Log on to the SCS site (https://classicalstudies.org/placement-service). Once you're logged on, there will be a "Candidate Menu" on the right at the top of the sidebar, under which you can find your calendar. If you're an SCS member (or at least if you're registered with the placement service), you should have received an email a couple weeks ago from Erik Shell with more detailed instructions.
So roughly 13/14 of us will never get tenure-track jobs. What do you all plan to do when you decide to stop trying? Lately I've been thinking about ESL.
6 years on the market (5 post Ph.D.). I went to a top 3-ranked institution, and have numerous publications, talks and fellowships, a strong employment record, and this year won a prestigious university press contract plus a major grant. And yet I have no TT- interviews (usually I get between 1-5). It's difficult not to regret my decision not to have pursued other options throughout my 20's and 30's although I'm grateful I did not put my personal life on hold as I've seen others do in pursuit of this field. I am quitting. It feels liberating to take myself out of this punishing cycle. I know I can get an alt-ac job as many of my friends have already done. Famae has been a source of support so thanks and good luck to you all.
I hear you. I'm on to applying for writing instructor positions, if that doesn't work out then I'll be following you.
My teaching record is the strongest part of my resume and really that doesn't seem to mean shit. I do have a translation/Greek text coming out with Harvard Press so it isn't like I haven't been active in the field either. My PhD is from a smaller program and I always have thought/known that it worked against me.
Anyhow, my condolences on your search which is looking just like mine. And best wishes and luck. You'll have more money and time soon I'm sure.
With so many really great candidates out there (easily 25-30), and only 10-12 feasible T-T jobs a year, it’s really frightening to think that you can manage to be passed over by SCs year after year just due to sheer luck of the draw, or if your personality happens to not mesh with those sitting on a SC—this is a BIG factor that doesn’t seem to get much attention. Recall that for most Classics Depts, the new hire will be 1/6-10 or so. Meaning that SCs are choosing NOT “who is the most qualified” as much as “who do I want to work with, sit in meetings with, collaborate with, invite to my house and vice versa for events, and have to chat with on a regular basis day after day for DECADES?”
Once you get that first interview, you’re already considered to be qualified. After that, much of it is determined by your personality. This couldn’t be more subjective—a Dept could select a SC comprised of ‘personality A’ folks and you mesh well if you’re compatible.
..very frustrating stuff. I mean, this kind of thing happens with literally every job applicant for any job, but given that a dozen applicable jobs come out once a year in the fall and unless you are the NUMBER ONE choice amongst all of us, you’re passed over. There’s no prize for second place and rarely opportunities until the next fall.
It socks because you do everything right (PhD from top, top school; publications; grants; conferences; amazing teaching record; etc,..) and you can still after a decade of trying lose a job to some ABD who just won the academic lottery. :/
....@10:09, I was told some years back that the longer one goes after the 5-year mark after the PhD the less likely T-T becomes. The idea being that, “well, for 10 years this candidate was passed over by countless SCs...there MUST be a reason.” I was told this by a prof who was 12 years out and a sitting VAP. He did, however, the next year land T-T.
My deepest sympathies to you all who have had a cold Inbox thus far this season.
I am a PhD, 5 years post degree, who has left the field to teach at the secondary level. Coming back to read FV has been heart-breaking -- I send my condolences to all of you on the job market this season. It seems to be as bleak as ever.
I taught extensively in graduate school and I held VAPs at two prestigious SLACS. I decided to leave because the stress of doing these jobs well and also still applying for jobs was simply too much. I got T-T interviews ... the job itself just never materialized.
Teaching high school has come with its own set of joys and challenges that are distinct from those in Higher Ed. There are aspects of teaching at a higher level that I greatly miss, but frankly, my quality of life is so much better now and I'm so much happier. I have more time for my personal life and hobbies. I have security and stability. I was well-remunerated as a VAP, but I make even more money now. I have finally begun to accumulate retirement savings and a have a pension.
There is a scarcity of high school Latin teachers. Programs are being eliminated -- not for lack of interest or enrollment (as in Higher Ed) -- but because veteran teachers retire and no replacements can be found. I know several districts in my area that would like to start a Latin program but can't find a teacher. This crisis affects you all. The myopia, and snobbery, of professional Classicists is unparalleled.
@12:01, any recommendations for teaching Latin when your PhD program didn't have you teach it? Is it possible to get a job teaching Latin when you've never done so before, but know the language?
Would you mind commenting briefly on your schedule? Or are there any other teachers lurking who want to chime in? I ask because I am leaving the field if the one TT interview I have does not pan out, and teaching seems like a logical choice for me. But, I am exhausted and hesitant to embark on another career that involves working regularly on weekends and weeknights. I get that the situation probably varies from job to job, but a little perspective would be greatly appreciated.
@12:26, I have a non-academic job that is related but is not teaching. I work 9-6, M-F, with an hour commute each way. I am finding it really challenging to get any academic work done outside of that time, in-between taking care of a home and personal life. Why I bother keeping on trying, I don't know, except wanting to bring certain projects to fruition. And I still love what I do. But it's really hard.
Former high school Latin teacher here. I taught in both an elite boarding school and a public school. High school is quite different from the college classroom, and it takes, in my opinion, at least three years to become accustomed to the daily work of teaching- building up effective and engaging lessons for multiple courses, learning how to manage a classroom and everyday routines, etc. You will absolutely be working at night and on the weekends during this period; balance is tough at this stage, and especially so if you have young children or other significant family responsibilities. While challenging, it is path I found personally rewarding, and depending on the district/position, as well compensated as the better VAPs or even some T-T jobs out there. I wouldn't recommend the path as a generic Plan B for everyone- it's definitely hard work if you want to be effective, and not everyone likes kids.
1:12 here again- when I was teaching I worked from 7:30 to 4:30, and probably spent 1.5 hours each day prepping lessons or grading. More time if you are involved in extracurriculars or clubs...
12:01 here. My school is on a block schedule which means that classes alternate every day. The typical teaching load is 3 preps. When we're not teaching we oversee study halls, go to meetings, or have lunch/planning periods. It's an 8:00-3:00 workday. I am involved in some extra-curriculars, a committee, and I attend some sporting events, school plays, etc. All-in-all, these time commitments haven't amounted to more than I was putting in at the college level. It's all similar to the Higher Ed "service" balancing act. You can't let yourself be overwhelmed with it or you will...
I have made a concerted effort to take very little of my work home with me. I have planning periods during the day where I do most of my prep and grading. I see the students in 85 minute blocks, so I have them do most of what would be their homework in class. I've streamlined my grading procedures to make them more efficient. Since I taught so much in graduate school, when I transitioned to this level I already had about 10 years of in-classroom experience. That has made things much easier, undoubtedly.
@12:19: I think it will be difficult for you to make a jump to this level, though not impossible. I'd suggest looking at private schools. Certification requirements will make it harder for you to get your foot in the door at a public school, without clearing some credentialing hurdles. Of course, this will also vary from school to school and from state to state. Speaking from my own experience, I sailed into this job -- I think -- because I did have a lot of experience and because I was able to speak convincingly about why exactly I wanted to teach at a lower level. Admin was quite skeptical...
I'm not an expert on teaching at the h.s. level, but have some advice to share. A few years ago, when it was summer and I still had not found a position, and had let various colleagues know this, I learned of a very good h.s. Latin position and interviewed for it because that school had contacted the chairman of the nearby university with a Ph.D. program to see if anyone was available. This was an unusual situation, since one of their teachers had left at the last moment and they couldn't do a proper search. So my advice would be, if you decide to go this route it certainly could not hurt to let colleagues at nearby MA and PhD programs know that you are out there, since you never know when they might be contacted.
I taught public high school before pursuing the PhD, and I worked for about 70-80 hours each week. That number surely would have dropped precipitously after another year or two of teaching, but you should expect the first year to be very demanding unless you luck into a private school with a cushy teaching load. I had 4 preps (Latin 1-4) and other complicating factors. Fewer preps would have made a world of difference.
When I started I had a degree in education and a semester of Latin teaching experience, for what that's worth. It would be significantly easier now that I have 7 more years of teaching experience.
It seems as though a helpful new area of FV might be where other kinds of classics jobs could be discussed, or non-academic jobs, with participation from real world people. High school and prep school experiences could be shared, or maybe comments from people who went in a different direction. Maybe even some real-world names attached? Some ability to ask direct questions, and to understand where the responder is coming from, maybe would be good.
When the SCS has had panels on this (all too rarely), the panelists have been bombarded at the end with very many questions, suggesting there's real interest in personal experiences.
Over the past year Eidolon has published a number of first-person accounts written by precollege teachers. They offer a wide range of perspectives. The upcoming SCS in Boston has a panel called "Teaching, Living, and Learning: Classical Studies in Secondary Schools" with teachers from private and public schools.
"6 years on the market (5 post Ph.D.). I went to a top 3-ranked institution, and have numerous publications, talks and fellowships, a strong employment record, and this year won a prestigious university press contract plus a major grant. And yet I have no TT- interviews (usually I get between 1-5). It's difficult not to regret my decision not to have pursued other options throughout my 20's and 30's although I'm grateful I did not put my personal life on hold as I've seen others do in pursuit of this field. I am quitting. It feels liberating to take myself out of this punishing cycle. I know I can get an alt-ac job as many of my friends have already done. Famae has been a source of support so thanks and good luck to you all.
I think what 5:53 is suggesting is that SCs may be deliberately selecting women and minorities in the name of diversity, while passing up qualified candidates simply because their race and gender is deemed undesirable.
I’m not a white male, but a white woman. FYI - I didn’t mean what I said to be taken as a pity-me-post, but more like a peace-out-I’m-done/closure post. I think with the TT-odds, the market is just brutal, and believe I’ve seen biases help the careers of both men and women, each for different reasons.
Personally, I’m thinking if I can’t do what I love (classical archaeology), then I should do something high-paying in corporate/finance, but I would also be happy in government, academic administration, or in a likely less-well compensated non-curatorial position at a museum. For example, in the corporate world, where I have no experience, it’s hard to know specific positions where a humanities Ph.D. could fit and apply, and before I jump in, I’d also like to know if I could stomach the culture change. I third 3:17’s call to have a practical section of FV devoted to alt-ac where substantive questions about transitioning (not just about the problem) are addressed. Versatile Ph.D. and the Paideia Institute are great resources, but having access to Classics Ph.D’s in the real world would be huge.
Is it particularly bad to hold the first-round interview via Skype and not opt for the SCS/AIA option??
It’s for a VAP position, if that matters. I ask because I am very financially strapped and to have to find a trip across the country for a first round interview for a VAP slot seems like it may be unnecessary. They offered both options and even stated in email that if I select to interview at Boston, they likely will need to hold another interview via Skype anyway so that SC members not in Boston can participate.
Skype interviews do not necessarily hurt you; my most successful interviews (i.e. that led to campus visits) were all conducted by Skype. Often I am more at ease in a familiar space like my office than I am in a hotel room, with the department faculty all crammed into a couch or perched on the edge of a bed. In this case it sounds like the SC itself isn't even committed to a conference interview, so I think you can opt for Skype with impunity.
Just want to say hi to 10:09 and wish her the best. Congratulations on all that you have achieved. I hope the experience of grad school and working in the field these last 10+ years has taken you to places (intellectually, geographically, etc) that you are happy to have gone.
I also think it would be lovely to have a another section devoted to alt-ac, alt-career and so on.
FWIW, also a multi-year market veteran, blessed with the chance at 1 interview and not hopeful for any others.
To those who have taught high school Latin: do you feel like you get students who are passionate about actually learning Latin and reading ancient texts?
At this point, five years out from the PhD, I have an excessively remunerative but soulless corporate career. I don't miss research at all, but I do desperately miss reading Latin and Greek with other people (as opposed to by myself on the train and at lunch). I would definitely jump at the chance to make 1/3 the pay teaching high school Latin if I thought I could actually get students engaged and excited, but that seems like a big if in my mind.
@4:49 Web development, if you happen to be in an area with a big tech scene. If you can give the faintest illusion of knowing what the fuck you're doing in interviews you can get a high paying job. At which point you're going to be spending a lot of time actually learning what the fuck you're doing. Of course one never knows if those jobs will still be there in a few years, the culture's pretty horrible, and you need to be able to pass as relatively young. Shit's also pretty toxic on average for people who aren't white males. I pretty much make good money, support my family, and wait desperately for death.
To 4:49 PM. Geography is key. You'll want to be somewhere where the jobs are (=major metropolitan areas for the most part). That said, non-academic work allows for MUCH more geographic freedom than an academic career.
How many of you are pretty much pissed off with academia for geographic issues? Like, you'd put up with (insert shitty non-permanent situation) for practically ever if only you could just live in a city with your family/significant others/friends/a place that you would otherwise choose to live in? 2017 Ph.D. and current VAP here feeling that way.
Would someone who scored an interview for the Kansas job be willing to share the interview questions on here? (According to the wiki, Kansas provided interview questions ahead of time and there're 17 people being interviewed, so I assume they're not exactly secret?) Every search committee will handle things differently, of course, but it'd be really helpful to know how at least one search committee is structuring their interviews, especially for those of us who have never had a conference interview before (myself included).
I’m slowly waiting for a painful day when Holy Cross, Colgate, and North Alabama can all ask other candidates for interviews other than me. At that point, I’ll have no more T-T jobs to hold out for. Apparently, Carleton notifies a few days ago and I didn’t see it on the wiki until tonight.
Maybe they can all email me at once and tell me to go fuck my self in harmony.
...my advisor told me, for what it’s worth, that the early 2000s were unreal for Ancient History; there were 40+ T-T jobs then he said. His students (if you can believe this!!) had to actaully TURN DOWN some interviews simply because they didn’t have time for them. Crazy.
Yes, there are absolutely private Latin teaching jobs at the 7-12 grade level that are not religious. ACL is public school-heavy, but jobs do advertise there. Your best bet is a recruiter, or the NAIS website (National Association of Independent Schools).
Adding to the above comment, if you are really interested in private school teaching, look for sub work. Email the teachers at schools in your area, and tell them that you are available. This is a way to see if you like this kind of work and to demonstrate a real interest to future employers.
Servius here: We've discussed the requests for a space dedicated to career discussions beyond the 'traditional' job market and to transitioning to these positions. We would be happy to make such a space.
The most straightforward way to do this would be to dedicate one of the posts on the main page of FV to this purpose. "What's good is bad, what's bad is good" (which has not been used at all this year, and which has never been popular) is the logical choice.
We'll get the new post set up there in the next day or two, and will post when it is ready for use. Let us know if you have other ideas about ways to make the space more productive.
Servius, your 8:17 post is good news. May I suggest, if there is interest in getting some traffic, maybe with names attached, from people who are maybe alt-ac, or at least not normally viewing this board (not on the market, not on a SC), maybe some outreach would be good. How about messaging those who have been on SCS panels about alternative careers. Or maybe talking to the ACL people, or prep school people.
Quick question re job interview scheduling and Erik Shell's email about the interview calendar—schools will still email you to interview if you have yet to fill that out, correct? That's simply to ensure that candidates whom schools do select for interviews can be scheduled for the SCS/AIA meeting?
Suppose I'm just trying to rationalize all the interviews I don't have, and perhaps try to save myself time by not bothering to fill it out if nothing's coming my way anyways.
Schools will 99.9% of the time always email you about an interview. In the case when they don’t, and they just happen to schedule an interview for you with SCS and you’re not set up with them or you never paid to have the honor of being a member of the SCS (*read with sarcasm), Eric Shell will email you and inform you so that the interview can be coordinated.
I did not receive e-mails from the schools for any of my scheduled interviews this year; they were all scheduled through the Placement Service without any communication between me and the SC. I do know that if you aren't registered with the SCS Placement Service, the Placement Service/Erik* will contact you, say you've been requested for an interview but you need to create an account so they can schedule it officially. So if you don't have an account yet, it's OK, you'll find out if you need to make one.
A note from someone on an SC: the SCS this year is directing us not to contact interviewees directly. This seems weird to me, but it may be that many SCs are complying.
