Campus invites might be the short list for classics, but for some disciplines (at least in the social sciences) the short list is the 10-15 conference invites. The long list folks are those from the general pool who make the first cut and are asked for more material such as recommendation letters. So if you want to put a positive spin on the insanity of it all, we could consider ourselves long-listed by pretty much all classics positions!
For my current job (a VAP, so take that for what it's worth), the SC apparently (according to the wiki) sent at least one other person an invitation to come to campus 18 days before they invited me. I had completely written off the job, and then suddenly there was a query about whether or not I was still interested. I assume they were doing a one-at-a-time approach to campus visits, which seems possible but much less likely for a T-T job.
I also received an invitation to interview for a T-T job this year 8 days after others posted that they had received the request. In general it's best to move on, mentally, when we see that others have received invitations and we have not, but in my fairly limited experience on the market (I've applied for less than 50 jobs total) I have now twice assumed a job was completely out of reach only to have it swing back in my direction.
This is 9:35 again. I don't have any experience visiting campus for a T-T job, but I have heard of cases where the SC invites, say, 3 candidates out and then later decides to add a 4th if the first 3 either aren't a good fit or if they accept offers elsewhere. This happened in our department when I was a grad student.
If it's true (as the wiki reports) that 2 people have 5 on-campus visits scheduled and another person has 4, I would expect that some of these SCs are going to have to go back and invite additional candidates (if HR allows) or cancel the position. Hopefully that whole process doesn't cause too many delays for those of us who are still waiting to hear if we have one invitation.
UMass Amherst writes to say that they've received my application MONTHS after submission and that it is under review, despite the fact that they've already extended interview invitations? Bizarre...
@12:58 I just got the same email, and have to assume that someone mixed up their form emails. But it sucks that we now have to wait for the actual rejection email for a job that we've known for over a month that we're not getting. Sigh.
Does anyone have a guess about or explanation for this UMass email other than that they have drawn up their list of finalists? The timing isn't just random, surely.
"I don't have any experience visiting campus for a T-T job, but I have heard of cases where the SC invites, say, 3 candidates out and then later decides to add a 4th if the first 3 either aren't a good fit or if they accept offers elsewhere. This happened in our department when I was a grad student."
This is exactly how I got the job I'm now tenured in. It was 15 years ago but I assume the same sort of thing still happens. I'm at a SLAC; normally SCs are permitted to invite only three finalists. In this particular case, the first three candidates were all judged unacceptable -- they "blew" the teaching demonstration or the research presentation (according to what colleagues told me after I got here; of course I don't know the details). I had long since figured I was out of the running, but in late Feb. I got a call asking me if I was still available and interested. I was. They flew me out for an on-campus interview as the fourth candidate, offered me the job three days later, and here I am 15 years on.
The UMass email might have been one that they are legally required to send (as it includes information about work status and background checks) and were supposed to send out earlier but forgot to?
I had an interview at UMass Amherst and I asked about their timeline for the rest of the search and they said that their spring semester does not begin until January 22, which I took to mean that any decisions would be after that date (maybe they can't meet as a department until after the semester starts).
Were those with Illinois rejection e-mails interviewed at the conference (rejected at short-listing), or are these rejections at the long-listing, for people who weren't selected for interviews? I'm trying to figure out if they're down to the finalists or if they've just rejected the hundred plus people who applied to the job in the first place.
So, I’m not sure if this is a common feeling post-interview, but it happens to me every time. I’ve had 4 T-T interviews and just had a VAP interview and each time I feel the same way about things. What I feel is that no matter the question asked I ramble like an idiot. Often times, even if it’s a question I know they’ll ask and one that I’ve prepared for, I feel like Michael Scott from the Office commenting on how “sometimes l’ll start a sentence and not know where I’m going; I hope I find my way there eventually.”
Not sure if it’s just another aspect of imposter syndrome or being rather hyper-sensitive to things, but I feel like shit after every interview and then stew for days after it, replaying in my head all the stupid things I said and often ‘re-answering’ the questions while driving around town.
...as a side note, I also feel like I answer questions in a way that makes me seem like an asshole. For example, I was asked: “what would you do if you have a student whose failing, it’s the end of the semester and they come to you to see what they can do?” To which I replied: “Well, that wouldn’t happen with me. I have weekly quizzes, that aren’t worth much in an of themselves, but are ways that I can keep my finger on the pulse of the class. As such, I can monitor, rather efficiently, if a student is slipping. If that happens, *I* reach out to *them* to see what’s happening. I try to help them regain their footing after stumbling before they fall, rather than let them fall and lay there as such until the end of the semester.”
I said that but feel that implicit in my answer is an accusation against the SC member asking the question that they’re a shitty prof for callously treating students as they do.
Ugh. The mind of a pessimist never rests, I guess.
In my opinion, some students should be allowed to fail, since that can serve as a much-needed wake-up call. But I would never say that in an interview. (It depends on whether they are actually trying, or still need to grow up.)
There is definitely some utility in reviewing your answers after an interview. Some of us just do this more obsessively than others and to greater self-harm. Can you shift these conversations with yourself away from "That was stupid; I should have said X" towards "How can I improve my response if I need to answer the same question in a future interview?"
If I were on a SC, I would be very pleased with your response about a failing student. Someone else might be offended, true, and yet another person might think you sound too soft. The personal opinions of the SC members are completely unpredictable and out of your control. All you can do is answer honestly and hope that your honest opinion is a good fit.
The only thing you CAN control is how well you research the position and tailor you answers to it (I assume you did this). If they're looking for someone to teach 300-person lecture courses, they're probably going to think that your approach is unrealistic and that you don't know what you're getting into. If they are a SLAC and pride themselves on personal interactions with students and making sure every student succeeds to the best of their ability, they probably loved your approach.
11:38, I feel for you. That way lies madness, don't go there. I was a pretty good interviewer at the beginning, got a TT on-campus my very first interview. Proceeded to always get some interviews but never enough to get a "real" job. Always obsessed over my interview performance for about a month after the fact. Four years of psychic damage later, prescription drugs could mask some of the most obvious physical symptoms of anxiety, but could not turn me back into the confident and cheerful person I was that first year. I did eventually get a job, partly because of my university's low-stakes and unusual interview process. I still think the SCS interviewing thing is barbaric and that interview performance doesn't tell you much of anything about people, because you end up having to read way too much into statements people make under enormous pressure, as you describe above.
Does anyone know when does ISAW at NYU usually send out their decisions? As someone who did not have any TT interviews, this January is extremely slow and frustrating...
Applied for the job, and have heard nothing. I have applied for the ISAW postdoc several years running, and will say they tend to be very secretive. Also, while I have know some very good people affiliated with the program, every hire there, short or long term, seems to be basically good old boy/girl network.
So apparently Georgetown sent out at least one interview invitation the day after their deadline, which was a holiday (MLK Day). Couldn't they at least have the decency to pretend that they devoted sufficient time to all of the applications?
I echo the sentiments above; how can they possibly be conducting a valid and thorough search if, in a matter of DAYS from the deadline they request for an interview? Bullshit. By which, I don’t mean the person is lying on the Wiki but that the Georgetown SC is conducting a bullshit search.
Must be nice to have an advisor who’ll jerk off SC members for you while the rest of us are just, you know, applying and hoping that our accomplishments and qualifications will get us in the door.
That's not fair, Anon. 7:03. As the one who criticized what seemed to be an instantaneous interview list, I can say I have no problem with their having a list of people after three days, since the search committee could have been reading applications as they came in. I no longer have any problem with Georgetown, and you shouldn't either.
I don’t see how Georgetown can have 1 entry on the Wiki, while T-T jobs at far better schools have 3+ and the Gettysburg (almost equal in ranking) had 5+ on the Classics Wiki and 2+ on the History Wiki.
@7:10, I think the posting on the Wiki is false. Too few hits and FAR too soon to be legitmate, IMO.
At the end of the day, VAP hires are crooked, incestuous and forgone conclusions, as 7:10 noted. Not all, to be sure. But many, and these days, most, are. And even departments that wouldn't do a crooked and incestuous search like, say, UChicago, for a TT job, are still willing to hand out VAPs to the student of a friend, advisor, lover, etc. Don't think that Georgetown is running an impartial national search. In all likelihood it is not (no inside information, FWIW, just the fact that many 1 year VAPs are not impartial national searches).
I say this as someone who has gotten a crooked VAP through connections and pity. The stakes are low, one year of employment, usually at subpar pay, so many departments have little compunction handing the job to someone they know and like. So there is no reason to wring hands over a VAP. Most were spoken for before they were posted.
Does this suck? Yes it does. The field sucks. And the people in charge do not care, because they have tenure.
SC member here. I understand your despair, confusion, and frustration with the current job market. But as someone who spent long days reading each and every file of the several dozen we received for a VAP (starting at the first moment when they began to trickle in), taking careful notes on each, and then deciding through discussion with my colleagues on a list of interviewees (which does not include any of the candidates whom we knew and admired, because they did not have the very best credentials for this particular job), I feel dispirited that the perceptions on this site are so out of touch with reality. The number of people in this field who are fat cats getting "jerked off" seems to be wildly overestimated, to the point that now people feel justified smearing departments they also claim to know nothing about. Honestly, if you hold this field and the departments that are hiring in such low regard, you have dubious reasons for pursuing it.
Surely, most here will agree that honest and well-intentioned SCs do exist, but a good number of us here have either been on the receiving end of privilege, are at institutions where we see this kind of behavior happen evey time a VAP and T-T comes along.
The best thing to do is to wait and see who gets the VAP at Georgetown. Then, it will be rather clear to see how rigged the job ad is.
For those crying foul about a rigged system, I challenge you to do better if you make it into a permanent position (and some of you will). I've been doing this long enough that I remember plenty of scholars in your position crying foul in their younger days only to turn around and actively perpetuate this very same transgression later on. This leads me to believe that it's not the unfairness that bothered them so much but the fact that they weren't on the receiving end of the unfair largesse.
My apologies: interview request was originally posted in error for 1/16. Correct date of request was 1/19, as now reflected on the wiki. It was an honest mistake with no malicious intent. Email accompanying interview request specifically notes that the speed of the search is due to impending deadlines for submitting course proposals for the fall.
12:02 AM, I think probably even the most outraged here understand that many SCs do their due diligence. There's a lot of resentment when a small fraction of the searches end up hiring spouses (or attempting and being thwarted at hiring a spouse, thus losing the line, as happened last year). In less egregious cases, we've all seen personal connections influence decisions. Heck, I know I've had people try to influence searches in my favor simply because they are friends with me or my advisor, but unfortunately my network is apparently not quite powerful enough... While it's hyperbolic to say that all VAP searches are dirty or something like that, there's no doubt that this field and the way we hire favors the well-connected, which often boils down to those from the "right" class.
@11:21 AM, probably not until Feb/March, when many of those with jobs, who applied for positions get the ones we hoped for, and so their departments need to fill them (if they get approval from the admin). March (or around then) is usually when more senior Profs hear about fellowships that would give them a year off, and so VAPs might spring up for those reasons too. I've even seen VAPs still coming up well into April/May.
Hi, everyone. I want to weigh in on this discussion as one of the senior faculty at Georgetown. I am also the outgoing chair of the SCS Committee on Career Planning and Development, a committee which takes quite seriously the state of the job market and tries to ensure that searches are conducted in a professional way. I am on leave this year and not on the SC, but we are a close unit and I'm in constant touch with my colleagues. Let me assure you that the Georgetown search is in no way "crooked." There is no inside candidate: our current VAP is in a different field; none of us has friends, partners, or other intimates who have any leg up. We are trying to look out for the interests of the department by hiring the very best person to teach the courses we need next year; none of us is interested in doing anyone favors, since the welfare of our students and thus our department and the field as a whole is paramount.
Here's the bottom line: someone we contacted for an interview posted the wrong date he or she was invited. This led to speculation about the search being somehow corrupt. The candidate has now responsibly corrected the information--I'm delighted that one of the people we are interviewing is behaving so professionally. Now, as I said, I am very sympathetic to the anxieties and frustrations created by the current job market; my work with contingent faculty and graduate students as chair of the CCPD should be evidence of my bona fides for folks who don't know me personally. So I say this with as much benevolence as I can muster: when you make claims without evidence (see above at 1:42: "Given that the Georgetown VAP gig (apparently) was a crooked one") you are not only behaving unprofessionally but coming very close or arriving at defamation. I'm sympathetic to your situation, but cease and desist. Please feel free to contact me by email at sensa@georgetown.edu if you have concerns or would like to discuss matters having to do with the job market; I can't give you any details about our search, of course.
Once again, as the person who first raised a question about Georgetown, I don't see why anyone is any longer on their case. They explained in their e-mail why they are moving so quickly, with interview requests going out four days after the deadline. If they were reading applications as they came in they could still have read the last-minute ones that came in over the holiday weekend this past Tuesday-Thursday, and perhaps even had access on holiday itself. (What would that number of stragglers be? 20? 30?) We all have PhD's or about to, and it is hard to get one of those in our field without knowing how to weigh evidence and cite sources -- so can any one of you with delusions of omniscience point to ANYTHING that supports the claim of a crooked search? If not then 1) shut up, 2) apologize, and 3) really do shut up.
Can anyone tell me why Connecticut College (a Dept with only 2 faculty members, one with a joint-apt in Arabic, a Post-Doc) is asking for a VAP who has such a specific specialty (reception, science, gender)?
I mean, for a school that is THAT small, wouldn't any generalist do? I can imagine why a massive Classics Dept, like Michigan or Stanford might ask for such a narrow focus, but if you can count faculty on one hand, why narrow your applicant pool to such narrow sub-fields?
1.) I think that 1:42 was just going off of the sentiment here, not necessarily making an accusation.
2.) we are at the very end of a (disastrous) T-T job season and everyone's sanity is at breaking point. While part of the purpose of this forum is, as self-described, to blow off steam, we need to allow folks to do so. Now, this enters a grey area when one's anxiety and fear then influence others, as the whole Georgetown thing has.
Folks here need to remember that half of what's on this forum are irrational thoughts and fears of many of us who have put 10+ years into our education, have a PhD and find an ever-narrowing list of possibilities at the end. This leads to anger and resentment.
3.) I am very happy to see that a Georgetown faculty member come on to address this matter and put it to rest.
...As a final note, if SCs REALLY want to end this kind of thing, then email everyone on the same day. If you contact a few folks for interviews, great, but also email everyone else and be honest: "we contacted our top candidates, unfortunately you were not among them."
A lack of information and (at least initially) bad information being put on the Wiki, only serves to promote negative thoughts and things to get to where they are regarding Gerorgetown.
(@12:02 again) As has been noted many times on this forum, HR rules vary from institution to institution and it is not always possible for departments to notify candidates the second they begin inviting some to interview, or at any other juncture of their choosing. Please do not labor under the misconception that individual professors (or departments, or even faculty senates...) have the power to change how the general counsels of enormous institutions with billion-dollar endowments interpret employment law.
--Having a policy of contacting all candidates on the same day is the best way to a handle all of this.
Treat all candidates equally, and be aware that in this day and age of the internet, we all know when folks are contacted anyway, so it's best for each school to be on top of that and be transparent.
While some may not be able to use such clear language as that, it would be possible to say something rather vague that can alert everyone.
E.g., email all applicants and say, simply, "While we cannot disclose, as per HR rule # xxxxx, when we begin to contact candidates for interviews, we would like to inform all candidates that we will contact a select amount for interviews."
That doesn't violate anything yet is clear enough as to what's going on.
How can HR rules prohibit the sending of an email that says " We have drawn up our shortlist, and, unfortunately, you were not among the X number of candidates selected. Your application will remain active, however, unless you indicate that you would like to be removed from consideration. Thank you for your application."
I am not complaining, but genuinely asking. I don't see how that can violate any policy, since it doesn't indicate that they've removed anyone from consideration or that the position of closed. If HR rules prohibit SC members from communication w candidates, can't a dept assistant or other admin person send out this mass email?
Servius here. I have done some tidying up above, but I am leaving most of the conversation up because I think it speaks for itself: be careful about jumping to conclusions on iffy info. I am glad to see that people pretty much straightened this issue out for themselves -- thanks to all the users behaving professionally. Thanks also to Georgetown for weighing in. If Prof. Sens would like to object to anything that I've left up, he can leave a comment here and I will delete both the objectionable comment and his objection. Apologies to Georgetown for the direction this went.
Servius, I'm fine with leaving it up. I do think it's important that people think a little bit more about the downstream consequences of venting. To give you an example, our administrators would be very displeased if we were in fact doing anything inappropriate, and that could conceivably jeopardize future requests to authorize searches, and therefore (again, conceivably) jeopardize job-seekers' chance of someday working with us. That's probably putting it in too dire a way, but I hope people see the point. The faculty who are running searches are not your enemies, even if they occasionally make mistakes; it's worth noting that some places only search once in a blue moon. All of us want our students, our units, and the field to thrive as much as possible at a difficult time for Classics. There are enough forces working against us as it is without our assuming our colleagues and prospective employers are acting in bad faith at the first go. Good luck and best wishes to everyone, Alex
"How can HR rules prohibit the sending of an email that says " We have drawn up our shortlist, and, unfortunately, you were not among the X number of candidates selected. Your application will remain active, however, unless you indicate that you would like to be removed from consideration. Thank you for your application."
I am not complaining, but genuinely asking. I don't see how that can violate any policy, since it doesn't indicate that they've removed anyone from consideration or that the position of closed. If HR rules prohibit SC members from communication w candidates, can't a dept assistant or other admin person send out this mass email?"
I remember seeing letters like this when I was a. job candidate. But here at my SLAC, the administration's rules are very clear: NO communication with applicants who aren't interviewed, of any sort, until after the contract is signed by the successful candidate. Then, and ONLY then, may SCs contact those who were never interviewed at all. The policy specifically and explicitly forbids sending the kind of message that 2:51 suggests.
I think this is a terrible policy, and grossly outdated -- it was adopted many decades ago, when there were far fewer applicants for any academic jobs, when the interview process was much shorter, and when it was perhaps arguably reasonable not to imply to anyone that they were out of the running until the hire was a done deal. The policy is utterly anachronistic now, and pointless as well as cruel. But this policy can only be changed by the Administration in consultation with the Board of Trustees. Faculty have no voice in this process and (under our college's constitution) no path to gain a voice, and violating the policy would risk having a search shut down.
Re: 2:14 's question "Can anyone tell me why Connecticut College (a Dept with only 2 faculty members, [plus] one with a joint-apt in Arabic, [and] a Post-Doc) is asking for a VAP who has such a specific specialty (reception, science, gender)?"
I have no inside info about CC, but it sounds to me like like Classics isn't a big enough priority to claim a line for its own uses. They need overlap with some other program to justify the hire. That's the easiest way to get a new line at my large R1, but I can imagine it might be even more so at a SLAC.
CC originally was a T-T job then was changed to what we see as a VAP. It sounds like the admin at CC is not friendly towards Classics, so they have to frame their job as such.
