So are CVs truly read? Is this how Hellenists end up filling positions that claim to favor specialties in Greek history and archaeology - i.e. by persuasively arguing in cover letters that they could teach these subjects? I've seen plenty of supposed Greek history and archaeology classes butchered by totally unqualified classicists who basically use wikipedia and string along passages about the Dorians and whatnot. From my observations, there are certainly more "culture" courses butchered in this manner by well-intentioned classicists than baby Greek by historians and archaeologists who typically do a splendid job. And then you invariably have Hellenists and Latinists on search committees vetting these claims since most departments have only one or two historians/archaeologists. It totally makes sense now.
"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."
From what I understand, the governing body of some disciplines explicitly discourage requiring letters in applications until an initial cut is made.
@5:07. SC-member here. In our meetings, one or more of us has expressed their distaste, disapproval, or suspicion of one or more letter writer. In my experience, this has not hurt any candidates. Sure, that letter might not help. We're more likely to pity someone for having to put up with some jerk.
You might have an excellent department, but I find this hard to believe as a general rule. As some SC members have pointed out above, it's a 40 yard dash and overworked academics are desperately looking for any clear means to disqualify applicants. A letter from a suspicious referee seems like an gimme for this culling process.
I have been on committees in several disciplines in addition to Classics both as voting member and Affirmative Action representative (Anthro, Hist, Phil Eng; in total, 8 over 10 years) .
I read applications in the following order: CV, Cover Letter, Teaching Materials, Recommendations, Writing Sample.
The CV and cover letter usually let me know (1) if this candidate fits the job ad well and (2) generally how they represent themselves (as researcher, teacher, as the best person in the universe, with humility, etc.). I care a lot about teaching, so I look at the teaching materials next and see whether or not they support or echo the experience listed on CV and comments made on cover letter.
I find recommendations to be usually inflated. (With the exceptions of a few institutions where some famous people write some, well, understated letters.) I do take recommendations of people I know (well) more seriously because I can cut through (some) of the BS. In letters, I look for how the writer characterizes the scholarship of the candidate (red flags: if the articulation is much more sophisticated (or much less) than the candidates) and basically for what degree the recommenders' opinions of the candidate echo, amplify, or reframe the candidate's own.
I read the writing sample last in the first round (and sometimes don't get there). I read it more in the second round and during campus visits. I do this because (1) I am not competent to judge all types of scholarship and (2) you tend to get a sense of the candidate's writing from the letter etc.
Hope this helps. I am on a search this semester. My first search for a classicist was a decade ago. I have been really floored by how much more sophisticated and polished the letters and CVs are in just a decade's time. Many fewer ABDs; everyone has publications (usually multiple); everyone says thoughtful things about teaching. In short, of the 50 applications I have read, I would be happy interviewing 25. But I can't. I suspect I would not get an interview today. (I went on the market from a second tier school with one publication in 2006).
Thank you for the excellent post during a busy time, 5:22. May all SC members be as thoughtful and meticulous as you. May Classics hold out as long as possible.
@10:41. I can see why you'd say that it seems like an easy cut. But I just can't see it happening in the searches that I've been on. One thing to remember is that these are committees. As a committee member, I'm never going to be talked into a cut because a colleague argues "letter writer B is a jerk", even if I agree about B. (Remember, some of us are evil and some of us are stupid, but very few of us are evil and stupid.)
This is @5:22 again. I meant to write that I also discount a lot of recommendations because of the blatant sexism they show.
Honestly, here is some advice for letter-writers, please think about the adjectives you use to describe women and people of color. Compare them to the way to talk about male scholars. The subtle and not so subtle differences would be absurd and laughable if I was not sure that most of us have trouble seeing through them.
So, yeah, I really weigh the identity of the writer of the recommendation against the identity of the applicant. This makes recommendations trickier and more exhausting.
My advisor is a very, very well known scholar. He too has also stated (numerous times) that if he were on the job market today as a fresh PhD, he wouldn’t be able to get a job either. ...the market expects far too much of junior scholars.
I'm tenured so I have no dog in this fight, but isn't it troublesome that with such extreme downward pressure on jobs that those most likely to make it through will be from a select circle that will in turn either whither away from inbreeding or best case repopulate with little genetic diversity? We truly are an endangered species...
5:07 PM here (with the "off their rocker" letter writer)
Thanks for the responses. The fact that there are a range of reactions to the situation makes me feel good about the overall state of hiring practices. At least we are all not doing exactly the same thing.
Is it standard for SC's not to notify candidates of their rejection after a first-round interview? I understand that notifying 300+ people that they will not even get a first-round interview is a huge amount of work without an automated system, but after an interview (albeit short), it would seem courteous to let them know they won't be going to the next stage, even if it's just with an impersonal email.
One thing interests me about the "off their rocker" recommender: everyone who responded to 5:07 assumed that they were in agreement with the SC member.
What if the SC member is actually the problematic person (which might be unknown to the dept. since 5:07 said that SC member is outside the dept.)? Why did everyone immediately side with SC member without taking a moment to question that person?
Furman sent out topics they want to cover in the interviews, and in case they're helpful for others - in preparing for interviews, in thinking about their roles as classicists, teachers, mentors, in thinking about the progress of the field, whatever - I'm posting them here:
- What is our resposibility to students who major in Classics? - How might your work translate into opportunities for collaboration with students on serious and significant research? - What is the most difficult thing to teach in a Greek or Latin course? - Furman University is working to be more diverse and more inclusive. As a University and as a department we have plenty of room for improvement; this new position is meant to help us improve. What concrete steps should we be taking?
I really like these questions. They're not "stock" questions, they focus not just on the applicant and her/his research, but also on classics as a field, students and their needs and concerns, and diversity and inclusivity.
I really don't like the question about how one's work might 'translate into opportunities for collaboration with students on serious and significant research.' Most of the undergraduates I've taught can't follow the simplest instructions even repeated multiple times. There's no way I would trust them with anything more difficult than operating a light switch. Certainly I've seen exceptional undergraduates that could have potential in this respect, but I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts that no one on a search committee could actually answer this question in a meaningful or honest way.
That said, I do like the rest of the questions. The last one in particular is far more meaningful than a boilerplate, HR-imposed diversity statement. This suggests to me a department that has given some real thought to the role played diversity in the Classics.
I've had really amazing and surprising interactions and experiences with undergraduate students. It was an undergraduate student who solved the riddle of the Incan knots, after all (https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2017/08/a-students-mines-voices-from-the-incan-past/). OK, not everyone can be motivated in the same ways and some seem like lost causes, but they're not all bad, nor are even most of them. I can understand why and how one could become pessimistic about the value of undergraduate students in academic endeavors, but it's not the only option.
On undergraduate research: I strongly agree that with rare exception, undergraduates, even talented ones, are not ready to conduct research in classics. Quite simply, it takes time to master no just the languages, but also the corpus of primary and secondary materials. Thus while it is worthwhile to have undergraduates conduct independent work (research papers, senior thesis), in most instances undergraduates are not yet ready to serve as partners on publishable projects.
Are there exceptions. Sure. An undergraduate in Wisconsin let a professor shoot him with an arrow and became a co-author on his book on Greek armor after he survived. But these exceptions are very rare indeed.
I really hate this whole “diversity” thing. ...let me explain before you all come at me with pitchforks and torches...
Just because field ‘A’ happens to be largely made up of folks of race/ethnicity ‘x’ does not mean that we ought to say, “uh-oh. This isn’t a perfect distribution of gender and/or ethnicity; we better fix that.” There is nothing wrong with the fact that some individuals are drawn to certain fields. We all know this deep down, but seem to ONLY get upset when white males happen to comprise a majority of said field’s demographic; and we all are supposed to applaud when we deliberately make efforts to increase female and/or minority representation. This is horribly hypocritical. For example: we often see campaigns to increase young girls’ interests in STEM fields, which *is* highly male dominated. BUT... why aren’t there equal pushes to try to increase male enrollment in fields that have wildly high female enrollment, such as nursing. My wife is a nurse and at her graduation (ca. 120) there were 2 men. As if it isn’t hard enough for males that want to go into nursing to do so without (open and veiled) scutiny, at the ceremony the head of the Dept repeatedly made statements like “all of these women here behind me...” or “these young women have worked so hard...”
Also, what about fields that are not only 99% female BUT ALSO would see most people angry if a man pursued it and tried to be hired in their community: such as a Kindergarden teacher.
It’s not true “diversity” if you can say “hey, let’s get more young women intersteted in science and engineering” but, simultaneously, you would. It say “let’s try to get more young men interested in nursing or Kindergarden teaching.” Balance is balance, and diversity should be diversity.
A second example. We like to self-shame ourselves as Classicists because, gasp, the field is extremely European, ethnically speaking. But, is this really a surprise or anything that needs to be “fixed”? ...people are genuinely interested in their own historical story, and given that Greece and Rome (while surely rather multi-cultural in many respects) were civilizations overwhelmingly comprised of caucasian Western Europeans, and were civilizations whose torch was carried most prominently by later Western European societies, it should be no large shock that white people of European ancestry see the Greco-Roman world as the roots of later European society more than any other precursor. (Yes, I know that it’s not this cut and dry, so spare me he splitting of hairs on this). ...So, is the fact that Classics is so white a problem? No. Why? For the same reason why it’s no problem that most historians of East Asia and had students of East Asia also are of East Asian ancestry. It’s their history and touches them in a profound way, and there’s nothing wrong with that. Likewise, most historians of African-American history are themselves African-American. Most women’s studies scholars are women.
Until you can also advocate to increase non-Black presence in the fields of African studies, or non-Asian presence in the fields of East Asian studies, or to increase the number of men in nursing, Kindergarden and pre-K teaching, of Women’s Studies programs, what lever it is that you’re championing can’t be called “diversity.” I’m not too sure what you could call it, but it surely isn’t diversity.
The only answer is simple: just simply be loving and open and accepting of all peoples from all gender identities and all ethnicities and let people pursue whatever fields they gravitate towards. Replacing pro-white racism and misogyny with what we often see mascarading as “diversity” is simply exchanging one form of racism/sexism for another.
@10:59, wut. There's nothing inherent in Classics that makes it appeal to elite white men. It's the structure of the field, how it has been intentionally and purposefully crafted by white Europeans, not the field in-and-of-itself, that excludes. If you change how you "do" classics, you can change who it "naturally" appeals to. And your analogies don't even make sense. It's our culture that has determined who is suited for what kinds of roles. And since our culture has largely been male-driven, it's men who decided that nursing is better suited for women. That's the great thing about being a white man, isn't it? That you get to decide what's for you (read: apparently anything you want). WOMEN aren't keeping men from being nurses or whatever, that's not on us.
We need active movements to encourage diversity, and once there are more diverse boards, faculties, etc., then we can hope for people to "simply be...accepting of all peoples." But you can't sit back and say that the committee or panel of older white men is going to make decisions in the best interests of everyone. Obviously they haven't already, and they've had hundreds of years to do it. We need people to be active and conscious in their efforts to make classics, and academia, more inclusive or accepting and it's too bad when people don't feel like they have any part to play, any responsibility.
Female Classcists here. I have a few things to add
I agree with 10:59 on a lot of his/her points. But I have a few things to say.
@11:34: I think you’re wrong on your point about the appeal of classics to white men. The leading figures and shapers of the Roman/Latin world and (largely) the Greek/Hellenic world were what we would classify as white men. They lived in an extremely patriarchal world and everything from their visual to literary achievements reflect this. 10:59 is right that Western Europe (men and women) gained the most direct influence from the Classical world and they *were* the cultural heirs of it, like it or not. As such, people of Europe ancestry have a vast amount of cultural, linguistic, legal, religious, and societal inheritance from the classical world; certainly more than any other peoples.
@11:51: I agree. But, I don’t think that forced diversity is an answer. You won’t find a more liberal and progressive facet of society than academia; I highly doubt that groups of these sinister older white men sit in closed rooms rubbing their hands together doing whatever they can to keep minorities and us women from “joining.” I think that mentality is dangerous, because it villainizes all older white men in positions of power and, furthermore, it creates an “us versus them” way of thinking that promotes antagonizsim.
..and lastly, @10:59: I agree with almost everything you said, but I think that what’s being forgotten is that in doing absolutely nothing, the greater the likelihood that things won’t ever change (and it’s hard to tell if you favor such change). Yes, it would be great if diversity just “happened” but we have to (sometimes) give it a little push. I think that a lot of what’s going on now is an overselling of diversity, but you always have to push a bit harder than where you want to move the pendulum to change where it’s resting.
...and for the record, I DO think that mothers (who are women) would most definitely protest having their kids having a male Kindergarden teacher, so, sorry 11:34, but angry soccer moms with Kate Gosselin haircuts would show up in droves to stop a man from having that job at their school.
(Well, that's now three posts I've written and then deleted. Each of which would have generally supported 10:59 p.m., and each of which undoubtedly would have infuriated some of those around here.)
So, 10:59 et al. are talking out of their doxai and not out of their epistemai.
The following scholars, to name a few off the top of my head, would like to offer some historiai:
Denise McOskey Benjamin Isaac Sarah Bond Rebecca Kennedy Martin Bernal Frank Snowden
TLDR: It's about as useful to call Greeks and Romans "white" as it is to call them "heterosexual" or "homosexual". Skin-based race is an "obvious" "truth" constructed by Euro-American society largely in response to the African slave-trade. Ancient concepts of race draw dramatically different divisions along many other axes.
I can’t say that I’ve read all of those scholars you listed, but I can say for sure that Bernal has been disproven and that (currently anyway) consensus holds that he’s wrong on many, many points. So far as one of the other scholars you mentioned (I won’t name names, since they’re rather young and active in the field and I refuse to tarnish a fellow classicist as such regardless of how much I may disagree with them), they offer the most old-hat and over-inflated articles that presume to be “cutting edge” and progressive, and they consistently find themself in the midst of controversy but they seek such controversy often and are (in many ways) the academic version of the Kardashians—a lot of whining and hot air and no real substance to anything being said.
Second, I hate to disagree about the “whiteness” of the Greco-Roman world, but I have to make a point here: that the overwhelming majority of the ruling classes and subject peoples of the Romans and Greeks were not only ancestors of modern “Europenas” they also would be (if one could go back in time and see them all) what we would classify as “white.” I hate using terms like “white” or “black” et al., but to deny this very obvious fact is not being progressive nor does it somehow buck old-world racism, it is, quite simply complete ignorance and all the worse, it is deliberate self-inflicted ignorance.
2:27: nobody is arguing how the Greeks or Romans thought about matters like skin-color and ethnicity, rather, I believe the points being made are that from a modern and contemporary perspective the Greeks and Romans would be classified as white more than any other race by those of us today. This doesn’t mean that Greeks and Romans thought this way nor does it mean that they would have not allowed non-whites to be enfranchised in their worlds (much evidence shows that ancients didn’t care about skin-color an iota, but instead of one adopted their culture then they’re “one of them”), but that by modern classifications most were white.
...as an aside, I hate all the controversy and arguments about diversity; it greatly distracts us perusing meaningful scholarship as a field and leaves us far more focused on superficial matters like how can we get more non-whites to love Classics?
How’s about we all stop talking about diversity (hopefully we all can just ignore the issue waiting for it to go away) and return to sharing, commiserating, and discussing the job application season. Academia is filled with enough bickering on its own, this board should be a (brief) escape from all that.
"Until you can also advocate to increase non-Black presence in the fields of African studies, or non-Asian presence in the fields of East Asian studies..."
A casual look at African Studies will show that there are many more whites in faculty positions than blacks in Classics. It's not even close. Look at Harvard - https://aaas.fas.harvard.edu/people/taxonomy/term/13051?page=1. It's like half white. I can count on one hand the number of black people in classics positions across the continent.
I agree Asian Studies minus the languages (e.g. History) are taken by Asian students at a much higher rate than usual. This doesn't explain why non-language Asian Studies faculty are overwhelmingly white and male. It's even worse than African Studies. It isn't much better with Asian-Americans and it's well-documented at sites such as http://www.80-20educationalfoundation.org/index.php. There could be issues relating to pipeline, cultural differences, etc., but I know many well-educated Asians who are no longer in the field (or back in Asia) out of frustration when jobs that are relatively plentiful. I know a splendid Korean Art Historian who was educated at Yale and bounced around in VAPs despite wanting to stay in the US. Yet you look and these positions are usually filled by whites. If you truly believe this is based on merit, I have a bridge to sell you. And yes it diminishes academia when you have people like Jane Portal filling prominent Asian curatorial positions and saying that she doesn't put up Asian names because it confuses people.
@10:36, I think that overwhelmingly it *IS* based on merit. Of course, there will be some positions that are filled by other means, however...to think that academia, of all possible fields, is filled with racist people who refuse to let minorities in, then I have a bridge to sell you.
It’s always so shocking how quick people like you can be to paint all people of a particular race and/or gender with a broad brush. I only wish there was a word to use that describes envisioning all of a race as fitting to a particular stereotype.
Yep, those were basically thinly veiled "make classics great again" diatribes. Probably by the same underemployed poster pissed that there a couple non-whites in classics jobs he feels entitled to fill. Scary Trumpian stuff.
Old guy here. At least at my university (research intensive mid-ranked state), and I suspect elsewhere, the wider university community is increasingly concerned about systematic and unconscious biases and the ways in which they perpetuate academia's lack of diversity. One of the ways that we're being asked address this is to demonstrate that we're taking this into account by (e.g.) explicitly tracking self-identified minorities and gender balance at different stages of selection. Deans want to hear that the committee discussed candidate x, who self-identified in group y, and did not include him in the long-short list because of a, b, and/or c; or that our pool of applicants was 60-40 male-female and so was our short list. In short, deans and vps here want us to show them how we are making our decisions. One of the ways in which some departments are doing this is by including diversity questions in the process. It allows us to include one more item in the list of measures that we report to our dean to prove that we're taking this question seriously.
So, how does this relate to you? The important thing is that if you're applying for a job and are asked a diversity question, that you engage it thoughtfully and respectfully. If you bring some diversity with you, obviously include it. If you don't, you'll need to express commitment to fairness in your professional dealings, esp. when it comes to diverse groups.
1:38 (and anyone else in a similar position), I have a question: When deans, v.p.'s and others of their ilk are seeking to ensure that you interview women, ethnic and/or sexual minorities, veterans, and people from any other group, do they ever challenge you regarding the ages of job candidates, seeking to avoid age discrimination? Because I would argue -- and this has been discussed at previous January conferences, including one distantly remembered panel devoted to the subject -- that age discrimination in our field is at least as big a problem as discrimination against people over their gender, skin pigmentation, or sexual preferences, and quite possibly a greater problem. Does this ever come up?
Just give it seven years and Classics will be thriving again once the deans and their ilk are put in their place with reduced endowments and budgets and their priorities are back in the right place.
@2:56. Old guy again here. To be clear, I think it would be an overstatement to say that deans, et al., "are seeking to ensure that you interview women, ethnic and/or sexual minorities, veterans, and people from any other group". What they want (at my university, anyway) are assurances that individuals belonging to such groups are being treated fairly. The list of designated groups probably varies from place to place. Here, the groups are women, ethnic minorities, and the physically handicapped. Age, insofar as I know, does not figure.
@1:38, Old guy: "If you bring some diversity with you, obviously include it. If you don't, you'll need to express commitment to fairness in your professional dealings, esp. when it comes to diverse groups."
Any advice on how a non-diverse person can "express commitment to fairness" in the classroom? Especially when having taught very little or at predominantly white schools? What does "express commitment to fairness" mean?
I mean, I know how I try to treat all of my students and professional contacts with fairness and equality, but it's really hard to put this into concrete words. How do I foster diversity in a Latin I that focuses on grammar and vocabulary, or in a Classical Mythology course of 150 students?
@4:53. Old guy here again. That's the challenge, isn't it? In any unexpected question in an interview, try to think in terms of research, teaching, and service. Not a lot to be done on the research front, I assume. (Though if there's a gender or social historical aspect to your research, you might mention it.) I'd concentrate on your plans both in the classroom and in service. In the classroom, for example, you might talk about creating room for the 'shy' vs the 'assertive' in classroom discussions, noting that women and minorities in your figure disproportionately among the 'shy', and offer it both as justifiable in its own right and as a step towards inclusiveness of gender and/or race. Perhaps talk about working at finding essay topics that appeal to different groups.