I have interviews with a few big state schools and they all notified me directly. I have a close friend who is more on the philology side who has had several departments just pop interviews on her SCS calendar. Not my information to divulge, but they mostly seem to be SLACs.
If many schools aren’t directly contacting candidates, is there a reason then why the Wiki only stares “email for interview” and none state “notified via SCS scheduler” ?
This is disconcerting. Moreover, how can I be sure I am reading my calendar correctly? Will it be very evident if a school scheduled me for an interview or do I have to click something on the calendar itself or around it to find out?
It's very simple and there is no need to worry you'll miss any information. You'll get an automated email from the SCS if you have an interview, along with the schedule details; it will appear clearly on your online calendar too in a different colour.
Re: 11:22am, that's so strange. I don't see the upside at all of not sending an email. It also makes it more difficult to reschedule should some conflict come up. This seems like a perfect example of the SCS doing more harm than good.
@11:29pm here. I think the issue about SCs not contacting applicants directly is less about type of university (public, SLAC, private, etc.) but about what @11:22am said. I guess maybe the SCS is trying to cut down on the number of applicants who contact them asking when interviews will be scheduled, if applicants are informed of interviews only through the SCS after they're scheduled?
Time to end the conference interview once and for all. What was once a reform to replace the old-boys network has now become profoundly oppressive and inegalitarian in its own right, forcing candidates to pay thousands of dollars for the privilege of being interviewed in person. Its unclear what this adds, other than culling 15 superbly qualified applicants down to four, only one of whom will get the job in this game of academic roulette.
Secondly, the interview process frankly ruins the SCS. Rather than being about seeing friends and intellectual exchange, it now an pathetic circus of candidates in ill-fitting suits, many of us cattle-call interviewing into middle age.
So end the interview. Either do all first round interviews on Skype, or perhaps even go straight to campus interviews, as at least one search did this year. But save everyone the misery of in person interviews.
I heard that UPENN has made an initial offer to their first choice candidate, but not from anyone there or necessarily in the know. Can anyone confirm or negate this rumor?
Feeling so unbelievably discouraged. Ancient historian here, PhD from a top-10 program; numerous publications; 15+ competitive grants, fellowships, and awards; received university-wide outstanding teacher award two years in a row; involved in major DH projects with Oxford; have years of teaching experience; phenomenal student evaluations; currently a VAP at another top-10 university....
and.... with Colgate not emailing me that’s just one more in a long string of T-T ancient history jobs and no interview invite. SUNY-Albany, Clemson, Carleton, U Oregon, and now Colgate. I didn’t brother putting in for the Chicago or Princeton jobs (a waste of time for 99.9% of us), hoping to keep my expectations reasonable.
I honestly don’t understand how I couldn’t be asked to be one of 12-15 first-rounders at all of these schools. I mean, what could possibly explain ZERO turnout? I know that the market is tough and that I shouldn’t expect anything landing a job within a year of PhD in hand, but to not even be in the top dozen at ANY program thus far... sigh
...all that I have left is Holy Cross & North Alabama.
I’m not bitter, but just honestly confused and discouraged. ...Congrats to all of you who have had a good year thus far.
@4:55, I was in a similar boat last year. I had one phone interview when I was ABD (for a job I wouldn't have even wanted had it been offered...it was that bad), and not a single interview during my prestigious post-doc following receiving the PhD, despite a track record similar to your own. I had to move on - good luck to you.
@ 4:55, I have similar credentials and also zero interview requests so far this year. Each of the last two years I landed interviews for about 1/3 of the positions I applied for, but those interviews were all for VAPs. I knew not to get my hopes up about the T-T market but I thought that that kind of success rate with VAPs would translate to at least ONE T-T interview, especially given how much I have accomplished in the last year. Nope.
@4:55, 5:22 and 5:24 I'm with you. This is my fifth year on the market (four post-PhD) and despite my best efforts to improve my credentials while VAP-ing, this is my worst year yet. I understand all the reasons SCs may not want to interview me (or simply prefer other candidates), but it remains a mystery to me how I can do everything "right" and come up completely empty-handed. I will be moving on after this year. If anything, seeing you all write here has made this less alienating.
I think the moral of the story is: nothing is sufficient. Publications, teaching, grants. Nothing matters in a world awash with PhDs. The people leaving the field in despair are in many instances better than the people getting the best jobs in the 1990s.
It's why the power players in PhD programs have been urging their students on the cusp of graduation to follow a strategic formula, knowing that landing a TT job straight out is near impossible. One option off the bat is to delay graduation depending on how the market for your speciality is shaping up. If there's a relatively prestigious post-doc that let's you focus on publishing, you take it. You jealously guard your dissertation and start lining up a publisher to use as your tenure book (or first of two tenure books). You generally keep away from VAPs, which will suck away your time needed for publishing, directly (or indirectly through your supporters) working the network, and polishing apps. You end up in a "slum cycle" that's nearly impossible to break away from (where I am).
It's like preparing for the NBA draft. Or perhaps the better analogy is track and field. In the old days, the job market was like running the 1500 metres. You could stumble here and there and still finish high enough to make it to the next round (that coveted interview). Now it's the 100 and the slightest stumble, often out of your control, and that's it. The "blemish" can be something as unfair as having no supporters who are willing to advocate on your behalf to friends on SCs. The jockeying I have recently witnessed behind the scenes during two searches is unreal, nothing like years past.
In the end, we do what we can and try to live with it. Good luck to us all...my last year as well...no way to go back in time...
Thanks, all for the words of support and commiseration. I have a VAP interview lined up, but with absolutely no positive response from T-T jobs it tends to blow one’s confidence. ...I’ve been thinking more and more about moving on even with this being my first year with PhD in hand. I’ve known many profs who spent 8-12 years floating around the U.S. from one VAP to the next, putting their life on hold all the while and spending their 30s and early 40s living just a notch above grad students, financially speaking, and without the same level of cock-eyed optimism as them.
@8:00, I was told that was what I would have to do, spend years living in the middle of nowhere to work one's way up to a (possible) higher position, away from family and friends, void of most opportunity for a life, all the meanwhile trying to pay for the degrees that ruined my financial future on a barely livable income.
It's easy to do this for years on end: you think, just one more year, just two more years, moving across states and even countries. Endless boxes and different tax forms and changes of address. Then you wake up and you're still applying for jobs, still in debt, still without a family. No, thanks.
Old guy, here, who has been on search committees, but not this year. I'm surprised to hear the hostility towards conference interviews, which from my view is a chance for us to give to take a closer look at some who would not make it to campus without it.
But I have a question for those who have been applying. The covering letters of at least half of applicants report that they'll be at the conference. Is this actually so? Or is there some pressure to say you're coming regardless, and then make the trip only if interviewed?
Or, to put it another way, is filling that 12th spot with a long-shot more of a cruelty, since it imposes an investment that has little chance of success?
Thanks for the other side's perspective. Yes, I think putting a long-shot person in the 12th spot is really kind of a cruelty. If only there were a way for us to communicate more openly, i.e. a box we could check (or not) that indicated we were interested in doing interviews that were unlikely to go anywhere, just for the practice. Alas, there's not, and the same financial burden is borne by the person in the 12th slot as the 1st.
It really depends on the 12th person / longshot's institution and financial situation.
If they come from a wealthy department/university it's possible that the interview offer will itself allow the person to secure financial reimbursement for the conference, allowing them to attend, meet new people, see old friends.
However, if they come from a program that isn't rolling in the dough, it can be devastating to spend that much money out of pocket for a job that likely won't materialize.
I agree with the two above, somewhat. I think there is pressure to say that you'll be attending the conference, even if it's you'll only attend if you get an interview. It is, I guess, kind of rude to fill a spot with someone if you literally don't think there's a chance you'll ever hire them, but at the same time, sometimes longshots can really impress you in interviews, can't they? So if someone is at a disadvantage but then is actually really impressive in person, there's no way for you to know - or them even to have a chance to show that - unless they get an interview. It's a tricky ethical situation if everyone says they'll attend regardless, because you don't know if they're telling the truth about that. I guess you could, as a first step, see if they're on the program? But that's not really a fair barometer to use.
The times are changing. It would cost me over $1,000 to attend the conference and I'd have to take personal days off from work. Because these days, not all of us have a department to support us, flights and the hotel are always expensive, and that's about half a paycheck. For a maybe interview.
I suppose my question is, what crucial information can you get about a candidate from a conference interview that you can't get through Skype? How firm their handshake is? How well their suit fits? (Not sure why one commenter above seems so concerned with that given that most older scholars in our field don't seem to care much about their own appearance.) Is physical demeanor really such an important component of the job? If the answer is that you "just get a better feel for someone" by being in the same room as them, are you sure you're not being swayed by unconscious biases and falling for sleek outer trappings over actual substance?
Having been interviewed both by Skype and at a conference, I prefer the Skype option despite the occasional technical difficulties. It feels like more of a level playing field, especially for those of us who don't have a commanding physical presence or tailored suits.
If physical demeanor is such an important component of the job, perhaps SCs should do what every other company/business does: invite their top candidates for an on-campus interview, all expenses paid.
Insisting on interviews at the meetings simply shifts the financial burden of interviewing onto to those vying for the job - or rather, makes the playing field advantageous to those who have the money and time to travel and buy fancy suits. It's absurd when you think about it, really.
Do not underestimate how tough it is out there for junior scholars. Most adjuncts do not get conference funding, and no graduate program is rolling in dough. Conference costs run 1000-1500, especially for those flying across the country.
Is it really equitable to charge someone 1000 dollars to have a 1/12 chance of getting a job?
I fear that even well meaning SCs, like Old Guy, operate under 1990s assumptions, which results in the infliction of a great deal of casual cruelty upon job applicants. As a rule, I would say:
1) Limit the amount of materials requested to the absolute minimum: CV, cover letter, writing sample. 2) Don't ask for recommendations until after an initial cull (Professor is In had a cogent discussion of this). 3) Do 1st round interviews on Skype or phone. 4) Consider a smaller pool. Everyone wants a shot, but an interview also is a big time commitment, for most people wasted. Consider interview 8 instead of 15. Same goes with campus visits. We all want to get on campus, but it is also a big commitment, with days away from teaching and family. Don't do five campus visits (some programs do!). Even with four, chances are there is a candidate who already is not likely to get the job. 5) Do not expect 1st round interviewees to know everything about your program. This is still speed dating, not marriage talks. 6)Pay for campus visit expenses directly, especially big items like flights and hotels. Do not make candidates, who are broke, effectively lend the department money on the promise of later reimbursement. 7) Email rejections, even for campus visits. There is nothing worse than having your dreams crushed on the phone, and still having to be polite and say a pleasant goodbye to the chair you rejected you. A gracious rejection email is best, which can be digested at leisure. 8) Remember, there but the grace of god would go you. If you are lucky enough to be an SC, with a TT job, things have worked out well for you. But be aware of the professional despair of current job seekers. Which goes back to my original point: never underestimate what pressures they are under, and think of every way, even small, that you can make your end of the process less grueling.
I just got the denial email from Hamilton. I love being told that they have "quite specific programmatic needs at this particular time" for a generalist position. I know you have to write something in these emails, but it almost sounds passive aggressive about my credentials.
In all honesty, there ought to be a some organization formed comprised of non-TT academics. We should all boycott the SCS/AIA annual meeting and demand changes like those proposed by 12:17.
So long as we all just sit here and complain yet continue to support the status quo, it will only continue.
I think many of us refused to apply to the extremely exploitative 5-5 job at FSU, so we can do something larger, right?
This venue can, at least, alert well-meaning folks like Old Guy to what some of the hurdles facing those on the job market today are. If you think an interviewee has less than a 10% chance of getting a job (say, numbers 11 and 12 on that interview list), do them the kindness of not wasting their time, money, and emotional energy.
As someone who is serving on an SC for the first time and having recently been through the grinder myself, I also think that the SCS interviews are nothing but an unholy mess of unconscious and not-so-unconscious biases dressed up to look like a professional ritual. I'll be doing my best not to pull that on you myself, kids....
I agree the AIA/SCS meeting interview situation isn't ideal and Skype interviews are a better option overall. However, interviewing fewer people isn't necessarily to our benefit. The more opportunities we have the better experience we gain of the process - everyone makes a hash of one or more interviews (if you're lucky to get more than one to begin). Also, having come from England and held positions there I feel the system here is fairer - in that it allows more people to be given a chance. SCs in the UK generally narrow the field to three or four people for campus interviews straight away; often the interviews and presentations are less than an hour in total and the committee makes their decision based on that alone.
This is all related to the mass overproduction of PhDs. If SCs can't narrow the playing field down to 4-5 candidates, max, from the get-go, there are too many people that are eligible for the job. Since many positions have specific needs to fulfill, it is even more absurd that this can't be done.
Skype your short list first (it's free for everyone), then do invites for 4-5 candidates, max, and pay all of their expenses.
These are all serious concerns and should be addressed within the SCS and the AIA as organizations. If there was, like, a statement of appropriate behavior/procedures for search committees to take, a set of guidelines for best practice when conducting a search, I think that'd go a long way. Someone could talk to some of the different SCS committees about how to organize workshops or whatever to prepare such a document. Maybe talk to the Classics and Social Justice group, or even the folks at Eidolon, groups that're sensitive to more modern issues, about how to organize better as a community to make things more equitable and fair for everyone. (I just offered those as suggestions, no need to weigh in on the value/whatever of Eidolon, it's beside the point.) Someone not-anonymous just needs to take some initiative on this. You could create an email address if you want to stay anonymous for now, ask people to email you on it, and create a little coalition and go from there.
As others have noted, there are too many graduate programs. Too many professors talking about power dynamics while making sure they've got enough graduate students to teach their classes for them. A scandal.
@ 4:33, odds are McMaster is only seriously looking at Canadian candidates, many of whom don't use the wiki. Canadian immigration law makes it hard to bring in non-Canadians for academic positions.
Re: 12:17, I disagree that emailing rejections is better than calling. I mean sure you're likely to be disappointed if you don't get the job, but campus visits are a major investment of time of the faculty as well - if you haven't been on an SC you may not appreciate that adequately. If you spend 2-3 days showing someone around, chatting with someone and taking them out to meals, it seems appropriate both to call them and for them to be professional enough to manage their emotions on the phone. After all, as you argue (!), there are a lot of excellent candidates and it would be in the arrogant in the extreme to think that you're just clearly more deserving than any of the other finalists.
Someone SAYS they have 10 interviews. That seems nuts. Or, perhaps one person applied under ten different names to all the ancient history jobs, and that's why none of us got interviews for any of them...
Every year at least one person gets a bushel of interviews -- this is not a surprise.
Personally, I hate Skype interviews because I find them more difficult than normal interactions with "real" people, and sincerely hope that there will always be a place for in-person interviews. I understand, of course, why some people want Skype, but a full shift to that would come at the expense of those of us who are more comfortable in a normal setting, not staring at a camera.
And if ever I am on a search committee I will push as hard as I can for in-person interviews. So the rest of you had better all find jobs before I find one!
(I will add that the one thing I like about Skype interviews is that I can put post-it notes with reminders of names, things to say, etc. right next to the camera and the committee can't tell. Which is an even BETTER reason why Skype interviews should not be conducted, since I cannot be the only one who has figured this out.)
...remember, though, that they can still see your eyes and if your constantly darting around and sound like you’re reading a script, that’s a big issue. Most SCs will have a nice conference room where your image is on a massive 80” flatscreen. That’s at least how we do it here at my school.
...you can definitely have notes, etc. with you during interviews, to refer to questions you have, aspects of your application you want to highlight, etc. It's not cheating to have notes and it's also not cheating to take notes during the interview, for things you want to remember afterwards.
@6:20 5:28 here. Thanks. That did occur to me, so I believe I am able to hide what I am up to. And anyway, I only consult notes if I cannot remember something crucial, and then just need a one-word reminder -- it's not like I am reading from a script. Doing this is especially useful when describing how I would teach a course, since it is easy to forget a given unit or author under the pressure of the interview.
