howard Zinn). and then try some P.A. Brunt, Keith Bradley, Chris Wickham, John Haldon, etc etc.
and let us never forget the Commodity Fetish from Capital 1.4, or the sections that follow on Exchange Value.
MCGA!
Marxism is an interesting blend of Real News and Fake News. But the Real News is very valuable. Keep deceiving yourselves that class and class interests aren't the key thing. The MCGA agenda acknowledges this and works to transform Classics into less of a classist performance art and more of an academic discipline. MCGA!
@8:48 AMEN
Marxism has not been forgotten because there are still those who view existence as a zero sum game and genuinely believe that any increase in anorger’s Wealth therefore means less wealth for them. Meanwhile, capitalist societies have become unimaginably richer and the experiential gap between rich and poor has declined to an extraordinary degree. I have the same phone model that Mark Zuckerberg has. We both have access to air travel—he might fly in a private jet while I fly Southwest, but we can both fly. Today, almost everyone in America has access to a cell phone and a computer. We have access to a fantastic array of resources—can you imagine a person from even 50 years ago encountering a Kroger or a Target and realizing that this place of marvelous riches was not restricted to the wealthiest? There is a lot of work to do and a lot of lives can be bettered, but to say that Marxism will do that is to ignore a century of Marxist experiments and the utter devastation they’ve left in their wake. Venezuela, whose citizens are now dying of starvation despite sitting on the largest oil reserves in the world, is just another tragic example of Marxism in practice. (I used to be a committed socialist, by the way, but I can no longer support an ideology that has left so many corpses in its wake.)
I would agree that the greatest driver of inequality in this country is not class difference or workers vs. corporate overlords, but racial difference. 2:50pm makes a good point that less relative wealth seems not to be negatively impacting purchasing power, and given that I am a lot less concerned about economic inequality than I am about racial inequality. In fact I’d argue that the rise of Socialism in this country in the mid-20th century diverted money and people from the civil rights movement. Coincidence? Or was that racially motivated? I genuinely don’t know.
The market blows. What a fake meritocracy.
Ugh, @ 3:10
Read your history books. Your statement is way off. Not because racial injustice is not a pressing issue (it most certainly is, although many minority classicists and other academics are doing plenty better, in terms of salary, than their white peers; check the state school salaries if you don't believe me)...
...But rather, because it is a well-documented fact that the Civil Rights movement was greatly, greatly aided by the communists and socialists during the early-mid 20th Century.
Next time, do a little research before you make such patently false claims (#MCGA).
MCGA! MCGA! MCGA!
5:56 how DARE you insinuate that minorities receive preferential treatment in Classics? To get a job at minority has to be at least TWICE as good as a white classicist, given the racism of the field.
https://www.dissentmagazine.org/online_articles/enoch-powell-racism-neoliberalism-right-wing-populism-rivers-of-blood
Did anyone else who applied for the VAP at Fordham get an email today?
Fuck capitalists and non economic socialists.
Can confirm ISAW job went to a current Cincinnati Greek Archaeologist.
https://sententiaeantiquae.com/2018/04/28/finale-verbum-who-killed-famae-volent/
Way too long. And what's with having a million epigraphs? MCGA!
That's the way I roll.
Haha, we need an epitome!
I tried to confirm 5:56's point by checking Classics faculty salaries at the two public universities with which I have been affiliated. But then I realized that neither (large department) has ANY minority faculty whose salaries I might check. Guess that answers that.
MCGA is eating our lunch!
Obviously there are so few minority classicists that any reputable university would pay $$$$$$$ to have one. Supply and demand. MCGA!
The Servii should take down this nasty insinuation about an impressive young scholar.
@4:10,
C’mon. This kind of bullshit is part of the reason why FV may be finished soon.
A toxic vomitorium... That’s what FV has become, and those fair and decent folk who rush to clean up the puke should be lauded but cannot be FV’s saving grace. Turn the lights out fast and set up elsewhere with accounts and pseudonyms.
Better to erase nasty comments when they’re seen and keep FV alive. For most of us there isn’t any other source of knowledge and information. This is the internet, there are going to be trolls around.
I'm still rather uncertain what actual damage being named or alluded to at FV does beyond hurting one's pride. Except in the cases of, say, the sexual abusers and perverts in the field who were mentioned not too long ago, it's not as if what is said on FV has any real world, tangible implications. Maybe I'm not as plugged-into who's who, but it took me more than a bit of searching to find out who the scholar referred to in the two recently deleted posts is. And so what? There's literally nothing that will happen as a result of me having discovered their identity.
FV does more harm than good. As for the supposed harm, I believe, quite frankly, that people need to grow a thicker skin.
Ha, excuse the typo.
*does more good than harm.
When demand is high, it's often because supply is low.
A Momigliano happens but once per generation at most. We should hail all shiny promised epiphanies.
beati qui non viderunt et crediderunt
@2:14 et sim.
What need does your trolling satisfy?
When you post, do you actually feel happier afterwards? Is your goal to try to reduce others to the same level of misery you feel now? Do you even have a goal? Do you ever reflect genuinely on your posts and how they affect your inner self? I find you baffling.
aaaaand it's gone. That was quick. Deleting valid criticism on a scholar's approach. Nice job.
Why would anyone set ever foot in a Classics Dept, having seen the caliber of so many FV posters? As for those callling for it to stay open, have you truly never seen an online board where pseudonyms are used? Do you seriously think that THIS is as good as it gets? Servii, please get it together and be decisive.
I don't buy that Classics is any nastier or more vicious than other fields in the humanities or the social sciences. I think that the cloak of anonymity provided by FV gives us the anonymity and attendant safety needed to vent our spleens. Give that same cloak to anybody from other fields and you'll get the same thing, this is just how people are. Setting aside the occasional trolling or unpleasant comments, FV is an invaluable forum and for the Servii (whose work I am grateful for, btw), who are volunteers, to decide that they are going to shut it down is both irresponsible and not their decision to make.
I tend to think that the trolls are doing this deliberately to watch FV burn.
We need to just delete and ignore them and KEEP FV ALIVE
I agree with 3:47 and 4:02.
PoliSciRumors would seem bear out 3:47's thesis about innate viciousness. If anything, FV shows how much more restrained Classicists are than the members of those other disciplines.
I also agree with 3:47 that the decision to shut down FV should not fall to those few who happen to be at the helm at this moment. Replace or extend the Serviumvirate instead.
It's so catty and pedigree-obsessed because there are few standards (at least on the 'philology' side of things) and much of what passes for scholarship is VERY FAKE NEWS.
what will replace FV, some ask?
twitter, obvis!
let's use accounts that have our names on them, that we use for everything else. we can even use a #FamaeVolent or #FV tag. those hoping for another anonymous message board were born in the ... 70s? 80s? or they're just worthless trolls.
just wait for the mindful appropriation here ... like Constantine's Arch ... like Athenaeus and the Deipnosophistae ... straight outta Late Antiquity ...
