From Scratchpad

[edit] UCLA Medieval

You HAVE to be kidding. "Suitable" for what, exactly??

It's an unfortunate choice of words ('suitable,' I mean, since it implies that they could not find anyone who could teach western medieval art history to their standards...). But it's not necessarily the search committee that used that word, since anyone can post here. And if it's true that they couldn't find anyone 'suitable,' we should all do a collective eye-roll. :)

YO--wack.

Indeed. As I said in a previous post, which subsequently disappeared, some of us medievalists were not surprised by the "no suitable candidate" result in this case.

I must have missed that one. Why was that? Were they looking for something specific?

Wow, another post bites the dust. Following the edit history on this thread can provide hours of entertainment--which should be good consolation to those who applied for this job.

Weird: the post about "scratching the surface" was just up, then disappeared. Anyhoo . . . yes, thanks for the confirmation; I do know what you're talking about.

Has anyone received an official notice from the department, confirming that the search has concluded (without an appointment)? A failure to send out final letters to candidates, announcing the search's end, successful or not, seems to be an issue for a number of universities. It would be interesting to know if the department hopes to redo this Western Medieval search next year, and if they will pursue a different research focus.

[edit] SMU "Technologies of Visual Communication"

Methinks I dodged a bullet by NOT getting an interview for this one!

Can I ask why you say that? (as one with an interview, is there something I should know?)

Ooh, ooh, over here! Pick me! May *I* take that bullet, pretty please?

Ok, guys - as an obsessive three-times-a-day visitor to this wiki, I want to know the scuttlebutt. I didn't even apply for this job because it sounded so wierd, but my gossipy side is dying to know what is going on. You should read the EM history wiki - they are practically dating on-line at this point! But if you don't want to talk about it here, you can always go to the "Schools to fear" page and report your experience.

Hmm - well, read the ad to begin with...it sounds like (a) it is written for a specific person or (b) it is written for someone who has a schizophrenic research agenda. Did anyone else have trouble really understanding what it is they were looking for? Sheesh...That's why I didn't even apply... I have heard stories that the art history department is rather dysfunctional...

Yep, that was my impression as well. Who is going to fit that description, except maybe the life partner of the chair? From what I've been able to tell, there are some search committtee members cruising these wikis - I only hope they realize that we are not totally clueless.

My CAA interview was extremely pleasant, cordial, and interesting. Call me naive, but I do not think the position is being canned for a specific person. Rather, they seem interested in a hire who bridges a range of interests among the faculty. Rochester did it with their visual culture program; why shouldnt SMU? P.S. I would be very dissapointed (this is an understatement) if the position is positioned with a particular person in mind . . .

Seems they have already invited their short listed candidates for campus visits 2/25

I second the comments of the candidate who interviewed at CAA. I too found the committee pleasant and intellectually engaged. There was nothing to suggest that the position was intended for a specific person. But the last comment is quite curious, especially the post-date. Does "seems" mean you know or you've heard rumors?

The post-date was accidental and now corrected. My apologies for slippery fingers. But yes, I know; I have an (overjoyed) colleague who was invited for a campus visit.

Another poster, here. A few postings back someone said they heard the department was rather dysfunctional. How so? Do tell.

Any idea how many they are inviting? I too want to know about any and all dysfunction.

isn't 3-4 short-listed candiates the norm?

It depends on the funding in the department. Schools with large endowments can often bring in more candidates because the deans provide them with greater funds for each search. Poorer public schools often bring in no more than 2, and possibly keep a 3rd in reserve. [FYI - I am speaking as a tenure-track assistant prof who has served on search committees at both public and private universities - though never at SMU specifically - and who has seen a significant disparity in how searches can be run depending simply on budgetary concerns.]

That earlier comment questioning who would fit the description "other than the life partner of the chair" is still irking me. Does the author of that know something that the rest of us don't? Or, is it merely some kind of frustrated slur.

My apologies for the "life partner" comment. I did not apply for the job, because the job discription, as another comment mentioned, was too schizophrenic for my taste - and in my experience that usually means it has been written for a specific person. It was certainly not a frustrated slur, but I realize now that it was a smart-a--ed response. Better ask the folks who know more about the supposed dysfunction in the department than listen to me.

