Talk:History 2008-2009

=Page for Discussion/Venting/Complaining=


 * Complain. But don't be mean. Contribute. But don't delete.
 * Upwards of 160 applications for 20 Early Modern/Medieval jobs. And this is a GOOD market.
 * Aarrgh! The AHA website says advance registration is $165 for nonmembers. So, already fuming at the injustice of it, I go to the online registration forms, resigned to pay $165 just to attend my one interview. But then, on the third page of the form, it informs me that they lied. It's only $165 if you register by December 19. After that, it's $190, which they call the "late advance" fee, or something like that. WELL, GUYS, IF YOU'D SAID SO ON THE PAGE ABOUT REGISTRATION FEES, I WOULD HAVE REGISTERED BY THE 19TH. Gzeesh, this is crazy, if not illegal. Does this mean I'm allowed to lie about my fields of expertise, too?

Cancellations

 * 66: Total - (anybody know out of how many?)


 * 3: Africa
 * William & Mary
 * Albion College
 * Hofstra University


 * 4: Ancient
 * Emory University
 * State University of New York, Cortland
 * University of South Carolina
 * University of West Georgia


 * 1: Asia
 * University of South Carolina


 * 15: Europe (Modern, Early Modern, Medieval, etc)
 * Brandeis University
 * Coastal Carolina University
 * Emory University ("frozen search")
 * Hofstra University
 * Long Island University, C.W. Post
 * Louisiana State University, Shreveport
 * University of Maryland
 * Salisbury University
 * University of Maine Farmington
 * University of North Carolina, Greensboro
 * University of Pittsburgh
 * University of South Carolina, Aiken
 * Missouri University of Science and Technology
 * St. Joseph's University
 * Williams College
 * SUNY - Cortland


 * 8: Latin America
 * Arizona State University
 * East Stroudsburg, Latin America, "on hold"
 * Roger Williams University
 * SUNY Stony Brook
 * University of Illinois at Chicago
 * University of Pittsburgh, "suspended"
 * Villanova University
 * William Patterson University


 * 7: Middle East
 * Bard College
 * California State University, Chico
 * SUNY - Cortland
 * SUNY - New Paltz
 * US Naval Academy (North Africa)
 * Wayne State University
 * Western Illinois University


 * 18: United States
 * Brandeis (2 positions: 1800-present; ?)
 * Indiana University
 * Johns Hopkins (hiring freeze, 12/19)
 * Long Island U., CW Post Campus, 20th C
 * Missouri Southern State University
 * Northern Kentucky University (post-1945)
 * Ohio University (US & World Post WWI) - conducting AHA interviews but will evaluate position in Jan
 * Salisbury, 19th & 20th C
 * Stanford (U.S./International)
 * University of Illinois at Chicago, US & World
 * University of Florida, 1790-1920
 * University of Maryland, Baltimore County, US & World
 * University of Missouri
 * University of Virginia (19th Century US only)
 * University of Washington, Seattle (2 positions: US & World; US & World at Jackson School)
 * Weber State University, two searches folded into 1
 * Yeshiva University


 * 2: World
 * University of Maine, Farmington
 * University of Calgary


 * 8: Non-Geographical
 * Arizona State University (American Indian History)
 * Ohio University (Military History)
 * Stanford University (Diplomatic History)
 * University of Alabama-Huntsville (History of Science)
 * University of South Carolina (History of Nationalism)
 * University of Washington-Bothell (History of Science)
 * Utah Valley University (Public History)
 * Sarah Lawrence College (History of Science)

Searches on hold, suspended, in limbo, and not yet canceled:
 * UMass Amherst 20th century U.S. "suspended" - REINSTATED 12/17
 * Macalaster College, African History, "postponed"

Rumored (but NOT confirmed) hiring freezes:
 * Arizona State University
 * Emory University
 * Florida State University
 * State University of New York (all?)
 * University of Denver
 * Every University in Louisiana--state-wide hiring freeze.
 * University of Minnesota

--Can anyone out there provide more information on any of these?


