The Academic Job Market

What follows is a three-part compilation of messages discussing the job market 
and search process, especially in academia. They appeared on WMST-L in 
April/May 1995. A related discussion, Applying for an Academic Job, took place
on the list a year earlier.  For additional WMST-L files now available on
the Web, see the WMST-L File List.

PAGE 1 OF 3

 
I have a general question.  I have noticed a trend that as someone on
the job market I find very frustrating.  Before beginning postdoctoral
work four years ago, I applied for several positions out of graduate
school.  Each department advertising a position returned a response to
me stating that they had received my materials, that my package was
complete, and indicating when the review process would begin (sometimes
a specific date, others a more general indication).  Furthermore, and
unfortunately for me at the time (*smile*), each department sent me a
letter indicating that the search was over and someone else had been
chosen.  I really appreciated both of these responses.  The first let
me know that I hadn't made an oversight and was being considered, and
the second gave me a sense of closure with the process.
 
I am now on the job market again and find that aspects of the above
process have been eliminated and in many cases the entire process has
been abandoned.  Only rarely do I receive notification that my materials
have been received, etc. and increasingly I never hear a thing.
 
I have heard that 'not hearing a thing' is standard practice in the
business sector (they abandoned the respectful and ethical process
years ago because it apparently wasn't cost effective).  Is a similar
ethic developing within the academic sector?  In other words, is there
such a glut of qualified candidates for a position that universities no
longer have to be concerned with treating people with courtesy and
respect?
 
I have written on the topic of job searches before and many of your comments
have been very helpful, not just to me but to others as well.  Thus, I thought
that I would ask for more help (*smile*).  Since many of you have served
on search committees, can any of you suggest how long an appropriate waiting
time should be?  In other words, the deadline for the receipt of materials is
X.  If I haven't heard anything in Y weeks after X, I should assume that I
am not being considered.
 
[Disclaimer:  I am not singling out any school, nor am I saying that any of
you belong to departments who do not answer all applicants.  I am simply
noting a frustrating trend that I am experiencing and asking for suggestions
on how to make my own realistic appraisal of the process.]
 
Iana Pattatucci
"Luciana%bchem.dnet  @  dxi.nih.gov"

 
On Fri, 28 Apr 1995, Iana Pattatucci wrote:
 
> I have a general question.  I have noticed a trend that as someone on >
the job market I find very frustrating.  Before beginning postdoctoral >
...been abandoned.  Only rarely do I receive notification that my
materials > have been received, etc. and increasingly I never hear a
thing. > In other words, is there > such a glut of qualified candidates
for a position that universities no > longer have to be concerned with
treating people with courtesy and > respect?
 
 
There is indeed a "glut."  I sent a Self-addressed, stamped postcard with
all my job applications--and sometimes I didn't even get that
acknowledged, and so I have to call.  All of the positions I applied for
this past year received over 300 applications.  Some received over 800.
Jobs at two year colleges seemed no less overwhelmed than others.  Two
years ago I served on a hiring committee, and we received 170
applications.  One thing I noticed then--and I do not know how many
universities advise (and misadvise) their grads to do this--over 70 of
those apps. were from students who still didn't even know the names of
their dissertations.  We were very clear about wanting ph.d.'s or ph.d's
who would be finished well before the job deadline.  This kind of slush
makes it well-nigh impossible for smaller schools on tighter budgets to
respond to all applicants--though we did do it when they provided SASE.
It's a nasty job market at the moment, near as I can tell, but it really
isn't the fault of hiring committees or depts. in most cases.  I think it
has more to do with the lack of funding to hire as many people as depts.
really need right now, and from the lack of time to respond to the
overwhelming number of applicants for each and every position.  Some
positions, of course, seem over-supplied with qualified apps. as well.
Good luck on your searches, all who would be employed.
 
