Posted this in August, but I suppose this is where a new post should go. Speaking of which:
"I'm not sure it makes sense to have a new thread every month--I know it got tedious scrolling through pages and pages, but it was also helpful to see an ongoing/developing conversation. Months are not really logical or natural divisions for the job calendar--maybe something larger scale, like "TT application season" (Aug-Nov), "Interviews/Visits/Offers" (Dec-March), "Non-TT season/TT postmortem" (April ff.). My sense would be that the most posts come in the Dec-March range anyway, and that there tend to be a lot of big-picture questions explored at that time, so it might be nice to have one large thread. Just a suggestion--perhaps something to try next year if monthly threads turn out to be annoying."
Is there any additional news on the senior searches advertised in 2018/9 (Harvard, Hopkins, FSU)? How likely is it that they will become tenure-track if they were not filled?
(I originally posted this yesterday in the "August" thread; I had not realized that there were different threads for each month)
I hate to sound harsh here, but the SCS is becoming a joke. Departments keep collapsing, jobs are disappearing, there is a glut of Ph.D.s, and most jobs now are underpaid, insecure contingent faculty positions. Meanwhile, our navel-gazing leadership, obsessed these days with boutique political issues and pop culture, are using the SCS as a platform to advance their own pet causes and interests. It's nice for those who have the luxury to indulge themselves with such things, but they are not really helping to address the real problems facing most Classicists today. So, my thoughts on the election are "who cares?" We'll just get more of the same.
Strongly agree with 17:58. Classics will be hit even harder as the number of college students declines in the next 10-20 years. But the big, prestigious schools and programs won't be affected so in all likelihood nothing will change.
Sure there are problems in any large enough group of people and the new president's election doesn't prove that there are no racists in Classics, but, although it should, it won't put a dent in the excessive focus on race/racism in the field. Her rhetoric is not so much like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic but rather trying to fit as many chairs and people as possible on the Titanic. It's still going to sink and might go down faster.
Any word on the Michigan Greek job from last year? That search seemed over by January, but I never heard who was hired and there don't seem to be any new faculty on their department website.
My understanding is that they hired someone who had tenure at another institution and that person is in the process of transitioning/negotiating some details. I expect if all goes well the hire would take up the Michigan post in Fall 2020.
The Department of Classics and Religious Studies invites applications for a full-time, tenure-track Assistant Professor, to begin September 1, 2020. The new hire will teach a range of undergraduate courses—in Greek, Latin and Classical Studies—but will in particular assist in directing the department’s masters-level program for training Latin teachers and the summer Latin immersion program, the Conventiculum Bostoniense.
The successful candidate should have a demonstrated interest in language pedagogy, a readiness to oversee teaching practica, and an ability to speak Latin. The ideal candidate will have had some experience teaching at the precollegiate level.
Application review will begin November 15, 2019.
Applications should include: a cover letter, CV, and transcripts of graduate coursework; contact information for three letters of recommendation, a statement of teaching philosophy, and a sample of scholarly writing. Part of the interview will be conducted in Latin. Candidates will have the option of a Skype interview in lieu of the face-to-face interview at this year’s SCS Meeting in Washington, D.C. The position begins September 1, 2020, and the successful candidate must have earned the Ph.D. before this date.
Questions about the job may be directed to Peter Barrios-Lech at peter.lech@umb.edu.
Why are the demographics numbers so low on the wiki page? I really hope it's not going to die this year, since it was such an important source of information in the previous years...
Does anyone have experience of how much notice places have tended to give for preliminary Skype/phone call interviews, should we hope for one week or several weeks? For instance anyone who got an interview with Holy Cross might be willing to shed light on that.
My experience was about 2-3 weeks before a first round Skype interview and on the longer end if the notice included a request to submit additional materials.
In Holy Cross' "first round finalist" email, they said they would notify of interviews by October 3rd and then Skype interviews would be held the next week. They seem to be moving very quickly.
They're moving more quickly than is typical. My experience has been contact in mid-December for an early January interview, but this may have more to do with the winter recess than anything else. This year, all bets are off, toom since almost no one is interviewing at the SCS (!)
I assume they must be deciding on whom to interview soon? They have campus visit slots scheduled on their website starting November 5. I'd say if we haven't heard anything by next week, we are not getting interviews.
From the ad: "It is anticipated that two rounds of interviews will be conducted by video-conference October 15–26 and finalists’ campus visits will take place November 4–21."
Harvard has turned green on the wiki. This should imply that interviewees have been contacted, but no details have been provided. I for one would be grateful to learn the specifics behind this change in pigmentation.
Me again. Thanks for the swift update to the wiki in response to my request above. As I expected it was bad news for me, but I am glad to know it at least.
It seems to be a pretty bleak year for archaeology generally; does anyone know if there are any posts that we might expect to see advertised in the next few weeks?
It feels frustrating to be an archaeologist on the market again this year with hardly any jobs. Even more frustrating since the Harvard job also appears to be interviewing art historians, people with no or very minimal fieldwork. That department needs an archaeologist IMO, not another art historian.
It seems unlikely at pre-tenure phase, with the exception of getting a lighter teaching load in the first year or two. A decent HoD might be willing to let you design upper-level research-focused courses that will aid your research goals. Alternatively if you're an archaeologist you could develop some summer abroad program; plenty of people in SLACS do those and do less teaching during the academic year proper
Any thoughts on this? https://classicalstudies.org/node/32794
It's interesting to me that the authors suggest that other inequities within academia have "overshadowed" or obscured discussion of specifically racial inequities. That has not been my impression--in fact, I've been struck that the conversation in the field has largely moved away from issues of "adjunctification," contingency, the financial precarity of grad students and contingent faculty, the hierarchies of rank and privilege etc. Someone mentioned in the comments to last year's blog that the famous "Future of Classics Panel" included no contingent faculty members or grad students, which I thought was very striking. I think all of these inequities--racial, financial, social--are worth talking about and I'm uncomfortable with the language that seems to suggest there's a zero-sum-game where if we talk about X we're necessarily directing attention away from Y. I also wonder if it feels easier to address some kinds of disparity than others--in part because many (not all!) of the people leading these conversations are benefiting from the financial rewards and social capital of the current tenure system. Any thoughts?
Yes. Trying to limit the focus to race allows people who already have secure positions, power, and privilege to keep them without feeling guilty, and in fact allows them to be quite satisfied with themselves. You see, as long as all the tenured positions at R1 institutions are racially (and sexually) diverse, the privileged elites in those positions can pretend that all is well and go on enjoying their lives without being bothered by issues of class or giving a rat's a$$ about all the unemployed, contingent, struggling people being exploited and mistreated down the food chain. That's my thought.
The difference is that adjunctification, which we can all agree is a terrible trend, is an academia wide phenomenon that requires coordination across all disciplines (where Classics is an exceedingly small player with minimal influence).
The problem this post addresses - something particularly systemic to Classics that will eventually result in its demise, IMHO - is how skewed the discipline is towards white perspectives and concerns - the same little country club, a soft apartheid, that Trumpsters wants to perpetuate based primarily on class but secondarily on misplaced notions and stereotypes of race.
How can this be in a country that will soon be majority brown? If Classics was born from a foundation that appears to be increasingly shaky and remains resistant to reform, I don't see how anyone outside the Trump camp can stay in it. I certainly won't even as a tenured faculty member.
So totally different scenarios at play and it concerns me how persistent our blindspots remain even among young classicists (though it's not surprising as our present demographic and overall viewpoint as a whole would fit perfectly fine in a colonial or even 19th century US university).
Enough already with the race baiting. It's becoming exceedingly stale. And enough with the gleeful predictions of Classics' imminent demise— and the "revolution or burn it all down" mantra. The silly notion that Classics is some sort of stunted 19th-century "apartheid country club" is willfully ignorant hyperbole. Feminist, queer, and critical race theory have been mainstays of the discipline for DECADES now. Many prominent sub-disciplines are dominated by women, which is a good thing. Leadership positions in the SCS have mostly been filled by women in recent years, and as we know from the most recent election the Society is becoming far more racially diverse and is EMBRACING it. Classics has been changing and evolving organically since its inception and continues to do so in precisely the direction you seem to want. So please, it's not all doom and gloom and "Trumpsters" and "it needs to die." Yours is the misplaced stereotype.
And as for the implicit notion that all the new "brown" people in the country (by which I take you and others basically mean hispanics) are inherently estranged from Classics as it exists today, please note that most hispanics identity with cultures deeply rooted in ROMAN Catholicism and in Europe (especially southern Europe, you know, the MEDITERRANEAN). Latin and the Classics are a quite common part of the educational curriculum in Latin America and many universities there have thriving Classics departments. This has long boggled my mind, the complete "othering" of hispanics as if they constitute a radically different type of person who must find Classics totally alien. Another bad stereotype. Believe me, most "hispanics" don't think of themselves as "brown" others who have nothing in common with us "white" people; we blend, basically have the same culture, and don't think of ourselves as being radically different (in the way a lot of cloistered academics do). And we hardly ever think about being different "races" (at least in my experience).
So, I may have taken the bait, but I hope it helps you see things more clearly and accurately.
Classics is less diverse than the supreme court. Think about how whacked this is. It has retained its core colonial/19th century perspective as pointed out above yet is not a direct player anymore but reliant on those in power who still believe in our fading perspective. We're not even one of the Trump kids. We're like the Trump kids' pet goldfish.
Why do you come on here and make inflammatory pronouncements like this? Have you done the math? The court has six men and three women, so Classics is far more sexually diverse than the court. Five of the Justices are Catholic, three are Jewish, and one isn't sure whether he's a Catholic or an Episcopalian; so again, religiously, the court is probably less diverse than Classics. Two Justices are children of immigrants: Alito's parents came to the US from Italy and Ginsberg's mother came from Russia. Seven are white, one is African American, and one is a Latina from Spanish-colonized Puerto Rico (I'll leave it to you to decide why her particular ethnicity is constantly being singled out while Alito's/ Scalia's is not; Puerto Rico is 75% white). There are many, many Classicists in America from Greece, Italy, Spain, etc. who are culturally and "ethnically" closer to Sotomayor than to your average Anglo-American. There are no Asians on the court, but there are plenty of people of Asian descent in Classics, so on that front Classics is more diverse. I don't like nit-picking people's ethnic identities because it's gross and the issue is far more complicated than you and others here (who see everything in a simple and quite arbitrary white/not white binary) want to admit. Like 19:20 said, it's not all doom and gloom. Classics today, with its incorporation of archaeology, anthropology, race/gender theory, etc. in no way resembles that good old 19th century philology, so stop disingenuously pretending that it does just to score cheap political points against it. You're ding yourself and everyone else a disservice.
Also, (10:17 below) what is "white area studies"? That pops up here from time to time, probably from the same person, and it's never made sense to me. Is it something you just made up? You know, in the 19th and early 20th centuries when Classics was born the English and the Americans (and even the Australians) didn't consider Mediterranean people to be "white." European area studies might be a better term for what your'e trying to say. Or not, you might just be an ideologically motivated grifter, I don't know. But please explain what you mean. Is English history white area studies also?
The supreme court is the upper echelon of law. Look at the classics officers, board member, etc, or even senior faculty members in top departments, hell any institution (as was recently recounted, a black classicist couldn't even land a high school gig - but this is "merit" right?). Yes, many classics departments have substantial percentages of Asians (and sometimes African-Americans and Latinos). Yet you look at the faculty ranks and it's virtually nada. I can count on my hands the number of faculty members of color in classics departments. I'm not even talking tenured for F's sake!
Can't dispute the numbers. Not saying the vast majority of us are racist (but look at the past SCS and recent insider view of Paideia - yikes, not a good looks guys!). Certainly something is hardwired in the discipline that obviously makes it advantageous to be white and male (perhaps less so now with the latter). I doubt it's simply interest or abilities (or we can find the answers by "just asking them" as suggested by the one ridiculous poster who pops up here).
It's 100% interest. Maybe 98% I know we are supposed to pretend that we don't know this and that the answer to the mystery must surely be found in the exquisite matrices of structural oppression, but it's really a lack of interest. Sorry folks. Classics is not a sexy field and is hardly attractive to anyone anymore. If a majority of the people who are interested happen to be from certain groups for obvious reasons, so be it. It's an eccentric field the attracts eccentrics. Every department in the country is falling over itself to attract and retain more diverse people. If you still think that there are dark forces at work actively keeping historically underrepresented people out, then you are totally blinkered by dogma, because the exact opposite is true. It's great that we are actively trying to diversify, and I think we are making headway, but honestly I don't understand why this one issue generates so much hysteria and has come to completely dominate the conversation and our priorities as a profession.
How can our students be half POC in some cases yet our faculty ranks are 99.99% white b/c of interest. That's a terrible attrition rate any way you slice it. I'm a Latina from a history department that went to a Big 10 meeting to discuss "decolonization" or whatever you want to call it. Every other discipline had POC representing them in some form - English, Jewish Studies, heck even Medieval Studies. Classics somehow trots out the stiffest, whitest of white reps like they just flew in on a Zeppelin from the Reichstag. WTF, people? I thought History had problems but judging by the posts on here having problems would be an improvement for Classics.
"...the stiffest, whitest of white reps like they just flew in on a Zeppelin from the Reichstag." Imagine talking that way about colleagues of any other race or ethnicity. Your comment is inappropriate and counterproductive. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and not identify a far more insidious subtext in your statement that might occur to some readers. If half of Classics students are POC in some places now (and weren't before) then we can expect far more diversity among faculty in the future. Great, I'm all for it. That's how things have been working.
But if there is a discipline that is mostly "white" American/European, especially one as tiny and weird as Classics, why does that bother some people so much? Especially at a time when the field is actively diversifying itself and trying to gin up interest among groups of people who haven't really been all that interested before? I mean bother people to the point of declaring a national emergency over it? If Classics had the import and impact of a major STEM field or even History, then yeah, it's something to be concerned about, because American universities really are global institutions now. But Classics is a very small and increasingly marginal discipline that hardly matters outside of Europe and the Anglosphere. Gender studies departments are overwhelmingly peopled by women, African-American Studies departments by African Americans...you get the point. Why is everyone freaking out about Classics? It's not like it's a huge industry with lucrative jobs on offer that are going to lift people up, or even a discipline of global importance.
And it's not diversity for the sake of diversity. The fact remains that the ancient Mediterranean was a dynamic cultural phenomenon and we've chosen to make it white area studies. So be it but it's difficult to justify programs let alone stand alone departments with this approach. It's not a great mystery why we're getting shut down. People who look at the supreme court with great suspicion if it had remained all white with a couple XX chromosomes thrown in (continuing the previous analogy). I'm just surprised why we're so surprised that society as a whole doesn't want to support white area studies.
Perhaps now white area studies but white-centric or white perspective studies of the ancient Mediterranean. It's what it is due to its historical roots and why white supremacists still leverage it for their dogma with ease. It fundamentally can't change when the people driving the ship have no other perspectives to lean upon.