I concur with the above posters re this position: I had a thoroughly enjoyable interview at CAA with them and have no reason to believe it is for an insider.

It's the "life partner" commentator again. The more I read from those of you who did apply and subsequently interviewed, the more I begin to think that we who judged so quickly were not recognizing the novelty of the position - it is very non-traditional, and I was looking at it with a traditional bias. I figure there are going to be many more jobs like this on the market in the coming years, as the discipline evolves. Time will tell.

From someone who interviewed with them twice long ago: they are a theoretically sophisticated, forward-thinking department, which you might not assume from the school/location. I assume it's a genuine interest in configuring art historical knowledge in a new way.

Well, good. This is one occasion when I don't mind being proven wrong. The appropriate thing to write would have been that the parameters of the requested methodology did not fit my research interests, instead of making catty remarks. (Of course, we'll have to see who gets hired in the end!)

More jobs like this one? Wow - are you serious? Replacing their contemporary art history position with someone who has this kind of research agenda (that needn't be focused on the contemporary)? I am all for interdisciplinarity and new ways of teaching art history, but the essence of the contemporary does not seem to be at the heart of this position, which is unfortunate. I have heard from more than one source that this department has much in-fighting and departmental discord anyway... Good luck with the interviews.

I didn't even apply - but I thought it was a new line. If they are replacing the contempoary line with this, then you are right.

After all the polemics, did anyone get a campus invite?

How do you people think positions in contemporary have been created in recent years, anyway? It's not like they come from thin air. --Huh? This post makes no sense!

--Actually it does make sense. A lot of lines that are now devoted to Contemporary used to be filled by people teaching pre-19th century European art.

Amen. As an early modernist, I have watched positions be combined with something else, or eliminated completely, just because administrators think its a dead-white-male area of the discipline and no longer has cachet with the student/clients. 30 years ago departments had a Renaissance specialist, and a separate Baroque specialist. You only find that in the top-tier institutions now. We are expected to teach 300 years of art history, north and south of the Alps and extending into the Atlantic world, because the chairs have been merged to make room for more interesting posts in global art history or multiple contemporary/modern positions. I am not saying it is wrong to add the global element, just that we are slowly being squeeze out of the picture. The same thing is happening in history departments as well.

Yes, that's exactly what I meant (I wrote the post that "makes no sense"). In almost every case, the existence of a position in contemporary means the elimination of a position in another field. The idea that a contemporary position is being eliminated to create an open-field position both doesn't make sense, and would hardly make a dent in the trend if true. IOW, don't get your knickers in a twist, in the long run (if you're in contemporary) it's working in your favor.

As for the comment about Renaissance/Baroque positions now being combined at most schools, so that people have to teach "300 years of art history, north and south of the Alps" etc. -- why is it a given that a department's legitimate coverage would *sacrifice* non-western areas in order for someone to teach only 150 years in half of Europe? I am a European modernist, but I can only imagine the frustration of the Islamicist in my department who is responsible for about 700 years across the Islamic world (i.e. South Asia to Europe) and the Asianist who is responsible for basically three centuries of Asian art in her teaching program. It would make no sense to add coverage in European areas in the face of this -- especially since it is really hard for our Early Modern Europe people to attract graduate students, etc. which is an unfortunate fact in our current "presentist" orientation in the discipline.

I don't think that poster was suggesting that existing Non-Western or Modern positions be cut in order to create new jobs for, say, Italian Baroque specialists. What some of us are noting is simply a tendency of departments to squeeze out pre-modern Europeanists in favor of contemporary-ists. Those of us who teach Medieval already have to deal with ca. 1500 years of art history, so when we're asked to also teach Renaissance and/or Ancient art because the department wants to add a Contemporary spot, it's kind of frustrating. No less so, of course, than it is for people who are asked to teach "Asian" or "Non-Western" art of widely varying cultures and time periods.