*********************************
*Theresa Thompson               *    Out flew the web, and floated wide,
*Washington State University    *    The mirror crack'd from side to side,
*Pullman, Washington  99164     *    "The curse has come upon me!" cried
*email: ttheresa  @  wsunix.wsu.edu *    The Lady of Shalott.
*********************************

 
This has been a recent topic of discussion on the AMSList (a
discussion list of members of the American Musicological Society).
Evidently the courtesy formerly associated with job searches is a
thing of the past in many places.  There *is* a glut, certainly.
And to a certain extent this is the cause of the problem.  My
department recently posted a job announcement very clearly
describing a one-year sabbatical replacement and we received about
240 applications (lord only knows what kind of response we would
have gotten if it had been a real tenure-track appointment!).
Letters acknowledging receipt of materials went out, as did letters
of rejection to those applicants who were not selected.  But even
though our secretary printed out letters using her computer, it
STILL took hours and hours of her time addressing envelopes,
affixing postage, and so forth.
 
I'm not excusing rudeness on the part of potential employers; I'm
just suggesting that circumstances (including a large response to
the posting) might play a role in this changed procedure.
 
Katherine Preston
kkpres  @  facstaff.wm.edu
Dept of Music
The College of William and Mary

 
I am in the midst of the search process myself.  Out of 28 applications,
all but one acknowledged receipt.  I've been notified of rejection on
on 16, including one position that had over 300 applicants.  Four
for which I made short lists are still pending.  In one case I
received a telephone call notifying me that the funds for the position
had been frozen (I was second on the interview list).  The search
committee chair for that one said he remembered having gone through
searches himself and felt those who'd made short lists deserved
notification of the final decision by telephone.  Three of the positions
for which I applied have probably been filled but I've not received
any notification.
 
Every acknowledgement of reciept that I have received encouraged telepone
telephone calls from candidates who had questions.  Though I have
not done so, I would think that a call after four weeks would be
appropriate.  For one thing, searches often get delayed for reasons
having nothing to do with any of the candidates.  I have sat on three
search committees myself, including two for a school director's
position, and often what happens is that the department isn't clear
itself on exactly what it wants until the applications start coming
in.  Debates over who should be on short lists can be long.  Sometimes
the delays can be simply a matter of getting search committee members
together at the same time for a meeting.  Then again, the committee
may have made recommendations and the department and/or dean rejected
one or more of the short list choices for a variety of reasons.  In
one case delays occurred for affirmative action reasons.
 
Most institutions don't want to send rejection letters until their
chosen candidate has signed a contract, assuming that it's better
to give no answer at all than to reject a candidate and, having
been refused by their first choices, try to get a formally
rejected candidate interested again.  Personally I think this is
kind of silly, since you can pretty well assume that with a deadline
in December and a call for an interview in April or so, something
went wrong.
 
If more candidates were to call to find out their status in the search
process, more departments would put the effort into getting out
acknowledgements and rejection letters.  Responding to 300 applications
by mail may be overwhelming -- imagine how overwhelming it would
be if all 300 applicants telephoned!  Regardless of the number of
applications received, you have the right to know what happened
to your application.  With no acknowledgement whatsoever, it could
very well be that your application got lost in the mail or got
misfiled.
 
So, I say call them!  Don't make a pest of yourself, but if you really
are interested in a particular job, track the search process.  The
more  people who know what's going on, the less likely it is that
a search committee will be able to hide biases.
 
Georgia NeSmith
gnesmith  @  acspr1.acs.brockport.edu

 
I thought I'd add a note about my experience in the UK. I have also been
applying for positions and usually hear nothing unless I am called for
interview. I too find it frustrating and get the impression that the volume
of applications is nothing like what the US posters are talking about. A
recent permanent job in the dept. where I am temporarily employed received
35 applications. If this is the order of magnitude, there seems to be little
excuse for not sending acknowledgements (actually several UK universities
provide you with a post-card for acknowledgements that the personnel dept.
sends back but after that you're left in the dark a bit).
 
For those who serve on committees, I have just had a completely avoidable
frustrating experience. I was interviewed for a position and told on the day
that they would phone the next day to tell us the result. The interview was
on a Wednesday. I was phoned on Monday evening. I realize that decisions can
take a long time but my request is this: Please do not make unrealistic
promises. If I had been told that I would hear the following week, that
would have been much better than told an earlier date and left hanging.
 
Sorry for the rant. Good luck to all others searching.
 