I hope Servius leaves the above post intact. I think it was grotesque of the Georgetown dept chair to come here and implicitly threaten job seekers with fewer hires if they complain about possible wheeling and dealing at his school. (I'm sure the Georgetown deans are keeping up with this blog.) All very well to correct misconceptions and reassure those who were upset, but the overall tone of both posts was pretty snide. I've noticed that many TT faculty talk a good game about their concern for the untenured masses, but do very little to actually improve conditions and in fact we see more and more absolutely exploitative jobs, like the infamous FSU posting this season, that prove the contrary.
I have deleted the post in question, which makes an objection to the meritocratic view of how the job market functions, based on this individual's experience in a specific search in years past and the results of that search.
I know that this generation of Servii has been relatively active in enforcing community norms, maybe more so than some would like. We try hard for balance, and we're not here to comfort the comfortable. But allowing past interviewees to anonymously attack identifiable SC members seems in poor taste. If the poster would like to rephrase, that would be fine, or perhaps my summary above suffices.
PSA for tenured or TT faculty who use social media: Never post about your graduate students on social media. It will get back to us. Then awkward moments ensue. You lose our trust. You erode the reputation of the department or specific persons' chances at landing a job. It's tantamount to slander. Talk about whatever else concerns you, except us. That was one of the first lessons I learned from teaching: don't talk ill of your students in public fora.
It doesn’t seem right or appropriate that the posts made here that either hinted at or assumed a “crooked” SC practice happening at the moment for Georgetown be taken down.
Leave it up for readers to evaluate and come to their own conclusions.
Censoring thoughts and comments made by posters here while leaving up comments (stated in a rather arrogant and condescending tone) by the Georgetown chair is disgraceful of FV admins. Are we to assume that because the Georgetown chair came here and boo-hoo’d about many of us commenting on the POSSIBILITY of crookedness that we are to believe it at face value? And, on top of that, that we should eliminate any discussion that contradicts his statement?
I think the Georgetown senior prof, instead of threatening never to hire any of us because we are snarky, should have simply:
a) briefly corrected the search timeline, which was admittedly incorrect on this blog. This lead many of us to feel that this process was rigged.
b) Noted quietly and humbly that candidates are sensitive to the form of searches. Rather than being prickly about your search, note that most of us have been burned before by SCs that were rude, biased, indifferent, incompetent or corrupt. We've lost jobs, TT and VAPs, to inside hires. Many of us feel that the entire system, which has benefited people like Georgetown senior prof., while ruining the lives and prospects of hundreds of junior scholars, is inherently corrupt and broken even if individual searches are run to standard. Instead of scolding us, think about how to make your search and future searches more transparent and honest. Note the cheers on the wiki: people understand that SCs can control how few jobs there are, but they have some leeway to treat job candidates like human beings with a fair and transparent process.
The issues with Georgetown went beyond the (initial) wrong date being put in Wiki. The larger issue is two-fold and both points go against all other evidence on the Wiki:
1.) the speed with which they notified their candidate. Take a look at any other job on the Wiki and see if you can find any other job, T-T or VAP, that notified within 48 hrs of application deadlines. ...while this may not necessarily indicate “crookedness” it does stand out as highly irregular. This still would mean not too much if not for point #2.
2.) one person was notified. One. ...while we cannot assume that 100% of all job applicants use and/or report on the Wiki, we can say that enough happen to use it with the result that even very high-end jobs like T-T lines at Chicago and Princeton have multiple reports. Additionally, VAPs that have reported thus far (See Gettysburg) *AND* are similar jobs (ancient history) have 5+ hits. Gettysburg and Georgetown are not that far off so far as institutional pedigree and surely many of the interviewees for Gettysburg as well as the folks reporting interview requests and campus visits for Chicago and Princeton (ALSO ancient history jobs) would have put in for a safety net VAP job at Georgetown. .....Yet, one and only one person reported???
Looking at points 1 and 2 together create reasonable doubt that Gerogetown was doing a fair and balanced search this year.
Now, to be sure, if the Chair who came on here and angrily scolded at us for pointing out signs of wrong-doing is not on the SC as he claims, he very well may be ignorant of what’s happening among them. How can he possibly speak to their honesty and promise us all that a leading figure on the SC is NOT tipping the scales?
To him and to all here, I will not just casually forgot about this. I will, as I’m sure many others will as well, take VERY close note of who receives this job and, as it is very easy to do in the electronic age we live in, investigate any connections between that hire (as well as their advisors) and those at Gerogetown. I find it highly unlikely that no connecting threads will be found.
I also echo sentiments above:
Shame on Servius for silencing our only platform to speak out. Shame on the Georgetown Chair, who with dripping extreme privilege at a privileged institution, peers down from his ivory tower to tell us plebs to stop recognizing and discussing injustice and the perpetuation of old-world privilege.
As the person who made the office pool joke and therefore read the post that Servius took down, it most certainly deserved to be removed, as it was a personal attack that had no place here. The other post removed earlier is less clear-cut, but Servius probably did the right thing there as well.
Some of you are so full of vitriol that you are reading the posts by Sens with the worst possible interpretations. If you have learned one thing over the past two decades, shouldn't it have been that when people post on the internet it is possible to read into their words meanings and tones that aren't there?
And the fact that one of you is still peddling misinformation -- the 1/19 interview request was not within 48 hours of the Jan. 15 deadline -- shows how poor some of your reading skills are.
A whole bunch of you should be ashamed of your conduct. But not so Servius.
A few valid points, but 1:01 makes a stronger case. Regardless of whether it’s 2 days or 4 (add to this that OP could have altered Wiki on account of backlash, meaning that 1/16 may have been the actual date) point #1 still stands. It’s still fast enough to arroise suspicion.
Also, their point #2 also is very telling, especially when you look at the whole picture.
I, too, saw the original posts in question and they weren’t all that bad, and they (if I remember correctly) used safe language like Georgetown “may” have done x, y, or z. The second post said something like “since Georgetown’s search was (apparently) crooked.” That depends on how you read it, but it seems to me to be 100% said tongue-in-cheek about it all; yet was removed.
If you’re getting special treatment in a closed search, don’t post on the Wiki but stay quiet and all will assume when you get the job that you just must not be someone who knows about or uses the Wiki.
Also, let’s not all be so daft to think that this kind of thing isn’t still happening with many jobs. It’s sad and unfair but preferential treatment is nothing new and can never be eradicated fully. To deny it still happens is what’s really shameful.
Folks, I didn't threaten anyone or ask that any posts be taken down. I did point out that accusing someone falsely of being corrupt was defamatory and I asked for civility and fair-mindednes. I also pointed out that unjustified accusations of crookedness--in this case highly unjustified--hurt our field. I'm sorry some of you have chosen to read what I wrote as you have. I don't think the way some of you are reading my posts does justice to the actual words I used, but I get that this is the internet and people are riled up. Also, for the record, I am not the chair of the department and I explicitly noted that I am not a member of the search committee. As I wrote above, I *was* chair of the SCS committee that oversees placement, and in that capacity worked very hard to make sure that searches were conducted fairly; that is a project I remain committed to.
I wrongly believed that I could do some good--and calm people's concerns-- by giving facts. I also thought I would talk about some possible unintended consequences of making false accusations beyond the damage to individual's reputations. That what I wrote has been so misconstrued--please go back and look for any threats not to hire anyone--is stunning to me, and a lesson for the future. Would you rather have information and engagement from senior faculty or not? I guess, for some of you, we are always going to be the enemy. That speaks poorly for our future as a discipline.
So I'll end my attempt at engagement now and for the future wishing you all good luck, once again.
Chill 1:29/1:01 (presuming you're the same person judging by the echoing vitriol). There might be some truth to what you say but you've gone way beyond any transgression perpetuated by the self-identifying senior scholar. For anything disagreeable conveyed by the scholar, you've gone 10X making yourself look like an entitled, hateful demagogue who is only helping to discredit a discipline, this blog, and junior classicists/historians as a whole. The system sucks (and we Gen Xers know sandwiched between your boomer parents and...you), but you're not helping with your inflammatory tantrum. I have severe doubts you would do better as a senior scholar and would guess you might do worse as someone who is probably more distressed by how the system has treated YOU rather than the system itself.
Who would believe that Americans could be so gullible as to believe in fake news? Who would believe that PhD classicists would be so gullible as to believe that the number of respondents on a wiki (1 instead of the customary 2--golly gee whiz) had any correlation to how many interview requests had been sent out? Seriously, our culture is in rough shape, and I'm not looking to other humanists to fix it.
Fine. Fair enough. I can’t speak for all of us here who hold extreme doubt about GTs honesty, but enough has been said about it. So long as Servius doesn’t delete comments about it (I think that’s what triggered so many people today), we can move past this.
To help steer discussion away, let me ask a completely unrelated question:
How possible is it to petition SCS in an attempt to alter some negative aspects? (E.g., have them inform schools that job posting will not be placed unless they all conform to certain changes, like to not request burdensome letters unless an applicant has been short-listed, etc...)
Sens, I believe that you didn't intend your words to sound like threats, but surely, after the fact, you can see how others might have read it that way? I can understand your defensiveness about it, because it wasn't your intent, but you can express that you didn't intend it to be read in that way while still recognizing the validity of the interpretation that you disagree with. As someone who can figure out Lycophron and other Hellenistic literature, you must understand something about how words can be read - validly - in multiple ways.
It's hard because we're all hiding behind our anonymity - we don't have the benefit of tenure, or even a job in some cases - but I think that in some of the above comments, rude as some of them are (come on, guys, you can't profess to want there to be more respect and grace in the field and not be a part of it yourselves), there're some valid concerns, some obvious anxiety about whether the system we're all a part of, and that we can only see a small part of at any one time, is fair. Thanks for trying to allay some of that, but the vehemence of the response should demonstrate just how deep that anxiety runs. The comments are symptoms, not the problem.
Everyone else, can we stop insulting each other based on things like age/generation or status? It's seriously unnecessary sniping in an anonymous forum where you really can't know how old people are. Maybe you think you can "tell," but you can't and anyway, ad hominem attacks in an anonymous forum are dumb.
@2:08pm here again. I think the Lycophron comment could have come off as unnecessarily sarcastic or rude. I meant it to lighten the tone a little, but I think maybe I should have left it off. Apologies.
I think the part of Sens' comments that was taken as (implicitly) threatening was the following:
"To give you an example, our administrators would be very displeased if we were in fact doing anything inappropriate, and that could conceivably jeopardize future requests to authorize searches, and therefore (again, conceivably) jeopardize job-seekers' chance of someday working with us."
Now it could also have been the words "defamation" and "cease and desist." I think the OP might take his own advice to look back at his remarks and consider how this sounds. I also think the implication hat being the chair of an SCS committee on placement should somehow grant the poster an aura of incorruptibility is a little much. If only we had known that a person at Georgetown who is not even on the SC in question was a member of XYZ committee before we had bitched about the Georgetown hiring practices! It all seems so clear now--how could we have been so wrong?
This is a forum that often engages in complaints, rumermongering, and even a little vitriol. It is, in fact, our ONLY real forum for this, since friends/family outside the profession can't really follow these conversations and there are some things you can't say freely to ANYONE in the profession, even close friends. Sometimes inaccurate information is spread, and I think a straightforward response to misinformation is appropriate, but I think we could also do without the remonstrative tone.
I asked my friend who received an invitation to interview with Georgetown and they are not the person who posted on Wiki, so at least there are two persons interviewed. I think that just as a courtesy to our colleagues who are interviewed, we should stop this discussion for now, since it will just cause them unnecessary anxiety.
2:40pm, oh, get on, addressing someone by their last name alone is not objectively rude and is in fact quite common in my neck of the woods, between colleagues, as well as between people of different hierarchical positions (students to professors, for example). You can be annoyed at it on an individual level, sure, but it's pretty low to make it out like those two posters are feral children or had poor upbringings because they don't share your proclivities. That's an unnecessary snipe that adds exactly nothing to what is an otherwise potentially productive conversation, as both posters were attempting to engage with the issues at hand.
Millennials turn to grave robbing as more Baby Boomers storing wealth in pyramids for afterlife APRIL 12, 2017 by MARY GILLIS
Memphis, TN – Millennials are turning to grave robbing and tomb raiding to make ends meet as an ever-increasing number of Baby Boomers attempt take their accumulated wealth with them into the afterlife through the use of lavish tombs, crypts, and pyramids.
“Look, I love my child,” said soon-to-be-dead Baby Boomer Robert Gray. “But the pharaohs were really onto something with their death rituals. Not that mummy stuff. That creeps me out. But the idea of luxury burials. I’m used to a certain level of comfort, and it would be unfair to everyone if I were denied that in death just so my kid can spend more money on emojis and rent and what have you.”
Numerous businesses have sprung up to cater to this new Boomer deathstyle, which can run the gamut from a modest teak coffin studded with conflict-free diamonds sealed in cement, to a 7000 sq.ft. pyramid made of obsidian located in an exclusive gated necropolis. But despite the ongoing efforts of Boomers to hold onto their wealth into grim death and beyond, Millennials remain undeterred.
“I’ve been preparing for this my whole life. Indiana Jones. Lara Croft. The Mummy movies. I’ve spent hundreds if not thousands of hours in Zelda temples and Skyrim crypts,” said Jessica Gray, 28. “If my father thinks some lame ass dad traps are going to keep me from plundering his McMausoleum and getting my inheritance back, he’s wrong. Dead wrong. Pun intended.”
When reached for comment, members of Gen X were still too traumatized from the death of Nirvana frontman Kurt Cobain to issue a statement.
2:40 here. Looks like the feral child has a sibling.
And there are no issues at hand, only people imagining the worst for such silly reasons as just one person having updated the wiki to report an interview invite, and people (mostly the same) insisting on reading the posts by Prof. Sens in the worst light, and now even getting upset with him for not having the foresight to realize that people would do that. So the issues I'm seeing involve the psychological makeup of several job-seekers who for the good of potential colleagues had better not end up anywhere nearly as good as Georgetown, not the attitude of a senior colleague whose only mistake was thinking that a civil explanation would be met with civil responses.
Ugh. It's so painful to read through all of this. Not because I necessarily agree or disagree with points being made on either side (sure, I wouldn't be surprised if Georgetown was doing shady things; and sure, I'd bet a great deal of said "shade" comes at least partly from paranoia and fear of applicants) but largely because so many folks aren't so many folks: it's more likely 1-2 people on both sides making it seem as if there are 10-12 on each side.
Let's just end the discussion all around and agree that:
MAYBE THEY DID SOMETHING SHADY, MAYBE THEY DIDN'T. THERE IS NO WAY TO PROVE THEIR GUILT OR INNOCENCE.
As such, let's please put a moratorium on "Georgetown crookedness" and return to what this forum is best at: providing support and information for one another.
Servii, this whole discussion is distasteful. With the one exception it is not 'naming names' (and that name has pointed out he is not involved in this hiring process), but we can all look up who works at Georgetown, and this thread is pretty much accusing them of skulduggery, which IMHO is not different from naming individuals' names. Doesn't seem like that's the intended spirit of this board.
Based on earlier posts, sounds like they've rejected all those who didn't receive SCS interviews. They are probably making their list of finalists now. Many schools are just starting their terms and some haven't even started (we haven't started yet and won't determine our finalists until 2/2). If you were interviewed, give schools at least until the end of the month. We have shit to do as well.
9:57: "Servii, this whole discussion is distasteful. With the one exception it is not 'naming names' (and that name has pointed out he is not involved in this hiring process), but we can all look up who works at Georgetown, and this thread is pretty much accusing them of skulduggery, which IMHO is not different from naming individuals' names. Doesn't seem like that's the intended spirit of this board."
Honestly, skulduggery is the grease that oils the gears in the Classics and Classics-adjacent job market. You've got inside hires, new iterations of the old boys club, and byzantine rules for searches dreamt up by HR departments. Then there's the underworked and overpaid administrators who think universities are businesses, students are customers, and that Classics is the study of Victor Hugo, Charles Dickens, the Brontes, and Mark Twain.
As the Orange Bastard of the Potomac would say, it's all rigged folks.
No one has heard anything from Reed College? The ad says that interviews will be held by the end of January. What is the usual time between interview request and the interview itself? The one that I got was scheduled well in advance...
My experience is that they decide shortly very after the last campus visit, maybe a week or two to go through higher up approval and issue an offer. If you haven't heard anything and it's been weeks and weeks, it's likely in negotiation and you aren't first pick. I once had what I thought was a successful campus visit only to never receive any communication from the department again. It sucked, and was totally unprofessional. I still side eye people from that search when I run into them at conferences.
Keep hope alive @1:02 PM. You never know what the timeline was for the other visits. One of them could have even been postponed. Furthermore, even if you know that all visits have been carried out, XYZ department/committee member might have some kind of conference or personal travel that makes them unavailable for a meeting etc.
If it makes you feel any better, there are a few postdocs at the moment who are associated with Classics at Princeton, so this decision might be purely administrative.
In the meantime, no Michigan (or any other) SoF for me.
^thanks for the commiseration! I too am waiting for the Michigan result but it looks like some people have gotten phone calls from the SOF, so I may also be out of the running there...
The prestigious SOF are so competitive they are largely a waste of time. Remember, you are not just competing with 100 or so people in your field, but over a thousand outside your field. Its a lottery, often depending on the pull a given department has to get a spot in the first place. I naively wasted a lot of time applying my first year, and then decided never again. If you do apply, make sure you have a connection in the department, or at the very least a connection with a connection.
3:03 here: 841 at princeton. it's preposterous. shouldn't have applied to begin with cause even though you rationalize the rejection afterward it afterwards a little piece of you is still crushed
I'm 3:17. Sure, but this season there were 5 job postings for my specialty (Greek literature), so I tried everything I could. I'm also afraid that since it's mostly archaeologists and historians who will leave their former schools, most of the VAPs will also be history-oriented.
Has anyone here had multiple VAPs and also have a family? I think I have a shot of an eventual t-t, but I feel like I'm putting my partner and two young kids through hell with all the uncertainty and potential moving. Not to mention the shitty financial side of things...Any advice? My mentors all either had their kids with the support of a stay at home parent or didn't have kids at all...
I don't think it really disrupts kids that much to move around a lot, especially at a young age when all or most of their meaningful relationships are within the immediately family (siblings and parents). Once they get old enough to have actual friends that they spend time with alone (middle school? maybe even late middle school), it can be harder on them but still not impossible (military families do it, after all, and it just depends on the family how well they cope). I'd say it's just about whether you and your partner want to move around a lot, if s/he wants to work (hard for them to switch jobs every year or two, if they can even find a new one in each place), if you're OK being apart from extended family (I don't know if that's relevant). Moving is super stressful, of course, as is the uncertainty of whether that t-t is gonna happen and when. It's a very personal decision, I'd say. You might start by having a conversation with your partner about what your line is (how many VAPs before you stop) and stick to it?