Twitter is the new #FV, MCGA! #f*ckthehaters
Yeah twitter is the perfect new venue for FV! We can openly get into spats with the Eidolon gang, who will promptly block anybody who says anything that they object to. Even more fun, people can be on the receiving end of scolding and shaming from the Aunt Lydia of wokeness in Classics herself, the editor of Eidolon.
I come to FV to get rumors/unofficial news about jobs I applied for or am interested in, I assume others do too (i.e. "what's going on with the UChicago search?" etc., etc.). I don't see how people would offer up insider information or buzz they've heard if it's attached to a twitter handle they use all the time/ under their own name.
Whoever suggested Twitter was clearly being facetious and named it as a potential place for FV because it's the preferred social media platform of Donna Zuckerberg and the Eidolon crew. Hence the comment that followed.
It's mainly a horrible idea because the anonymity is removed. Otherwise, one would have to set up a fake account entirely dedicated to browsing an FV twitter which is pointless extra work and something I'm not even sure is entirely easy, depending on what twitter requires for one to set up an account.
Any word on the Dartmouth Ancient History VAP?
Re: Dartmouth
Their ad claims that review is set to being 4.13, so I can imagine that they will be contacting their short-list very soon. All schools that have VAPs this late in the game have little choice but to make a mad dash to the finish line and wrap the process up ASAP.
All of the recently-posted VAP jobs on SCS whose due date is ca. the 3rd week of May, you can damn well guarantee that they already will have that (very) short list composed well before the last day of review, so that they can immediately reach out to the last strong candidates who remain in the applicant pool.
...I've been contacted by 2-3 SCs lately before the actual search ends to check in to see if I am still on the market and interested in their positions. This is my first year as a PhD on the market, so I'm not too sure how standard SCs doing that actually is, but I can imagine that it is fairly common.
Re: Dartmouth,
Given their track record of VAPs, one can expect them to only select a semi-seasoned (2-4 years VAP experience) candidate whose PhD comes from another Ivy. It's a horrible uphill battle for us plebs from the likes of Duke, UNC, Michigan, et al. to be so graced with the option of a Ivy job.
One exception may be if one's BA was from an Ivy, since Dartmouth is (so far as Classics and History are concerned anyway) a Bachelors-only institution, they are going to be looking for one whose undergrad experience, at the least, was from a fellow Ivy.
..Just my two cents. Though, I'd love nothing more than to be completely wrong, as I applied for the gig, yet hold a BA from an inglorious state school and never had the luck to be brought into the ivies for any of my degrees. Godspeed to the underdogs!
Has anyone heard from the 1-y. VAP at U of Virginia?
Re: Dartmouth.
According to the Wiki interview requests went out.
..didn’t think I stood a chance as I too am a “pleb”, but congrats to the lucky few who are being pursued further! I am thoroughly jealous but wish you the best of luck. ;)
How do the Cincinnati folks who frequent this blog feel about the departure of a core archaeology faculty member? Leaving for an entry level position at ISAW, a job that many of us (and presumably his own students) applied for?
This is my first year on the market (currently ABD), and I was lucky enough to get a couple of fly-outs (none of which led to offers, but good experience nonetheless). Looking forward to next year, I am wondering how to handle job talks on my CV. Would you leave them off? List them as invited talks?
Do not put job talks on your CV.
Its great you got 2-3 fly-outs as an ABD (it took me two years on the market to get my first fly-out, and four years to get three).
But, because the talk occurs in the process of the hire, it does not count as scholarly engagement in the way that an SCS presentation or invited talk does. Listing job talks may also make it seem like you are grasping for line items on your CV.
A job talk is a a "half empty/half full" thing. Half full, because you beat out over 100 other applicants to get on campus. Half empty because after the careful scrutiny, the job went to someone else. Yes, I know from painful experience that this happens for reasons divorced from your performance. But an unkind member of an SC might note : ah, poor bastard, rejected from jobs XYZ. SCs like to think they are picking winners (hence a few privileged candidates are bombarded with multiple high level offers while the rest of us starve). Never remind them of any moment where you came in second, third or fourth, even if we all lose sometimes. Reserve your CV for unmitigated successes.
@ 1:25,
To echo what 1:50 said, never list job talks on your CV. It is also in very bad taste to list jobs that you were offered but turned down (yes, some people actually do this!).
Also, congrats for having so much attention while being just ABD and during what has been a very shit year for us all. The last thing that you'd want to do is tarnish what obviously is a very strong CV with stuff like job talks. :)
Just out of curiosity, what sub-field are you in (Greek Archaeology; Roman History; Latin Philology, etc..) ?
I'm just hoping that someone like you is not in mine, since you'll be eating *my* lunch next year no doubt! ;)
Did anyone else who applied for the Fordham VAP get an email recently outlining the search timetable?
People being nice to each other, on FV?! This totally contradicts the narrative that is being spun that everyone here is a vicious, antisocial villain. Can't have that, can we?
What the hell is up with Idaho's "elimination" process here? Every few days they update candidate application status to "no longer under consideration" through various stages?
Is this normal? I ask because I've put in for it, but still show as "in progress" so I'm apparently still in the running, but is this a common practice? Seems like a very reality-TV-way of dealing with a T-T search.
Any insight?
@2:54,
the History Wiki, too, shows equally disturbed candidates. I'd estimate that at some point this week they'll have to reach out to their finalists. A colleague of mine put in for it but was 'eliminated' at first wave (4/25).
...Again, every SC is different and there is NO NORMAL. I can say that I've never seen a practice like this before, but being that it's a History Dept may account for the oddity of practice here. One can imagine that they received far more applications than they originally anticipated. That happened at SUNY-Stony Brook this year, who received about 230.
In a way, it's kind of refreshing that the *passed-on* candidates are notified first, so that they can move on.
Best of luck to you, 2:54!! It's an amazing school with a great library. The only drawback is that it's in a rather rural locale (Moscow, Idaho), but you also have Washington State about 15 mins away (Pullman, Washinton), so two very nice college towns that essentially make one expanded city, isn't that bad.
Exciting, too, that the History Dept there is starting an ancient program. What a great thing to be able to help design that.
Again.. best of luck, 2:54!
@2:54 & 3:03,
If you're looking for a larger city that's not too far of a commute to Moscow, look at Lewiston. It's a decent-sized city and only about 25 min commute up 95 to get to U-Idaho.
...Beautiful part of the country, btw. Essentially no diversity, though, so be prepared for that if that's a factor on your radar.
Also, good luck, 2:54! (to follow the new *niceness* trend on FV as of late)
For job talks on the CV, doesn't it depend on the format? Surely there's a difference between a widely, publicly advertised lecture and a half-hour presentation to the search committee and a few other faculty members.
@4:21,
Put it on your CV at your own risk. It's not customary to put these kinds of things on one's CV. Take a look at any tenured prof or T-T prof and I'd doubt one would see "job talks" listed on their CV.