You might also talk about those who are first-generation to university and some of the challenges they face and how you can help them.
In service, I'd say something like "I once heard a senior female academic complain about how much of her time was chewed up by getting more than her share of committee work, especially in low-status areas such as curricula and appeals and recruitment. She mentioned that she had to do them because they were seen as 'domestic'. My way of contributing to fairness to my colleagues is to make sure I do my share." (On this last one, don't be surprised if you see the women in the room quietly nod their heads. It will also might help you with us lazy old guys, who are happy to let you do it so we don't have to!)
Latin class or other language: why not start by talking about using female pronouns instead of male as standard and how that destabilizes student experience of language? Encourage students to think and talk quickly about basic vocabulary sets and hierarchies taken for granted? Why not talk about how language encodes social hierarchies and enforces them?
In the myth class or any other--and this may be a leap for the Classics crowd--why not mention experiments in progressive stacking? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_stack). At the very least, in talking about teaching myth, you can talk about emphasizing marginalized voices, the experiences of women (read the H. Demeter), assumptions of power and gender, and, again, how myth and image reinforce hierarchies. Add some Lakoff and Johnson or Mark Turner in.
For a lot of these diversity questions, committees want to hear that you are thinking about the problem, aware that your subject contributes or reflects upon it, and that you are working on ideas to address and engage with the ongoing conversation. There are like a dozen articles on Eidolon at least on this topic. Also, outside of our field, the public debate centering around Dr. Dorothy Kim in medieval studies is reflective.
It is ok to say you're developing your approaches to these important issues and working through resources X, Y, and Z. To reflexively recoil from them or act like it is too hard or synthetic to apply them to classics is intellectually lazy. Honestly, if you cannot see how there are diversity issues attending a language classroom and a myth classroom, I don't want you in charge of any classroom. And I am a veteran on hiring committees at universities that serve diverse populations.
I know these last two sentences sound a bit repugnant, but when there are 100+ applications, we have to draw lines in the sand. @1:38 would be on the "definitely will not interview" side of that line.
No, recoiling from the much of what you suggest, 5:58 p.m., would not be "intellectually lazy," but simply recognizing and not wishing to engage in obsessive, hyper-intellectualized silliness. It's professors with your attitude and self-important belief that talk of hierarchy and gendered pronouns and the like must be forced on students at every opportunity who are causing academia to become increasingly disconnected from the rest of society, which hurts us all, and ultimately will lead to fewer jobs for those of us on FV.
6:26 here again, with one additional thought for 5:58: by essentially admitting that you only see fit to hire clones with your approach and attitude you have implicitly admitted that YOU are the intellectually lazy one. Seriously, dude/dudette, look in a mirror, and ask yourself why you are opposed to intellectual and pedagogical diversity.
It seems like many of the people here haven't actually experienced things that tend to discourage women, minorities, etc. from pursuing the field. I have had colleagues and professors ask me why I'm bothering pursuing classics with my family background (poor, so why not do something more 'practical') and when I didn't already have the language background from HS or college ('why not just do a history program?'). During an interview for a PhD program, I asked the program director about if the grad stipend was livable in that city and he multiple times said something like "right, because your family doesn't have any money for this" (I had talked about my background in the required 'diversity statement' as a part of my application). At MORE THAN ONE group event I have had different people comment on how I use my silverware in an "uncouth" manner and I have been called "uncultured" on more occasions than I can count. I'm white and of European descent, so apparently heir to the culture of the Greeks and Romans moreso than Blacks or Latinx, and I have - by people who're otherwise "sensitive to diversity" and who "care about being inclusive" - been made to feel like I do not belong on so many occasions, by so many different people, that I wonder why I even bothered staying. You can talk about how diversity initiatives don't matter, and people are generally sensitive and inclusive, and we don't need to be so active in our hiring decisions because it should be about merit and not other issues, but how can you be so daft as to think that unconscious biases play no role in hiring, promotion, collegiality, and so on? That faculty have no role in the systematic exclusion of various people because of their sex/gender, color, religion, age, socioeconomic status? Forcing people to be explicit in their decision-making, to explain why someone isn't suitable for a position, to confront their subjectivities, is important until it becomes second nature (if it ever does).
"To reflexively recoil from them or act like it is too hard or synthetic to apply them to classics is intellectually lazy. Honestly, if you cannot see how there are diversity issues attending a language classroom and a myth classroom, I don't want you in charge of any classroom."
I don't think it's too hard, I actually find it fascinating, challenging, and an opportunity to see the field become something great. There are certainly diversity issues in everything we do. What I've struggled with is going through years of education where I've never seen these techniques at work in the classroom myself, coupled with never having had the chance to develop my own pedagogical techniques. It's hard to imagine what one would do in the classroom until one has experience having tried and tested some of these methods. In short, I know what I would like to do, but how would I know what would be most effective? (that's a rhetorical question; you've given me some great starting points). Thank you again.
this is @.5:58 again. I think my tone make have been misunderstood by the next few respondents (except for the hashtag white fragility person, if they are serious with their it is ok to be white BS, well, read everything with as condescending and dismissive a tone as possible).
I understand that for many in Classics and other fields the diversity question may seem like an added level of difficulty and mystery in an already cruel and unforgiving process. My point wasn't that candidates should have the answers to questions that we tenured faculty members are often failing to answer ourselves, but rather that they should be prepared to talk about the issues and show that they are (1) aware of them and (2) willing to work on them productively.
For other subjects in teaching, if you are asked, e.g., about how you respond to different learning styles or relate the ancient world to the kids today, you should be ready to respond with the best knowledge at your fingertips and with a willingness to enter the type of dialogue that teachers much over their career, about how students are changing, about how methods need adjusting, etc.
When we interview you, we are looking for someone who can do the strange and unfair range of things a colleague must do. Most of us are not looking for clones, but we are also not looking for colleagues who are going to dismiss what are often institutional values and missions. If a job ad specifically mentions diversity or social justice, it is not a fad to be dismissed but the expression of a community value voiced either by the faculty of the hiring department or (more frequently) by the institution at large. If you do not believe in these values or cannot see yourself engaging in a productive dialogue within the existing institutional structure, you should probably not apply.
As far as answering the questions goes, few of the interviewers at the SCS are experts on these issues. True, some will probably just want to hear pat and popular answers. But most, I wager, are working through their own issues as well. I have colleagues on the cusp of retirement who desperately believe and love their idea of diversity, but have a real problem understanding microagressions or the real contributions of studies in ableism. Think through some of the current issues, read a little, come up with a few ideas for what it means in your classroom, and be prepared to have a conversation.
This is what you should and will do as a university level instructor. If you do it now, your interviewers will see you in the same role as their colleague.
The #wlm-poster’s tantrum conjures (quite powerfully) a mother’s basement and fingertips incarnadine with Cheeto dust, and I’m all the way here for it.
Non-anonymous person here! I'm on the classics and social justice SC -- If anyone wants to send me their suggestions, I'll get started on this and put it on the CSJ agenda for our unfortunately scheduled open meeting (Thursday at 4pm) in Boston. Amypistone@gmail.com
Just highlights the need for more natural selection to take place, one that doesn't exceedingly privilege early language backgrounds and a slickness of presentation bereft of real ideas. It's nauseating that classics has become one of the last academic bastions for those born on third base. We're worse than art history for god's sake.
I’m in no way opposed to diversity and love seeing varying ethnicities in my classrooms. But, what I will say is that I’m honestly not sure how one is supposed to “increase the # of minorities in Classics.” In order to address any problem, you have to identify what’s causing the problem. So, we have to ask ourselves *what* is making many non-white students rather uninterested in Classics. We can all sit around and assume that crypto-racist faculty are to blame or that it’s a bit more complex and systemic, but to REALLY find out why so few black undergrads are taking Latin, Greek, and ancient history courses we need to do the most simple thing: ask them.
Every school will be different in the resources for this, but if folks in Classics really want to solve what they perceive as a problem, you HAVE TO find out what’s causing it, not just spitball with one another. So, poll your school’s black student body. And listen to their responses carefully. You need to determine if their disinterest in Classics is specific to Classics or whether most black students are disinterested in much of the Humanities. So, also ask if they enjoy History (and what fields), what languages they’re interested in learning and why.
Much of what influences one’s interests are shaped by their culture. Recent studies (https://trends.collegeboard.org/education-pays/figures-tables/students-stem-fields-gender-and-race-ethnicity) show, for instance, that nearly 50% of all Asian students have majors in STEM. Why? Can we simply ignore this or can we be honest and say that there must be some aspect of many Asian families and their cultures that promotes STEM? What one pursues in college is largely dependent not on how open or appealing a given major choice may be. For instance, to think that if Classics changes some aspect of itself to seem more welcoming to minority students implies that minorities are avoiding it, at least in part, on account of how irrelevant is to them culturally speaking. But, this seems to not matter at all for the 50% of Asian stridents in STEM. Are they in STEM because it’s soo accommodating to Asians and because it, in some way, “reaches them” on account of their “Asian-ness”? No. The majority in STEM are there for practical reasons, from family pressure to stay within what is a profitable career, and due to having been prepped for it throuougout most of their lives.
The same applies to Classics. An overwhelming majority are from upper-middle class or rich white families, whose children benefited from having stellar private or prep school training, where they would have taken Latin and/or Greek before college. Many would have visited Europe in adolescence, thereby sparking a deeper interest in the Classical world. Classics is a field full of highly-privileged white people that often is welcoming to poorer people and/or minorities, but many wouldn’t have been presented with the same cushy lifestyles that make studying things like Classics, Gender Srudies, Philosophy, possible. ...what kind of job prospects are there for those three fields? The answer: essentially none—unless, you guessed it, you are also privileged in from where you receive your PhD from in that it’s an Ivy League or a “par-Ivy.”
Black and Latino Americans are the highest proportion of first-gen college students more than any other race. As such, many have to make practical and thoughtful decisions about what they’re going to do for a career. Pursuing Classics (either as a BA, MA, or PhD) is EXTREMEMY stupid. It is. Look at our job prospects! Scroll though the forum here and you’ll realize this. We have 12-20 T-T kind a year for ca.100 folks with PhDs from the top 10-15 schools and only a razor thin margin of them will actually get a job.
Classics is a field that is bred in privilege, nurtured by privilege, and can only be a “career” on account of further privilege.
I’ve had many brilliant students that are minorities and I’ve told them that they ought to consider switching majors. Each time it’s the same reply: “oh, thanks! That’s really encouraging and I appreciate it, and don’t get me wrong I love this stuff, but I don’t want to teach and I want to pursue my Business/Pre-Law/Pre-Med degree instead.”
@12/27, 8:32: a bit late catching up with all this, but just wanted to express my complete agreement re: the "scholar" whom you so aptly described as an academic Kardashian. If this is the public face of Classics in the 21st century, the field is in serious trouble indeed. Public scholarship is great, but this low-level, intellectually lazy, self-righteous series of opinion pieces thinly disguised as scholarship for the purpose of self-promotion is much worse in terms of representing our field to the public than no public scholarship at all.
This last comment and the one before it reek of retrograde sexism (e.g. kardashian) and professional envy. Both commentators are the types of sneering jerks that make the study of classics seem disconnected and elitist?
Castigation aside, what should public classicism look like?
@9:17, personally I prefer the kind of public scholarship being done by Eidolon, which includes a variety of thoughtful, well-written pieces that raise important questions about the current state of the field and others that point out the ugly realities of rape, barbarism, slavery etc., behind the ancient art and literature we valorize, as well as more fun, engaging pieces like the Harry Potter series last summer. In my experience, students and the public at large tend to be interested in both the social/political questions raised by Eidolon and the kind of Classical tradition/reception type pieces they also sometimes publish. So perhaps Eidolon can give students/potential students a glimpse of the opportunities they will have in really interesting, well-taught classes offered by younger or more engaged professors and can challenge their assumptions about the kind of material they might find in a Classics classroom.
OP here. I never meant for it to come across as sexist (also, why do you assume that I am a male?), and went out of my way to avoid using gendered pronouns. If you were able to discern which scholar I was referring to, then my description of them as attention-hungry and controversy-searching must have resonated with you.
I have no need to be jealous of this particular scholar, and I hold no ill will towards them. I just completely disagree with their empty form of self-promotion and find them to be exceptionally arrogant and attention-seeking.
OP again... if “Kardashian” comes across as a gendered comparison, then replace it with “Al Sharpton” if you wish. The takeaway is an individual who makes mountains out of molehills and takes ANY opportunity to stand on a soapbox and soak up the flashbulbs.
Also, I would use “Kardashian” to describe a male OR female who fits this model. The defining characteristics are clear enough that one need not only apply “Kardashian” to a female variant. But, as noted above, fee free to use “Al Sharpton” as another variable to plug in. Given that the whole Kardashian clan is very germane and recognizable today, I used them.
Moderator, can we remove the thinly veiled references to a specific classicist present in 8:32am, "Rick Sanchez", 9:17am; 10:13am, 11:53am, 12:21pm, etc.? It's fine if you want to talk about public classicism, the value of discussing ancient art in the context of race, sex/gender, etc., but these are all specific attacks on this specific individual as a person and as a scholar (being self-promotional, unjustly occupying a t-t job when some anonymous troll thinks he deserves it more, etc.). This is the kind of uncivil discourse that is strongly discouraged on this forum, which is otherwise a great place to vent and discuss issues, serious or trivial, that plague us all.
@2:01 -- To be fair, that individual is a public scholar who, as others have noted, has gone out of his/her way to draw attention to their work. Names have not been used, which I agree would cross a line, but if a person can be identified by those in the know based on his/her PUBLIC profile, then I think that's acceptable. She/he has not been identified based on institution or the like.
@10:13 here. Please don’t conflate my fanfic with the horseshit that inspired it. That request notwithstanding, I’m happy to have it erased with a view to restoring civility.
@2:28, yeah, OK, but again, it's criticisms of her individual person. It's comments about whether she deserves her job, motivations behind her work, calling her "arrogant" and "self-seeking," etc. Do what you want, but this forum is explicitly NOT one for that. If you want to criticize someone to a person, find a more appropriate space to do that, this is not it.
11:53 am here. I think some of my comments were misunderstood. I certainly did not mean to suggest that this person doesn’t deserve her job (much less that I deserve it more). I’m not sure how that was read into my remarks. What I was trying to say is that I am genuinely impressed by that person’s skill at navigating this new dimension of academia, and also, yes, a bit jealous because (as I openly acknowledge) I don’t have that skill myself. I think it does take a level of self-promotion that I am uncomfortable with—not because I think self-promotion is inherently wrong, but because I am too introverted to self-promote in that way.
FWIW, I’m also happy to have my comments removed if they came across as too personal or specific. Although ironically the most personal, ad hominem, and unsubstantive attack on this thread so far was the “fanfic” response to Rick Sanchez above.
I want to stress, again, that I NEVER named a scholar nor did I ever even indicate a gender. If people here all happen to know what scholar is being referred to by simply indicating one who is “self-serving” and “arrogant” and loves to get all worked up in (largely) imagined and amplified controversy, that should really indicate just how true those remarks must be.
Dunno if this furthers the discussion of our supposed current era in academia, but fwiw my parents, both academics, had very strong views about colleagues in the 1940s and 1950s whom they thought were more interested in self-promotion than in their "official" duties. Beliefs that any given scholar is more on one side than the other are nothing new. In their day, persons who were more self-promotional tended on the whole to pursue eventual tracks in administration, deanships, presidential posts, etc., rather than continue in the classroom or in advising roles. So, nothing new under the sun, more or less. Couldn't say whether that change in track was post hoc propter hoc, or just hoc, but it was observably true.
Servius: this has been a hard call for me, because, as was noted, names were not used and it is a discussion of scholarship that is explicitly intended to represent the field, i.e. all of us to the general public, which is precisely the type of issue FV should allow us to debate. Earlier this season, we made the call that an individual with a prominent and deliberately-acquired public profile could be named, even. That said, given the sensitivity of the issue, I've tried to err on the side of civility and done some cleaning up above. Let's try to keep our arguments productive. And if you object to a comment, please be careful not make the scholar's identity even clearer in your response!
To take a live search as an example: Brown's campus talks (four of them) all appear to be women (whether they are LGBTQI is not clear--nor should it be, I guess; almost certainly not PoC). That's a great thing for the archaeological profession--a field dominated by (usually male) sexual harassers. Parallel to this, their research record, achievements, service and teaching, all seem very diverse and robust. They probably just were superior candidates to all of the male identifying ones. In short, it looks like a model search.
Nevertheless, I wonder what role gender played in the selection process. Does anyone who had an interview at Brown want to offer their thoughts? Or an SC member at Brown (if they visit FV)? It might bring a tangible example to the otherwise nebulous and sometimes ignorant debate going on above...
Either way, the job is going to go to a woman, failing exceptional circumstances.
Too many candidates, too few jobs. That economics is all that matters, not the victim mentality that sees "privilege" and "prejudice" under every rock.
I can say that for a recent search for Roman archaeology at UNC-Chapel Hill the SC had said, rather clearly, that they deliberately wanted to hire a women. While it’s fantastic that they were aware of gender disparity, it’s awfully unfair to all male candidates. Imagine how much more superior any male candidate would have to have been to eclipse a foregone conclusion that “we ARE hiring a woman.”
They did hire a woman, and the SC had a brutal fight over it. There was (from what I was told) an absolutely stunning candidate (male) that those on the SC felt was so phenomenal that they voted for him and advocated for to great extents. In the end, the female candidate was offered the position.
...now let me be CRYSTAL clear: the female Roman archaeology hire is an absolutely great scholar, and offers much to UNC. She quite likely will find herself moving up to an Ivy in a number of years if/when the right senior hire post comes along.
Being said, this *was* a rather unfair hiring practice. Letting race and/or gender color your decision is ALWAYS wrong. It was wrong when, for many years it favored white men making it very difficult for women and minorities to get hired, BUT, it is also wrong when the paradigm remains with only an exchange of race and gender ‘x’ for ‘y.’
The only way to move towards true equality and fairness is to abandon any and all consideration of race and gender, and judge all candidates equally based on merit. One possible way to help facilitate this would be that, for example, the top 20-25 candidates for any job must have an explicit explanation from such SC member as to *why* they were not fielded for an interview. Second, if any SC member is found to have a disproportionate number of men, women, whites, minorities, etc on their list of top favorites, they need to provide very explicit and clear reasoning for this.
...on a similar note, a very easy way to ensure true fairness for college admissions is to have all applicants be assigned a number (Candidate # 248849) and make the online application race and gender free. If their letters indicate either, the website should block it and indicate what trigger words may exist that can identify any such characteristic of the applicant.
This would be so unbelievably simple to do. The result would be, for the first time, a truly fair and representative incoming college class based solely on ability and merit. This system would work best for undergraduate admissions, but could also function for grad school programs that don’t require campus visits or interviews.
Queensborough apparently had second-round interviews sometime in November, so should be orange for sure on the Wiki; I don't know if they made an offer.
I was the first-round interviewer who posted in the Wiki. Interview via Skype was held early November. They said they’d be in touch with all candidates early December to schedule second-round interviews or to inform them that they’re not going to pursue that applicant anymore. They said, in no uncertain terms, that *all* would be notified by then.
I’m thinking that it would be reasonable to send an email to the SC chair at this point.
For what it’s worth, that job posted in June, applications were no longer accepted beginning in September. So, a takeaway from this is that they are very slow moving in this process.
@2:12, are you certain that what you’ve heard about Queensborough was a second-round interview?
Ignoring race and gender in hiring practices and judging candidates solely on merit wouldn't solve the problem, I think. If you think of earning your PhD as a kind of "finish line," there is a lot that comes before that - that IS affected by things like gender and race - that affect how an individual candidate finishes. If you say X candidate has more publications in better journals than Y candidate, without regard for race or gender, you ignore the studies that show that men are more likely to be published and in better journals than female candidates, even in supposedly blind peer review. And so on for other aspects of what makes someone more meritorious. Not everyone has equal access to the opportunities that "earn" them merit, and so strictly merit-based evaluation assesses candidates on uneven terms.