@6:30 I cannot imagine consulting notes during an interview. How can that not look awful, if you are asked, say, which text you would use for some author and you have to check your notes?
@6:30 I don't know, I guess I just don't see what the problem is to have notes. Not for everything, definitely not for things that you should readily be able to talk about, like your research, but for things like specific questions you have for the department (as I said), etc. There are all sorts of other types of aids you can bring, as well. You can have, for example, sample syllabi so if they ask you which texts you'd use for a class, you can refer to it and refer the search committee to it. Memory aids are not a bad thing and they are, in fact, almost necessary for some people (I'm talking specifically about people with a range of mental, intellectual, or emotional disabilities). Y'ain't gotta be empty-handed and, in fact, preparation in the form of sample syllabi can go a long way in making you seem serious, prepared, and capable.
@12:39. Did you read the Hamilton job ad? The generalist listing was clearly not accurate, but was used because the position wasn’t able to be split between the traditional lit/arch/hits category or between Greek/Roman—they listed specific programs they wanted candidates to be able to teach crosslists in and very specific topics. They also clearly wanted someone ready to almost immediate tenuring or already tenured.
Hamilton, I'm guessing, will hire the VAP who has been there for 5ish years. And I'm fine with that. We should get rid of interviews anyway, and just 'match' the way residency programs match with M.D.'s. I want to be at an R1, because my research material is kinda obscure, at times, but I'd take a 4/4 at a small college to be within an hour or two of my elderly, near-disabled parents. And some people (like me) will never move to Florida for a job. Plus, then the backchanneling would just be formalized and out in the open (since program would have to communicate and negotiate over candidates). But it doesn't matter. I hope the people who get jobs can do the field proud, keep it stable, maybe even grow it a little bit. I'd be sad to see it disappear.
Re representation of contingent faculty: perhaps someone would care to research what other ACLS organizations are doing on behalf of their contingent faculty and present that to the SCS directors. Our parent organization is woefully behind times on this issue. History and MLA, to pick just two, have been much more on top of things. The AHA has an entire committee tracking this issue. MLA does as well, and offers travel funding not just for grad students but also for contingents. If the SCS's answer is chronically going to be "we're too small to do anything like that," then it needs to be prepared for some of the radical changes that are being proposed here.
And no, the answer isn't "talk to Eidolon". This is a corporate management issue, within the SCS, and they should address it as a matter of urgency and decency.
@4:33 (and others). Acting Chair at McMaster, here. I'm sorry to have made you wait so long, but the process took us longer than we had expected. Our final meeting was this afternoon. All applicants should have now received news, including those we hope to see in Boston. Best regards, Claude.
...did anyone actually hear from McMaster as the above post suggests we should have? I for one have not received any news whether for good or ill, and I see no updates on the wiki either.
@11:45. Eilers of McMaster here again. (And I signed into my google account so that you can be sure that this isn't a prank.) Can you check your spam folder? If there's nothing there, just email me at eilersc (AT) mcmaster (DOT) ca and I'll double check.
A question to other PhDs who have been on the market for 3+ years. Do you fear that as the years go by and with the continued failure on the job market, your patrons and letter writers will begin to lose hope in you move on from supporting you? I sometimes get this feeling and it gets me down.
@6:47, oh, completely. It's even worse when you go do something else with the hope that something academic will come through - you feel completely isolated and out of touch.
@4:44 From what I understand, BYU has been in touch with Willard Romney, Jeffrey Flake, and Evan McMullin, but the rest of us heathen may as well go pound sand.
On letters of reference: In some searches, there are institutional or legal guidelines that prevent committee members from reading applications that are not 'complete' (I don't know how widespread this is but it was the case at the state institution where I used to teach). Where committee members are allowed to read incomplete applications, I think that many of us know candidates can't control their letter-writers and will still consider the whole application. But institutional constraints will limit what many of us can do.
I’ve never heard of any of those three, so I assume that they’re fresh PhDs liekbthw reat of of us; as such, one probably shouldn’t list names of folks who are under review by a SC.
@ 5:33, those are the names of famous Mormons who are almost certainly not applying for an assistant professorship at BYU. Pretty sure Mitt doesn't need the money.
Do others have a sense of how classicists/ancient historians fare in competitions for general humanities/social sciences post-docs? Would you say on the whole that prestigious post-docs are more or less competitive than classics TT jobs?
put another way -- if I got no interviews for TT jobs in classics this year, what are the odds I might get some good news in the spring about post-doc applications?
It's all about connections, dude(tte). Postdoc positons aren't immune to the free for all. Unless programs taper off admits or a bunch more positions appear, it will only get worse as the crest of the echo boomer grads enter the market but boomer positions aren't replaced. There is nothing that points to a systemic change in the way classics is structured so I'm afraid we are the generation without a chair when the music stops...
@5:52. One thing to keep in mind is that the competition for those postdocs is thinning as TT positions get filled in Classics and other fields. Those who beat you out of TT jobs won't be there to beat you out of postdocs.
Re: postdocs. Yes, statistically speaking, your odds of getting a postdoc in the humanities are probably not better than your odds of getting a job. I have kept a personal tally of applicants vs. awardees for humanities postdocs I have applied to (they often tell you this in the rejection letter), and from my personal experience the odds of getting any particular postdoc are in the range of ~1%. Take this with a grain of salt, it is just based on the information I have gathered from my own (hefty) stack of rejection letters. Some open-call postdocs get thousands of applicants. But it is a different kind of competition, and as @7:58 pointed out, getting or not getting job interviews does not necessarily predict the outcome of the postdoc market--you can get lucky with one and not the other, or vice versa. Postdoc committees will be looking primarily at your research profile, and how it fits with the other potential awardees (you have no control over this, I'm afraid). If you are open to working in Europe there are more postdoctoral positions there, and you have a much better chance if you can find a project focused on your specific research area. Even better if you can forge a connection with a researcher you want to work with. The Liverpool Classicists email list is a good place to look for UK/EU postdoctoral positions as they are often advertised there, especially projects open to English-speakers, and you can also find a lot of funding opportunities in Germany on the DAAD website. Also note that unlike the American market, where there are predictable job market "seasons" (like T-T jobs being posted in the Fall and VAPs, mostly, being posted in the Spring) you will find calls for European postdocs throughout the year, the start dates can be quite varied, and sometimes on a tighter timeframe than Americans may be used to. Good luck!
It depends on the Post doc. The most prestigious post-docs are almost impossible to get (here I refer to Harvard Society of Fellows, Princeton Society, Stanford Mellon etc.). These positions easily receive over 1000 applications, and the final decision is often made on the basis of how well your work corresponds to the faculty in the society. Nor is there a guarantee that any classicist will be selected in any year; you are not just competing against every other classicist, but also against every physicist, historian, philosopher, etc.
I actually no longer apply for these positions. Unless you have an obvious connection, it is almost not worth applying.Furthermore, post docs seek to suppress admissions by having complex and time consuming applications, that force you to reformat that standard set of materials. For example, Stanford requires a 1 page cover letter (two is standard) and a three page teaching statement (one is standard). The whole point is that you have to reformat what you have rework what you have, and decide if the 2-3 hours doing so is worth a 1/1000 chance. And don't get me started with the bullshit themed Mellons, where you have to argue that your deeply thought project aligns with the asinine one-word themes like "Skin" or "Light." I don't even bother with this shameful exercise. On principle I also do not apply for the Michigan Society of Fellows, which charges a $30 admissions fee, which while small is an abomination in this age of desperation.
5:52 here: Thank you for the helpful responses (especially to the poster who mentioned the Liverpool listserv!). As an American classicist, should I forget about JRFs altogether unless I have a close connection with an Oxbridge professor?
@5:52, my impression is that it is unlikely to get a JRF unless you have some connection to Oxbridge (whether to a specific faculty member, or from having studied there, etc.). On the other hand, the applications are very basic (normally just a short research statement) so if you have that ready to go then it doesn't hurt to throw your name in the hat. Personally, I no longer bother with JRFs for the most part, unless they are specifically looking for a Classicist, or it is for a specific project relevant to my research area (this does happen every once in a while). However, if you are interested in working in the UK, check out this recent announcement for a British Academy visiting fellowship open to all nationalities (sounds like this might be a one-time deal this year). This can be used for research at any UK university so could be a good way to connect with someone you want to work with there: https://www.britac.ac.uk/visiting-fellowships
Government of Ireland Postdoctoral Fellowships are also open to all nationalities, with the support of a faculty member in Ireland. It is quite common for postdocs in Europe to require the support of a faculty member, often with the host institution paying a portion of the fellowship costs, and because of this system, it is very normal to simply write to someone you want to work with, tell them a bit about your research and why you would be interested in working with them and/or their team, and ask if they would be willing to sponsor you for such-and-such a fellowship. They may or may not accept, but at the very least they will know who you are, and this whole system is about making connections. Again for Germany the most centralized database is DAAD, for other countries you have to either hunt around on their university websites or wait for calls. And if you find research projects that you like, that don't have active calls, write to them anyway and ask if they will be looking for postdocs in the future--this alerts them to the fact that you are interested in their project.
@1:33 Well, considering how Yale handled their TT hire last year, and now the reveal of the Archaia postdoc, I'm glad I decided not to bother with them anymore. Lost cause of inbreeding.
@11:33, I had a search committee invite me, but the interview hasn't been scheduled yet. Wondering if Erik's still working on it or if there's been a glitch.
SCS Insider here: Erik tells me that he is still coordinating availability and scheduling interviews, so be sure to check your calendars over the next few days.
@11:40 nope, I felt the same about mine. I know it wasn't a complete catastrophe, but I could hear the stupid rambling coming out of my mouth. I looked desperate and nervous and flustered and I flubbed a question I had prepared in advance.
Silver lining: The last time I thought I bombed an interview, I was invited to campus. You never know. The last time I felt great about an interview, I didn't even make the short list. (Still trying to figure that one out - it was a strange kind of postdoc, for which I'm sure they didn't have many applicants.)
I bombed my first couple. What helped was having a couple friends run mock interviews so I could get accustomed to the Skype medium (the rest of it didn't much resemble a proper interview). I also stopped overthinking and focused on the basics, just having a nice conversation. I loaded up on notes at first but it just make me overthink and fumble around.
@11:40, my best and worst Skype interviews resulted in my only two campus visits to date. How you feel an interview went doesn't tend to predict anything.
11:40 here. Well, I'm glad to hear I'm not the only one who messes these things up. I felt very embarrassed by my performance and almost like a letdown to the committee who had given me the chance to meet them. I felt so weak, overwhelmed and exhausted at the end of the short interview that i needed to lay down for about an hour!
Just to chime in with support: I suck at interviews, like you wouldn't believe. I just get really nervous. This has no bearing on the rest of my life: I teach well, I give talks just fine, I have friends. But in interviews I really just clam up and would probably forget my own name if they inquired about it. So you're definitely not alone.
I think it is fair to say that interview performance is only a small factor in getting jobs. I've nailed interviews that went nowhere. I've nailed campus visits and still have no job. I would say the standard for the interview, and also the visit, is "good enough." Once you reach that standard, other factors will determine you success, like how you fit with the precise candidate that the SC wants to hire.
This is not to say that a cringeworthy interview won't cost an otherwise viable candidate. But a decent interview is about as good as a killer interview, in terms of results. Namely that no one is going to get a job, because there are not enough jobs out there.
PS: A note of generational anger. I hate it when TT faculty tell me "I really screwed up my job talk." It is a reminder of how easy it was to get a job in the 1990s.
Historical perspective: there were blips in the nineties that were almost as bad as what we have today, they just didn't last very long. Placement Service data doesn't go back into the nineties, but it does report that in 2000-2001 there were 2.19 candidates per position for 2000-1, and 2.45 in 1999-2000. "This number has steadily decreased from the all-time high of 4.55 in 1994-95." Last year, placement data suggests that there were 4.4 job seekers per job. Of course, while the older reports don't separate out contingent from non-contingent, it is safe to assume that the jobs advertised in the 90s were not 62% contingent, as they were last year.
12;57 a.m says: "Of course, while the older reports don't separate out contingent from non-contingent, it is safe to assume that the jobs advertised in the 90s were not 62% contingent, as they were last year."
Well, they may not have been 62% contingent. I don't have the figures. But in the early to mid-90s there were a LOT of contingent jobs, and I and all my cohort (from a good tier-2 program) bounced around in several temporary positions before either getting a t-t or giving up. None of us went straight into a t-t job, as I recall -- not one of us. Some of us held 4 or 5 contingent positions in a row.
Quite possibly things weren't as bad as they are now. But they were pretty damn grim, and a lot of very good people never found permanent jobs. And there was the infamous blackboard at the APA, so everyone saw us walking by looking for our number on the board, and registered our despair when the number wasn't there . . . Ah, the good old days of public humiliation.
"Well, they may not have been 62% contingent. I don't have the figures. But in the early to mid-90s there were a LOT of contingent jobs, and I and all my cohort (from a good tier-2 program) bounced around in several temporary positions before either getting a t-t or giving up. None of us went straight into a t-t job, as I recall -- not one of us. Some of us held 4 or 5 contingent positions in a row."
Behold, the voice of privilege.
Old reality: Tier-2. "Several" temporary positions before T-T.
New reality: maybe one more temporary positions. Probably no T-T.
And people looked at you publicly! Boo hoo! It hurts sooooo bad!
The tone of the above comment aside, yes, the statement at 1:08 does reveal generational privilege. Nobody is going to feel sorry for someone who had several temporary positions, this is not in any way shocking. The new normal is many, many years of temporary positions. Anybody from a tier-two place who thought it was even conceivable to step straight into a TT position today would be out of their mind.
@4:47: No idea, but I would love that position very much! :) Looking at the profiles of previous and current awardees, it look like they like people who work on empire / economy with an archaeological focus?
My understanding is that most ISAW activity occurs in late January and February. This is hearsay, of course; I've never gotten anything other than a rejection (and some years not even that).
Servius, can there be some moderating above (@1:33; @6:05)? In keeping with precedent, this should not be a forum for bashing individual junior scholars. Some of these comments are far too targeted and very inappropriate.
No one is bashing the junior scholar. That person has done nothing wrong; none of us begrudges them accepting the offer. The problem is the fake search, and the information above makes it clear just how fake it was. It would be more honest and efficient if the post-doc were just handed out to the favored person (or perhaps several favored people were invited to compete for it). But then the swamp would have to stop pretending to be meritocratic.
I applied to UNA, but have heard nothing. It has all the hallmarks of a fake search, especially being only advertised on the Chronicle. I would not hold my breath.
@11.04 the wording of the ad was confusing so I called them before the deadline regarding the references. They told me they wanted letters emailed directly at the time of application in addition to the list supplied by the candidate, which could be why yours haven't been contacted? I'm hoping it's not a fake search, I actually want to move to Florence.
I, too, have received confirmation from North Alamaba. I’m surprised so many people here applied to it; I figured this board was 99% Classics folks. I didn’t know so many History PhDs also lurk here. ...unless a good number of philologists applied (which I doubt since they’re not adequately trained as historians 9/10 **I mean no offense**).
So, for you Classics folks, don’t worry about their lack of contact. History Depts aren’t slaves to the SCS as are your home Depts. Many History Depts don’t bother with our annual conference (the AHA). As such, we tend not to abuse our applicants and force them to travel across the country to interview in a hotel room for a job that they stand a 1/12 chance (at best) of being offered. Most 1st round interviews are Skype.
Being so close to Christmas, I wouldn’t expect any contact until the first or second week of January.
To chime in about the Academia.edu hits-on-your-page does or does not lead to an interview: several hits from Worcester, made me think HC was looking at me. They probably were. That didn't lead to an interview. It just means they were actually reading my application (so a shout out to them for not throwing me in the bin on first look!). But I really want to know is why someone in Monticello NY keeps looking at my page every week... (Seriously).
I’ve had 5 interview requests. Only once was Academia.edu an “early warning sign”
I think that since most SCs have 100-200 applicants and they request the documents that *they want to see* (some truly expect a full-blown portfolio of documents, which is burdensome) there often is very little need, desire, and time to ALSO scout one's online presence.