 * -Just curious - how many cancellations across fields so far? Are canceled searches included in job loss statistics, or are they not technically counted as lost jobs?
 * -The process of notifying candidates of canceled jobs (or the naming of finalists for that matter) completely lacks transparency. Further, the communication (decency?) between search committees and applicants is sadly inadequate.
 * -If I can go to the trouble of putting together and mailing hundreds of pages of material, shouldn't an email at least be possible?
 * - I've received cancellation notices that others haven't, or I haven't received notices when others have. I may be overly generous here, but I imagine that SC's hate this and are just poorly organized and overwhelmed, rather than blatantly secretive. In some ways, that makes it worse.

On the Wiki . ..
I wish more people would participate in this wiki. I get the feeling a lot of folks aren't aware of it. I know I didn't know about it last year.

It's true the info would be better if more people participated. It's also true that this process helps keep search committees honest and their searches more transparent. However, I think most of my stress over the job market has come from checking this wiki and getting information that only very rarely leads to anything but speculation. I'm promising myself not to check it at all next year.


 * Indeed, speculation abounds on these Wiki sites. I feel that my own thirst for information--any information-- on the job process has added to my stress.  These sites, however, at least provide some light on an all-together dark and shadowy process.   I don't think that all of the speculation is wrong.  This process is so dehumanizing that any tidbit of information, even biased erroneous information, can be satisfying.  I have learned more about canceled searches on these sites than I have from Search Chairs, even ones that I have had direct communication with.  More participation would be fantastic!


 * On a brighter note, it may be ugly out there, but at least this ain't the auto industry.

How do we publicize the wiki to get more people involved/raise awareness?
 * I wonder if it's ok to post messages on H-Net discussion logs? Otherwise, simply word of mouth. This is particularly easy for graduate students or recent PhDs who could tell the junior grad students in their departments about it.
 * I actually found out about the wiki last year from an hnet email - I think it would be a good idea to recirculate it - at least among the major ones (Hnet-Grad, for example - and the major history areas).

Associate Professors in "Open Rank" or "Assistant or Associate Professor" Searches
A number of searches are "open rank" or "Assistant or Associate Professor." Considering the ubiquitous budget crunch, do you think that departments will hire assistant professors over associate professors? I can imagine that a dean might pressure a department to hire an entry-level assistant professor for $52,000 over a mid-career associate professor for $75,000.

I will confess that this is not mere idle curiosity. I am an associate professor, and a several of the jobs for which I applied were "Assistant or Associate Professor." In two cases, after having given my application an initial review, I was asked to send copies of my books. (I had already sent copies of selected chapters with my application materials.) Naturally, I complied with the requests, bought, and shipped off the books. Six weeks later, the applicable wiki page indicates that both schools have extended invitations for AHA interviews. I have gotten no interviews, but no rejections either.

Any thoughts? Fistikli 17:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * My experience with the history job wikis is... if you see that someone else got an interview, you've been rejected. This may not ALWAYS be the case, but I wouldn't hold my breath. Universities often only send rejections letters out after they've actually filled the position (in March, April, May). That's why the Wikis are so useful. No need to wait around wondering.

I pretty much assumed that I have been rejected, but I wouldn't mind the consideration of a rejection note, even if it's just an e-mail. Based on the wiki, several other people applying to these same schools have already gotten rejection e-mails. I'd like out of limbo. Fistikli 18:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have started emailing Search Chairs that I have not yet heard from. Some have been forthcoming and said that no decisions have been made or that I am not on the short list.  More than one has said that everyone is still considered to be in the pool of applicants until a hire is made (which is utterly indecisive and just generally crappy).  A few have been quite open and honest and stated that the jobs are frozen/suspended/in limbo.  Why some of these people do not communicate openly and honestly is beyond me.  Everyone in academia has gone through this process and should understand the effort that goes into each and every application packet.  One would think that an acknowledgment would be possible.  Is decency too much to ask?
 * Been there and it sucks to be in this position. It would certainly help if departments could at least let us know if we'd made the short list -- even a long version of the short list. But it is true that everyone is considered to be under consideration until a hire is made. That is the other reason why this wiki is so great: those of us who are on the market can share info with one another that departments cannot share with us.
 * I believe SC's are often constrained by HR policy. e.g., I had a phone interview (1 of 6 people), and the SC planned to bring 2 of us to campus.  I hadn't heard anything after the time frame they mentioned in the phone interview, so I assumed I was out of the running.  And I was: a day or two later, a member of the search committee (who was a friend) let me know off the record that I was rejected, but that they could not send official notice until after an offer had been made and accepted, which, of course, would take 6+ weeks from the time of my phone interview.