If you're not sitting at the table, you're on the menu. Someone should write a book. Classics: serving up the marginalized from the Enlightenment to 45
What does that even mean? I thought the complaint was that Classics has till now been too obsessed with elite white men in Athens and Rome and has unjustly ignored the marginalized. Or are your so mesmerized by your own dogma that you think what you said makes sense?
Speaking as an individual who just happens to be a poc of Classics (but makes no pretense to be representative of ALL poc in Classics), I am PERSONALLY much more concerned about contingency and underemployment in academia than I am about structural racism. Why? The latter is getting (slowly, incrementally) better and the former is getting (swiftly, drastically) worse. And, as I am finishing my PhD this year, my own looming un/underemployment feels a lot more threatening in terms of just, how will I eat? Where will I live? etc.
I'm also not sure why the SCS bloggers (or 12:49 above, for that matter) seem to think these are mutually exclusive concerns and one can drown out the other. I much more agree with (what I take to be) 9:32's point that racial and social inequity are very much entertwined. Especially given that women of color are so disproportionately represented among contingent fac and so unrepresented among tenured/full profs. Just my two cents.
To make more positions, you grow the field by making it more inclusive of wider experiences from both the past and present. Instead, the field is shrinking as we stubbornly hold on to a 19th century perspective and what this status quo has ensured is that the few jobs that exist are given to our society's historically privileged. D-E-A-T-H S-P-I-R-A-L
While it's irresponsible for anyone to encourage students to enter the field, it's especially irresponsible of the well-intentioned to recruit POC who will get chewed up by a system that hasn't substantively changed in centuries.
What in the actual fuck. This person didn't agree with you? Didn't say what you expected your imaginary token POC to say? And your response is to devalue their experience and question their identity by suggesting they don’t have the right "credentials"? Hate to break it to you, but imagining that you can divine someone’s race from their opinions isn't even “soft" racism, that's just racism.
Clearly POC in Classics who aren't totally aligned with the small and vocal swathe of the discipline who want to "burn it all down" don't exist or whatever. Hot takes like yours reveal that the people who spend their days vilifying the entire field are both disingenuous and lightweight in the mind.
Post-PhD adjunct here, currently teaching a 4-4. I loved teaching while in grad school, and still find parts of it rewarding/thrilling/totally *affirming*. And, since I basically have no life beyond work and my cat, I am able to work sporadically but productively (hello Saturday and Sunday day) on my research. Not to mention the spare moments I grab during the week to keep me sane after dumb-ing down the content so much to appease the aggressively apathetic undergrads who find themselves stuck in the big GE lectures I've been hired to teach...
Ok, ok, anyway: my point is that a) I'm pessimistic about getting a TT job next year (are-rent we all...) and b) I really want a break from teaching. What do people think about the TLL fellowship? Like, would it be viewed as a mark of shame on my future TT job applications? Would it be seen as something for which I'm now overqualified? Or, am I...the perfect sort of person for it?
And then, how should I pitch myself to get it? Whose, ahem, dick should I aim to suck?
Won't hurt to seek advice on how best to do the act, too; perhaps consult certain individuals in the discipline who are very active on Twitter. They've got very big mouths well-suited to such tasks.
One thing about the TLL fellowship is that it's a full-time job. They expect you to be producing content for them, so you won't have a lot of time for your "own" research.
I honestly don't understand this attitude. If you and others hate it so and want it to die then go away. Why are you even here? Shoo, go away. Go do something else instead of wishing death on your own discipline like a psychopath. What is wrong with you people? Are you all masochists? If Classics is so depressing and a source of anguish then just leave instead whining like a demented baby.
When schools ask for or allow only three letters, is it better/preferable to include one from someone not on your dissertation committee but who is more familiar with your teaching? Not sure if letter addressing teaching is necessary for TT positions (as opposed to VAPs).
Suggestions from individuals with experience on search committees?. Thanks.
It is generally best to have a range of perspectives in your letters of recommendation, and especially for any position that involves teaching (TT or VAP) to have one that speaks directly to your merits as a teacher.
It seems to me that teaching matters for a TT position, so why shouldn't you include a letter that addresses it? Though I have a similar problem to yours: I've been hearing different things about the ratio of the research/teaching portions in the cover letter for TT positions. Some say that I should give equal attention to both, some say that only one paragraph of teaching approach suffices. Any thoughts?
It depends on the type of school. R1s: a paragraph will suffice usually, esp. if they also want a teaching statement; more on research, incl. "next project". SLACs/LACs: two paragraphs on teaching, nothing on the "next project" unless really relevant. R[somethings]: 1-2 paras on teaching, some mention of "next project".
I agree overall but unless the position is a 1-year adjunct/VAP position and the job ad doesn't mention research then even a SLAC is probably going to want to hear about your research/next project.
One thing I'd add; if you have more letters available than the school requires, you might consider e-mailing the head of search and asking if you could send a supplementary letter with a greater focus on teaching? The answer will sometimes be no (in which case this thread is full of useful advice), but many schools won't object to receiving a fourth.
(9:54 here) Say you revise and publish your dissertation as a monograph. The 'next project' is the book you would do after. It's obviously far in the future but it shows a clear research trajectory beyond the dissertation.
A reminder: defamatory and discriminatory statements about other scholars (even the SCS President), such as racial stereotypes, will not be tolerated in this space. Complain if you want to, but we do not mind censoring speech of that kind. There are better ways to discuss the challenges confronting our discipline at the current time. Adhere to some modicum of civility and decency if you want to participate in discussions here. We have the power of deletion and are not afraid to use it.
I love that it is so important to delete comments about well-known faculty who make it their business to be in the public eye, but a commenter above can imply that white faculty are Nazis. Way to improve the dialogue. This blog deserves to die; it doesn't provide any benefit to people applying to jobs and only serves to discourage them.
You know, I've always prided myself on being a good liberal who stands by what i think are solid principles, principles that have led to real progress over the last half century or so, but all of this new race-baiting and juvenile white-men-bad frenzy is really getting tiresome. It was cute at first, and maybe a little fun, but it's getting us nowhere and maybe causing more harm than good. You can only poke a tiger, even a tame one, so much before it rears up and claws your face off.
Have people been making defamatory remarks about our president and/or racist statements and you are just deleting them so fast I haven't seen them? Because I haven't seen them. That one dork made the old Wokescold reference, but that's the only defamatory thing I've seen that includes names.
Someone (sarcastically, it seems) replied to the person making the Wokescold remark that they would be reported to the SCS President-Elect who would then throw hot grits on the person who made the Wokescold remark. I imagine this was a rather obscure reference to the soul singer Al Green having hot grits thrown on him by his jilted mistress. It was deleted pretty quickly.
There were references to "hot sauce" and "shrimp and grits". If that's not a reference to the race of the current SCS President, then I don't know what is...
The thing is that one doesn't even need to resort to inane racist tropes to criticize the President-Elect. One look at the information available (I am unable to find a CV which to me is always suspect) about her output as a scholar shows that this is someone who has been in the field for something like four decades and produced very little. It doesn't appear that she has ever published a book and most of her publications are either in obscure edited volumes that are only marginally within the realm of Classics scholarship. There are a few articles from decades ago in some of the discipline standard journals and that's it. It looks like another case of someone who came to the field at a time when the standards were much, much more lax, and one wonders if such a person is the kind of leader, however nominal, that is needed right now.
There are other reasons why scholars become full Professors and establish a reputation worthy of them being elected SCS President. Putting aside the unique perspective she brings in terms of diversity, she is also known as a tremendous teacher at a SLAC, an outreach officer, and works with school curricula, too. These are highly valuable traits. Not every SCS President needs to be an Ivy-R1 superstar, who pumps out the books, year in, year out. Evidently she cares about the field in ways that the field could use some care. Arguably, the people who are most productive are the least attentive to the discipline and its challenges by virtue of having the institutional resources that partly enable them to be so productive (reduced teaching load, libraries, sabbaticals, prestige that brings research grants more readily, etc.).
Spot on, 10:43. This is why Classics will never change. Even the well-intentioned have major blind spots with all kinds of subtle privileged outlooks calibrated into the baseline resulting in the field and its participants look the way it does. Rinse and repeat until the field goes the way of the dodo.
"kind of leader...needed right now"? lol. What does the leadership of the SCS even do nowadays other than issue impotent statements endorsing a variety of careers for Classics Ph.D.s or constantly remind the world how against racism it is. I suppose they organize the annual meeting, but even that is becoming obsolete as more and more interviews are being conducted via Skype and most of the papers are self-indulgent twaddle or political activism disguised as scholarship (I may sympathize with most of your positions but I'd much rather hear what new thoughts you have about Seneca or Empedocles than hear you preach to the choir about immigration). Oh, and I suppose they keep chartering new ever more esoteric and redundant affiliated groups (Multiculturalism, Race & Ethnicity in Classics Consortium; Eos: Africana Receptions of Ancient Greece and Rome; Women's Classical Caucus; Lambda Classical Caucus; Asian and Asian American Classical Caucus; Mountaintop Coalition; Classics and Social Justice—but aren't they all basically that?) They also run a blog/ twitter feed that is embarrassingly preoccupied with pop culture and reads like an undergraduate classics club project. So, as 10:43 said, I do hope the new president, with her vast experience as a teacher and outreach officer, will start addressing real issues that the bored Ivy-R1's have neglected lately in favor of their own rarefied vanity projects.
Oh (11:50 here) so you are deleting them as soon as they go up. Good. Sad that this is necessary. I would be very surprised if the person making these posts (it has to be the same person) is even an active member of field, because it's just so unseemly. On the other hand, I hope it's not a twisted member of the burn it all down brigade trying to prove to the world that Classics is a hotbed of racism (because I don't believe that it is).
I agree with both your posts. Whoever is doing it, it's just trolling by someone not interested in having a discussion.
That said, I appreciate the moderator(s) showing restraint and leaving up all other posts, no matter how contentious. I haven't noticed anything else taken down except for the racial comments (and I don't think they could be taken any other way) which obviously have to go. I'm less sure about removing posts that name members of the field, but these posts do seem unfair given the general anonymity of the blog which doesn't allow one to face one's accuser, so to speak. Fears of mass censorship were clearly exaggerated as another way of causing trouble.
Burn it all down? Rome is already burning and those who can have absconded with what few positions exist. Time to move on folks...nothing to see or save here but amdering ruins.
Perhaps a slightly broader perspective here. Globally there are more people studying the ancient world than at time since Classical Studies as we now know it emerged in the education system (as distinct from just Greek and Latin language). There are also more people teaching Classics in higher education than ever. It is not irrelevant or dying. However, it is under constant and increasing pressure and like similar subjects needs to adapt and certainly be more open to change from administrators and from within via issues of inclusivity. It is true that in the US many departments will and have been subsumed into other larger units. Saying that the biggest problem is simple math; this popularity means we have an exponentially larger number of people with PhDs competing for what have always been a limited pool of jobs anyway - this is what is feeding this angst and bitterness among some here. There was never a 'Golden Age' in the job market when everyone got jobs and with more and more people getting PhDs and fighting it out for the 50-odd jobs that pop up each year it's not going to get better.
There was never a golden age but it doesn't help that the people in charge still act like it's the 60s. Sorry, the Saturday Evening Post and Howdy Doody aren't coming back. It's like Mad Men or worse hearing all the stories of old classicists abusing their positions and being so jaded to the point of not giving a rat's ass, decades past their prime and total dead weight. It's basically the minority who care and the flock of naive young uns keeping the sad state of affairs alive. It's terrible and to say it's just like old times is obtuse at best.
It's like every terrible, cliche survivor show, but it's reality for us. Instead of zombies, getting marooned, or some apocalyptic disaster, it's the classics field. Anyone who tries to pursue classics as a profession should get their head examined (or be fabulously wealthy with nothing else to do).
Test your Internet connection ahead of time! I can't stress that enough. 50% of my Skype interviews had technical problems (some on my side, some on the other) and you don't need that stress on top of the regular interview freak out. Also, if you are using a laptop, make sure that it's positioned a little higher than usual - you don't want to slump and you don't want to literally look down on the committee. The lighting is also something to consider, especially if you have a bright window behind your back (not recommended). Lastly, from my experience, introductions are always more awkward on Skype and no, I don't know how to stop being awkward. Good luck!!!
I second the connection issue. You and many others may well be more adept at this, but I've been told by tech people in my university to use a wired connection if possible, wifi strength tends to vary from minute to minute and can impact a video/skype call, apparently this is true even if the wired connection has a lower megabyte per second rate than wifi can offer. Also, test what you're wearing on a Skype call with a friend in advance - some clothing patterns show up as odd on computer monitors etc.
I have found that it is helpful to prop one's laptop up, usually on a stack of books, to what appears to be an absurd height in order to look directly into the camera. Additionally, think carefully about your background -- the committee will be looking at it the entire time. Finally, if you have a dog, you might want to consider not doing the interview at home, so that the dog doesn't try to participate.
I am in my 8th year of graduate study (2 for MA; 6th in PhD) and was planning to finish this year. My advisor has just suggested I consider holding off for another year to make the diss more polished and attractive to publishers. My question is: do search committees consider time to degree? I've got one article accepted and several conference papers but am afraid that too many years in grad school will reflect negatively in application process.
If you're being offered an opportunity to stay in your PhD program to polish your work and keep building your CV, take full advantage of it. I finished fairly quickly because my program told us that we had to do so, but I've never actually seen them terminate someone's funding. I have, however, seen others drag their feet and end up in a much better position because of it. I'd much rather have had another year (or two!) teaching one course per semester to work on whatever I want. If you finish now, sure you might get lucky and find something great right out; if you don't, though, your new alternatives (likely teaching 4-4 somewhere, probably with new preps, new technology to learn, a new academic and social culture, etc.) are terrible for productivity.
Quick question: did you do your MA and PhD at different institutions? 7 years in a PhD program is very common (especially if you have the funding for it) and I would think committees might view that differently than 9, although I'm not certain. Personal Bias Note: I took seven myself, and I don't think anyone penalized me for dawdling.
You absolutely do not want to leave the safety of your graduate program any sooner than necessary! You can put that time to good use. It is much easier to write an article or conference paper during the 7th year of grad school than it is while a) teaching three new courses per semester in a VAP, or b) bagging groceries. Take full advantage of this! Whatever drawbacks there may be will be far outweighed by the advantages. As other posters have noted, a 7-year-PhD is not uncommon these days (mine took that long).
I doubt committees will care about time to degree. It's impossible to predict a committee's reaction, and this may even have been a concern for committees 15 or 20 years ago. If that's true, then older committee members may cling to this as a concern. It's my opinion that a long time to degree connotes something different now. In a time of universal budget tightening, it demonstrates belief in the student and the project. A friend of mine (different field) from a well-funded program has been on the market every year for the last four years, from the moment when he could make an argument for being finished until two years ago, when he actually felt he had a more polished final product. The idea was to keep him in the program until he landed a job or was truly ready to submit his monograph. If your program isn't pushing you out the door, polish that monograph.