I imagine that this is an issue for folks with otherwise very little to show on their CV, but in this case it is far better to have it not mentioned. It will never win over a SC nor will it ever put you in better light to a SC, but it most assuredly will make a great many SC members cringe.
Avoid putting a job talk on your CV. Period. It can ONLY hurt your chances and never will it help. At best, it would be a neutral element. Don't sabotage yourself; the market is harsh enough as it is.
1:50 PM here.
Re jobs talk on CV: If the lecture is part of a search process, do not put it on a CV, period. It is true that most jobs talks are more intensive than say, a 20 minute SCS talk. Indeed, many job talks are also often better attended than invited talks at the same institution.
But, because it is an audition, it doesn't count as a performance.
Also, it is worth reiterating, that even if you give a bang up job talk, if you don't get the job you are advertising a failure. They will associate the talk with you not getting a job. They may look up the person who did get the job, and mutter if their institution would have hired the person who beat you out. A CV should never advertise failure, even if a job talk represents you getting tantalizingly close to the finish line.
Also, as I stressed before, it looks a little desperate. If you feel compelled to list job talks, the question might be why you don;'t have more peer reviewed articles, SCS presentations, etc. And if you do have these things, adding the line item of a job talk really won't matter all that much.
Hmmm... interesting. There is no "job talks" section on a cv of course. But how would one know if a CV line was a job talk and not some other invited lecture, without being really dialed in to (past years on) the market? In fact, I just looked at the CVs of two senior scholars in my department and they both include (under lectures) the job talk for their current position, as well as others given around the same time for which they received an offer, but not for earlier job(s) or to my knowledge other jobs for which they may have been finalists without receiving an offer. So this may confirm your "rule" against advertising failure. But to me, if you have given a lecture that was publicly advertised it seems weird NOT to put it on the CV, whether it was a job talk or not. That said, I seem to be in the minority.
1:50 again.
So, firstly, senior professors were hired in chummier, happier times. They could get away with things that we couldn't. In many ways, saying "But Senior X" did it" does mean it is good practice in today's hyper competitive, impacted market. Remember, Senior Professor X was hired in the 1990s on the basis of two chapters of his unfinished dissertation.
Also, in rare occasions (mostly senior hires, but a few years ago also a high profile junior hire), a job talk is cloaked in the guise of an invited talk. This is usually when the committee either does not want to go through a formal process, or wants to vet the hire outside of the senior process. If this happens (and this applies to maybe 1% of hires), then there is little wrong with putting an invited talk (that was a stealth job talk) on a CV. But this would be a limited exception to an otherwise iron clad rule.
Most SCs will know the searches that took place in the preceding years; they scope out the Classics wiki like the rest of us, and follow the new hires. Announcing yourself as a failed candidate in a recent search is not good strategy.
I agree with you 5:45.
I am tenured. have been tenured at two places. I put job talks on my CV. They are still there, just not as job talks. As talks, invited. "Subject Talk: Awesomeness," Other University you might have heard of (2018). Never been called on it.
6:08 here, I’m currently on my second TT job and also have never been called on putting job talks (as invited talks) on my C.V.
Tenured person here. When I was on the market my advisers told me to include them, but I always felt odd about it so I didn't. When I went up for tenure, my faculty mentor was shocked that I didn't initially include them on my dossier CV.
As someone who's been on SCs, I'd raise an eyebrow at a cluster of invited talks in January/February on a CV and probably think they're likely job talks. In any case, it wouldn't really influence my opinion of an app either way.
In my Dept (Ivy), tenured professors DO include job talks on their very public CVs, I just checked this. They list the most impressive and also the lackluster, and mark them as job talks. Because these are, after all, scholarly talks that showcase ones research in a very meaningful way.
My guess is that the people advising against putting job talks on a CV have very few job talks of their own to list, and do not understand the great efforts involved. These are very labor intensive talks that reflect very well upon the individual, regardless of outcome.
Sure, by all means, go ahead and list job talks on your C.V. as real talks: it slightly increases the odds for the rest of us who know better.
And shame on anyone claiming to have tenure who is dispensing such advice.
1:50 here.
Again, I must stress that what works for golden senior Ivy scholars may not be the best advice for junior candidates navigating a brutal job market.
Also, in some instances, they may be listing these as "invited" talks to disguise to their departmental colleagues moments where they considered jumping ship (or tried to obtain a counter-offer to negotiate up their salary).
And besides, someone with tenure at an Ivy League can pretty much do whatever they want.
I know what a lot of work goes into the job talk, and I've done my share. An hour long job talk is far more intensive than any SCS presentation or even invited talk to a friendly audience. Yes, you are also disseminating your scholarship.
But.....
1) Listing job talks make you look like you are padding your resume.
2) Listing job talks from last year reminds next years SCs of your unsuccessful candidacy.
3) The job talk was about a larger functional process, unlike a conference paper or invited talk, where the talk is the main event.
All of which just goes to show there is no set formula for what works, even if some things seem really silly to some of us. If you don't need to pad your cv, don't. If you do, find a clever way to do so, like April 30, 2018 at 6:39 PM has done, above. The idea that someone might be "called" on any of this is confusing to me, because I don't know who would call anyone or what that would even mean. Can anyone clarify what that would look like, apart from an applicant not making the cut?
As a senior faculty member I advise you to include them on your cv.
I've seen a few successful TT candidates in the last few years include job talks from previous seasons on their CVs. They got jobs. At least at my institution, it indicates that you are sought after, even if you didn't ultimately land the position. Of course, this can cut both ways, especially if you SC members who are insecure about their own Department in relation to other universities... I'd say if you have some kind of connection to the job talk university --even just geographical proximity-- then I'd include it. If/when you have a TT job, then include all of them.
As someone who has had double digit campus interviews with job talks, I do not have them nor have I ever put them on my CV. It would make the invited talks section of the C.V. unwieldy and it gives a list to all of every job you failed to get. Especially awkward when a search fails a search rather than hire you. I’ve also seen people put job talks on when they gave the same talkover multiple years. Same title over and over and over. The idea that these are invited talks is odd as it is only one component of what you are there for.
As someone on an SC, it turns me off when I see what are obviously job talks listed as invited talks (what ABD gets "invited" to give a stand-alone talk at a prestigious institution?!). It looks pretentious, and like resume padding.
I had old job talks on my CV and got a bunch of interviews and a TT job this year. My adviser has all of her job talks on her CV as well. This seems like a YMMV situation.
5:54 again.
@9:06: You really are quite something if you get irked simply by seeing someone's CV that lists a couple of job talks they've given -- even if it appears as padding. Surely there are more important things in our field and in the general state of academia to get annoyed over.
@9.06: I was invited to give two stand-alone talks at 'prestigious institutions' (that were not my own) while I was ABD -- I finished in 2016, so this is recent. So, maybe you might want to not rush to judgment?
As a senior faculty member I advise you NOT to include them on your cv.
I equate putting job talks on one’s C.V. with Dwight Shrute putting his martial arts skills on his.