The analogy can be something like, if two people are running a race and they have similar finish times, but one had a straight race, no hurdles, while the other had hurdles (of differing heights, difficulties, etc.), then they aren't ACTUALLY equal candidates. Two supposedly "equal" candidates - same finish time - are unequal in that the one with the hurdles is actually a "better athlete," and if that hurdle-based athlete came in technically behind the other, that person isn't actually worse, it's just a different race.
All I mean is, you can't discount the effects that identity have at earlier stages that prevent people from having the same access to the merit-based criteria that should, in a perfect world, be what differentiates candidates.
In case they are helpful for anyone, here is what Holy Cross says they plan to discuss with candidates during the interview. Some are specific to the department, but others are more general and might give candidates for other interviews - or just any of us interested in thinking about classics as a field - some help in thinking of things that could, potentially, come up.
1.We have a large department, but we’re still a small liberal arts college and we value a willingness and ability to teach a broad array of courses, So we might ask you about what you might teach in areas that are not your specialization.
2.We value a willingness to try new pedagogical ideas. We might ask you about class assignments/activities you have designed.
3.We value a willingness and ability to work with students on extracurricular research projects. Especially since 2010, when the College initiated a new summer research program, a significant number of our majors have been involved in extracurricular research. For example, several of our faculty are currently working with students who voluteer for our Manuscripts Inscriptions and Documents Club (http://hcmid.github.io/) and this work has resulted in a number of public presentations of student research. We’re interested in whether you might contribute to this project or whether you might have other ideas about working with students on research projects of your own design. You shouldn’t feel like you have to do something like this from Day One: we just want you to be thinking about it because our students are interested in such opportunities, and Holy Cross values experiential learning of different kinds.
4. We might ask a question about your research, following up on your writing sample.
5.We might ask a question about your willingness and ability to teach in one of the interdisciplinary programs mentioned in the position listing: Africana Studies; Asian Studies; Environmental Studies; Gender, Sexuality and Women’s Studies; International Studies; Latin American & Latino Studies; Middle Eastern Studies; and Peace & Conflict Studies.
6.We might ask you what it is about the unique environment of Holy Cross that makes you particularly eager to join us. This would be your chance to discuss any number of things—say, small liberal arts colleges, or teaching undergraduates instead of graduate students, or Jesuit institutions, or the College’s mission statement (https://www.holycross.edu/about-us/mission-statement). Or maybe there’s something else you find particularly appealing about what you’ve seen of us so far.
7.Finally, we will give you a chance to ask us questions.
I appreciate what the footrace analogy is trying to do, but I also find it really troubling. (For what it’s worth, I’m a female Classicist, and a feminist classicist.) Yes, different people have had different advantages and disadvantages over the course of their lives, but suggesting that an SC (or anyone) should promote (or demote) certain people based on _assumptions_ about a person’s history is very dangerous. A female classicist may have faced some disadvantages based on gender, but have had other advantages from wealth, or fantastic mentorship, or what have you. Contrariwise, a white male classicist may have had advantages based on race and gender but grown up in poverty. Or perhaps he had to deal with the death of a parent while in grad school, as did one friend of mine. Or the illness of a spouse or child. Or what have you. Human beings are individuals. Reducing any human being to one single aspect of their identity and assuming you can devalue everything else about them based on that single aspect is truly dehumanizing—even monstrous.The reality is that almost no one is actually running a straight race. All of us are dealing with hurdles.
I sincerely hope that I will never best another candidate based solely on my gender. That would be just as dehumanizing to me as losing to another candidate based solely on my gender. No SC has the power to look into my soul or my past and divine what obstacles or advantages I’ve faced just by looking at me. We should all hope to be judged on our merits, not on our biology.
@7:40 (et al.). SC member here. In my experience—and I am now on the sixth search of my career—identifying the 'best' applicant is less simple than it sounds. One candidate may have more or better publications. One seems to have the more ambitious research agenda. One seems to the better language teacher; another, better in the lecture hall. One gave the best interview. One has the most impressive pedigree (great program, letters from famous people, prestigious awards). One offers expertise in a subfield or approach that connects well with colleagues or perfectly fills our most glaring gap.
Which of these is 'best'? In my experience, it is not often that case that these are the same individual. Weighing our interest in each of these virtues is where the challenge lies, all the more so because most of these are about potential, which someone might or might not live up to.
Into the mix are intangibles. Rumours are that this guy is 'handsy'; that that one is toxic. And we all 'clicked' personally with that other one.
So, @7:40, I think its unlikely that you'll ever come out on top "solely on [your] gender". Might it be a factor? Possibly. Frankly, I'm not sure that in all the noise, even those in the room can say with confidence what role if any it played, and whether its role was a net positive or negative. Heck, I'm not sure I know how great a role it's played with me.
7:40 here. Thanks to 10:35 for giving more context from an SC perspective. I was referring more to the situation at UNC described above, where it sounds like a candidate was indeed preferred to another based solely on her gender. I imagine the discomfort that person must now feel in her own department, if this is (as it seems to be) public knowledge—knowing that some of her colleagues actively fought against her appointment because they genuinely felt another candidate was stronger, while the ones who fought for her wanted her less for her work than her gender. That sounds like a truly toxic situation.
@10:47. 10:35 here. If that UNC search happened as described, sure. But that narrative looks focalized from the perspective of the SC-minority that preferred the male candidate. Would the majority's story be the same?
Original poster regarding the UNC hire here. The result of this search (which was about 3-4 years ago now) was that a very deep division developed between the faculty who most ardently spoke out for and against her hire.
For what it’s worth, the SC had a failed search the year prior to that due to the committee completely at odds in almost all directions as each had a very different vision of who should be brought in. They chose, shockingly, to let the search fail and risk having the Dean approach another search the very next year rather than give any ground and come to an agreement on candidates. They lucked out that they were granted a second T-T hire option the second year, and then that’s when they were very vocal about having the hire being a female.
She definelty knows who the faculty members are that fought hard to keep her from being offered the post. I doubt itt botherenher too much, though, as the voices of opposition have by now retired or are very close to it.
@11:19--fair point, which I think illustrates one of the problems with using gender (e.g.) as a criterion in hiring decisions. If, in some magical future, I get a TT job, I would hate to think that my credentials/competence were being questioned because of my gender, or that I was suspected of being a "diversity" hire. In any case, I think we're gotten a bit off track from the original point in question, which was raised by the "footrace" analogy of 4:07 PM. I argued that this is a poor analogy because (almost) no one faces a straight race and for an SC, or anyone, to make assumptions about the kind of challenges one candidate has faced while assuming another candidate has faced little to none based solely on their race/gender/sexuality is just another form of bias. Looking back on my own life, I honestly have no idea whether I've had net advantages or net disadvantages from being a woman in academia. I really, honestly, can't say. If that's true of me, the individual in question, how can a group of strangers judge which candidates deserve some kind of leg up in the hiring process and, more troublingly, which candidates don't? A human being, as I pointed out above, may have suffered all kinds of hardship completely disconnected from race/gender/LGBTQ status--is all of that "zeroed out" by being a white cis male? Maybe it would be ideal for SC's to get a much more detailed, well-rounded picture of a candidate's life story--did one candidate suffer abuse as a child? Which ones grew up in a broken home? Did one go through a messy divorce while trying to finish the dissertation? Did another resist years of family pressure to go into science or medicine because Classics was their true love? Is one juggling a spouse and children while another is unencumbered? All these things can factor into a person's productivity and accomplishments, arguably quite a bit more than their race/gender/etc., and most of them are quite invisible to a search committee.
Really interesting and worthwhile discussion. I am an occasional but not current SC member. The SC members comments above about identifying the "best" candidate are spot on. Another point to think about from the SC perspective is that they will not necessarily be thinking about how to "right past wrongs" (the hurdle analogy) but as much anything about how your background pertains to how well you can mentor their students.
@12:35. 10:35/11:19 back. I agree that the footrace metaphor is unhelpful, but I've never heard it invoked within a SC and can't imagine that it could work in my department.
And I can empathize with your view that you would hate to be a woman whose achievements (etc) had an asterisk beside them because someone thinks that you were appointed for your gender.
But I have bad news for you. No matter how clear your superiority, someone will apply either that asterisk or some other one to your success: out of our applicant pool of 120, there will be 119 disappointed candidates. All of these 119—as well as their letter writers, friends, and admirers—are motivated (as all humans are) to explain their disappointment on some other basis than that their competition was better.
"I can say that for a recent search for [XYZ] the SC had said, rather clearly, that they deliberately wanted to hire a women. While it’s fantastic that they were aware of gender disparity, it’s awfully unfair to all male candidates. Imagine how much more superior any male candidate would have to have been to eclipse a foregone conclusion that “we ARE hiring a woman.”"
Quote from Charlotte Whitton:
“Whatever women do they must do twice as well as men to be thought half as good. Luckily, this is not difficult.”
PS – Sorry, dudes. I know some of you are very good people. I'm just tired. "awfully unfair." F*ck.
We’re all trying to have an honest and helpful discussion about how to be as fair and balanced as possible without exchanging old-world favoritism of one gender/race for another and calling it “progress.”
You are, though I doubt you will ever see it, a major part of the problem: you state that “some of [us] are very good people,” which means that most are not. How does this kind of dismissive and broad-brush painting of an entire gender help anything? ...Stop seeing those standing alongside you and fighting for equality as *mainly* bad people just because we have a penis. Your view of men is just as jaded and harmful as that of a group of ‘Mad Men’ like men from the ‘60s.
Don’t be so quick to judge your peers simply because they were born with different genitals than yours.
Anyone willing to pass on a job offer that involved criteria other than merit? Just one example is all it would take to prove me wrong... Bueller? Bueller? LOL didn't think so.
Kinda makes this whole conversation rhetorical at best, hypocritical at worst, don'tcha think? It's laughable to me.
Furthermore, job searches are a black box anyway. If you receive an offer all you really know is that you were the best 'fit' for the position -- or the second best. Although you may be told certain reasons why the SC thought you were a good fit, other reasons that played an equally important role may never be articulated to you. Indeed, such reasons may only have been contemplated in the minds of certain SC members but never actually spoken aloud or committed to writing.
I'm just refreshingly to see these discussions happening in a relatively civil manner outside a roundtable of 12 people. We can't deny the fact that the days of classics holding most favored status within the academy are past and it's no longer the gatekeeper for today's elite whether you fall left or right. It's not unequivocally good or bad but undeniably a pivot point in the discipline's history and I've witnessed very little movement that changes the present narrative of a gradual fade into oblivion.
Though all disciplines have their differences, how have we not better defined what classics should be in the 21st century? A good number here believe that a leopard can't change its stripes and there's nothing wrong with classics being 95% white across the board. Regardless of how one feels about this sentiment, we cannot change the fact that the US will be majority non-white in the foreseeable future and the only way I see this paradigm working in the long haul is if classics combines with other departments.
So what do we want? We can't have it all and choices are being made for us by universities whether we like it or not. Maybe we don't give a shit as long as we're employed in the present. I truly am sad if this is the sentiment of the majority today.
I will spare you all a long post, of which I am most capable, and just ask a single two-part question of paramount importance to this discussion of diversity: is there any classics department out there that has been successful at boosting the number of majors and minors who are African-American, Hispanic, and/or Asian, and if so, can that be attributed to the offering of certain specialized courses, or to the hiring of one or more faculty members who themselves belong to one of those groups and thus draw students with a similar background, or to something else? I am not asking about, say, a course on race in antiquity that attracts minority students who then take no further courses in our field, but about a way or ways to boost the number of minority students relative to the number of non-minority students who choose to get a degree in classics, classical archaeology, ancient philosophy, etc.
What I am getting at is, with all this (understandable) bemoaning of our field's lack of diversity, I am skeptical as to whether any department out there has found a way of consistently getting students who are not of European descent more interested in classical studies. And ultimately, that is what truly matters, since more majors means more potential applicants to graduate programs and, ultimately, more professors who are ethnic minorities.
We all know what the problem is, but I am not convinced that anyone has a solution. And if there isn't one, then a whole lot of people in our field need to do some reconsidering.
Yes, we all know what the problem is. Someone earlier cited the blog post by J. Quinn, Against Classics, "The problem is that we are trying to diversify a subject whose borders we have intentionally constrained – and so however much we try to change the game, the rules by which we play ensure that the status quo prevails. If we really want diversity, we need to relinquish our nineteenth-century disciplinary framework."
Quinn mentions two solutions - split up classics or make it more inclusive. As an example of the latter, she states, "join forces with neighouring departments with a focus on antiquity such as Near Eastern Studies and Archaeology, if not at departmental level then at least in terms of our degree courses."
Practically speaking, we need a solid department willing to blow it up and take a risk while led by open-minded group of faculty with fairly broad training. The majority of philologists are not qualified to pull this off for various reasons. We know the elite and sub-elite departments have shown no willingness to take this sort of risk. Why not a school such as Missouri, Arizona, or Oregon? Perhaps this is what Vanderbilt is attempting but now that they have been downgraded to a program (and the broader mandate was forced upon them), I have severe doubts they can pull off anything of the sort while maintaining a classics identity in there. Classicists are typically lost in these scenarios at best and at worst pout and become self-destructive when the paradigm changes. We simply aren't constructed to run without a certain number of uber-specialized philologists in the 19th century model. Who's gonna leap first by training a broader cohort of students with no obvious jobs waiting at the end of an already fading discipline? No, we keep on churning out the same students into oblivion...
In my opinion, I think Latin and Greek ought to move to their school’s Language Dept; history to the History Dept., and classical archeology to the Anthroplogy Dept.
This is, in fact, exactly what the University of Arizona did a few years ago. Everyone was happy with the switch.
@6:42, that is Quinn's solution 1 and the likely future for most non-elite programs in the near future. Very few of the elite classics programs house history and archaeology within the same department as it is. I believe Stanford is the only one at this point.
Anon. 6:42, Regarding your comment that "This is, in fact, exactly what the University of Arizona did a few years ago. Everyone was happy with the switch.": you clearly are unaware that that change was 100% due to the archaeologists scrambling to get away from toxic personalities among the philologists. THAT is why "everyone was happy with the switch." (And why they still are.)
So in fifty years, even if we end up with a handful of PhD programs, where are these graduates placed, especially if they're trained in the same fashion as today? There are only so many elite SLACs and if the programs at flagships become like the present combined/reduced ones at lesser state schools, graduates from elite schools don't typically do well in such scenarios - lots of teaching, mentoring, and overall jazz hands required with both students and administrators. I've seen plenty of Harvard and Stanford PhDs sink like rocks once the realization hits that life isn't as cush as their former digs in Cambridge and Palo Alto.
Oooh, sorry, I did a terrible job of posting earlier. I normally just anonymously lurk here and apparently don't know how to effectively post things. In particular, I'd love to hear thoughts about what we (by "we" I mean the Classics and Social Justice group, and primarily those with, say, TT positions and some sort of clout in the field to get things changed) can push for, in terms of more compassionate and less awful hiring practices. I certainly have thoughts, but I would love to hear other thoughts and I can definitely strip things of identifying information before passing along any suggestions. I did have some really positive conversations with a search committee chair (after I didn't hear anything back and the wiki said everyone had heard back about interviews and/or rejections) and there are some blind spots older faculty members have because there wasn't a wiki when they were hired, for instance. I definitely think some of the misery of being on the job market could easily be made less bad (though, you know, not GOOD).
The agenda is here, such as it is. This is a pretty loose outline of things we'd like to make some progress on, but one of the big things is to figure out exactly what the group does. Between several different recently formed groups, there are people trying to do work on sexual harassment, diversity, non-TT faculty, etc. With any luck, several meetings in Boston will help people figure out who actually does what: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NPCSzXwkG-Gg3jLz3V9HZ5HY-P7csv3zJVU7shkTf9A/edit
Please do email me though with thoughts about hiring practices (and other things) -- I feel like there could very easily be an Eidolon-hosted discussion about some easy fixes to make job market anxiety less terrible.
Re: the footrace analogy. I think the point was in reference to an earlier comment, that said that all factors besides "merit" should be ignored, and the footrace poster was saying that "merit" is not an objective criterion. Obviously no one should be hired solely because they are a woman, or Black, or whatever. The point was about whether you can really evaluate people based on "merit" without acknowledging that not everyone has equal access to merit-based activities (for a variety of reasons).
I, in all honesty, believe the SCS should start a support group for senior faculty. There seems to be a point when a good number jump the shark and do crazy shit that burns their position or worse. It seems significantly higher than the academic norm considering how relatively few positions exist compared to larger departments. Please, for the love of humanity and the Humanities, let's make it stop...
What a sad state of affairs when underemployed recent grads who can barely rub two nickels together are trying to get help for overemployed seniors. I suppose the dynamic makes sense since they're our parents' age at this point. If you still don't use email like my dad, it might be time to call it a career...
@6:36, when you quote Quinn's second solution, I whole-heartedly support this approach in certain scenarios but I would caution that it must be a two-way street. An uber-specialized Egyptologist or Assyriologist with no clue about the classical world will not do. This has happened in the past and they invariably end up becoming marginalized to the chagrin of all. It's labeled as a failed experiment and never revisited.
My New Year’s resolution: get the hell out of academe! Can’t wait to convert the capital of a vast teaching experience, monograph, edited volume, 5 languages, and prestigious postdoc into some serious money :) It didn’t convert into a T-T job, while I watched internal candidates, spouses and yet more spouses beat me for jobs. Training and Development executive/junior management positions are going to fall into my lap... Well, that’s the plan anyway. Farewell, my lovelies. Best of luck with it all, but know when to cut your losses.
@12/31 3:27 So what are the early murmurs about Penn? Let's hope that they (and Brown and Albany, if they are still out there?) had the good sense not to reject people over the holidays. Two years ago I got a rejection on Christmas day! Bah humbug, indeed.
I don’t have much faith in the Albany SC. They weren’t even competent enough to know the difference between Hellenic and Hellenistic in their job ad. They want a Greek historian, and as such surely meant to say they were looking for ancient historian who focuses on the Hellenic world. Instead, they said they were looking for one who focuses on the Hellenistic.
I don’t have a stake in this race and happen to have close connections with faculty there. They’ve said for years that since they have a scholar who does the Middle Ages (and the VERY late Middle Ages, might I add), they don’t need a Roman historian, since the Medievalist can cover both—he can’t. It’s wishful thinking. So, they’ve saidnfor years that they want a Classical Greek historian. I heard about this job well before it came to be this year, and it was always phrased as “we’re going to hire a Greek historian.”
Whoever actually wrote the ad (I’m not sure who did), but they most definitely made a mistake in its phrasing.
This is a problem, not just because they don’t know their terminology (I’m not that much of a snob), but rather that all of the historians who actually focus on the Hellenistic world (which is NOT what Albany wants; they’ve said consistently that they want a scholar who can cover early Greece up though the end of the Classical period, and have no interest in hiring one whose focus lay after Alexander (which of course is the “Hellenistic” world) wasted their time and others likely adjusted their cover letter and CV to reflect a more Hellnistic focus rather than a Classical one—thereby shooting themselves in the foot.
If the job market wasn’t so horrible this would be comical. But, given the current climate this is absolutely tragic.
Also, their interview handling is another MAJOR problem since they (arrogantly) felt that they could trim their list to 3 and have on-campus off the bat and avoid Skype (this has a high chance of causing the search to fail).
I’m not sure what from of candidates were contacted for interviews at Albany, but I truly feel sorry for them and all of those whose applications were tossed on account of a VERY misleading ad being placed.
(FWIW, my inside knowledge regarding Albany suggests that the SC’s horrible fumbling [the bad ad and the poor choice to jump to visits] will result in a failed search. I suspect to see it appear again in the next few years handled better).
@7:47, interesting take. But surely they received many applications from all sorts of ancient historians- what's to stop them from righting the 'wrong' of the ad language through the culling of candidates?
Not to keep dragging things back to earlier topics, but I find the moaning and complaining about promoting diversity in Classics at both the faculty and student levels to be immensely childish and oblivious when there are far more immanent threats to the discipline. I would even argue that ignoring the lack of diversity only serves to compound some of the other problems.