Jo VanEvery
soa00  @  cc.keele.ac.uk

 
Call me idealistic and/or old fashioned, however it seems to me that if a
department places an advertisement searching for presumably the most qualified
candidate whose interests and personality fit in best with those of the
department, it is THEY who are going to benefit the most.  Thus, along with
that would seem to come some responsibility.
 
With that said, I had an idea over the weekend that might help to make
everyone's life easier and less hectic.  Because the most often cited problem
is an avalanche of applications without adequate staff support to properly
handle them, why not institute the following change.  When an advertisement
is placed, why not include a request for an email address (if they have one)
in the section of the ad that instructs what materials to send.  My email
address appears on my c.v..  However, it might not occur to a reviewer to
use it.  I would actually PREFER to be notified through email.  It is quicker,
more efficient, and a whole lot cheaper for the university.
 
The dilemma for me and others on the job market of course is competition.
However, complicating matters is being left hanging.  If I am not being
considered for a position, I would like to know and as soon as possible, so
that my energies can be directed else where.  I do not need to receive this
notification on university stationery, letter-head, and with an official
signature.  I agree that email would not be an appropriate mode of notification
for those who have made it through various narrowings in the selection process,
but for those of us who have NO chance, e-mail would seem to be the most
efficient, cost-effective route available.
 
iana
"luciana%bchem.dnet  @  dxi.nih.gov"

 
Since people on the list are talking about job searches I would like to add a
side comment about the process.  Many of you have mentioned the enormous
number of applicants you receive for each job advertised.  Is it really
necessary to have applicants request their referees to send letters of
support at this point in the search process?  Of the 200 or more applicants,
I am sure the search committee is capable of coming up with a "long list" of
20 or so top candidates who can then be further evaluated through additional
documentation such as recommendations.  To ask all applicants to initially
include letters of support is I believe requesting an enormous number of work
hours on the part of those writing references.  In most cases this is
actually busy work since the candidate has little chance of getting the job.
We wont even discuss the mass of paper and environmental degradation as a
result of this process.
 
This year in the job search I found women's studies programs / departments to
be consistently the biggest, what i would call, "offenders."  I have
been on enough job search committees to know this is an unnecessary process
at the initial stage, and I plead with my colleagues to do away with it.
There were many jobs I did not apply for because I became so indignant at the
 immorality of the process, and the first reason I found for not applying
was when letters of rec. were required for initial screening.  Note it
would not have required any more work from me, but I could not, in all
honesty, ask my friends and colleagues to spend their valuable time on
a process that seemed so iffy.
 
I do hope people will consider this when they have job openings in the
future.
 
Barbara S. Nowak
Nowak  @  ac.grin.edu

 
Another point of view--two years in a row I was involved in the
search for a joint appointment in English and Women's Studies.  The
first year we used the English department's policy of not requring
letters until the first cut--those of us on the committee from other
depts. found it terribly cumbersome--because of the
interdisciplinarity of the position we then requested letters from a
large number of the original applicants losing lots of time in the
process and resolving very little.  The second year the candidates
were requested to provide letters on the first application and things
went much more smoothly.  I noticed, though, that many completely
inappropriate candidates applied both years.  I would encourage those
of you looking for jobs to be very selective in your applications and
the number of letters that have to be sent won't be a burden.  If the
job description supplies requirements (type of degree, experience,
etc.) believe that you have no chance of getting the job if you don't
meet these requirements--spend your energy doing more research rather
than sending out applications to jobs you are marginally qualified
for!
Debbie Green
College of William and Mary
 
P.S.  The English Dept. ended up delegating the task of replies to a
student assistant and the replies sent struck me as a bit odd
(apparently there wasn't much oversight of this endeavor), but they
were sent!

 
Amen to those writing to lament the practice of requesting letters of
recommendation from all job candidates up front.  I've sat on search
committees in two English depts. and it made more sense to take a first cut--
not of the top twenty out of 200 (or more), but perhaps the top fifty--and
request letters then of those candidates before going on.  It seems unethical
either to make job candidates pay for dossiers (inc. the letters of rec:
standard in English) or to make them go back to the well with their
recommenders time and again when many decisions can be made on the basis of
the initial materials.
 