I've done three VAPs with spouse and two kids. I have decided this one is my last, no matter what happens. Either get a TT job, or leave the field altogether. A big part of the decision is the deadline for my oldest child to start attending school, but also the sense that the field has no future, and it would be unfair to ruin the lives of my family in order to pursue it further.
For those of you on the ancient history side of things, the job at San Diego Mesa College just sent out 'no's' at long-listing. I realize several of you may have been waiting with bated breath, as I was. Truly a fantastic cap to a great market season. Because, clearly, I'm meant not to live near my family for the rest of *their* lives.
I'm in a VAP and have delayed having kids because of it. I haven't decided what to do about next year yet. I don't know how much longer I can or should delay from a biological standpoint, let alone all the other factors. It's a terrible feeling to know that I could lose my chance to have (biological) children while waiting to land a t-t.
Not job related properly speaking, but I figure there's no better place to ask than in a forum full of other classicists...
What is the reputation of the journal Arethusa these days? Is it considered T2? I recall reading some classic articles that came out from Arethusa, but from the 1980s and early 90s. Have there been important (I realize this is a very subjective term) articles printed in the journal recently?
Similarly, what are people's thoughts on Phoenix? A topflight journal equivalent to our TAPA?
I am always cautious about finite rankings of journals. There is no question that some are better than others, but quality is always a relative thing. And reputation can fluctuate with editors as well.
I would suggest there is a general sense of a top tier, although people might debate which titles belong. But most would place, in the Anglophone world, TAPA, CP, AJP, JRS, JHS, AJA, JRA, CQ, Historia, Hesperia and Classical Antiquity as "Top Tier." Did I miss any? Probably.
I would say Phoenix is second tier, a little less competitive to get accepted, but still publishing high quality stuff and a worthy venue for one's scholarship. I would tend to place Greece and Rome, CW, CJ, Ancient Society, MAAR, and HSCP, Mnemosyne and Antichthon in the second tier. Not bad places to get published at all, but less competitive than the first tier. Probably would include Arethusa here.
Again, folks may dispute these rankings, but the prestige of the journal largely depends on how it is viewed by the people on hiring and promotion committees. So philologists might not think Historia is a big deal, while archaeologists don't really care about Arethusa. And sometimes journals weak in a certain area will actually be more enthusiastic about a topic on which they seldom publish than a journal which specializes in that area.
Thank you, 9:49! Beyond the Anglophone world, how do you think most American hiring committees view European journals like Quaderni Urbinati di Cultura Classica, I Quaderni del Ramo d'Oro, Kernos, or Metis? Are they worth pursuing, even as a backup?
I would be cautious. Minor European journals (outside of Germany, i.e. Historia, Klio, Chiron, Antike Kunst, ZPE, etc.) tend to be weaker, and a committee might be suspicious of the Anglophone scholar trying to dump stuff in minor European journals. The rule of thumb: do you often read and cite these journals? Does your advisor? Do people who are the thought leaders in your area of speciality?
For archaeology, I would caution against JRA and Hesperia. They obviously have cachet for classicists, but they drop off in respect when leaving the discipline. This can be a concern when getting reviewed by humanists or social scientists who are not beholden to classics.
Hesperia is clearly T2 and JRA is not far behind - http://www.scimagojr.com/journalrank.php?category=3302. AJA isn't the gold standard it once was. Antiquity still holds its spot but I would say JFA has replaced AJA as the most prestigious American journal where classical archaeologists regularly publish. AJA is now in the realm of BASOR, which isn't bad, but certainly not near the top.
Thanks again. I agree with all you say. It is a shame that (not surprisingly) the journal situation has become so Anglophone. As someone who deplores the hegemony of the English language in the humanities and the attendant undervaluation of scholarship coming from certain European quarters (esp. Spanish, Italian and Greek), I want to make an effort at publishing beyond the US/UK, though realize this may not be a smart career move, especially at an early stage.
Would you say that European journals on the whole are weaker because they tend to publish more parochially and because their referees are usually "in-house", thus lessening the rigor of the journal overall? Why do you think Germany leads the European scene when it comes to internationally recognized journals in classics and ancient history?
European journals do tend to be more parochial and less selective, in part because most have a smaller pool of scholars.
Also, I would be careful of using citation based ratings. They need not describe the situation in a particular field, and most search committees will consist of classicists, ancient historians or archaeologists involved in the classics. A Classical archaeologist is not going to prefer an article in JFA over Hesperia because of citation counts, even if JFA has more "impact." They will likely prefer the institutional prestige of the American School in their sub-discipline. This might be different if you are in say, an Anthropology department, where Hesperia is considered a sub-disciplinary backwater and the real stars publish in JFA.
Again, this fact has nothing to to with the quality of the articles. But if the hiring and committee is in classics, ancient studies or ancient art history, it may be best to go with the "gut" prestige for better or worse, rather than REF style impact factors.
One word of caution from a number of experiences with various European journals. Many are not doing themselves any favors by allowing an underlying sentiment that borders on being belligerent towards American contributors. I would say 2/3 of my reviews include diatribes criticizing a lack of references to the latest European thinking on the topic (I'm guessing usually that of the reviewer). The references provided sometimes help but they are usually marginally important at best. I'm sorry, but we have teaching and service responsibilities and cannot keep up with every little boutique conference in Europe. I totally get that we can be self-centered and siloed in North America, but this snippiness does not encourage cross-pollination. Why go through the grief when there are plenty of solid journals here?
" A Classical archaeologist is not going to prefer an article in JFA over Hesperia because of citation counts, even if JFA has more "impact.""
I honestly cannot think of one classical field archaeologist that would publish in Hesperia over JFA, all other things equal. You add in the fact that Hesperia (and even AJA to a degree) is largely about who you know and whether your project was ASCSA affiliated and it kills the rigor and practical value. This is why you can't ignore citations; there might be a reason why no one really gives a crap about the majority of these articles. Even for nostalgia and prestige steeped in tradition, I also do not want to wait two years to see my article published in journals that are just getting up to speed on modern publishing standards. Once the money and most-favored status are removed from a discipline, you are much less likely to get away with country club bullshit even with classics itself.
Thank you, 9:49! Beyond the Anglophone world, how do you think most American hiring committees view European journals like Quaderni Urbinati di Cultura Classica, I Quaderni del Ramo d'Oro, Kernos, or Metis? Are they worth pursuing, even as a backup?
Hah. At this point in my career I have cited more than 2000 books and articles on both Greek and Roman topics, and until now I have never heard of "Quaderni del Ramo d'Oro." Which, I guess, might suggest that it shouldn't be the first journal to which one sends an article.
Reading the above posts I can't help but think that the following two criteria, which I myself use, are as good as any: will the article appear reasonably quickly, and will it be seen by the people who are meant to be reading it? This should be true especially for someone writing his or her very first article(s), and is considerably more important than how a tenure committee will view the article years down the road, especially since you presumably have more than one or two articles in you. (And if you don't, the good news is that you don't need to worry about promotion and tenure!)
12:53 here again. I need to emend my post: I forgot about one unpublished project, which means I am closer to 3000 books and articles cited, still with no previous awareness of I Quaderni del Ramo d'Oro.
I will now try to find their table of contents online, hoping to find something I can cite...
Re: Helios, it seems like they're willing to take risks on interesting theoretical angles and the overall quality is high. The special issue in 2013 was really good.
I'm not sure how to rank the "theory-oriented" Classics journals against one another.
Re: JFA-while a fabulous journal, few classical archaeologists publish there. Some of the more theoretically/anthropologically oriented ones have started publishing in Cambridge Archaeological Journal and Archaeological Dialogues (both of which I like!), but JRA, AJA, Hesperia, and the like really remain the gold standard. Which is a shame, because I've had an article under review at AJA for EIGHTEEN MONTHS (with one revise and resubmit) and I still have no idea whether it's going to be published or not.
On a completely unrelated note - anyone know what's going on with University of Hawaii? I just saw it updated on the wiki, but I thought they had a similar position advertised last year...is the 4-4 so wretched that even the beaches can't entice people to stay longer than a year?
Unless it's near family and that's the only academic position available that will get you anywhere close to them? It does look like a lot, but who knows what people's calculations are.
Re: "what's going on with Hawaii" - a visiting person has moved on, they need to fill the void. It seems to be an ongoing VAP opportunity, so maybe people who are looking for a permanent thing are nervous about it, and others view it as a short-term gig, to move on when something else pops up? Honolulu is great, and the people I've met at Hawaii are really pleasant, but there are lots of other factors at work for most candidates (like the So Cal people above). Personally, I'd probably never get any real work done if I lived on Oahu. But I'd have taken the job in a heartbeat, if offered at the right time...
@10:08, old geezer here. What you say has generally been true of Helios. Also Arethusa. They have long been on the more trendy, theoretical, experimental end of things. Other end: JRS, AJP, etc.
Surprised to see people putting CJ in T2: I've long found it more interesting and representative of "classics" than AJP, which has bored me to tears since 1902. Wider variety of people involved in CJ, for one thing.
Hesperia is basically classical archaeology in the vein of biblical archaeology. It speaks to a particular, increasingly narrow audience. Any classical archaeologist who is serious about good archaeology aims to publish at least once in JFA and perhaps AJA on top of a slew of journals (e.g. JMA, JAS) that has made Hesperia and its ilk increasingly marginalized. Antiquity has somehow managed to avoid painting themselves in a corner like Hesperia, which is a bit counter-intuitive considering that the Brits pretty much defined privilege and the old boys' network for the rest of the western world.
I think there is a significant misunderstanding evident in a few posts here about what Hesperia is and is for. It's true that Hesp relatively rarely publishes good, important articles that are not mainly presentations of new material. I can't off the top of my head think of any from recent years, in fact, but there are certainly some--perhaps one or two per volume. The majority of such pieces are workmanlike overviews of the evidence on an issue; I think of recent discussions of Pausanias and Athenian taxation, for example, which are certainly very useful publications but ones that would never be accepted by a journal like JHS, Classical Antiquity, or even TAPA because they lack an argument and are therefore simply not journal articles as understood by an American academic audience. Clearly, however, that is the kind of contribution Hesperia is institutionally committed to (although I hasten to add they also publish fine articles that would not be out of place in many other journals; I see but have not read one about Solon in the latest issue), because its primary role is to publish material found in American excavations in Greece. As such, many if not (almost certainly) most of the most significant archaeological discoveries at such projects have been published in Hesperia, including headline-grabbing things like the Pylos "combat agate," Paleolithic seafaring to Crete, or whatever, and also reports coming from intellectually vibrant projects at places like Azoria or Mitrou or their like.
The JFA by contrast is certainly a sexier place to publish novel syntheses or archaeological interpretation, but is not really comparable to Hesperia in its purpose. For publications of new Greek material (artistic, archaeological, epigraphic) I do think Hesperia is the best (English-language) journal, given its high editorial and production standards and the excellence or at worst competence with which everything they publish has been researched and written. Although it is certainly a more traditionalist place than OJA, CAJ, JFA, and their like, it seems unfair and also pretty inaccurate to describe it as 3:00 does, although I agree with the remainder of their comment. JFA and Hesperia are not in competition but serve totally distinct audiences, and any discussion of their relative prestige and quality would have to begin by stipulating who is doing the judgment and for what reason.
So in sum, Hesperia is generally a worthy venue but it's tainted by the wafting stench of inbreeding, intrigue, and illegitimate academic worth that continues to define ASCSA's sponsored activities despite continued efforts by some good people to drag the institution into the 21st century. Look at the trustees - it continues to be a who's who of 1%-er Trumpsters. One cannot deny they've had a heavy hand in defining the culture of ASCSA, and therefore Hesperia, despite the best attempts of some excellent people to update the Mar-a-Lago culture of the hallowed institution.
very interesting discussion about journals. Something that makes all of this more complicated is that you often see very prominent scholars publishing in non top-tier journals like Helios, Ramus, Arethusa, GRBS, and European journals sometimes as part of a special volume (which makes more sense) but sometimes as stand alone articles. I wonder why these faculty, whose names could probably get them published wherever they wish, chose to send articles to these venues - maybe they are so established they don't rely on the prestige of journals to get read? Maybe they are doing the editors a favor?
Helios, Ramus, Arethusa, and especially GRBS are by no means remotely downmarket venues. None of them could claim to be in contention as THE flagship journal for the profession (we don't have a Science and Nature, unless you think of JRS and JHS that way, and I suspect few do) but they are all superb journals.
GRBS has really gone down hill... I was excited to read an article on Roman history in its last issue, but besides a poor argument, it didn't even provide the Latin and Greek for the English translations (which were also all taken from someone else). In general, I've been told not to publish in journals like that until you're established. Why do established scholars publish there? Sometimes it is faster... sometimes it's a favor rendered to one of the good old boys...
I think one takeaway from this conversation is that everyone has their own private hierarchy of journals. You cannot tell whether the person who thinks GRBS is top tier or the person who thinks GRBS is in steep decline will be on your SC, but on the whole I would say GRBS is a solid venue for any scholar who wants their work read---while Quaderni del Ramo d'Oro is probably a bad call for an Anglophone scholar.
Again, I think the best rule is look where people in your field and subfield publish. The Hesperia controversy above is a good example of how different subfields see things differently. Field Archaeologists see it as little more than a house journal for publishing ASCSA stuff. Which is true for excavations, although an art historian or cultural historian might view it as a top venue. Note even in the SCImago rankings: Hesperia is Q2 for Archaeology, but Q1 for Classics. Again, who sits on your committee will make a lot of difference: the Greek historian will likely admire Hesperia, but the archaeologist working on a Hopi site in the Southwest will not.
I think as a general rule, sticking to the conventional alphabet soup is a good call, rather than publishing in small and obscure journals.
Out of curiosity, don't committees pay attention to the quality of articles, regardless of where they were published? I have an article that I published in a journal one of you called second-tier, since for my subject it was the perfect place(*). I don't agree with that, but let's say you were right for the sake of my question. The article itself has had a major impact, with more than 1000 downloads from my Academia.edu page, and numerous citations: is anyone truly going to care which journal that appeared in?
(*) Admittedly, I did first get rejected by JRS, though in retrospect that was a very good thing, in part because one of my anonymous readers, who outed himself, was the best person on the planet for this subject, and gave me some crucial suggestions.
"In general, I've been told not to publish in journals like that until you're established"
meh... if you have something you think is publishable and sincerely think you have an argument worth circulating, send it out. Life is too short to sit on your scholarship and writing - if your original argument changes in a year or two, which probably will be the case, you can always revisit the issue and publish another piece accordingly. I honestly think that the advice given to many PhD candidates / early scholars to sit on work until it's just perfect to send out is too cautious an approach. Even if a piece gets a rejection, you receive very helpful feedback that helps you revise. And given how glacial the publishing process is in our field, it is simply bad advice to tell advanced doctorate students not to get their feet wet in the world of peer-review publishing.
12:19, I understand the importance of grads and recent grads publishing, but advising them to go out and publish something that might be wrong is absurd and irresponsible. By my estimate, I would be 20% more efficient in my scholarship -- and thus able to produce a lot more scholarship -- if I didn't have to constantly be checking up on and correcting poor scholarship. I am sure I am not the only one who has to waste time addressing errors and poor arguments that should have been caught before appearing in print, so it's an industry-wide problem, and telling people to send out stuff prematurely makes the problem worse. The correct advice is that junior scholars should work on a piece until they are confident it is good and right and can stand up to criticism -- not simply until it meets the minimal criteria to be published by someone. (Nor, of course, should they hold on to a piece until it is perfect. When a good piece is accepted there is always time to make it better.)
I'll share an anecdote pertaining to this topic. A few years ago a grad student gave a paper at the APA on something that had nothing to do with his area of research, obviously drawing from a grad seminar paper that he decided to pursue, perhaps with faculty encouragement. He gave a paper that had a major flaw, which I drew to his attention after the talk (not during Q&A, as I would have were it a professor speaking). Someone from an important journal in the relevant field was in the audience and encouraged him to publish it with that journal, and unfortunately the peer-reviewers weren't competent to judge it, so it appeared in print. A year later a top expert wrote an article absolutely pulverizing his arguments, so much so that there is little reason for anyone to read the article. Sure, that article must have helped the grad get a job -- a damn good one -- but can you really say this is how things should be?
To expand upon 1:32's comment: "the correct advice is that junior scholars should work on a piece until they are confident it is good and right and can stand up to criticism -- not simply until it meets the minimal criteria to be published by someone."
YES! You have to remember, too, that you can't do this alone. You just can't. Or you shouldn't if you want the best leg up for the whole submission/review/acceptance process. Show your work to trusted advisors, professors, and mentors. Create a network. Get outside your comfort zone and even approach scholars in the subdiscipline your article touches upon if you already have a relationship (even if tenuous). In the grand scheme, informal peer review is just as important to get the paper ready as formal peer review (ideally double-blind) is after submission. After all the time you spend researching and writing, you are too close to it to see any obvious flaws or weaknesses.
The whole process is uncomfortable, for sure. But the more eyes, the better. Look at the acknowledgment notes in articles by senior scholars, they are often showing it to their colleagues for feedback.
11:54 "Out of curiosity, don't committees pay attention to the quality of articles, regardless of where they were published?"
Depends on the context, I'm afraid. 1) In tenure and promotion cases, your department almost certainly does, but the farther up the administrative ladder, the more they care about venue (often against the wisdom of professional judgment about the quality of a particular piece). 2) Even in a search (and so presumably within the field), at the initial stages with 100+ applicants it's just easier to spot the fancy venue than the quality work. That said, lots of those articles get read eventually, and I've never been involved in a search in which SC member A said "look at this great article" and B replied "but it's only in _Journal of Second-Tier Studies_."
Do you know of anyone who has ever left the field for a year or so to work and come back to land a t-t position? I can't afford another VAP (mostly for family reasons- yet another move, the insultingly low pay), but think I am a strong candidate. How would you best explain this in a cover letter- in a non angry screed format?
No question at the end of the day, the quality of the article matters. But, as a strategic matter, placement is important too.
1) Hiring committees and eventually tenure committees may not read every article. And even if they do, they may not have the expertise to appreciate all the nuanced arguments. So they will fall back, to an extent, on the quality of the journal and the rigor of the peer review, knowing that at least two experts in the field did pick the article apart and found it worth publishing.
2) Even in our scholarship, we rely on journals as gatekeepers. We often read and cite materials outside of our field and subfield, where we cannot fully evaluate all the arguments. Thus we too fall back on the assurance that the article was peer reviewed by a quality journal that is picky about what it publishes. This doesn't mean naively accepting what is in the JRS or TAPA as gospel, but the selectivity and quality control of top journals is the whole reason we have them in the first place.
3) Finally, we also let the quality of journals determine our reading time. I am more likely to skim a new issue of JRS, because it contains a set of high profile articles, than Journal of Second Tier Studies, which I only look up when I know I want to read a particular article. That means that an article placed in a high profile journal is more likely to be noticed, read and cited than in JSTS.
4) Top journals tend to have more rigorous technical assistance in terms of formatting, editing, copy editing and proofing. That means you article will likely look better in a top journal than one with a shoestring budget where an overworked editor wears all the hats.
