Talk:Rhetoric/Composition 2013

Demographics for 2012-13 Rhet-Comp Job Search

 * When you add yourself to one of the categories below, don't forget to add one to the Total number at the bottom!

ABD (early): 2

ABD (will finish this academic year): 14

Ph.D. in hand (one-year, VAP, Lecturer, post-doc): 4

Ph.D. in hand (unable to find full-time academic employment at the moment):

Assistant Professor: 2

Associate Professor: 1

Full Professor:

Lurker: 2

Search committee member: 3

Candidates whose primary specialization is technical / professional communication: 3

Total: 29

3/3 Jobs?
Hello!

I'm curious what ya'all's impressions are of a "3/3" job. Obviously the teaching load is 3 courses each semester, but does anyone have an impression of what the research expectations would be for a job like that?

Thanks

EB 2012 (talk) 18:37, September 6, 2012 (UTC)

A: A 3/3 job usually relies heavily on research as the primary form of getting tenured and promoted.

A: This is institution specific. 3/3 jobs with 15 students per class will likely have different research expectations than 3/3 jobs with 25 or 30 students per class. I have a friend at a 3/3 institution and they have tenured people with three articles, which means they aren't exactly relying on research as the primary form of getting tenure.


 * Quick question, when a school tells you they require X number of articles for tenure, does that include articles you have already published prior to coming into the position? Rhetorician (talk) 18:10, September 19, 2012 (UTC)


 * Not my field, but in my experience, usually not, unless you specifically negotiate for them to count during the hiring process. I'm sure it depends on the institution, though. Una74 (talk) 18:31, September 19, 2012 (UTC)


 * I am a faculty member at an insitution with a 3/3 load. Here, research is the primary measure for tenure. While rank and tenure boards are reluctant to give firm guidelines, the feeling around here is that fewer than six articles is a problem. But yes, this is very institution dependant. And in most places those X articles required for tenure need to published after you started the job (unless you negotiated otherwise or are on an accelerated track). Metaxanthalis (talk) 16:20, September 20, 2012 (UTC)

this year vs. last year
If memory serves, there were more positions initially last year than this year. Isn't that right? What is your impression about the number and types of jobs this year vs. last year?


 * Yes, that is my impression too: Fewer jobs this year (at least so far). Last year there was an unusually large number of jobs. And many of them trickled in later in the season.VanaWhite (talk) 12:57, September 18, 2012 (UTC)


 * For some reason, I remember 74 jobs in rhet/comp on the first day, which is higher than this year, but it looks like, based on an MLA report just released, last year was also a year where there were more jobs that were posted after the fall JIL:
 * "Once again, departments announced more positions later in the academic year.
 * For the third year in a row, and the third time in the thirty-seven-year history of
 * the JIL counts, more jobs were advertised in the February, April, and Summer issues
 * than in the October and December issues—51.8% of jobs in the English edition and
 * 61.1% of jobs in the foreign language edition."
 * That may or may not happen again this year. If it doesn't this would certainly be a smaller year than last.
 * Rhetorician (talk) 18:06, September 19, 2012 (UTC)

Tenure Track year-to-year contract?
Getting an education from you all on the finer points....This wording seemed abit unusually to me in the Albany State ad:

"This position is a contractual relationship, renewable on a year-to-year basis, based on availability of funds, and is a tenure track position."

Are most tt contracts renewable yearly? Rhetorician (talk) 18:53, September 21, 2012 (UTC)

Again, I think this depends on the institution. Some schools have a mandatory 3rd year review for untenured faculty, after which your contract may or may not be renewed. Some schools do an annual review of non-tenured faculty to determine whether to renew contracts. Some schools don't really do a full review until the year you're up for tenure. I've also heard of annual contract review as one outcome of the 3rd year review (that is, if there were some questions or concerns at the 3rd year review, they might want to keep you on the closer watch of an annual review, instead of renewing the contract for another 3 full years). Until you have tenure, you're not free and clear of reviews and renewals (and even after tenure, some places have a post-tenure review process, although optimally, the bar should be set pretty high for non-renewal of contracts at this stage). I'm sure others could add to this, but I hope this helps to clarify some aspects. Una74 (talk) 21:24, September 21, 2012 (UTC)

Rhetoric Jobs
Hi Rhetoric.