FURTHER QUESTION though:  I'm interested in the report that Women's Studies
searches may proceed differently, and perhaps at greater cost (in whatever
way) to candidates.  Narratives here?  How do job searches in WS work as
compared to jobs in the long-established disciplines?  My own experience,
having gotten both sorts of jobs, is that the WS searches go on later in the
year; a matter of coordinating several disciplines' calendars, or greater
difficulty in securing funding?  And that WS searches don't do convention
interviews, which puts different kinds of stresses on initial materials and
campus visits.  How are WS hiring committees constructed these days and how
do they arrive at consensus decisions?  Clearly this question trenches on the
old matters of institutional structures and autonomy for WS, but I'm
wondering less about structure in the abstract and more about the
phenomenology of everyday hiring life (on both sides of the interview--having
just agreed to become placement officer for my dept's PhD students) . . .
 
 
Mary Loeffelholz
Mary=Loeffelholz%Faculty%ENG  @  nunet.neu.edu
English/Northeastern University

 
Here's another point of view on requiring letters of recommendations
to accompany applications.  In two cases I requested letters for
jobs that, at the last minute, I decided not to apply for, not
because I didn't qualify for the job but because I didn't think
I'd really be interested.  I felt bad about the work I'd put my
friends through, but since they'd been sending out lots of
letters for me, I figured there wasn't that much extra work involved.
One does need to give folks lots of lead time so I've asked for
the letters before I'd made a firm decision about applying.
 
Anyway . . . the chairs of both search committees ended up asking
me to submit my applications after the deadline because the letters
were so strong.
 
Maybe we've got this process bass-ackwards!
 
Georgia NeSmith
gnesmith  @  acspr1.acs.brockport.edu

 
One thought about the job search problem in relation to applicants not
being suited to the positions they apply for: job listings are often quite
unclear.  One job I applied for said it wanted a person who sounded just
like me, and then I learned that the chair of the dept. had worded that
listing and the committee had not agreed with that description...and so
on.  One job claimed it wanted a comp/rhet person, so I didn't apply.  I
found out at MLA that that job description had been completely off-base
for what the committee was actually looking for, and I should have
applied. Often the listings are so brief it is hard to say what the fine
lines of the job might be at all.  Sometimes the listing says "general
lit. with a preference for theorists," so 800 applicants apply and they
wanted a 20th-centuryt Americanist with an emphasis in AF-AM.
 
I'm not certain about how listing is done in most depts., but some
coordination of the listings would help eliminate a lot of wasted time and
money on both sides.
 
*********************************
*Theresa Thompson               *    Out flew the web, and floated wide,
*Washington State University    *    The mirror crack'd from side to side,
*Pullman, Washington  99164     *    "The curse has come upon me!" cried
*email: ttheresa  @  wsunix.wsu.edu *    The Lady of Shalott.
*********************************

    Another message on this subject sent to me by a friend, a dean at a
state university:
(Marmika Paskiewicz <marmika  @  chicoma.la.unm.edu>)
---------- Forwarded message ---------
 
  Yes, I think there is a problem here, and the bigger the school, probably
  the bigger the problem.  Search committees are notoriously slow to make
  their "cuts," and then they hedge their bets by making the first cut very
  conservative and stringing others along.  But candidates don't help by
  applying to places they are not really considering!!  And the job market
  is so wretched that it's a "buyer's market" and the employer gets to call
  the tune!   Another feature:  all of the correspondence used to be
  handled by departments.  Because of concerns that this procedure was
  being done, the Personnel Office took it over.  We've had some major
  problems becuase of this--slow to acknowledge receipt, for one, and slow
  to forward the file to teh department, for another.
 
  1) [basically, it runs like this.]  We send 1) letter saying we've received
  your stuff [or x, y, or z are missing] and we begin review on ___  [date
  certain].
 
  2) First cut letter says thank you for your application but we will not
  be pursuing your candidacy.  Good luck with your search.  (That's
  everyone but the top 12-15.)
 
  3) We contact by phone the "top" pool--see if they are still interested.
  Then, based on reference checks and phone interviews, we narrow to 3-5.
 