I am thinking of seeking employment outside the field next year, rather than a VAP, but going on the 18-19 market.
I too am debating how best to frame this. One option would be to see if my PhD granting institution would give me a 0% Research Associate appointment. Then my cover letter could say "Research Associate, R1U." If they ask what that means I can honestly say that I am working to finish my monograph, but support myself financially outside the field.
Glad to hear I am not the only one thinking of doing this. VAPs pay so poorly and are so exploitative that I refuse to do another one.
I agree that articles with poor argumentation or shoddy writing should not be sent out. However, I think we do often sit on articles too long, writing and re-writing, citing and sub-citing, and perfecting every detail. Not only does this lengthen our time to publication, but inevitably the reviewers and editor will come along and force you to change something, probably something you especially liked. I was once advised only to send out articles I felt were 90% done--it's just all the more gut-wrenching when you submit an article you feel is perfect only to have it mangled by others.
@3:52 and 2:04pm, I am in a similar boat. We have a newborn that needs to be cared for, my partner has a steady job that is not worth leaving for a one-year VAP, so our plan is for me to be the caregiver from 9-5, then I'll go to the university and work on scholarship from 6-2, hopefully as a guest researcher. Not ideal, but more equitable for my partner and more loving for our child. If that is what leads to my exit from academia, then I was never meant to be here in the first place!
This may be a sensitive question, but what's the range of pay for a Classics VAP? I realize it must depend on the institution, but I'm just wondering what people consider a poor wage.
50+ would be a very good VAP. 40s decent. I make 35. Many make less.
NB: I am using VAP as a shorthand for any short-term job: Visiting Lecturer, etc. The term used to mean a short term job with the rights, privileges and pay of and Assistant Professor, but almost never does anymore.
Lurker joining in: @ 5:31 PM, might I inquire about the cost of living where you are living? 35k would be possible in some places, but elsewhere I know it would be awful.
A handful of my cohort have VAPs that pay in the high 60s. Basically what starting T-T faculty would make. They exist, although I admittedly do not know how rare. A look at the wiki suggests some of them are available this year.
@1:32 PM I certainly do not advocate advising advanced graduate students to publish "something that might be wrong." And I thought it went without saying that one should share the paper with as many specialists as possible before sending it to a journal. But I disagree with the common view that graduate students should be discouraged, seemingly purely on the basis of their age or rank in the academic hierarchy, to send out a paper that they've worked hard on and think advances the scholarship. I have read plenty of mediocre or flawed arguments in articles published by more senior faculty, so I simply don't understand why the communis opinio is that articles published by PhD candidates should be viewed apriori with more suspicion than ones written by older faculty. Of course all of this depends case by case ...
"I would be 20% more efficient in my scholarship -- and thus able to produce a lot more scholarship -- if I didn't have to constantly be checking up on and correcting poor scholarship."
Maybe I simply have a different perspective on scholarship but isn't this precisely the basis of what we do? I always assumed that part of the duty (and pleasure!) of being in the humanities--and thus not a waste of time--is careful reading and critique other people's work...
7:41, 1:32 here. I agree regarding senior scholars sometimes publishing something that is flawed or makes little contribution, and would say that they likewise shouldn't send anything out that shouldn't be sent out. What I disagree with when it comes to grads and recent PhD's is that they shouldn't publish something just for the sake of it, especially if they don't have a track-record of better work.
And yes, we have completely different perspectives. To me, our job is to find out about the past, not find out how colleagues have gotten something wrong. If instead of citing an article as the definitive study of X I have to take time noting that study's deficiencies (often doing additional reading to back up my criticisms) then yes, that's useful to my readers, and yes, I might enjoy making some effective arguments, but nevertheless this is not a good thing. Just think of what we do as a business: every minute spent correcting a colleague's errors represents inefficiency in the system as we collectively strive to explore the ancient world. No different than, say, if a partner at a law firm had to spend an hour a day correcting errors by his/her paralegal instead of doing the work for which the client pays large amounts per hour. But a lawyer can fire a bad paralegal, whereas we're all stuck with poor scholars.
@8:38 I know the article of which you speak; to be fair, the argument is not a philological one, and the author quotes the Greek when the language matters. I suppose there is something inexpedient from an editor's point of view to quoting huge chunks of Greek text when linguistic specificities do not bear on the argument. I thought this was standard practice?
@5:40, I've had three temporary positions: the 1st paid 55k in a moderately expensive area, the second paid 30k in perhaps the most expensive area in the country, and the third paid 32k in the same area. I never expected to be rich, but I don't like being broke either....
@8:43 and 8:38. Not exactly sure which piece you're talking about, but, looking at the work from the last year, there seems to be a mix of established as well as junior scholars being published there. That suggests a thriving venue for discussion and the fact that you were both reading it suggests that circulation is high. That seems to be a good sign, even if you found one of the pieces to be out of sync with your general expectations for the journal. It also seems like 10:18 probably has the right idea. Everyone has their own hierarchy, and, as far as hiring goes, it will be unpredictable where certain journals fall into individual SC member's hierarchies. But sticking to the "known-knowns" is probably wise.
One reason to consider GRBS if you are starting off is that they believe in open access, which means you can promote your article immediately on Academia.edu via a direct link (or presumably posting it), whereas other journals require 1-2 years before one can put an article online. And given the backlog at some of the major journals that means an article submitted tomorrow to those other journals might not be something one can self-promote until 2020-21. So, GRBS and other such journals are worth careful consideration for someone writing a first or second article. (I make a distinction here with journals that are available online right away to subscribers, since the idea is to let people know about your article, not wait for them to find it.)
I can't see why anyone would think that a job that requires moving and everything that goes with it - large expenses, dealing with multi-state taxes, changes of address, uprooting family, etc. - is worth it for $35k. But the question still hasn't been answered: is it possible to take a "normal" job, keep up a research profile, and get back in the game once something good appears? (if it ever appears)
11:25, the gossip at the american school is that fellowships at ISAW are almost always given to people who know someone already there/have been affiliated with NYU/ISAW at some point in the past
@11:28: I know of two people who have published very prolifically and are NOT based out of universities. For one of them, it was a choice; the other I'm not so sure. But both have publication records over the last couple of decades that rival top tenured professors, if not surpassing them... That doesn't answer your question, but i do not personally know of an example where what you describe has happened
@11:30, thanks, that's at least somewhat helpful. I guess the ability to publish extensively is also partially contingent on having good access to library resources, too.
Getting back (or staying) in the game is about research productivity, which often comes down to specialty and expectations. I'm leaving out teaching as it will buy you a full-time lectureship at best, which is typically a crappy job where it's at least implicitly expected that you have a SO with the primary income (like teaching in general, I suspect this situation is entrenched in a gendered past that lingers to this day). You're better off landing a solid secondary education gig, imho. It pays better and you won't be on the fringes of a community. It's very easy as well in this day and age to maintain access to scholarly resources.
In terms of research productivity, or maintaining the veneer of it, I think it's more difficult to stay in the game if you're a philologist. Someone will have to take a chance on you and sell you to others and there are way too many shiny new PhDs doing similar things. Your referees presumably also churn out a higher number of advisees so your support will become increasingly diluted as well. I've seen that it's easier in some ways if you're an archaeologist still involved in field work. It's not a mundane task to stay afloat with the stress and extra expenses involved with field work, but chances are that you'll be doing more distinctive and sexy research that could buy you a gig. In the off chance a program wants a bona fide field archaeologist, there won't be nearly as many qualified people queuing up - experience and established connections in archaeology usually trump shininess.
It ultimately comes down to lifestyle and what you're willing to endure. Good luck to all regardless of your present circumstances, but especially those trying to hang on and have a choice ahead of you.
@9:58 PM, 5:40 here, thanks for the added info about your VAP experiences. To be honest, I'm so paranoid that I don't even think I'll get a VAP at this point. I'm very close to defending (it's taking up all my time so I haven't been applying for a few things lately, especially stuff I know I won't get). I know having the degree in hand changes things. But I assume the competition for the VAPs (especially not terrible ones) is still fierce, especially this job year. I guess staying here would be better for the wallet? Not necessarily for the "career"...
Re ISAW, nothing new there. It's always been inbred. Their POV on a number of issues and topics is non-standard, and since they (like the rest of the world) tend to like people who think as they do, they tend to choose people who think as they do, who often...come from their midst.
We are moving to a point where the secondary market is about to become as saturated as the primary market. Even after the 2008 crash (from which academia, unlike the rest of the economy, never recovered) there was a sense that most people would be able to string themselves along through VAPs, adjuncting, etc. But I think this is changing. I don't have the statistics, but anecdotally I feel that pay for VAPs has dropped over the four years I've been on the market. This would make sense: there is a growing supply of PhDs trying to stay in the field, but demand is constant.
Indeed, some reforms may make the secondary market worse: some universities are trying to keep non-TT folks as more stable lecturers, rather than a cycle of VAPs. This is more humane to the lecturers (although the policy, if carried to its conclusion, would seem to point to the death of tenure), but it also means fewer postings for new VAPs.
I think we are looking at a new paradigm for how academic careers abort. In the old days, people could keep VAPing/adjuncting until they cried uncle and left the field on their own volition. But I think soon, maybe even already, people will be unable to find a TT job, but also unable to find a VAP, and will be out of the field even if they want to stay in.
Make no mistake, we are living in a moment of system collapse in our profession. Leaving the field doesn't sound so bad under the circumstances.
Don't get me started on the ABDs. I may just be sour grapes because I've lost out twice to them, but I cannot wrap my head around how an institution can say they value research productivity and teaching excellence, only to hire an Ivy ABD that has hardly taught or published.
Meh. Didn't the SCS publish data that last year 60% of applicants were men, 40% women, but 60% of those hired were women, and 40% men? Our field is so tiny that parity even would be meaningless (in the sense that in a given year the actual number of jobs and applicants will be so low that it is possible for committees to be equitable in hiring and end up with an inequitable statistic in either direction). Plus, I've met some of the women who got good TT jobs in the past two or three years and were ABD with thin CVs, and if you met them, saw them teach, hear them give talks, read their work, you'd hire them too!
When I was in college a different department hired someone who not only had no publications but had barely even presented any work at conferences. The field is even more pedigree-obsessed than philology, and with an even bitterer job board. People there were furious: look at this no-CV ABD woman coming in and stealing OUR jobs! Well, less than a decade later, she has tenure, a book (on a completely different subject from her dissertation!), and about a dozen substantial and (so I gather) well-regarded articles published. It's important to remember: hiring is about the future, not the past. What you've done is obviously important, and SCs make mistakes and poor choices all the time, don't get me wrong, but jobs aren't rewards for having the longest CV.
In my experience, some people can get hired because they constantly organize conferences and workshops and colloquia featuring their well-connected adviser and friends. Yes, sometimes these things result in edited proceedings and that's a CV line, but more often than not the qualifying criterion is simply that the person is "active" (or "known") in the field, even if they've had exactly half of an original idea in their entire career.
So, Gettysburg interviews all happened last week. The last *potential* time slot (if anyone used it, I don't know) was Friday (1/19). The Wiki shows no activity regarding campus visits...
At the end of the interview, they mentioned something about making decisions by the end of this week and moving to on-campus towards the end of January and beginning of February - did you get this same sense? So not a good sign, obviously, but what can one do.
@6:39, Yeah. same thing said to me. They also said that if I don't hear anything by the end of January, not to assume it means anything, and to wait until word is sent.
From that I internalized that they want to keep all of us on the line in case their top choice(s) either bomb the campus visit or go elsewhere.
...One has to imagine that at least a few of the (known) seven folks asked to Skype are top candidates for some T-T jobs. Gettysburg is a great school to be a springboard to cushy T-T later on, so I'd imagine that those folks interviewed are all strong candidates who are still awaiting final responses from T-T jobs. I, unfortunately, have seen my T-T interviews die (2 this year).
As of now, with Georgetown uninterested in me, all I have is hope for Gettysburg. ...well, the VAP at Boston University still remains, but they have extremely close relations with Harvard and more often than not they select a Harvardite for their VAPs. Us plebs can only dream of getting a gig at BU.
...Anyways, back to your question, yeah.. I'd bet Gettysburg has contacted, but whoever they may be aren't Wiki-folk. A rare possibility is that they have their 3 people that they want, but have to wait for formal approval by the admin before contacting them. This *can* be a week-long process, so maybe a sliver of hope remains ??
Don't give up hope! Given how many people saw fit to post their Gettysburg interview on the wiki, it seems clear that it is a crowd of active wiki updaters. I would guess that if G is bringing 3 or 4 people to campus before choosing, they just aren't yet able to make the offers; hence no update. If they are doing it one at a time, that's a different story. And remember, there are no weekends on the job market. (Except for administration, of course.)
Does anyone know anything about Furman? Their semester has been in session for three weeks now and there's no movement on the wiki. I'd just like to know one way or the other, the waiting is distracting.
Three interviews? It seems like you're doing just fine. Gauging by the current counter, you're actually doing better than most. And the VAP season has hardly begun. St. Lawrence only just now sent out its interview requests, BU is still pending, and new jobs are being posted weekly. Most VAP's, I'm sure, haven't even been advertised. Try not to lose it just yet, it's infectious...
What are people’s rhoughts on adding a section to the Wiki where we list institutions and have a counter, so that we can get an idea as to from where posters are from??
@5:55AM, What do you mean "where posters are from"? PhD-granting institution? Current workplace? The former isn't particularly useful given that many of us moved past that stage years ago, and the latter perhaps gives away too much information about those of us in small departments. In either case, a list that is complete enough to be of any real value would be long and annoying to scroll past.
OP here. I understand your point on how one may be years past their PhD, but the lion's share of poster are still under 5 years out, and as nice of a thought as it may be that Mr. Harvard holds no benefit over Mr. Ohio State just because the two may have received their PhDs 5 years ago, it isn't the case.
The single-most important element on a CV is pedigree. I know that one can argue against that, and surely a few examples may exist, but the simple fact that 90%+ of all Classics faculty at all universities hold their PhD from the same 10-12 schools should be highly indicative that pedigree means more than anything else almost every time.
An extreme example, to play devil's advocate, against my point is John Duffy. He is prof emeritus at Harvard and holds his PhD from SUNY-Buffalo (!!).
That many Classics Depts look like that of Holy Cross (6 out of 11 faculty have their PhD from Harvard) tells us something: pedigree is important element #1.
I don't want to start a debate on this, but I happen to think, and trust me I wish I was dead wrong, that no matter how long one has been out or how much work one has done, if you're not from a top-10 program your odds are absolutely awful at every being offered a T-T job.
Pedigree is one piece of the puzzle and it's uncertain how much of its allure is strictly due to name recognition in a vacuum and how much of it results from established people hiring fellow alums, which perpetuates the situation (and happens in every sector of society) - sort of a chicken and an egg scenario.
When it comes down to it, you also need to get your shit done in school. No matter how powerful the school brand, if you can't get your research done easily, you'll face an uphill climb at graduation. Think classical archaeology and Harvard. It's no secret that Harvard hardly cares about classical archaeology despite its deep historical connection to it (e.g. Sardis). All things equal, a student at Stanford, Penn, Cincinnati, and even Bryn Mawr should have a leg up when it comes to this factor.
Yes, there are scenarios where enthusiastic but ultimately misguided big-name advisors from big-name schools pervert the natural process and push through their acolytes, but this is increasingly difficult to accomplish with the dearth of jobs out there. All things equal they can tip the scales, but you rarely find inferior candidates from big-name programs getting through these days as seems to be overblown on here. The world is too small and the internet is too big.
Permit me to share an anecdote relating to pedigree. When I was teaching some years back at a very large but not top-notch state university (so not Michigan, Berkeley or Wisconsin), I had a coffee shop friend who was a grad in Sociology. He told me that his Sociology program was one of the very best in the country, but that during his first year one of his professors said that when the time came to go on the job market he and his peers would lose out to grads from Ivy League schools with lesser programs because college administrators wanted to be able to tell parents their kids were being taught by X Harvard/Princeton/Yale/etc. PhD's. (We'll never know if that professor was correct in his case, since he ended up leaving the field before going on the market when he discovered how much of Sociology is politicized b.s. in which the results are often manufactured to fit preconceived notions or the expectations of senior colleagues. To his credit, those results generally favored his own political positions, but he couldn't respect a field in which so many lacked intellectual integrity or sound methodology. But that's a topic for another field's "Famae Volent" equivalent...)
So anyway, the impulse to hire those of us with certain pedigrees is not necessarily always an internal one within departments.
4,546 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 1201 – 1400 of 4546 Newer› Newest»Campus invites might be the short list for classics, but for some disciplines (at least in the social sciences) the short list is the 10-15 conference invites. The long list folks are those from the general pool who make the first cut and are asked for more material such as recommendation letters. So if you want to put a positive spin on the insanity of it all, we could consider ourselves long-listed by pretty much all classics positions!
@11:03
For my current job (a VAP, so take that for what it's worth), the SC apparently (according to the wiki) sent at least one other person an invitation to come to campus 18 days before they invited me. I had completely written off the job, and then suddenly there was a query about whether or not I was still interested. I assume they were doing a one-at-a-time approach to campus visits, which seems possible but much less likely for a T-T job.
I also received an invitation to interview for a T-T job this year 8 days after others posted that they had received the request. In general it's best to move on, mentally, when we see that others have received invitations and we have not, but in my fairly limited experience on the market (I've applied for less than 50 jobs total) I have now twice assumed a job was completely out of reach only to have it swing back in my direction.
@ 9:35. Is it your experience that visits work this way, too? Or has this pleasant phenomenon (congrats!) been confined to first-round interviews?
@ 9:35. Sorry, I suppose you already answered this by saying that it seems far less likely in the case of a TT.
This is 9:35 again. I don't have any experience visiting campus for a T-T job, but I have heard of cases where the SC invites, say, 3 candidates out and then later decides to add a 4th if the first 3 either aren't a good fit or if they accept offers elsewhere. This happened in our department when I was a grad student.
If it's true (as the wiki reports) that 2 people have 5 on-campus visits scheduled and another person has 4, I would expect that some of these SCs are going to have to go back and invite additional candidates (if HR allows) or cancel the position. Hopefully that whole process doesn't cause too many delays for those of us who are still waiting to hear if we have one invitation.
UMass Amherst writes to say that they've received my application MONTHS after submission and that it is under review, despite the fact that they've already extended interview invitations? Bizarre...
@12:58 I just got the same email, and have to assume that someone mixed up their form emails. But it sucks that we now have to wait for the actual rejection email for a job that we've known for over a month that we're not getting. Sigh.
Does anyone have a guess about or explanation for this UMass email other than that they have drawn up their list of finalists? The timing isn't just random, surely.
"I don't have any experience visiting campus for a T-T job, but I have heard of cases where the SC invites, say, 3 candidates out and then later decides to add a 4th if the first 3 either aren't a good fit or if they accept offers elsewhere. This happened in our department when I was a grad student."