I guess my point is simply that a department who is attempting a different model of coverage (i.e. "global" or more discipline-challenging conceptions such as SMU's) probably needs to chill out about whether there's someone covering every one of the "traditional" fields -- maybe we *don't* need to have someone covering Italian Renaissance in every department, if the goal is to have a reasonable representation of all geographic regions of the world, or if the goal is to widen the theoretical purview of the department. I agree that the burden shouldn't fall on the remaining early or pre-modern Europeanists to expand their teaching.

Yeah, it makes no sense to have a second person in all of Europe and Latin America 1400-1800 (I mean, what went on then in art? really nothing) when there is every decade of the twentieth century to be covered, now does it?

Oh, was that sarcasm? I teach in a department of 7 art historians, three of whom work in modern (including me). This past fall, I took on 5 new PhD students. (I am asst. prof. -- this is a ridiculously high burden, given that I already have a number of PhD's in the pipeline.) All the other incoming students came to work with the modern/contemp people. It's not a matter of whether anything happened in art before 1800, or whether the work that pre-1800 people do is "important" (of course it is or can be) -- in an ideal world, every geographic/temporal period would be covered. But if (as in my department) 90% of the graduate burden is being borne by a "mere" 50% of the faculty, then something's gotta give, no?

Why are you accepting so many contemporary grad students if you can't manage them? To take on five in one year is ridiculous, that's for sure, but it seems that your acceptance committee needs to look over the students they are accepting into your grad program and balance it out a bit better. It's not the EM people's fault they don't have the same number of students to advise, if those students are being passed over for an unmanageable number of modern/contep applicants.

Because if we don't accept a certain number of students into the grad program each year (we are a state university) our department funding gets cut, and some faculty (the Early Modernists) will not be able to teach a 2-2 course load (i.e. there won't be enough students to fill our grad seminars, and some faculty -- most likely the EM's because of enrollments -- will have to go to teaching a 3-3 undergraduate courseload). We need bums in seats, and if the applications are coming in contemp/modern, that's where the bums come from. This is not exclusively a problem with my school -- from what I know most grad programs are facing the same issue. It's not that our department is FAVORING the modern/contemp apps -- it's that we are getting apps in modern/contemp at a rate of about 8 to every 1 EM app.

While this is all very interesting and very informative, it has wandered quite far from the SMU position. Shall we move this to another page?

Yes, can some of this move to a discussion page? It's taking a while to scroll through to the subsequent entries.

[edit] U of Virginia (Medieval)

Could you say by whom? (3/25/08).

I agree with the first person who erased the name. Unless you have either the listed person's permission or the university's permission to post this name, you are not following the generally agreed-upon rules of the board (note no other names have been listed). If you are the person who won the job, or are on the hiring committee, I apologize. If not, please do not post confidential information.

I looked for the board rules, but could not find them.

I remember last year on this blog that names were provided once the job was accepted (3/25/08).

Sure, but people don't appear to be doing it this year. It's inappropriate to single one person out by name while everyone else remains anonymous. Why not just check the UVA website in the fall? Or wait for the person to post his/her own name on the wiki?

How are you supposed to know what is confidential and what is not if this is an anonymous blog? I assume that the people that post something on here are posting something about themselves (3/25/08).

You're posting something confidential if you're not the person who was offered the job, or (I guess) if you're not from the department that made the offer. In this particular case, it was obvious that the person did not post it him/herself, for very specific reasons that I won't rehearse here.

Also, doesn't an "anonymous" blog, by definition, mean that people remain nameless?

I don't necessarily disagree with what has been said above. I also think its fair for candidates who have accepted jobs to remain anonymous if that is their preference. I do want to point out that many fields have these rumor pages, and virtually all of them post names, especially once the offer has been accepted. Perhaps its worth considering, as a broader anonymous community, whether we may want to make this information available. I think when engaged in the job search process it is useful to have a sense of what trends appear in what types of candidates departments look for and hire from year to year, perhaps useful enough to convince new hires (congratulations to all of you by the way!) to post their names once they've decided to accept a job somewhere.