Anyway, what do you think about the assistant vs. associate question? Fistikli 18:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well as someone who is applying for assistant positions, I do not like being put into direct competition with associates. At a very basic level, I don't understand these searches. How can committees compare applicants.  For my field, Latin America, there is a big difference between the two ranks.  Associates are assumed to have monographs, while few (if any) assistants would.  I recognize that this may not be the case for other caucuses.  I do think, however, given the financial constraints of every university these days, most deans would prefer cheaper hires.


 * I don't know that there is a single answer to this question. In my experience, it entirely depends on the needs of the department at that moment in time and the particulars of the search. Associates have demonstrated publishing records. They also have established scholarly identities. So they are more of a "known" entity when it comes to hiring. They also have more experience, which can help when it comes to getting up and running, participating in graduate as well as undergrad training, etc. These are all pluses. At institutions where promotion and tenure are linked, this also means hiring in someone with tenure, however. That weds the department to living with that person for a long time...which can obviously be a good or a bad thing depending on how it all works out. Sometimes departments would rather hire in someone who they can train and who they hope will grow into the position, while still having an out if the person turns out not to be a good fit with the department, despite everyone's hopes. Associates are also more expensive. Depending on the make-up of a department, some places badly want and need freshly minted scholars because they have very few entry or mid level assistant professors while others have a greater need for those with a bit more seniority and experience. Members of a department also may not agree on what exactly they want...That seems to happen pretty often, too.

Often when a search is Assistant or Associate it means that the higher up administration will approve an associate salary IF a candidate from a desired, under-represented group applies. Accreditation agencies are putting more and more pressure on institutions to have race and gender balance in their faculty. So the "or Associate" is sometimes a fishing expedition to try to steal away a strong woman or minority candidate from another school, and the "assistant" is the fallback. Other times it is simply a desire to keep the door open for an superstar scholar who might be interested in moving. Typically, if it is an "or" search, the decision to hire at the associate level is not under the control of the department--if they come up with an associate candidate who will be especially attractive to higher-ups, they'll get an okay, but otherwise they will need to hire an assistant. So if you are an associate applying for one of those positions, you have to be really, really great to get it, or be from an under-represented group that the institution is trying to attract.

I have the impression that search committees want to hedge their bets at all times and to make things as easy on themselves as possible. How does that play out? 1) Not formally rejecting some (or even all) candidates until a final offer is accepted. Why?  Just in case, for some bizarre reason, between the 10-12 of the candidates interviewed at the AHA, they can't come up with 3 good ones to bring to campus.  That way, they can turn to the C list.  Or if all three of their on-campus interviewees turn down the offer, they can turn to the B list.  This sounds crazy, but I have been on search committees, and this sort of stuff happens.  It isn't fair, and it's like senior professors have forgotten what it's like to be waiting and waiting for that letter, e-mail, or phone call.  2) (And this is speculation on my part.)  Maybe departments don't really know what they want so they decide to hold open rank or assistant/associate searches. It's an unfair situation for all candidates involved. The associates are considered pricey hires and are expected to be worth "the big bucks" that dean thinks she or he is paying them. Plus, the associates can't be seen as rocking the boat of the existing department culture, even though they are accomplished, mature scholars. The assistants are judged against the associates, with whom they can't compete in terms of publications. To be honest, I have never participated as a SC member in an open rank search, but my hunch tells me that assistants have the advantage. They are cheaper hires, they are "unformed" and can be molded to the departmental culture, and they are not automatic hires-for-life. I can see how senior professors might find a fresh PhD unthreatening vs. hiring a colleague who may have more publications publications than they. Fistikli 16:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * this is such BS on the part of Depts; they should know whether they want an Asst. or Assoc.- poster above is right -they are completely different and the two cannot compete on the same terms -this whole process is so bizarre..and it engenders disfunctionality...i've only applied to asst jobs and some open track ones, but i haven't heard from only a couple...thank god for this wiki site! at least we can all pool the little information each one of us has...let's keep it up!

-Departments rarely decide the level of the search, they may request for a particular level but it is the adminstration that decides. Often a department will want an Associate, but the adminstration comes back luke warm on the idea and hence the combined Asst/Assoc search. Also, departments may have a particular person or area in mind at the Associate level but become unsure whether that Associate will come and broaden to an Assistant search. If there are advantages to the Assistant hire it is not only salary but at what level the Assistant comes in at. A newly minted PhD may have the advantage here not only because they are cheaper, but the hiring department might be less suspicious of a tenure track or about to be tenured Assistant who is seeking leverage at their current job.