At this stage, Classics is well on its way to extinction; a perfect storm has engulfed the field over the past decade. You've got bean-counting greedhead professional administrators targeting fields that don't fit into the wrongheaded and inane notion that "a university should be run like a business." There are people in public office who can barely string a sentence together who exist to do damage to higher education. You have graduate programs churning out too many PhDs. SCs who are fine with continuing inbreeding by hiring graduates from the same narrow swathe of programs again and again. The crisis of the humanities about which countless words have been written--if there were a TT position for every one of these goddamn articles there wouldn't be a crisis.
Given all the problems, the grumbling about more qualified women and people of color getting jobs in Classics or applicants having to write a diversity statement for a job application comes across as utterly tone-deaf and myopic. It makes you sound like you've spent too long masturbating over Hesiod or fragmentary Lyric poets or whatever when you might have spent a bit more time studying history and anthropology so you'd maybe understand some of the structural, economic, and systemic forces that have shaped the field.
Classics doesn't exist in a vacuum and complaining about how hard white men have it in a field they dominate is not a good look. If you aren't clever enough to figure out that diversity doesn't just included race or gender, but also includes socioeconomic background, disabilities, sexual orientation, being a first-generation college student, etc., then you probably don't deserve a job in academia to begin with because the students that we teach are increasingly from any number of those categories.
The world is changing and we can argue about whether or not it is for good or ill, but either way as someone who loves Classics, I would like to see the field remain with us. The discipline can only endure, though, if we work to make changes. Otherwise, the field will die. If it dies because people dig in their heels and refuse to change, then perhaps that death is merited.
Re Albany, FWIW, I have heard through the grapevine about someone I sort of know who got an interview, and they are not a Greek historian at all. It's pretty clear the SC there had no consensus on what they wanted---whether or not they didn't (also) not know anything about the terminology and history of the premodern world.
Moreover, the jump straight to on-campus interviews, though not much discussed here at the time, seems clearly to suggest that the search is fundamentally a sham. The alternative is that the SC is too arrogant and foolish to understand that first-round interviews are conducted for a reason.
They very well might, but the issue at hand isn’t so much that the Albany SC won’t get *some* candidates they meant to get, but that a massive number of candidates who *would have* been good fits were surely tossed in the “no” pile at first glance. Leaving the ones that appear to be right not the best choices. Add to this that the Albany SC also chose not to have a 1st round of 12-15 Skypees but jumped straight to 3 campus visits. ...that, in and of itself, is highly foolish; the 3 chosen might be bumbling idiots who have nice degrees but could easily bomb an interview or give a horrible impression to the SC. (I in no way am saying that those asked to visit Albany are such, but rather I mean to underscore the inedpitidue of Albany’s SC to put themselves in such a tight position for no real reason).
What I foresee happening with Albany is one of two results:
1.) a failed search, for the reasons highlighted above
2.) a hastey hire made with the silent agreement that “the new guy” won’t be awarded tenure, so that in 3-4 years they can redo the search (this scenario happened rather recently—Albany has a very, very hostile Admin, which makes some Depts there ‘eat their young’, so to speak.
...either way, it’s best to not be in the running for Albany and best to cut losses now and pick up a VAP gig elsewhere. Add to this the fact that the Dept is highly dysfunctional and toxic—as was the Classics Dept before it was (famously) killed off unexpectedly by the Admin with the last decade. Albany is dumping tens of millions of dollars into STEM, chiefly a massive Nano-Tech facility that’s now almost as large as the rest of the campus combined, yet they keep gutting humanities and making life unbearable for Humanities faculty. It’s, perhaps, one of the most disastrous situations that I’ve seen.
Morale of the story: be glad if you’re a philiologist and have no stake in Albany. For those in the running: ask your friends to tie you to the mast like Odysseus and avoid the Sirens’ call of Albany.
It makes you sound like you've spent too long masturbating over Hesiod or fragmentary Lyric poets or whatever when you might have spent a bit more time studying history and anthropology[etc.]...
Or, you know, might have spent some time conceiving of other people through lenses other than one's own...the whole g-d purpose of the field to begin with, if one believes its hype rather than its practice.
Funny the comments above about hiring at UNC;that particular thread of dysfunction must run deep. Someone told me that when they hired the senior archaeologist there now, must have been the early 1990s,the department had an extreme gender imbalance and they hoped to hire a woman. They invited three finalists, all women, to campus and then the departmemt split between two candidates: the philologists wanted one candidate (who worked on epigraphy) and the archaeologists and cultural historians wanted another. They couldn't reach a consensus, deadlocked, so they invited a fourth candidate. A man. And hired him. The kicker though was that the male candidate (now senior archaeologist there) and the female candidate the archaeolodgists wanted to hire had virtually identical credentials: degree from the same school, involved in the same excavation, they had even co-authored articles.
How do all these searches fail in a job market where a department can ask for every imaginable bizarre combination of qualifications and specialties and have multiple people queuing up to apply?
fI do not know why we keep holding these things in Boston, Chicago or Toronto. It makes no sense, and it means that weather ruins virtually every meeting.
I think we should have no SCS meetings north of Virginia... it seems like they have managed to choose the coldest cities possible the past few years! Let's go back to NOLA, please.
January 2, 2018 at 5:28 PM: Yes. I have been on search committees that have made accommodations for candidates who missed the conference because of interviews. We did phone or Skype interviews instead. In one case, we ended up hiring a candidate who did a Skype interview. Communication with the search committee chair and the SCS Placement Service is key. They'll understand.
...or, we can all just refuse to go to the pointless meeting and we can all just Skype for round one anyway.
The presentations are always sub-par and riddled with anxiety on account of the interviews. And to be honest, does anyone really want to listen to the 5,000th presentation on the Aeneid anyway?
Even New Orleans was unseasonably cool the last time we were there. We need to stop inflicting terrible winter weather on all of these unsuspecting cities.
It’s not necessarily complaining about the weather, per se, but the consequences of the weather. For example, for those of us in ancient History, there is the SCS/AIA and the AHA held (unfortunately) on the same days and always in different cities. So, for those of us that need to “conference hop” for interviews at both, the weather can lead to cancellations of flights and mess with your interview schedule.
If you ONLY go to SCS, I agree, don’t complain just be sure to have extra funds available to pay for an extra hotel stay or for a rental car and just drive it out of the flights are cancelled (I do this, since I’m a northerner and couldn’t care less about snow).
Lol at "just be sure to have extra funds available." Some of us aren't so lucky as to have that option. Also, many of us have to teach on Monday and many are traveling much to far to "drive it out."
SC member here. Our flight tomorrow was cancelled. We can get to Boston tonight, but we wonder whether we should stay home and do all Skype interviews. We figure this would take pressure off candidates who are similarly struggling to get to Boston, but would it be disastrous for any who do come to switch their plans? We're looking for perspectives!
For those who are in Boaton, they are already there. I’m sure it will take an edge off for their interview if they can comfortably just Skype it in, plus they’ll likely see it as a bonus for them against other candidates (that they “toughed it out” and made it there when even the SC couldn’t), and they’ll actually have an enjoyable SCS experience in that they can relax, meet up with old friends, and have zero worries that they may bump in to any SC members after the interview (which is, almost always, a bit uncomfortable for both).
I'm in Boston, giving a paper, and I'd rather be interviewed in person. I just handle it better than video, which I think puts me at a disadvantage for a number of reasons.
@2:50, yeah I think I’d be pretty annoyed if I braved ice and snow, rebooked flights/hotels/etc and made it to Boston only to find that the SC just gave up and stayed home. Especially because the travel/administrative stuff takes time (not to mention mental/emotional resources) that could have been spent on interview prep.
Of course, SC’s must (and I'm sure will) make alternate arrangements for people who can’t make it.
@2:50, why not go, but offer the candidates a choice upfront, making clear that Skype will not put them at a disadvantage? That way candidates struggling to find a flight out (or who are going out for only a single interview) will not feel so harried trying to make this work in admittedly poor circumstances. Candidates who would prefer to go (or who have to regardless) can then interview in person.
No more SCS. Who plans conferences in these cities in early January? You could at least include one free drink with that ridiculous opening night reception charge.
I remember Chicago! I went to my shitty interviews and then almost died because I needed to walk a mile to the train station, it was -40 with wind chill, the snow was knee high, and I forgot to bring a jacket. I think maybe the SCS chooses meeting locations in an attempt to thin the applicant herd.
10:10PM here. Nope! I left academia immediately thereafter. I still lurk here because I am because I'm basically a ghost, already dead but not able to move on, flitting about the abandoned rooms in which once I dissertated, moaning softly: "Greek! Latin!" *rattles chains*
I checked out the meeting rooms for the AIA/SCS interviews (the ones in the Westin, 7th floor, at least) and, fyi, they were pretty cold, so prepare accordingly.
Oh boy oh boy, nothing like adding a further layer of uncertainty onto the old cake o' uncertainty that is the job market. My interview will be rescheduled, to a time still during the meeting, but who knows when?
I'm surprised that anyone even made it to Boston. Ten of us Classics/Archaeology people from my university were planning to attend and only three ended up making it there, and that was because they arrived yesterday or earlier in the week.
Coming in here today was literally a near-death experience for me. I swear I will NEVER, EVER go to another SCS in the North again. Anyone who can afford to is welcome to join my boycott.
I am quite frustrated. I’m an ancient historian and though job prospects for all of us are pretty thin, they’re seemingly the worst for those of us who are classical historians. There hasn’t been a new TT job posted since late October, and of the ~6-7 jobs, two are not going to anyone among us here (Princeton and Chicago), and there are most defiantly a great number of philologists with shiny pedigrees putting in for “history” jobs that they aren’t suited for, and may even succeed in poaching a few of our jobs.
Add to this that the history job boards list, on average, 5-6 New TT jobs every single week (even now). But, none for ancient. What is popping up almost every day are new TT lines for African-American historians. This is frustrating since undoubtedly most of those institutions *already have* a handful of US historians yet they are adding another. This is very perplexing since ancient courses will always fill at max capacity (150-200) whereas all of the A-A courses usually have enrollment numbers around 20.
I’m not saying that decisions ought to be based solely on how many seats can be filled, but it’s particularly disturbing when one notes that the employment of the so-called “business model” that many large R1 state universities follow today use the low enrollment numbers of Latin and Greek as reason #1 to shut down or downgrade Classics Depts.
@4:47 I'm sorry, did you just suggest that we should not try to correct past wrongs by offering space to ethnic studies and Africana studies in university curricula? Is that a real thing you said?
Read my comment again; you didn't grasp what it was that I was saying, saw that I do not take a carte blacnhe approach regarding how the academy ought to treat ethnic studies, got triggered, and replied.
Hello, I'm finally here: frozen, exhausted from travel, recovering from being stranded in various places, and very jetlagged. Can someone please tell me where I can print my paper/handouts and how much I have to pay for this privilege? I present tomorrow morning.
"Add to this that the history job boards list, on average, 5-6 New TT jobs every single week (even now). But, none for ancient. What is popping up almost every day are new TT lines for African-American historians. This is frustrating since undoubtedly most of those institutions *already have* a handful of US historians yet they are adding another. This is very perplexing since ancient courses will always fill at max capacity (150-200) whereas all of the A-A courses usually have enrollment numbers around 20."
You might not want to make statements that you can't actually back up with real numbers. I'm at an elite medium-ish sized public R1 and a quick look at the African/African-American History and African-American studies courses for the coming semester show that the survey courses have over 100 students, the more focused classes (of which there are quite a few) have between 40-60, and the smaller, upper level courses/seminars have 15-20 each. These are all full.
It seems that you've fallen into one of the traps that administrators love, which is making people from one humanities/social science disciplines see other disciplines as threats and enemies. When it the time comes for the cuts, the divide and conquer approach is thus all the more easy for them to enact by picking off departments piecemeal.
Can anyone offer me some advice? Just arrived to SCS. Advanced PhD student at lower end 2nd-tier program with very few colleagues attending the conference. I apparently don't go to a classy enough school to network (I have tried starting conversations, only to be ignored when someone more important shows up / nobody knows me or any of my professors), and I'm just wandering the halls/hiding in my hotel room. Any suggestions?
Can someone explain the point of live-tweeting a panel to me? I mean, I get that it's like broadcasting the event so that people not present can somehow still participate. So I guess my question is, has anyone actually participated in a live-tweet and if so, did you find it useful?
@9:34, I'm sorry to hear that! My SCS travel plans were foiled, otherwise I would be happy to catch a drink. As for networking, I know it's tough, but one thing I've learned is to think about how *you* can benefit someone else. I read "Love is the Killer App" and really liked some of its insights. But if you find it tough to connect, don't be down on yourself. A lot of people are stressed and trying to network themselves. And, Classicists are known for being a bit awkward in the first place. Good luck, and stay warm!
9:34 - find some panels/talks you find interesting and just go by yourself. if nothing is interesting, try challenging yourself and going to those that might give you a completely different perspective on the ancient world. browsing new books in the exhibition hall might be a good time filler too. if you get fed up with all that, go to the MFA, it's a nice museum.
don't worry about important people stealing conversations, that goes on at all stages of people's career and has nothing to do with you as a person. it happens to everyone. and finally, there is nothing wrong with hiding in your room.
if you still feel anxious tomorrow, just write here and maybe we can meet to hang out :)
"Can anyone offer me some advice? Just arrived to SCS. Advanced PhD student at lower end 2nd-tier program with very few colleagues attending the conference. I apparently don't go to a classy enough school to network (I have tried starting conversations, only to be ignored when someone more important shows up / nobody knows me or any of my professors), and I'm just wandering the halls/hiding in my hotel room. Any suggestions?"
I want to say part of the problem is that many people didn't bother trying to come or couldn't because of the weather and that you'd probably have better luck if more people were there, but that's not true. A lot of people in the field won't be bothered with talking to anyone who doesn't have an Ivy or par-Ivy on their nametag, especially when it comes to students.
This is a problem that carries over into hiring and the Classics job market more broadly (and honestly probably the humanities more broadly, too) and has been discussed at length here at FV. I personally find that this kind of attitude is ultimately detrimental to the field because you essentially have variations on the same person populating the vast majority of departments, people with PhDs, for the most part, from the same handful of schools.
So advice for the conference? If you're a philologist, maybe try to find some archaeologists who are drinking. I find that generally we're somewhat less snobbish than our fellows in the other subfields (no offense). At the very least we're less snobbish when drunk, and we're drunk a lot.
9:34: "Go home and find another profession. You will not regret it."
Heh. I had a professor tell me that years ago when I asked them for advice on applying to graduate school. You wouldn't happen to be a bitter, middle-aged woman with a bad haircut and tacky jewelry at an R1 in the Midwest, would you?
Seriously people. Your advice to the poster is not to feel bad about hiding in a hotel room, or maybe check out the MFA, or try to hit a panel and maybe say hi to someone?
This attitude is exactly part of the problem. At some point, it becomes simply immoral to advise anything other than to exit this train wreck.
This person is already here. Telling them to go back where they came from is not going to help their current anxiety. So yeah, I advised MFA. It is a nice museum after all.
I second the MFA. Conferences got so much less grim once I realized that sightseeing was a totally ok thing to do. I wish I could offer something more than that, though.
I don't know, I think that the people whining about how diversity is ruining the field and how jobs that ancient historians should have are being stolen by people who specialize in African-American history are better examples of Classics' toxicity.
There are always trends in life, academia included. Right now African-American studies are very trendy and many Depts want to have one or two specialists to both A) showboat their “diversity” and B) keep up with the Joneses, so to speak.
Classics (including Ancient History) comprise the oldest and most traditional form of higher education, so most schools already have an ancient historian or have already allocated how such courses are to be treated. On the reverse, many larger and top schools have A-A programs and studies now but everyone else is scrambling to “keep up” with the latest trend, the result being what’s being mentioned above about the large number of new T-T jobs for A-A scholars.
I don’t agree with being hostile to ethnic studies, but I do feel that if a Dept has an adequate number of U.S. historians and are using a new line to bring in another U.S. historian who focuses on A-A history, that’s a bad move; better to bring in an A-A historian (who is, in every respect, a U.S. historian) only when a current U.S. historian leaves. ...I’m at a top-5 University and our History Dept here has 2 ancient, 2 medieval, and 1 renaissance coursing our “premodern” cohort, and triple that for modern. So, I’d be strongly opposed if our History Dept sought to being in a 13th U.S. historian regardless of their speciality when we could really use more premodrnists.
I think that’s what’s fueling OP’s post above about the sad state of affairs for ancient. If so, I agree; if their motive is more driven by blatant opposition to A-A studies, the I disagree.
To be fair, we poke fun at all the men here in their stupid tweed jackets (there honestly are too many), so why is it so wrong to make an equal observation about what many of the older women here look like (bad haircuts and tacky oversized jewelry)?
Because it's not an equal observation? Because you are harping on women's age (not nubile and sexy enough for you?) and also their physical appearance rather than just what they are wearing?
There are some terrible societal trends beyond our control but we are not doing ourselves any favors. Rather than being hostile to any attempts at diversity, why not look at it as an opportunity, a time for reflection? I'm appalled at some sentiments on here regardless of how brutal this market is for all. It's not good enough to say classics just attracts a certain type and call it a day. As someone pointed out, we are not nearly as diverse as any ethnic studies field. To say it's just a white thing is a path to certain destruction. What purpose do we serve then? To bring attention to something that already courses through the veins of western society? Not a very good selling point. As a curious grad student observer, I attended the AIA council tonight and I was totally shocked (as an ancient historian). I saw two visible minorities in the entire audience. It in no fashion resembles anything but Wal-Mart country. It's a numbers game and we are totally screwed on the current trajectory. Extinction awaits us and I see little alarm or any attempts to rectify this situation. Try to sell more issues of Archaeology magazine? Good grief, I went to archaeology for hope and came away with the opposite.
4,546 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 801 – 1000 of 4546 Newer› Newest»So are CVs truly read? Is this how Hellenists end up filling positions that claim to favor specialties in Greek history and archaeology - i.e. by persuasively arguing in cover letters that they could teach these subjects? I've seen plenty of supposed Greek history and archaeology classes butchered by totally unqualified classicists who basically use wikipedia and string along passages about the Dorians and whatnot. From my observations, there are certainly more "culture" courses butchered in this manner by well-intentioned classicists than baby Greek by historians and archaeologists who typically do a splendid job. And then you invariably have Hellenists and Latinists on search committees vetting these claims since most departments have only one or two historians/archaeologists. It totally makes sense now.
"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."
From what I understand, the governing body of some disciplines explicitly discourage requiring letters in applications until an initial cut is made.
@5:07. SC-member here. In our meetings, one or more of us has expressed their distaste, disapproval, or suspicion of one or more letter writer. In my experience, this has not hurt any candidates. Sure, that letter might not help. We're more likely to pity someone for having to put up with some jerk.
You might have an excellent department, but I find this hard to believe as a general rule. As some SC members have pointed out above, it's a 40 yard dash and overworked academics are desperately looking for any clear means to disqualify applicants. A letter from a suspicious referee seems like an gimme for this culling process.
@10:10 PM RE CVs
I have been on committees in several disciplines in addition to Classics both as voting member and Affirmative Action representative (Anthro, Hist, Phil Eng; in total, 8 over 10 years) .
I read applications in the following order: CV, Cover Letter, Teaching Materials, Recommendations, Writing Sample.
The CV and cover letter usually let me know (1) if this candidate fits the job ad well and (2) generally how they represent themselves (as researcher, teacher, as the best person in the universe, with humility, etc.). I care a lot about teaching, so I look at the teaching materials next and see whether or not they support or echo the experience listed on CV and comments made on cover letter.
I find recommendations to be usually inflated. (With the exceptions of a few institutions where some famous people write some, well, understated letters.) I do take recommendations of people I know (well) more seriously because I can cut through (some) of the BS. In letters, I look for how the writer characterizes the scholarship of the candidate (red flags: if the articulation is much more sophisticated (or much less) than the candidates) and basically for what degree the recommenders' opinions of the candidate echo, amplify, or reframe the candidate's own.
I read the writing sample last in the first round (and sometimes don't get there). I read it more in the second round and during campus visits. I do this because (1) I am not competent to judge all types of scholarship and (2) you tend to get a sense of the candidate's writing from the letter etc.