  4) Letters go to the second "cut."
 
  5) List of 3-5 finalists goes to Affimative Action officer who "clears"
  the search (enough #, enough diversity).  (5 and 6 happen close
  together.)
 
  6) List, unranked, goes from committee (if faculty, through dean) to
  VP Academic Affairs, who approves an on-campus interview for one or more.
 
  7) Hire after interview.  Letters to those not selected in the
  "finalists" list.
 
  Collapse.  Pray the one you picked isn't going to hate you!

 
It is very interesting to see the different perspectives on this issue.
 Many serving on search committees appear to be annoyed by the sheer volume
of applications received, a substantial number coming from unqualified or
marginally qualified candidates.  To relate this directly to a focus of
women's studies, from my point of view, those of you who are *in* the
academy (particularly those who are tenured) represent a privileged power
structure, and of course those of us on the outside have little power, and
no status.  I do not find it surprizing at all that job announcements would
typically receive hundreds of applications.  What I do find bewildering is
an unwillingness on the part of the academy to take any responsibility for
their predicament.  Universities over the last 30 years have actively
promoted higher education as a means of increasing income, job security, and
community status.  The promotion has been so effective that an undergraduate
education is viewed as a necessity for every young person.  In the process,
there has been a devaluation of the significance of various degrees.   A
bachelor's degree is now valued at about the same level as a high school
diploma was 30 years ago. Thus, someone choosing not to go to college is
viewed much the same way as a high school drop-out was in the past.   A
Ph.D., which used to mean that one is a "scholar", now has been devalued to
the level of "specialist" in a narrowly-defined area.  Although the data
clearly shows that it is practical experience that is valued the most in the
private sector, individuals continue to buy in to the notion that more and
more schooling will improve their situation.  I wonder why?
 
As long as colleges and universities continue to churn out people with
advanced degrees, and also streamline those degrees so that they are
progressively easier to obtain in less overall time (eg. the many one year
master's degree programs in existence, combined M.D./Ph.D. programs that
require little research and dissertation work, certificate programs in a
concentrated area, etc.), and do this in a market that is overly saturated,
they can expect the workload associated with job searches to increase.
 
Iana Pattatucci
(notice my new account)
pattatua  @  dc37a.nci.nih.gov

 
Even more unethical is the practice of a few departments that require
writing samples with the applications!  I know people who have had to
spend almost $5.00 per application, given the costs of xeroxing and
mailing.  That seems entirely unnecessary until a later cut.
Jo Ellen Green Kaiser, jgkais00  @  ukcc.uky.edu

 
>Even more unethical is the practice of a few departments that require
>writing samples with the applications!  I know people who have had to
>spend almost $5.00 per application, given the costs of xeroxing and
>mailing.  That seems entirely unnecessary until a later cut.
 
Hmm, must vary by field.  MOST departments in my field require 1 OR
MORE writing samples, and my dossier service (which won't send
anything but transcripts and letters of rec; everything else must be
sent separately) charges $5 each just for mailing my letters of rec.
I figure the cost of each app to run closer to $10 each, avg., and
that's assuming that the job announcement is posted far enough before
the deadline that it is not necessary to use express mail or fax to
get it there on time.
 
The first time I was on the job market I kept a careful and full
accounting of my job search expenses, which totalled (as I recall)
over $4000 spread over 3 years by the time all was added up (including
trips to interviews at expensive conferences at distant locations and
child care expenses during same), before I obtained a tenure track
job.
----------- Ruth Ginzberg (rginzberg  @  eagle.wesleyan.edu) ------------

 
540 applications sounds overwhelming for recruiters.  I am curious
that you presented an either or situation for Doctorates in English.
Either they teach at a University or they face unemployment.  Are there
not other professions outside the academy for a Doctorate in English?
 
What is the gender breakdown for English majors.  It certainly makes
sense to encourage students to explore less saturated fields, or areas of
study that will enable the student to earn an adequate living.  Last time
I looked- African Americans segregate into education and psychology and
women (all women, not broken down by ethnicity or cultures) are under
represented in the sciences.  However, this is an issue that needs to be
addressed in primary and secondary question where the "gate keeping"
begins filtering women out of the sciences, targeted groups such as
hispanics, latinas out of the system altogether.
Kathy Drew
psu02880  @  odin.cc.pdx.