Though, I'd say, don't expect to be able to publish your dissertation faster thanks to that. As far as I've been told by multiple editors, they want us to leave the comfort of grad school first and get some experience. It really is making a difference in my case (but I haven't published my dissertation yet).
I am just now publishing a book based on a dissertation that my adviser assured me was 'book ready' when I first submitted it -- almost six years ago. What I am publishing now is far better than the dissertation, even though large parts of the dissertations are included without significant changes. It simply took me several years (while I was simultaneously on the job market) to find the right publisher -- in this case a series with a relevant focus. Many editors simply balked at the word 'dissertation,' and it was only after a few years of publishing and presenting on this topic that I found a way to discuss the material that appealed to them. In fact, the first year out of grad school I didn't work on it at all, which was actually quite beneficial to the project! And an extra year in school wouldn't have mattered one way or another.
As a senior researching sort of bloke, I'll add that no matter how good you are, your dissertation-based book will not be as good as it should have been if you rush to publish it your first few years out.
I've seen TT postings into November and even occasionally December (though the latter typically when something unusual happened, e.g. a death in the department). There may be some more postings, so don't give up hope yet!
Speaking of discrimination, aren't job postings that seek proof of a commitment to diversity in fact discriminatory against those too junior to have had the opportunity to have done something noteworthy in this regard? Look at the language in the Colby College posting, for example: "...a teaching dossier (including course evaluations where possible and a statement of teaching philosophy documenting a commitment to the value of diversity, and experience with inclusive teaching)..." I'd think the number of recent PhD's on the market who have had a chance to engage in "inclusive teaching" (whatever that even means) must be quite small. So won't these searches be skewing towards people with several years of experience?
A) The Colby ad is specifically looking for an ADVANCED assistant professor, which means they are seeking to hire someone with more experience than most recent PhD's, i.e. "with several years of experience."
B) This is one of the dumbest comments I have ever seen on here, and that's saying something. It's discriminatory to seek people with more experience....or more publications....or more QUALIFICATIONS FOR THE POSITION?
C) If you have any experience with teaching, it is possible to have experience with inclusive teaching. The fact that you must qualify inclusive teaching with scare quotes and "whatever that means" suggests that you have never even thought about how your teaching (whatever your experiences...as a grad student TA....as a grad student primary instructor....as anything) might be inclusive, might take into account your students' diverse experiences, goals, interests, skills, etc....and therefore clarifies that you are definitely not what the ad is looking for. So don't bother writing a statement for it! Some problems solve themselves.
Yeah, it's in your face dumb but as we see today in politics, the more insidious stupidity is the subtle underlying one undergirding our society. Is this really any dumber than thinking it's discriminatory against white males to try to level the playing field by being overtly conscious of implicit biases? Sorry but "give me job while I still have these privileges and then we'll solve it" is not a good answer.
A very quick and dirty count of this year's tt positions compared to last year suggests that it is actually very thin this year. 50+ this year vs. 80+ last year. Some of last year's are of course job ads that turned up later in the season, but still, that looks like a significant drop in tt positions.
Ok, but I just went back to October 15th of last year on the wiki (using history/compare versions), and counted what was out on that day last year: it was actually only 40+ tt positions. (This surprised me, to be honest.)
6:20 here-- yeah, I am also feeling crushed by this year, and so I felt like I had to confirm this before I freaked out the current situation more than I already have.
Is anyone weeping into their oatmeal? Know that if you are that it's helping my student banish any foolish thoughts about a future profession in the field. But, but, all the boomers will finally die and jobs will appear like manna from heaven...the false mantra of classics since 2000...
Some of us are amused that the University in question *still* hasn't managed to figure out what has gone on here, and so is *still* investigating to get the facts straight. This has been going on at least since 2010. At least... Serious archaeologists at tier 2 through tier 5 institutions want heads to roll. Meanwhile, established academic at Prestigious Tier 1 Institution keeps on keepin' on.
Don't you.... go to prison for doing something like this? I get the issue about the university, but aren't there going to be even much more significant consequences?
Not if you're a white dude. You get every benefit of the doubt and then some. That's what so many are trying to protect now through xenophobia, malice, and misinformation.
"Not if you're a white dude. You get every benefit of the doubt and then some." And not if you're Jussie Smollet. Or Nathan Phillips. Or Julie Swetnick. You get every benefit of the doubt and then some. Sad. Also sad that Blasey Ford's best friend Leland Keyser, whom she originally named as a witness, not only denies having any knowledge of the party in question but has lately gone on record saying that she doesn't believe Ford's story at all because none of it squares with what she knows of Ford and those times. Ford's own father has also stated that he doesn't believe her. Sad. But those ideologically tinged black and white glasses allow you to see reality the way your theories tell you it ought to be, and that must be comforting for you.
At least it's not a pedo this time, or someone providing material support to a terrorist organization. WTF Classics? Did Dirk need the money to support a nasty coke habit or did he just do it for the thrill? Why do so many well placed academics think they are above morality and above the law?
To the person who corrected my 'correction' to the New School job ad on the Wiki: my apologies! I was the one who didn't read the ad closely enough. As you rightly pointed out, the position clearly IS temporary.
What do people think about "advanced assistant professor" positions? People were grumbling about Colby College, but last year Davidson College hired an ABD who is still even now ABD (at instructor rank according to their website), even though they advertised for an "advanced" assistant prof.... anything goes, I guess?
Happens more often than you think. Departments are attracted to someone coming in hitting the ground running but then self preservation and interest factors in. Put another way, departments go in wanting an experienced Ravenclaw or Gryffindor but often come out with a wet behind the ears Hufflepuff that seems safe and controllable.
Makes sense. But on the other hand, it infuriates me, as someone who scrambled to finish their dissertation in time and did so, even with kids and a dying parent, that someone who failed to do so could still get -- keep? -- a TT job. JUST SAYING!
Imagine how the person with two books and five years into Vapping feels. I thought it was just about being shiny and new but I realize now it's that each SC member is doing the math in their head about how each hire affects them and hardly cares about the program or discipline. It's also a totally crap shoot done on the fly. I explained to my parents it's like adopting a stray from a shelter - chaotic, overwhelming, and done at the moment.
As human beings, we crave empathy and familiarity. So ditch the nose earring and cover up gaudy tattoos. There is a prevailing cultural norm in the discipline and it would behoove you to match it as much as possible. Like begets like whether we like it or not and classics is very one note this way. This is the big boy/girl pants reality that the Prof Is In and grad school advisors either can't or won't teach you. If you're a visible ethnic/cultural minority or deviate from this cultural norm enough, you're screwed, I'm sorry to say. The margin is too small and the deck is stacked against you unless your pedigree, connections, "classicalness" can make up for it.
Princeton has a habit of pushing for people to get jobs and getting them, but then their candidates don't defend for another year. Annoying as hell for the rest of us. Just wait another year, alright? Give us "less connected" beings a fighting chance.
It's not just the particular name brand and the connections that are a precious part of its culture. It's the persona you exude, which your typical Princetonian has it in spades regardless of the specific institutional affiliation. I imagine this is a big part of the "19th century" descriptor for the discipline that's periodically brought up here.
Instead of complaining about people who work hard and get jobs, even as ABD, why not support one another? Why should qualified people "hold off" applying to give *you* a chance? If you don't get the job, one or two more people applying will not make a difference. That is great you have 100 books or decided to have 20 children, but that is your choice. If everyone stayed in their own lane and was a bit more compassionate and supportive this whole process might be less horrid (especially 08:09AM and 11:09AM).
That's precisely their point, 12:04: these people did NOT work as hard as them. I tend to agree with them... If you get a job, you finish the PhD. You don't diddle daddle around. If you can't get it done, it should go to someone who has. What exactly is "staying in one's lane", by the way? It seems that ABDs are not staying in their "lane" in the above poster's complaint.
I've found that those urging for the status quo and "merit" strongest, especially in the opaque humanities, are those who have the deck stacked egregiously in their favor.
Is it any worse than the Trump kids calling out Biden's son with zero sense of irony? In their minds somehow they have earned their positions and Biden did not. I see way too much of the same in Classics and academia as a whole.
Thank you, 12:04! Policing other people's completion time and hiring decisions is not going to help anyone get a job. And 15:02, I think it also helps to remember that there are factors involved in finishing and defending a dissertation that are beyond the candidate's control (response time of the supervisory committee, in particular, which sometimes goes up when the candidate is no longer physically present).
Just added a 2 year and 8 month post in Ancient History at King's College London to the Wiki. The deadline is very soon, 21 October. However, applicants only need to complete the application, LOR not required at time of application (just contact details) so a quick application is possible in such a short time frame. Mixed post sadly, 0.5 pro rata, but it does start Jan 2020, for anyone out of work it might be worth a shot
Just received an email from the SCS with a survey on whether the SCS should continue to host interviews at the annual meeting. I had no idea they were considering changing this. In my case, I have found that interviews go much better, and I'm much more comfortable, in person. Video interviews introduce a lot of extraneous factors over which the candidate has no control (will you be able to see everyone? hear everyone? is your face on a gigantic screen looming over everyone or a tiny monitor everyone has to squint at? what program does the institution use? if it's Skype, will the connection fail every five minutes for the entire interview [as has happened to me not once but twice]. etc.) But this seems to be the new direction of things.
I feel you. My first TT interview was on Skype and it lagged so terribly that I had no idea who was speaking and when they were done talking. It was so painful. Of course they were not interested in seeing me again. But from the other point of view, it seems that Skype interviews are more democratic and an equal opportunity. Many people cannot afford or cannot go to the SCS (children, finances, medical conditions). Though, to be honest, when I was in such situation, the committees were really accommodating and offered Skype instead of in person meetings. All in all, I'm very conflicted on the matter.
Video should be a no brainer. Finances for all involved, carbon footprint, level playing field, etc. What might help is a list of guidelines/tips for both parties - platforms to use, minimum computer specs for those platforms, mic recommendations, etc. As far as I'm concerned, the more level the playing field, all the better for classics. We need it more than most.
Seriously? You're willing to let a hiring decision that has the potential to lift or sink a department over as many as 3+ decades be affected by the relatively trivial amount of emissions that would be produced by a few interviewers and interviewees going to a conference they would not otherwise attend? Because there is a better chance of an informed decision from an in-person interview than one done over Skype, for a host of reasons.
This is so overplayed. You're not gonna learn anything in person vs video that will make or break your final choice. If anything it weeds out unfair influences that typically favor those with extra resources that help one get the job but have very weak correlations with job performance. Studies show that in person interviews greatly favor white males due to cultural norms and expectations fed to us from birth and by the inundation of media. Every other profession with much greater stakes such as medicine to astronaut interviews use video until later stages. Why the F is classics different? If anything, classics shouldn't even be allowed to see the names of candidates during early phases as it's so terrible with cultural biases that have no bearing on job performance. It's just about the worst.
Have you ever stopped to consider how strange it is that, despite being a message board for the Classics job market and Classics issues generally, "white men" and "Trump" pop up in just about every other post. You people sound like the Breitbart comments section, where half the posters seem incapable of expressing a thought without mentioning Jesus or poo-pooing Obama (except in your case the big metaphysical baddie that plagues the world is the cis-gendered heterosexual white man-even the new lingo sounds cultish-who magically emits rays of oppression that pollute people's very souls with sin...I mean implicit bias).
Nevertheless, 04:39 has a good point. Other professions do hide the names of applicants at the CV stage, but bring people to the office/campus for all interviews. It would be nice to hide the name of the Ph.D. granting institution as well so SCs would be forced to judge first round candidates on accomplishments alone instead of pedigree.
If interviews go digital and the SCS stops monopolizing the process then I suspect membership would plummet. I mean, how many of you would go to the sh!t$how if you didn't have to? The regional associations have better meetings with more interesting papers and sessions anyway.
It's feels insulting but we do have the worst track record and how many disciplines have become the blunt tool of white supremacists? If we need paint-by-numbers cultural sensitivity instructions to get us recalibrated, so be it.
One major difference between one's name and institutional affiliation is that theoretically, especially at the graduate level, the former is assigned and the latter is achieved (to some degree).
And studies bear this out. Researchers submitted resumes to the same job where the only substantive difference was names. Overwhelmingly the "exotic" names as judged by white standards were passed over to the point of being comical. What I mean by exotic by white standards is the fact that names that are objectively strange (e.g. Cumberbatch, Hornblower) were put through while the Anfernee Smiths and Anthony Ngyuens were not.
I'd be careful with those kinds of studies. The famous blind orchestra audition study just bit the dust. The following article also shows such resume studies as you reference hardly produce the clear evidence you suggest they do.
So look at our results. POC have made up a good chunk of our majors (half or more in many cases in places like CA) yet they make up less than 1% of our faculty decades into the phenomenon. Look at photos of elite Classics departments and their field trips to Italy and Greece - tons of POC and I'm not just talking brochure covers. The system is broken and Classics is the worst.
Before someone trots out the ole African-American Studies programs are all black: 1. are we really going there after all the talk of Classics isn't white area studies; 2. they are not as you can clearly see with half the faculty at Harvard - https://aaas.fas.harvard.edu/people/faculty?page=1. And just for kicks, let's look at their classics faculty! https://classics.fas.harvard.edu/people/people-role/classics-faculty
These other points re. anonymity are all important, however, we should all make sure to reply to the SCS survey supporting the move to video/skype/zoom interviews. It has at least two benefits, one like Holy Cross and Harvard right now of speeding up the process of making appointments, which is good for everyone involved - we all hate waiting around in December for notification or not of interviews at the Annual Meeting. Secondly, not only does the interview environment sour the conference, it's become way too expensive to go to overall, in some cases you're looking at 1,000 bucks, which isn't easy to find after the holiday period for a lot of us or at any time of year for that matter.
Because the spacetime continuum is racist. It's certainly ableist, since it privileges being over nothingness, and we all know how the laws of intersectionality work... #existentialcrisis
Given the general reproducibility crisis in a lot of social science, it wouldn't be startling if the audition study "bit the dust," but the article 9:57 links to offers--at best--one statistician who doesn't like it and one study that may show different results in a very different context. Also, both Reason itself and the authorities cited in the article (with the possible exception of the statistician) are essentially political actors, not scientific ones, so I'm not sure I'd even take those two arguments at face value.
I'm not sure if I support a move to videoconference interviews or not, but I don't think "speeding up the process" is necessarily a good thing. Having early deadlines/interviews seems a way of jumping the gun, so a school can grab the most desirable candidate before they have any competition. Perhaps not an issue many of us will have to face, but I know of two people in the past few years who were forced to accept their "second choice" school's offer because their first choice had not yet scheduled/held campus visits and the candidates couldn't afford to let a tenure-track offer slip away. I support changes that give more options to job-seekers, rather than concentrating even more power in the hands of committees.