How long after a campus visit is an offer typically made? I'm not in this situation (yet? ever?) but do wonder about it with the timing of VAP applications and interviews, etc.
How did Yale handle the T-T position last year? I could trawl through last year’s venting blog, but am too busy trying to discover a route out of academe...
@4:08. Old guy here. At my big state univ., typically campus invitations will be decided early in January, and approved by a Dean within a few days, which means efforts to schedule should begin before (say) Jan. 15. Realistically, the campus visits won't actually begin until a week or two after that, and the visits will probably take two weeks, and maybe three to finish. So a departmental decision shouldn't be expected earlier than mid-February, but might not be communicated for a while after that, depending on who in the upper admin needs to sign off.
Also, I make sure to really fine-tune my cover letter to the particular institution and department. Take a good deal of time to really understand how they structure their undergrad program. Make specific comments about what classes they currently offer that you’re qualified to teach (I often supply a list from their catalog of all such courses), as well as propose specific courses (intro, upper-level, and grad seminars if applicable) that you’d like to offer. Also, as much as you can, adopt that institution’s and/or Department’s specific language in phrasing such comments.
In short, make your letter really seem as if you’re *already* one of them, as opposed to your letter being a blank template wherein you replace all the “University of X” with “University of Y.”
...lastly, and this may seem an odd thing, don’t apply for too many jobs. Only those that you’re REALLY a shoe-in for. This helps you to be able to do a good amount of research in tailoring your letter to each institution. I think that if you tend to throw your name in all hats you’re setting yourself up for vast failure, even at schools who otherwise would offer an interview. ...For example, I’m a Roman historian (fresh PhD from a lower top-10) with a strong CV, BUT....BUT, I did not even bother applying for the Roman Historian positions at Chicago or Princeton. Why? They both already know who they’re going to hire. It’s nice that a good number of folks here got their ego stroked by being offered an interview, but they’re all dead in the water. Dead. ...their hires will be a vastly published and near-tenured scholar whose on year 8-10 out from PhD with a litany of super prestigious post-docs and VAP gigs and quite likely someone whose already Assistant Prof at a damn good school. ...So, I mention this to stress that it’s far more important to really spend time preparing for and familiarizing oneself with job openings that are both attainable AND truly fit your speciality.
There has been much talk, for instance, of Classics folks applying for History gigs. What is forgotten by elite classicists is that if you’re putting in for a “History” job in a “History Dept” and they are not a monstrous R1, you’re going to be expected to teach a variety of courses. So, honestly ask yourself before applying to a History Dept job: “Am I truly qualified to teach Western Civ 1? Or World Civ? What about Early Medieval History?” If you’re not qualified and have no teaching experience in these kinds of courses, you’re surely going to be passed up by a History PhD who can. It’s a buyer’s market right now, so a shiny PhD in philology from Harvard won’t get you a job as a historian in a History Dept, even if you are really good at convincing a SC and yourself that you truly are qualified to teach advanced courses on ancient history just because you can sight read Tacitus at lightning speed. Yes, Language is a MUST for a historian, but being a master of the language is not enough to teach History—can a PhD in French teach a course on Napoleon? Maybe, but should they? Can a PhD in Russian adequately lead a grad seminar on the root causes and developments of the Russian Revolution? I wouldn’t think so. ...so, just because one is a master of a language (and as such develops a great deal of cultural and societal understanding of the society who used that language) does not qualify them to teach a history of that society.
To be sure, some philology programs DO offer a decent amount of historical coverage, it really is a different emphasis. The top PhD programs in Ancient History won’t accept anyone who doesn’t have a graduate-level competency in Greek and Latin.
So... narrow your focus; don’t overextend yourself; closely tailor cover letters; and learn to say “no” to your first gut reaction to apply for jobs that you’re *really* not qualified for.
I hope that this helps somewhat. But, remember that simple dumb luck is also a MAJOR factor here for all of us.
As someone who has been on many search committees (in and out of Classics), I heartily endorse 3:59's advice about tailoring your letters. That might be the most important thing you can do. Here at a SLAC, SCs immediately toss any file from someone whose cover letter talks about the grad. seminars s/he'd like to teach. We have no grad. students; mentioning your plans for grad. sems (or audtorium-style lecture classes to 250 students) in your letter or teaching statement tells us that you haven't thought about or looked into this particular job. We're looking for someone who can persuade us, from the outset, that s/he will be an asset to THIS dept., at THIS school. Talking about how you'd approach our college's required first-year course, for instance, gets our notice. So does talking about specific courses in our dept.
Frankly, with 200-plus appicants, when we read your cover letter we are not looking for reasons to interview you. We are looking for reasons to reject you. I know that sounds harsh, but it's true. We have to make the cut, somehow, from 200-plus to about 35, and then whittle those down to a list for conference interviews. In the first read-through, we're looking for reasons to exclude. Your cover letter is crucial. Tailor it. Make us believe you want to work HERE.
Substantial tailoring makes sense. But keep in mind, everyone involved, that the more tailoring is expected, the more that the rich get richer. Those of us teaching 3+ courses a term on a one-year contract have much less time to tailor letters (and less freedom to focus our search on the best 'fits') than those with low-teaching and/or multi-year post-docs, or TT jobs elsewhere. I am happy to accept that the trade-off is necessary or 'worth it,' but we should remember it's a trade-off, and that the culture of (expected) tailoring helps the diligent, but also the privileged.
Yes, I agree with 3:59 that this is good strategy. But to 12:13, and other SC members, I would note that requiring such excessive tailoring actually hurts the whole field.
There is good reason to have a system whereby applicants are NOT expected to tailor cover letters, but instead to put out a basic set of standardized materials to search committees. Indeed, the conference interview system, as instituted back in the day, assumed that applicants would walk around handing standardized cover letters and CVs to various committees.
Firstly, as 12:28 notes, it means that applicants waste a lot of time reworking their job materials. This disadvantages adjuncts, who are already overwhelmed with teaching. Indeed, it boosts well-funded ABDs at Princeton and Stanford, who have the time and funding to spend endless hours indicating what a perfect fit they are for the "Sport and the Ancient World" class only taught at your school and a handful of others.
Secondly, SCs seem to forget how time spent tailoring job materials detracts from the project of the entire field. Every hour I spend minutely tailoring my application is an hour I am not working on a syllabus, preparing lecture slides, writing an article, editing my book manuscript, etc. So in expecting the tailored letter, dear SC, your privileged TT life may become easier, but you are impoverishing candidates, the students they teach, and the field at large.
Instead, I would suggest is that SCs publish more narrowly tailored adds. If you want a Roman historian, don't advertise Ancient History. If you want someone who does Race and Gender in the Ancient World, don't advertise for Generalists. If you want Late Antiquity, say so, don't just hint "including late antiquity." This will suppress applications (and allow you to quickly throw out those that don't fit), and also prevent the candidates from contorting themselves to explain why they are the perfect fit.
@12:28 and @1:19, really good points. Thank you. It was easy to lose hours and hours tailoring letters as well as specific job ad requirements - separate teaching and diversity statements for one school, a teaching PLUS diversity statement for another school, multiple online forms to fill out in addition to the CV, etc. On top of a contingent position and all things that came with that - not only an overload of work duties but also dealing with an impending move - it really wasn't worth it for a position that I had a 1/100 chance of getting.
1:19 is spot on. Moreover, in some cases that time spent tailoring may get you the initial interview, and then when push comes to shove, you lose out to an inside candidate (the most efficient way for search committees to save time, by the way), and you didn't spend those hours finishing an article which could actually help you in the next season.
I understand the need to look for reason to discard an application in that initial culling stage (and thanks to 1:19 for suggesting ways to limit the number of applicatsions upfront). But I must say I find puzzling the idea that one such way is to look for candidates to show that they want to work THERE, as 12:13 suggests. Surely in the current market, a TT job is one all and every candidate would do almost anything for. In all likelihood, someone who lands the job will be so relieved to be done with the stress of the market that they will not then go on to apply for what they perceive to be better jobs the following year (which I take it is part of the worry). In other words, every candidate wants to work wherever will let them. Asking them to make that clear in a tailored way in a cover letter just doesn't seem like the best use of anyone's time.
Perhaps we could incorporate some of the placement practices incorporated by professional schools. One dossier sent to the SCS Placement Service that you then have sent to your top ten ranked jobs. The SCs in turn send the SCS their top twenty candidates. Based on how both sides rank each other, 10-15 are invited for interviews at the meetings (or by Skype). After the interviews, both sides rank each other again and then 3-5 are invited for flyouts. Besides the obvious savings in time for applicants, it prevents overworked SCs from foolishly picking bad fits from the get-go based on overvaluing a two-page cover letter. Like standardized testing, I agree that this favors the privileged who are not necessarily the best fit but have the time and resources to dazzle bleary-eyed SC members. It has the added advantage of tempering the influence of the inordinately small number of gunners who get numerous interviews and job offers and have the potential to gumming up an entire discipline for weeks during the spring. This system forces them to narrow down their options early on rather than vainly basking in their glory (or OCD) for as long as possible.
Not to start a flame war, but time was that standardized testing helped those NOT from St. Grottlesex to get into the Ivy League. Until too many Jews were admitted, and it was decided to start thinking more about 'fit' :) Standardized testing arguably cuts both ways, but letters of rec (e.g.) only cut one.
The problem with standardized testing is the direct correlation between performance and wealth. It started with somewhat affordable services such as Kaplan that virtually became required so one could be on an even playing field but then the uber wealthy upped the ante with obscenely expensive tutors (and services in between such as Ivy Global).
I see a similar scenario playing out with well-staffed departments investing in services for their students that provide largely one-off skills to land the job. This might not be a huge problem at first sight, but it makes me incredibly nervous that the less well-staffed departments will feel compelled to sacrifice resources that actually train students directly in order to be competitive. That is, are we in danger of "teaching to the test" at the PhD level?
Since the way that hiring is done will normally have to meet rules established by H.R. departments, all of this fantasizing about how to change things (e.g., one-size-fits-all applications) is a waste of time on the part of the writer, and wastes the time of those of us reading through posts here. Can we please limit ourselves to suggestions of how to change the world that have at least some chance of happening?
It's not one size fits all. It's what the rest of the dossier is for. What's the use of asking for the inordinate amount of application material if you throw the entire app into the trash based on the cover letter? It's unconscionable that a discipline that requires dossiers with the most components then turns around and utilizes them the least (if I'm understanding correctly how the cover letter is used by the committee members chiming in here). It's a COVER letter, folks. Most professions can't imagine it being longer than a half page introduction to the rest of the dossier, a page at most.
For what it's worth, I have several tenure-track interviews (Latin literature) and I don't tailor my cover letters much at all. I spend a long time polishing one template letter and only adapt a few sentences for each school. So excessive tailoring is definitely not a requirement.
Seriously, if classics SCs weight the cover letter so heavily during the initial vetting, simply ask for a cover letter and CV at first, perhaps a teaching or research statement as well. The shotgun request is ridiculous (especially since the expectation here seems to be that teaching/research statements should in fact be distilled and crammed into cover letters). If this system still leaves you with 50 applications that you need to get down to 15 for initial interviews, ask these 50 for additional materials such as letters and publications. Why is this so hard or considered a "fantasy" by people like 4:05 PM?
Any thoughts on if one of your recommenders is at odds with someone on the search committee? Too late, I realized that the SC member in question (an outsider to the dept.) would be involved. In the past, the SC member referred (in my presence) to the recommender as "off their rocker." Can one SC member scuttle an application over a beef with a recommender?
Yup, less is sometimes more and application creep over the years has gotten silly regardless of how tired and overworked SC members might be. I suspect the next step will be your DNA sequencing to verify how genetically related you are to Mommsen and Parry. We can't do everything, but why are there so few guidelines and best practices of classics search committees shared and crowd sourced by the SCS? I've been on three SCs at two institutions and it has pretty much been amateur hour unless the the committee was fortunate enough to have a member that had gained some good experience over the years.
5:07, one member can certainly scuttle an application, especially early in the process when apps are culled aggressively and "one more" culling will hardly be scrutinized. It's another reason why letters shouldn't be asked until a second round as it allows the old boys network to play too central a role in the overall vetting process.
In@4:06, I think it is very much working out how things should work in an ideal world. I am well aware that much of the misery of the process is imposed by HR. But not all of it.
I know there are well meaning SCs on this forum. It is worth communicating to them where they are making candidates' life miserable. Also, a few lucky candidates will get the coveted TT job, and will within a few years be on SCs. They may have some say in how the search is structured, and what materials will be required. They should reflect on what works, and what simply creates a lot of paper work for 150 applicants. They should also think whether it is worth having 150 applicants, when over 100 must be dismissed outright.
So these discussions are not a waste of time. Our field is in a moment of professional crisis, and most of us will not have careers in it. I am planning to leave the field next year if I do not get a job, and my hopes are dim. But I think humanistic inquiry and humanistic education is a worthwhile endeavor in a democracy, and I want the "survivors" to make the most of it, rather than perpetuating the current crisis for another generation.
So let us not act like its all up to the minions in HR. Too much is, but the rumblings on this forum also represent the self-consciousness of the next generation of this field.
4,546 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 601 – 800 of 4546 Newer› Newest»Question: where can I find my SCS interview calendar?
Log on to the SCS site (https://classicalstudies.org/placement-service). Once you're logged on, there will be a "Candidate Menu" on the right at the top of the sidebar, under which you can find your calendar. If you're an SCS member (or at least if you're registered with the placement service), you should have received an email a couple weeks ago from Erik Shell with more detailed instructions.
So roughly 13/14 of us will never get tenure-track jobs. What do you all plan to do when you decide to stop trying? Lately I've been thinking about ESL.
6 years on the market (5 post Ph.D.). I went to a top 3-ranked institution, and have numerous publications, talks and fellowships, a strong employment record, and this year won a prestigious university press contract plus a major grant. And yet I have no TT- interviews (usually I get between 1-5). It's difficult not to regret my decision not to have pursued other options throughout my 20's and 30's although I'm grateful I did not put my personal life on hold as I've seen others do in pursuit of this field. I am quitting. It feels liberating to take myself out of this punishing cycle. I know I can get an alt-ac job as many of my friends have already done. Famae has been a source of support so thanks and good luck to you all.
@ 10:09 - good luck out there! I'm just a couple years behind you and considering the same.
@ 10:09
I hear you. I'm on to applying for writing instructor positions, if that doesn't work out then I'll be following you.
My teaching record is the strongest part of my resume and really that doesn't seem to mean shit. I do have a translation/Greek text coming out with Harvard Press so it isn't like I haven't been active in the field either.
My PhD is from a smaller program and I always have thought/known that it worked against me.
Anyhow, my condolences on your search which is looking just like mine.
And best wishes and luck.
You'll have more money and time soon I'm sure.
With so many really great candidates out there (easily 25-30), and only 10-12 feasible T-T jobs a year, it’s really frightening to think that you can manage to be passed over by SCs year after year just due to sheer luck of the draw, or if your personality happens to not mesh with those sitting on a SC—this is a BIG factor that doesn’t seem to get much attention. Recall that for most Classics Depts, the new hire will be 1/6-10 or so. Meaning that SCs are choosing NOT “who is the most qualified” as much as “who do I want to work with, sit in meetings with, collaborate with, invite to my house and vice versa for events, and have to chat with on a regular basis day after day for DECADES?”
Once you get that first interview, you’re already considered to be qualified. After that, much of it is determined by your personality. This couldn’t be more subjective—a Dept could select a SC comprised of ‘personality A’ folks and you mesh well if you’re compatible.
..very frustrating stuff. I mean, this kind of thing happens with literally every job applicant for any job, but given that a dozen applicable jobs come out once a year in the fall and unless you are the NUMBER ONE choice amongst all of us, you’re passed over. There’s no prize for second place and rarely opportunities until the next fall.