 
Iana Pattatucci writes:
 
> I do not find it surprizing at all that job announcements would
> typically receive hundreds of applications.  What I do find bewildering is
> an unwillingness on the part of the academy to take any responsibility for
> their predicament.  Universities over the last 30 years have actively
> promoted higher education as a means of increasing income, job security, and
> community status.  The promotion has been so effective that an undergraduate
> education is viewed as a necessity for every young person.
 
        I'm surprised that Iana doesn't find it surprising.  When I tell
people outside the university that we recently received 540 applications
for one beginning assistant professorship in English (with field defined),
they're astonished.  They've not experienced anything like this in their
fields.
 
        I don't think the finger can be pointed just at universities for
promoting higher education.  The forces that have created the situation
that Iana describes are far more complex.  Increasingly, for example, jobs
require more advanced training.  There are far fewer decently-paying jobs
today that ask primarily for manual labor than there were forty or fifty
years ago.  At the same time, for a variety of reasons, high schools demand
less and less for a diploma; all too often, the diploma is simply a
certificate of attendance.  With the value of a diploma lessened, and more
and more jobs requiring additional skills and knowledge not imparted in
high school, more students feel impelled to attend college.  This is by no
means solely or even primarily the result of universities promoting higher
education.
 
        I'm very troubled by the job market in academe, and I'm not sure
what we can do to make the process more humane and more manageable both for
applicants and for those on hiring committees.  Some of the suggestions
people have made on WMST-L in the past few days have been helpful, but I
think more drastic changes are needed.  Frankly, given the dismal
job-market statistics and prospects, I think those of us in the academy
should probably be trying harder to discourage students from going on for
Ph.D.s in over-populated fields.  I piled all 540 applications from our
recent job search into one humongous pile and photographed it.  Whenever my
students ask me to write recommendations for graduate school in English, I
whip out the photo and start my tale of woe.  Certainly, if a good student
persists in wanting to go to graduate school, I will write a
recommendation, but I feel obligated to warn the student first and to let
the student know that almost all the 540 people who applied were very
bright, just like her/him, and that that's not enough.  Many superb
students will simply not find decent academic jobs.
 
        I think we need to encourage our students to leave the womb and
think more creatively about their careers.  Certainly some students--
including some very good students--go on for Ph.Ds because the university
is familiar territory where they feel comfortable and where they have been
rewarded in the past, and because they can't imagine what else they might
do.  Especially in light of the job market, these are not sufficient reasons
to go to graduate school.
 
        I think, too, that those of us in Ph.D.-granting departments (and
mine is not one) should re-examine our admissions policies and probably
admit fewer graduate students.  This isn't easy; American universities, at
least, have come to depend on graduate students to do increasing amounts of
lower-level teaching and to stimulate and aid faculty research.  "Research"
is where the money and prestige are.  Whether that research is genuinely
important or needed, and at what/whose expense it comes, is rarely
considered.  I'm not railing mindlessly against research; I AM suggesting
that we need to examine the current emphasis on research more critically,
if only because I think it contributes in an important way to the
over-production of Ph.D.s in many fields.
 
        When I started this reply, I did not expect it would be so long.
But this is an issue I've been very much involved with, and one that I
think we in the academy need to consider carefully.
 
        Joan Korenman
 
*****************************************************************************
*       Joan Korenman                 Internet: korenman  @  umbc2.umbc.edu     *
*       U. of Md. Baltimore County    Bitnet:   korenman  @  umbc               *
*       Baltimore, MD 21228-5398                                            *
*                                                                           *
*    The only person to have everything done by Friday was Robinson Crusoe  *
*****************************************************************************

 
As someone who has been on the job market this year and received
"avalanches of rejection letters" let me make a few specific
suggestions about the wording of the rejection letters:
 
Here is one which I thought was good;  short and to the point, with
only one fault, which is that it addressed me as "Ms Ginzberg" when I
would have preferred "Dr. Ginzberg" (after all, these aren't
applications for the secretarial pool):
 
   "This is to inform you that our department has concluded our
    hiring process for the advertised position.  We had numerous
    highly qualified applicants and regret not being able to move
    further with your candidacy.
 