–I currently serve on a SC for an open rank search (but at the Assoc/Full level). Budgetary constraints now have admin telling us that full is pretty much off the table, assoc is iffy, and assistant may be all we can get. I agree that this year, assistants have the advantage.


 * I second the above. I would also add that as far as the question of hedging the bets goes, it is not about making the committee's job easier, as someone suggested above. The committee has no obligation to the applicants beyond basic courtesy. The committee does, however, have some pretty serious obligations to its own department. The most important of these is to make a good hire. Searches take a lot of time, and cost a lot of money to run. If a search fails--and I have served on a failed search--the committee members have to explain themselves at length to their colleagues and to the dean, who might very well decide to punish the department by yanking the line. Even if the line survives the wrath of the administration, colleagues often react by deciding that the field in question is no longer viable and opting to search in some other area the next time. So the committee just wants to bring home a candidate. And until it has an accepted offer, all applications have to remain in play. If the committee starts sending out early rejections to spare everyone's feelings, it is almost an iron-clad law that it will come back to bite them later in the form of a dozen maladjusted, freakishly twitchy AHA interviewees (I've seen it happen), or three campus candidates who just flat out bomb (seen that too). That is why all applications have to remain live until the bitter end, not because committees are staffed by insensitive jerks. It isn't personal. It undeniably sucks when you have no job, but it isn't personal.
 * I, for one, am not buying the woeful, thankless job of the search committee described above. Search committee members obviously have obligations to their departments and universities, but these in no way conflict with basic decency. Search Chairs should communicate the status of the process to all applicants.  Committees need not automatically reject applicants who are not selected for interviews, but the Search Chair does need to relay basic information.  A simple email stating something like: A group of finalists have been selected for interviews, but all applicants remain viable until the search is complete.  That's it.  How hard is that?  Basic communication might, just might, help to relieve those "maladjusted, freakishly twitchy" candidates.  Furthermore, are these search committees still advancing the agenda of their colleagues even after jobs have been canceled?  There have been plenty of jobs that have been frozen and no one has bothered to tell all the applicants.  Read the Wiki pages for plenty of examples.  I am sorry, but the hiring process for historians has created and perpetuated a culture of secrecy and competition.  Failed searches are indeed the fault of search committees and open, honest communication with applicants is NOT the reason (but that is another discussion).

Gender, Race & Ethnicity in the Hiring Process

 * New question related to above - how much does gender count for this - is there still a big imbalance in departments? Does being a woman have an advantage for history searches?


 * and what about Latino and African-American faculty, not! affirmative action and/or "preferring" applications from underrepresented minorities is a myth, in my experience. Faculties are not representative of their student bodies, less and less so I would guess.. any comments?


 * These are important issues that do not get enough attention. Race, ethnicity, and sex (not so much gender) are absolute factors that go into the hiring process.  BUT these factors are often not openly discussed.  Certainly applicants rarely know that this is a factor.   There seems to be a real gap between what individual faculty say and what actually happens.  Academia claims to be a meritocracy, but identity issues are factors in the hiring process.  The conflict here should not be unstated.  I do not know the statistics, but allegorically it seems that so called minority candidates get interviews (but not necessarily the jobs) at a hire rate than non-minorities (referred to as dominant races by one dean that I know).  And, to be clear, I believe that diversity should be advanced by specifically integrating underrepresented groups.  I think that this process should be more open.


 * I agree that the idea that female or minority candidates get preferential treatment in the search process is a myth. My department recently conducted a search in which certain members of the department successfully strategized to bring only white candidates for on campus interviews just so they wouldn't have to consider race or ethnicity. They used every excuse they could think of to do this, usually relying on prestige of schools and recommenders. One candidate they brought to campus was embarassingly underqualified, but one of his professors is friends with the SC chair. As the only person of color in this department, I'm trying to flee as fast as I can (hence my presence on the wiki).