It socks because you do everything right (PhD from top, top school; publications; grants; conferences; amazing teaching record; etc,..) and you can still after a decade of trying lose a job to some ABD who just won the academic lottery. :/
....@10:09,
I was told some years back that the longer one goes after the 5-year mark after the PhD the less likely T-T becomes. The idea being that, “well, for 10 years this candidate was passed over by countless SCs...there MUST be a reason.” I was told this by a prof who was 12 years out and a sitting VAP. He did, however, the next year land T-T.
My deepest sympathies to you all who have had a cold Inbox thus far this season.
I am a PhD, 5 years post degree, who has left the field to teach at the secondary level. Coming back to read FV has been heart-breaking -- I send my condolences to all of you on the job market this season. It seems to be as bleak as ever.
I taught extensively in graduate school and I held VAPs at two prestigious SLACS. I decided to leave because the stress of doing these jobs well and also still applying for jobs was simply too much. I got T-T interviews ... the job itself just never materialized.
Teaching high school has come with its own set of joys and challenges that are distinct from those in Higher Ed. There are aspects of teaching at a higher level that I greatly miss, but frankly, my quality of life is so much better now and I'm so much happier. I have more time for my personal life and hobbies. I have security and stability. I was well-remunerated as a VAP, but I make even more money now. I have finally begun to accumulate retirement savings and a have a pension.
There is a scarcity of high school Latin teachers. Programs are being eliminated -- not for lack of interest or enrollment (as in Higher Ed) -- but because veteran teachers retire and no replacements can be found. I know several districts in my area that would like to start a Latin program but can't find a teacher. This crisis affects you all. The myopia, and snobbery, of professional Classicists is unparalleled.
@12:01, any recommendations for teaching Latin when your PhD program didn't have you teach it? Is it possible to get a job teaching Latin when you've never done so before, but know the language?
@12:01
Would you mind commenting briefly on your schedule? Or are there any other teachers lurking who want to chime in? I ask because I am leaving the field if the one TT interview I have does not pan out, and teaching seems like a logical choice for me. But, I am exhausted and hesitant to embark on another career that involves working regularly on weekends and weeknights. I get that the situation probably varies from job to job, but a little perspective would be greatly appreciated.
@12:26, I have a non-academic job that is related but is not teaching. I work 9-6, M-F, with an hour commute each way. I am finding it really challenging to get any academic work done outside of that time, in-between taking care of a home and personal life. Why I bother keeping on trying, I don't know, except wanting to bring certain projects to fruition. And I still love what I do. But it's really hard.
Former high school Latin teacher here. I taught in both an elite boarding school and a public school. High school is quite different from the college classroom, and it takes, in my opinion, at least three years to become accustomed to the daily work of teaching- building up effective and engaging lessons for multiple courses, learning how to manage a classroom and everyday routines, etc. You will absolutely be working at night and on the weekends during this period; balance is tough at this stage, and especially so if you have young children or other significant family responsibilities. While challenging, it is path I found personally rewarding, and depending on the district/position, as well compensated as the better VAPs or even some T-T jobs out there. I wouldn't recommend the path as a generic Plan B for everyone- it's definitely hard work if you want to be effective, and not everyone likes kids.
1:12 here again- when I was teaching I worked from 7:30 to 4:30, and probably spent 1.5 hours each day prepping lessons or grading. More time if you are involved in extracurriculars or clubs...
12:01 here. My school is on a block schedule which means that classes alternate every day. The typical teaching load is 3 preps. When we're not teaching we oversee study halls, go to meetings, or have lunch/planning periods. It's an 8:00-3:00 workday. I am involved in some extra-curriculars, a committee, and I attend some sporting events, school plays, etc. All-in-all, these time commitments haven't amounted to more than I was putting in at the college level. It's all similar to the Higher Ed "service" balancing act. You can't let yourself be overwhelmed with it or you will...
I have made a concerted effort to take very little of my work home with me. I have planning periods during the day where I do most of my prep and grading. I see the students in 85 minute blocks, so I have them do most of what would be their homework in class. I've streamlined my grading procedures to make them more efficient. Since I taught so much in graduate school, when I transitioned to this level I already had about 10 years of in-classroom experience. That has made things much easier, undoubtedly.
@12:19: I think it will be difficult for you to make a jump to this level, though not impossible. I'd suggest looking at private schools. Certification requirements will make it harder for you to get your foot in the door at a public school, without clearing some credentialing hurdles. Of course, this will also vary from school to school and from state to state. Speaking from my own experience, I sailed into this job -- I think -- because I did have a lot of experience and because I was able to speak convincingly about why exactly I wanted to teach at a lower level. Admin was quite skeptical...
12:01 here
Thanks so much for the comments, all of you. It's good to see this from different perspectives.
12:26, I mean, not 12:01.
I'm not an expert on teaching at the h.s. level, but have some advice to share. A few years ago, when it was summer and I still had not found a position, and had let various colleagues know this, I learned of a very good h.s. Latin position and interviewed for it because that school had contacted the chairman of the nearby university with a Ph.D. program to see if anyone was available. This was an unusual situation, since one of their teachers had left at the last moment and they couldn't do a proper search. So my advice would be, if you decide to go this route it certainly could not hurt to let colleagues at nearby MA and PhD programs know that you are out there, since you never know when they might be contacted.
I taught public high school before pursuing the PhD, and I worked for about 70-80 hours each week. That number surely would have dropped precipitously after another year or two of teaching, but you should expect the first year to be very demanding unless you luck into a private school with a cushy teaching load. I had 4 preps (Latin 1-4) and other complicating factors. Fewer preps would have made a world of difference.
When I started I had a degree in education and a semester of Latin teaching experience, for what that's worth. It would be significantly easier now that I have 7 more years of teaching experience.
It seems as though a helpful new area of FV might be where other kinds of classics jobs could be discussed, or non-academic jobs, with participation from real world people. High school and prep school experiences could be shared, or maybe comments from people who went in a different direction. Maybe even some real-world names attached? Some ability to ask direct questions, and to understand where the responder is coming from, maybe would be good.
When the SCS has had panels on this (all too rarely), the panelists have been bombarded at the end with very many questions, suggesting there's real interest in personal experiences.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/08/nyregion/columbia-university-sexual-harassment-three-decades.html
Seems like Columbia's administrators, and dept. member(s), did damn-all for these women. Shame, shame.
@ 3:17 — hear, hear!
Over the past year Eidolon has published a number of first-person accounts written by precollege teachers. They offer a wide range of perspectives. The upcoming SCS in Boston has a panel called "Teaching, Living, and Learning: Classical Studies in Secondary Schools" with teachers from private and public schools.
"6 years on the market (5 post Ph.D.). I went to a top 3-ranked institution, and have numerous publications, talks and fellowships, a strong employment record, and this year won a prestigious university press contract plus a major grant. And yet I have no TT- interviews (usually I get between 1-5). It's difficult not to regret my decision not to have pursued other options throughout my 20's and 30's although I'm grateful I did not put my personal life on hold as I've seen others do in pursuit of this field. I am quitting. It feels liberating to take myself out of this punishing cycle. I know I can get an alt-ac job as many of my friends have already done. Famae has been a source of support so thanks and good luck to you all.
December 8, 2017 at 10:09 AM"
If you don't mind me asking—are you a white male?
Not 10:09, but curious why someone thinks the OP is a white male?
I think what 5:53 is suggesting is that SCs may be deliberately selecting women and minorities in the name of diversity, while passing up qualified candidates simply because their race and gender is deemed undesirable.
10:09am here.
I’m not a white male, but a white woman. FYI - I didn’t mean what I said to be taken as a pity-me-post, but more like a peace-out-I’m-done/closure post. I think with the TT-odds, the market is just brutal, and believe I’ve seen biases help the careers of both men and women, each for different reasons.
Personally, I’m thinking if I can’t do what I love (classical archaeology), then I should do something high-paying in corporate/finance, but I would also be happy in government, academic administration, or in a likely less-well compensated non-curatorial position at a museum. For example, in the corporate world, where I have no experience, it’s hard to know specific positions where a humanities Ph.D. could fit and apply, and before I jump in, I’d also like to know if I could stomach the culture change. I third 3:17’s call to have a practical section of FV devoted to alt-ac where substantive questions about transitioning (not just about the problem) are addressed. Versatile Ph.D. and the Paideia Institute are great resources, but having access to Classics Ph.D’s in the real world would be huge.
Is it particularly bad to hold the first-round interview via Skype and not opt for the SCS/AIA option??
It’s for a VAP position, if that matters. I ask because I am very financially strapped and to have to find a trip across the country for a first round interview for a VAP slot seems like it may be unnecessary. They offered both options and even stated in email that if I select to interview at Boston, they likely will need to hold another interview via Skype anyway so that SC members not in Boston can participate.
...does choosing Skype hurt my odds?
@2:46
Skype interviews do not necessarily hurt you; my most successful interviews (i.e. that led to campus visits) were all conducted by Skype. Often I am more at ease in a familiar space like my office than I am in a hotel room, with the department faculty all crammed into a couch or perched on the edge of a bed. In this case it sounds like the SC itself isn't even committed to a conference interview, so I think you can opt for Skype with impunity.
Just want to say hi to 10:09 and wish her the best. Congratulations on all that you have achieved. I hope the experience of grad school and working in the field these last 10+ years has taken you to places (intellectually, geographically, etc) that you are happy to have gone.
I also think it would be lovely to have a another section devoted to alt-ac, alt-career and so on.
FWIW, also a multi-year market veteran, blessed with the chance at 1 interview and not hopeful for any others.
To those who have taught high school Latin: do you feel like you get students who are passionate about actually learning Latin and reading ancient texts?
At this point, five years out from the PhD, I have an excessively remunerative but soulless corporate career. I don't miss research at all, but I do desperately miss reading Latin and Greek with other people (as opposed to by myself on the train and at lunch). I would definitely jump at the chance to make 1/3 the pay teaching high school Latin if I thought I could actually get students engaged and excited, but that seems like a big if in my mind.
@4:41, any tips on how to get an "excessively remunerative but soulless corporate career"?
@4:49 Web development, if you happen to be in an area with a big tech scene. If you can give the faintest illusion of knowing what the fuck you're doing in interviews you can get a high paying job. At which point you're going to be spending a lot of time actually learning what the fuck you're doing. Of course one never knows if those jobs will still be there in a few years, the culture's pretty horrible, and you need to be able to pass as relatively young. Shit's also pretty toxic on average for people who aren't white males. I pretty much make good money, support my family, and wait desperately for death.
To 4:49 PM. Geography is key. You'll want to be somewhere where the jobs are (=major metropolitan areas for the most part). That said, non-academic work allows for MUCH more geographic freedom than an academic career.
I agree with 5:22. If you want a nonacademic job in a particular city and you don't live there, move.
How many of you are pretty much pissed off with academia for geographic issues? Like, you'd put up with (insert shitty non-permanent situation) for practically ever if only you could just live in a city with your family/significant others/friends/a place that you would otherwise choose to live in? 2017 Ph.D. and current VAP here feeling that way.
Would someone who scored an interview for the Kansas job be willing to share the interview questions on here? (According to the wiki, Kansas provided interview questions ahead of time and there're 17 people being interviewed, so I assume they're not exactly secret?) Every search committee will handle things differently, of course, but it'd be really helpful to know how at least one search committee is structuring their interviews, especially for those of us who have never had a conference interview before (myself included).
I’m slowly waiting for a painful day when Holy Cross, Colgate, and North Alabama can all ask other candidates for interviews other than me. At that point, I’ll have no more T-T jobs to hold out for. Apparently, Carleton notifies a few days ago and I didn’t see it on the wiki until tonight.
Maybe they can all email me at once and tell me to go fuck my self in harmony.
...my advisor told me, for what it’s worth, that the early 2000s were unreal for Ancient History; there were 40+ T-T jobs then he said. His students (if you can believe this!!) had to actaully TURN DOWN some interviews simply because they didn’t have time for them. Crazy.
Re: high schools, are there private high schools out there that have Latin programs but aren't religious? How does one find such jobs?
Re: 10:22: The American Classical League posts high school teaching jobs. Most will be posted in the Spring. Not all are religious schools.
https://www.aclclassics.org/jobs
Yes, there are absolutely private Latin teaching jobs at the 7-12 grade level that are not religious. ACL is public school-heavy, but jobs do advertise there. Your best bet is a recruiter, or the NAIS website (National Association of Independent Schools).
Adding to the above comment, if you are really interested in private school teaching, look for sub work. Email the teachers at schools in your area, and tell them that you are available. This is a way to see if you like this kind of work and to demonstrate a real interest to future employers.
Servius here: We've discussed the requests for a space dedicated to career discussions beyond the 'traditional' job market and to transitioning to these positions. We would be happy to make such a space.
The most straightforward way to do this would be to dedicate one of the posts on the main page of FV to this purpose. "What's good is bad, what's bad is good" (which has not been used at all this year, and which has never been popular) is the logical choice.
We'll get the new post set up there in the next day or two, and will post when it is ready for use. Let us know if you have other ideas about ways to make the space more productive.
Servius, your 8:17 post is good news. May I suggest, if there is interest in getting some traffic, maybe with names attached, from people who are maybe alt-ac, or at least not normally viewing this board (not on the market, not on a SC), maybe some outreach would be good. How about messaging those who have been on SCS panels about alternative careers. Or maybe talking to the ACL people, or prep school people.
WTF, Iowa? A "procedural error"? It's not like you were trading for AJ McCarron!
Quick question re job interview scheduling and Erik Shell's email about the interview calendar—schools will still email you to interview if you have yet to fill that out, correct? That's simply to ensure that candidates whom schools do select for interviews can be scheduled for the SCS/AIA meeting?
Suppose I'm just trying to rationalize all the interviews I don't have, and perhaps try to save myself time by not bothering to fill it out if nothing's coming my way anyways.
Schools will 99.9% of the time always email you about an interview. In the case when they don’t, and they just happen to schedule an interview for you with SCS and you’re not set up with them or you never paid to have the honor of being a member of the SCS (*read with sarcasm), Eric Shell will email you and inform you so that the interview can be coordinated.
I did not receive e-mails from the schools for any of my scheduled interviews this year; they were all scheduled through the Placement Service without any communication between me and the SC. I do know that if you aren't registered with the SCS Placement Service, the Placement Service/Erik* will contact you, say you've been requested for an interview but you need to create an account so they can schedule it officially. So if you don't have an account yet, it's OK, you'll find out if you need to make one.
@11:29,
What schools are you Interviewing with? Very curious what schools bypass direct email.
A note from someone on an SC: the SCS this year is directing us not to contact interviewees directly. This seems weird to me, but it may be that many SCs are complying.
I have interviews with a few big state schools and they all notified me directly. I have a close friend who is more on the philology side who has had several departments just pop interviews on her SCS calendar. Not my information to divulge, but they mostly seem to be SLACs.
If many schools aren’t directly contacting candidates, is there a reason then why the Wiki only stares “email for interview” and none state “notified via SCS scheduler” ?
This is disconcerting. Moreover, how can I be sure I am reading my calendar correctly? Will it be very evident if a school scheduled me for an interview or do I have to click something on the calendar itself or around it to find out?
It's very simple and there is no need to worry you'll miss any information. You'll get an automated email from the SCS if you have an interview, along with the schedule details; it will appear clearly on your online calendar too in a different colour.
Like most people, my SCS calendar is empty. Not because of technical problems, but because I didn't get any interviews.
Re: 11:22am, that's so strange. I don't see the upside at all of not sending an email. It also makes it more difficult to reschedule should some conflict come up. This seems like a perfect example of the SCS doing more harm than good.
@11:29pm here. I think the issue about SCs not contacting applicants directly is less about type of university (public, SLAC, private, etc.) but about what @11:22am said. I guess maybe the SCS is trying to cut down on the number of applicants who contact them asking when interviews will be scheduled, if applicants are informed of interviews only through the SCS after they're scheduled?
@2:14: because the convenience of the SCS is more important than current and accurate knowledge for SC and candidates? this seems nuts.
Time to end the conference interview once and for all. What was once a reform to replace the old-boys network has now become profoundly oppressive and inegalitarian in its own right, forcing candidates to pay thousands of dollars for the privilege of being interviewed in person. Its unclear what this adds, other than culling 15 superbly qualified applicants down to four, only one of whom will get the job in this game of academic roulette.