   "We thank you for your interest in our department and position and
    wish you the best for the future"
 
THAT'S ALL.  I find this sort of form letter (OBVIOUSLY its a form
letter; candidates all know this, and depts don't need to attempt to
disguise this fact) *VASTLY* perferable to the ones which go on and on
and on, detailing the angst of the committee in trying to decide how
to deal with 800 applications.
 
Depts should remember when composing a rejection letter that
candidates probably are receiving many dozens of such letters already.
Often I receive letters detailing how stiff the competition is and
wonder "Is this supposed to make me feel BETTER, or WHAT?"  The fact
is, no candidate wants to be reminded dozens and dozens and dozens of
times that she is competing against unfathomable hoards of superbly
qualified others whom she would prefer to regard as colleagues rather
than as competitors.  We already realize that --- all too well.
 
My other pet peeve is the avalanches of affirmative action forms.  I
personally do not return any which do not pay their own postage.  Why
should I "voluntarily" elect to spend my own money to help an
institution which probably isn't going to hire me anyway, and which
probably isn't going to improve its hiring practices either, based on
whether or not I send them my demographic data.  If I actually believed
that these things made a *whit* of difference, I might feel more
inclined to return them.  But they seem far more likely to be ignored,
or at best, to help some institution which probably ISN'T doing a very
good job of divirsifying its faculty to collect enough statistics to
keep its federal funding.  Why should I waste my own postage stamp to
do that?
 
Sorry for the length.  Emotionally charged subject, I guess.
----------- Ruth Ginzberg (rginzberg  @  eagle.wesleyan.edu) ------------

 
Just to expand on what Joan said concerning students going on to grad
school--I think the decision many students make to go on to grad
school is relatively uninformed and reflects, to a large extent, some
disturbing cultural stereotyping.  Although the majority of faculty
are male in most fields I wonder if one of the reasons so many WOMEN
students go on to grad school in English, particularly, is that they
continue to see this as "appropriate" where other advanced degrees
are still less acceptable?
 
I disagree a little bit with Joan in that I don't think we should
focus on supply and demand arguments too heavily because these change
and the few brilliant individuals are sorely needed in whatever fields-
-rather, we should encourage students to consider what they will
actually be doing on the job they are preparing for and if that is
what they enjoy and want to be doing.  From a personal perspective, I
realize after 21 years of teaching that I probably made all my career
decisions for the wrong reasons and really want out of academia
(don't apply for my job, yet--I can only afford to do this after
early retirement!).
 
I really encourage my students to resist parental pressure and others'
judgments about what they "should" study or do.  Many students really
do have the opportunity to choose to do something they love, but they
really don't get enough experience to know what that might be.  If
what they love isn't academic, so what?  To echo Joan, I think the
current cultural climate on college campuses puts too much emphasis on
the "intellectual" or "research-oriented" etc.  Now we have an
"us" and "them" mentality between the University and the "real
world" that is not going to help us deal with the realities of the
lack of funding for Higher Education, etc.  In WMST if we are really
going to deal with issues of gender, race, AND class, as well as
integrate policy and practice we need to examine intellectual elitism
from many different angles and get our students to pursue careers that
are right for them.  (I guess this hits a nerve--or maybe I'm
just avoiding reading journals!!)
 
Debbie Green
College of William and Mary

 
        I'm writing in reply to both Kathy Drew and Debbie Green.  Kathy said:
 
> 540 applications sounds overwhelming for recruiters.  I am curious
> that you presented an either or situation for Doctorates in English.
> Either they teach at a University or they face unemployment.  Are there
> not other professions outside the academy for a Doctorate in English?
 
        Relatively few, and for those few, people will generally be
competing not just with all the other English Ph.D's but also with the
unemployed Ph.Ds in History, American Studies, French, Philosophy, etc.
etc.   Not to mention holders of Masters degrees in these fields.
 