This is exactly how I got the job I'm now tenured in. It was 15 years ago but I assume the same sort of thing still happens. I'm at a SLAC; normally SCs are permitted to invite only three finalists. In this particular case, the first three candidates were all judged unacceptable -- they "blew" the teaching demonstration or the research presentation (according to what colleagues told me after I got here; of course I don't know the details). I had long since figured I was out of the running, but in late Feb. I got a call asking me if I was still available and interested. I was. They flew me out for an on-campus interview as the fourth candidate, offered me the job three days later, and here I am 15 years on.
It's rare, but it does happen.
The UMass email might have been one that they are legally required to send (as it includes information about work status and background checks) and were supposed to send out earlier but forgot to?
I had an interview at UMass Amherst and I asked about their timeline for the rest of the search and they said that their spring semester does not begin until January 22, which I took to mean that any decisions would be after that date (maybe they can't meet as a department until after the semester starts).
3:31, thanks. Did you get the email today too?
@3:31 PM here. Yes, I got the same e-mail. I am guessing that it went to everyone who applied.
Re: Illinois rejection - was that for someone who was interviewed?
^?
Were those with Illinois rejection e-mails interviewed at the conference (rejected at short-listing), or are these rejections at the long-listing, for people who weren't selected for interviews? I'm trying to figure out if they're down to the finalists or if they've just rejected the hundred plus people who applied to the job in the first place.
I applied to Illinois, got no interview, and got a rejection message today.
Ditto 8:37. No interview at the SCS, got the rejection today.
Anyone interviewed and rejected? Is this one if those meh searches just testing the waters?
Interviewed with Illinois at SCS, did not receive an email today.
So, I’m not sure if this is a common feeling post-interview, but it happens to me every time. I’ve had 4 T-T interviews and just had a VAP interview and each time I feel the same way about things. What I feel is that no matter the question asked I ramble like an idiot. Often times, even if it’s a question I know they’ll ask and one that I’ve prepared for, I feel like Michael Scott from the Office commenting on how “sometimes l’ll start a sentence and not know where I’m going; I hope I find my way there eventually.”
Not sure if it’s just another aspect of imposter syndrome or being rather hyper-sensitive to things, but I feel like shit after every interview and then stew for days after it, replaying in my head all the stupid things I said and often ‘re-answering’ the questions while driving around town.
...as a side note, I also feel like I answer questions in a way that makes me seem like an asshole. For example, I was asked: “what would you do if you have a student whose failing, it’s the end of the semester and they come to you to see what they can do?” To which I replied: “Well, that wouldn’t happen with me. I have weekly quizzes, that aren’t worth much in an of themselves, but are ways that I can keep my finger on the pulse of the class. As such, I can monitor, rather efficiently, if a student is slipping. If that happens, *I* reach out to *them* to see what’s happening. I try to help them regain their footing after stumbling before they fall, rather than let them fall and lay there as such until the end of the semester.”
I said that but feel that implicit in my answer is an accusation against the SC member asking the question that they’re a shitty prof for callously treating students as they do.
Ugh. The mind of a pessimist never rests, I guess.
That's a fine answer. Don't lose sleep over it.
In my opinion, some students should be allowed to fail, since that can serve as a much-needed wake-up call. But I would never say that in an interview. (It depends on whether they are actually trying, or still need to grow up.)
@ 11:38
There is definitely some utility in reviewing your answers after an interview. Some of us just do this more obsessively than others and to greater self-harm. Can you shift these conversations with yourself away from "That was stupid; I should have said X" towards "How can I improve my response if I need to answer the same question in a future interview?"
If I were on a SC, I would be very pleased with your response about a failing student. Someone else might be offended, true, and yet another person might think you sound too soft. The personal opinions of the SC members are completely unpredictable and out of your control. All you can do is answer honestly and hope that your honest opinion is a good fit.
The only thing you CAN control is how well you research the position and tailor you answers to it (I assume you did this). If they're looking for someone to teach 300-person lecture courses, they're probably going to think that your approach is unrealistic and that you don't know what you're getting into. If they are a SLAC and pride themselves on personal interactions with students and making sure every student succeeds to the best of their ability, they probably loved your approach.
11:38, I feel for you. That way lies madness, don't go there. I was a pretty good interviewer at the beginning, got a TT on-campus my very first interview. Proceeded to always get some interviews but never enough to get a "real" job. Always obsessed over my interview performance for about a month after the fact. Four years of psychic damage later, prescription drugs could mask some of the most obvious physical symptoms of anxiety, but could not turn me back into the confident and cheerful person I was that first year. I did eventually get a job, partly because of my university's low-stakes and unusual interview process. I still think the SCS interviewing thing is barbaric and that interview performance doesn't tell you much of anything about people, because you end up having to read way too much into statements people make under enormous pressure, as you describe above.
Does anyone know when does ISAW at NYU usually send out their decisions? As someone who did not have any TT interviews, this January is extremely slow and frustrating...
Applied for the job, and have heard nothing. I have applied for the ISAW postdoc several years running, and will say they tend to be very secretive. Also, while I have know some very good people affiliated with the program, every hire there, short or long term, seems to be basically good old boy/girl network.
So apparently Georgetown sent out at least one interview invitation the day after their deadline, which was a holiday (MLK Day). Couldn't they at least have the decency to pretend that they devoted sufficient time to all of the applications?
@6:20 PM The date ("1/16") posted on the wiki moments ago is incorrect.
Well, call that a season. Thanks, Georgetown.
I echo the sentiments above; how can they possibly be conducting a valid and thorough search if, in a matter of DAYS from the deadline they request for an interview? Bullshit. By which, I don’t mean the person is lying on the Wiki but that the Georgetown SC is conducting a bullshit search.
Must be nice to have an advisor who’ll jerk off SC members for you while the rest of us are just, you know, applying and hoping that our accomplishments and qualifications will get us in the door.
That's not fair, Anon. 7:03. As the one who criticized what seemed to be an instantaneous interview list, I can say I have no problem with their having a list of people after three days, since the search committee could have been reading applications as they came in. I no longer have any problem with Georgetown, and you shouldn't either.
I don’t see how Georgetown can have 1 entry on the Wiki, while T-T jobs at far better schools have 3+ and the Gettysburg (almost equal in ranking) had 5+ on the Classics Wiki and 2+ on the History Wiki.
@7:10, I think the posting on the Wiki is false. Too few hits and FAR too soon to be legitmate, IMO.
Time will tell.
Can anyone confirm the Penn State campus interview invite?
9:12 - yes.
At the end of the day, VAP hires are crooked, incestuous and forgone conclusions, as 7:10 noted. Not all, to be sure. But many, and these days, most, are. And even departments that wouldn't do a crooked and incestuous search like, say, UChicago, for a TT job, are still willing to hand out VAPs to the student of a friend, advisor, lover, etc. Don't think that Georgetown is running an impartial national search. In all likelihood it is not (no inside information, FWIW, just the fact that many 1 year VAPs are not impartial national searches).
I say this as someone who has gotten a crooked VAP through connections and pity. The stakes are low, one year of employment, usually at subpar pay, so many departments have little compunction handing the job to someone they know and like. So there is no reason to wring hands over a VAP. Most were spoken for before they were posted.
Does this suck? Yes it does. The field sucks. And the people in charge do not care, because they have tenure.
SC member here. I understand your despair, confusion, and frustration with the current job market. But as someone who spent long days reading each and every file of the several dozen we received for a VAP (starting at the first moment when they began to trickle in), taking careful notes on each, and then deciding through discussion with my colleagues on a list of interviewees (which does not include any of the candidates whom we knew and admired, because they did not have the very best credentials for this particular job), I feel dispirited that the perceptions on this site are so out of touch with reality. The number of people in this field who are fat cats getting "jerked off" seems to be wildly overestimated, to the point that now people feel justified smearing departments they also claim to know nothing about. Honestly, if you hold this field and the departments that are hiring in such low regard, you have dubious reasons for pursuing it.
@12:02,
Surely, most here will agree that honest and well-intentioned SCs do exist, but a good number of us here have either been on the receiving end of privilege, are at institutions where we see this kind of behavior happen evey time a VAP and T-T comes along.
The best thing to do is to wait and see who gets the VAP at Georgetown. Then, it will be rather clear to see how rigged the job ad is.
For those crying foul about a rigged system, I challenge you to do better if you make it into a permanent position (and some of you will). I've been doing this long enough that I remember plenty of scholars in your position crying foul in their younger days only to turn around and actively perpetuate this very same transgression later on. This leads me to believe that it's not the unfairness that bothered them so much but the fact that they weren't on the receiving end of the unfair largesse.
RE: Georgetown
My apologies: interview request was originally posted in error for 1/16. Correct date of request was 1/19, as now reflected on the wiki. It was an honest mistake with no malicious intent. Email accompanying interview request specifically notes that the speed of the search is due to impending deadlines for submitting course proposals for the fall.
12:02 AM, I think probably even the most outraged here understand that many SCs do their due diligence. There's a lot of resentment when a small fraction of the searches end up hiring spouses (or attempting and being thwarted at hiring a spouse, thus losing the line, as happened last year). In less egregious cases, we've all seen personal connections influence decisions. Heck, I know I've had people try to influence searches in my favor simply because they are friends with me or my advisor, but unfortunately my network is apparently not quite powerful enough... While it's hyperbolic to say that all VAP searches are dirty or something like that, there's no doubt that this field and the way we hire favors the well-connected, which often boils down to those from the "right" class.
Serious question: where are the jobs?
When can one expect the VAPs to arrive? I know that for Classics, T-T season is long dead, but when do VAP postings tend to peak?
@11:21 AM, probably not until Feb/March, when many of those with jobs, who applied for positions get the ones we hoped for, and so their departments need to fill them (if they get approval from the admin). March (or around then) is usually when more senior Profs hear about fellowships that would give them a year off, and so VAPs might spring up for those reasons too. I've even seen VAPs still coming up well into April/May.
Can anyone confirm Bard invite? Number of visits?
Hi, everyone. I want to weigh in on this discussion as one of the senior faculty at Georgetown. I am also the outgoing chair of the SCS Committee on Career Planning and Development, a committee which takes quite seriously the state of the job market and tries to ensure that searches are conducted in a professional way. I am on leave this year and not on the SC, but we are a close unit and I'm in constant touch with my colleagues. Let me assure you that the Georgetown search is in no way "crooked." There is no inside candidate: our current VAP is in a different field; none of us has friends, partners, or other intimates who have any leg up. We are trying to look out for the interests of the department by hiring the very best person to teach the courses we need next year; none of us is interested in doing anyone favors, since the welfare of our students and thus our department and the field as a whole is paramount.
Here's the bottom line: someone we contacted for an interview posted the wrong date he or she was invited. This led to speculation about the search being somehow corrupt. The candidate has now responsibly corrected the information--I'm delighted that one of the people we are interviewing is behaving so professionally. Now, as I said, I am very sympathetic to the anxieties and frustrations created by the current job market; my work with contingent faculty and graduate students as chair of the CCPD should be evidence of my bona fides for folks who don't know me personally. So I say this with as much benevolence as I can muster: when you make claims without evidence (see above at 1:42: "Given that the Georgetown VAP gig (apparently) was a crooked one") you are not only behaving unprofessionally but coming very close or arriving at defamation. I'm sympathetic to your situation, but cease and desist. Please feel free to contact me by email at sensa@georgetown.edu if you have concerns or would like to discuss matters having to do with the job market; I can't give you any details about our search, of course.
Once again, as the person who first raised a question about Georgetown, I don't see why anyone is any longer on their case. They explained in their e-mail why they are moving so quickly, with interview requests going out four days after the deadline. If they were reading applications as they came in they could still have read the last-minute ones that came in over the holiday weekend this past Tuesday-Thursday, and perhaps even had access on holiday itself. (What would that number of stragglers be? 20? 30?) We all have PhD's or about to, and it is hard to get one of those in our field without knowing how to weigh evidence and cite sources -- so can any one of you with delusions of omniscience point to ANYTHING that supports the claim of a crooked search? If not then 1) shut up, 2) apologize, and 3) really do shut up.
Can anyone tell me why Connecticut College (a Dept with only 2 faculty members, one with a joint-apt in Arabic, a Post-Doc) is asking for a VAP who has such a specific specialty (reception, science, gender)?
I mean, for a school that is THAT small, wouldn't any generalist do? I can imagine why a massive Classics Dept, like Michigan or Stanford might ask for such a narrow focus, but if you can count faculty on one hand, why narrow your applicant pool to such narrow sub-fields?
Am I missing something?
(I see that while I was writing my post someone more authoritative was composing one as well. Maybe THAT will get you to shut up.)
re: Georgetown,
1.) I think that 1:42 was just going off of the sentiment here, not necessarily making an accusation.
2.) we are at the very end of a (disastrous) T-T job season and everyone's sanity is at breaking point. While part of the purpose of this forum is, as self-described, to blow off steam, we need to allow folks to do so. Now, this enters a grey area when one's anxiety and fear then influence others, as the whole Georgetown thing has.
Folks here need to remember that half of what's on this forum are irrational thoughts and fears of many of us who have put 10+ years into our education, have a PhD and find an ever-narrowing list of possibilities at the end. This leads to anger and resentment.
3.) I am very happy to see that a Georgetown faculty member come on to address this matter and put it to rest.
...As a final note, if SCs REALLY want to end this kind of thing, then email everyone on the same day. If you contact a few folks for interviews, great, but also email everyone else and be honest: "we contacted our top candidates, unfortunately you were not among them."
A lack of information and (at least initially) bad information being put on the Wiki, only serves to promote negative thoughts and things to get to where they are regarding Gerorgetown.
(@12:02 again) As has been noted many times on this forum, HR rules vary from institution to institution and it is not always possible for departments to notify candidates the second they begin inviting some to interview, or at any other juncture of their choosing. Please do not labor under the misconception that individual professors (or departments, or even faculty senates...) have the power to change how the general counsels of enormous institutions with billion-dollar endowments interpret employment law.
@2:28,
Yes, a million times this^^
--Having a policy of contacting all candidates on the same day is the best way to a handle all of this.
Treat all candidates equally, and be aware that in this day and age of the internet, we all know when folks are contacted anyway, so it's best for each school to be on top of that and be transparent.
@ 2:35,
While some may not be able to use such clear language as that, it would be possible to say something rather vague that can alert everyone.
E.g., email all applicants and say, simply, "While we cannot disclose, as per HR rule # xxxxx, when we begin to contact candidates for interviews, we would like to inform all candidates that we will contact a select amount for interviews."
That doesn't violate anything yet is clear enough as to what's going on.
How can HR rules prohibit the sending of an email that says " We have drawn up our shortlist, and, unfortunately, you were not among the X number of candidates selected. Your application will remain active, however, unless you indicate that you would like to be removed from consideration. Thank you for your application."
I am not complaining, but genuinely asking. I don't see how that can violate any policy, since it doesn't indicate that they've removed anyone from consideration or that the position of closed. If HR rules prohibit SC members from communication w candidates, can't a dept assistant or other admin person send out this mass email?
Servius here. I have done some tidying up above, but I am leaving most of the conversation up because I think it speaks for itself: be careful about jumping to conclusions on iffy info. I am glad to see that people pretty much straightened this issue out for themselves -- thanks to all the users behaving professionally. Thanks also to Georgetown for weighing in. If Prof. Sens would like to object to anything that I've left up, he can leave a comment here and I will delete both the objectionable comment and his objection. Apologies to Georgetown for the direction this went.
Servius, I'm fine with leaving it up. I do think it's important that people think a little bit more about the downstream consequences of venting. To give you an example, our administrators would be very displeased if we were in fact doing anything inappropriate, and that could conceivably jeopardize future requests to authorize searches, and therefore (again, conceivably) jeopardize job-seekers' chance of someday working with us. That's probably putting it in too dire a way, but I hope people see the point. The faculty who are running searches are not your enemies, even if they occasionally make mistakes; it's worth noting that some places only search once in a blue moon. All of us want our students, our units, and the field to thrive as much as possible at a difficult time for Classics. There are enough forces working against us as it is without our assuming our colleagues and prospective employers are acting in bad faith at the first go. Good luck and best wishes to everyone,
Alex
2:51 p.m. asked:
"How can HR rules prohibit the sending of an email that says " We have drawn up our shortlist, and, unfortunately, you were not among the X number of candidates selected. Your application will remain active, however, unless you indicate that you would like to be removed from consideration. Thank you for your application."
I am not complaining, but genuinely asking. I don't see how that can violate any policy, since it doesn't indicate that they've removed anyone from consideration or that the position of closed. If HR rules prohibit SC members from communication w candidates, can't a dept assistant or other admin person send out this mass email?"
I remember seeing letters like this when I was a. job candidate. But here at my SLAC, the administration's rules are very clear: NO communication with applicants who aren't interviewed, of any sort, until after the contract is signed by the successful candidate. Then, and ONLY then, may SCs contact those who were never interviewed at all. The policy specifically and explicitly forbids sending the kind of message that 2:51 suggests.
I think this is a terrible policy, and grossly outdated -- it was adopted many decades ago, when there were far fewer applicants for any academic jobs, when the interview process was much shorter, and when it was perhaps arguably reasonable not to imply to anyone that they were out of the running until the hire was a done deal. The policy is utterly anachronistic now, and pointless as well as cruel. But this policy can only be changed by the Administration in consultation with the Board of Trustees. Faculty have no voice in this process and (under our college's constitution) no path to gain a voice, and violating the policy would risk having a search shut down.
@ 3:39, thank you!
Re: 2:14 's question "Can anyone tell me why Connecticut College (a Dept with only 2 faculty members, [plus] one with a joint-apt in Arabic, [and] a Post-Doc) is asking for a VAP who has such a specific specialty (reception, science, gender)?"
I have no inside info about CC, but it sounds to me like like Classics isn't a big enough priority to claim a line for its own uses. They need overlap with some other program to justify the hire. That's the easiest way to get a new line at my large R1, but I can imagine it might be even more so at a SLAC.
Re 2:14 and 5:56,
I agree with 5:56.
CC originally was a T-T job then was changed to what we see as a VAP. It sounds like the admin at CC is not friendly towards Classics, so they have to frame their job as such.
I have 9:15 a.m. in the office pool for when Servius deletes this post.
...the hell is going on here?
I hope Servius leaves the above post intact. I think it was grotesque of the Georgetown dept chair to come here and implicitly threaten job seekers with fewer hires if they complain about possible wheeling and dealing at his school. (I'm sure the Georgetown deans are keeping up with this blog.) All very well to correct misconceptions and reassure those who were upset, but the overall tone of both posts was pretty snide. I've noticed that many TT faculty talk a good game about their concern for the untenured masses, but do very little to actually improve conditions and in fact we see more and more absolutely exploitative jobs, like the infamous FSU posting this season, that prove the contrary.
Surprised to learn from Georgetown that the "job-creators" will only hire us if we say nice things about them on this blog.