I'm the admin for comm jobs and I'm feelng like it isn't a good use of my time to post rhetoric jobs. Can I just post URLs somewhere for y'all?

http://www.jobtarget.com/c/job.cfm?site_id=560&job=11042411

http://chronicle.com/jobs/0000746568-01/?cid=ja&utm_source=ja&utm_medium=en

Thanks Commie4life (talk) 20:22, September 27, 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the links -- the job from the Chronicle truly does appear to be a Rhet/Comp job (was also advertised in MLA JIL), so I posted it on this page. The Wilkes job, however, really does seem to be more of a Comm. job, even though it has "Rhetoric" in the title and I'm not sure it really fits on this page (even as a cross-listing ... it doesn't really seem to involve writing pedgogy in any way). I imagine the people who apply for it will expect to see it on the Comm page, so I just went ahead and posted it on the Comm Jobs page. If someone else does end up cross-listing it on this page, I'll add a cross-list link. Una74 (talk) 20:30, September 28, 2012 (UTC)

University of Colorado at Colorado Springs Position - part of a persistent trend in Rhet/Comp Positions?
Under Notes/Queries on the main job page, I wrote the following several days ago:

Given the recent Chronicle of Higher Education article "Stale Phds Need Not Apply" I have concerns about the ethics of this position restriction (no more than 3 years postdoctoral experience). I have decided not to apply for it although I possess the basic qualifications, especially given that Colorado State University and Harvard University changed their job advertisements in departments of English (literature fields) with this particular requirement (to have received the PhD within 3 years) after public pressure.

After doing more research and talking to fellow graduate students in American literature I discovered that the English department at UCCS is also hiring another beginning Asst Prof position in 20th Century American Literature and Critical Theory (job ad here). What concerns me is that 1) the AmLit position does not have a restriction that the candidate must possess no more than 3 years of postdoctoral experience as the Rhet/Comp position does, 2) the AmLit position offers a 2/3 load, whereas beginning year 2 the position for our field offers a 2/2 load at the same time it includes administering the composition program (including managing 29+ NTTS), and 3) the AmLit position does not require a cover letter addressing "the relationship among writing, literature, Professional and Technical Writing, Rhetoric, and other components of English Studies" as ours does. I do not think UC Colorado Springs is alone in this or that the department is "bad" in any way, but I believe this speaks to a persistent trend in our field where there is an expectation for us to be 1) more overworked, 2) take on more administrative duties, and 3) have to understand our literary colleagues' research and be able to "translate" Rhetoric & Composition research to them far more than we ask their service and research to respect and understand our field. I recognize it's hardly the economic/job market climate to be "picky" about finding a job (and I don't doubt Colorado Springs is an awesome place to live), but our field is relatively strong compared to most in English studies now and I feel that should give us more agency to determine equitable conditions for our labor and increase the visibility/recognition of research in our field. Job-Bot (talk) 05:47, October 24, 2012 (UTC)

Job-Bot, I'm not applying to the position either, but I wonder if the department left the "no more than 3 years old" stipulation out of the AmLit position because of the controversy. What is curious about the issue is that The Chronicle article implies that the stale phd problem is primarily a literature PhD problem, but I wonder if it may now be a rhet/comp problem too. Does anyone have a sense of whether there are rhet/comp PhDs who have had to go on the market 3 or more years in a row?

99.100.54.159 19:29, October 25, 2012 (UTC)

Hi--I am applying for this position (it seems like a good job and a fun place to live), but I did find the request to discuss the connections between literature, rhetoric, etc, etc., to be silly. In fact, I'm not doing it in my letter, because, well, that is not the purpose of a job letter. If this committee is interested in my credentials and wants to schedule an interview, great. But if for some reason they are turned off that I did not bend over backwords to discuss an idea that doesn't even belong in a job letter, well, so be it.

I had speculated similarly - that it was because our field may be more healthful in terms of procuring a position - after discussing the position with colleagues, I was reminded that some Rhet/Comp scholars might not move directly into a tenure track position but accept lecturer or even lecturer/academic writing program hybrid positions based on geographic, family, or partner considerations.

For those considering applying for the UCCS position, the book Untenured Faculty as Writing Program Administrators Untenured Faculty as WPA may be a good resource, given that Debra Frank Dew edited it and also happens to be the outgoing WPA at UCCS and just started at Valparaiso this year (this is public information on the UCCS website). I believe it is everyone's choice to make, but I have decided not to apply for any Assistant Professor/WPA positions at larger institutions because of the considerations this book raises about how administrative work has been devalued during the tenure review. If I were applying for the position and received an offer for it I would want to make crystal clear how my administrative work as WPA would figure in the tenure review and what the other expectations for tenure would be.