Great points, 15:09. I suppose bias deniers are our equivalent of those choosing to ignore all the climate data. At least in the latter case people need to contend with Koch type money doing everything to obfuscate matters. Not sure what motivates the former.
The "social sciences" are pseudo-science and all of the critical "theories" out there are cultish nonsense on par with Scientology. We've known this for decades now, but because they are politicly useful lots of people pretend that they are true.
16:46, what motivates our bias deniers despite our faculty being 99% white and totally unreflective of our student demographics? I imagine the same that motivates and forms the world view of the Trump kids. If push comes to shove when presenting reality and the facts, I imagine that's how cries of reverse discrimination eventually become claims of lynching. What ails classics? The same shitshow we're seeing in Washington if to a lesser degree. Doesn't make me feel any better about choosing this profession (and I'm as Anglo-Saxon and male as can be).
I have experience on both sides of the proverbial interview desk. Even though I find it much easier as an interviewer to interact in person, I do feel strongly about the equity factor of doing first-rounds by videoconference. Inequalities will, however, persist: in a perfect world, all candidates would have similar access to good connections, equipment, and spaces--and, more importantly, to good mentoring towards best practices in online meeting situations. I would hope that savvy graduate programs are already checking on folks' tech experience and working to coach Skype-appropriate behaviors as needed (ABDs, do you find this to be the case?)--but then there are the candidates who for many reasons might not have access to that degree of care. I would like to see the SCS dedicate some positive attention to these issues as it considers transitioning the placement service away from the in-person format.
What impact will a shift to video/Skype interviews have on SCS membership, or on the placement service? Institutions may continue to advertise via the SCS, but surely the SCS will not be able to dictate that they interview only SCS members.
Perhaps the annual meeting will become much more pleasant now that a dark pall won't be cast over the entire affair, which will allow the SCS to build membership the old fashioned way through interest and comaraderie rather than a metaphorical pipe wrench.
Did anybody apply to St. Mary's and not get the self-ID form request today? Trying to figure out if I'm longlisted or they just forgot to ask for this at stage 1.
I applied to St Mary's and got the form today. I am not sure if my referees were contacted (nobody told me). Not sure if form went only to select candidates.
Interesting to see that UCLA has Greg Woolf as one of its finalists... who knows who the others are? Will they finally land a Prof who actually wants to go there? Or, in the face of yet another failed search, will they open it up to junior folks?
From what I've heard: yes, they have run this search at least twice before, only to have their top candidate not come (used as some type of leverage at their home institution I suspect...).
It's no secret, but David Potter (one who, as many know, always sees greener grass elsewhere) from Michigan took the job last year. After realizing just how prohibitively expensive it is to live in Los Angeles, at least how he deems he ought to, he flaked out.
Add to things that the first year (two years ago) that UCLA ran this search, the SC was a shit-show. For year-one, Clifford Ando was a finalist as was the late Garrett Fagan. No secret was made of this and no secret made that the SC was openly hostile to one another and towards candidates. The Dept, during year-one, was extremely angry that Mellor received the named Chair. A lot of toxicity in the Dept, for a lot of reasons. As such, the first year was a horrible failure.
Year two went better, but Potter is, well, he's Potter. For those that know him, that's all you need to know.
One can hope that for year three, they can get their shit together at UCLA
It's important to point out that "the department" with toxicity is not UCLA Classics but the small portion of UCLA History that was instrumental in the search, more specifically Dave Phillips, whose whole thing is that he's performatively an asshole and a "salt of the earth"/"I don't care for yer froo froo fancy boy theory nonsense" type (and yes, allegedly hates Clifford Ando bc...grad school or something). Also, regrettable that Henrik Mouritsen didn't get the job...
What do you mean that Mellor receiving the named chair was a source of anger? What I heard was that Mellor put up a big portion of $ for the chair. And for real, it's Ron fucking Mellor, obviously he was going to get a named chair, however *justified*
You're quite right. The History Dept is where excessive toxicity exists. Being said, to answer your question, it's that some in the Dept viewed Mellor as a "dinosaur of a bygone era" as I believe it was said. He's seen as a less-than-prolific historian by others at UCLA, who felt that if the Dept were to have an endowed chair [and yes, Mellor put up some, but it's always in the millions, so his contributions were minimal] it *deserved* to be named after someone more "worthy" than Mellor.
I don't say that I agree or disagree, only that the SC involved in the search is representative of the overall toxicity at UCLA History. Well, that and that they probably have an even more negative view of ancient folks after Potter acted like a diva about a variety of elements and then, last minute, backed out. ...in short, I feel bad for whoever the finalists will be for this.
...For what it's worth, UNC is going to have an endowed chair in the next few years. Richard J.A. Talbert is on the last (so I've heard) leg of phase retirement and the University is in the process of creating an endowed chair in his name. [link: https://history.unc.edu/the-richard-talbert-faculty-excellence-fund-in-ancient-history/] Likely, it will be a few years before all is set and the History Dept at UNC goes out searching for a full-prof to take the job, but as one who knows many associated with UNC History, I can say that the Dept there is very, very healthy and that they hold a great amount of respect for Talbert and see the value of supporting ancient history..
1) So the SCS and the ACL have severed ties with Paideia based on several public statements. I have no affiliations with any of the groups involved save the SCS, but the brouhaha strikes me as odd. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm aware of 4 public statements accusing Paideia of discrimination, etc.
The first (https://medium.com/@magistraemagistrique/an-open-letter-to-the-paideia-institute-eb6d507811fd) is written by former instructors who complain that women and POC are woefully under-represented among leadership and faculty. Fair enough. POC are under-represented everywhere in Classics. The rest of the statement basically just demands that Paideia politicize itself in a very deliberate progressive direction the authors are kind enough to lay out for them: "We take issue with the notion of Paideia as an “apolitical” venue... We believe that this ideology is lacking in critical perspective and is a regressive position... every engagement with the past from the vantage point of the present constitutes an ethical decision....We call on the Institute to commit to cultivating a workplace, learning environment, and public message that actively supports people who, due to systemic oppression, have been historically excluded from Classics as a field of study and who are currently underrepresented in this organization’s public voice and image." OK.
The second is the collection of anonymous anecdotes Sportula published. Sportula itself admits they cannot verify if any of the statements are true. There is a single disturbing accusation of explicit race-based mockery and harassment (which, frankly, I find hard to believe), but the other anecdotes, like the earlier open letter, are merely complaints that the organization is not sufficiently political and progressive. And some of the anecdotes are just silly, like complaining that the Latin version of "a Pirate's Life" is problematic. Perhaps someone in the Paideia leadership is a Trump supporter (which makes him a fascist according to the complaint), but that in itself, however embarrassing, does not constitute discrimination or harassment.
Then there is another public resignation letter that adds nothing new (https://medium.com/@bryanwhitchurch/whitchurch-the-paideia-institute-october-2019-b9b886a189d8).
And finally a story from the Yale News about the controversy which contains many statements that would seem to contradict the public accusations cited above: "Christina Kraus and Director of Undergraduate Studies Andrew Johnston encouraged students report instances of discrimination or misconduct involving the institute’s staff. According to Kraus, no Yale students have lodged complaints so far..." "Classics professor Timothy Robinson GRD ’93 said in an email to the News that he had “no knowledge” of the institute and its alleged misconduct until he had read about them online. Other professors, when asked for comment, deferred to Kraus." ... “I understand some members have political opinions that can be rightly called ‘conservative.’ But since when has it become a crime to be conservative?” Gao wrote on Oct. 5. “I simply do not understand: if Paideia truly has a ‘toxic’ culture, how can I as a low-income Asian be treated with so much kindness?”
2) So, considering that Sportula is a known "political actor" with an explicitly communist agenda (☭��Communist Spectre Sportula ��☭@Libertinopatren), I would be very reluctant to take any of their unverified anecdotes into account when deciding on how to treat Paideia. Without having verified the truth of any of the serious accusations it seems to me that the SCS and ACL acted prematurely, i.e. they severed ties with Paideia and publicly humiliated them based on a series of anonymous unverified rumors. Unprofessional at best, sinister at worst. But of course, what really seems to be happening here is that the leadership of the SCS has severed ties with Paideia because Paideia doesn't profess the right sort of politics. This is a sad state of affairs. The SCS is supposed to be a neutral scholarly organization open to EVERYONE interested in Classics, but has lately become a blatantly political organization with an exclusive ideology and they seem to be trying to purge people with different political views from the field. Not good you guys, not good.
I'm someone who is VERY displeased with the disproportionate prominence of SJW types in our field, with no links to Sportula. ("Links" includes making donations.) I know of a case involving minority students in my own (Ph.D.-granting) program who were treated very poorly by Paideia. So, as one who has not been happy with some of the SCS's previous positions on certain issues, I'm quite happy with this one. (No, I won't go into any details: not only do I need to be anonymous, but the students don't deserve to have a spotlight on them.)
So the Classics establishment has concluded that Paideia is racist and has passed judgment on them based on unverified anonymous rumors published by a hostile political activist organization, without making any effort whatsoever to determine whether the accusations are accurate or likely to be accurate. I'm not a conservative, I have nothing invested, ideologically or otherwise, in Paideia, but this isn't right and you all know this isn't right. Investigate the accusations and then pass judgment.
Now I'll get snarky. This isn't surprising given the apparent love of totalitarian political ideologies among Classicists these days. How long before the SCS incorporates the hammer and sickle (hey 15:41) into its logo?
P.S. Me again. I forgot to add that I hate communists and communism, which perhaps adds to my credibility, anonymous though I be. In the case I just alluded to Paideia's malfeasance had nothing to do with Sportula, or even Bernie Sanders-like socialists.
This is totally the wrong moment to be asking this, since everyone will just jump on the Paideia issue now, but what bibliography software do you guys use? Do you have good recommendations? I tried Mendeley, but it's not great with titles in French, German, etc., and I cannot export a bibliography from a folder to a word file.
I use Zotero. It has some issues, but you can export folders to word files easily. I don't think it connects with all writing programs, but it's okay with Word. I haven't figure out how to italicize foreign words in book titles in Zotero, so I end up doing that manually. But it's helpful for overall organization and searching.
Given the history of the Soviet Union (brutal oppression, police state, millions murdered, gulags, etc.) and the horrors currently being promulgated against humanity by the communist party in China (brutal oppression, millions murdered, organ harvesting, concentration camps for Muslims, etc.) Sportula's appropriation of the language and symbols of these criminal regimes is grotesque and highly offensive. Shame on you. Playacting at being revolutionaries is childish and irresponsible. By displaying the hammer and sickle do you, Sportula, condone the atrocities that were and are still being committed under that banner? Shameful.
I had no idea Sportula was associating itself with Communism, but a few seconds of Googling proved that to be the case. As one with firsthand knowledge of both Soviet and East German Communism I find that incredibly offensive. Truly amazing how the Sportula people can paint themselves as being a moral force for good, when they use the symbol that after the Swastika is most closely associated with murder, terror, and lives destroyed.
Paideia Institute... Sportula... A pox on both their houses. And on any classicist who supports either. (The S.C.S. should take over the laudable goal of finding money for microgrants for students who need it. Let's stop outsourcing it to a bunch of children who don't know world history.)
Posted this in August, but I suppose this is where a new post should go. Speaking of which:
ReplyDelete"I'm not sure it makes sense to have a new thread every month--I know it got tedious scrolling through pages and pages, but it was also helpful to see an ongoing/developing conversation. Months are not really logical or natural divisions for the job calendar--maybe something larger scale, like "TT application season" (Aug-Nov), "Interviews/Visits/Offers" (Dec-March), "Non-TT season/TT postmortem" (April ff.). My sense would be that the most posts come in the Dec-March range anyway, and that there tend to be a lot of big-picture questions explored at that time, so it might be nice to have one large thread. Just a suggestion--perhaps something to try next year if monthly threads turn out to be annoying."
The forum is dying anyway, why bother. Everyone's probably exhausted.
ReplyDeleteIs there any additional news on the senior searches advertised in 2018/9 (Harvard, Hopkins, FSU)? How likely is it that they will become tenure-track if they were not filled?
ReplyDelete(I originally posted this yesterday in the "August" thread; I had not realized that there were different threads for each month)
The FSU hire went to a senior Princeton professor along with a spousal hire for his wife. Apparently they are moving at the end of this year.
DeletePrinceton prof? to FSU? Who?
DeleteA.F., whose wife is a Classicist at Columbia
DeleteThose offers were made, but never accepted.
DeleteThoughts on the SCS elections?
ReplyDeleteI hate to sound harsh here, but the SCS is becoming a joke. Departments keep collapsing, jobs are disappearing, there is a glut of Ph.D.s, and most jobs now are underpaid, insecure contingent faculty positions. Meanwhile, our navel-gazing leadership, obsessed these days with boutique political issues and pop culture, are using the SCS as a platform to advance their own pet causes and interests. It's nice for those who have the luxury to indulge themselves with such things, but they are not really helping to address the real problems facing most Classicists today. So, my thoughts on the election are "who cares?" We'll just get more of the same.
DeleteStrongly agree with 17:58. Classics will be hit even harder as the number of college students declines in the next 10-20 years. But the big, prestigious schools and programs won't be affected so in all likelihood nothing will change.
DeleteSure there are problems in any large enough group of people and the new president's election doesn't prove that there are no racists in Classics, but, although it should, it won't put a dent in the excessive focus on race/racism in the field. Her rhetoric is not so much like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic but rather trying to fit as many chairs and people as possible on the Titanic. It's still going to sink and might go down faster.
Interesting! Any word on the Hopkins hire?
ReplyDeleteThey went with: https://humanities.exeter.ac.uk/classics/staff/ni-mheallaigh/
DeleteAny word on the Michigan Greek job from last year? That search seemed over by January, but I never heard who was hired and there don't seem to be any new faculty on their department website.
ReplyDeleteI have been wondering too what happened there. It looks like it was a replacement.
DeleteMy understanding is that they hired someone who had tenure at another institution and that person is in the process of transitioning/negotiating some details. I expect if all goes well the hire would take up the Michigan post in Fall 2020.
DeleteThe Department of Classics and Religious Studies invites applications for a full-time, tenure-track Assistant Professor, to begin September 1, 2020. The new hire will teach a range of undergraduate courses—in Greek, Latin and Classical Studies—but will in particular assist in directing the department’s masters-level program for training Latin teachers and the summer Latin immersion program, the Conventiculum Bostoniense.
ReplyDeleteThe successful candidate should have a demonstrated interest in language pedagogy, a readiness to oversee teaching practica, and an ability to speak Latin. The ideal candidate will have had some experience teaching at the precollegiate level.
Application review will begin November 15, 2019.