Servius:
I have deleted the post in question, which makes an objection to the meritocratic view of how the job market functions, based on this individual's experience in a specific search in years past and the results of that search.
I know that this generation of Servii has been relatively active in enforcing community norms, maybe more so than some would like. We try hard for balance, and we're not here to comfort the comfortable. But allowing past interviewees to anonymously attack identifiable SC members seems in poor taste. If the poster would like to rephrase, that would be fine, or perhaps my summary above suffices.
PSA for tenured or TT faculty who use social media: Never post about your graduate students on social media. It will get back to us. Then awkward moments ensue. You lose our trust. You erode the reputation of the department or specific persons' chances at landing a job. It's tantamount to slander. Talk about whatever else concerns you, except us. That was one of the first lessons I learned from teaching: don't talk ill of your students in public fora.
It doesn’t seem right or appropriate that the posts made here that either hinted at or assumed a “crooked” SC practice happening at the moment for Georgetown be taken down.
Leave it up for readers to evaluate and come to their own conclusions.
Censoring thoughts and comments made by posters here while leaving up comments (stated in a rather arrogant and condescending tone) by the Georgetown chair is disgraceful of FV admins. Are we to assume that because the Georgetown chair came here and boo-hoo’d about many of us commenting on the POSSIBILITY of crookedness that we are to believe it at face value? And, on top of that, that we should eliminate any discussion that contradicts his statement?
No. Leave a record here. Let our voices be heard.
Shame on Servius for silencing any of this.
Shame on you, Servius.
I think the Georgetown senior prof, instead of threatening never to hire any of us because we are snarky, should have simply:
a) briefly corrected the search timeline, which was admittedly incorrect on this blog. This lead many of us to feel that this process was rigged.
b) Noted quietly and humbly that candidates are sensitive to the form of searches. Rather than being prickly about your search, note that most of us have been burned before by SCs that were rude, biased, indifferent, incompetent or corrupt. We've lost jobs, TT and VAPs, to inside hires. Many of us feel that the entire system, which has benefited people like Georgetown senior prof., while ruining the lives and prospects of hundreds of junior scholars, is inherently corrupt and broken even if individual searches are run to standard. Instead of scolding us, think about how to make your search and future searches more transparent and honest. Note the cheers on the wiki: people understand that SCs can control how few jobs there are, but they have some leeway to treat job candidates like human beings with a fair and transparent process.
Servius would have silenced accusers of Weinstein if Weinstein merely said “I never did that. Stop slandering me!”
Anyone know what's happening with Illinois?
@11:52,
Good points, but...
The issues with Georgetown went beyond the (initial) wrong date being put in Wiki. The larger issue is two-fold and both points go against all other evidence on the Wiki:
1.) the speed with which they notified their candidate. Take a look at any other job on the Wiki and see if you can find any other job, T-T or VAP, that notified within 48 hrs of application deadlines. ...while this may not necessarily indicate “crookedness” it does stand out as highly irregular. This still would mean not too much if not for point #2.
2.) one person was notified. One. ...while we cannot assume that 100% of all job applicants use and/or report on the Wiki, we can say that enough happen to use it with the result that even very high-end jobs like T-T lines at Chicago and Princeton have multiple reports. Additionally, VAPs that have reported thus far (See Gettysburg) *AND* are similar jobs (ancient history) have 5+ hits. Gettysburg and Georgetown are not that far off so far as institutional pedigree and surely many of the interviewees for Gettysburg as well as the folks reporting interview requests and campus visits for Chicago and Princeton (ALSO ancient history jobs) would have put in for a safety net VAP job at Georgetown. .....Yet, one and only one person reported???
Looking at points 1 and 2 together create reasonable doubt that Gerogetown was doing a fair and balanced search this year.
Now, to be sure, if the Chair who came on here and angrily scolded at us for pointing out signs of wrong-doing is not on the SC as he claims, he very well may be ignorant of what’s happening among them. How can he possibly speak to their honesty and promise us all that a leading figure on the SC is NOT tipping the scales?
To him and to all here, I will not just casually forgot about this. I will, as I’m sure many others will as well, take VERY close note of who receives this job and, as it is very easy to do in the electronic age we live in, investigate any connections between that hire (as well as their advisors) and those at Gerogetown. I find it highly unlikely that no connecting threads will be found.
I also echo sentiments above:
Shame on Servius for silencing our only platform to speak out. Shame on the Georgetown Chair, who with dripping extreme privilege at a privileged institution, peers down from his ivory tower to tell us plebs to stop recognizing and discussing injustice and the perpetuation of old-world privilege.
As the person who made the office pool joke and therefore read the post that Servius took down, it most certainly deserved to be removed, as it was a personal attack that had no place here. The other post removed earlier is less clear-cut, but Servius probably did the right thing there as well.
Some of you are so full of vitriol that you are reading the posts by Sens with the worst possible interpretations. If you have learned one thing over the past two decades, shouldn't it have been that when people post on the internet it is possible to read into their words meanings and tones that aren't there?
And the fact that one of you is still peddling misinformation -- the 1/19 interview request was not within 48 hours of the Jan. 15 deadline -- shows how poor some of your reading skills are.
A whole bunch of you should be ashamed of your conduct. But not so Servius.
@1:09,
A few valid points, but 1:01 makes a stronger case. Regardless of whether it’s 2 days or 4 (add to this that OP could have altered Wiki on account of backlash, meaning that 1/16 may have been the actual date) point #1 still stands. It’s still fast enough to arroise suspicion.
Also, their point #2 also is very telling, especially when you look at the whole picture.
I, too, saw the original posts in question and they weren’t all that bad, and they (if I remember correctly) used safe language like Georgetown “may” have done x, y, or z. The second post said something like “since Georgetown’s search was (apparently) crooked.” That depends on how you read it, but it seems to me to be 100% said tongue-in-cheek about it all; yet was removed.
Lesson from all of this:
If you’re getting special treatment in a closed search, don’t post on the Wiki but stay quiet and all will assume when you get the job that you just must not be someone who knows about or uses the Wiki.
Also, let’s not all be so daft to think that this kind of thing isn’t still happening with many jobs. It’s sad and unfair but preferential treatment is nothing new and can never be eradicated fully. To deny it still happens is what’s really shameful.
Folks, I didn't threaten anyone or ask that any posts be taken down. I did point out that accusing someone falsely of being corrupt was defamatory and I asked for civility and fair-mindednes. I also pointed out that unjustified accusations of crookedness--in this case highly unjustified--hurt our field. I'm sorry some of you have chosen to read what I wrote as you have. I don't think the way some of you are reading my posts does justice to the actual words I used, but I get that this is the internet and people are riled up. Also, for the record, I am not the chair of the department and I explicitly noted that I am not a member of the search committee. As I wrote above, I *was* chair of the SCS committee that oversees placement, and in that capacity worked very hard to make sure that searches were conducted fairly; that is a project I remain committed to.
I wrongly believed that I could do some good--and calm people's concerns-- by giving facts. I also thought I would talk about some possible unintended consequences of making false accusations beyond the damage to individual's reputations. That what I wrote has been so misconstrued--please go back and look for any threats not to hire anyone--is stunning to me, and a lesson for the future. Would you rather have information and engagement from senior faculty or not? I guess, for some of you, we are always going to be the enemy. That speaks poorly for our future as a discipline.
So I'll end my attempt at engagement now and for the future wishing you all good luck, once again.
Chill 1:29/1:01 (presuming you're the same person judging by the echoing vitriol). There might be some truth to what you say but you've gone way beyond any transgression perpetuated by the self-identifying senior scholar. For anything disagreeable conveyed by the scholar, you've gone 10X making yourself look like an entitled, hateful demagogue who is only helping to discredit a discipline, this blog, and junior classicists/historians as a whole. The system sucks (and we Gen Xers know sandwiched between your boomer parents and...you), but you're not helping with your inflammatory tantrum. I have severe doubts you would do better as a senior scholar and would guess you might do worse as someone who is probably more distressed by how the system has treated YOU rather than the system itself.
Who would believe that Americans could be so gullible as to believe in fake news? Who would believe that PhD classicists would be so gullible as to believe that the number of respondents on a wiki (1 instead of the customary 2--golly gee whiz) had any correlation to how many interview requests had been sent out? Seriously, our culture is in rough shape, and I'm not looking to other humanists to fix it.
I think that we can all take comfort in the fact that things can only get worse and that soon there won't be any jobs for people to squabble over.
1:29 here,
@1:49,
Fine. Fair enough. I can’t speak for all of us here who hold extreme doubt about GTs honesty, but enough has been said about it. So long as Servius doesn’t delete comments about it (I think that’s what triggered so many people today), we can move past this.
To help steer discussion away, let me ask a completely unrelated question:
How possible is it to petition SCS in an attempt to alter some negative aspects? (E.g., have them inform schools that job posting will not be placed unless they all conform to certain changes, like to not request burdensome letters unless an applicant has been short-listed, etc...)
Sens, I believe that you didn't intend your words to sound like threats, but surely, after the fact, you can see how others might have read it that way? I can understand your defensiveness about it, because it wasn't your intent, but you can express that you didn't intend it to be read in that way while still recognizing the validity of the interpretation that you disagree with. As someone who can figure out Lycophron and other Hellenistic literature, you must understand something about how words can be read - validly - in multiple ways.
It's hard because we're all hiding behind our anonymity - we don't have the benefit of tenure, or even a job in some cases - but I think that in some of the above comments, rude as some of them are (come on, guys, you can't profess to want there to be more respect and grace in the field and not be a part of it yourselves), there're some valid concerns, some obvious anxiety about whether the system we're all a part of, and that we can only see a small part of at any one time, is fair. Thanks for trying to allay some of that, but the vehemence of the response should demonstrate just how deep that anxiety runs. The comments are symptoms, not the problem.
Everyone else, can we stop insulting each other based on things like age/generation or status? It's seriously unnecessary sniping in an anonymous forum where you really can't know how old people are. Maybe you think you can "tell," but you can't and anyway, ad hominem attacks in an anonymous forum are dumb.
@2:08pm here again. I think the Lycophron comment could have come off as unnecessarily sarcastic or rude. I meant it to lighten the tone a little, but I think maybe I should have left it off. Apologies.
I think the part of Sens' comments that was taken as (implicitly) threatening was the following:
"To give you an example, our administrators would be very displeased if we were in fact doing anything inappropriate, and that could conceivably jeopardize future requests to authorize searches, and therefore (again, conceivably) jeopardize job-seekers' chance of someday working with us."
Now it could also have been the words "defamation" and "cease and desist." I think the OP might take his own advice to look back at his remarks and consider how this sounds. I also think the implication hat being the chair of an SCS committee on placement should somehow grant the poster an aura of incorruptibility is a little much. If only we had known that a person at Georgetown who is not even on the SC in question was a member of XYZ committee before we had bitched about the Georgetown hiring practices! It all seems so clear now--how could we have been so wrong?
This is a forum that often engages in complaints, rumermongering, and even a little vitriol. It is, in fact, our ONLY real forum for this, since friends/family outside the profession can't really follow these conversations and there are some things you can't say freely to ANYONE in the profession, even close friends. Sometimes inaccurate information is spread, and I think a straightforward response to misinformation is appropriate, but I think we could also do without the remonstrative tone.
Anon. 2:08/2:26, what comes across as rude is addressing him as just "Sens." Sheesh. Were you a feral child, or did someone actually raise you?
Where is your "sens" of proper decorum? (Get it?)
I asked my friend who received an invitation to interview with Georgetown and they are not the person who posted on Wiki, so at least there are two persons interviewed. I think that just as a courtesy to our colleagues who are interviewed, we should stop this discussion for now, since it will just cause them unnecessary anxiety.
^ I second 3.28's comment.
2:40pm, oh, get on, addressing someone by their last name alone is not objectively rude and is in fact quite common in my neck of the woods, between colleagues, as well as between people of different hierarchical positions (students to professors, for example). You can be annoyed at it on an individual level, sure, but it's pretty low to make it out like those two posters are feral children or had poor upbringings because they don't share your proclivities. That's an unnecessary snipe that adds exactly nothing to what is an otherwise potentially productive conversation, as both posters were attempting to engage with the issues at hand.
Millennials turn to grave robbing as more Baby Boomers storing wealth in pyramids for afterlife
APRIL 12, 2017 by MARY GILLIS
Memphis, TN – Millennials are turning to grave robbing and tomb raiding to make ends meet as an ever-increasing number of Baby Boomers attempt take their accumulated wealth with them into the afterlife through the use of lavish tombs, crypts, and pyramids.
“Look, I love my child,” said soon-to-be-dead Baby Boomer Robert Gray. “But the pharaohs were really onto something with their death rituals. Not that mummy stuff. That creeps me out. But the idea of luxury burials. I’m used to a certain level of comfort, and it would be unfair to everyone if I were denied that in death just so my kid can spend more money on emojis and rent and what have you.”
Numerous businesses have sprung up to cater to this new Boomer deathstyle, which can run the gamut from a modest teak coffin studded with conflict-free diamonds sealed in cement, to a 7000 sq.ft. pyramid made of obsidian located in an exclusive gated necropolis. But despite the ongoing efforts of Boomers to hold onto their wealth into grim death and beyond, Millennials remain undeterred.
“I’ve been preparing for this my whole life. Indiana Jones. Lara Croft. The Mummy movies. I’ve spent hundreds if not thousands of hours in Zelda temples and Skyrim crypts,” said Jessica Gray, 28. “If my father thinks some lame ass dad traps are going to keep me from plundering his McMausoleum and getting my inheritance back, he’s wrong. Dead wrong. Pun intended.”
When reached for comment, members of Gen X were still too traumatized from the death of Nirvana frontman Kurt Cobain to issue a statement.
https://www.thebeaverton.com/2017/04/millennials-turn-to-grave-robbing-as-more-baby-boomers-storing-wealth-in-pyramids-for-afterlife/
2:40 here. Looks like the feral child has a sibling.
And there are no issues at hand, only people imagining the worst for such silly reasons as just one person having updated the wiki to report an interview invite, and people (mostly the same) insisting on reading the posts by Prof. Sens in the worst light, and now even getting upset with him for not having the foresight to realize that people would do that. So the issues I'm seeing involve the psychological makeup of several job-seekers who for the good of potential colleagues had better not end up anywhere nearly as good as Georgetown, not the attitude of a senior colleague whose only mistake was thinking that a civil explanation would be met with civil responses.
Ugh. It's so painful to read through all of this. Not because I necessarily agree or disagree with points being made on either side (sure, I wouldn't be surprised if Georgetown was doing shady things; and sure, I'd bet a great deal of said "shade" comes at least partly from paranoia and fear of applicants) but largely because so many folks aren't so many folks: it's more likely 1-2 people on both sides making it seem as if there are 10-12 on each side.
Let's just end the discussion all around and agree that:
MAYBE THEY DID SOMETHING SHADY, MAYBE THEY DIDN'T. THERE IS NO WAY TO PROVE THEIR GUILT OR INNOCENCE.
As such, let's please put a moratorium on "Georgetown crookedness" and return to what this forum is best at: providing support and information for one another.
The University of Toronto Medieval Latin shortlist consists of three PhDs from ... the University of Toronto. Discuss.
Canada: where incest is encouraged.
Servii, this whole discussion is distasteful. With the one exception it is not 'naming names' (and that name has pointed out he is not involved in this hiring process), but we can all look up who works at Georgetown, and this thread is pretty much accusing them of skulduggery, which IMHO is not different from naming individuals' names. Doesn't seem like that's the intended spirit of this board.
9:57,
Let’s just move on. Let’s all stop talking about this, regardless of on what side one falls.
Anyone know what's going on with Illinois?
Based on earlier posts, sounds like they've rejected all those who didn't receive SCS interviews. They are probably making their list of finalists now. Many schools are just starting their terms and some haven't even started (we haven't started yet and won't determine our finalists until 2/2). If you were interviewed, give schools at least until the end of the month. We have shit to do as well.
9:57: "Servii, this whole discussion is distasteful. With the one exception it is not 'naming names' (and that name has pointed out he is not involved in this hiring process), but we can all look up who works at Georgetown, and this thread is pretty much accusing them of skulduggery, which IMHO is not different from naming individuals' names. Doesn't seem like that's the intended spirit of this board."
Honestly, skulduggery is the grease that oils the gears in the Classics and Classics-adjacent job market. You've got inside hires, new iterations of the old boys club, and byzantine rules for searches dreamt up by HR departments. Then there's the underworked and overpaid administrators who think universities are businesses, students are customers, and that Classics is the study of Victor Hugo, Charles Dickens, the Brontes, and Mark Twain.
As the Orange Bastard of the Potomac would say, it's all rigged folks.
No one has heard anything from Reed College? The ad says that interviews will be held by the end of January. What is the usual time between interview request and the interview itself? The one that I got was scheduled well in advance...
I've had interviews scheduled anywhere from two months to two days in advance.
How long is standard between a campus visit and an offer going out to a first choice candidate? I think I have been ghosted.
My experience is that they decide shortly very after the last campus visit, maybe a week or two to go through higher up approval and issue an offer. If you haven't heard anything and it's been weeks and weeks, it's likely in negotiation and you aren't first pick. I once had what I thought was a successful campus visit only to never receive any communication from the department again. It sucked, and was totally unprofessional. I still side eye people from that search when I run into them at conferences.
Keep hope alive @1:02 PM. You never know what the timeline was for the other visits. One of them could have even been postponed. Furthermore, even if you know that all visits have been carried out, XYZ department/committee member might have some kind of conference or personal travel that makes them unavailable for a meeting etc.
Good luck.
well, no princeton SOF for me!
If it makes you feel any better, there are a few postdocs at the moment who are associated with Classics at Princeton, so this decision might be purely administrative.
In the meantime, no Michigan (or any other) SoF for me.
^thanks for the commiseration! I too am waiting for the Michigan result but it looks like some people have gotten phone calls from the SOF, so I may also be out of the running there...
you can call them to ask, I did and they were very nice to me.
The prestigious SOF are so competitive they are largely a waste of time. Remember, you are not just competing with 100 or so people in your field, but over a thousand outside your field. Its a lottery, often depending on the pull a given department has to get a spot in the first place. I naively wasted a lot of time applying my first year, and then decided never again. If you do apply, make sure you have a connection in the department, or at the very least a connection with a connection.
I was recently rejected from the LSA Collegiate Postdoctoral Fellowship at Michigan and the rejection stated that they had 927 applications!
3:03 here: 841 at princeton. it's preposterous. shouldn't have applied to begin with cause even though you rationalize the rejection afterward it afterwards a little piece of you is still crushed
I'm 3:17. Sure, but this season there were 5 job postings for my specialty (Greek literature), so I tried everything I could. I'm also afraid that since it's mostly archaeologists and historians who will leave their former schools, most of the VAPs will also be history-oriented.
Why do archaeologists and historians leave their schools?
To get to the other side.