Secondly, the interview process frankly ruins the SCS. Rather than being about seeing friends and intellectual exchange, it now an pathetic circus of candidates in ill-fitting suits, many of us cattle-call interviewing into middle age.
So end the interview. Either do all first round interviews on Skype, or perhaps even go straight to campus interviews, as at least one search did this year. But save everyone the misery of in person interviews.
are the counters on the classics wiki page from this year or last year? Is it true that someone from this year already has 9 interviews scheduled?!
@ 3:10 Which department went straight to campus interviews?
@3:10, Hear, hear!
@3:39, I believe it was Albany.
I heard that UPENN has made an initial offer to their first choice candidate, but not from anyone there or necessarily in the know. Can anyone confirm or negate this rumor?
Feeling so unbelievably discouraged. Ancient historian here, PhD from a top-10 program; numerous publications; 15+ competitive grants, fellowships, and awards; received university-wide outstanding teacher award two years in a row; involved in major DH projects with Oxford; have years of teaching experience; phenomenal student evaluations; currently a VAP at another top-10 university....
and.... with Colgate not emailing me that’s just one more in a long string of T-T ancient history jobs and no interview invite. SUNY-Albany, Clemson, Carleton, U Oregon, and now Colgate. I didn’t brother putting in for the Chicago or Princeton jobs (a waste of time for 99.9% of us), hoping to keep my expectations reasonable.
I honestly don’t understand how I couldn’t be asked to be one of 12-15 first-rounders at all of these schools. I mean, what could possibly explain ZERO turnout? I know that the market is tough and that I shouldn’t expect anything landing a job within a year of PhD in hand, but to not even be in the top dozen at ANY program thus far... sigh
...all that I have left is Holy Cross & North Alabama.
I’m not bitter, but just honestly confused and discouraged. ...Congrats to all of you who have had a good year thus far.
@4:55, I was in a similar boat last year. I had one phone interview when I was ABD (for a job I wouldn't have even wanted had it been offered...it was that bad), and not a single interview during my prestigious post-doc following receiving the PhD, despite a track record similar to your own. I had to move on - good luck to you.
@ 4:55, I have similar credentials and also zero interview requests so far this year. Each of the last two years I landed interviews for about 1/3 of the positions I applied for, but those interviews were all for VAPs. I knew not to get my hopes up about the T-T market but I thought that that kind of success rate with VAPs would translate to at least ONE T-T interview, especially given how much I have accomplished in the last year. Nope.
@4:55, 5:22 and 5:24 I'm with you. This is my fifth year on the market (four post-PhD) and despite my best efforts to improve my credentials while VAP-ing, this is my worst year yet. I understand all the reasons SCs may not want to interview me (or simply prefer other candidates), but it remains a mystery to me how I can do everything "right" and come up completely empty-handed. I will be moving on after this year. If anything, seeing you all write here has made this less alienating.
I think the moral of the story is: nothing is sufficient. Publications, teaching, grants. Nothing matters in a world awash with PhDs. The people leaving the field in despair are in many instances better than the people getting the best jobs in the 1990s.
So its not you, or any of us for that matter.
It's why the power players in PhD programs have been urging their students on the cusp of graduation to follow a strategic formula, knowing that landing a TT job straight out is near impossible. One option off the bat is to delay graduation depending on how the market for your speciality is shaping up. If there's a relatively prestigious post-doc that let's you focus on publishing, you take it. You jealously guard your dissertation and start lining up a publisher to use as your tenure book (or first of two tenure books). You generally keep away from VAPs, which will suck away your time needed for publishing, directly (or indirectly through your supporters) working the network, and polishing apps. You end up in a "slum cycle" that's nearly impossible to break away from (where I am).
It's like preparing for the NBA draft. Or perhaps the better analogy is track and field. In the old days, the job market was like running the 1500 metres. You could stumble here and there and still finish high enough to make it to the next round (that coveted interview). Now it's the 100 and the slightest stumble, often out of your control, and that's it. The "blemish" can be something as unfair as having no supporters who are willing to advocate on your behalf to friends on SCs. The jockeying I have recently witnessed behind the scenes during two searches is unreal, nothing like years past.
In the end, we do what we can and try to live with it. Good luck to us all...my last year as well...no way to go back in time...
4:55 here again.
Thanks, all for the words of support and commiseration. I have a VAP interview lined up, but with absolutely no positive response from T-T jobs it tends to blow one’s confidence. ...I’ve been thinking more and more about moving on even with this being my first year with PhD in hand. I’ve known many profs who spent 8-12 years floating around the U.S. from one VAP to the next, putting their life on hold all the while and spending their 30s and early 40s living just a notch above grad students, financially speaking, and without the same level of cock-eyed optimism as them.
@8:00, I was told that was what I would have to do, spend years living in the middle of nowhere to work one's way up to a (possible) higher position, away from family and friends, void of most opportunity for a life, all the meanwhile trying to pay for the degrees that ruined my financial future on a barely livable income.
It's easy to do this for years on end: you think, just one more year, just two more years, moving across states and even countries. Endless boxes and different tax forms and changes of address. Then you wake up and you're still applying for jobs, still in debt, still without a family. No, thanks.
Well said, 8:29
Old guy, here, who has been on search committees, but not this year. I'm surprised to hear the hostility towards conference interviews, which from my view is a chance for us to give to take a closer look at some who would not make it to campus without it.
But I have a question for those who have been applying. The covering letters of at least half of applicants report that they'll be at the conference. Is this actually so? Or is there some pressure to say you're coming regardless, and then make the trip only if interviewed?
Or, to put it another way, is filling that 12th spot with a long-shot more of a cruelty, since it imposes an investment that has little chance of success?
Thanks for the other side's perspective. Yes, I think putting a long-shot person in the 12th spot is really kind of a cruelty. If only there were a way for us to communicate more openly, i.e. a box we could check (or not) that indicated we were interested in doing interviews that were unlikely to go anywhere, just for the practice. Alas, there's not, and the same financial burden is borne by the person in the 12th slot as the 1st.
I would only come to the conference for an interview. I didn't mention that I would be there in my letter.
Is that really necessary?
It really depends on the 12th person / longshot's institution and financial situation.
If they come from a wealthy department/university it's possible that the interview offer will itself allow the person to secure financial reimbursement for the conference, allowing them to attend, meet new people, see old friends.
However, if they come from a program that isn't rolling in the dough, it can be devastating to spend that much money out of pocket for a job that likely won't materialize.
Skype is far more equitable, I think.
I agree with the two above, somewhat. I think there is pressure to say that you'll be attending the conference, even if it's you'll only attend if you get an interview. It is, I guess, kind of rude to fill a spot with someone if you literally don't think there's a chance you'll ever hire them, but at the same time, sometimes longshots can really impress you in interviews, can't they? So if someone is at a disadvantage but then is actually really impressive in person, there's no way for you to know - or them even to have a chance to show that - unless they get an interview. It's a tricky ethical situation if everyone says they'll attend regardless, because you don't know if they're telling the truth about that. I guess you could, as a first step, see if they're on the program? But that's not really a fair barometer to use.
The times are changing. It would cost me over $1,000 to attend the conference and I'd have to take personal days off from work. Because these days, not all of us have a department to support us, flights and the hotel are always expensive, and that's about half a paycheck. For a maybe interview.
I suppose my question is, what crucial information can you get about a candidate from a conference interview that you can't get through Skype? How firm their handshake is? How well their suit fits? (Not sure why one commenter above seems so concerned with that given that most older scholars in our field don't seem to care much about their own appearance.) Is physical demeanor really such an important component of the job? If the answer is that you "just get a better feel for someone" by being in the same room as them, are you sure you're not being swayed by unconscious biases and falling for sleek outer trappings over actual substance?
Having been interviewed both by Skype and at a conference, I prefer the Skype option despite the occasional technical difficulties. It feels like more of a level playing field, especially for those of us who don't have a commanding physical presence or tailored suits.
If physical demeanor is such an important component of the job, perhaps SCs should do what every other company/business does: invite their top candidates for an on-campus interview, all expenses paid.
Insisting on interviews at the meetings simply shifts the financial burden of interviewing onto to those vying for the job - or rather, makes the playing field advantageous to those who have the money and time to travel and buy fancy suits. It's absurd when you think about it, really.
You should not have to pay to find a job.
Dear Old Guy @ 9:19
Do not underestimate how tough it is out there for junior scholars. Most adjuncts do not get conference funding, and no graduate program is rolling in dough. Conference costs run 1000-1500, especially for those flying across the country.
Is it really equitable to charge someone 1000 dollars to have a 1/12 chance of getting a job?
I fear that even well meaning SCs, like Old Guy, operate under 1990s assumptions, which results in the infliction of a great deal of casual cruelty upon job applicants. As a rule, I would say:
1) Limit the amount of materials requested to the absolute minimum: CV, cover letter, writing sample.
2) Don't ask for recommendations until after an initial cull (Professor is In had a cogent discussion of this).
3) Do 1st round interviews on Skype or phone.
4) Consider a smaller pool. Everyone wants a shot, but an interview also is a big time commitment, for most people wasted. Consider interview 8 instead of 15. Same goes with campus visits. We all want to get on campus, but it is also a big commitment, with days away from teaching and family. Don't do five campus visits (some programs do!). Even with four, chances are there is a candidate who already is not likely to get the job.
5) Do not expect 1st round interviewees to know everything about your program. This is still speed dating, not marriage talks.
6)Pay for campus visit expenses directly, especially big items like flights and hotels. Do not make candidates, who are broke, effectively lend the department money on the promise of later reimbursement.
7) Email rejections, even for campus visits. There is nothing worse than having your dreams crushed on the phone, and still having to be polite and say a pleasant goodbye to the chair you rejected you. A gracious rejection email is best, which can be digested at leisure.
8) Remember, there but the grace of god would go you. If you are lucky enough to be an SC, with a TT job, things have worked out well for you. But be aware of the professional despair of current job seekers. Which goes back to my original point: never underestimate what pressures they are under, and think of every way, even small, that you can make your end of the process less grueling.
I just got the denial email from Hamilton. I love being told that they have "quite specific programmatic needs at this particular time" for a generalist position.
I know you have to write something in these emails, but it almost sounds passive aggressive about my credentials.
@12:17, spot on. Thank you.
In all honesty, there ought to be a some organization formed comprised of non-TT academics. We should all boycott the SCS/AIA annual meeting and demand changes like those proposed by 12:17.
So long as we all just sit here and complain yet continue to support the status quo, it will only continue.
I think many of us refused to apply to the extremely exploitative 5-5 job at FSU, so we can do something larger, right?
An organization? Or like, a union?
This venue can, at least, alert well-meaning folks like Old Guy to what some of the hurdles facing those on the job market today are. If you think an interviewee has less than a 10% chance of getting a job (say, numbers 11 and 12 on that interview list), do them the kindness of not wasting their time, money, and emotional energy.
As someone who is serving on an SC for the first time and having recently been through the grinder myself, I also think that the SCS interviews are nothing but an unholy mess of unconscious and not-so-unconscious biases dressed up to look like a professional ritual. I'll be doing my best not to pull that on you myself, kids....
I agree the AIA/SCS meeting interview situation isn't ideal and Skype interviews are a better option overall. However, interviewing fewer people isn't necessarily to our benefit. The more opportunities we have the better experience we gain of the process - everyone makes a hash of one or more interviews (if you're lucky to get more than one to begin). Also, having come from England and held positions there I feel the system here is fairer - in that it allows more people to be given a chance. SCs in the UK generally narrow the field to three or four people for campus interviews straight away; often the interviews and presentations are less than an hour in total and the committee makes their decision based on that alone.
This is all related to the mass overproduction of PhDs. If SCs can't narrow the playing field down to 4-5 candidates, max, from the get-go, there are too many people that are eligible for the job. Since many positions have specific needs to fulfill, it is even more absurd that this can't be done.
Skype your short list first (it's free for everyone), then do invites for 4-5 candidates, max, and pay all of their expenses.
@1:52 just adding that in no other field does a committee feel it necessary to interview 10-12 initial people at the candidate's expense.
These are all serious concerns and should be addressed within the SCS and the AIA as organizations. If there was, like, a statement of appropriate behavior/procedures for search committees to take, a set of guidelines for best practice when conducting a search, I think that'd go a long way. Someone could talk to some of the different SCS committees about how to organize workshops or whatever to prepare such a document. Maybe talk to the Classics and Social Justice group, or even the folks at Eidolon, groups that're sensitive to more modern issues, about how to organize better as a community to make things more equitable and fair for everyone. (I just offered those as suggestions, no need to weigh in on the value/whatever of Eidolon, it's beside the point.) Someone not-anonymous just needs to take some initiative on this. You could create an email address if you want to stay anonymous for now, ask people to email you on it, and create a little coalition and go from there.
As others have noted, there are too many graduate programs. Too many professors talking about power dynamics while making sure they've got enough graduate students to teach their classes for them. A scandal.
@3:37 from 12/12, it would seem that not only does someone have 9 interviews, but it's now up to 10.
Anyone know what's happening at McMaster? Have they actually done interview requests? Wiki only lists rejection emails.
@ 4:33, odds are McMaster is only seriously looking at Canadian candidates, many of whom don't use the wiki. Canadian immigration law makes it hard to bring in non-Canadians for academic positions.
“Though your credentials impressed the hiring committee, those of other applicants more closely fit our needs at this time.”
...ah, shucks, Carleton College; I bet you say that to all the girls.
Re: 12:17, I disagree that emailing rejections is better than calling. I mean sure you're likely to be disappointed if you don't get the job, but campus visits are a major investment of time of the faculty as well - if you haven't been on an SC you may not appreciate that adequately. If you spend 2-3 days showing someone around, chatting with someone and taking them out to meals, it seems appropriate both to call them and for them to be professional enough to manage their emotions on the phone. After all, as you argue (!), there are a lot of excellent candidates and it would be in the arrogant in the extreme to think that you're just clearly more deserving than any of the other finalists.
At what point is it safe to contact a SC?
I had an interview via Skype back in early November. They say they’d contact all candidates in 3 weeks. It’s been 6-7 weeks now.
Someone SAYS they have 10 interviews. That seems nuts. Or, perhaps one person applied under ten different names to all the ancient history jobs, and that's why none of us got interviews for any of them...
Every year at least one person gets a bushel of interviews -- this is not a surprise.
Personally, I hate Skype interviews because I find them more difficult than normal interactions with "real" people, and sincerely hope that there will always be a place for in-person interviews. I understand, of course, why some people want Skype, but a full shift to that would come at the expense of those of us who are more comfortable in a normal setting, not staring at a camera.
And if ever I am on a search committee I will push as hard as I can for in-person interviews. So the rest of you had better all find jobs before I find one!
(I will add that the one thing I like about Skype interviews is that I can put post-it notes with reminders of names, things to say, etc. right next to the camera and the committee can't tell. Which is an even BETTER reason why Skype interviews should not be conducted, since I cannot be the only one who has figured this out.)
@5:28,
...remember, though, that they can still see your eyes and if your constantly darting around and sound like you’re reading a script, that’s a big issue. Most SCs will have a nice conference room where your image is on a massive 80” flatscreen. That’s at least how we do it here at my school.
...you can definitely have notes, etc. with you during interviews, to refer to questions you have, aspects of your application you want to highlight, etc. It's not cheating to have notes and it's also not cheating to take notes during the interview, for things you want to remember afterwards.
@6:20
5:28 here. Thanks. That did occur to me, so I believe I am able to hide what I am up to. And anyway, I only consult notes if I cannot remember something crucial, and then just need a one-word reminder -- it's not like I am reading from a script. Doing this is especially useful when describing how I would teach a course, since it is easy to forget a given unit or author under the pressure of the interview.
@6:30
I cannot imagine consulting notes during an interview. How can that not look awful, if you are asked, say, which text you would use for some author and you have to check your notes?