> What is the gender breakdown for English majors.  It certainly makes
> sense to encourage students to explore less saturated fields, or areas of
> study that will enable the student to earn an adequate living.  Last time
> I looked- African Americans segregate into education and psychology and
> women (all women, not broken down by ethnicity or cultures) are under
> represented in the sciences.  However, this is an issue that needs to be
> addressed in primary and secondary question where the "gate keeping"
> begins filtering women out of the sciences, targeted groups such as
> hispanics, latinas out of the system altogether.
 
        I'm sure there are fields where the statistics aren't as abysmal as
in English (though according to Ruth Ginzberg's horrific accounts,
Philosophy may be even worse), but from what I hear from people I know in
Physics, the job market there is pretty dreadful, too, at least in
academia.  Of course, in Physics and other sciences there are also
employment opportunities in industry.  That's much less true in English or
Philosophy.
 
        I agree with most of what Debbie Green said in her posting about
the job market, but I take issue with her when she says:
 
> I disagree a little bit with Joan in that I don't think we should
> focus on supply and demand arguments too heavily because these change
> and the few brilliant individuals are sorely needed in whatever fields-
> -rather, we should encourage students to consider what they will
> actually be doing on the job they are preparing for and if that is
> what they enjoy and want to be doing.
 
        At least in English, the job market has been dismal for twenty
years (ten years ago, we had 450 people applying for one position rather
than 540, but that hardly seems to me like good times), and cutbacks in
funding are pushing institutions to replace those who leave with less
expensive adjuncts who get dead-end positions with few benefits, so the
market isn't likely to improve substantially any time soon.  Yes, we need
the few brilliant individuals, but even some of those truly brilliant
individuals aren't finding jobs, and certainly not jobs that require their
brilliance.  I agree that people should give serious thought to what
they'll actually be doing in the job they're preparing for, but even if
they think they'd be happy doing it, I see little point in encouraging them
to prepare for such a job if the odds are so heavily stacked against their
getting it.
 
        The only ray of hope that I see is that I'm so pessimistic.  I have
a TERRIBLE track record in predicting what will happen--if I say buy a
stock, that's the time to sell! :-)
 
        Joan
 
*****************************************************************************
*       Joan Korenman                 Internet: korenman  @  umbc2.umbc.edu     *
*       U. of Md. Baltimore County    Bitnet:   korenman  @  umbc               *
*       Baltimore, MD 21228-5398                                            *
*                                                                           *
*    The only person to have everything done by Friday was Robinson Crusoe  *
*****************************************************************************

 
Dear Colleagues,
 
I have truly enjoyed the articulate discussion of the job search from both
sides.  Adding my two cents, I wonder why so many Women's Studies Positions
require one or more interpretative essays to be included with the
application packet.  Often the required themes for these essays are current
scholarly directions, philosophy of teaching,
 beliefs about Women's Studies, etc.  It
seems reasonable to request reprints and preprints and expect some kind of
sensible letter of introduction along with a vita.  For a teaching oriented
position, it may even be reasonable to request data on teaching
effectiveness once an initial cut has been made.  But why the interpretative
essays?  Aren't these questions that should be asked during the telephone
interviews or site visits?  Why burden the Search Committee with extra
reading?
 
What may happen, whether or not this is the intention, is that job
applicants are given the message that they are applying to a bureaucratic
department that expects a lot of paper work from those who work there which
is not necessarily relevant to teaching and research.  I hope this isn't the
type of institutional culture that feminists wish to foster.
 
Naomi
 
******************************************************************
Naomi B. McCormick
Dept. Psychology
State University of New York at Plattsburgh
Plattsburgh, NY 12901 USA                              @    @    @    @    @    @    @    @  
                                                      @    @          @    @  
Telephone (518) 564-3076; 564-3382                  @    @    @   (A  A)   @    @    @  
      FAX (518) 564-3397                            @    @    @      L     @    @    @  
                                                   % \  {}  / %
E-mail    MCCORMNB  @  SNYPLAVA.BITNET                     ----
          MCCORMNB  @  SPLAVA.CC.PLATTSBURGH.EDU           |  |
                                                     /******\