Hope this helps. I am on a search this semester. My first search for a classicist was a decade ago. I have been really floored by how much more sophisticated and polished the letters and CVs are in just a decade's time. Many fewer ABDs; everyone has publications (usually multiple); everyone says thoughtful things about teaching. In short, of the 50 applications I have read, I would be happy interviewing 25. But I can't. I suspect I would not get an interview today. (I went on the market from a second tier school with one publication in 2006).
Best of luck and better days to every one.
Thank you for the excellent post during a busy time, 5:22. May all SC members be as thoughtful and meticulous as you. May Classics hold out as long as possible.
@10:41. I can see why you'd say that it seems like an easy cut. But I just can't see it happening in the searches that I've been on. One thing to remember is that these are committees. As a committee member, I'm never going to be talked into a cut because a colleague argues "letter writer B is a jerk", even if I agree about B. (Remember, some of us are evil and some of us are stupid, but very few of us are evil and stupid.)
Exactly, which means that the evil ones are usually cunning and could torpedo an app much more subtly...
This is @5:22 again. I meant to write that I also discount a lot of recommendations because of the blatant sexism they show.
Honestly, here is some advice for letter-writers, please think about the adjectives you use to describe women and people of color. Compare them to the way to talk about male scholars. The subtle and not so subtle differences would be absurd and laughable if I was not sure that most of us have trouble seeing through them.
So, yeah, I really weigh the identity of the writer of the recommendation against the identity of the applicant. This makes recommendations trickier and more exhausting.
@5:22 &8:44,
My advisor is a very, very well known scholar. He too has also stated (numerous times) that if he were on the job market today as a fresh PhD, he wouldn’t be able to get a job either. ...the market expects far too much of junior scholars.
I'm tenured so I have no dog in this fight, but isn't it troublesome that with such extreme downward pressure on jobs that those most likely to make it through will be from a select circle that will in turn either whither away from inbreeding or best case repopulate with little genetic diversity? We truly are an endangered species...
5:07 PM here (with the "off their rocker" letter writer)
Thanks for the responses. The fact that there are a range of reactions to the situation makes me feel good about the overall state of hiring practices. At least we are all not doing exactly the same thing.
Thanks again for the input.
Is it standard for SC's not to notify candidates of their rejection after a first-round interview? I understand that notifying 300+ people that they will not even get a first-round interview is a huge amount of work without an automated system, but after an interview (albeit short), it would seem courteous to let them know they won't be going to the next stage, even if it's just with an impersonal email.
Is it standard for SC's not to notify candidates of their rejection after a first-round interview?
Yes. You're all still technically in the running until the search is complete, at least at my institution.
One thing interests me about the "off their rocker" recommender: everyone who responded to 5:07 assumed that they were in agreement with the SC member.
What if the SC member is actually the problematic person (which might be unknown to the dept. since 5:07 said that SC member is outside the dept.)? Why did everyone immediately side with SC member without taking a moment to question that person?
Wanted to wish you all a Merry Christmas!
Merry Christmas to all!
Furman sent out topics they want to cover in the interviews, and in case they're helpful for others - in preparing for interviews, in thinking about their roles as classicists, teachers, mentors, in thinking about the progress of the field, whatever - I'm posting them here:
- What is our resposibility to students who major in Classics?
- How might your work translate into opportunities for collaboration with students on serious and significant research?
- What is the most difficult thing to teach in a Greek or Latin course?
- Furman University is working to be more diverse and more inclusive. As a University and as a department we have plenty of room for improvement; this new position is meant to help us improve. What concrete steps should we be taking?
I really like these questions. They're not "stock" questions, they focus not just on the applicant and her/his research, but also on classics as a field, students and their needs and concerns, and diversity and inclusivity.
I really don't like the question about how one's work might 'translate into opportunities for collaboration with students on serious and significant research.' Most of the undergraduates I've taught can't follow the simplest instructions even repeated multiple times. There's no way I would trust them with anything more difficult than operating a light switch. Certainly I've seen exceptional undergraduates that could have potential in this respect, but I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts that no one on a search committee could actually answer this question in a meaningful or honest way.
That said, I do like the rest of the questions. The last one in particular is far more meaningful than a boilerplate, HR-imposed diversity statement. This suggests to me a department that has given some real thought to the role played diversity in the Classics.
I've had really amazing and surprising interactions and experiences with undergraduate students. It was an undergraduate student who solved the riddle of the Incan knots, after all (https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2017/08/a-students-mines-voices-from-the-incan-past/). OK, not everyone can be motivated in the same ways and some seem like lost causes, but they're not all bad, nor are even most of them. I can understand why and how one could become pessimistic about the value of undergraduate students in academic endeavors, but it's not the only option.
Whoever posted that Brown had its job talks posted-- can you please post the link? I can't see them anywhere.
@5:11, you can find the Brown job talks among the past events here: https://www.brown.edu/academics/archaeology/events/past
On undergraduate research: I strongly agree that with rare exception, undergraduates, even talented ones, are not ready to conduct research in classics. Quite simply, it takes time to master no just the languages, but also the corpus of primary and secondary materials. Thus while it is worthwhile to have undergraduates conduct independent work (research papers, senior thesis), in most instances undergraduates are not yet ready to serve as partners on publishable projects.
Are there exceptions. Sure. An undergraduate in Wisconsin let a professor shoot him with an arrow and became a co-author on his book on Greek armor after he survived. But these exceptions are very rare indeed.
I really hate this whole “diversity” thing. ...let me explain before you all come at me with pitchforks and torches...
Just because field ‘A’ happens to be largely made up of folks of race/ethnicity ‘x’ does not mean that we ought to say, “uh-oh. This isn’t a perfect distribution of gender and/or ethnicity; we better fix that.” There is nothing wrong with the fact that some individuals are drawn to certain fields. We all know this deep down, but seem to ONLY get upset when white males happen to comprise a majority of said field’s demographic; and we all are supposed to applaud when we deliberately make efforts to increase female and/or minority representation. This is horribly hypocritical. For example: we often see campaigns to increase young girls’ interests in STEM fields, which *is* highly male dominated. BUT... why aren’t there equal pushes to try to increase male enrollment in fields that have wildly high female enrollment, such as nursing. My wife is a nurse and at her graduation (ca. 120) there were 2 men. As if it isn’t hard enough for males that want to go into nursing to do so without (open and veiled) scutiny, at the ceremony the head of the Dept repeatedly made statements like “all of these women here behind me...” or “these young women have worked so hard...”
Also, what about fields that are not only 99% female BUT ALSO would see most people angry if a man pursued it and tried to be hired in their community: such as a Kindergarden teacher.
It’s not true “diversity” if you can say “hey, let’s get more young women intersteted in science and engineering” but, simultaneously, you would. It say “let’s try to get more young men interested in nursing or Kindergarden teaching.” Balance is balance, and diversity should be diversity.
A second example. We like to self-shame ourselves as Classicists because, gasp, the field is extremely European, ethnically speaking. But, is this really a surprise or anything that needs to be “fixed”? ...people are genuinely interested in their own historical story, and given that Greece and Rome (while surely rather multi-cultural in many respects) were civilizations overwhelmingly comprised of caucasian Western Europeans, and were civilizations whose torch was carried most prominently by later Western European societies, it should be no large shock that white people of European ancestry see the Greco-Roman world as the roots of later European society more than any other precursor. (Yes, I know that it’s not this cut and dry, so spare me he splitting of hairs on this). ...So, is the fact that Classics is so white a problem? No. Why? For the same reason why it’s no problem that most historians of East Asia and had students of East Asia also are of East Asian ancestry. It’s their history and touches them in a profound way, and there’s nothing wrong with that. Likewise, most historians of African-American history are themselves African-American. Most women’s studies scholars are women.
Until you can also advocate to increase non-Black presence in the fields of African studies, or non-Asian presence in the fields of East Asian studies, or to increase the number of men in nursing, Kindergarden and pre-K teaching, of Women’s Studies programs, what lever it is that you’re championing can’t be called “diversity.” I’m not too sure what you could call it, but it surely isn’t diversity.
The only answer is simple: just simply be loving and open and accepting of all peoples from all gender identities and all ethnicities and let people pursue whatever fields they gravitate towards. Replacing pro-white racism and misogyny with what we often see mascarading as “diversity” is simply exchanging one form of racism/sexism for another.
@10:59, wut. There's nothing inherent in Classics that makes it appeal to elite white men. It's the structure of the field, how it has been intentionally and purposefully crafted by white Europeans, not the field in-and-of-itself, that excludes. If you change how you "do" classics, you can change who it "naturally" appeals to. And your analogies don't even make sense. It's our culture that has determined who is suited for what kinds of roles. And since our culture has largely been male-driven, it's men who decided that nursing is better suited for women. That's the great thing about being a white man, isn't it? That you get to decide what's for you (read: apparently anything you want). WOMEN aren't keeping men from being nurses or whatever, that's not on us.
We need active movements to encourage diversity, and once there are more diverse boards, faculties, etc., then we can hope for people to "simply be...accepting of all peoples." But you can't sit back and say that the committee or panel of older white men is going to make decisions in the best interests of everyone. Obviously they haven't already, and they've had hundreds of years to do it. We need people to be active and conscious in their efforts to make classics, and academia, more inclusive or accepting and it's too bad when people don't feel like they have any part to play, any responsibility.
Female Classcists here. I have a few things to add
I agree with 10:59 on a lot of his/her points. But I have a few things to say.
@11:34: I think you’re wrong on your point about the appeal of classics to white men. The leading figures and shapers of the Roman/Latin world and (largely) the Greek/Hellenic world were what we would classify as white men. They lived in an extremely patriarchal world and everything from their visual to literary achievements reflect this. 10:59 is right that Western Europe (men and women) gained the most direct influence from the Classical world and they *were* the cultural heirs of it, like it or not. As such, people of Europe ancestry have a vast amount of cultural, linguistic, legal, religious, and societal inheritance from the classical world; certainly more than any other peoples.
@11:51: I agree. But, I don’t think that forced diversity is an answer. You won’t find a more liberal and progressive facet of society than academia; I highly doubt that groups of these sinister older white men sit in closed rooms rubbing their hands together doing whatever they can to keep minorities and us women from “joining.” I think that mentality is dangerous, because it villainizes all older white men in positions of power and, furthermore, it creates an “us versus them” way of thinking that promotes antagonizsim.
..and lastly, @10:59: I agree with almost everything you said, but I think that what’s being forgotten is that in doing absolutely nothing, the greater the likelihood that things won’t ever change (and it’s hard to tell if you favor such change). Yes, it would be great if diversity just “happened” but we have to (sometimes) give it a little push. I think that a lot of what’s going on now is an overselling of diversity, but you always have to push a bit harder than where you want to move the pendulum to change where it’s resting.
...and for the record, I DO think that mothers (who are women) would most definitely protest having their kids having a male Kindergarden teacher, so, sorry 11:34, but angry soccer moms with Kate Gosselin haircuts would show up in droves to stop a man from having that job at their school.
(Well, that's now three posts I've written and then deleted. Each of which would have generally supported 10:59 p.m., and each of which undoubtedly would have infuriated some of those around here.)
No wonder classics is so fucked up and about to die...the academic version of white lives matter...
So, 10:59 et al. are talking out of their doxai and not out of their epistemai.
The following scholars, to name a few off the top of my head, would like to offer some historiai:
Denise McOskey
Benjamin Isaac
Sarah Bond
Rebecca Kennedy
Martin Bernal
Frank Snowden
TLDR:
It's about as useful to call Greeks and Romans "white" as it is to call them "heterosexual" or "homosexual". Skin-based race is an "obvious" "truth" constructed by Euro-American society largely in response to the African slave-trade. Ancient concepts of race draw dramatically different divisions along many other axes.
@2:27,
I can’t say that I’ve read all of those scholars you listed, but I can say for sure that Bernal has been disproven and that (currently anyway) consensus holds that he’s wrong on many, many points. So far as one of the other scholars you mentioned (I won’t name names, since they’re rather young and active in the field and I refuse to tarnish a fellow classicist as such regardless of how much I may disagree with them), they offer the most old-hat and over-inflated articles that presume to be “cutting edge” and progressive, and they consistently find themself in the midst of controversy but they seek such controversy often and are (in many ways) the academic version of the Kardashians—a lot of whining and hot air and no real substance to anything being said.
Second, I hate to disagree about the “whiteness” of the Greco-Roman world, but I have to make a point here: that the overwhelming majority of the ruling classes and subject peoples of the Romans and Greeks were not only ancestors of modern “Europenas” they also would be (if one could go back in time and see them all) what we would classify as “white.” I hate using terms like “white” or “black” et al., but to deny this very obvious fact is not being progressive nor does it somehow buck old-world racism, it is, quite simply complete ignorance and all the worse, it is deliberate self-inflicted ignorance.
2:27: nobody is arguing how the Greeks or Romans thought about matters like skin-color and ethnicity, rather, I believe the points being made are that from a modern and contemporary perspective the Greeks and Romans would be classified as white more than any other race by those of us today. This doesn’t mean that Greeks and Romans thought this way nor does it mean that they would have not allowed non-whites to be enfranchised in their worlds (much evidence shows that ancients didn’t care about skin-color an iota, but instead of one adopted their culture then they’re “one of them”), but that by modern classifications most were white.
...as an aside, I hate all the controversy and arguments about diversity; it greatly distracts us perusing meaningful scholarship as a field and leaves us far more focused on superficial matters like how can we get more non-whites to love Classics?
How’s about we all stop talking about diversity (hopefully we all can just ignore the issue waiting for it to go away) and return to sharing, commiserating, and discussing the job application season. Academia is filled with enough bickering on its own, this board should be a (brief) escape from all that.
"Until you can also advocate to increase non-Black presence in the fields of African studies, or non-Asian presence in the fields of East Asian studies..."
A casual look at African Studies will show that there are many more whites in faculty positions than blacks in Classics. It's not even close. Look at Harvard - https://aaas.fas.harvard.edu/people/taxonomy/term/13051?page=1. It's like half white. I can count on one hand the number of black people in classics positions across the continent.
I agree Asian Studies minus the languages (e.g. History) are taken by Asian students at a much higher rate than usual. This doesn't explain why non-language Asian Studies faculty are overwhelmingly white and male. It's even worse than African Studies. It isn't much better with Asian-Americans and it's well-documented at sites such as http://www.80-20educationalfoundation.org/index.php. There could be issues relating to pipeline, cultural differences, etc., but I know many well-educated Asians who are no longer in the field (or back in Asia) out of frustration when jobs that are relatively plentiful. I know a splendid Korean Art Historian who was educated at Yale and bounced around in VAPs despite wanting to stay in the US. Yet you look and these positions are usually filled by whites. If you truly believe this is based on merit, I have a bridge to sell you. And yes it diminishes academia when you have people like Jane Portal filling prominent Asian curatorial positions and saying that she doesn't put up Asian names because it confuses people.
@10:36,
I think that overwhelmingly it *IS* based on merit. Of course, there will be some positions that are filled by other means, however...to think that academia, of all possible fields, is filled with racist people who refuse to let minorities in, then I have a bridge to sell you.
It’s always so shocking how quick people like you can be to paint all people of a particular race and/or gender with a broad brush. I only wish there was a word to use that describes envisioning all of a race as fitting to a particular stereotype.
Wow, classics is in bigger trouble then I thought.
Yep, those were basically thinly veiled "make classics great again" diatribes. Probably by the same underemployed poster pissed that there a couple non-whites in classics jobs he feels entitled to fill. Scary Trumpian stuff.
So the dude is pissed that there are like two black dudes and several Latinos in classics positions?
Old guy here. At least at my university (research intensive mid-ranked state), and I suspect elsewhere, the wider university community is increasingly concerned about systematic and unconscious biases and the ways in which they perpetuate academia's lack of diversity. One of the ways that we're being asked address this is to demonstrate that we're taking this into account by (e.g.) explicitly tracking self-identified minorities and gender balance at different stages of selection. Deans want to hear that the committee discussed candidate x, who self-identified in group y, and did not include him in the long-short list because of a, b, and/or c; or that our pool of applicants was 60-40 male-female and so was our short list. In short, deans and vps here want us to show them how we are making our decisions. One of the ways in which some departments are doing this is by including diversity questions in the process. It allows us to include one more item in the list of measures that we report to our dean to prove that we're taking this question seriously.
So, how does this relate to you? The important thing is that if you're applying for a job and are asked a diversity question, that you engage it thoughtfully and respectfully. If you bring some diversity with you, obviously include it. If you don't, you'll need to express commitment to fairness in your professional dealings, esp. when it comes to diverse groups.
1:38 (and anyone else in a similar position), I have a question: When deans, v.p.'s and others of their ilk are seeking to ensure that you interview women, ethnic and/or sexual minorities, veterans, and people from any other group, do they ever challenge you regarding the ages of job candidates, seeking to avoid age discrimination? Because I would argue -- and this has been discussed at previous January conferences, including one distantly remembered panel devoted to the subject -- that age discrimination in our field is at least as big a problem as discrimination against people over their gender, skin pigmentation, or sexual preferences, and quite possibly a greater problem. Does this ever come up?
1:01, 1:08, and 1:12 are clearly the same poster. I also think the same goes for at least some of the anti-diversity positing that preceded it.
...can we all just live and let live and not bicker here?
Just give it seven years and Classics will be thriving again once the deans and their ilk are put in their place with reduced endowments and budgets and their priorities are back in the right place.
@2:56. Old guy again here. To be clear, I think it would be an overstatement to say that deans, et al., "are seeking to ensure that you interview women, ethnic and/or sexual minorities, veterans, and people from any other group". What they want (at my university, anyway) are assurances that individuals belonging to such groups are being treated fairly. The list of designated groups probably varies from place to place. Here, the groups are women, ethnic minorities, and the physically handicapped. Age, insofar as I know, does not figure.
#ItsOkayToBeWhite
@1:38, Old guy: "If you bring some diversity with you, obviously include it. If you don't, you'll need to express commitment to fairness in your professional dealings, esp. when it comes to diverse groups."
Any advice on how a non-diverse person can "express commitment to fairness" in the classroom? Especially when having taught very little or at predominantly white schools? What does "express commitment to fairness" mean?
I mean, I know how I try to treat all of my students and professional contacts with fairness and equality, but it's really hard to put this into concrete words. How do I foster diversity in a Latin I that focuses on grammar and vocabulary, or in a Classical Mythology course of 150 students?
@4:53. Old guy here again. That's the challenge, isn't it? In any unexpected question in an interview, try to think in terms of research, teaching, and service. Not a lot to be done on the research front, I assume. (Though if there's a gender or social historical aspect to your research, you might mention it.) I'd concentrate on your plans both in the classroom and in service. In the classroom, for example, you might talk about creating room for the 'shy' vs the 'assertive' in classroom discussions, noting that women and minorities in your figure disproportionately among the 'shy', and offer it both as justifiable in its own right and as a step towards inclusiveness of gender and/or race. Perhaps talk about working at finding essay topics that appeal to different groups.
You might also talk about those who are first-generation to university and some of the challenges they face and how you can help them.
In service, I'd say something like "I once heard a senior female academic complain about how much of her time was chewed up by getting more than her share of committee work, especially in low-status areas such as curricula and appeals and recruitment. She mentioned that she had to do them because they were seen as 'domestic'. My way of contributing to fairness to my colleagues is to make sure I do my share." (On this last one, don't be surprised if you see the women in the room quietly nod their heads. It will also might help you with us lazy old guys, who are happy to let you do it so we don't have to!)
Latin class or other language: why not start by talking about using female pronouns instead of male as standard and how that destabilizes student experience of language? Encourage students to think and talk quickly about basic vocabulary sets and hierarchies taken for granted? Why not talk about how language encodes social hierarchies and enforces them?
In the myth class or any other--and this may be a leap for the Classics crowd--why not mention experiments in progressive stacking? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_stack). At the very least, in talking about teaching myth, you can talk about emphasizing marginalized voices, the experiences of women (read the H. Demeter), assumptions of power and gender, and, again, how myth and image reinforce hierarchies. Add some Lakoff and Johnson or Mark Turner in.