Re: YMMV
Putting job talks on your CV can only hurt. Yes, there are some people with cushy TT who made this error. But they got their jobs despite this, not because of this. No SC decision was ever based on having one more invited talk.
(Note, in general no one cares about talks. They are proof of scholarly engagement, but mean nothing unless backed up by publications. Ideally every talk should be an article or book either published or in process. Indeed, a candidate with a lengthy list of talks and no publications suggests they are someone good a burning through a travel budget but not good at producing peer reviewed scholarship.)
And as you can see on this forum, there are SC members who will judge you negatively for putting job talks on CVs. The risks are real, the rewards nil.
Someone ought to at least make it clear here that there is a difference between a section of job talks identified as such, and mixing them in among real talks. If you are going to have them on your C.V. then be honest about it.
Along similar lines, I do not include on my C.V. home departmental talks, since more than once the place at which I've been VAP'ing has had me give a talk about my work, and while I know that's a real talk, it just isn't the same as being invited elsewhere. (Though perhaps I don't yet have a real job because committees notice the absence of these and think, "Even his own colleagues don't want to hear him talk!")
If you look at the recent ISAW job talks, for instance, these were advertised as lectures open to the public; I think it would be reasonable to put this category of job talk on your CV as an invited lecture. I have given a good number of job talks, but not one of these and consequently don't have any job talks on my CV. For what it's worth I also think talks could be divided into different sub-categories or labelled as such on your CV - Invited lecture v.conference with peer-review acceptance v. public outreach talks etc. I am guessing some version of this is the norm for most of us, but just in case ...
I would be interested in hearing a reason in favor of not listing job talks as talks on a cv, as opposed to the report of a vague prejudice against so listing them. There are, after all, excellent reasons to list them, including the fact that they are talks (!) and are, in general, considerably more difficult to get than a slot at a conference. I mean perhaps some folks here also think that you just must dress formally when teaching...etc., but all such *rules* are more than a bit absurd and reflect more on the person who insists on them than anyone else.
It's clear that there is no good justification for a norm against listing job talks on the CV except that most job talks don't result in offers, and it's awkward to advertise something that you "failed" at (even though just being a finalist is, in some ways, a notable achievement). In some fields, for example, like philosophy, I believe it is customary to include job talks; in others, there may be an equally strong norm against doing so. It's unfortunate that Classics clearly falls in between, because some people will include job talks and be scoffed at (although, given the overall lack of a set disciplinary norm for how to organize a classics CV, and the fact that most CVs I've seen include something embarrassing on them--like guest-teaching a class listed as an "invited lecture"--I am skeptical about whether the proverbial dustbinning of an application over some CV faux pas ever really occurs) while others will leave off something that should clearly find a place on the CV. That said, even in the case of the ISAW lectures mentioned above (which were widely advertised public lectures, as we all saw, and brought in people from far afield) I guess it's safer just to omit job talks from a CV, even if any real downside is a remote possibility.
I think that the above discussion is just one of many examples that demonstrates why we need FV. This is the kind of feedback and discussion that one can't get from just talking to their advisor, since theirs is just one viewpoint and perspective. It is clear that on this particular topic people in the discipline have a variety of opinions and FV provides a place for theses to be discussed.
Anywho, carry on!
@1:16
Ask any (esp. young) female professor. Dressing formally to lecture is absolutely a rule. We need to squeeze out every last drop of possible respect bc the social deck is stacked against us as a knowledgeable authority from the get-go.
I don't have a strong opinion about job talks on CVs but I want to push back against 12:28 PM's claim that "in general no one cares about talks" and that they "mean nothing unless backed up by publications."
It's probably true that nine talks on the same subject won't get you anywhere if you can't also publish on that one thing, and if you want a job at an R1 or an Ivy or at certain 'prestigious' SLACs then you will have to publish your butt off.
However, there are places (believe it or not) that value teaching over publishing. If you're going for a teaching-heavy generalist position, they might value a list of talks that shows the range of topics you can cover proficiently, even if only a few of them have resulted/will result in publications. This is the case at my current (TT) job and at the last place where I VAPed.
On the subject of respect while teaching, what are FV's thoughts on what your students should address you as?
As a young male scholar I'm fine with my students calling me by my first name, but perhaps this is because I already assume a certain level of respect?
Any insight for the Manchester posts, especially the one in Classical Literature?
@ 5:19,
As a youngish female scholar, my students' grades improve when I insist that they call me Dr. _________. It also discourages inappropriate behavior from my male students.
@6:04 what do you think is the connection between what your students call you and the improvement in their grades? It's a really interesting correlation
As a new PhD, and one fresh to the job market, there are few job requirements that I've seen advertised that I, to be honest, have no idea what they mean. I'm hoping that FV can help iron these out.
What, specifically, is meant by the following job responsibilities:
1.) University service
2.) Outreach/extension
3.) Contributions to the interdisciplinary life of the university community
...thanks in advance
8:41:
1. This just means that you'll be expected to serve on a variety of university-wide committees (something every place expects of a TT faculty member). These may vary from instructional assessment committees to tech committees to undergrad research promotion committees. You do not need to address this in a job letter (it would look weird if you did), but if you ever served on departmental or university committees as a grad student you'd put that in your CV under service.
2. Not sure about extension, but community outreach can be a big deal to some colleges, e.g. things like speaking to a general audience in a public forum, doing charity work that is somehow related to your field (e.g., a friend taught a summer course for inner city youth on mythology), that sort of thing. Also, if you run an online site that popularizes Classics in some way, include it. If you haven't done any, don't worry and don't point out that you haven't done any in letter. If you have, include in your CV. If you've done some sort of big deal public outreach, you could talk about it in your letter, but only if it's a really big deal.
3. This varies depending on the university. At mine, we hold faculty interdisciplinary seminars and reading groups, or serve as experts on a panels or presentations that somehow relate to our fields. It could also include offering cross-listed courses (e.g., I teach an "American Mythologies" course that is cross-listed in American Studies, Classics, and English. Again, not something you need to address if you haven't done much interdisciplinary work as a grad student, but if you have, you could point it out.
As a former SC member, I wouldn't expect most candidates to have much to talk about with any of the three, but if they do, it's a positive (though not one that outweigh a light teaching or pub record).
I'd echo most of what 9:22 said, with the caveat that I would encourage you to reference these three items in your letter provided that:
1) you have something to say about them and
2) the ad/dept gives you some reason to think these things are of special interest (e.g., community outreach is mentioned in the ad)
There are ways to efficiently work these into your letter, and several times in my service on SCs it has been those added elements that really made a candidate "shine" and caused them to be added to the initial interview list.
The crazy thing is when ads for one-year positions say they expect service. Which should never be expected, unless it's something like helping out with classics club events.