 * My experience has been the inverse, although I think the advantages to being a woman have diminished some in significance over the last several years, as women have come to be at least 50% of the job applicant pool. But I have seen two different searches get suspended, not for economic reasons, but because the first two qualified black finalists could not be persuaded to take the job. The third candidate in both instances had a much more impressive c.v. and did a great job on campus (and in both instances, a white woman) was not offered the job.


 * FWIW, two years ago I was verbally offered a job (I'm female) only to have the SC head call me and tell me that, despite being the most qualified candidate by far (his words), the dean had overriden them and picked the Hispanic (male) candidate in order to increase diversity on campus. I didn't even know this was illegal! But by federal law, race and gender can only be considerations when two otherwise equally qualified candidates are up against one another. I think this is another case where the total secrecy of this process makes it possible for SC's to engage in all kinds of semi-legal or bluntly illegal maneuvering-- whether for or against minority candidates!

Of course, race and gender play a role in the hiring process, but I think its impossible to generalize. I think all the anecdotes here are "true". Sometimes being a woman/minority candidate is an advantage, sometimes a disadvantage. But "merit" alone has never been the deciding factor in searches. People favor candidates because of methodology, specific topic, institutional background, and personality. I think getting a job is crap shoot in which someone can come up with a million justifications for why it did or did not happen for them. That said, I do think that department's try to bend over backwards to hire women/minorities in their traditional fields (i.e. get an African American to teach African American history) but I think this hurts minority candidates in other fields.


 * I'm not sure anyone here is arguing that searches are or should be defined strictly on "merit" (whatever that can mean!); we all know that departmental needs and fit, for example, are issues. I DO think that we should be able to discuss publicly the dirty little secret that some SCs are using race or gender as hiring quals such that searches are cancelled or unqualified candidates are hired, especially when that's illegal under the law. There has to be a better way, and I think making this whole process more transparent would be a step in that direction.


 * re above: ha, "unqualified" candidates hired! By whose criteria? You've bought into a myth that there is some objective standard against which candidates can be measured. What is that? quality of institution, number of publications, graduate school grades? Search Committees have always used a host of extra criteria to justify hiring/not hiring someone. I think its wrong to fixate on this a gender/race problem. Or even as problem. This is the way the world is and the only thing that has shifted (and only a little is the underlying justifications. This is like complaining about the weather.


 * The weather?!?! You can't be serious, can you?  That is not only flippant, but also dismissive.  No, it is more than that: this statement and attitude does disservice to the long history of race and gender as influential forces in the academy and American culture.  Now, are race and gender the only factors in most hires? Obviously not.  But they can not be so simply and blatantly tossed aside either.  We are all historians here (I assume), so I would expect at least a bit of sensitivity or knowledge of the history of race and gender in American institutions and society.


 * I am a white male. Right before a campus visit, I found out that the whole search was a spousal hire for the (white) husband of a (white) prof they'd hired the year before.  I went through with it, and as I was being walked to the train station by the head of the search committee, he warned me that "because they were under such pressure to hire minority candidates" I should not be surprised if I was passed by... In the end, both the husband and myself received offers and worked there happily: two more white guys.  People feel very comfortable lying about "having" to hire "minorities," because most listeners believe them.


 * That's a great point; it makes me wonder how many of these unqualified etc. rumored candidates really exist and how many are SC inventions?? But... surely there's a difference between "complaining about the weather" and discussing practices that violate federal law.  When/if/as the latter happens, it's only made possible by the lack of transparancy, and letting the SCs get away with that (in general, in all aspects of the search) is not in our best interest as job seekers, I think.

A very clear and present danger has emerged in academia where SCs are under pressure to hire women and minorities when conducting searches in those fields. In other fields, however, I fear that the old boy system is firmly entrenched. What will be the long-term consequences of this? Imagine the state of social history without the hundreds of men and women who who have contributed to a field that they were not a part of. Imagine a world where women and minority students are discouraged from studying whatever it is that interests them, just so that they can get a job. I hope I am wrong. Any discussion?


 * You are not wrong. In fact, I think this is a real trend-not absolute but I was discouraged from AFAM by my advisor for this very reason. I wish I would have listened, b/c even with a book contract I can't get a job if there is a well-qualified minority scholar. I also do gender but so far no college has even considered me for any job where a gender field is listed as a priority. I understand the sentiment behind this and agree that there should be recruitment of minority scholars, but this should be accross the discipline. Or maybe its just sour grapes from a three-time AHA loser.