For a lot of these diversity questions, committees want to hear that you are thinking about the problem, aware that your subject contributes or reflects upon it, and that you are working on ideas to address and engage with the ongoing conversation. There are like a dozen articles on Eidolon at least on this topic. Also, outside of our field, the public debate centering around Dr. Dorothy Kim in medieval studies is reflective.
It is ok to say you're developing your approaches to these important issues and working through resources X, Y, and Z. To reflexively recoil from them or act like it is too hard or synthetic to apply them to classics is intellectually lazy. Honestly, if you cannot see how there are diversity issues attending a language classroom and a myth classroom, I don't want you in charge of any classroom. And I am a veteran on hiring committees at universities that serve diverse populations.
I know these last two sentences sound a bit repugnant, but when there are 100+ applications, we have to draw lines in the sand. @1:38 would be on the "definitely will not interview" side of that line.
No, recoiling from the much of what you suggest, 5:58 p.m., would not be "intellectually lazy," but simply recognizing and not wishing to engage in obsessive, hyper-intellectualized silliness. It's professors with your attitude and self-important belief that talk of hierarchy and gendered pronouns and the like must be forced on students at every opportunity who are causing academia to become increasingly disconnected from the rest of society, which hurts us all, and ultimately will lead to fewer jobs for those of us on FV.
6:26 here again, with one additional thought for 5:58: by essentially admitting that you only see fit to hire clones with your approach and attitude you have implicitly admitted that YOU are the intellectually lazy one. Seriously, dude/dudette, look in a mirror, and ask yourself why you are opposed to intellectual and pedagogical diversity.
It seems like many of the people here haven't actually experienced things that tend to discourage women, minorities, etc. from pursuing the field. I have had colleagues and professors ask me why I'm bothering pursuing classics with my family background (poor, so why not do something more 'practical') and when I didn't already have the language background from HS or college ('why not just do a history program?'). During an interview for a PhD program, I asked the program director about if the grad stipend was livable in that city and he multiple times said something like "right, because your family doesn't have any money for this" (I had talked about my background in the required 'diversity statement' as a part of my application). At MORE THAN ONE group event I have had different people comment on how I use my silverware in an "uncouth" manner and I have been called "uncultured" on more occasions than I can count. I'm white and of European descent, so apparently heir to the culture of the Greeks and Romans moreso than Blacks or Latinx, and I have - by people who're otherwise "sensitive to diversity" and who "care about being inclusive" - been made to feel like I do not belong on so many occasions, by so many different people, that I wonder why I even bothered staying. You can talk about how diversity initiatives don't matter, and people are generally sensitive and inclusive, and we don't need to be so active in our hiring decisions because it should be about merit and not other issues, but how can you be so daft as to think that unconscious biases play no role in hiring, promotion, collegiality, and so on? That faculty have no role in the systematic exclusion of various people because of their sex/gender, color, religion, age, socioeconomic status? Forcing people to be explicit in their decision-making, to explain why someone isn't suitable for a position, to confront their subjectivities, is important until it becomes second nature (if it ever does).
@5:58, thanks, this is enormously helpful.
"To reflexively recoil from them or act like it is too hard or synthetic to apply them to classics is intellectually lazy. Honestly, if you cannot see how there are diversity issues attending a language classroom and a myth classroom, I don't want you in charge of any classroom."
I don't think it's too hard, I actually find it fascinating, challenging, and an opportunity to see the field become something great. There are certainly diversity issues in everything we do. What I've struggled with is going through years of education where I've never seen these techniques at work in the classroom myself, coupled with never having had the chance to develop my own pedagogical techniques. It's hard to imagine what one would do in the classroom until one has experience having tried and tested some of these methods. In short, I know what I would like to do, but how would I know what would be most effective? (that's a rhetorical question; you've given me some great starting points). Thank you again.
@8:17, we have a similar story. I have no good advice, just wanted to say you're not alone.
@11:59pm, @8:17 here. Thank you!
this is @.5:58 again. I think my tone make have been misunderstood by the next few respondents (except for the hashtag white fragility person, if they are serious with their it is ok to be white BS, well, read everything with as condescending and dismissive a tone as possible).
I understand that for many in Classics and other fields the diversity question may seem like an added level of difficulty and mystery in an already cruel and unforgiving process. My point wasn't that candidates should have the answers to questions that we tenured faculty members are often failing to answer ourselves, but rather that they should be prepared to talk about the issues and show that they are (1) aware of them and (2) willing to work on them productively.
For other subjects in teaching, if you are asked, e.g., about how you respond to different learning styles or relate the ancient world to the kids today, you should be ready to respond with the best knowledge at your fingertips and with a willingness to enter the type of dialogue that teachers much over their career, about how students are changing, about how methods need adjusting, etc.
When we interview you, we are looking for someone who can do the strange and unfair range of things a colleague must do. Most of us are not looking for clones, but we are also not looking for colleagues who are going to dismiss what are often institutional values and missions. If a job ad specifically mentions diversity or social justice, it is not a fad to be dismissed but the expression of a community value voiced either by the faculty of the hiring department or (more frequently) by the institution at large. If you do not believe in these values or cannot see yourself engaging in a productive dialogue within the existing institutional structure, you should probably not apply.
As far as answering the questions goes, few of the interviewers at the SCS are experts on these issues. True, some will probably just want to hear pat and popular answers. But most, I wager, are working through their own issues as well. I have colleagues on the cusp of retirement who desperately believe and love their idea of diversity, but have a real problem understanding microagressions or the real contributions of studies in ableism. Think through some of the current issues, read a little, come up with a few ideas for what it means in your classroom, and be prepared to have a conversation.
This is what you should and will do as a university level instructor. If you do it now, your interviewers will see you in the same role as their colleague.
Thanks for all the excellent feedback folks. I'm totally lost trying to figure out who is who, but carry on good people...
The #wlm-poster’s tantrum conjures (quite powerfully) a mother’s basement and fingertips incarnadine with Cheeto dust, and I’m all the way here for it.
Non-anonymous person here! I'm on the classics and social justice SC -- If anyone wants to send me their suggestions, I'll get started on this and put it on the CSJ agenda for our unfortunately scheduled open meeting (Thursday at 4pm) in Boston. Amypistone@gmail.com
Just highlights the need for more natural selection to take place, one that doesn't exceedingly privilege early language backgrounds and a slickness of presentation bereft of real ideas. It's nauseating that classics has become one of the last academic bastions for those born on third base. We're worse than art history for god's sake.
Dear Dr. Pistone:
Out of curiosity, what is currently on the agenda for the 4pm meeting?
Thanks!
(part 1/2)
I’m in no way opposed to diversity and love seeing varying ethnicities in my classrooms. But, what I will say is that I’m honestly not sure how one is supposed to “increase the # of minorities in Classics.” In order to address any problem, you have to identify what’s causing the problem. So, we have to ask ourselves *what* is making many non-white students rather uninterested in Classics. We can all sit around and assume that crypto-racist faculty are to blame or that it’s a bit more complex and systemic, but to REALLY find out why so few black undergrads are taking Latin, Greek, and ancient history courses we need to do the most simple thing: ask them.
Every school will be different in the resources for this, but if folks in Classics really want to solve what they perceive as a problem, you HAVE TO find out what’s causing it, not just spitball with one another. So, poll your school’s black student body. And listen to their responses carefully. You need to determine if their disinterest in Classics is specific to Classics or whether most black students are disinterested in much of the Humanities. So, also ask if they enjoy History (and what fields), what languages they’re interested in learning and why.
Much of what influences one’s interests are shaped by their culture. Recent studies (https://trends.collegeboard.org/education-pays/figures-tables/students-stem-fields-gender-and-race-ethnicity) show, for instance, that nearly 50% of all Asian students have majors in STEM. Why? Can we simply ignore this or can we be honest and say that there must be some aspect of many Asian families and their cultures that promotes STEM? What one pursues in college is largely dependent not on how open or appealing a given major choice may be. For instance, to think that if Classics changes some aspect of itself to seem more welcoming to minority students implies that minorities are avoiding it, at least in part, on account of how irrelevant is to them culturally speaking. But, this seems to not matter at all for the 50% of Asian stridents in STEM. Are they in STEM because it’s soo accommodating to Asians and because it, in some way, “reaches them” on account of their “Asian-ness”? No. The majority in STEM are there for practical reasons, from family pressure to stay within what is a profitable career, and due to having been prepped for it throuougout most of their lives.
The same applies to Classics. An overwhelming majority are from upper-middle class or rich white families, whose children benefited from having stellar private or prep school training, where they would have taken Latin and/or Greek before college. Many would have visited Europe in adolescence, thereby sparking a deeper interest in the Classical world. Classics is a field full of highly-privileged white people that often is welcoming to poorer people and/or minorities, but many wouldn’t have been presented with the same cushy lifestyles that make studying things like Classics, Gender Srudies, Philosophy, possible. ...what kind of job prospects are there for those three fields? The answer: essentially none—unless, you guessed it, you are also privileged in from where you receive your PhD from in that it’s an Ivy League or a “par-Ivy.”
(Part 2/2)
Black and Latino Americans are the highest proportion of first-gen college students more than any other race. As such, many have to make practical and thoughtful decisions about what they’re going to do for a career. Pursuing Classics (either as a BA, MA, or PhD) is EXTREMEMY stupid. It is. Look at our job prospects! Scroll though the forum here and you’ll realize this. We have 12-20 T-T kind a year for ca.100 folks with PhDs from the top 10-15 schools and only a razor thin margin of them will actually get a job.
Classics is a field that is bred in privilege, nurtured by privilege, and can only be a “career” on account of further privilege.
I’ve had many brilliant students that are minorities and I’ve told them that they ought to consider switching majors. Each time it’s the same reply: “oh, thanks! That’s really encouraging and I appreciate it, and don’t get me wrong I love this stuff, but I don’t want to teach and I want to pursue my Business/Pre-Law/Pre-Med degree instead.”
@4:29: Agree.
@12/27, 8:32: a bit late catching up with all this, but just wanted to express my complete agreement re: the "scholar" whom you so aptly described as an academic Kardashian. If this is the public face of Classics in the 21st century, the field is in serious trouble indeed. Public scholarship is great, but this low-level, intellectually lazy, self-righteous series of opinion pieces thinly disguised as scholarship for the purpose of self-promotion is much worse in terms of representing our field to the public than no public scholarship at all.
This last comment and the one before it reek of retrograde sexism (e.g. kardashian) and professional envy. Both commentators are the types of sneering jerks that make the study of classics seem disconnected and elitist?
Castigation aside, what should public classicism look like?
"Don't feed the trolls."
@9:17, personally I prefer the kind of public scholarship being done by Eidolon, which includes a variety of thoughtful, well-written pieces that raise important questions about the current state of the field and others that point out the ugly realities of rape, barbarism, slavery etc., behind the ancient art and literature we valorize, as well as more fun, engaging pieces like the Harry Potter series last summer. In my experience, students and the public at large tend to be interested in both the social/political questions raised by Eidolon and the kind of Classical tradition/reception type pieces they also sometimes publish. So perhaps Eidolon can give students/potential students a glimpse of the opportunities they will have in really interesting, well-taught classes offered by younger or more engaged professors and can challenge their assumptions about the kind of material they might find in a Classics classroom.
@9:17,
OP here. I never meant for it to come across as sexist (also, why do you assume that I am a male?), and went out of my way to avoid using gendered pronouns. If you were able to discern which scholar I was referring to, then my description of them as attention-hungry and controversy-searching must have resonated with you.
I have no need to be jealous of this particular scholar, and I hold no ill will towards them. I just completely disagree with their empty form of self-promotion and find them to be exceptionally arrogant and attention-seeking.
OP again... if “Kardashian” comes across as a gendered comparison, then replace it with “Al Sharpton” if you wish. The takeaway is an individual who makes mountains out of molehills and takes ANY opportunity to stand on a soapbox and soak up the flashbulbs.
Also, I would use “Kardashian” to describe a male OR female who fits this model. The defining characteristics are clear enough that one need not only apply “Kardashian” to a female variant. But, as noted above, fee free to use “Al Sharpton” as another variable to plug in. Given that the whole Kardashian clan is very germane and recognizable today, I used them.
Moderator, can we remove the thinly veiled references to a specific classicist present in 8:32am, "Rick Sanchez", 9:17am; 10:13am, 11:53am, 12:21pm, etc.? It's fine if you want to talk about public classicism, the value of discussing ancient art in the context of race, sex/gender, etc., but these are all specific attacks on this specific individual as a person and as a scholar (being self-promotional, unjustly occupying a t-t job when some anonymous troll thinks he deserves it more, etc.). This is the kind of uncivil discourse that is strongly discouraged on this forum, which is otherwise a great place to vent and discuss issues, serious or trivial, that plague us all.
@2:01 -- To be fair, that individual is a public scholar who, as others have noted, has gone out of his/her way to draw attention to their work. Names have not been used, which I agree would cross a line, but if a person can be identified by those in the know based on his/her PUBLIC profile, then I think that's acceptable. She/he has not been identified based on institution or the like.
@10:13 here. Please don’t conflate my fanfic with the horseshit that inspired it. That request notwithstanding, I’m happy to have it erased with a view to restoring civility.
@2:28, yeah, OK, but again, it's criticisms of her individual person. It's comments about whether she deserves her job, motivations behind her work, calling her "arrogant" and "self-seeking," etc. Do what you want, but this forum is explicitly NOT one for that. If you want to criticize someone to a person, find a more appropriate space to do that, this is not it.
11:53 am here. I think some of my comments were misunderstood. I certainly did not mean to suggest that this person doesn’t deserve her job (much less that I deserve it more). I’m not sure how that was read into my remarks. What I was trying to say is that I am genuinely impressed by that person’s skill at navigating this new dimension of academia, and also, yes, a bit jealous because (as I openly acknowledge) I don’t have that skill myself. I think it does take a level of self-promotion that I am uncomfortable with—not because I think self-promotion is inherently wrong, but because I am too introverted to self-promote in that way.
FWIW, I’m also happy to have my comments removed if they came across as too personal or specific. Although ironically the most personal, ad hominem, and unsubstantive attack on this thread so far was the “fanfic” response to Rick Sanchez above.
OP (8:32 am —way up there) here...again.
I want to stress, again, that I NEVER named a scholar nor did I ever even indicate a gender. If people here all happen to know what scholar is being referred to by simply indicating one who is “self-serving” and “arrogant” and loves to get all worked up in (largely) imagined and amplified controversy, that should really indicate just how true those remarks must be.
No rules were broken at all.
Dunno if this furthers the discussion of our supposed current era in academia, but fwiw my parents, both academics, had very strong views about colleagues in the 1940s and 1950s whom they thought were more interested in self-promotion than in their "official" duties. Beliefs that any given scholar is more on one side than the other are nothing new. In their day, persons who were more self-promotional tended on the whole to pursue eventual tracks in administration, deanships, presidential posts, etc., rather than continue in the classroom or in advising roles. So, nothing new under the sun, more or less. Couldn't say whether that change in track was post hoc propter hoc, or just hoc, but it was observably true.
Servius: this has been a hard call for me, because, as was noted, names were not used and it is a discussion of scholarship that is explicitly intended to represent the field, i.e. all of us to the general public, which is precisely the type of issue FV should allow us to debate. Earlier this season, we made the call that an individual with a prominent and deliberately-acquired public profile could be named, even. That said, given the sensitivity of the issue, I've tried to err on the side of civility and done some cleaning up above. Let's try to keep our arguments productive. And if you object to a comment, please be careful not make the scholar's identity even clearer in your response!
To take a live search as an example: Brown's campus talks (four of them) all appear to be women (whether they are LGBTQI is not clear--nor should it be, I guess; almost certainly not PoC). That's a great thing for the archaeological profession--a field dominated by (usually male) sexual harassers. Parallel to this, their research record, achievements, service and teaching, all seem very diverse and robust. They probably just were superior candidates to all of the male identifying ones. In short, it looks like a model search.
Nevertheless, I wonder what role gender played in the selection process. Does anyone who had an interview at Brown want to offer their thoughts? Or an SC member at Brown (if they visit FV)? It might bring a tangible example to the otherwise nebulous and sometimes ignorant debate going on above...
Either way, the job is going to go to a woman, failing exceptional circumstances.
No exceptional circumstances needed. Lots of big egos in top archaeology programs which frequently results in failed searches.
Too many candidates, too few jobs. That economics is all that matters, not the victim mentality that sees "privilege" and "prejudice" under every rock.
Right, because economic realities in higher education have nothing to do with class and race.
@2:37,
I can say that for a recent search for Roman archaeology at UNC-Chapel Hill the SC had said, rather clearly, that they deliberately wanted to hire a women. While it’s fantastic that they were aware of gender disparity, it’s awfully unfair to all male candidates. Imagine how much more superior any male candidate would have to have been to eclipse a foregone conclusion that “we ARE hiring a woman.”
They did hire a woman, and the SC had a brutal fight over it. There was (from what I was told) an absolutely stunning candidate (male) that those on the SC felt was so phenomenal that they voted for him and advocated for to great extents. In the end, the female candidate was offered the position.
...now let me be CRYSTAL clear: the female Roman archaeology hire is an absolutely great scholar, and offers much to UNC. She quite likely will find herself moving up to an Ivy in a number of years if/when the right senior hire post comes along.
Being said, this *was* a rather unfair hiring practice. Letting race and/or gender color your decision is ALWAYS wrong. It was wrong when, for many years it favored white men making it very difficult for women and minorities to get hired, BUT, it is also wrong when the paradigm remains with only an exchange of race and gender ‘x’ for ‘y.’
The only way to move towards true equality and fairness is to abandon any and all consideration of race and gender, and judge all candidates equally based on merit. One possible way to help facilitate this would be that, for example, the top 20-25 candidates for any job must have an explicit explanation from such SC member as to *why* they were not fielded for an interview. Second, if any SC member is found to have a disproportionate number of men, women, whites, minorities, etc on their list of top favorites, they need to provide very explicit and clear reasoning for this.
...on a similar note, a very easy way to ensure true fairness for college admissions is to have all applicants be assigned a number (Candidate # 248849) and make the online application race and gender free. If their letters indicate either, the website should block it and indicate what trigger words may exist that can identify any such characteristic of the applicant.
This would be so unbelievably simple to do. The result would be, for the first time, a truly fair and representative incoming college class based solely on ability and merit. This system would work best for undergraduate admissions, but could also function for grad school programs that don’t require campus visits or interviews.
Does anyone here have any more info on the current state of the CUNY-Queensborough job?
Queensborough apparently had second-round interviews sometime in November, so should be orange for sure on the Wiki; I don't know if they made an offer.
I was the first-round interviewer who posted in the Wiki. Interview via Skype was held early November. They said they’d be in touch with all candidates early December to schedule second-round interviews or to inform them that they’re not going to pursue that applicant anymore. They said, in no uncertain terms, that *all* would be notified by then.
I’m thinking that it would be reasonable to send an email to the SC chair at this point.
For what it’s worth, that job posted in June, applications were no longer accepted beginning in September. So, a takeaway from this is that they are very slow moving in this process.
@2:12, are you certain that what you’ve heard about Queensborough was a second-round interview?
Thanks.
Ignoring race and gender in hiring practices and judging candidates solely on merit wouldn't solve the problem, I think. If you think of earning your PhD as a kind of "finish line," there is a lot that comes before that - that IS affected by things like gender and race - that affect how an individual candidate finishes. If you say X candidate has more publications in better journals than Y candidate, without regard for race or gender, you ignore the studies that show that men are more likely to be published and in better journals than female candidates, even in supposedly blind peer review. And so on for other aspects of what makes someone more meritorious. Not everyone has equal access to the opportunities that "earn" them merit, and so strictly merit-based evaluation assesses candidates on uneven terms.
The analogy can be something like, if two people are running a race and they have similar finish times, but one had a straight race, no hurdles, while the other had hurdles (of differing heights, difficulties, etc.), then they aren't ACTUALLY equal candidates. Two supposedly "equal" candidates - same finish time - are unequal in that the one with the hurdles is actually a "better athlete," and if that hurdle-based athlete came in technically behind the other, that person isn't actually worse, it's just a different race.
All I mean is, you can't discount the effects that identity have at earlier stages that prevent people from having the same access to the merit-based criteria that should, in a perfect world, be what differentiates candidates.