Apologies I forgot to sign this post earlier so believe it was removed - I've edited it slightly. Job-Bot (talk) 23:33, October 25, 2012 (UTC)

I also found UCCS' demand that candidates discuss the connection between literature, rhetoric, etc. problematic. What will it take for our field to streamline the application process according to best practices as have so many other fields? In my opinion, in the first stage, schools should ask only for a (fairly standard) cover letter, CV, and letters. Who has time to tailor each letter while balancing one's work duties, especially when one is applying to 30-40 jobs? Even last year, I got a materials request from one university that took about one full week of my time to produce. This is highly unethical, especially when schools feel no responsibility to communicate with candidates in response to these materials. I have been told by multiple search committee members (and experienced in interviews) that fairly few of the documents we produce are read in any depth or even twice. I have the sense based on my experiences thus far that the schools that behave more reasonably throughout the search process are probably higher-functioning departments with a greater understanding of the field's best practices.

24.9.162.113 06:11, November 15, 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed that the request was potentially asking for too much, but you point to a much larger frustration that I think is more important in the diversity of materials. I've sent out over 30 applications, and I'm still creating new documents for some of the jobs I'm applying to. CV, Cover Letter, Writing Sample, Letters of Rec, adn possibly Teaching Philosophy are the only ones that I think really seem reasonable (though the last is arguably a throwaway doc that will only mess you up if you get it wrong). Departments really should start acknowledging the fact that this is a crapshoot, like you say. I'd be curious to know how this is on the inside, but my sense is that some departments are just trying to deter applicants who aren't as interested in the position to narrow the applicant pool down.Rhetorician (talk) 06:44, November 15, 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree that your latter point seems to be the motivation. Yet I once witnessed a colleague rack up MLA interviews for positions this colleague had no intention of taking. At the time, this colleague did not have the same day-to-day work responsibilities as many of us and was able to tailor letters and materials for 60 positions, all in advance of the deadline. There has to be a more promising, and actually indicative, way of gauging interest. What you and I address above--the absurdity of the volume and nature of the materials we are asked to produce--needs to be addressed by our field. I have gotten particularized requests for syllabi, for example. What a waste of time! I sit on the WC and WPA lists observing both veterans and newbies in the field ask questions such as, "Does anyone have suggestions for handbooks for a rhetoric course?" This is what we all do. If we are trained in our field and have relevant experience (and our candidacy is supported by strong letters from active colleagues in the field), it is highly likely that we can produce a syllabus and teach just about anything. Producing a syllabus is the easy (and fun) part. And I don't see how it relates to committees' ultimate goal, which is to hire faculty who will publish. Seems like hoop-jumping, which would bother me less if we did not have to apply for so many jobs, each with their own (often intense) application requirements. 24.9.162.113 03:09, November 17, 2012 (UTC) 24.9.162.113 03:23, November 17, 2012 (UTC)


 * I guess the positive way of looking at the situation is that one should expect to need all of these documents in order to go on the market. You make a good point though that tailoring an application should not necessarily be taken as evidence of real interst or best fit. I guess those who think we're whining might respond that those who really want the job must tailor their materials in order to be comipetitive. At the same time, your friend is in the same uncertain boat that we are, that there is no guarantee that any job you apply to will make you an offer, and he's just trying ot increase his chances. There is a lot of variation though in what is requested. I'm very tired of application systems that make you enter all of the info from your CV into their format...And don't get me started about Interfolio. I think the MLA has really dropped the ball in creating a system that works, and a so-called partnership with Interfolio does not really work. But yes, additional material requests can be pretty stressful..ramble ramble ramble..anyway back to the applications...Rhetorician (talk) 18:38, November 17, 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with your sentiments, and I am only responding because this is a public page, and I think it is important for posterity's sake to put it in writing that I do not believe we are whining. I know of few, if any, job application processes that require the volume of materials that our field demands, even jobs in other academic disciplines. And our field is one that is supposed to be concerned with teaching and writing practices and with the ethics of composition. It is one thing to require a cover letter, writing sample, CV, statement of teaching philosophy, or--if a job is an admin position, asking for an admin philosophy statement (although I wonder what can really be gleaned about a person through such statements, truthfully). It is another for schools to then make materials requests that are tailored to their programs (or to request tailored cover letters). One school last year asked me for two syllabi tailored to their program. We also have to be simultaneously preparing for interviews, researching the schools we are interviewing at, preparing a job talk or a teaching demo (another thing that should be standardized; one or the other, not both, and I question the value of a teaching demo), and going about our usual duties, whether that is administrating a writing program, finishing our dissertation, raising children, or all of the above. Many academic fields from the social sciences to the sciences have standardized their application process out of a realization of the stress and unwieldiness of this process, as well as the fact that many people do not land jobs. More of us have to be vocal about the absurdity and lack of ethics/consideration involved in this process if we wish to see it get streamlined. There is no part of me that thinks that our job application process is fine as it is. Good luck with your applications. 24.9.162.113 21:38, November 18, 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm in agreement, I was just trying to think of the best argument against the way I was feeling about it. What has happened is that the field and the market have changed, and not enough academics are recognizing that. Just look at Eliza Woolf's 10 step plan to standing out from the herd, and you can see that we are expected to do a fairly rediculous amount of work to actually get a second look, let alone an interview, let alone a campus visit, let alone a job offer. The last point is almost comical to me: "Finally, apply only for jobs for which you feel reasonably qualified AND would seriously consider accepting." This sounds reasonable, but what she is really saying is to not apply to as many jobs, as if that would some how make it more likely for us to get a job given the market. True, we might be able to do more careful tailoring, but that is not guarantee of a job. Perhaps we should do something more like they do in med school for residency (save the part where they have to travel to residency programs on their own dime to interview) where you rank the schools, and they rank their top candidates, and then we have a match day in the early spring. Ok that would probably never work, but something has got to give. Rhetorician (talk) 05:07, November 20, 2012 (UTC)