10:14: I suspect that's boilerplate controlled by HR and that a department would not actually expect this but for the ad hoc sorts of situations you mention. When my department puts out ads for TTs or VAPS, only about 20% of the language actually comes from us. The rest is a format that our uni uses for all ads whether we like it or not. If you apply for a job that has a requirement like that in it, I'd not put much stock in it until the SC confirms it. I've held a few VAPs in the past and some offered service opportunities (some I took, as I thought they would help my apps for TTs), but all were understanding when I turned some requests down.
/I'm not affiliated with any ongoing search at the moment.
If you are being paid per course as an adjunct, you should refuse to do service unless you are compensated for it by contract. If you are true VAP making 75,000 a year with health benefits, then some service might not be unreasonable. But most VAPs are not real VAPs, which was supposed to mean the pay and prestige of a assistant professor, even without the TT trajectory.
"If you are true VAP making 75,000 a year with health benefits"
Are there VAPs that pay this much? Heck, do assistant profs on the TT generally make this much? Not in my area of the country...
Some VAPs do make that much - I am one of them. I am very lucky.
A VAP making $75,000 is staggeringly lucky. At my SLAC, t-t asst. profs. start at about $60,000, and no-one breaks the $75,000 mark until they're granted tenure and promoted to Associate Prof (and not always then). And no, we're not in a particularly low Cost of LIving area. Not exceptionally high, but not particularly low.
@5:19pm: Most women and PoC cannot risk losing credibility (if they have any) with students by going by their first names or dressing casually for lecture. When men do those things, they perpetuate the gap between themselves and their female and PoC colleagues, who don't have the same luxuries of self-presentation. If men are interested in being allies, they should insist on following the same standards of dress and address that their female and PoC colleagues are almost required to follow. Otherwise, as a young male (white?) scholar, you can probably do whatever you want. (Some white men choose the Dr./Prof. label for personal reasons, which is also OK, but for someone in your position, it's not actually *necessary* in order for you to be recognized as an authority when you stand in front of the classroom, just a matter of choice/preference.)
@8:25
YES. ALL OF THIS.
@8:25,
So far as my fellow PhD candidates during grad school are concerned (a top 5), the males would dress in khaki shorts and polo shirts or even t-shirts with goofy images and phrases on them, often wore sandals and some even wore baseball hats regularly to classes that they TA'd for. Students saw this, but didn't seem to ever not give full and complete respect to their male TAs. The females, on the other hand, all dressed in very professional attire and struggled to get even slight respect from their students.
It's a struggle for females in academia, especially if they are not much older than undergrads (or even *look* of similar age). I can only imagine how little most undergrads would respect a female TA or young prof who dressed comparably to undergrad girls (Yoga pants with 'PINK' across the back, Ugg boots, an oversized hoodie, etc..). Male TAs and young profs can literally wear anything within reason that they desire and never really have to worry about how they'll be perceived.
I can also imagine that being a black female TA or young prof is even more difficult to work with in this regard. I don't think, however, that an Asian, Latino, Black, or any other non-white male really has too much to worry about with regards to how they dress--again, so long as it's within reason--and how it corresponds to undergrad respect, though I'm sure some element may be there. In my experience and given the many conversations that I've had with numerous colleagues of various races/genders, there's a very stark divide between male:female, little difference for white/non-white males, but an additional gap exists for non-white females.
...I don't think that the answer (if there actually is one) is to ask all male TAs and young profs to dress formally, so that *we're all in it together* or something. Doing so does little, if anything at all, to address the underlying prejudices that exist in peoples' mind with regards to gender:qualification. Having us all in suits/dresses only masks the issue and actually conflates the problem by reaffirming any association between exterior appearance and interior acumen.
A better reaction is to work to break such prejudices. So, just as many male TAs and young profs dress in casual clothing and may be rather dissimilar to undergrads when in the crowd on campus, females should do the same. By dressing like Hillary Clinton, yes, it is true, you may be setting yourself apart from the 18-22 year old females on campus, but you are only conforming to the false perception of "smart, successful women deserving of respect look LIKE THIS" and are, in many ways, only making real progress all the more difficult.
For what it's worth, I, as a white male VAP, never dress in clothing that I personally don't interpret as fitting a prof; as I always were dress shoes, shirt/tie, or button down shirt with jacket, etc.. I do this, however, not to garner more respect or authority from students, but because I feel most comfortable when dressing as such for what I'm currently doing. When I'm doing an oil change on my car I wear old jeans and an old t-shirt (maybe even a rock concert T). Now, I admit that if I were to, dressed as such, bump into a student of mine at the auto parts store while wearing a Slayer shirt, I'd feel a massive drop in my authority, but that likely stems far more from my own (perceived) interpretation by said student than anything concrete.
^^wear^^ dress shoes... (iPhone autocorrect)
Thank you, white male @9:44, for informing me that I (as a young professional woman) am to blame for society's faults and am standing in the way of progress by dressing the same way you choose to dress. It's hard enough to get students to stop calling me "Miss ___" (sometimes even after multiple corrections). You think dressing like one of them is going to make things easier? Or that I should have to endure even more disrespect just to disrupt their expectations of what a 'smart' woman looks like? How about YOU help teach YOUR students that women are deserving of respect no matter how they dress.
RE: 8:25. I hope you aren't suggesting a de facto dress code for classicists and perhaps academics more generally. Beyond the other costs of imposing a dress code, such unwritten rules also, as I presume you're aware, always privilege insiders. Accordingly, if you were to actually apply such a dress code - even in relatively low-stakes cases like your own private estimation of a visiting speaker - you will end up discriminating against people on the basis of things such as their class, national background, disabilities, and so on. More generally, I agree completely that our society's sexism makes academia, like so many other aspects of life, more difficult for women and that we should work tirelessly to change that. I don't see how mandating, or even encouraging, that male and female academics dress in the ways that you would prefer would do anything to improve it.
I think we're all making the same argument here, more or less. Namely: it is absolutely classist and frankly absurd that female professors are evaluated more on dress and class performance than male professors are, but for many women trying to navigate their day-to-day lives, formal "Hilary Clinton-esque" dress (I personally go for more of a Michelle Obama look) is often a useful way to navigate these problems. The question is: how do we shift student stereotypes to create a more egalitarian teaching and learning experience?
@11:01,
[9:44 here]
I never said that any woman is to blame. There exists an expectation in society that professional women look like 'x', we can all agree on that. So, you can either dress like 'x' and follow convention or not dress like 'x' and buck convention. Both options have consequences: conforming=perpetuating the problem; bucking=present uncomfortably may happen.
YOU are not to blame. 1,000s of years of societal preconceptions are to blame. But, *you are to blame* for how you chose to interact with the preconception.
I never said that dressing like an undergrad girl would make a professional woman's life any easier, only that by doing so, you set the stage for a long-run change at the expense of short-run inconvenience. You can't shout for all of society to change while passively acknowledging and subscribing to the very convention that you want to see changed.
Sounds like 11:01 has got their knickers in a twist.