In case they are helpful for anyone, here is what Holy Cross says they plan to discuss with candidates during the interview. Some are specific to the department, but others are more general and might give candidates for other interviews - or just any of us interested in thinking about classics as a field - some help in thinking of things that could, potentially, come up.
1.We have a large department, but we’re still a small liberal arts college and we value a willingness and ability to teach a broad array of courses, So we might ask you about what you might teach in areas that are not your specialization.
2.We value a willingness to try new pedagogical ideas. We might ask you about class assignments/activities you have designed.
3.We value a willingness and ability to work with students on extracurricular research projects. Especially since 2010, when the College initiated a new summer research program, a significant number of our majors have been involved in extracurricular research. For example, several of our faculty are currently working with students who voluteer for our Manuscripts Inscriptions and Documents Club (http://hcmid.github.io/) and this work has resulted in a number of public presentations of student research. We’re interested in whether you might contribute to this project or whether you might have other ideas about working with students on research projects of your own design. You shouldn’t feel like you have to do something like this from Day One: we just want you to be thinking about it because our students are interested in such opportunities, and Holy Cross values experiential learning of different kinds.
4. We might ask a question about your research, following up on your writing sample.
5.We might ask a question about your willingness and ability to teach in one of the interdisciplinary programs mentioned in the position listing: Africana Studies; Asian Studies; Environmental Studies; Gender, Sexuality and Women’s Studies; International Studies; Latin American & Latino Studies; Middle Eastern Studies; and Peace & Conflict Studies.
6.We might ask you what it is about the unique environment of Holy Cross that makes you particularly eager to join us. This would be your chance to discuss any number of things—say, small liberal arts colleges, or teaching undergraduates instead of graduate students, or Jesuit institutions, or the College’s mission statement (https://www.holycross.edu/about-us/mission-statement). Or maybe there’s something else you find particularly appealing about what you’ve seen of us so far.
7.Finally, we will give you a chance to ask us questions.
This is 2:12, following up re: Queensborough.
Yes, I had heard that a follow-up / teaching demo had been scheduled.
@4:07, I like the footrace analogy a great deal, and I'm going to use when I discuss this topic with other people (like my dad).
I appreciate what the footrace analogy is trying to do, but I also find it really troubling. (For what it’s worth, I’m a female Classicist, and a feminist classicist.) Yes, different people have had different advantages and disadvantages over the course of their lives, but suggesting that an SC (or anyone) should promote (or demote) certain people based on _assumptions_ about a person’s history is very dangerous. A female classicist may have faced some disadvantages based on gender, but have had other advantages from wealth, or fantastic mentorship, or what have you. Contrariwise, a white male classicist may have had advantages based on race and gender but grown up in poverty. Or perhaps he had to deal with the death of a parent while in grad school, as did one friend of mine. Or the illness of a spouse or child. Or what have you. Human beings are individuals. Reducing any human being to one single aspect of their identity and assuming you can devalue everything else about them based on that single aspect is truly dehumanizing—even monstrous.The reality is that almost no one is actually running a straight race. All of us are dealing with hurdles.
I sincerely hope that I will never best another candidate based solely on my gender. That would be just as dehumanizing to me as losing to another candidate based solely on my gender. No SC has the power to look into my soul or my past and divine what obstacles or advantages I’ve faced just by looking at me. We should all hope to be judged on our merits, not on our biology.
Very, very well said, 7:40
@7:40 (et al.). SC member here. In my experience—and I am now on the sixth search of my career—identifying the 'best' applicant is less simple than it sounds. One candidate may have more or better publications. One seems to have the more ambitious research agenda. One seems to the better language teacher; another, better in the lecture hall. One gave the best interview. One has the most impressive pedigree (great program, letters from famous people, prestigious awards). One offers expertise in a subfield or approach that connects well with colleagues or perfectly fills our most glaring gap.
Which of these is 'best'? In my experience, it is not often that case that these are the same individual. Weighing our interest in each of these virtues is where the challenge lies, all the more so because most of these are about potential, which someone might or might not live up to.
Into the mix are intangibles. Rumours are that this guy is 'handsy'; that that one is toxic. And we all 'clicked' personally with that other one.
So, @7:40, I think its unlikely that you'll ever come out on top "solely on [your] gender". Might it be a factor? Possibly. Frankly, I'm not sure that in all the noise, even those in the room can say with confidence what role if any it played, and whether its role was a net positive or negative. Heck, I'm not sure I know how great a role it's played with me.
7:40 here. Thanks to 10:35 for giving more context from an SC perspective. I was referring more to the situation at UNC described above, where it sounds like a candidate was indeed preferred to another based solely on her gender. I imagine the discomfort that person must now feel in her own department, if this is (as it seems to be) public knowledge—knowing that some of her colleagues actively fought against her appointment because they genuinely felt another candidate was stronger, while the ones who fought for her wanted her less for her work than her gender. That sounds like a truly toxic situation.
@10:47. 10:35 here. If that UNC search happened as described, sure. But that narrative looks focalized from the perspective of the SC-minority that preferred the male candidate. Would the majority's story be the same?
Original poster regarding the UNC hire here. The result of this search (which was about 3-4 years ago now) was that a very deep division developed between the faculty who most ardently spoke out for and against her hire.
For what it’s worth, the SC had a failed search the year prior to that due to the committee completely at odds in almost all directions as each had a very different vision of who should be brought in. They chose, shockingly, to let the search fail and risk having the Dean approach another search the very next year rather than give any ground and come to an agreement on candidates. They lucked out that they were granted a second T-T hire option the second year, and then that’s when they were very vocal about having the hire being a female.
She definelty knows who the faculty members are that fought hard to keep her from being offered the post. I doubt itt botherenher too much, though, as the voices of opposition have by now retired or are very close to it.
@11:19--fair point, which I think illustrates one of the problems with using gender (e.g.) as a criterion in hiring decisions. If, in some magical future, I get a TT job, I would hate to think that my credentials/competence were being questioned because of my gender, or that I was suspected of being a "diversity" hire. In any case, I think we're gotten a bit off track from the original point in question, which was raised by the "footrace" analogy of 4:07 PM. I argued that this is a poor analogy because (almost) no one faces a straight race and for an SC, or anyone, to make assumptions about the kind of challenges one candidate has faced while assuming another candidate has faced little to none based solely on their race/gender/sexuality is just another form of bias. Looking back on my own life, I honestly have no idea whether I've had net advantages or net disadvantages from being a woman in academia. I really, honestly, can't say. If that's true of me, the individual in question, how can a group of strangers judge which candidates deserve some kind of leg up in the hiring process and, more troublingly, which candidates don't? A human being, as I pointed out above, may have suffered all kinds of hardship completely disconnected from race/gender/LGBTQ status--is all of that "zeroed out" by being a white cis male? Maybe it would be ideal for SC's to get a much more detailed, well-rounded picture of a candidate's life story--did one candidate suffer abuse as a child? Which ones grew up in a broken home? Did one go through a messy divorce while trying to finish the dissertation? Did another resist years of family pressure to go into science or medicine because Classics was their true love? Is one juggling a spouse and children while another is unencumbered? All these things can factor into a person's productivity and accomplishments, arguably quite a bit more than their race/gender/etc., and most of them are quite invisible to a search committee.
Really interesting and worthwhile discussion. I am an occasional but not current SC member. The SC members comments above about identifying the "best" candidate are spot on. Another point to think about from the SC perspective is that they will not necessarily be thinking about how to "right past wrongs" (the hurdle analogy) but as much anything about how your background pertains to how well you can mentor their students.
@12:35. 10:35/11:19 back. I agree that the footrace metaphor is unhelpful, but I've never heard it invoked within a SC and can't imagine that it could work in my department.
And I can empathize with your view that you would hate to be a woman whose achievements (etc) had an asterisk beside them because someone thinks that you were appointed for your gender.
But I have bad news for you. No matter how clear your superiority, someone will apply either that asterisk or some other one to your success: out of our applicant pool of 120, there will be 119 disappointed candidates. All of these 119—as well as their letter writers, friends, and admirers—are motivated (as all humans are) to explain their disappointment on some other basis than that their competition was better.
Quote from Dec 30 1:41:
"I can say that for a recent search for [XYZ] the SC had said, rather clearly, that they deliberately wanted to hire a women. While it’s fantastic that they were aware of gender disparity, it’s awfully unfair to all male candidates. Imagine how much more superior any male candidate would have to have been to eclipse a foregone conclusion that “we ARE hiring a woman.”"
Quote from Charlotte Whitton:
“Whatever women do they must do twice as well as men to be thought half as good. Luckily, this is not difficult.”
PS – Sorry, dudes. I know some of you are very good people. I'm just tired. "awfully unfair." F*ck.
@10:46,
I think you’re deeply missing the point.
We’re all trying to have an honest and helpful discussion about how to be as fair and balanced as possible without exchanging old-world favoritism of one gender/race for another and calling it “progress.”
You are, though I doubt you will ever see it, a major part of the problem: you state that “some of [us] are very good people,” which means that most are not. How does this kind of dismissive and broad-brush painting of an entire gender help anything? ...Stop seeing those standing alongside you and fighting for equality as *mainly* bad people just because we have a penis. Your view of men is just as jaded and harmful as that of a group of ‘Mad Men’ like men from the ‘60s.
Don’t be so quick to judge your peers simply because they were born with different genitals than yours.
Anyone willing to pass on a job offer that involved criteria other than merit? Just one example is all it would take to prove me wrong... Bueller? Bueller? LOL didn't think so.
Kinda makes this whole conversation rhetorical at best, hypocritical at worst, don'tcha think? It's laughable to me.
Furthermore, job searches are a black box anyway. If you receive an offer all you really know is that you were the best 'fit' for the position -- or the second best. Although you may be told certain reasons why the SC thought you were a good fit, other reasons that played an equally important role may never be articulated to you. Indeed, such reasons may only have been contemplated in the minds of certain SC members but never actually spoken aloud or committed to writing.
I'm just refreshingly to see these discussions happening in a relatively civil manner outside a roundtable of 12 people. We can't deny the fact that the days of classics holding most favored status within the academy are past and it's no longer the gatekeeper for today's elite whether you fall left or right. It's not unequivocally good or bad but undeniably a pivot point in the discipline's history and I've witnessed very little movement that changes the present narrative of a gradual fade into oblivion.
Though all disciplines have their differences, how have we not better defined what classics should be in the 21st century? A good number here believe that a leopard can't change its stripes and there's nothing wrong with classics being 95% white across the board. Regardless of how one feels about this sentiment, we cannot change the fact that the US will be majority non-white in the foreseeable future and the only way I see this paradigm working in the long haul is if classics combines with other departments.
So what do we want? We can't have it all and choices are being made for us by universities whether we like it or not. Maybe we don't give a shit as long as we're employed in the present. I truly am sad if this is the sentiment of the majority today.
Has anyone heard any scuttlebutt on early offers? I've heard early murmurs about Penn, but what about Brown and Albany?
I will spare you all a long post, of which I am most capable, and just ask a single two-part question of paramount importance to this discussion of diversity: is there any classics department out there that has been successful at boosting the number of majors and minors who are African-American, Hispanic, and/or Asian, and if so, can that be attributed to the offering of certain specialized courses, or to the hiring of one or more faculty members who themselves belong to one of those groups and thus draw students with a similar background, or to something else? I am not asking about, say, a course on race in antiquity that attracts minority students who then take no further courses in our field, but about a way or ways to boost the number of minority students relative to the number of non-minority students who choose to get a degree in classics, classical archaeology, ancient philosophy, etc.
What I am getting at is, with all this (understandable) bemoaning of our field's lack of diversity, I am skeptical as to whether any department out there has found a way of consistently getting students who are not of European descent more interested in classical studies. And ultimately, that is what truly matters, since more majors means more potential applicants to graduate programs and, ultimately, more professors who are ethnic minorities.
We all know what the problem is, but I am not convinced that anyone has a solution. And if there isn't one, then a whole lot of people in our field need to do some reconsidering.
Yes, we all know what the problem is. Someone earlier cited the blog post by J. Quinn, Against Classics, "The problem is that we are trying to diversify a subject whose borders we have intentionally constrained – and so however much we try to change the game, the rules by which we play ensure that the status quo prevails. If we really want diversity, we need to relinquish our nineteenth-century disciplinary framework."
Quinn mentions two solutions - split up classics or make it more inclusive. As an example of the latter, she states, "join forces with neighouring departments with a focus on antiquity such as Near Eastern Studies and Archaeology, if not at departmental level then at least in terms of our degree courses."
Practically speaking, we need a solid department willing to blow it up and take a risk while led by open-minded group of faculty with fairly broad training. The majority of philologists are not qualified to pull this off for various reasons. We know the elite and sub-elite departments have shown no willingness to take this sort of risk. Why not a school such as Missouri, Arizona, or Oregon? Perhaps this is what Vanderbilt is attempting but now that they have been downgraded to a program (and the broader mandate was forced upon them), I have severe doubts they can pull off anything of the sort while maintaining a classics identity in there. Classicists are typically lost in these scenarios at best and at worst pout and become self-destructive when the paradigm changes. We simply aren't constructed to run without a certain number of uber-specialized philologists in the 19th century model. Who's gonna leap first by training a broader cohort of students with no obvious jobs waiting at the end of an already fading discipline? No, we keep on churning out the same students into oblivion...
@6:36,
Some good points.
In my opinion, I think Latin and Greek ought to move to their school’s Language Dept; history to the History Dept., and classical archeology to the Anthroplogy Dept.
This is, in fact, exactly what the University of Arizona did a few years ago. Everyone was happy with the switch.
@6:42, that is Quinn's solution 1 and the likely future for most non-elite programs in the near future. Very few of the elite classics programs house history and archaeology within the same department as it is. I believe Stanford is the only one at this point.
Anon. 6:42,
Regarding your comment that "This is, in fact, exactly what the University of Arizona did a few years ago. Everyone was happy with the switch.": you clearly are unaware that that change was 100% due to the archaeologists scrambling to get away from toxic personalities among the philologists. THAT is why "everyone was happy with the switch." (And why they still are.)
So in fifty years, even if we end up with a handful of PhD programs, where are these graduates placed, especially if they're trained in the same fashion as today? There are only so many elite SLACs and if the programs at flagships become like the present combined/reduced ones at lesser state schools, graduates from elite schools don't typically do well in such scenarios - lots of teaching, mentoring, and overall jazz hands required with both students and administrators. I've seen plenty of Harvard and Stanford PhDs sink like rocks once the realization hits that life isn't as cush as their former digs in Cambridge and Palo Alto.
Oooh, sorry, I did a terrible job of posting earlier. I normally just anonymously lurk here and apparently don't know how to effectively post things. In particular, I'd love to hear thoughts about what we (by "we" I mean the Classics and Social Justice group, and primarily those with, say, TT positions and some sort of clout in the field to get things changed) can push for, in terms of more compassionate and less awful hiring practices. I certainly have thoughts, but I would love to hear other thoughts and I can definitely strip things of identifying information before passing along any suggestions. I did have some really positive conversations with a search committee chair (after I didn't hear anything back and the wiki said everyone had heard back about interviews and/or rejections) and there are some blind spots older faculty members have because there wasn't a wiki when they were hired, for instance. I definitely think some of the misery of being on the job market could easily be made less bad (though, you know, not GOOD).
The agenda is here, such as it is. This is a pretty loose outline of things we'd like to make some progress on, but one of the big things is to figure out exactly what the group does. Between several different recently formed groups, there are people trying to do work on sexual harassment, diversity, non-TT faculty, etc. With any luck, several meetings in Boston will help people figure out who actually does what: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NPCSzXwkG-Gg3jLz3V9HZ5HY-P7csv3zJVU7shkTf9A/edit
Please do email me though with thoughts about hiring practices (and other things) -- I feel like there could very easily be an Eidolon-hosted discussion about some easy fixes to make job market anxiety less terrible.
Re: the footrace analogy. I think the point was in reference to an earlier comment, that said that all factors besides "merit" should be ignored, and the footrace poster was saying that "merit" is not an objective criterion. Obviously no one should be hired solely because they are a woman, or Black, or whatever. The point was about whether you can really evaluate people based on "merit" without acknowledging that not everyone has equal access to merit-based activities (for a variety of reasons).
I, in all honesty, believe the SCS should start a support group for senior faculty. There seems to be a point when a good number jump the shark and do crazy shit that burns their position or worse. It seems significantly higher than the academic norm considering how relatively few positions exist compared to larger departments. Please, for the love of humanity and the Humanities, let's make it stop...
What a sad state of affairs when underemployed recent grads who can barely rub two nickels together are trying to get help for overemployed seniors. I suppose the dynamic makes sense since they're our parents' age at this point. If you still don't use email like my dad, it might be time to call it a career...
@6:36, when you quote Quinn's second solution, I whole-heartedly support this approach in certain scenarios but I would caution that it must be a two-way street. An uber-specialized Egyptologist or Assyriologist with no clue about the classical world will not do. This has happened in the past and they invariably end up becoming marginalized to the chagrin of all. It's labeled as a failed experiment and never revisited.
My New Year’s resolution: get the hell out of academe! Can’t wait to convert the capital of a vast teaching experience, monograph, edited volume, 5 languages, and prestigious postdoc into some serious money :) It didn’t convert into a T-T job, while I watched internal candidates, spouses and yet more spouses beat me for jobs. Training and Development executive/junior management positions are going to fall into my lap... Well, that’s the plan anyway. Farewell, my lovelies. Best of luck with it all, but know when to cut your losses.
@12/31 3:27 So what are the early murmurs about Penn? Let's hope that they (and Brown and Albany, if they are still out there?) had the good sense not to reject people over the holidays. Two years ago I got a rejection on Christmas day! Bah humbug, indeed.
@4:16 Rumor has it that Penn made an initial offer at least, but I don't have any personal knowledge about that.
I don’t have much faith in the Albany SC. They weren’t even competent enough to know the difference between Hellenic and Hellenistic in their job ad. They want a Greek historian, and as such surely meant to say they were looking for ancient historian who focuses on the Hellenic world. Instead, they said they were looking for one who focuses on the Hellenistic.
I don’t have a stake in this race and happen to have close connections with faculty there. They’ve said for years that since they have a scholar who does the Middle Ages (and the VERY late Middle Ages, might I add), they don’t need a Roman historian, since the Medievalist can cover both—he can’t. It’s wishful thinking. So, they’ve saidnfor years that they want a Classical Greek historian. I heard about this job well before it came to be this year, and it was always phrased as “we’re going to hire a Greek historian.”
Whoever actually wrote the ad (I’m not sure who did), but they most definitely made a mistake in its phrasing.
This is a problem, not just because they don’t know their terminology (I’m not that much of a snob), but rather that all of the historians who actually focus on the Hellenistic world (which is NOT what Albany wants; they’ve said consistently that they want a scholar who can cover early Greece up though the end of the Classical period, and have no interest in hiring one whose focus lay after Alexander (which of course is the “Hellenistic” world) wasted their time and others likely adjusted their cover letter and CV to reflect a more Hellnistic focus rather than a Classical one—thereby shooting themselves in the foot.
If the job market wasn’t so horrible this would be comical. But, given the current climate this is absolutely tragic.
Also, their interview handling is another MAJOR problem since they (arrogantly) felt that they could trim their list to 3 and have on-campus off the bat and avoid Skype (this has a high chance of causing the search to fail).
I’m not sure what from of candidates were contacted for interviews at Albany, but I truly feel sorry for them and all of those whose applications were tossed on account of a VERY misleading ad being placed.
(FWIW, my inside knowledge regarding Albany suggests that the SC’s horrible fumbling [the bad ad and the poor choice to jump to visits] will result in a failed search. I suspect to see it appear again in the next few years handled better).
@7:47. "I suspect to see it appear again in the next few years handled better." But maybe they'll advertise for a "Romantic historian"
@7:47, interesting take. But surely they received many applications from all sorts of ancient historians- what's to stop them from righting the 'wrong' of the ad language through the culling of candidates?
Not to keep dragging things back to earlier topics, but I find the moaning and complaining about promoting diversity in Classics at both the faculty and student levels to be immensely childish and oblivious when there are far more immanent threats to the discipline. I would even argue that ignoring the lack of diversity only serves to compound some of the other problems.