Has anyone here had multiple VAPs and also have a family? I think I have a shot of an eventual t-t, but I feel like I'm putting my partner and two young kids through hell with all the uncertainty and potential moving. Not to mention the shitty financial side of things...Any advice? My mentors all either had their kids with the support of a stay at home parent or didn't have kids at all...
I don't think it really disrupts kids that much to move around a lot, especially at a young age when all or most of their meaningful relationships are within the immediately family (siblings and parents). Once they get old enough to have actual friends that they spend time with alone (middle school? maybe even late middle school), it can be harder on them but still not impossible (military families do it, after all, and it just depends on the family how well they cope). I'd say it's just about whether you and your partner want to move around a lot, if s/he wants to work (hard for them to switch jobs every year or two, if they can even find a new one in each place), if you're OK being apart from extended family (I don't know if that's relevant). Moving is super stressful, of course, as is the uncertainty of whether that t-t is gonna happen and when. It's a very personal decision, I'd say. You might start by having a conversation with your partner about what your line is (how many VAPs before you stop) and stick to it?
I've done three VAPs with spouse and two kids. I have decided this one is my last, no matter what happens. Either get a TT job, or leave the field altogether. A big part of the decision is the deadline for my oldest child to start attending school, but also the sense that the field has no future, and it would be unfair to ruin the lives of my family in order to pursue it further.
For those of you on the ancient history side of things, the job at San Diego Mesa College just sent out 'no's' at long-listing. I realize several of you may have been waiting with bated breath, as I was. Truly a fantastic cap to a great market season. Because, clearly, I'm meant not to live near my family for the rest of *their* lives.
I'm in a VAP and have delayed having kids because of it. I haven't decided what to do about next year yet. I don't know how much longer I can or should delay from a biological standpoint, let alone all the other factors. It's a terrible feeling to know that I could lose my chance to have (biological) children while waiting to land a t-t.
@3:18, feel your pain re: general southern California area.
Speaking of southern california, any news re: USC's SOF?
Not job related properly speaking, but I figure there's no better place to ask than in a forum full of other classicists...
What is the reputation of the journal Arethusa these days? Is it considered T2? I recall reading some classic articles that came out from Arethusa, but from the 1980s and early 90s. Have there been important (I realize this is a very subjective term) articles printed in the journal recently?
Similarly, what are people's thoughts on Phoenix? A topflight journal equivalent to our TAPA?
I am always cautious about finite rankings of journals. There is no question that some are better than others, but quality is always a relative thing. And reputation can fluctuate with editors as well.
I would suggest there is a general sense of a top tier, although people might debate which titles belong. But most would place, in the Anglophone world, TAPA, CP, AJP, JRS, JHS, AJA, JRA, CQ, Historia, Hesperia and Classical Antiquity as "Top Tier." Did I miss any? Probably.
I would say Phoenix is second tier, a little less competitive to get accepted, but still publishing high quality stuff and a worthy venue for one's scholarship. I would tend to place Greece and Rome, CW, CJ, Ancient Society, MAAR, and HSCP, Mnemosyne and Antichthon in the second tier. Not bad places to get published at all, but less competitive than the first tier. Probably would include Arethusa here.
Again, folks may dispute these rankings, but the prestige of the journal largely depends on how it is viewed by the people on hiring and promotion committees. So philologists might not think Historia is a big deal, while archaeologists don't really care about Arethusa. And sometimes journals weak in a certain area will actually be more enthusiastic about a topic on which they seldom publish than a journal which specializes in that area.
Anyone want to give publishing advice to a newbie who is going to try the job market next year? :)
Thank you, 9:49! Beyond the Anglophone world, how do you think most American hiring committees view European journals like Quaderni Urbinati di Cultura Classica, I Quaderni del Ramo d'Oro, Kernos, or Metis? Are they worth pursuing, even as a backup?
I would be cautious. Minor European journals (outside of Germany, i.e. Historia, Klio, Chiron, Antike Kunst, ZPE, etc.) tend to be weaker, and a committee might be suspicious of the Anglophone scholar trying to dump stuff in minor European journals. The rule of thumb: do you often read and cite these journals? Does your advisor? Do people who are the thought leaders in your area of speciality?
For archaeology, I would caution against JRA and Hesperia. They obviously have cachet for classicists, but they drop off in respect when leaving the discipline. This can be a concern when getting reviewed by humanists or social scientists who are not beholden to classics.
Hesperia is clearly T2 and JRA is not far behind - http://www.scimagojr.com/journalrank.php?category=3302. AJA isn't the gold standard it once was. Antiquity still holds its spot but I would say JFA has replaced AJA as the most prestigious American journal where classical archaeologists regularly publish. AJA is now in the realm of BASOR, which isn't bad, but certainly not near the top.
Thanks again. I agree with all you say. It is a shame that (not surprisingly) the journal situation has become so Anglophone. As someone who deplores the hegemony of the English language in the humanities and the attendant undervaluation of scholarship coming from certain European quarters (esp. Spanish, Italian and Greek), I want to make an effort at publishing beyond the US/UK, though realize this may not be a smart career move, especially at an early stage.
Would you say that European journals on the whole are weaker because they tend to publish more parochially and because their referees are usually "in-house", thus lessening the rigor of the journal overall? Why do you think Germany leads the European scene when it comes to internationally recognized journals in classics and ancient history?
European journals do tend to be more parochial and less selective, in part because most have a smaller pool of scholars.
Also, I would be careful of using citation based ratings. They need not describe the situation in a particular field, and most search committees will consist of classicists, ancient historians or archaeologists involved in the classics. A Classical archaeologist is not going to prefer an article in JFA over Hesperia because of citation counts, even if JFA has more "impact." They will likely prefer the institutional prestige of the American School in their sub-discipline. This might be different if you are in say, an Anthropology department, where Hesperia is considered a sub-disciplinary backwater and the real stars publish in JFA.
Again, this fact has nothing to to with the quality of the articles. But if the hiring and committee is in classics, ancient studies or ancient art history, it may be best to go with the "gut" prestige for better or worse, rather than REF style impact factors.
One word of caution from a number of experiences with various European journals. Many are not doing themselves any favors by allowing an underlying sentiment that borders on being belligerent towards American contributors. I would say 2/3 of my reviews include diatribes criticizing a lack of references to the latest European thinking on the topic (I'm guessing usually that of the reviewer). The references provided sometimes help but they are usually marginally important at best. I'm sorry, but we have teaching and service responsibilities and cannot keep up with every little boutique conference in Europe. I totally get that we can be self-centered and siloed in North America, but this snippiness does not encourage cross-pollination. Why go through the grief when there are plenty of solid journals here?
" A Classical archaeologist is not going to prefer an article in JFA over Hesperia because of citation counts, even if JFA has more "impact.""
I honestly cannot think of one classical field archaeologist that would publish in Hesperia over JFA, all other things equal. You add in the fact that Hesperia (and even AJA to a degree) is largely about who you know and whether your project was ASCSA affiliated and it kills the rigor and practical value. This is why you can't ignore citations; there might be a reason why no one really gives a crap about the majority of these articles. Even for nostalgia and prestige steeped in tradition, I also do not want to wait two years to see my article published in journals that are just getting up to speed on modern publishing standards. Once the money and most-favored status are removed from a discipline, you are much less likely to get away with country club bullshit even with classics itself.
What about Helios? Any thoughts?
Thank you, 9:49! Beyond the Anglophone world, how do you think most American hiring committees view European journals like Quaderni Urbinati di Cultura Classica, I Quaderni del Ramo d'Oro, Kernos, or Metis? Are they worth pursuing, even as a backup?
Hah. At this point in my career I have cited more than 2000 books and articles on both Greek and Roman topics, and until now I have never heard of "Quaderni del Ramo d'Oro." Which, I guess, might suggest that it shouldn't be the first journal to which one sends an article.
Reading the above posts I can't help but think that the following two criteria, which I myself use, are as good as any: will the article appear reasonably quickly, and will it be seen by the people who are meant to be reading it? This should be true especially for someone writing his or her very first article(s), and is considerably more important than how a tenure committee will view the article years down the road, especially since you presumably have more than one or two articles in you. (And if you don't, the good news is that you don't need to worry about promotion and tenure!)
12:53 here again. I need to emend my post: I forgot about one unpublished project, which means I am closer to 3000 books and articles cited, still with no previous awareness of I Quaderni del Ramo d'Oro.
I will now try to find their table of contents online, hoping to find something I can cite...
Re: Helios, it seems like they're willing to take risks on interesting theoretical angles and the overall quality is high. The special issue in 2013 was really good.
I'm not sure how to rank the "theory-oriented" Classics journals against one another.
Re: JFA-while a fabulous journal, few classical archaeologists publish there. Some of the more theoretically/anthropologically oriented ones have started publishing in Cambridge Archaeological Journal and Archaeological Dialogues (both of which I like!), but JRA, AJA, Hesperia, and the like really remain the gold standard. Which is a shame, because I've had an article under review at AJA for EIGHTEEN MONTHS (with one revise and resubmit) and I still have no idea whether it's going to be published or not.
On a completely unrelated note - anyone know what's going on with University of Hawaii? I just saw it updated on the wiki, but I thought they had a similar position advertised last year...is the 4-4 so wretched that even the beaches can't entice people to stay longer than a year?
Unless it's near family and that's the only academic position available that will get you anywhere close to them? It does look like a lot, but who knows what people's calculations are.
Re: "what's going on with Hawaii" - a visiting person has moved on, they need to fill the void. It seems to be an ongoing VAP opportunity, so maybe people who are looking for a permanent thing are nervous about it, and others view it as a short-term gig, to move on when something else pops up? Honolulu is great, and the people I've met at Hawaii are really pleasant, but there are lots of other factors at work for most candidates (like the So Cal people above). Personally, I'd probably never get any real work done if I lived on Oahu. But I'd have taken the job in a heartbeat, if offered at the right time...
@10:08, old geezer here. What you say has generally been true of Helios. Also Arethusa. They have long been on the more trendy, theoretical, experimental end of things. Other end: JRS, AJP, etc.
Surprised to see people putting CJ in T2: I've long found it more interesting and representative of "classics" than AJP, which has bored me to tears since 1902. Wider variety of people involved in CJ, for one thing.
Hesperia is basically classical archaeology in the vein of biblical archaeology. It speaks to a particular, increasingly narrow audience. Any classical archaeologist who is serious about good archaeology aims to publish at least once in JFA and perhaps AJA on top of a slew of journals (e.g. JMA, JAS) that has made Hesperia and its ilk increasingly marginalized. Antiquity has somehow managed to avoid painting themselves in a corner like Hesperia, which is a bit counter-intuitive considering that the Brits pretty much defined privilege and the old boys' network for the rest of the western world.
I think there is a significant misunderstanding evident in a few posts here about what Hesperia is and is for. It's true that Hesp relatively rarely publishes good, important articles that are not mainly presentations of new material. I can't off the top of my head think of any from recent years, in fact, but there are certainly some--perhaps one or two per volume. The majority of such pieces are workmanlike overviews of the evidence on an issue; I think of recent discussions of Pausanias and Athenian taxation, for example, which are certainly very useful publications but ones that would never be accepted by a journal like JHS, Classical Antiquity, or even TAPA because they lack an argument and are therefore simply not journal articles as understood by an American academic audience. Clearly, however, that is the kind of contribution Hesperia is institutionally committed to (although I hasten to add they also publish fine articles that would not be out of place in many other journals; I see but have not read one about Solon in the latest issue), because its primary role is to publish material found in American excavations in Greece. As such, many if not (almost certainly) most of the most significant archaeological discoveries at such projects have been published in Hesperia, including headline-grabbing things like the Pylos "combat agate," Paleolithic seafaring to Crete, or whatever, and also reports coming from intellectually vibrant projects at places like Azoria or Mitrou or their like.
The JFA by contrast is certainly a sexier place to publish novel syntheses or archaeological interpretation, but is not really comparable to Hesperia in its purpose. For publications of new Greek material (artistic, archaeological, epigraphic) I do think Hesperia is the best (English-language) journal, given its high editorial and production standards and the excellence or at worst competence with which everything they publish has been researched and written. Although it is certainly a more traditionalist place than OJA, CAJ, JFA, and their like, it seems unfair and also pretty inaccurate to describe it as 3:00 does, although I agree with the remainder of their comment. JFA and Hesperia are not in competition but serve totally distinct audiences, and any discussion of their relative prestige and quality would have to begin by stipulating who is doing the judgment and for what reason.
So in sum, Hesperia is generally a worthy venue but it's tainted by the wafting stench of inbreeding, intrigue, and illegitimate academic worth that continues to define ASCSA's sponsored activities despite continued efforts by some good people to drag the institution into the 21st century. Look at the trustees - it continues to be a who's who of 1%-er Trumpsters. One cannot deny they've had a heavy hand in defining the culture of ASCSA, and therefore Hesperia, despite the best attempts of some excellent people to update the Mar-a-Lago culture of the hallowed institution.
very interesting discussion about journals. Something that makes all of this more complicated is that you often see very prominent scholars publishing in non top-tier journals like Helios, Ramus, Arethusa, GRBS, and European journals sometimes as part of a special volume (which makes more sense) but sometimes as stand alone articles. I wonder why these faculty, whose names could probably get them published wherever they wish, chose to send articles to these venues - maybe they are so established they don't rely on the prestige of journals to get read? Maybe they are doing the editors a favor?
Helios, Ramus, Arethusa, and especially GRBS are by no means remotely downmarket venues. None of them could claim to be in contention as THE flagship journal for the profession (we don't have a Science and Nature, unless you think of JRS and JHS that way, and I suspect few do) but they are all superb journals.
GRBS has really gone down hill... I was excited to read an article on Roman history in its last issue, but besides a poor argument, it didn't even provide the Latin and Greek for the English translations (which were also all taken from someone else). In general, I've been told not to publish in journals like that until you're established. Why do established scholars publish there? Sometimes it is faster... sometimes it's a favor rendered to one of the good old boys...
I think one takeaway from this conversation is that everyone has their own private hierarchy of journals. You cannot tell whether the person who thinks GRBS is top tier or the person who thinks GRBS is in steep decline will be on your SC, but on the whole I would say GRBS is a solid venue for any scholar who wants their work read---while Quaderni del Ramo d'Oro is probably a bad call for an Anglophone scholar.
Again, I think the best rule is look where people in your field and subfield publish. The Hesperia controversy above is a good example of how different subfields see things differently. Field Archaeologists see it as little more than a house journal for publishing ASCSA stuff. Which is true for excavations, although an art historian or cultural historian might view it as a top venue. Note even in the SCImago rankings: Hesperia is Q2 for Archaeology, but Q1 for Classics. Again, who sits on your committee will make a lot of difference: the Greek historian will likely admire Hesperia, but the archaeologist working on a Hopi site in the Southwest will not.
I think as a general rule, sticking to the conventional alphabet soup is a good call, rather than publishing in small and obscure journals.
Out of curiosity, don't committees pay attention to the quality of articles, regardless of where they were published? I have an article that I published in a journal one of you called second-tier, since for my subject it was the perfect place(*). I don't agree with that, but let's say you were right for the sake of my question. The article itself has had a major impact, with more than 1000 downloads from my Academia.edu page, and numerous citations: is anyone truly going to care which journal that appeared in?
(*) Admittedly, I did first get rejected by JRS, though in retrospect that was a very good thing, in part because one of my anonymous readers, who outed himself, was the best person on the planet for this subject, and gave me some crucial suggestions.
"In general, I've been told not to publish in journals like that until you're established"
meh... if you have something you think is publishable and sincerely think you have an argument worth circulating, send it out. Life is too short to sit on your scholarship and writing - if your original argument changes in a year or two, which probably will be the case, you can always revisit the issue and publish another piece accordingly. I honestly think that the advice given to many PhD candidates / early scholars to sit on work until it's just perfect to send out is too cautious an approach. Even if a piece gets a rejection, you receive very helpful feedback that helps you revise. And given how glacial the publishing process is in our field, it is simply bad advice to tell advanced doctorate students not to get their feet wet in the world of peer-review publishing.
12:19, I understand the importance of grads and recent grads publishing, but advising them to go out and publish something that might be wrong is absurd and irresponsible. By my estimate, I would be 20% more efficient in my scholarship -- and thus able to produce a lot more scholarship -- if I didn't have to constantly be checking up on and correcting poor scholarship. I am sure I am not the only one who has to waste time addressing errors and poor arguments that should have been caught before appearing in print, so it's an industry-wide problem, and telling people to send out stuff prematurely makes the problem worse. The correct advice is that junior scholars should work on a piece until they are confident it is good and right and can stand up to criticism -- not simply until it meets the minimal criteria to be published by someone. (Nor, of course, should they hold on to a piece until it is perfect. When a good piece is accepted there is always time to make it better.)
I'll share an anecdote pertaining to this topic. A few years ago a grad student gave a paper at the APA on something that had nothing to do with his area of research, obviously drawing from a grad seminar paper that he decided to pursue, perhaps with faculty encouragement. He gave a paper that had a major flaw, which I drew to his attention after the talk (not during Q&A, as I would have were it a professor speaking). Someone from an important journal in the relevant field was in the audience and encouraged him to publish it with that journal, and unfortunately the peer-reviewers weren't competent to judge it, so it appeared in print. A year later a top expert wrote an article absolutely pulverizing his arguments, so much so that there is little reason for anyone to read the article. Sure, that article must have helped the grad get a job -- a damn good one -- but can you really say this is how things should be?
To expand upon 1:32's comment: "the correct advice is that junior scholars should work on a piece until they are confident it is good and right and can stand up to criticism -- not simply until it meets the minimal criteria to be published by someone."
YES! You have to remember, too, that you can't do this alone. You just can't. Or you shouldn't if you want the best leg up for the whole submission/review/acceptance process. Show your work to trusted advisors, professors, and mentors. Create a network. Get outside your comfort zone and even approach scholars in the subdiscipline your article touches upon if you already have a relationship (even if tenuous). In the grand scheme, informal peer review is just as important to get the paper ready as formal peer review (ideally double-blind) is after submission. After all the time you spend researching and writing, you are too close to it to see any obvious flaws or weaknesses.
The whole process is uncomfortable, for sure. But the more eyes, the better. Look at the acknowledgment notes in articles by senior scholars, they are often showing it to their colleagues for feedback.
11:54
"Out of curiosity, don't committees pay attention to the quality of articles, regardless of where they were published?"
Depends on the context, I'm afraid.
1) In tenure and promotion cases, your department almost certainly does, but the farther up the administrative ladder, the more they care about venue (often against the wisdom of professional judgment about the quality of a particular piece).
2) Even in a search (and so presumably within the field), at the initial stages with 100+ applicants it's just easier to spot the fancy venue than the quality work. That said, lots of those articles get read eventually, and I've never been involved in a search in which SC member A said "look at this great article" and B replied "but it's only in _Journal of Second-Tier Studies_."
Do you know of anyone who has ever left the field for a year or so to work and come back to land a t-t position? I can't afford another VAP (mostly for family reasons- yet another move, the insultingly low pay), but think I am a strong candidate. How would you best explain this in a cover letter- in a non angry screed format?