Applications should include: a cover letter, CV, and transcripts of graduate coursework; contact information for three letters of recommendation, a statement of teaching philosophy, and a sample of scholarly writing. Part of the interview will be conducted in Latin. Candidates will have the option of a Skype interview in lieu of the face-to-face interview at this year’s SCS Meeting in Washington, D.C. The position begins September 1, 2020, and the successful candidate must have earned the Ph.D. before this date.
Questions about the job may be directed to Peter Barrios-Lech at peter.lech@umb.edu.
Why are the demographics numbers so low on the wiki page? I really hope it's not going to die this year, since it was such an important source of information in the previous years...
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone have experience of how much notice places have tended to give for preliminary Skype/phone call interviews, should we hope for one week or several weeks? For instance anyone who got an interview with Holy Cross might be willing to shed light on that.
ReplyDeleteMy experience was about 2-3 weeks before a first round Skype interview and on the longer end if the notice included a request to submit additional materials.
DeleteIn Holy Cross' "first round finalist" email, they said they would notify of interviews by October 3rd and then Skype interviews would be held the next week. They seem to be moving very quickly.
DeleteThey're moving more quickly than is typical. My experience has been contact in mid-December for an early January interview, but this may have more to do with the winter recess than anything else. This year, all bets are off, toom since almost no one is interviewing at the SCS (!)
DeleteDoes anyone know the status of the Harvard search in classical archaeology?
ReplyDeleteI assume they must be deciding on whom to interview soon? They have campus visit slots scheduled on their website starting November 5. I'd say if we haven't heard anything by next week, we are not getting interviews.
DeleteFrom the ad: "It is anticipated that two rounds of interviews will be conducted by video-conference October 15–26 and finalists’ campus visits will take place November 4–21."
I heard they asked some people for additional writing samples. They should be making interview requests soon.
DeleteHarvard has turned green on the wiki. This should imply that interviewees have been contacted, but no details have been provided. I for one would be grateful to learn the specifics behind this change in pigmentation.
DeleteMe again. Thanks for the swift update to the wiki in response to my request above. As I expected it was bad news for me, but I am glad to know it at least.
DeleteIt seems to be a pretty bleak year for archaeology generally; does anyone know if there are any posts that we might expect to see advertised in the next few weeks?
DeleteIt feels frustrating to be an archaeologist on the market again this year with hardly any jobs. Even more frustrating since the Harvard job also appears to be interviewing art historians, people with no or very minimal fieldwork. That department needs an archaeologist IMO, not another art historian.
DeleteIf one gets a TT job offer, is the teaching load negotiable at all? Thinking here primarily about LAC and going down from 2-3 to 2-2.
ReplyDeleteIt seems unlikely at pre-tenure phase, with the exception of getting a lighter teaching load in the first year or two. A decent HoD might be willing to let you design upper-level research-focused courses that will aid your research goals. Alternatively if you're an archaeologist you could develop some summer abroad program; plenty of people in SLACS do those and do less teaching during the academic year proper
DeleteThank you for informative answer!
DeleteAny thoughts on this? https://classicalstudies.org/node/32794
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting to me that the authors suggest that other inequities within academia have "overshadowed" or obscured discussion of specifically racial inequities. That has not been my impression--in fact, I've been struck that the conversation in the field has largely moved away from issues of "adjunctification," contingency, the financial precarity of grad students and contingent faculty, the hierarchies of rank and privilege etc. Someone mentioned in the comments to last year's blog that the famous "Future of Classics Panel" included no contingent faculty members or grad students, which I thought was very striking. I think all of these inequities--racial, financial, social--are worth talking about and I'm uncomfortable with the language that seems to suggest there's a zero-sum-game where if we talk about X we're necessarily directing attention away from Y. I also wonder if it feels easier to address some kinds of disparity than others--in part because many (not all!) of the people leading these conversations are benefiting from the financial rewards and social capital of the current tenure system. Any thoughts?
Yes. Trying to limit the focus to race allows people who already have secure positions, power, and privilege to keep them without feeling guilty, and in fact allows them to be quite satisfied with themselves. You see, as long as all the tenured positions at R1 institutions are racially (and sexually) diverse, the privileged elites in those positions can pretend that all is well and go on enjoying their lives without being bothered by issues of class or giving a rat's a$$ about all the unemployed, contingent, struggling people being exploited and mistreated down the food chain. That's my thought.
DeleteThe difference is that adjunctification, which we can all agree is a terrible trend, is an academia wide phenomenon that requires coordination across all disciplines (where Classics is an exceedingly small player with minimal influence).
ReplyDeleteThe problem this post addresses - something particularly systemic to Classics that will eventually result in its demise, IMHO - is how skewed the discipline is towards white perspectives and concerns - the same little country club, a soft apartheid, that Trumpsters wants to perpetuate based primarily on class but secondarily on misplaced notions and stereotypes of race.
How can this be in a country that will soon be majority brown? If Classics was born from a foundation that appears to be increasingly shaky and remains resistant to reform, I don't see how anyone outside the Trump camp can stay in it. I certainly won't even as a tenured faculty member.
So totally different scenarios at play and it concerns me how persistent our blindspots remain even among young classicists (though it's not surprising as our present demographic and overall viewpoint as a whole would fit perfectly fine in a colonial or even 19th century US university).
Enough already with the race baiting. It's becoming exceedingly stale. And enough with the gleeful predictions of Classics' imminent demise— and the "revolution or burn it all down" mantra. The silly notion that Classics is some sort of stunted 19th-century "apartheid country club" is willfully ignorant hyperbole. Feminist, queer, and critical race theory have been mainstays of the discipline for DECADES now. Many prominent sub-disciplines are dominated by women, which is a good thing. Leadership positions in the SCS have mostly been filled by women in recent years, and as we know from the most recent election the Society is becoming far more racially diverse and is EMBRACING it. Classics has been changing and evolving organically since its inception and continues to do so in precisely the direction you seem to want. So please, it's not all doom and gloom and "Trumpsters" and "it needs to die." Yours is the misplaced stereotype.
ReplyDeleteAnd as for the implicit notion that all the new "brown" people in the country (by which I take you and others basically mean hispanics) are inherently estranged from Classics as it exists today, please note that most hispanics identity with cultures deeply rooted in ROMAN Catholicism and in Europe (especially southern Europe, you know, the MEDITERRANEAN). Latin and the Classics are a quite common part of the educational curriculum in Latin America and many universities there have thriving Classics departments. This has long boggled my mind, the complete "othering" of hispanics as if they constitute a radically different type of person who must find Classics totally alien. Another bad stereotype. Believe me, most "hispanics" don't think of themselves as "brown" others who have nothing in common with us "white" people; we blend, basically have the same culture, and don't think of ourselves as being radically different (in the way a lot of cloistered academics do). And we hardly ever think about being different "races" (at least in my experience).
So, I may have taken the bait, but I hope it helps you see things more clearly and accurately.
Where to start...
ReplyDeleteClassics is less diverse than the supreme court. Think about how whacked this is. It has retained its core colonial/19th century perspective as pointed out above yet is not a direct player anymore but reliant on those in power who still believe in our fading perspective. We're not even one of the Trump kids. We're like the Trump kids' pet goldfish.
ReplyDeleteWhy do you come on here and make inflammatory pronouncements like this? Have you done the math? The court has six men and three women, so Classics is far more sexually diverse than the court. Five of the Justices are Catholic, three are Jewish, and one isn't sure whether he's a Catholic or an Episcopalian; so again, religiously, the court is probably less diverse than Classics. Two Justices are children of immigrants: Alito's parents came to the US from Italy and Ginsberg's mother came from Russia. Seven are white, one is African American, and one is a Latina from Spanish-colonized Puerto Rico (I'll leave it to you to decide why her particular ethnicity is constantly being singled out while Alito's/ Scalia's is not; Puerto Rico is 75% white). There are many, many Classicists in America from Greece, Italy, Spain, etc. who are culturally and "ethnically" closer to Sotomayor than to your average Anglo-American. There are no Asians on the court, but there are plenty of people of Asian descent in Classics, so on that front Classics is more diverse. I don't like nit-picking people's ethnic identities because it's gross and the issue is far more complicated than you and others here (who see everything in a simple and quite arbitrary white/not white binary) want to admit. Like 19:20 said, it's not all doom and gloom. Classics today, with its incorporation of archaeology, anthropology, race/gender theory, etc. in no way resembles that good old 19th century philology, so stop disingenuously pretending that it does just to score cheap political points against it. You're ding yourself and everyone else a disservice.
DeleteAlso, (10:17 below) what is "white area studies"? That pops up here from time to time, probably from the same person, and it's never made sense to me. Is it something you just made up? You know, in the 19th and early 20th centuries when Classics was born the English and the Americans (and even the Australians) didn't consider Mediterranean people to be "white." European area studies might be a better term for what your'e trying to say. Or not, you might just be an ideologically motivated grifter, I don't know. But please explain what you mean. Is English history white area studies also?
The supreme court is the upper echelon of law. Look at the classics officers, board member, etc, or even senior faculty members in top departments, hell any institution (as was recently recounted, a black classicist couldn't even land a high school gig - but this is "merit" right?). Yes, many classics departments have substantial percentages of Asians (and sometimes African-Americans and Latinos). Yet you look at the faculty ranks and it's virtually nada. I can count on my hands the number of faculty members of color in classics departments. I'm not even talking tenured for F's sake!
DeleteCan't dispute the numbers. Not saying the vast majority of us are racist (but look at the past SCS and recent insider view of Paideia - yikes, not a good looks guys!). Certainly something is hardwired in the discipline that obviously makes it advantageous to be white and male (perhaps less so now with the latter). I doubt it's simply interest or abilities (or we can find the answers by "just asking them" as suggested by the one ridiculous poster who pops up here).
DeleteIt's 100% interest. Maybe 98% I know we are supposed to pretend that we don't know this and that the answer to the mystery must surely be found in the exquisite matrices of structural oppression, but it's really a lack of interest. Sorry folks. Classics is not a sexy field and is hardly attractive to anyone anymore. If a majority of the people who are interested happen to be from certain groups for obvious reasons, so be it. It's an eccentric field the attracts eccentrics. Every department in the country is falling over itself to attract and retain more diverse people. If you still think that there are dark forces at work actively keeping historically underrepresented people out, then you are totally blinkered by dogma, because the exact opposite is true. It's great that we are actively trying to diversify, and I think we are making headway, but honestly I don't understand why this one issue generates so much hysteria and has come to completely dominate the conversation and our priorities as a profession.
DeleteHow can our students be half POC in some cases yet our faculty ranks are 99.99% white b/c of interest. That's a terrible attrition rate any way you slice it. I'm a Latina from a history department that went to a Big 10 meeting to discuss "decolonization" or whatever you want to call it. Every other discipline had POC representing them in some form - English, Jewish Studies, heck even Medieval Studies. Classics somehow trots out the stiffest, whitest of white reps like they just flew in on a Zeppelin from the Reichstag. WTF, people? I thought History had problems but judging by the posts on here having problems would be an improvement for Classics.
Delete"...the stiffest, whitest of white reps like they just flew in on a Zeppelin from the Reichstag." Imagine talking that way about colleagues of any other race or ethnicity. Your comment is inappropriate and counterproductive. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and not identify a far more insidious subtext in your statement that might occur to some readers. If half of Classics students are POC in some places now (and weren't before) then we can expect far more diversity among faculty in the future. Great, I'm all for it. That's how things have been working.
DeleteBut if there is a discipline that is mostly "white" American/European, especially one as tiny and weird as Classics, why does that bother some people so much? Especially at a time when the field is actively diversifying itself and trying to gin up interest among groups of people who haven't really been all that interested before? I mean bother people to the point of declaring a national emergency over it? If Classics had the import and impact of a major STEM field or even History, then yeah, it's something to be concerned about, because American universities really are global institutions now. But Classics is a very small and increasingly marginal discipline that hardly matters outside of Europe and the Anglosphere. Gender studies departments are overwhelmingly peopled by women, African-American Studies departments by African Americans...you get the point. Why is everyone freaking out about Classics? It's not like it's a huge industry with lucrative jobs on offer that are going to lift people up, or even a discipline of global importance.
And it's not diversity for the sake of diversity. The fact remains that the ancient Mediterranean was a dynamic cultural phenomenon and we've chosen to make it white area studies. So be it but it's difficult to justify programs let alone stand alone departments with this approach. It's not a great mystery why we're getting shut down. People who look at the supreme court with great suspicion if it had remained all white with a couple XX chromosomes thrown in (continuing the previous analogy). I'm just surprised why we're so surprised that society as a whole doesn't want to support white area studies.
ReplyDeletePerhaps now white area studies but white-centric or white perspective studies of the ancient Mediterranean. It's what it is due to its historical roots and why white supremacists still leverage it for their dogma with ease. It fundamentally can't change when the people driving the ship have no other perspectives to lean upon.
DeleteIf you're not sitting at the table, you're on the menu. Someone should write a book. Classics: serving up the marginalized from the Enlightenment to 45
DeleteWhat does that even mean? I thought the complaint was that Classics has till now been too obsessed with elite white men in Athens and Rome and has unjustly ignored the marginalized. Or are your so mesmerized by your own dogma that you think what you said makes sense?
DeleteSpeaking as an individual who just happens to be a poc of Classics (but makes no pretense to be representative of ALL poc in Classics), I am PERSONALLY much more concerned about contingency and underemployment in academia than I am about structural racism. Why? The latter is getting (slowly, incrementally) better and the former is getting (swiftly, drastically) worse. And, as I am finishing my PhD this year, my own looming un/underemployment feels a lot more threatening in terms of just, how will I eat? Where will I live? etc.
ReplyDeleteI'm also not sure why the SCS bloggers (or 12:49 above, for that matter) seem to think these are mutually exclusive concerns and one can drown out the other. I much more agree with (what I take to be) 9:32's point that racial and social inequity are very much entertwined. Especially given that women of color are so disproportionately represented among contingent fac and so unrepresented among tenured/full profs. Just my two cents.
To make more positions, you grow the field by making it more inclusive of wider experiences from both the past and present. Instead, the field is shrinking as we stubbornly hold on to a 19th century perspective and what this status quo has ensured is that the few jobs that exist are given to our society's historically privileged. D-E-A-T-H S-P-I-R-A-L
ReplyDeleteWhile it's irresponsible for anyone to encourage students to enter the field, it's especially irresponsible of the well-intentioned to recruit POC who will get chewed up by a system that hasn't substantively changed in centuries.
If 10:34 is a POC, I'm Al Sharpton, lol. It's let's be anybody we want day - yipee!
ReplyDeleteWhat in the actual fuck. This person didn't agree with you? Didn't say what you expected your imaginary token POC to say? And your response is to devalue their experience and question their identity by suggesting they don’t have the right "credentials"? Hate to break it to you, but imagining that you can divine someone’s race from their opinions isn't even “soft" racism, that's just racism.
DeleteClearly POC in Classics who aren't totally aligned with the small and vocal swathe of the discipline who want to "burn it all down" don't exist or whatever. Hot takes like yours reveal that the people who spend their days vilifying the entire field are both disingenuous and lightweight in the mind.