At this stage, Classics is well on its way to extinction; a perfect storm has engulfed the field over the past decade. You've got bean-counting greedhead professional administrators targeting fields that don't fit into the wrongheaded and inane notion that "a university should be run like a business." There are people in public office who can barely string a sentence together who exist to do damage to higher education. You have graduate programs churning out too many PhDs. SCs who are fine with continuing inbreeding by hiring graduates from the same narrow swathe of programs again and again. The crisis of the humanities about which countless words have been written--if there were a TT position for every one of these goddamn articles there wouldn't be a crisis.
Given all the problems, the grumbling about more qualified women and people of color getting jobs in Classics or applicants having to write a diversity statement for a job application comes across as utterly tone-deaf and myopic. It makes you sound like you've spent too long masturbating over Hesiod or fragmentary Lyric poets or whatever when you might have spent a bit more time studying history and anthropology so you'd maybe understand some of the structural, economic, and systemic forces that have shaped the field.
Classics doesn't exist in a vacuum and complaining about how hard white men have it in a field they dominate is not a good look. If you aren't clever enough to figure out that diversity doesn't just included race or gender, but also includes socioeconomic background, disabilities, sexual orientation, being a first-generation college student, etc., then you probably don't deserve a job in academia to begin with because the students that we teach are increasingly from any number of those categories.
The world is changing and we can argue about whether or not it is for good or ill, but either way as someone who loves Classics, I would like to see the field remain with us. The discipline can only endure, though, if we work to make changes. Otherwise, the field will die. If it dies because people dig in their heels and refuse to change, then perhaps that death is merited.
Re Albany, FWIW, I have heard through the grapevine about someone I sort of know who got an interview, and they are not a Greek historian at all. It's pretty clear the SC there had no consensus on what they wanted---whether or not they didn't (also) not know anything about the terminology and history of the premodern world.
Moreover, the jump straight to on-campus interviews, though not much discussed here at the time, seems clearly to suggest that the search is fundamentally a sham. The alternative is that the SC is too arrogant and foolish to understand that first-round interviews are conducted for a reason.
7:47 here...
@8:40,
They very well might, but the issue at hand isn’t so much that the Albany SC won’t get *some* candidates they meant to get, but that a massive number of candidates who *would have* been good fits were surely tossed in the “no” pile at first glance. Leaving the ones that appear to be right not the best choices. Add to this that the Albany SC also chose not to have a 1st round of 12-15 Skypees but jumped straight to 3 campus visits. ...that, in and of itself, is highly foolish; the 3 chosen might be bumbling idiots who have nice degrees but could easily bomb an interview or give a horrible impression to the SC. (I in no way am saying that those asked to visit Albany are such, but rather I mean to underscore the inedpitidue of Albany’s SC to put themselves in such a tight position for no real reason).
What I foresee happening with Albany is one of two results:
1.) a failed search, for the reasons highlighted above
2.) a hastey hire made with the silent agreement that “the new guy” won’t be awarded tenure, so that in 3-4 years they can redo the search (this scenario happened rather recently—Albany has a very, very hostile Admin, which makes some Depts there ‘eat their young’, so to speak.
...either way, it’s best to not be in the running for Albany and best to cut losses now and pick up a VAP gig elsewhere. Add to this the fact that the Dept is highly dysfunctional and toxic—as was the Classics Dept before it was (famously) killed off unexpectedly by the Admin with the last decade. Albany is dumping tens of millions of dollars into STEM, chiefly a massive Nano-Tech facility that’s now almost as large as the rest of the campus combined, yet they keep gutting humanities and making life unbearable for Humanities faculty. It’s, perhaps, one of the most disastrous situations that I’ve seen.
Morale of the story: be glad if you’re a philiologist and have no stake in Albany. For those in the running: ask your friends to tie you to the mast like Odysseus and avoid the Sirens’ call of Albany.
It’s a Potemkin Village, folks.
;)
It makes you sound like you've spent too long masturbating over Hesiod or fragmentary Lyric poets or whatever when you might have spent a bit more time studying history and anthropology[etc.]...
Or, you know, might have spent some time conceiving of other people through lenses other than one's own...the whole g-d purpose of the field to begin with, if one believes its hype rather than its practice.
Funny the comments above about hiring at UNC;that particular thread of dysfunction must run deep. Someone told me that when they hired the senior archaeologist there now, must have been the early 1990s,the department had an extreme gender imbalance and they hoped to hire a woman. They invited three finalists, all women, to campus and then the departmemt split between two candidates: the philologists wanted one candidate (who worked on epigraphy) and the archaeologists and cultural historians wanted another. They couldn't reach a consensus, deadlocked, so they invited a fourth candidate. A man. And hired him. The kicker though was that the male candidate (now senior archaeologist there) and the female candidate the archaeolodgists wanted to hire had virtually identical credentials: degree from the same school, involved in the same excavation, they had even co-authored articles.
Wiki says the Brown search has been cancelled!?! Very strange timing on that. Does anyone have the text of the chair's letter?
What a huge waste of money, time, and effort, to invite several candidates out, give them false hope, and then cancel the search.
Pathetic.
How do all these searches fail in a job market where a department can ask for every imaginable bizarre combination of qualifications and specialties and have multiple people queuing up to apply?
Has anyone else been looking at the weather for Boston? Most of us may not even make it to our interviews....again.
Every. Fucking. Time.
Does anyone have experience with missing interviews because of weather?
The SCD/AIA should just be held in sothern US from now on. Every year in Phoenix, Miami, or San Diego.
fI do not know why we keep holding these things in Boston, Chicago or Toronto. It makes no sense, and it means that weather ruins virtually every meeting.
I think we should have no SCS meetings north of Virginia... it seems like they have managed to choose the coldest cities possible the past few years! Let's go back to NOLA, please.
@8:41 only if we get to share the hotel with the motorcycle clubs again.
Bombogenesis - from the Greek! #SCSVegas
These days, the only way to be sure is to hold the conference on Venus or Mercury (from the Latin!).
January 2, 2018 at 5:28 PM: Yes. I have been on search committees that have made accommodations for candidates who missed the conference because of interviews. We did phone or Skype interviews instead. In one case, we ended up hiring a candidate who did a Skype interview. Communication with the search committee chair and the SCS Placement Service is key. They'll understand.
I meant "weather", not "interviews". Oops.
...or, we can all just refuse to go to the pointless meeting and we can all just Skype for round one anyway.
The presentations are always sub-par and riddled with anxiety on account of the interviews. And to be honest, does anyone really want to listen to the 5,000th presentation on the Aeneid anyway?
Snowflake whiners. Now the weather annoys you.
Even New Orleans was unseasonably cool the last time we were there. We need to stop inflicting terrible winter weather on all of these unsuspecting cities.
@10:46,
It’s not necessarily complaining about the weather, per se, but the consequences of the weather. For example, for those of us in ancient History, there is the SCS/AIA and the AHA held (unfortunately) on the same days and always in different cities. So, for those of us that need to “conference hop” for interviews at both, the weather can lead to cancellations of flights and mess with your interview schedule.
If you ONLY go to SCS, I agree, don’t complain just be sure to have extra funds available to pay for an extra hotel stay or for a rental car and just drive it out of the flights are cancelled (I do this, since I’m a northerner and couldn’t care less about snow).
Remember the year we destroyed chicago? I wonder if this year will rival that.
Lol at "just be sure to have extra funds available." Some of us aren't so lucky as to have that option. Also, many of us have to teach on Monday and many are traveling much to far to "drive it out."
SC member here. Our flight tomorrow was cancelled. We can get to Boston tonight, but we wonder whether we should stay home and do all Skype interviews. We figure this would take pressure off candidates who are similarly struggling to get to Boston, but would it be disastrous for any who do come to switch their plans? We're looking for perspectives!
@2:38,
Do Skype for all.
For those who are in Boaton, they are already there. I’m sure it will take an edge off for their interview if they can comfortably just Skype it in, plus they’ll likely see it as a bonus for them against other candidates (that they “toughed it out” and made it there when even the SC couldn’t), and they’ll actually have an enjoyable SCS experience in that they can relax, meet up with old friends, and have zero worries that they may bump in to any SC members after the interview (which is, almost always, a bit uncomfortable for both).
I'm in Boston, giving a paper, and I'd rather be interviewed in person. I just handle it better than video, which I think puts me at a disadvantage for a number of reasons.
@2:50, yeah I think I’d be pretty annoyed if I braved ice and snow, rebooked flights/hotels/etc and made it to Boston only to find that the SC just gave up and stayed home. Especially because the travel/administrative stuff takes time (not to mention mental/emotional resources) that could have been spent on interview prep.
Of course, SC’s must (and I'm sure will) make alternate arrangements for people who can’t make it.
@2:50, why not go, but offer the candidates a choice upfront, making clear that Skype will not put them at a disadvantage? That way candidates struggling to find a flight out (or who are going out for only a single interview) will not feel so harried trying to make this work in admittedly poor circumstances. Candidates who would prefer to go (or who have to regardless) can then interview in person.
This is yet another example of why conference interviews, and indeed the conference itself, just need to die.
No more SCS. Who plans conferences in these cities in early January? You could at least include one free drink with that ridiculous opening night reception charge.
If all of us (job candidates and SCs) boycott and bypass the SCS, we’d find the world a far happier place.
I remember Chicago! I went to my shitty interviews and then almost died because I needed to walk a mile to the train station, it was -40 with wind chill, the snow was knee high, and I forgot to bring a jacket. I think maybe the SCS chooses meeting locations in an attempt to thin the applicant herd.
@10:10 did you get an offer, at least??
10:10PM here. Nope! I left academia immediately thereafter. I still lurk here because I am because I'm basically a ghost, already dead but not able to move on, flitting about the abandoned rooms in which once I dissertated, moaning softly: "Greek! Latin!" *rattles chains*
Anyone know if the Gettysburg interviews are affected?
I have an interview with them and I haven't yet heard anything.
I checked out the meeting rooms for the AIA/SCS interviews (the ones in the Westin, 7th floor, at least) and, fyi, they were pretty cold, so prepare accordingly.
Do you think I will make a poor impression if I keep my tundra coat on and can't lower my arms?
Just don't lick the door frame and you're good.
Too late...I'm posting this from the flagpole outside.
Oh boy oh boy, nothing like adding a further layer of uncertainty onto the old cake o' uncertainty that is the job market. My interview will be rescheduled, to a time still during the meeting, but who knows when?
There's apparently no coat check, so it's not like you'll be taking your coat off anyway.
I'm surprised that anyone even made it to Boston. Ten of us Classics/Archaeology people from my university were planning to attend and only three ended up making it there, and that was because they arrived yesterday or earlier in the week.
12:41 again
To add insult to injury, I've heard that they're planning to have the meeting in Chicago again in a three years.
Maybe next year we can have the meeting inside an active volcano, just for contrast.
Coming in here today was literally a near-death experience for me. I swear I will NEVER, EVER go to another SCS in the North again. Anyone who can afford to is welcome to join my boycott.
I am quite frustrated. I’m an ancient historian and though job prospects for all of us are pretty thin, they’re seemingly the worst for those of us who are classical historians. There hasn’t been a new TT job posted since late October, and of the ~6-7 jobs, two are not going to anyone among us here (Princeton and Chicago), and there are most defiantly a great number of philologists with shiny pedigrees putting in for “history” jobs that they aren’t suited for, and may even succeed in poaching a few of our jobs.
Add to this that the history job boards list, on average, 5-6 New TT jobs every single week (even now). But, none for ancient. What is popping up almost every day are new TT lines for African-American historians. This is frustrating since undoubtedly most of those institutions *already have* a handful of US historians yet they are adding another. This is very perplexing since ancient courses will always fill at max capacity (150-200) whereas all of the A-A courses usually have enrollment numbers around 20.
I’m not saying that decisions ought to be based solely on how many seats can be filled, but it’s particularly disturbing when one notes that the employment of the so-called “business model” that many large R1 state universities follow today use the low enrollment numbers of Latin and Greek as reason #1 to shut down or downgrade Classics Depts.
...sorry for the rant.
@4:47 I'm sorry, did you just suggest that we should not try to correct past wrongs by offering space to ethnic studies and Africana studies in university curricula? Is that a real thing you said?
@4:59,
Read my comment again; you didn't grasp what it was that I was saying, saw that I do not take a carte blacnhe approach regarding how the academy ought to treat ethnic studies, got triggered, and replied.
Hello, I'm finally here: frozen, exhausted from travel, recovering from being stranded in various places, and very jetlagged.
Can someone please tell me where I can print my paper/handouts and how much I have to pay for this privilege? I present tomorrow morning.
"Add to this that the history job boards list, on average, 5-6 New TT jobs every single week (even now). But, none for ancient. What is popping up almost every day are new TT lines for African-American historians. This is frustrating since undoubtedly most of those institutions *already have* a handful of US historians yet they are adding another. This is very perplexing since ancient courses will always fill at max capacity (150-200) whereas all of the A-A courses usually have enrollment numbers around 20."
You might not want to make statements that you can't actually back up with real numbers. I'm at an elite medium-ish sized public R1 and a quick look at the African/African-American History and African-American studies courses for the coming semester show that the survey courses have over 100 students, the more focused classes (of which there are quite a few) have between 40-60, and the smaller, upper level courses/seminars have 15-20 each. These are all full.
It seems that you've fallen into one of the traps that administrators love, which is making people from one humanities/social science disciplines see other disciplines as threats and enemies. When it the time comes for the cuts, the divide and conquer approach is thus all the more easy for them to enact by picking off departments piecemeal.
Can anyone offer me some advice? Just arrived to SCS. Advanced PhD student at lower end 2nd-tier program with very few colleagues attending the conference. I apparently don't go to a classy enough school to network (I have tried starting conversations, only to be ignored when someone more important shows up / nobody knows me or any of my professors), and I'm just wandering the halls/hiding in my hotel room. Any suggestions?
Can someone explain the point of live-tweeting a panel to me? I mean, I get that it's like broadcasting the event so that people not present can somehow still participate. So I guess my question is, has anyone actually participated in a live-tweet and if so, did you find it useful?
9:34: Go home and find another profession. You will not regret it.
@9:34, I'm sorry to hear that! My SCS travel plans were foiled, otherwise I would be happy to catch a drink. As for networking, I know it's tough, but one thing I've learned is to think about how *you* can benefit someone else. I read "Love is the Killer App" and really liked some of its insights. But if you find it tough to connect, don't be down on yourself. A lot of people are stressed and trying to network themselves. And, Classicists are known for being a bit awkward in the first place. Good luck, and stay warm!
9:34 - find some panels/talks you find interesting and just go by yourself. if nothing is interesting, try challenging yourself and going to those that might give you a completely different perspective on the ancient world. browsing new books in the exhibition hall might be a good time filler too. if you get fed up with all that, go to the MFA, it's a nice museum.
don't worry about important people stealing conversations, that goes on at all stages of people's career and has nothing to do with you as a person. it happens to everyone. and finally, there is nothing wrong with hiding in your room.
if you still feel anxious tomorrow, just write here and maybe we can meet to hang out :)
@9:47, asshole.
"Can anyone offer me some advice? Just arrived to SCS. Advanced PhD student at lower end 2nd-tier program with very few colleagues attending the conference. I apparently don't go to a classy enough school to network (I have tried starting conversations, only to be ignored when someone more important shows up / nobody knows me or any of my professors), and I'm just wandering the halls/hiding in my hotel room. Any suggestions?"
I want to say part of the problem is that many people didn't bother trying to come or couldn't because of the weather and that you'd probably have better luck if more people were there, but that's not true. A lot of people in the field won't be bothered with talking to anyone who doesn't have an Ivy or par-Ivy on their nametag, especially when it comes to students.
This is a problem that carries over into hiring and the Classics job market more broadly (and honestly probably the humanities more broadly, too) and has been discussed at length here at FV. I personally find that this kind of attitude is ultimately detrimental to the field because you essentially have variations on the same person populating the vast majority of departments, people with PhDs, for the most part, from the same handful of schools.
So advice for the conference? If you're a philologist, maybe try to find some archaeologists who are drinking. I find that generally we're somewhat less snobbish than our fellows in the other subfields (no offense). At the very least we're less snobbish when drunk, and we're drunk a lot.
9:34: "Go home and find another profession. You will not regret it."
Heh. I had a professor tell me that years ago when I asked them for advice on applying to graduate school. You wouldn't happen to be a bitter, middle-aged woman with a bad haircut and tacky jewelry at an R1 in the Midwest, would you?
I second 9.34, and think that poster was giving the best advice here. Why would anyone think they were bitter, rather than simply enlightened?
9:34 here.
Seriously people. Your advice to the poster is not to feel bad about hiding in a hotel room, or maybe check out the MFA, or try to hit a panel and maybe say hi to someone?
This attitude is exactly part of the problem. At some point, it becomes simply immoral to advise anything other than to exit this train wreck.
WTF? “..a bitter middle-aged woman, with a bad haircut and tacky jewellery...”? What a great example of Classics’ toxicity, thanks.
This person is already here. Telling them to go back where they came from is not going to help their current anxiety. So yeah, I advised MFA. It is a nice museum after all.
I second the MFA. Conferences got so much less grim once I realized that sightseeing was a totally ok thing to do. I wish I could offer something more than that, though.
@ 6:13
I don't know, I think that the people whining about how diversity is ruining the field and how jobs that ancient historians should have are being stolen by people who specialize in African-American history are better examples of Classics' toxicity.
There are always trends in life, academia included. Right now African-American studies are very trendy and many Depts want to have one or two specialists to both A) showboat their “diversity” and B) keep up with the Joneses, so to speak.
Classics (including Ancient History) comprise the oldest and most traditional form of higher education, so most schools already have an ancient historian or have already allocated how such courses are to be treated. On the reverse, many larger and top schools have A-A programs and studies now but everyone else is scrambling to “keep up” with the latest trend, the result being what’s being mentioned above about the large number of new T-T jobs for A-A scholars.
I don’t agree with being hostile to ethnic studies, but I do feel that if a Dept has an adequate number of U.S. historians and are using a new line to bring in another U.S. historian who focuses on A-A history, that’s a bad move; better to bring in an A-A historian (who is, in every respect, a U.S. historian) only when a current U.S. historian leaves. ...I’m at a top-5 University and our History Dept here has 2 ancient, 2 medieval, and 1 renaissance coursing our “premodern” cohort, and triple that for modern. So, I’d be strongly opposed if our History Dept sought to being in a 13th U.S. historian regardless of their speciality when we could really use more premodrnists.
I think that’s what’s fueling OP’s post above about the sad state of affairs for ancient. If so, I agree; if their motive is more driven by blatant opposition to A-A studies, the I disagree.
@6:13,
To be fair, we poke fun at all the men here in their stupid tweed jackets (there honestly are too many), so why is it so wrong to make an equal observation about what many of the older women here look like (bad haircuts and tacky oversized jewelry)?
Because it's not an equal observation? Because you are harping on women's age (not nubile and sexy enough for you?) and also their physical appearance rather than just what they are wearing?
Did anyone else apply to Minerva, by any chance?
@1:27 PM
I also applied. Haven't heard anything.
@1:27, what's Minerva?
There are some terrible societal trends beyond our control but we are not doing ourselves any favors. Rather than being hostile to any attempts at diversity, why not look at it as an opportunity, a time for reflection? I'm appalled at some sentiments on here regardless of how brutal this market is for all. It's not good enough to say classics just attracts a certain type and call it a day. As someone pointed out, we are not nearly as diverse as any ethnic studies field. To say it's just a white thing is a path to certain destruction. What purpose do we serve then? To bring attention to something that already courses through the veins of western society? Not a very good selling point. As a curious grad student observer, I attended the AIA council tonight and I was totally shocked (as an ancient historian). I saw two visible minorities in the entire audience. It in no fashion resembles anything but Wal-Mart country. It's a numbers game and we are totally screwed on the current trajectory. Extinction awaits us and I see little alarm or any attempts to rectify this situation. Try to sell more issues of Archaeology magazine? Good grief, I went to archaeology for hope and came away with the opposite.
Post a Comment