As a non-white male, I never got the impression that I was any less respected by the students way back when I was a TA and then young professor. My outfit generally consisted of jeans, sneakers, and a button front shirt. To be quite honest, if you know your material and it comes across that you do, I don't think that you should have a problem with students. When I was a TA one of my fellow students, a white female who's easily in the top five smartest people I've ever met, wore shorts, t-shirts, and flip-flops to teach. You'd better believe that her students didn't give her any shit because it was clear that she knew the material backward and forward and was orders of magnitude smarter than most of them would ever be.
So YMMV.
As a white male VAP, I make a point of wearing a shirt, slacks, tie and dress shoes when I teach. This is slightly dressier than the TT professors at the same institution.
I do this for two reasons. Firstly, my own self respect as one of the downtrodden members of the profession.
Secondly, I do think there are strong reasons why we should dress professionally (and I admit that it is easier to do so for men, although I do hate neckties). One of the social aspects of college is that it teaches undergraduates how to be middle class professionals. A professor should be a role model for how a middle class professional comports themselves. The notion that you might dress somewhat formally to present before a group is part of this lesson.
@ 9.44/11.36: I think the issue I'm having with your way of framing the discussion is the "short-run inconvenience" line. If (as we know to be true) women have a harder time commanding respect in classrooms, and are judged more harshly on student course evaluations; and if (as we assume to be true) lower course evaluations can hurt job applications as well as tenure files, than I'd say that the potential consequences that women in the profession fear are not just short-run inconveniences or present uncomfortabilities, but instead long-term career damage for the individual.
And, I'd also like to point out that this is not just about the opinions of students and their evaluations, but also those of senior members of the profession. When I was a grad student at at T5 in very recent years, I had comments from faculty members on my teaching evaluations that I "looked the part" -- a consequence of several years spent in the bowels of corporate America before grad school, and a corresponding wardrobe. I have no doubt that their perceptions of me through the lens of my attire contributed to their overall picture of me as a scholar, although I'm not saying that was the only thing they were paying attention to.
We should never be blaming disenfranchised groups for acquiescing to (often unspoken but clearly signaled) societal dictates in order to progress.That's like telling women that they can't be feminists if they wear bras and lipstick.
Disenfranchised groups are not in a position of power to change the game. We have to adhere to the rules perfectly to be able to even play at all. "Burn it all down and resist" is great rhetoric, but actually exercising that as a viable option only comes from a place of privilege.
-from a young, female POC, who plays the game even though the rules are BS, bc I need to survive
"To be quite honest, if you know your material and it comes across that you do, I don't think that you should have a problem with students."
So, all of the women who have trouble with commanding respect from students -- statistically, the majority of women in academia -- are only having trouble because they don't know their stuff or are bad at communicating it?
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2018/03/14/study-says-students-rate-men-more-highly-women-even-when-theyre-teaching-identical
et cetera articles on this topic...
It is also important to make sure to refer to colleagues by their professional titles when talking to students about them. So, not "Oh, you should talk to Jane about that" but "Oh, you should talk to Dr. Smith about that," as an example. To get into the habit of reminding students at all times that everyone in the department is a professional. Language is important, as I hope we can all agree in a field that's so language-based.
This "Prof." stuff is gross. I'd rather go to Mr./Ms./Miss/Mrs. or at most 'Dr.'
If you feel that you have to dress a certain way to be taken seriously by your students, then you do.
And if you show students that smart people only dress one way, then maybe they won't feel smart until they (can afford to) dress like you.
Show them instead that excellence can be earned through education, not bought at the mall.
As a white man, I hereby pledge to teach in flip-flops, pink shorts, and a fratty hat from now on. MCGA!!!!!
This is obviously speaking from a position of privilege, but personally I find that people who make a point of being called 'Dr.' come off as insecure. I came from a department where every faculty member insisted on being called by their first name, even by undergraduates, and the graduate students took after their example. I don't recall anyone ever having an issue with this. You're the one at the front of the room. If your students do not respect you then that is on you.
"This is obviously speaking from a position of privilege..."
So much so that you don't recognize how completely and offensively wrong you are--one of the very definitions of speaking from a position of privilege.
The Dr./Prof. thing is also institutional. At my grad institution and my first job, everyone went by their first names. At my TT job, everyone across the campus used Dr. or Prof. It's just part of the institutional culture. While I didn't mind in theory if students called me by my first name, I soon discovered that they only actually did so when they were male and wanted something from me (I'm a young female). It happened several times that male students came to my office wanting things like grade changes and only then would use my first name, while they would generally call my male colleagues only Dr. So and so. It was annoying, so I put an end to it.
The idea that you need a title to get respect is not sound, I agree, but at the same time the way that titles can be refused by others can be a clear sign of disrespect. Now I only go by Dr., because to do otherwise would stick out on this particular campus.
Yes, one thing important to note in both issues of dress and address is the institutional culture of your university and department. If there is a formal culture of using academic titles and dress up, do so, at least until your well established enough deviate from the established culture. And if you are in an informal department, where everyone wears flip flops and goes by Steve, well, hang loose. When in Rome.....
You can acknowledge privilege without getting defensive or trying to explain it away by saying that the women with the problems just don't know their stuff, or they're not confident, or they're doing something else wrong. Scientists have literally proven that this is not true. Yes, things are different person to person -- some women have no/few problems, some men have problems -- but the bigger issue is real and proven, scientifically and anecdotally.
Is universally adopting the German titular practice of address out of the question? I feel like a rigid code would remove all ambiguity.
A few questions with regards to the (few) remaining TTs and VAPs...
Concordia University. They run this ad every year, and every year there is no data on the Wiki. I can imagine that non-Canadians are *never* hired, but does anyone know anything concrete on this?
UC-Berkeley. They, also, run the same ad every year. Every, single year. Asking for Greek and Roman History instructors, yet it seems that every year they never hire anyone. ??
T-T job at Ashland University. Any word on what's happening here?
T-T job at Florida Southern College. Any word on what's happening here?
T-T job at Mississippi State University. Any word on what's happening here?
(Dr./Mr./Prof./Herr) CN said there was no dept. need at UC-Berkeley for this year. Last year there was, which brought back a former grad student before he moved on to a T-T job (though his spot is now presumably resumed by scholar-on-leave). Kudos to the former student for a well-deserved promotion. The call this year was a standard call for an adjunct pool, I think.
Ashland University apparently had their last Skype last week, and offered at that time a timeline of 2 weeks before word would be sent out re:visits (sorry to make this into an SAT question - I think the answer is we'll all find out next week). So best of luck to all involved (but most of luck to me, I guess).
The rest of those universities can go kick rocks/suck eggs/take long walks off short piers.
What UC Berkeley ad is being discussed? I haven't seen such anywhere.
Every year Berkeley History (and sometimes Classics) does a "pool" ad, even if there are no specific jobs available. The application is good for up to three years. The bad news is the lecture pool tends to be heavily recruited from Berkeley's own unemployed PhDs, although occasionally they do hire from outside.