DeleteSo anyway...
ReplyDeletePost-PhD adjunct here, currently teaching a 4-4. I loved teaching while in grad school, and still find parts of it rewarding/thrilling/totally *affirming*. And, since I basically have no life beyond work and my cat, I am able to work sporadically but productively (hello Saturday and Sunday day) on my research. Not to mention the spare moments I grab during the week to keep me sane after dumb-ing down the content so much to appease the aggressively apathetic undergrads who find themselves stuck in the big GE lectures I've been hired to teach...
Ok, ok, anyway: my point is that a) I'm pessimistic about getting a TT job next year (are-rent we all...) and b) I really want a break from teaching. What do people think about the TLL fellowship? Like, would it be viewed as a mark of shame on my future TT job applications? Would it be seen as something for which I'm now overqualified? Or, am I...the perfect sort of person for it?
And then, how should I pitch myself to get it? Whose, ahem, dick should I aim to suck?
Point my mouth in the right direction, please
Just go for it & good luck.
DeleteBetter hurry as these men are in their 60s and 70s
DeleteWon't hurt to seek advice on how best to do the act, too; perhaps consult certain individuals in the discipline who are very active on Twitter. They've got very big mouths well-suited to such tasks.
DeleteOne thing about the TLL fellowship is that it's a full-time job. They expect you to be producing content for them, so you won't have a lot of time for your "own" research.
DeleteClassics is beyond depressing...someone put it out of its misery.
ReplyDeleteI honestly don't understand this attitude. If you and others hate it so and want it to die then go away. Why are you even here? Shoo, go away. Go do something else instead of wishing death on your own discipline like a psychopath. What is wrong with you people? Are you all masochists? If Classics is so depressing and a source of anguish then just leave instead whining like a demented baby.
ReplyDeleteOh, to be young and naive....
DeleteThere's young and then there's talking like you're in middle school...are people hitting the market 25?
DeleteOh yeah. The talk about loving the field & wanting to keep it alive. As if were the ones killing it!!
DeleteClassics...doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
DeleteWord
DeleteGetting the popcorn...
ReplyDeleteWhen schools ask for or allow only three letters, is it better/preferable to include one from someone not on your dissertation committee but who is more familiar with your teaching? Not sure if letter addressing teaching is necessary for TT positions (as opposed to VAPs).
ReplyDeleteSuggestions from individuals with experience on search committees?. Thanks.
It is generally best to have a range of perspectives in your letters of recommendation, and especially for any position that involves teaching (TT or VAP) to have one that speaks directly to your merits as a teacher.
DeleteIt seems to me that teaching matters for a TT position, so why shouldn't you include a letter that addresses it? Though I have a similar problem to yours: I've been hearing different things about the ratio of the research/teaching portions in the cover letter for TT positions. Some say that I should give equal attention to both, some say that only one paragraph of teaching approach suffices. Any thoughts?
DeleteIt depends on the type of school. R1s: a paragraph will suffice usually, esp. if they also want a teaching statement; more on research, incl. "next project". SLACs/LACs: two paragraphs on teaching, nothing on the "next project" unless really relevant. R[somethings]: 1-2 paras on teaching, some mention of "next project".
DeleteI agree overall but unless the position is a 1-year adjunct/VAP position and the job ad doesn't mention research then even a SLAC is probably going to want to hear about your research/next project.
DeleteOne thing I'd add; if you have more letters available than the school requires, you might consider e-mailing the head of search and asking if you could send a supplementary letter with a greater focus on teaching? The answer will sometimes be no (in which case this thread is full of useful advice), but many schools won't object to receiving a fourth.
DeleteWhen you guys say "next project," do you mean next book after dissertation or anything article/book chapter-wise that you are currently working on?
Delete(9:54 here) Say you revise and publish your dissertation as a monograph. The 'next project' is the book you would do after. It's obviously far in the future but it shows a clear research trajectory beyond the dissertation.
DeleteA reminder: defamatory and discriminatory statements about other scholars (even the SCS President), such as racial stereotypes, will not be tolerated in this space. Complain if you want to, but we do not mind censoring speech of that kind. There are better ways to discuss the challenges confronting our discipline at the current time. Adhere to some modicum of civility and decency if you want to participate in discussions here. We have the power of deletion and are not afraid to use it.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteI love that it is so important to delete comments about well-known faculty who make it their business to be in the public eye, but a commenter above can imply that white faculty are Nazis. Way to improve the dialogue.
DeleteThis blog deserves to die; it doesn't provide any benefit to people applying to jobs and only serves to discourage them.
You know, I've always prided myself on being a good liberal who stands by what i think are solid principles, principles that have led to real progress over the last half century or so, but all of this new race-baiting and juvenile white-men-bad frenzy is really getting tiresome. It was cute at first, and maybe a little fun, but it's getting us nowhere and maybe causing more harm than good. You can only poke a tiger, even a tame one, so much before it rears up and claws your face off.
DeleteHave people been making defamatory remarks about our president and/or racist statements and you are just deleting them so fast I haven't seen them? Because I haven't seen them. That one dork made the old Wokescold reference, but that's the only defamatory thing I've seen that includes names.
Someone (sarcastically, it seems) replied to the person making the Wokescold remark that they would be reported to the SCS President-Elect who would then throw hot grits on the person who made the Wokescold remark. I imagine this was a rather obscure reference to the soul singer Al Green having hot grits thrown on him by his jilted mistress. It was deleted pretty quickly.
DeleteThere were references to "hot sauce" and "shrimp and grits". If that's not a reference to the race of the current SCS President, then I don't know what is...
DeleteThe thing is that one doesn't even need to resort to inane racist tropes to criticize the President-Elect. One look at the information available (I am unable to find a CV which to me is always suspect) about her output as a scholar shows that this is someone who has been in the field for something like four decades and produced very little. It doesn't appear that she has ever published a book and most of her publications are either in obscure edited volumes that are only marginally within the realm of Classics scholarship. There are a few articles from decades ago in some of the discipline standard journals and that's it. It looks like another case of someone who came to the field at a time when the standards were much, much more lax, and one wonders if such a person is the kind of leader, however nominal, that is needed right now.
DeleteThere are other reasons why scholars become full Professors and establish a reputation worthy of them being elected SCS President. Putting aside the unique perspective she brings in terms of diversity, she is also known as a tremendous teacher at a SLAC, an outreach officer, and works with school curricula, too. These are highly valuable traits. Not every SCS President needs to be an Ivy-R1 superstar, who pumps out the books, year in, year out. Evidently she cares about the field in ways that the field could use some care. Arguably, the people who are most productive are the least attentive to the discipline and its challenges by virtue of having the institutional resources that partly enable them to be so productive (reduced teaching load, libraries, sabbaticals, prestige that brings research grants more readily, etc.).
DeleteSpot on, 10:43. This is why Classics will never change. Even the well-intentioned have major blind spots with all kinds of subtle privileged outlooks calibrated into the baseline resulting in the field and its participants look the way it does. Rinse and repeat until the field goes the way of the dodo.
Delete"kind of leader...needed right now"? lol. What does the leadership of the SCS even do nowadays other than issue impotent statements endorsing a variety of careers for Classics Ph.D.s or constantly remind the world how against racism it is. I suppose they organize the annual meeting, but even that is becoming obsolete as more and more interviews are being conducted via Skype and most of the papers are self-indulgent twaddle or political activism disguised as scholarship (I may sympathize with most of your positions but I'd much rather hear what new thoughts you have about Seneca or Empedocles than hear you preach to the choir about immigration). Oh, and I suppose they keep chartering new ever more esoteric and redundant affiliated groups (Multiculturalism, Race & Ethnicity in Classics Consortium; Eos: Africana Receptions of Ancient Greece and Rome; Women's Classical Caucus; Lambda Classical Caucus; Asian and Asian American Classical Caucus; Mountaintop Coalition; Classics and Social Justice—but aren't they all basically that?) They also run a blog/ twitter feed that is embarrassingly preoccupied with pop culture and reads like an undergraduate classics club project. So, as 10:43 said, I do hope the new president, with her vast experience as a teacher and outreach officer, will start addressing real issues that the bored Ivy-R1's have neglected lately in favor of their own rarefied vanity projects.
DeleteOh (11:50 here) so you are deleting them as soon as they go up. Good. Sad that this is necessary. I would be very surprised if the person making these posts (it has to be the same person) is even an active member of field, because it's just so unseemly. On the other hand, I hope it's not a twisted member of the burn it all down brigade trying to prove to the world that Classics is a hotbed of racism (because I don't believe that it is).
ReplyDeleteI agree with both your posts. Whoever is doing it, it's just trolling by someone not interested in having a discussion.
DeleteThat said, I appreciate the moderator(s) showing restraint and leaving up all other posts, no matter how contentious. I haven't noticed anything else taken down except for the racial comments (and I don't think they could be taken any other way) which obviously have to go. I'm less sure about removing posts that name members of the field, but these posts do seem unfair given the general anonymity of the blog which doesn't allow one to face one's accuser, so to speak. Fears of mass censorship were clearly exaggerated as another way of causing trouble.
Burn it all down? Rome is already burning and those who can have absconded with what few positions exist. Time to move on folks...nothing to see or save here but amdering ruins.
ReplyDeletePerhaps a slightly broader perspective here. Globally there are more people studying the ancient world than at time since Classical Studies as we now know it emerged in the education system (as distinct from just Greek and Latin language). There are also more people teaching Classics in higher education than ever. It is not irrelevant or dying. However, it is under constant and increasing pressure and like similar subjects needs to adapt and certainly be more open to change from administrators and from within via issues of inclusivity. It is true that in the US many departments will and have been subsumed into other larger units. Saying that the biggest problem is simple math; this popularity means we have an exponentially larger number of people with PhDs competing for what have always been a limited pool of jobs anyway - this is what is feeding this angst and bitterness among some here. There was never a 'Golden Age' in the job market when everyone got jobs and with more and more people getting PhDs and fighting it out for the 50-odd jobs that pop up each year it's not going to get better.
ReplyDeleteThere was never a golden age but it doesn't help that the people in charge still act like it's the 60s. Sorry, the Saturday Evening Post and Howdy Doody aren't coming back. It's like Mad Men or worse hearing all the stories of old classicists abusing their positions and being so jaded to the point of not giving a rat's ass, decades past their prime and total dead weight. It's basically the minority who care and the flock of naive young uns keeping the sad state of affairs alive. It's terrible and to say it's just like old times is obtuse at best.
DeleteIt's like every terrible, cliche survivor show, but it's reality for us. Instead of zombies, getting marooned, or some apocalyptic disaster, it's the classics field. Anyone who tries to pursue classics as a profession should get their head examined (or be fabulously wealthy with nothing else to do).
DeleteDoes anyone have any general suggestions for a Skype interview, e.g., differences from an in-person interview to be aware of?
ReplyDeleteTest your Internet connection ahead of time! I can't stress that enough. 50% of my Skype interviews had technical problems (some on my side, some on the other) and you don't need that stress on top of the regular interview freak out. Also, if you are using a laptop, make sure that it's positioned a little higher than usual - you don't want to slump and you don't want to literally look down on the committee. The lighting is also something to consider, especially if you have a bright window behind your back (not recommended). Lastly, from my experience, introductions are always more awkward on Skype and no, I don't know how to stop being awkward. Good luck!!!
DeleteThanks; this is very helpful.
DeleteI second the connection issue. You and many others may well be more adept at this, but I've been told by tech people in my university to use a wired connection if possible, wifi strength tends to vary from minute to minute and can impact a video/skype call, apparently this is true even if the wired connection has a lower megabyte per second rate than wifi can offer. Also, test what you're wearing on a Skype call with a friend in advance - some clothing patterns show up as odd on computer monitors etc.
DeleteI have found that it is helpful to prop one's laptop up, usually on a stack of books, to what appears to be an absurd height in order to look directly into the camera. Additionally, think carefully about your background -- the committee will be looking at it the entire time. Finally, if you have a dog, you might want to consider not doing the interview at home, so that the dog doesn't try to participate.
DeleteI am in my 8th year of graduate study (2 for MA; 6th in PhD) and was planning to finish this year. My advisor has just suggested I consider holding off for another year to make the diss more polished and attractive to publishers.
ReplyDeleteMy question is: do search committees consider time to degree? I've got one article accepted and several conference papers but am afraid that too many years in grad school will reflect negatively in application process.
If you're being offered an opportunity to stay in your PhD program to polish your work and keep building your CV, take full advantage of it. I finished fairly quickly because my program told us that we had to do so, but I've never actually seen them terminate someone's funding. I have, however, seen others drag their feet and end up in a much better position because of it. I'd much rather have had another year (or two!) teaching one course per semester to work on whatever I want. If you finish now, sure you might get lucky and find something great right out; if you don't, though, your new alternatives (likely teaching 4-4 somewhere, probably with new preps, new technology to learn, a new academic and social culture, etc.) are terrible for productivity.
DeleteQuick question: did you do your MA and PhD at different institutions? 7 years in a PhD program is very common (especially if you have the funding for it) and I would think committees might view that differently than 9, although I'm not certain. Personal Bias Note: I took seven myself, and I don't think anyone penalized me for dawdling.
DeleteYou absolutely do not want to leave the safety of your graduate program any sooner than necessary! You can put that time to good use. It is much easier to write an article or conference paper during the 7th year of grad school than it is while a) teaching three new courses per semester in a VAP, or b) bagging groceries. Take full advantage of this! Whatever drawbacks there may be will be far outweighed by the advantages. As other posters have noted, a 7-year-PhD is not uncommon these days (mine took that long).
DeleteI finished in a record time, from BA to PhD. 15 yrs later no stable position.
ReplyDeleteI doubt committees will care about time to degree. It's impossible to predict a committee's reaction, and this may even have been a concern for committees 15 or 20 years ago. If that's true, then older committee members may cling to this as a concern. It's my opinion that a long time to degree connotes something different now. In a time of universal budget tightening, it demonstrates belief in the student and the project. A friend of mine (different field) from a well-funded program has been on the market every year for the last four years, from the moment when he could make an argument for being finished until two years ago, when he actually felt he had a more polished final product. The idea was to keep him in the program until he landed a job or was truly ready to submit his monograph. If your program isn't pushing you out the door, polish that monograph.
ReplyDeleteThough, I'd say, don't expect to be able to publish your dissertation faster thanks to that. As far as I've been told by multiple editors, they want us to leave the comfort of grad school first and get some experience. It really is making a difference in my case (but I haven't published my dissertation yet).