No question at the end of the day, the quality of the article matters. But, as a strategic matter, placement is important too.
1) Hiring committees and eventually tenure committees may not read every article. And even if they do, they may not have the expertise to appreciate all the nuanced arguments. So they will fall back, to an extent, on the quality of the journal and the rigor of the peer review, knowing that at least two experts in the field did pick the article apart and found it worth publishing.
2) Even in our scholarship, we rely on journals as gatekeepers. We often read and cite materials outside of our field and subfield, where we cannot fully evaluate all the arguments. Thus we too fall back on the assurance that the article was peer reviewed by a quality journal that is picky about what it publishes. This doesn't mean naively accepting what is in the JRS or TAPA as gospel, but the selectivity and quality control of top journals is the whole reason we have them in the first place.
3) Finally, we also let the quality of journals determine our reading time. I am more likely to skim a new issue of JRS, because it contains a set of high profile articles, than Journal of Second Tier Studies, which I only look up when I know I want to read a particular article. That means that an article placed in a high profile journal is more likely to be noticed, read and cited than in JSTS.
4) Top journals tend to have more rigorous technical assistance in terms of formatting, editing, copy editing and proofing. That means you article will likely look better in a top journal than one with a shoestring budget where an overworked editor wears all the hats.
I am thinking of seeking employment outside the field next year, rather than a VAP, but going on the 18-19 market.
I too am debating how best to frame this. One option would be to see if my PhD granting institution would give me a 0% Research Associate appointment. Then my cover letter could say "Research Associate, R1U." If they ask what that means I can honestly say that I am working to finish my monograph, but support myself financially outside the field.
Glad to hear I am not the only one thinking of doing this. VAPs pay so poorly and are so exploitative that I refuse to do another one.
I agree that articles with poor argumentation or shoddy writing should not be sent out. However, I think we do often sit on articles too long, writing and re-writing, citing and sub-citing, and perfecting every detail. Not only does this lengthen our time to publication, but inevitably the reviewers and editor will come along and force you to change something, probably something you especially liked. I was once advised only to send out articles I felt were 90% done--it's just all the more gut-wrenching when you submit an article you feel is perfect only to have it mangled by others.
@3:52 and 2:04pm, I am in a similar boat. We have a newborn that needs to be cared for, my partner has a steady job that is not worth leaving for a one-year VAP, so our plan is for me to be the caregiver from 9-5, then I'll go to the university and work on scholarship from 6-2, hopefully as a guest researcher. Not ideal, but more equitable for my partner and more loving for our child. If that is what leads to my exit from academia, then I was never meant to be here in the first place!
What if they gave a VAP and no one came?
If a VAP falls in the forest....
This may be a sensitive question, but what's the range of pay for a Classics VAP? I realize it must depend on the institution, but I'm just wondering what people consider a poor wage.
50+ would be a very good VAP. 40s decent. I make 35. Many make less.
NB: I am using VAP as a shorthand for any short-term job: Visiting Lecturer, etc. The term used to mean a short term job with the rights, privileges and pay of and Assistant Professor, but almost never does anymore.
Lurker joining in:
@ 5:31 PM, might I inquire about the cost of living where you are living? 35k would be possible in some places, but elsewhere I know it would be awful.
Cost of living very high. It is not enough to live on and I am leaving the field for this reason.
A handful of my cohort have VAPs that pay in the high 60s. Basically what starting T-T faculty would make. They exist, although I admittedly do not know how rare. A look at the wiki suggests some of them are available this year.
@1:32 PM
I certainly do not advocate advising advanced graduate students to publish "something that might be wrong." And I thought it went without saying that one should share the paper with as many specialists as possible before sending it to a journal. But I disagree with the common view that graduate students should be discouraged, seemingly purely on the basis of their age or rank in the academic hierarchy, to send out a paper that they've worked hard on and think advances the scholarship. I have read plenty of mediocre or flawed arguments in articles published by more senior faculty, so I simply don't understand why the communis opinio is that articles published by PhD candidates should be viewed apriori with more suspicion than ones written by older faculty. Of course all of this depends case by case ...
"I would be 20% more efficient in my scholarship -- and thus able to produce a lot more scholarship -- if I didn't have to constantly be checking up on and correcting poor scholarship."
Maybe I simply have a different perspective on scholarship but isn't this precisely the basis of what we do? I always assumed that part of the duty (and pleasure!) of being in the humanities--and thus not a waste of time--is careful reading and critique other people's work...
7:41, 1:32 here. I agree regarding senior scholars sometimes publishing something that is flawed or makes little contribution, and would say that they likewise shouldn't send anything out that shouldn't be sent out. What I disagree with when it comes to grads and recent PhD's is that they shouldn't publish something just for the sake of it, especially if they don't have a track-record of better work.
And yes, we have completely different perspectives. To me, our job is to find out about the past, not find out how colleagues have gotten something wrong. If instead of citing an article as the definitive study of X I have to take time noting that study's deficiencies (often doing additional reading to back up my criticisms) then yes, that's useful to my readers, and yes, I might enjoy making some effective arguments, but nevertheless this is not a good thing. Just think of what we do as a business: every minute spent correcting a colleague's errors represents inefficiency in the system as we collectively strive to explore the ancient world. No different than, say, if a partner at a law firm had to spend an hour a day correcting errors by his/her paralegal instead of doing the work for which the client pays large amounts per hour. But a lawyer can fire a bad paralegal, whereas we're all stuck with poor scholars.
@8:38 I know the article of which you speak; to be fair, the argument is not a philological one, and the author quotes the Greek when the language matters. I suppose there is something inexpedient from an editor's point of view to quoting huge chunks of Greek text when linguistic specificities do not bear on the argument. I thought this was standard practice?
@5:40, I've had three temporary positions: the 1st paid 55k in a moderately expensive area, the second paid 30k in perhaps the most expensive area in the country, and the third paid 32k in the same area. I never expected to be rich, but I don't like being broke either....
@8:43 and 8:38. Not exactly sure which piece you're talking about, but, looking at the work from the last year, there seems to be a mix of established as well as junior scholars being published there. That suggests a thriving venue for discussion and the fact that you were both reading it suggests that circulation is high. That seems to be a good sign, even if you found one of the pieces to be out of sync with your general expectations for the journal. It also seems like 10:18 probably has the right idea. Everyone has their own hierarchy, and, as far as hiring goes, it will be unpredictable where certain journals fall into individual SC member's hierarchies. But sticking to the "known-knowns" is probably wise.
One reason to consider GRBS if you are starting off is that they believe in open access, which means you can promote your article immediately on Academia.edu via a direct link (or presumably posting it), whereas other journals require 1-2 years before one can put an article online. And given the backlog at some of the major journals that means an article submitted tomorrow to those other journals might not be something one can self-promote until 2020-21. So, GRBS and other such journals are worth careful consideration for someone writing a first or second article. (I make a distinction here with journals that are available online right away to subscribers, since the idea is to let people know about your article, not wait for them to find it.)
Does no one have even the most uninformed and baseless of speculation about ISAW? Has anyone heard anything since 12/6?
I can't see why anyone would think that a job that requires moving and everything that goes with it - large expenses, dealing with multi-state taxes, changes of address, uprooting family, etc. - is worth it for $35k. But the question still hasn't been answered: is it possible to take a "normal" job, keep up a research profile, and get back in the game once something good appears? (if it ever appears)
11:25, the gossip at the american school is that fellowships at ISAW are almost always given to people who know someone already there/have been affiliated with NYU/ISAW at some point in the past
Thanks! Any speculation about the t-t at ISAW? Timeline, or anything?
@11:28: I know of two people who have published very prolifically and are NOT based out of universities. For one of them, it was a choice; the other I'm not so sure. But both have publication records over the last couple of decades that rival top tenured professors, if not surpassing them... That doesn't answer your question, but i do not personally know of an example where what you describe has happened
@11:30, thanks, that's at least somewhat helpful. I guess the ability to publish extensively is also partially contingent on having good access to library resources, too.
GRBS also turns things around quickly, and in my experience the editor is very helpful.
Getting back (or staying) in the game is about research productivity, which often comes down to specialty and expectations. I'm leaving out teaching as it will buy you a full-time lectureship at best, which is typically a crappy job where it's at least implicitly expected that you have a SO with the primary income (like teaching in general, I suspect this situation is entrenched in a gendered past that lingers to this day). You're better off landing a solid secondary education gig, imho. It pays better and you won't be on the fringes of a community. It's very easy as well in this day and age to maintain access to scholarly resources.
In terms of research productivity, or maintaining the veneer of it, I think it's more difficult to stay in the game if you're a philologist. Someone will have to take a chance on you and sell you to others and there are way too many shiny new PhDs doing similar things. Your referees presumably also churn out a higher number of advisees so your support will become increasingly diluted as well. I've seen that it's easier in some ways if you're an archaeologist still involved in field work. It's not a mundane task to stay afloat with the stress and extra expenses involved with field work, but chances are that you'll be doing more distinctive and sexy research that could buy you a gig. In the off chance a program wants a bona fide field archaeologist, there won't be nearly as many qualified people queuing up - experience and established connections in archaeology usually trump shininess.
It ultimately comes down to lifestyle and what you're willing to endure. Good luck to all regardless of your present circumstances, but especially those trying to hang on and have a choice ahead of you.
@9:58 PM, 5:40 here, thanks for the added info about your VAP experiences. To be honest, I'm so paranoid that I don't even think I'll get a VAP at this point. I'm very close to defending (it's taking up all my time so I haven't been applying for a few things lately, especially stuff I know I won't get). I know having the degree in hand changes things. But I assume the competition for the VAPs (especially not terrible ones) is still fierce, especially this job year. I guess staying here would be better for the wallet? Not necessarily for the "career"...
Re ISAW, nothing new there. It's always been inbred. Their POV on a number of issues and topics is non-standard, and since they (like the rest of the world) tend to like people who think as they do, they tend to choose people who think as they do, who often...come from their midst.
We are moving to a point where the secondary market is about to become as saturated as the primary market. Even after the 2008 crash (from which academia, unlike the rest of the economy, never recovered) there was a sense that most people would be able to string themselves along through VAPs, adjuncting, etc. But I think this is changing. I don't have the statistics, but anecdotally I feel that pay for VAPs has dropped over the four years I've been on the market. This would make sense: there is a growing supply of PhDs trying to stay in the field, but demand is constant.
Indeed, some reforms may make the secondary market worse: some universities are trying to keep non-TT folks as more stable lecturers, rather than a cycle of VAPs. This is more humane to the lecturers (although the policy, if carried to its conclusion, would seem to point to the death of tenure), but it also means fewer postings for new VAPs.
I think we are looking at a new paradigm for how academic careers abort. In the old days, people could keep VAPing/adjuncting until they cried uncle and left the field on their own volition. But I think soon, maybe even already, people will be unable to find a TT job, but also unable to find a VAP, and will be out of the field even if they want to stay in.
Make no mistake, we are living in a moment of system collapse in our profession. Leaving the field doesn't sound so bad under the circumstances.
Really, don't hold out any hope for ISAW. Its an inside job, because ISAW only does inside jobs.
Much of academia has in fact recovered. What has become obvious is that some fields have been written out or at least marginalized in modern academia.
Interesting to see that Stanford's campus visits include two ABDs... a real search by the looks of it.
Don't get me started on the ABDs. I may just be sour grapes because I've lost out twice to them, but I cannot wrap my head around how an institution can say they value research productivity and teaching excellence, only to hire an Ivy ABD that has hardly taught or published.
Interesting that the ABDs are both male, the PhDs both female....
Meh. Didn't the SCS publish data that last year 60% of applicants were men, 40% women, but 60% of those hired were women, and 40% men? Our field is so tiny that parity even would be meaningless (in the sense that in a given year the actual number of jobs and applicants will be so low that it is possible for committees to be equitable in hiring and end up with an inequitable statistic in either direction). Plus, I've met some of the women who got good TT jobs in the past two or three years and were ABD with thin CVs, and if you met them, saw them teach, hear them give talks, read their work, you'd hire them too!
When I was in college a different department hired someone who not only had no publications but had barely even presented any work at conferences. The field is even more pedigree-obsessed than philology, and with an even bitterer job board. People there were furious: look at this no-CV ABD woman coming in and stealing OUR jobs! Well, less than a decade later, she has tenure, a book (on a completely different subject from her dissertation!), and about a dozen substantial and (so I gather) well-regarded articles published. It's important to remember: hiring is about the future, not the past. What you've done is obviously important, and SCs make mistakes and poor choices all the time, don't get me wrong, but jobs aren't rewards for having the longest CV.
In my experience, some people can get hired because they constantly organize conferences and workshops and colloquia featuring their well-connected adviser and friends. Yes, sometimes these things result in edited proceedings and that's a CV line, but more often than not the qualifying criterion is simply that the person is "active" (or "known") in the field, even if they've had exactly half of an original idea in their entire career.
So, Gettysburg interviews all happened last week. The last *potential* time slot (if anyone used it, I don't know) was Friday (1/19). The Wiki shows no activity regarding campus visits...
Does anyone here know anything ?
At the end of the interview, they mentioned something about making decisions by the end of this week and moving to on-campus towards the end of January and beginning of February - did you get this same sense? So not a good sign, obviously, but what can one do.
6:34 here..
@6:39, Yeah. same thing said to me. They also said that if I don't hear anything by the end of January, not to assume it means anything, and to wait until word is sent.
From that I internalized that they want to keep all of us on the line in case their top choice(s) either bomb the campus visit or go elsewhere.
...One has to imagine that at least a few of the (known) seven folks asked to Skype are top candidates for some T-T jobs. Gettysburg is a great school to be a springboard to cushy T-T later on, so I'd imagine that those folks interviewed are all strong candidates who are still awaiting final responses from T-T jobs. I, unfortunately, have seen my T-T interviews die (2 this year).
As of now, with Georgetown uninterested in me, all I have is hope for Gettysburg. ...well, the VAP at Boston University still remains, but they have extremely close relations with Harvard and more often than not they select a Harvardite for their VAPs. Us plebs can only dream of getting a gig at BU.
...Anyways, back to your question, yeah.. I'd bet Gettysburg has contacted, but whoever they may be aren't Wiki-folk. A rare possibility is that they have their 3 people that they want, but have to wait for formal approval by the admin before contacting them. This *can* be a week-long process, so maybe a sliver of hope remains ??
fingers crossed.
Don't give up hope! Given how many people saw fit to post their Gettysburg interview on the wiki, it seems clear that it is a crowd of active wiki updaters. I would guess that if G is bringing 3 or 4 people to campus before choosing, they just aren't yet able to make the offers; hence no update. If they are doing it one at a time, that's a different story. And remember, there are no weekends on the job market. (Except for administration, of course.)
Does anyone know anything about Furman? Their semester has been in session for three weeks now and there's no movement on the wiki. I'd just like to know one way or the other, the waiting is distracting.
Three interviews? It seems like you're doing just fine. Gauging by the current counter, you're actually doing better than most. And the VAP season has hardly begun. St. Lawrence only just now sent out its interview requests, BU is still pending, and new jobs are being posted weekly. Most VAP's, I'm sure, haven't even been advertised. Try not to lose it just yet, it's infectious...
^I sure hope you are right!!!
What are people’s rhoughts on adding a section to the Wiki where we list institutions and have a counter, so that we can get an idea as to from where posters are from??
So, something like:
Harvard: 4
Chicago: 6
Stanford: 3
UNC-CH: 4
Yale: 7
...might be useful, might be pointless. But, I think it may be mildly helpful at least.
@5:55AM, What do you mean "where posters are from"? PhD-granting institution? Current workplace? The former isn't particularly useful given that many of us moved past that stage years ago, and the latter perhaps gives away too much information about those of us in small departments. In either case, a list that is complete enough to be of any real value would be long and annoying to scroll past.
Don't forget about the Placement Tracker: http://classics.wikidot.com/placement-tracker
There are an awful lot of empty spaces and I'm sure that many of the ones people did fill out in the past could use an update.
@10:34,
OP here. I understand your point on how one may be years past their PhD, but the lion's share of poster are still under 5 years out, and as nice of a thought as it may be that Mr. Harvard holds no benefit over Mr. Ohio State just because the two may have received their PhDs 5 years ago, it isn't the case.
The single-most important element on a CV is pedigree. I know that one can argue against that, and surely a few examples may exist, but the simple fact that 90%+ of all Classics faculty at all universities hold their PhD from the same 10-12 schools should be highly indicative that pedigree means more than anything else almost every time.
An extreme example, to play devil's advocate, against my point is John Duffy. He is prof emeritus at Harvard and holds his PhD from SUNY-Buffalo (!!).
That many Classics Depts look like that of Holy Cross (6 out of 11 faculty have their PhD from Harvard) tells us something: pedigree is important element #1.
I don't want to start a debate on this, but I happen to think, and trust me I wish I was dead wrong, that no matter how long one has been out or how much work one has done, if you're not from a top-10 program your odds are absolutely awful at every being offered a T-T job.
Pedigree is one piece of the puzzle and it's uncertain how much of its allure is strictly due to name recognition in a vacuum and how much of it results from established people hiring fellow alums, which perpetuates the situation (and happens in every sector of society) - sort of a chicken and an egg scenario.
When it comes down to it, you also need to get your shit done in school. No matter how powerful the school brand, if you can't get your research done easily, you'll face an uphill climb at graduation. Think classical archaeology and Harvard. It's no secret that Harvard hardly cares about classical archaeology despite its deep historical connection to it (e.g. Sardis). All things equal, a student at Stanford, Penn, Cincinnati, and even Bryn Mawr should have a leg up when it comes to this factor.
Yes, there are scenarios where enthusiastic but ultimately misguided big-name advisors from big-name schools pervert the natural process and push through their acolytes, but this is increasingly difficult to accomplish with the dearth of jobs out there. All things equal they can tip the scales, but you rarely find inferior candidates from big-name programs getting through these days as seems to be overblown on here. The world is too small and the internet is too big.
Permit me to share an anecdote relating to pedigree. When I was teaching some years back at a very large but not top-notch state university (so not Michigan, Berkeley or Wisconsin), I had a coffee shop friend who was a grad in Sociology. He told me that his Sociology program was one of the very best in the country, but that during his first year one of his professors said that when the time came to go on the job market he and his peers would lose out to grads from Ivy League schools with lesser programs because college administrators wanted to be able to tell parents their kids were being taught by X Harvard/Princeton/Yale/etc. PhD's. (We'll never know if that professor was correct in his case, since he ended up leaving the field before going on the market when he discovered how much of Sociology is politicized b.s. in which the results are often manufactured to fit preconceived notions or the expectations of senior colleagues. To his credit, those results generally favored his own political positions, but he couldn't respect a field in which so many lacked intellectual integrity or sound methodology. But that's a topic for another field's "Famae Volent" equivalent...)
So anyway, the impulse to hire those of us with certain pedigrees is not necessarily always an internal one within departments.
Post a Comment