Interviewed for Florida Southern. My takeaway was that the SC was totally clueless. Three members and each asked two questions. One member asked me “have you ever been to Florida and if so, what did you think of it?” Another member asked “so, we have our majors take a focused course in the fall where they learn appropriate historiography and apply it to a predetermined topic. Then in the spring they select a specific topic of their choosing, using the skills they learned in the fall, and write their senior capstone. How would you change this?”
Concordia will simply never hire a non-Canadian for a VAP.
Berkeley, I talked to yesterday, they said that they have no need for a Greek/Roman historian for the fall, but might for the spring.
No insight to offer for the rest.
The UC Berkeley post is ALWAYS given to unemployed Berkeley PhDs to keep them afloat another year or two (and pays very little). Other top programs can afford to do the same with their unemployed PhDs. To me, FWIW, this seems to be a great draw of top PhD programs.
Looks like Cincinnati will be hiring a Greek archaeology position soon!
Hmmm the Cincinnati departure is interesting, but I figured that's who it was when someone mentioned an archaeologist there jumping ship. For one, the "Heavy" in the department whom everyone here accuses of twisting arms to get Cincinnati students jobs is close to retirement age already, and the other two Greek archaeologists are already tenured and full professor respectively.
Any chance that any of us will be eating Cincy's lunch? Just asking!
Re titles: Many years ago, when I (female) was a newly-fledged PhD and an adjunct, I shared an office with another adjunct who had an MA, and was male. Students INVARIABLY addressed my male colleague, without the PhD, as "Dr. X." They INVARIABLY addressed me, with the PhD, as "Mrs. Y." Given that my surname is my birthname, not my husband's name, under no circumstances would it be correct to call me "Mrs. Y," but students would not then (and in my experience will not now) use "Ms." This made it pretty clear to me that "Dr." is a title of respect, and that in the students' minds that respect was strongly gender-linked. And once I realized that, I began insisting on being addressed as "Dr." and have insisted on it ever since.
Using either "Doctor" or "Professor" recognizes our professional standing and has the added advantage of removing gender and questions of marital status from the form of address. Using "Mr." is unmarked for marital status, but women still get asked ALL THE TIME "Are you Miss or Mrs.?" and there is still a great deal of resistance to Ms.. Those of us who have the right to push back against that nonsense by claiming the title "Dr." should, in my opinion, do so.
When asked "Are you Miss or Mrs.?" you should always respond, "I'm sorry, but it's far more polite to simply use Ms. when in doubt than to inquire unprompted about a woman's marital status, don't you think?" That usually learns em quick.
Honestly, a lot of people are really stupid and probably think that Mizz (Ms.) is just how whomever tries and pronounce Miss.
As a female let me say that whenever I hear another women refer to herself as Ms. (“Mizz”), I think that it sounds horribly bitchy and it does little to be a neutral statement of marital status, as most women who use it give off the impression of being single. It’s similar to being on the stand in a courtroom and pleading the 5th to every question; yes, it may be neutral but it heavily implies guilt.
I associate Ms. with an old maid who never married or had kids, is bitter and angry, and the kind of person to ask to speak with the manager at any given opportunity.
I didn't take my husband's last name, so it is always Dr. (academic) or Ms. (social). I guess I sound bitchy either way?
Being single is the equivalent of admitting guilt? Ms. implies old maid?
When are we going to start viewing women as more than their marital status? All I want is for no one to care either way, and Ms. starts the process towards that social conception. My identity is not dependent on my marital status.
There are a lot of regionalisms mixed up in this Ms./Mrs./Miss thing. I grew up in a non-English speaking house in the South, and I honestly didn't understand the distinctions between the pronunciations until well into my time at college-- the people I heard around me in childhood pronounced Mrs. and Ms. the same way, and didn't really use Miss at all, and I never stopped to think about it. I didn't fully understand the standard English conventions until I was corrected by one of the women in a place I worked at during college, who was really offended that I was calling her Ms. so-and-so even though I knew she was married.
There is also the old-fashioned Southern Miss [First name] and Mr. [First Name], used regardless of people's marital status.
All of these terms are LOADED for women. Nothing is neutral, and nothing is positive. If she's Ms., she's apparently a bitch or an old maid (or both?). If she's Prof. or Dr., she's insecure and trying too hard. If she's Mrs., she's too attached to her husband. If she goes by her first name, she's informal and unprofessional. Regardless, she doesn't know her stuff, which is why she can't command a classroom. I cannot for the life of me understand why women think there's a culture problem in academia (I know it's not limited to academia, but that's what we're talking about here).
@12:34,
Right.
Add to this the problem that if ever a solution is suggested, the women to follow whatever that solution is has to then deal with backlash from other women who are comfortable and perfectly happy with the status quo, thereby making the “progressive” women seem like men-hating feminists. It’s a lose-lose situation. It really is.
^^the women *who* follow...^^
As a guy let me just say that I never want my students to call me Mr.. it sounds disrespectful to me in the classroom. Dr. sounds dickish and first name basis stuff is asinine, imo. “Professor” all the way. So, I don’t really get why females are too upset: use “Professor” and all’s well.
Stop using "female" as a noun.
https://jezebel.com/the-problem-with-calling-women-females-1683808274
https://www.buzzfeed.com/tracyclayton/stop-calling-women-females?utm_term=.wgMQJjNlz#.siww1EpD6
&c. ideas about this. I don't care if you know one woman who doesn't mind it, or no one has told you this before. I assume that most people here understand the importance of language and terminology and I'm appalled to have seen this multiple times now.
12:51,
Yeah, agreed (and I can't believe there are people out there who think it's right to go with anything other than Dr./Prof.; must be the sorts of people who will ruin their children by wanting to be best friends with them instead of parental figures). But what about those of us who are officially lecturers rather than VAP's, AP's, etc.? Then Dr. is the only option that's fully accurate.
Young woman here. I prefer Dr., as it is a gender-neutral title that I earned; I would not correct a student if they used Prof. but would not use it myself to, e.g., sign an email. In small classes, I am comfortable with students using my first name (and in fact that was the norm at my undergraduate and graduate institutions). However, I think this conversation has shown that the practice of being on a first-name basis with teachers is more privileged than I realized.
As for "Ms." being a sign of bitchiness or an "old maid"--? I honestly do not know any person my age who would use Mrs. I think of Ms. as being the default for women unless they say otherwise (or have a higher degree, in which case Dr.).
@12:51
You forgot your " /s ". See what happens when you forget your " /s "? We end up with posts like 1:03. For everyone's safety, always remember to close your sarcasm tags.
Anyone now what's going on with USC?
The Roman historian they hired along with two other T-Ts seems to have disappeared from their Faculty page. I know that person has stoked a lot of controversy, but if they are no longer at USC, may we'll see another USC search next year?
There is no sarcasm evident in 12:51's post. It was a call for people to default to the gender neutral terms like Dr./Prof., which is also an earned title. The content of the post was generally fine, it's just the grating term, which, by the way, several (other?) people have used. It's dehumanizing and also weird.
@1:02
Or maybe quit policing people's use of language instead?