ReplyDeleteI am just now publishing a book based on a dissertation that my adviser assured me was 'book ready' when I first submitted it -- almost six years ago. What I am publishing now is far better than the dissertation, even though large parts of the dissertations are included without significant changes. It simply took me several years (while I was simultaneously on the job market) to find the right publisher -- in this case a series with a relevant focus. Many editors simply balked at the word 'dissertation,' and it was only after a few years of publishing and presenting on this topic that I found a way to discuss the material that appealed to them. In fact, the first year out of grad school I didn't work on it at all, which was actually quite beneficial to the project! And an extra year in school wouldn't have mattered one way or another.
DeleteAs a senior researching sort of bloke, I'll add that no matter how good you are, your dissertation-based book will not be as good as it should have been if you rush to publish it your first few years out.
DeleteAre we done with new TT job postings? Is that it?
ReplyDeleteI've seen TT postings into November and even occasionally December (though the latter typically when something unusual happened, e.g. a death in the department). There may be some more postings, so don't give up hope yet!
DeleteBut this does seem a pretty sparse year.
Speaking of discrimination, aren't job postings that seek proof of a commitment to diversity in fact discriminatory against those too junior to have had the opportunity to have done something noteworthy in this regard? Look at the language in the Colby College posting, for example: "...a teaching dossier (including course evaluations where possible and a statement of teaching philosophy documenting a commitment to the value of diversity, and experience with inclusive teaching)..." I'd think the number of recent PhD's on the market who have had a chance to engage in "inclusive teaching" (whatever that even means) must be quite small. So won't these searches be skewing towards people with several years of experience?
ReplyDeleteA) The Colby ad is specifically looking for an ADVANCED assistant professor, which means they are seeking to hire someone with more experience than most recent PhD's, i.e. "with several years of experience."
DeleteB) This is one of the dumbest comments I have ever seen on here, and that's saying something. It's discriminatory to seek people with more experience....or more publications....or more QUALIFICATIONS FOR THE POSITION?
C) If you have any experience with teaching, it is possible to have experience with inclusive teaching. The fact that you must qualify inclusive teaching with scare quotes and "whatever that means" suggests that you have never even thought about how your teaching (whatever your experiences...as a grad student TA....as a grad student primary instructor....as anything) might be inclusive, might take into account your students' diverse experiences, goals, interests, skills, etc....and therefore clarifies that you are definitely not what the ad is looking for. So don't bother writing a statement for it! Some problems solve themselves.
Classics...churning out (and hiring) the same people over and over and expecting a different result.
DeleteYeah, it's in your face dumb but as we see today in politics, the more insidious stupidity is the subtle underlying one undergirding our society. Is this really any dumber than thinking it's discriminatory against white males to try to level the playing field by being overtly conscious of implicit biases? Sorry but "give me job while I still have these privileges and then we'll solve it" is not a good answer.
DeleteA very quick and dirty count of this year's tt positions compared to last year suggests that it is actually very thin this year. 50+ this year vs. 80+ last year. Some of last year's are of course job ads that turned up later in the season, but still, that looks like a significant drop in tt positions.
ReplyDeleteOk, but I just went back to October 15th of last year on the wiki (using history/compare versions), and counted what was out on that day last year: it was actually only 40+ tt positions. (This surprised me, to be honest.)
DeleteOooh, thank you, anonymous hero. I'm not 01:19, but I was very ready to get upset about this season.
Delete6:20 here-- yeah, I am also feeling crushed by this year, and so I felt like I had to confirm this before I freaked out the current situation more than I already have.
DeleteIs anyone weeping into their oatmeal? Know that if you are that it's helping my student banish any foolish thoughts about a future profession in the field. But, but, all the boomers will finally die and jobs will appear like manna from heaven...the false mantra of classics since 2000...
DeleteNaughty naughty Dirk
ReplyDeletehttps://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/oct/16/oxford-professor-dirk-obbink-ancient-bible-fragments-hobby-lobby
Some of us are amused that the University in question *still* hasn't managed to figure out what has gone on here, and so is *still* investigating to get the facts straight. This has been going on at least since 2010. At least... Serious archaeologists at tier 2 through tier 5 institutions want heads to roll. Meanwhile, established academic at Prestigious Tier 1 Institution keeps on keepin' on.
DeleteDon't you.... go to prison for doing something like this? I get the issue about the university, but aren't there going to be even much more significant consequences?
DeleteNot if you're a white dude. You get every benefit of the doubt and then some. That's what so many are trying to protect now through xenophobia, malice, and misinformation.
DeleteDid someone call my name?
Delete21:57, why don't you just ask Dirk? I'm sure you'll get answer why he's not arrested.
Delete"Not if you're a white dude. You get every benefit of the doubt and then some." And not if you're Jussie Smollet. Or Nathan Phillips. Or Julie Swetnick. You get every benefit of the doubt and then some. Sad. Also sad that Blasey Ford's best friend Leland Keyser, whom she originally named as a witness, not only denies having any knowledge of the party in question but has lately gone on record saying that she doesn't believe Ford's story at all because none of it squares with what she knows of Ford and those times. Ford's own father has also stated that he doesn't believe her. Sad. But those ideologically tinged black and white glasses allow you to see reality the way your theories tell you it ought to be, and that must be comforting for you.
DeleteAt least it's not a pedo this time, or someone providing material support to a terrorist organization. WTF Classics? Did Dirk need the money to support a nasty coke habit or did he just do it for the thrill? Why do so many well placed academics think they are above morality and above the law?
DeleteWho keeps calling my name...20:06, is that you, Squi? Did you bring the skis?
DeleteHe needed to money to buy a castle:
Deletehttps://www.wacotrib.com/news/city_of_waco/oxford-scholar-buys-historic-cottonland-castle-distressed-austin-avenue-landmark/article_6a0ed508-a483-575c-b251-b6df887ae925.html
Alas now sold
https://www.wacotrib.com/business/chip-and-joanna-gaines-buy-historic-austin-avenue-castle/article_dd4e63ef-1a6d-5fb6-8a5c-36e6cac0cb4b.html
To the person who corrected my 'correction' to the New School job ad on the Wiki: my apologies! I was the one who didn't read the ad closely enough. As you rightly pointed out, the position clearly IS temporary.
ReplyDeleteNo problem! It is a pretty odd job post, in any case.
DeleteWhat do people think about "advanced assistant professor" positions? People were grumbling about Colby College, but last year Davidson College hired an ABD who is still even now ABD (at instructor rank according to their website), even though they advertised for an "advanced" assistant prof.... anything goes, I guess?
ReplyDeleteHappens more often than you think. Departments are attracted to someone coming in hitting the ground running but then self preservation and interest factors in. Put another way, departments go in wanting an experienced Ravenclaw or Gryffindor but often come out with a wet behind the ears Hufflepuff that seems safe and controllable.
DeleteMakes sense. But on the other hand, it infuriates me, as someone who scrambled to finish their dissertation in time and did so, even with kids and a dying parent, that someone who failed to do so could still get -- keep? -- a TT job. JUST SAYING!
DeleteImagine how the person with two books and five years into Vapping feels. I thought it was just about being shiny and new but I realize now it's that each SC member is doing the math in their head about how each hire affects them and hardly cares about the program or discipline. It's also a totally crap shoot done on the fly. I explained to my parents it's like adopting a stray from a shelter - chaotic, overwhelming, and done at the moment.
Deletehttps://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/honest-academic-job-postings
DeleteAs human beings, we crave empathy and familiarity. So ditch the nose earring and cover up gaudy tattoos. There is a prevailing cultural norm in the discipline and it would behoove you to match it as much as possible. Like begets like whether we like it or not and classics is very one note this way. This is the big boy/girl pants reality that the Prof Is In and grad school advisors either can't or won't teach you. If you're a visible ethnic/cultural minority or deviate from this cultural norm enough, you're screwed, I'm sorry to say. The margin is too small and the deck is stacked against you unless your pedigree, connections, "classicalness" can make up for it.
DeletePrinceton has a habit of pushing for people to get jobs and getting them, but then their candidates don't defend for another year. Annoying as hell for the rest of us. Just wait another year, alright? Give us "less connected" beings a fighting chance.
DeleteIt's not just the particular name brand and the connections that are a precious part of its culture. It's the persona you exude, which your typical Princetonian has it in spades regardless of the specific institutional affiliation. I imagine this is a big part of the "19th century" descriptor for the discipline that's periodically brought up here.
DeleteAll true but frickin' depressing
DeleteInstead of complaining about people who work hard and get jobs, even as ABD, why not support one another? Why should qualified people "hold off" applying to give *you* a chance? If you don't get the job, one or two more people applying will not make a difference. That is great you have 100 books or decided to have 20 children, but that is your choice. If everyone stayed in their own lane and was a bit more compassionate and supportive this whole process might be less horrid (especially 08:09AM and 11:09AM).
DeleteThat's precisely their point, 12:04: these people did NOT work as hard as them. I tend to agree with them... If you get a job, you finish the PhD. You don't diddle daddle around. If you can't get it done, it should go to someone who has. What exactly is "staying in one's lane", by the way? It seems that ABDs are not staying in their "lane" in the above poster's complaint.
DeleteI've found that those urging for the status quo and "merit" strongest, especially in the opaque humanities, are those who have the deck stacked egregiously in their favor.
DeleteIs it any worse than the Trump kids calling out Biden's son with zero sense of irony? In their minds somehow they have earned their positions and Biden did not. I see way too much of the same in Classics and academia as a whole.
DeleteThank you, 12:04! Policing other people's completion time and hiring decisions is not going to help anyone get a job. And 15:02, I think it also helps to remember that there are factors involved in finishing and defending a dissertation that are beyond the candidate's control (response time of the supervisory committee, in particular, which sometimes goes up when the candidate is no longer physically present).
Deleteis it just me or is the placement tracker on the wiki page completely useless? Is there something more up to date?
ReplyDeleteJust added a 2 year and 8 month post in Ancient History at King's College London to the Wiki. The deadline is very soon, 21 October. However, applicants only need to complete the application, LOR not required at time of application (just contact details) so a quick application is possible in such a short time frame. Mixed post sadly, 0.5 pro rata, but it does start Jan 2020, for anyone out of work it might be worth a shot
ReplyDeleteJust received an email from the SCS with a survey on whether the SCS should continue to host interviews at the annual meeting. I had no idea they were considering changing this. In my case, I have found that interviews go much better, and I'm much more comfortable, in person. Video interviews introduce a lot of extraneous factors over which the candidate has no control (will you be able to see everyone? hear everyone? is your face on a gigantic screen looming over everyone or a tiny monitor everyone has to squint at? what program does the institution use? if it's Skype, will the connection fail every five minutes for the entire interview [as has happened to me not once but twice]. etc.) But this seems to be the new direction of things.
ReplyDeleteI feel you. My first TT interview was on Skype and it lagged so terribly that I had no idea who was speaking and when they were done talking. It was so painful. Of course they were not interested in seeing me again.
DeleteBut from the other point of view, it seems that Skype interviews are more democratic and an equal opportunity. Many people cannot afford or cannot go to the SCS (children, finances, medical conditions). Though, to be honest, when I was in such situation, the committees were really accommodating and offered Skype instead of in person meetings. All in all, I'm very conflicted on the matter.
Video should be a no brainer. Finances for all involved, carbon footprint, level playing field, etc. What might help is a list of guidelines/tips for both parties - platforms to use, minimum computer specs for those platforms, mic recommendations, etc. As far as I'm concerned, the more level the playing field, all the better for classics. We need it more than most.
DeleteSeriously? You're willing to let a hiring decision that has the potential to lift or sink a department over as many as 3+ decades be affected by the relatively trivial amount of emissions that would be produced by a few interviewers and interviewees going to a conference they would not otherwise attend? Because there is a better chance of an informed decision from an in-person interview than one done over Skype, for a host of reasons.
DeleteThis is so overplayed. You're not gonna learn anything in person vs video that will make or break your final choice. If anything it weeds out unfair influences that typically favor those with extra resources that help one get the job but have very weak correlations with job performance. Studies show that in person interviews greatly favor white males due to cultural norms and expectations fed to us from birth and by the inundation of media. Every other profession with much greater stakes such as medicine to astronaut interviews use video until later stages. Why the F is classics different? If anything, classics shouldn't even be allowed to see the names of candidates during early phases as it's so terrible with cultural biases that have no bearing on job performance. It's just about the worst.
DeleteHave you ever stopped to consider how strange it is that, despite being a message board for the Classics job market and Classics issues generally, "white men" and "Trump" pop up in just about every other post. You people sound like the Breitbart comments section, where half the posters seem incapable of expressing a thought without mentioning Jesus or poo-pooing Obama (except in your case the big metaphysical baddie that plagues the world is the cis-gendered heterosexual white man-even the new lingo sounds cultish-who magically emits rays of oppression that pollute people's very souls with sin...I mean implicit bias).
DeleteNevertheless, 04:39 has a good point. Other professions do hide the names of applicants at the CV stage, but bring people to the office/campus for all interviews. It would be nice to hide the name of the Ph.D. granting institution as well so SCs would be forced to judge first round candidates on accomplishments alone instead of pedigree.
If interviews go digital and the SCS stops monopolizing the process then I suspect membership would plummet. I mean, how many of you would go to the sh!t$how if you didn't have to? The regional associations have better meetings with more interesting papers and sessions anyway.
It's feels insulting but we do have the worst track record and how many disciplines have become the blunt tool of white supremacists? If we need paint-by-numbers cultural sensitivity instructions to get us recalibrated, so be it.
DeleteOne major difference between one's name and institutional affiliation is that theoretically, especially at the graduate level, the former is assigned and the latter is achieved (to some degree).
And studies bear this out. Researchers submitted resumes to the same job where the only substantive difference was names. Overwhelmingly the "exotic" names as judged by white standards were passed over to the point of being comical. What I mean by exotic by white standards is the fact that names that are objectively strange (e.g. Cumberbatch, Hornblower) were put through while the Anfernee Smiths and Anthony Ngyuens were not.
DeleteI'd be careful with those kinds of studies. The famous blind orchestra audition study just bit the dust. The following article also shows such resume studies as you reference hardly produce the clear evidence you suggest they do.
Deletehttps://reason.com/2019/10/22/orchestra-study-blind-auditions-gelman/
So look at our results. POC have made up a good chunk of our majors (half or more in many cases in places like CA) yet they make up less than 1% of our faculty decades into the phenomenon. Look at photos of elite Classics departments and their field trips to Italy and Greece - tons of POC and I'm not just talking brochure covers. The system is broken and Classics is the worst.
DeleteBefore someone trots out the ole African-American Studies programs are all black: 1. are we really going there after all the talk of Classics isn't white area studies; 2. they are not as you can clearly see with half the faculty at Harvard - https://aaas.fas.harvard.edu/people/faculty?page=1. And just for kicks, let's look at their classics faculty! https://classics.fas.harvard.edu/people/people-role/classics-faculty
DeleteClassics...where Italians, Spaniards, and Jews are exotic.
DeleteWhy don't we just ASK the interviewers why they're overlooking the exotic names. Duh.
DeleteGod you people are exhausting. Even when you're unconscious you probably have lucid dreams about race. Get help. OCD is a very serious condition.