@6:30 I don't know, I guess I just don't see what the problem is to have notes. Not for everything, definitely not for things that you should readily be able to talk about, like your research, but for things like specific questions you have for the department (as I said), etc. There are all sorts of other types of aids you can bring, as well. You can have, for example, sample syllabi so if they ask you which texts you'd use for a class, you can refer to it and refer the search committee to it. Memory aids are not a bad thing and they are, in fact, almost necessary for some people (I'm talking specifically about people with a range of mental, intellectual, or emotional disabilities). Y'ain't gotta be empty-handed and, in fact, preparation in the form of sample syllabi can go a long way in making you seem serious, prepared, and capable.
@12:39. Did you read the Hamilton job ad? The generalist listing was clearly not accurate, but was used because the position wasn’t able to be split between the traditional lit/arch/hits category or between Greek/Roman—they listed specific programs they wanted candidates to be able to teach crosslists in and very specific topics. They also clearly wanted someone ready to almost immediate tenuring or already tenured.
Hamilton, I'm guessing, will hire the VAP who has been there for 5ish years. And I'm fine with that. We should get rid of interviews anyway, and just 'match' the way residency programs match with M.D.'s. I want to be at an R1, because my research material is kinda obscure, at times, but I'd take a 4/4 at a small college to be within an hour or two of my elderly, near-disabled parents. And some people (like me) will never move to Florida for a job. Plus, then the backchanneling would just be formalized and out in the open (since program would have to communicate and negotiate over candidates). But it doesn't matter. I hope the people who get jobs can do the field proud, keep it stable, maybe even grow it a little bit. I'd be sad to see it disappear.
Re representation of contingent faculty: perhaps someone would care to research what other ACLS organizations are doing on behalf of their contingent faculty and present that to the SCS directors. Our parent organization is woefully behind times on this issue. History and MLA, to pick just two, have been much more on top of things. The AHA has an entire committee tracking this issue. MLA does as well, and offers travel funding not just for grad students but also for contingents. If the SCS's answer is chronically going to be "we're too small to do anything like that," then it needs to be prepared for some of the radical changes that are being proposed here.
And no, the answer isn't "talk to Eidolon". This is a corporate management issue, within the SCS, and they should address it as a matter of urgency and decency.
Unionize? If every contingent faculty member participated in a coordinated walkout...
@4:33 (and others). Acting Chair at McMaster, here. I'm sorry to have made you wait so long, but the process took us longer than we had expected. Our final meeting was this afternoon. All applicants should have now received news, including those we hope to see in Boston. Best regards, Claude.
...did anyone actually hear from McMaster as the above post suggests we should have? I for one have not received any news whether for good or ill, and I see no updates on the wiki either.
Every once in a while I just don't get any response from a job app, and I always wonder if it has somehow just fallen through the cracks....
@11:45. Eilers of McMaster here again. (And I signed into my google account so that you can be sure that this isn't a prank.) Can you check your spam folder? If there's nothing there, just email me at eilersc (AT) mcmaster (DOT) ca and I'll double check.
Has anyone heard from BYU? They aren't on the Wiki, so no news from there.
Btw, props to McMaster for being so communicative and for a very kind rejection email.
A question to other PhDs who have been on the market for 3+ years. Do you fear that as the years go by and with the continued failure on the job market, your patrons and letter writers will begin to lose hope in you move on from supporting you? I sometimes get this feeling and it gets me down.
@6:47, oh, completely. It's even worse when you go do something else with the hope that something academic will come through - you feel completely isolated and out of touch.
@6:47 and 6:55. Eilers here again. I've seen nothing of that in the c. 300 I've read over the last month. Quite the opposite.
Eilers, you seem like a mensch. Thank you for your forthrightness. You deserve a "cheers" in all caps on the Wiki.
@2:55. Those who know me call me many names. To my knowledge, 'mensch' does not often figure.
@4:44 From what I understand, BYU has been in touch with Willard Romney, Jeffrey Flake, and Evan McMullin, but the rest of us heathen may as well go pound sand.
the term is 'Gentiles'
What's the verdict on what happens if one of three letters of reference isn't submitted on time? Disqualified or just an annoyance?
On letters of reference: In some searches, there are institutional or legal guidelines that prevent committee members from reading applications that are not 'complete' (I don't know how widespread this is but it was the case at the state institution where I used to teach). Where committee members are allowed to read incomplete applications, I think that many of us know candidates can't control their letter-writers and will still consider the whole application. But institutional constraints will limit what many of us can do.
@12:37,
I’ve never heard of any of those three, so I assume that they’re fresh PhDs liekbthw reat of of us; as such, one probably shouldn’t list names of folks who are under review by a SC.
@ 5:33, those are the names of famous Mormons who are almost certainly not applying for an assistant professorship at BYU. Pretty sure Mitt doesn't need the money.
What is this BYU job? I can't seem to find it either on the wiki or on the BYU webpage.
Two BYU jobs (Generalist/Early Christianity) were posted on the SCS Placement Service.
Has anyone ever tried going to their SCS interview without registering for the meeting?
Do others have a sense of how classicists/ancient historians fare in competitions for general humanities/social sciences post-docs? Would you say on the whole that prestigious post-docs are more or less competitive than classics TT jobs?
put another way -- if I got no interviews for TT jobs in classics this year, what are the odds I might get some good news in the spring about post-doc applications?
It's all about connections, dude(tte). Postdoc positons aren't immune to the free for all. Unless programs taper off admits or a bunch more positions appear, it will only get worse as the crest of the echo boomer grads enter the market but boomer positions aren't replaced. There is nothing that points to a systemic change in the way classics is structured so I'm afraid we are the generation without a chair when the music stops...
@5:52. One thing to keep in mind is that the competition for those postdocs is thinning as TT positions get filled in Classics and other fields. Those who beat you out of TT jobs won't be there to beat you out of postdocs.
"Would you say on the whole that prestigious post-docs are more or less competitive than classics TT jobs?"
Well, I had a prestigious post-doc, funded by a major philanthropic organization, and not a single VAP or TT interview before or after. So go figure.
Re: postdocs. Yes, statistically speaking, your odds of getting a postdoc in the humanities are probably not better than your odds of getting a job. I have kept a personal tally of applicants vs. awardees for humanities postdocs I have applied to (they often tell you this in the rejection letter), and from my personal experience the odds of getting any particular postdoc are in the range of ~1%. Take this with a grain of salt, it is just based on the information I have gathered from my own (hefty) stack of rejection letters. Some open-call postdocs get thousands of applicants. But it is a different kind of competition, and as @7:58 pointed out, getting or not getting job interviews does not necessarily predict the outcome of the postdoc market--you can get lucky with one and not the other, or vice versa. Postdoc committees will be looking primarily at your research profile, and how it fits with the other potential awardees (you have no control over this, I'm afraid). If you are open to working in Europe there are more postdoctoral positions there, and you have a much better chance if you can find a project focused on your specific research area. Even better if you can forge a connection with a researcher you want to work with. The Liverpool Classicists email list is a good place to look for UK/EU postdoctoral positions as they are often advertised there, especially projects open to English-speakers, and you can also find a lot of funding opportunities in Germany on the DAAD website. Also note that unlike the American market, where there are predictable job market "seasons" (like T-T jobs being posted in the Fall and VAPs, mostly, being posted in the Spring) you will find calls for European postdocs throughout the year, the start dates can be quite varied, and sometimes on a tighter timeframe than Americans may be used to. Good luck!
It depends on the Post doc. The most prestigious post-docs are almost impossible to get (here I refer to Harvard Society of Fellows, Princeton Society, Stanford Mellon etc.). These positions easily receive over 1000 applications, and the final decision is often made on the basis of how well your work corresponds to the faculty in the society. Nor is there a guarantee that any classicist will be selected in any year; you are not just competing against every other classicist, but also against every physicist, historian, philosopher, etc.
I actually no longer apply for these positions. Unless you have an obvious connection, it is almost not worth applying.Furthermore, post docs seek to suppress admissions by having complex and time consuming applications, that force you to reformat that standard set of materials. For example, Stanford requires a 1 page cover letter (two is standard) and a three page teaching statement (one is standard). The whole point is that you have to reformat what you have rework what you have, and decide if the 2-3 hours doing so is worth a 1/1000 chance. And don't get me started with the bullshit themed Mellons, where you have to argue that your deeply thought project aligns with the asinine one-word themes like "Skin" or "Light." I don't even bother with this shameful exercise. On principle I also do not apply for the Michigan Society of Fellows, which charges a $30 admissions fee, which while small is an abomination in this age of desperation.
5:52 here: Thank you for the helpful responses (especially to the poster who mentioned the Liverpool listserv!). As an American classicist, should I forget about JRFs altogether unless I have a close connection with an Oxbridge professor?
Is anyone else waiting on the placement service to schedule an interview? Not sure if they're still working on it or if there's a problem.
@11:12,
If you haven’t heard anything by now you’re likely not on a school’s list. Don’t worry, many of us here have had zero luck this year.
@5:52, my impression is that it is unlikely to get a JRF unless you have some connection to Oxbridge (whether to a specific faculty member, or from having studied there, etc.). On the other hand, the applications are very basic (normally just a short research statement) so if you have that ready to go then it doesn't hurt to throw your name in the hat. Personally, I no longer bother with JRFs for the most part, unless they are specifically looking for a Classicist, or it is for a specific project relevant to my research area (this does happen every once in a while). However, if you are interested in working in the UK, check out this recent announcement for a British Academy visiting fellowship open to all nationalities (sounds like this might be a one-time deal this year). This can be used for research at any UK university so could be a good way to connect with someone you want to work with there: https://www.britac.ac.uk/visiting-fellowships
Government of Ireland Postdoctoral Fellowships are also open to all nationalities, with the support of a faculty member in Ireland. It is quite common for postdocs in Europe to require the support of a faculty member, often with the host institution paying a portion of the fellowship costs, and because of this system, it is very normal to simply write to someone you want to work with, tell them a bit about your research and why you would be interested in working with them and/or their team, and ask if they would be willing to sponsor you for such-and-such a fellowship. They may or may not accept, but at the very least they will know who you are, and this whole system is about making connections. Again for Germany the most centralized database is DAAD, for other countries you have to either hunt around on their university websites or wait for calls. And if you find research projects that you like, that don't have active calls, write to them anyway and ask if they will be looking for postdocs in the future--this alerts them to the fact that you are interested in their project.
@1:33
Well, considering how Yale handled their TT hire last year, and now the reveal of the Archaia postdoc, I'm glad I decided not to bother with them anymore. Lost cause of inbreeding.
I notice that their Liberal Arts position, or whatever it was exactly, the failed search, was not re-advertised this year.
@10:07
The candidate's adviser was also on the hiring committee which didn't hurt.
will there be another archaia fellowship offered for next year?
@11:33, I had a search committee invite me, but the interview hasn't been scheduled yet. Wondering if Erik's still working on it or if there's been a glitch.
@9:21, me too. I emailed Erik about it just in case there's a glitch.
SCS Insider here: Erik tells me that he is still coordinating availability and scheduling interviews, so be sure to check your calendars over the next few days.
Just had an interview over Skype which I totally bombed. Am I the only one?!
@11:40 nope, I felt the same about mine. I know it wasn't a complete catastrophe, but I could hear the stupid rambling coming out of my mouth. I looked desperate and nervous and flustered and I flubbed a question I had prepared in advance.
Silver lining: The last time I thought I bombed an interview, I was invited to campus. You never know. The last time I felt great about an interview, I didn't even make the short list. (Still trying to figure that one out - it was a strange kind of postdoc, for which I'm sure they didn't have many applicants.)
I bombed my first couple. What helped was having a couple friends run mock interviews so I could get accustomed to the Skype medium (the rest of it didn't much resemble a proper interview). I also stopped overthinking and focused on the basics, just having a nice conversation. I loaded up on notes at first but it just make me overthink and fumble around.
@11:40, my best and worst Skype interviews resulted in my only two campus visits to date. How you feel an interview went doesn't tend to predict anything.
11:40 here. Well, I'm glad to hear I'm not the only one who messes these things up. I felt very embarrassed by my performance and almost like a letdown to the committee who had given me the chance to meet them. I felt so weak, overwhelmed and exhausted at the end of the short interview that i needed to lay down for about an hour!
Just to chime in with support: I suck at interviews, like you wouldn't believe. I just get really nervous. This has no bearing on the rest of my life: I teach well, I give talks just fine, I have friends. But in interviews I really just clam up and would probably forget my own name if they inquired about it. So you're definitely not alone.
I think it is fair to say that interview performance is only a small factor in getting jobs. I've nailed interviews that went nowhere. I've nailed campus visits and still have no job. I would say the standard for the interview, and also the visit, is "good enough." Once you reach that standard, other factors will determine you success, like how you fit with the precise candidate that the SC wants to hire.
This is not to say that a cringeworthy interview won't cost an otherwise viable candidate. But a decent interview is about as good as a killer interview, in terms of results. Namely that no one is going to get a job, because there are not enough jobs out there.
PS: A note of generational anger. I hate it when TT faculty tell me "I really screwed up my job talk." It is a reminder of how easy it was to get a job in the 1990s.
anon 11:40 again. just saw this and now i feel so much better about my awful interview.
https://www.npr.org/2017/12/18/571750398/judicial-nominee-who-stumbled-in-hearing-withdraws
@2:22 pm, "how easy it was in the 90s": hahahahahahahaha that's rich.
Historical perspective: there were blips in the nineties that were almost as bad as what we have today, they just didn't last very long. Placement Service data doesn't go back into the nineties, but it does report that in 2000-2001 there were 2.19 candidates per position for 2000-1, and 2.45 in 1999-2000. "This number has steadily decreased from the all-time high of 4.55 in 1994-95." Last year, placement data suggests that there were 4.4 job seekers per job. Of course, while the older reports don't separate out contingent from non-contingent, it is safe to assume that the jobs advertised in the 90s were not 62% contingent, as they were last year.
12;57 a.m says: "Of course, while the older reports don't separate out contingent from non-contingent, it is safe to assume that the jobs advertised in the 90s were not 62% contingent, as they were last year."
Well, they may not have been 62% contingent. I don't have the figures. But in the early to mid-90s there were a LOT of contingent jobs, and I and all my cohort (from a good tier-2 program) bounced around in several temporary positions before either getting a t-t or giving up. None of us went straight into a t-t job, as I recall -- not one of us. Some of us held 4 or 5 contingent positions in a row.
Quite possibly things weren't as bad as they are now. But they were pretty damn grim, and a lot of very good people never found permanent jobs. And there was the infamous blackboard at the APA, so everyone saw us walking by looking for our number on the board, and registered our despair when the number wasn't there . . . Ah, the good old days of public humiliation.
"Well, they may not have been 62% contingent. I don't have the figures. But in the early to mid-90s there were a LOT of contingent jobs, and I and all my cohort (from a good tier-2 program) bounced around in several temporary positions before either getting a t-t or giving up. None of us went straight into a t-t job, as I recall -- not one of us. Some of us held 4 or 5 contingent positions in a row."
Behold, the voice of privilege.
Old reality: Tier-2. "Several" temporary positions before T-T.
New reality: maybe one more temporary positions. Probably no T-T.
And people looked at you publicly! Boo hoo! It hurts sooooo bad!
The tone of the above comment aside, yes, the statement at 1:08 does reveal generational privilege. Nobody is going to feel sorry for someone who had several temporary positions, this is not in any way shocking. The new normal is many, many years of temporary positions. Anybody from a tier-two place who thought it was even conceivable to step straight into a TT position today would be out of their mind.
Does anybody have any experience with the VAP/VRS-positions at ISAW? Any ideas about their timeline?
@4:47: No idea, but I would love that position very much! :) Looking at the profiles of previous and current awardees, it look like they like people who work on empire / economy with an archaeological focus?
@4:47, I applied for that last year. The rejection came in early March, if that's of help.
My understanding is that most ISAW activity occurs in late January and February. This is hearsay, of course; I've never gotten anything other than a rejection (and some years not even that).
Servius, can there be some moderating above (@1:33; @6:05)? In keeping with precedent, this should not be a forum for bashing individual junior scholars. Some of these comments are far too targeted and very inappropriate.
