Talk:History 2008-2009

=Page for Discussion/Venting/Complaining=


 * Complain. But don't be mean. Contribute. But don't delete.

Cancellations
*51: Total


 * 2: Africa
 * William & Mary
 * Albion College


 * 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


 * 4: Latin America
 * University of Illinois at Chicago
 * Roger Williams University
 * Villanova University
 * William Patterson University


 * 3: Middle East
 * Bard College
 * California State University, Chico
 * Western Illinois University


 * 16: United States
 * Brandeis (2 positions: 1800-present; ?)
 * Indiana University
 * Long Island U., CW Post Campus, 20th C
 * Missouri Southern State University
 * Ohio University (US & World Post WWI)
 * 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


 * 1: World
 * University of Maine, Farmington


 * 5: Non-Geographical
 * 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)

Searches on hold, suspended, in limbo, and not yet canceled:
 * University of Pittsburgh, Latin America, "suspended"
 * East Stroudsburg, Latin America, "on hold"
 * UMass Amherst 20th century U.S. "suspended"
 * 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?

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.

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.

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.

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!