Throughout the entire above conversation people have been using BOTH male and female as nouns. All of the arguments made against using female as a noun can be levelled at using male as a noun, and honestly it's all so tedious that I can't be bothered to care. This is an entirely separate issue from whether one should demand that students call them Dr./Professor.
The conversation on how to address professors is made even weirder when you have places like U. of Virginia where the tradition is that all faculty are supposed to be called Mr./Ms., but most faculty don't follow it anymore. When I was a student I always defaulted to calling everyone Professor unless I was told otherwise, simply because some of my instructors were grad students who didn't yet have a PhD and of course some faculty had MFA degrees which are obviously not doctorates.
Language is important, and it is relevant as we talk about how terms are loaded with all sorts of assumptions and biases. The kinds of people who refer to human women as "females" are likely also the kinds of people who've internalized all kinds of other negative attitudes about their colleagues, students, friends, et al.
As the former mayor of NYC put it recently, "Men are disposable. But a fine woman like Ivanka? Come on.”
Notice that he didn't say female.
If you're even offended by a person saying "female" then maybe you should re-evaluate your life. To say that you're "appalled" at people using it as a noun is beyond asinine and you show a deep level of immaturity and close-mindedness in your fault-finding among everyone.
FFS can we get away from the address conversation for two seconds and answer the earlier questions about jobs like the inquiry about USC?
As far as I know, the ancient historian who got hired by USC decided to stay at their previous institution, which is why they disappeared from the website. I don't know what happened to this year's search though.
Has anyone heard anything from UVA?
I know that job gossip is relevant and important, but not at the expense of other conversations about the state of the field. These conversations are important for a lot of people, men and women.
No, using "female" as a noun is generally weird and fucked up. It suggests a bizarre aversion to the word "woman" while focusing attention on bodily existence instead of regular ol' personhood; it implies that the speaker views the "females of the species" as interchangeable and/or inscrutable; and it's just weird. Maybe you don't mean it that way, but language is for communication, and that's how you sound to most non-misogynists. It's not about our being "offended" (not the right concept at all, but nice try) but about how you come across.
*how you come across to oversensitive, language-policing assholes. For sure.
Personally I recoil when a man refers to women as "females," for exactly the reasons that others have stated. In every case here we are discussing adult women-- what is your aversion to referring to us as such? Is it "language policing" to discourage people from using the n word? (And no, I'm not saying that they are equivalent terms, so please don't go there.)
If you respect women, you will listen to us when we say that "female" as a noun has a negative connotation and you'll make an effort to stop doing it. If you dig in your heels and refuse to make this tiny change in your vocabulary, just know that a decent percentage of your students and colleagues moving forward will have the same reaction we do every time you use it, and that you will lose respect and professional opportunities as a result. Then again, if you're that obstinate and have that much disregard for others, I'm sure you reveal it in other ways and they probably already know to stay away from you.
I'm not one of the women above who have already commented on this, in case you're wondering.
Ah the old reductio ad n-word. That was quick. Because language one doesn't like should be taboo just like one of the foulest slurs in the language.
Just to add a slightly different perhaps class-based take on the 'female' vs 'women' lexical warfare. When my wife was an officer in the army, it was common to distinguish between soldiers from enlisted up into high officer ranks (full colonels) as using 'female'. It always struck me as strange because, of course, the term 'male' was considered a redundancy.
I guess 'Female' master sergeant sounds better than Master Sergeant woman? I don't know.
I don't even know whether I am arguing for or against, just offering that in one context what seems normal is actually insidious; which may mean that in another what seems insidious is normal? Is there an aversion of using a noun as an adjective and vice versa?
And then there is the gender vs sex distinction. The only way to win, I think, is to ask how people like to be described.
I think it's a pretty safe default to assume that women prefer to be humanized? Just make a small change to your vocabulary and use "woman" instead of "female." If it's relevant to refer to the sex/gender of someone, you can obviously use "female" as an adjective. "I would prefer to see a female doctor" (not woman doctor), but "That woman is a doctor." But if it's not relevant, maybe just leave it out and not make it seem like terms like "master sergeant" or "doctor" or "pilot" or "firefighter" or whatever are objectively coded male or female.
Is this a problem in the real world? I can't remember hearing anyone use "female" as a noun for "woman," other than perhaps in some scientific/sociological study, or some other somewhat technical context. I think I've also heard it on TV or in movies, as part of urban slang. Are there really people at universities, or else other parts of society, doing using "female" when "woman" would be the normal thing to say?
Did you read the comments above...?
People are making a mountain out of a molehill over this.
Women being dehumanized and marginalized is not exactly a "molehill." *You* can't see why this is important because you don't experience it, but that doesn't mean it's not important.
Also, classicists not knowing the difference between a noun and an adjective is kind of a big deal.
I mean, if you want to die on this hill, that's your prerogative. There are, however, a variety of more pressing concerns facing the field that I'd like to see addressed rather than people policing language and getting bent out of shape over innocuous terminology.
"Also, classicists not knowing the difference between a noun and an adjective is kind of a big deal."
Well, maybe those not knowing the difference are archaeologists.
The terminology betrays the other, bigger problems, including the issues related to student evaluations, which are used to the disadvantage of women in hiring, tenure, and promotion decisions, and the general culture of the academy for women. The fact that this turned into such a big discussion shows the extent of the problem. It *is* a small thing, and the conversation could have gone:
Woman: Don't use "female" as a noun, here's a list of valid reasons why.
Man: Oh, I didn't realize I was doing it, let alone that there were such problems with it. Easy switch.
Woman: Thanks, mate.
Man: Literally no problem just to use a different word.
The feminists here were not the ones turning this into a mountain. There was a quick note about not using that word, and then a bunch of duudes defending its use. THEY are the ones who turned it into a *thing.*
This seems like as good a time as any to ask about the rumor I heard that Yale was trying to get away with another weird hire?
@6:34 here. I'm an archaeologist!
@6:59, you realize that most archaeologists have taken 5-6 years of Latin and Greek to qualify for their degrees, right? You know, a sufficient amount to learn basic parts of speech?
My first year of grad school I gave a seminar paper that used both textual and archaeological evidence to examine a philological question. I showed a picture of the Athenian Agora and realized that none of my classmates had ever looked at an archaeological plan before. They couldn't recognize one of the most basic archaeological sites in the discipline. That's like an archaeologist who hasn't read the Odyssey. These are people now applying for generalist jobs.
A philologist once used a photograph of the Temple of Olympian Zeus in Athens (with the Acropolis in the background...) when talking about the Temple of Zeus at Olympia. Another didn't know that there were different column orders and couldn't tell the difference between them. Yet ANOTHER presented a paper on peploi in plays presented at the Theater of Dionysos in Athens in the later 5th century BCE and was unaware of the peplos scene on the Parthenon frieze. Not all philologists, of course, but it would be great if philologists were required to have an equivalent understanding of archaeology/material culture as archaeologists are of languages.
Post a Comment