No one is bashing the junior scholar. That person has done nothing wrong; none of us begrudges them accepting the offer. The problem is the fake search, and the information above makes it clear just how fake it was. It would be more honest and efficient if the post-doc were just handed out to the favored person (or perhaps several favored people were invited to compete for it). But then the swamp would have to stop pretending to be meritocratic.
Anyone have any info on what's taking North Alabama so long?
I'm half convinced none of the UNA applications ever arrived. I never got a confirmation. My recommenders were never contacted. Anyone else?
I applied to UNA, but have heard nothing. It has all the hallmarks of a fake search, especially being only advertised on the Chronicle. I would not hold my breath.
Anyone have any info on the Penn State position?
@11.04 the wording of the ad was confusing so I called them before the deadline regarding the references. They told me they wanted letters emailed directly at the time of application in addition to the list supplied by the candidate, which could be why yours haven't been contacted? I'm hoping it's not a fake search, I actually want to move to Florence.
12.05 again: also, I did get a confirmation from UNA with a confirmation ID when I submitted.
I, too, have received confirmation from North Alamaba. I’m surprised so many people here applied to it; I figured this board was 99% Classics folks. I didn’t know so many History PhDs also lurk here. ...unless a good number of philologists applied (which I doubt since they’re not adequately trained as historians 9/10 **I mean no offense**).
So, for you Classics folks, don’t worry about their lack of contact. History Depts aren’t slaves to the SCS as are your home Depts. Many History Depts don’t bother with our annual conference (the AHA). As such, we tend not to abuse our applicants and force them to travel across the country to interview in a hotel room for a job that they stand a 1/12 chance (at best) of being offered. Most 1st round interviews are Skype.
Being so close to Christmas, I wouldn’t expect any contact until the first or second week of January.
Regarding North Alabama: I was just notified of a request to interview and updated the Wiki.
To chime in about the Academia.edu hits-on-your-page does or does not lead to an interview: several hits from Worcester, made me think HC was looking at me. They probably were. That didn't lead to an interview. It just means they were actually reading my application (so a shout out to them for not throwing me in the bin on first look!). But I really want to know is why someone in Monticello NY keeps looking at my page every week... (Seriously).
I’ve had 5 interview requests. Only once was Academia.edu an “early warning sign”
I think that since most SCs have 100-200 applicants and they request the documents that *they want to see* (some truly expect a full-blown portfolio of documents, which is burdensome) there often is very little need, desire, and time to ALSO scout one's online presence.
How long after a campus visit is an offer typically made? I'm not in this situation (yet? ever?) but do wonder about it with the timing of VAP applications and interviews, etc.
@3:59pm Care to share your secrets (I mean, five is a very good outcome so far!)? Are you ABD or not?
How did Yale handle the T-T position last year? I could trawl through last year’s venting blog, but am too busy trying to discover a route out of academe...
@4:08. Old guy here. At my big state univ., typically campus invitations will be decided early in January, and approved by a Dean within a few days, which means efforts to schedule should begin before (say) Jan. 15. Realistically, the campus visits won't actually begin until a week or two after that, and the visits will probably take two weeks, and maybe three to finish. So a departmental decision shouldn't be expected earlier than mid-February, but might not be communicated for a while after that, depending on who in the upper admin needs to sign off.
3:59 here,
Luck. Dumb luck.
Also, I make sure to really fine-tune my cover letter to the particular institution and department. Take a good deal of time to really understand how they structure their undergrad program. Make specific comments about what classes they currently offer that you’re qualified to teach (I often supply a list from their catalog of all such courses), as well as propose specific courses (intro, upper-level, and grad seminars if applicable) that you’d like to offer. Also, as much as you can, adopt that institution’s and/or Department’s specific language in phrasing such comments.
In short, make your letter really seem as if you’re *already* one of them, as opposed to your letter being a blank template wherein you replace all the “University of X” with “University of Y.”
...lastly, and this may seem an odd thing, don’t apply for too many jobs. Only those that you’re REALLY a shoe-in for. This helps you to be able to do a good amount of research in tailoring your letter to each institution. I think that if you tend to throw your name in all hats you’re setting yourself up for vast failure, even at schools who otherwise would offer an interview. ...For example, I’m a Roman historian (fresh PhD from a lower top-10) with a strong CV, BUT....BUT, I did not even bother applying for the Roman Historian positions at Chicago or Princeton. Why? They both already know who they’re going to hire. It’s nice that a good number of folks here got their ego stroked by being offered an interview, but they’re all dead in the water. Dead. ...their hires will be a vastly published and near-tenured scholar whose on year 8-10 out from PhD with a litany of super prestigious post-docs and VAP gigs and quite likely someone whose already Assistant Prof at a damn good school. ...So, I mention this to stress that it’s far more important to really spend time preparing for and familiarizing oneself with job openings that are both attainable AND truly fit your speciality.
There has been much talk, for instance, of Classics folks applying for History gigs. What is forgotten by elite classicists is that if you’re putting in for a “History” job in a “History Dept” and they are not a monstrous R1, you’re going to be expected to teach a variety of courses. So, honestly ask yourself before applying to a History Dept job: “Am I truly qualified to teach Western Civ 1? Or World Civ? What about Early Medieval History?” If you’re not qualified and have no teaching experience in these kinds of courses, you’re surely going to be passed up by a History PhD who can. It’s a buyer’s market right now, so a shiny PhD in philology from Harvard won’t get you a job as a historian in a History Dept, even if you are really good at convincing a SC and yourself that you truly are qualified to teach advanced courses on ancient history just because you can sight read Tacitus at lightning speed. Yes, Language is a MUST for a historian, but being a master of the language is not enough to teach History—can a PhD in French teach a course on Napoleon? Maybe, but should they? Can a PhD in Russian adequately lead a grad seminar on the root causes and developments of the Russian Revolution? I wouldn’t think so. ...so, just because one is a master of a language (and as such develops a great deal of cultural and societal understanding of the society who used that language) does not qualify them to teach a history of that society.
To be sure, some philology programs DO offer a decent amount of historical coverage, it really is a different emphasis. The top PhD programs in Ancient History won’t accept anyone who doesn’t have a graduate-level competency in Greek and Latin.
So... narrow your focus; don’t overextend yourself; closely tailor cover letters; and learn to say “no” to your first gut reaction to apply for jobs that you’re *really* not qualified for.
I hope that this helps somewhat. But, remember that simple dumb luck is also a MAJOR factor here for all of us.
Re 3:59/6:17's posts:
As someone who has been on many search committees (in and out of Classics), I heartily endorse 3:59's advice about tailoring your letters. That might be the most important thing you can do. Here at a SLAC, SCs immediately toss any file from someone whose cover letter talks about the grad. seminars s/he'd like to teach. We have no grad. students; mentioning your plans for grad. sems (or audtorium-style lecture classes to 250 students) in your letter or teaching statement tells us that you haven't thought about or looked into this particular job. We're looking for someone who can persuade us, from the outset, that s/he will be an asset to THIS dept., at THIS school. Talking about how you'd approach our college's required first-year course, for instance, gets our notice. So does talking about specific courses in our dept.
Frankly, with 200-plus appicants, when we read your cover letter we are not looking for reasons to interview you. We are looking for reasons to reject you. I know that sounds harsh, but it's true. We have to make the cut, somehow, from 200-plus to about 35, and then whittle those down to a list for conference interviews. In the first read-through, we're looking for reasons to exclude. Your cover letter is crucial. Tailor it. Make us believe you want to work HERE.
For those of you considering careers, there is this piece:
http://www.publicseminar.org/2017/12/to-a-revolutionary-degree/
Substantial tailoring makes sense. But keep in mind, everyone involved, that the more tailoring is expected, the more that the rich get richer. Those of us teaching 3+ courses a term on a one-year contract have much less time to tailor letters (and less freedom to focus our search on the best 'fits') than those with low-teaching and/or multi-year post-docs, or TT jobs elsewhere. I am happy to accept that the trade-off is necessary or 'worth it,' but we should remember it's a trade-off, and that the culture of (expected) tailoring helps the diligent, but also the privileged.
Yes, I agree with 3:59 that this is good strategy. But to 12:13, and other SC members, I would note that requiring such excessive tailoring actually hurts the whole field.
There is good reason to have a system whereby applicants are NOT expected to tailor cover letters, but instead to put out a basic set of standardized materials to search committees. Indeed, the conference interview system, as instituted back in the day, assumed that applicants would walk around handing standardized cover letters and CVs to various committees.
Firstly, as 12:28 notes, it means that applicants waste a lot of time reworking their job materials. This disadvantages adjuncts, who are already overwhelmed with teaching. Indeed, it boosts well-funded ABDs at Princeton and Stanford, who have the time and funding to spend endless hours indicating what a perfect fit they are for the "Sport and the Ancient World" class only taught at your school and a handful of others.
Secondly, SCs seem to forget how time spent tailoring job materials detracts from the project of the entire field. Every hour I spend minutely tailoring my application is an hour I am not working on a syllabus, preparing lecture slides, writing an article, editing my book manuscript, etc. So in expecting the tailored letter, dear SC, your privileged TT life may become easier, but you are impoverishing candidates, the students they teach, and the field at large.
Instead, I would suggest is that SCs publish more narrowly tailored adds. If you want a Roman historian, don't advertise Ancient History. If you want someone who does Race and Gender in the Ancient World, don't advertise for Generalists. If you want Late Antiquity, say so, don't just hint "including late antiquity." This will suppress applications (and allow you to quickly throw out those that don't fit), and also prevent the candidates from contorting themselves to explain why they are the perfect fit.
@12:28 and @1:19, really good points. Thank you. It was easy to lose hours and hours tailoring letters as well as specific job ad requirements - separate teaching and diversity statements for one school, a teaching PLUS diversity statement for another school, multiple online forms to fill out in addition to the CV, etc. On top of a contingent position and all things that came with that - not only an overload of work duties but also dealing with an impending move - it really wasn't worth it for a position that I had a 1/100 chance of getting.
1:19 is spot on. Moreover, in some cases that time spent tailoring may get you the initial interview, and then when push comes to shove, you lose out to an inside candidate (the most efficient way for search committees to save time, by the way), and you didn't spend those hours finishing an article which could actually help you in the next season.
I understand the need to look for reason to discard an application in that initial culling stage (and thanks to 1:19 for suggesting ways to limit the number of applicatsions upfront). But I must say I find puzzling the idea that one such way is to look for candidates to show that they want to work THERE, as 12:13 suggests. Surely in the current market, a TT job is one all and every candidate would do almost anything for. In all likelihood, someone who lands the job will be so relieved to be done with the stress of the market that they will not then go on to apply for what they perceive to be better jobs the following year (which I take it is part of the worry). In other words, every candidate wants to work wherever will let them. Asking them to make that clear in a tailored way in a cover letter just doesn't seem like the best use of anyone's time.
"Asking them to make that clear in a tailored way in a cover letter just doesn't seem like the best use of anyone's time."
Frankly, it seems like insecurity-induced narcissism.
Perhaps we could incorporate some of the placement practices incorporated by professional schools. One dossier sent to the SCS Placement Service that you then have sent to your top ten ranked jobs. The SCs in turn send the SCS their top twenty candidates. Based on how both sides rank each other, 10-15 are invited for interviews at the meetings (or by Skype). After the interviews, both sides rank each other again and then 3-5 are invited for flyouts. Besides the obvious savings in time for applicants, it prevents overworked SCs from foolishly picking bad fits from the get-go based on overvaluing a two-page cover letter. Like standardized testing, I agree that this favors the privileged who are not necessarily the best fit but have the time and resources to dazzle bleary-eyed SC members. It has the added advantage of tempering the influence of the inordinately small number of gunners who get numerous interviews and job offers and have the potential to gumming up an entire discipline for weeks during the spring. This system forces them to narrow down their options early on rather than vainly basking in their glory (or OCD) for as long as possible.
Not to start a flame war, but time was that standardized testing helped those NOT from St. Grottlesex to get into the Ivy League. Until too many Jews were admitted, and it was decided to start thinking more about 'fit' :) Standardized testing arguably cuts both ways, but letters of rec (e.g.) only cut one.
The problem with standardized testing is the direct correlation between performance and wealth. It started with somewhat affordable services such as Kaplan that virtually became required so one could be on an even playing field but then the uber wealthy upped the ante with obscenely expensive tutors (and services in between such as Ivy Global).
I see a similar scenario playing out with well-staffed departments investing in services for their students that provide largely one-off skills to land the job. This might not be a huge problem at first sight, but it makes me incredibly nervous that the less well-staffed departments will feel compelled to sacrifice resources that actually train students directly in order to be competitive. That is, are we in danger of "teaching to the test" at the PhD level?
Since the way that hiring is done will normally have to meet rules established by H.R. departments, all of this fantasizing about how to change things (e.g., one-size-fits-all applications) is a waste of time on the part of the writer, and wastes the time of those of us reading through posts here. Can we please limit ourselves to suggestions of how to change the world that have at least some chance of happening?
Spoken like someone who's a part of the problem...
It's not one size fits all. It's what the rest of the dossier is for. What's the use of asking for the inordinate amount of application material if you throw the entire app into the trash based on the cover letter? It's unconscionable that a discipline that requires dossiers with the most components then turns around and utilizes them the least (if I'm understanding correctly how the cover letter is used by the committee members chiming in here). It's a COVER letter, folks. Most professions can't imagine it being longer than a half page introduction to the rest of the dossier, a page at most.
For what it's worth, I have several tenure-track interviews (Latin literature) and I don't tailor my cover letters much at all. I spend a long time polishing one template letter and only adapt a few sentences for each school. So excessive tailoring is definitely not a requirement.
Seriously, if classics SCs weight the cover letter so heavily during the initial vetting, simply ask for a cover letter and CV at first, perhaps a teaching or research statement as well. The shotgun request is ridiculous (especially since the expectation here seems to be that teaching/research statements should in fact be distilled and crammed into cover letters). If this system still leaves you with 50 applications that you need to get down to 15 for initial interviews, ask these 50 for additional materials such as letters and publications. Why is this so hard or considered a "fantasy" by people like 4:05 PM?
Any thoughts on if one of your recommenders is at odds with someone on the search committee? Too late, I realized that the SC member in question (an outsider to the dept.) would be involved. In the past, the SC member referred (in my presence) to the recommender as "off their rocker." Can one SC member scuttle an application over a beef with a recommender?
Yup, less is sometimes more and application creep over the years has gotten silly regardless of how tired and overworked SC members might be. I suspect the next step will be your DNA sequencing to verify how genetically related you are to Mommsen and Parry. We can't do everything, but why are there so few guidelines and best practices of classics search committees shared and crowd sourced by the SCS? I've been on three SCs at two institutions and it has pretty much been amateur hour unless the the committee was fortunate enough to have a member that had gained some good experience over the years.
5:07, one member can certainly scuttle an application, especially early in the process when apps are culled aggressively and "one more" culling will hardly be scrutinized. It's another reason why letters shouldn't be asked until a second round as it allows the old boys network to play too central a role in the overall vetting process.
In@4:06, I think it is very much working out how things should work in an ideal world. I am well aware that much of the misery of the process is imposed by HR. But not all of it.
I know there are well meaning SCs on this forum. It is worth communicating to them where they are making candidates' life miserable. Also, a few lucky candidates will get the coveted TT job, and will within a few years be on SCs. They may have some say in how the search is structured, and what materials will be required. They should reflect on what works, and what simply creates a lot of paper work for 150 applicants. They should also think whether it is worth having 150 applicants, when over 100 must be dismissed outright.
So these discussions are not a waste of time. Our field is in a moment of professional crisis, and most of us will not have careers in it. I am planning to leave the field next year if I do not get a job, and my hopes are dim. But I think humanistic inquiry and humanistic education is a worthwhile endeavor in a democracy, and I want the "survivors" to make the most of it, rather than perpetuating the current crisis for another generation.
So let us not act like its all up to the minions in HR. Too much is, but the rumblings on this forum also represent the self-consciousness of the next generation of this field.
Post a Comment