 * The application process is interminable, baffling, and taxing - especially for those of us (read: most) with a host of other duties to which we must attend. Those redundant application systems are the worst. The other day I was asked to provide my entire work history dating back to high school, "leaving no gaps."  Yeah - that happened. That said, I'm tailoring everything, and I can't imagine doing otherwise. It takes a very long time, and there's not really any discernable correlation between effort and reward, but as grad students, we should be used to that. Why make more work for search committees?  More importantly, why would they want a candidate who hasn't taken the time to show how s/he is a good fit for them? Tailoring is a measure of your interest in the job.  And, frankly, this kind of adaptation is what makes a good cover letter.  The letter is one of the few places you can distinguish yourself from countless other applicants with the same qualifications. One can hardly claim to be an expert in rhetoric and NOT frame his/her letters in accordance with audience expectations.  Also, I think Woolf is right about being selective; better to write 15 or 20 great applications than throw together 50 half-assed ones.  70.191.120.50 00:15, November 21, 2012 (UTC)

Requests for additional materials?
Hi R/C 2013 Wiki community, Does anyone have a sense of when requests for additional materials start to roll in from schools? And if so, what % of the total applicant pool are asked for additional materials (perhaps search committee members might know)?

99.100.54.159 19:22, October 25, 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a Search Committee member so I don't know about the second question, but this is my second search year (I accepted a VAP position for this year) and I checked my calendar from last year: requests for additional materials seemed to average 2-4 weeks after the initial application deadlines. You might also consult the page from last year to compare the app deadline/request dates listed. Just from anecdotal evidence I really got the sense this was based on when the committee was able to schedule a meeting/have communication to discuss the narrowed list. I also know some committees made requests in small waves (based on comparing experience with peers at my institution). I even had an MLA interview with a school that asked me for an interview in early December at the same time to send additional materials and asked a peer to send along additional materials who was then invited for an interview (in that case we got the sense they had agreed on a certain group of interviewees but then might have been split on who to interview in the remaining interview spots open). Requests for MLA interviews came as early as December 6 for me and as late as December 21. Job-Bot (talk) 21:45, October 25, 2012 (UTC)


 * Since you mentioned interview request dates, I'll just add that interview requests for me started rolling in around mid November for places that asked for letters from the get go,w hich was near the same time I started getting requests for additional materials. Rhetorician (talk) 00:03, October 26, 2012 (UTC)


 * Can I also just hijack this to complain? Based on my experience, it's also not true when a lot of departments say review begins on X date. Drives my crazy when I submit something in advance of the review date only to find out later that other people have already received requests for additional materials a week or so before my submission (and before the supposed day for review of materials to begin). Why do they say that? Now I know that we should be getting materials in as early as possible if we're serious about the job, but why give a false date for the beginning of the review of materials? Rhetorician (talk) 16:47, October 26, 2012 (UTC)


 * To the question of what % of a pool gets asked for additional materials: it depends. I have been on one search committee where any committe member who wanted to see additional materials could simply ask for them (which led to somewhat over a third of the pool being asked for that). More recently I have been on a committee that requested additional materials from roughly double the # of MLA interview slots it imagined. That was probably closer to 20% of the pool. SearchCommMember (talk) 01:30, November 14, 2012 (UTC)SearchCommMember


 * Thank you, SearchCommMember! That's quite helpful. 68.75.23.121 16:17, November 19, 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll second the above from the SCM. I'm also on SC--anyone in our group of 3 can request additional materials at any time. Our position is open until filled so we didn't list a review date, but don't any assumptions about being asked for materials later than someone else. If you got a request, they're interested in you, and you're still in the running.