DeleteWhy don't you just ask God why it's exhausting?
DeleteThese other points re. anonymity are all important, however, we should all make sure to reply to the SCS survey supporting the move to video/skype/zoom interviews. It has at least two benefits, one like Holy Cross and Harvard right now of speeding up the process of making appointments, which is good for everyone involved - we all hate waiting around in December for notification or not of interviews at the Annual Meeting. Secondly, not only does the interview environment sour the conference, it's become way too expensive to go to overall, in some cases you're looking at 1,000 bucks, which isn't easy to find after the holiday period for a lot of us or at any time of year for that matter.
DeleteBecause the spacetime continuum is racist. It's certainly ableist, since it privileges being over nothingness, and we all know how the laws of intersectionality work... #existentialcrisis
DeleteGiven the general reproducibility crisis in a lot of social science, it wouldn't be startling if the audition study "bit the dust," but the article 9:57 links to offers--at best--one statistician who doesn't like it and one study that may show different results in a very different context. Also, both Reason itself and the authorities cited in the article (with the possible exception of the statistician) are essentially political actors, not scientific ones, so I'm not sure I'd even take those two arguments at face value.
DeleteI'm not sure if I support a move to videoconference interviews or not, but I don't think "speeding up the process" is necessarily a good thing. Having early deadlines/interviews seems a way of jumping the gun, so a school can grab the most desirable candidate before they have any competition. Perhaps not an issue many of us will have to face, but I know of two people in the past few years who were forced to accept their "second choice" school's offer because their first choice had not yet scheduled/held campus visits and the candidates couldn't afford to let a tenure-track offer slip away. I support changes that give more options to job-seekers, rather than concentrating even more power in the hands of committees.
DeleteGreat points, 15:09. I suppose bias deniers are our equivalent of those choosing to ignore all the climate data. At least in the latter case people need to contend with Koch type money doing everything to obfuscate matters. Not sure what motivates the former.
DeleteThe "social sciences" are pseudo-science and all of the critical "theories" out there are cultish nonsense on par with Scientology. We've known this for decades now, but because they are politicly useful lots of people pretend that they are true.
Deletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWr39Q9vBgo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzrHwDOlTt8
*politically
Deleteand I might add useful to advancing academic careers and ironically accruing power
In the social sciences and humanities the only experiments that have been successfully reproduced are the hoaxes.
Delete@ 15:09 LOL as if the social scientists producing these kinds of studies aren't political actors. lol
Delete16:46, what motivates our bias deniers despite our faculty being 99% white and totally unreflective of our student demographics? I imagine the same that motivates and forms the world view of the Trump kids. If push comes to shove when presenting reality and the facts, I imagine that's how cries of reverse discrimination eventually become claims of lynching. What ails classics? The same shitshow we're seeing in Washington if to a lesser degree. Doesn't make me feel any better about choosing this profession (and I'm as Anglo-Saxon and male as can be).
DeleteInitial interviews via SKYPE are a great idea. And if the School is interested, they can pay for your on-campus trip. Seems fair enough to me.
ReplyDeleteI have experience on both sides of the proverbial interview desk. Even though I find it much easier as an interviewer to interact in person, I do feel strongly about the equity factor of doing first-rounds by videoconference. Inequalities will, however, persist: in a perfect world, all candidates would have similar access to good connections, equipment, and spaces--and, more importantly, to good mentoring towards best practices in online meeting situations. I would hope that savvy graduate programs are already checking on folks' tech experience and working to coach Skype-appropriate behaviors as needed (ABDs, do you find this to be the case?)--but then there are the candidates who for many reasons might not have access to that degree of care. I would like to see the SCS dedicate some positive attention to these issues as it considers transitioning the placement service away from the in-person format.
DeleteWhat impact will a shift to video/Skype interviews have on SCS membership, or on the placement service? Institutions may continue to advertise via the SCS, but surely the SCS will not be able to dictate that they interview only SCS members.
ReplyDeletePerhaps the annual meeting will become much more pleasant now that a dark pall won't be cast over the entire affair, which will allow the SCS to build membership the old fashioned way through interest and comaraderie rather than a metaphorical pipe wrench.
DeleteFor those watching the news today. Is it just me, or is Mark Zuckerburg now trying to look like Augustus with his weird new bowl cut?
ReplyDeleteI had the same gut reaction to seeing his pumpkin-pie haircut on the CNN, but maybe just because I despise both men so very much.
DeleteDid UBC ask for teaching dossiers and diversity statements at the next stage?
ReplyDeleteIt states in the job ad what they're asking for later.
DeleteDid anybody apply to St. Mary's and not get the self-ID form request today? Trying to figure out if I'm longlisted or they just forgot to ask for this at stage 1.
ReplyDeleteI applied to St Mary's and got the form today. I am not sure if my referees were contacted (nobody told me). Not sure if form went only to select candidates.
ReplyDeleteI am curious about this, too. I think that it's meaningless, but it also seems absurd to have that poor assistant file 100 of those ID forms.
DeleteInteresting to see that UCLA has Greg Woolf as one of its finalists... who knows who the others are? Will they finally land a Prof who actually wants to go there? Or, in the face of yet another failed search, will they open it up to junior folks?
ReplyDeletehttps://history.ucla.edu/event/greg-woolf-alien-metropolis-migration-cosmopolitanism-and-city-rome
Why this assumption? Do they have a history of failed searches?
DeleteI can't see the second page of upcoming events because of some technical error, but I'm also curious who else is a finalist.
From what I've heard: yes, they have run this search at least twice before, only to have their top candidate not come (used as some type of leverage at their home institution I suspect...).
DeleteHuh, how unlucky. In any case, I seriously doubt they'd open a named chair position to junior scholars.
DeleteIt's no secret, but David Potter (one who, as many know, always sees greener grass elsewhere) from Michigan took the job last year. After realizing just how prohibitively expensive it is to live in Los Angeles, at least how he deems he ought to, he flaked out.
DeleteAdd to things that the first year (two years ago) that UCLA ran this search, the SC was a shit-show. For year-one, Clifford Ando was a finalist as was the late Garrett Fagan. No secret was made of this and no secret made that the SC was openly hostile to one another and towards candidates. The Dept, during year-one, was extremely angry that Mellor received the named Chair. A lot of toxicity in the Dept, for a lot of reasons. As such, the first year was a horrible failure.
Year two went better, but Potter is, well, he's Potter. For those that know him, that's all you need to know.
One can hope that for year three, they can get their shit together at UCLA
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteIt's important to point out that "the department" with toxicity is not UCLA Classics but the small portion of UCLA History that was instrumental in the search, more specifically Dave Phillips, whose whole thing is that he's performatively an asshole and a "salt of the earth"/"I don't care for yer froo froo fancy boy theory nonsense" type (and yes, allegedly hates Clifford Ando bc...grad school or something). Also, regrettable that Henrik Mouritsen didn't get the job...
DeleteWhat do you mean that Mellor receiving the named chair was a source of anger? What I heard was that Mellor put up a big portion of $ for the chair. And for real, it's Ron fucking Mellor, obviously he was going to get a named chair, however *justified*
@ 15:10,
DeleteYou're quite right. The History Dept is where excessive toxicity exists. Being said, to answer your question, it's that some in the Dept viewed Mellor as a "dinosaur of a bygone era" as I believe it was said. He's seen as a less-than-prolific historian by others at UCLA, who felt that if the Dept were to have an endowed chair [and yes, Mellor put up some, but it's always in the millions, so his contributions were minimal] it *deserved* to be named after someone more "worthy" than Mellor.
I don't say that I agree or disagree, only that the SC involved in the search is representative of the overall toxicity at UCLA History. Well, that and that they probably have an even more negative view of ancient folks after Potter acted like a diva about a variety of elements and then, last minute, backed out. ...in short, I feel bad for whoever the finalists will be for this.
...For what it's worth, UNC is going to have an endowed chair in the next few years. Richard J.A. Talbert is on the last (so I've heard) leg of phase retirement and the University is in the process of creating an endowed chair in his name. [link: https://history.unc.edu/the-richard-talbert-faculty-excellence-fund-in-ancient-history/] Likely, it will be a few years before all is set and the History Dept at UNC goes out searching for a full-prof to take the job, but as one who knows many associated with UNC History, I can say that the Dept there is very, very healthy and that they hold a great amount of respect for Talbert and see the value of supporting ancient history..
lol, yeah I see your point
ReplyDelete1) So the SCS and the ACL have severed ties with Paideia based on several public statements. I have no affiliations with any of the groups involved save the SCS, but the brouhaha strikes me as odd. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm aware of 4 public statements accusing Paideia of discrimination, etc.
ReplyDeleteThe first (https://medium.com/@magistraemagistrique/an-open-letter-to-the-paideia-institute-eb6d507811fd) is written by former instructors who complain that women and POC are woefully under-represented among leadership and faculty. Fair enough. POC are under-represented everywhere in Classics. The rest of the statement basically just demands that Paideia politicize itself in a very deliberate progressive direction the authors are kind enough to lay out for them: "We take issue with the notion of Paideia as an “apolitical” venue... We believe that this ideology is lacking in critical perspective and is a regressive position... every engagement with the past from the vantage point of the present constitutes an ethical decision....We call on the Institute to commit to cultivating a workplace, learning environment, and public message that actively supports people who, due to systemic oppression, have been historically excluded from Classics as a field of study and who are currently underrepresented in this organization’s public voice and image." OK.
The second is the collection of anonymous anecdotes Sportula published. Sportula itself admits they cannot verify if any of the statements are true. There is a single disturbing accusation of explicit race-based mockery and harassment (which, frankly, I find hard to believe), but the other anecdotes, like the earlier open letter, are merely complaints that the organization is not sufficiently political and progressive. And some of the anecdotes are just silly, like complaining that the Latin version of "a Pirate's Life" is problematic. Perhaps someone in the Paideia leadership is a Trump supporter (which makes him a fascist according to the complaint), but that in itself, however embarrassing, does not constitute discrimination or harassment.
Then there is another public resignation letter that adds nothing new (https://medium.com/@bryanwhitchurch/whitchurch-the-paideia-institute-october-2019-b9b886a189d8).
And finally a story from the Yale News about the controversy which contains many statements that would seem to contradict the public accusations cited above: "Christina Kraus and Director of Undergraduate Studies Andrew Johnston encouraged students report instances of discrimination or misconduct involving the institute’s staff. According to Kraus, no Yale students have lodged complaints so far..." "Classics professor Timothy Robinson GRD ’93 said in an email to the News that he had “no knowledge” of the institute and its alleged misconduct until he had read about them online. Other professors, when asked for comment, deferred to Kraus." ... “I understand some members have political opinions that can be rightly called ‘conservative.’ But since when has it become a crime to be conservative?” Gao wrote on Oct. 5. “I simply do not understand: if Paideia truly has a ‘toxic’ culture, how can I as a low-income Asian be treated with so much kindness?”
2) So, considering that Sportula is a known "political actor" with an explicitly communist agenda (☭��Communist Spectre Sportula ��☭@Libertinopatren), I would be very reluctant to take any of their unverified anecdotes into account when deciding on how to treat Paideia. Without having verified the truth of any of the serious accusations it seems to me that the SCS and ACL acted prematurely, i.e. they severed ties with Paideia and publicly humiliated them based on a series of anonymous unverified rumors. Unprofessional at best, sinister at worst. But of course, what really seems to be happening here is that the leadership of the SCS has severed ties with Paideia because Paideia doesn't profess the right sort of politics. This is a sad state of affairs. The SCS is supposed to be a neutral scholarly organization open to EVERYONE interested in Classics, but has lately become a blatantly political organization with an exclusive ideology and they seem to be trying to purge people with different political views from the field. Not good you guys, not good.
DeleteI'm someone who is VERY displeased with the disproportionate prominence of SJW types in our field, with no links to Sportula. ("Links" includes making donations.) I know of a case involving minority students in my own (Ph.D.-granting) program who were treated very poorly by Paideia. So, as one who has not been happy with some of the SCS's previous positions on certain issues, I'm quite happy with this one. (No, I won't go into any details: not only do I need to be anonymous, but the students don't deserve to have a spotlight on them.)
DeleteThe statements about Paideia are sadly true. They willingly discriminate against women and PoC.
DeleteWhy don't we just ASK Paideia whether they're racist?
DeleteSo the Classics establishment has concluded that Paideia is racist and has passed judgment on them based on unverified anonymous rumors published by a hostile political activist organization, without making any effort whatsoever to determine whether the accusations are accurate or likely to be accurate. I'm not a conservative, I have nothing invested, ideologically or otherwise, in Paideia, but this isn't right and you all know this isn't right. Investigate the accusations and then pass judgment.
DeleteNow I'll get snarky. This isn't surprising given the apparent love of totalitarian political ideologies among Classicists these days. How long before the SCS incorporates the hammer and sickle (hey 15:41) into its logo?
P.S. Me again. I forgot to add that I hate communists and communism, which perhaps adds to my credibility, anonymous though I be. In the case I just alluded to Paideia's malfeasance had nothing to do with Sportula, or even Bernie Sanders-like socialists.
ReplyDeleteThis is totally the wrong moment to be asking this, since everyone will just jump on the Paideia issue now, but what bibliography software do you guys use? Do you have good recommendations? I tried Mendeley, but it's not great with titles in French, German, etc., and I cannot export a bibliography from a folder to a word file.
ReplyDeleteI use Zotero. It has some issues, but you can export folders to word files easily. I don't think it connects with all writing programs, but it's okay with Word. I haven't figure out how to italicize foreign words in book titles in Zotero, so I end up doing that manually. But it's helpful for overall organization and searching.
DeleteI use Zotero, too, and mostly find it good. You can do italics if you use HTML coding in the entry.
DeleteThank you! I'll switch to that :)
DeleteGiven the history of the Soviet Union (brutal oppression, police state, millions murdered, gulags, etc.) and the horrors currently being promulgated against humanity by the communist party in China (brutal oppression, millions murdered, organ harvesting, concentration camps for Muslims, etc.) Sportula's appropriation of the language and symbols of these criminal regimes is grotesque and highly offensive. Shame on you. Playacting at being revolutionaries is childish and irresponsible. By displaying the hammer and sickle do you, Sportula, condone the atrocities that were and are still being committed under that banner? Shameful.
ReplyDeleteI had no idea Sportula was associating itself with Communism, but a few seconds of Googling proved that to be the case. As one with firsthand knowledge of both Soviet and East German Communism I find that incredibly offensive. Truly amazing how the Sportula people can paint themselves as being a moral force for good, when they use the symbol that after the Swastika is most closely associated with murder, terror, and lives destroyed.
DeletePaideia Institute... Sportula... A pox on both their houses. And on any classicist who supports either. (The S.C.S. should take over the laudable goal of finding money for microgrants for students who need it. Let's stop outsourcing it to a bunch of children who don't know world history.)