Additional materials
Hi, what exactly is wanted if a dossier is requested. I&apos;m finding some say they want a dossier AND letters of rec, and some say WITH letters of rec. What else should go in a dossier?Rhetorician (talk) 07:46, October 30, 2012 (UTC)

I was also under the impression that a dosser includes the letters or rec, but perhaps they also want copies of your transcripts? Our department&apos;s dossier service offers to send transcripts (unofficial at this stage) with the letters. But you should ask the search chair if you have her/his info! 99.100.54.159 11:38, October 31, 2012 (UTC)

Language courses
what exactly do the positions that mention the ability to teach "language courses" refer to (these are listed as an additional plus in the cases I'm talking about and are not the main specialty)? Grammar? history of the English language? Foreign language? Any of the above?Rhetorician (talk) 07:45, October 30, 2012 (UTC)

Question about Header Markings
Hello Rhetoric/Composition job seekers and search committee members:

I have received an expression of concern about the marking of "DEADLINE PASSED" / "PRIORTIY DEADLINE PASSED" in the heading of jobs. It has been suggested to me that this practice can be misleading because while many of these positions do state a date of initial review, this is not really a hard and fast deadline, as the positions ultimately remain "open until filled." In marking the headings this way, I have been following the practice established for this page this year and last. It is a practice inspired I believe by that on the Humanities and Social Sciences Postdocs 2012-13 page, where it has been welcome. I would like to emphasize there has been NO intent to mislead anyone or interfere with any search process in following this practice. Nonetheless, I appreciate the concern and do believe there is something of a difference between postdoc positions (which often do have hard and fast deadlines) and Rhet/Comp jobs (which tend to have more open-ended review periods).

I understand that this is a large page because of the number of jobs and it can be overwhelming to sort through - therefore, I think some kind of system of marking headers is extremely helpful. It is my personal view that it is most helpful to mark NOT so much DEADLINES PASSED (because of the ambiguitites discussed above) but rather notable events like INTERVIEWS being scheduled or OFFERS being made. However, this is not my field, I am not seeking a job in this market, I am simply the administrator of this wiki (not just this page, but many others too). I would like the Rhet/Comp community to determine what header markings they feel are most useful, so I and other page administrators know how to proceed without inadvertently upsetting users. I would suggest whatever system is determined to be most optimal should be consistently followed across all postings in order to be helpful to users. Please share your views below. Thanks.

Una74 (talk) 16:00, November 18, 2012 (UTC)

This heading can be useful, but I am concerned because someone inappropriately marked a few jobs (such as the Wayne State job, I believe) as "deadline passed," when the actual deadline is November 19. I edited this, and then someone went back in and changed the headline again. If a program is accepting applications on a rolling basis, either "priority deadline passed" (if that applies) or "applications being accepted; final deadline approaching" (or something more elegant) should be used. 24.9.162.113 21:46, November 18, 2012 (UTC)

I was doing some header updates and was over-thinking some of the protocol myself in terms of the message PRIORITY or FIRST this or that as a deadline sends. I don't know about others, but I assume many like me have their own doc file or offline organization system that tells us about deadlines for jobs we plan to apply to (not out of paranoia but more because there are so many on here that aren't my specialization, it wouldn't be helpful for this to be the list I work from). I think I'm just going to stick to marking things like INTERVIEWS SCHEDULED / CAMPUS VISITS scheduled, etc. because I realize (like you mention Una74) that those are the ones I find the most visibly useful... sigh, and sometimes the most disappointing to read :P Job-Bot (talk) 01:40, November 19, 2012 (UTC)

yes, i think that most of us who are applying have recorded deadlines somewhere else. I just come here to remind myself of the language of the post and usually to follow the link to the job application site or the original job ad. I see the deadline passed notices after I have submitted the application. I second the notion that the "interview scheduled" type of announcements should be priority over the others and would cut down on the changes we have to read through to find that information. Rhetorician (talk) 05:12, November 20, 2012 (UTC)

How many applications?
Ok, I was reminded of seeing a thread in last-year's talk page where folks were talking about how many applications they were sending. Seeing Eliza Woolf's 10 step plan to standing out from the herd where she says that we should apply selectively brought it to mind.Rhetorician (talk) 05:20, November 20, 2012 (UTC)

Here is the Poll: By MLA, how many jobs have you or will you have applied for? Add an x next to the number you'll complete.

<20

<30 1x

<40

<50

<60 x x

<80

<100

>100