One might look in the history and see the ID of the person who added the "Offer made and accepted" line.

I think it should be possible to post the names after officially (!) accepting the job!

Go ahead and write your own name then. You're free to do so. Just don't take it upon yourself to post somebody else's. It's not your place to do so. This seems obvious to me.

I don't see what the problem is to posting a name if the offer has been accepted, people did it last year (3/26/08).

Read the above exchanges. To repeat what I wrote last time this question was posed: people don't appear to be doing it this year. It's inappropriate to single one person out by name while everyone else remains anonymous.

Another opinion just expressed above agrees that it's not a problem to post the name of the person who has accepted the job. It is not a problem for me if it is done or not, but I thought it was nice that it was done last year. Another opinion expressed above also suggests that this page is useful for helping us identify trends in the field, and so identifying the candidate who has accepted the position would be helpful in that regard; I also see in another section below that there is a lot of discussion as to what the interviews were like and what it seemed the committees were really looking for.

It's funny that, despite all of the opinions expressed in the paragraph above, nobody else has seen fit to post the names of their friends and colleagues who have accepted offers. These omissions suggest that most people posting to this board do not agree with your sentiments. (Please do not erase these comments, as they equally contribute to the discussion and raise a new point. Thank you.)

I'd also like to add that I agree with one point you mention: information about recent hires does indeed help us identify important trends in the field. Absolutely! But I just don't see why those trends cannot be discerned by looking at the university website in the fall to find out who landed the job. At that point, it would officially be public information instead of rumor or gossip, which is what it currently is.

It is useful to know now and not in the fall because the process is not over yet and will continue for a couple of more months, at least. It's this type of disinterest in clarity or transparency that makes the whole process so dislikable.

Some names are given further down in other categories.

You use the word "some" rather loosely. I note exactly two names out of the dozens and dozens of listings. I think that this trend, more than anything else, is the most telling of all. I, for one, am not going to post the names of the ten or so people who have trusted me with information about their job searches. And it appears that most people who post here feel the same way. It's a breach of trust, and I know that it would hurt many feelings if I did so.

One final point: I agree that the process of landing an academic job is a frustratingly opaque, and I myself have suffered because of it. But that opacity will not really be resolved by posting the names of our friends and colleagues. All it would do is reveal what those particular schools were looking for in that particular situation. And even if you could glean a little bit of information about what's hot on the market this year, would you alter your dissertation to suit the trend? Of course not. Or would those same trends even hold up in next year's market? Possibly, and then again, maybe not.

Well, I can honestly say I don't see your point. I liked it better here last year, and this discussion has made it less of a relief from the general ickiness of the academic job hunt to check this site. But, it doesn't matter, it's pretty well-known by now who got this job.

Feel free to ignore the discussion. In fact, it should be moved to a separate discussion section. As for the board not being as satisfying this year (for you), that can't be blamed on this one line of discussion. People just haven't posted names this time around, and that was the case before this whole discussion unfolded.

The discussion unfolded as soon as offers were being made and accepted, so there was no reason to discuss about posting or not posting names before hand. I'm glad there's a discussion section. And, for whoever maintains this site, THANK YOU! I bet if people started to post names then more names would be posted, but of course offers would have to be made and accepted first. I just remember last year, someone must have done it all at once, because one day there were no names, and all of a sudden there were all these names after "offer made and accepted".

Well, I certainly hope that the people who have received and accepted these jobs will see fit to let the rest of us know. There is no reason why everyone should conspire to keep the outcomes of searches some kind of huge secret. It is absolutely important for those still on the market to understand something of the hiring trends this year (as well as to know who is now *off* the market). It's also important for those of us who already have positions to know about our new colleagues and to start anticipating what the field will look like in coming years. Successful candidates: congratulations, and please share your good news!

I should also add that the guidelines at the very top of the main page include the heading "Offer Accepted by..." The person who maintains this site might wish to change that if s/he really doesn't want anyone "outing" the job-accepters.

The obvious solution to all this is for us all to mutally agree only to put names on the wiki, once the hiring department has made the information public - as in, sends an announcement to its graduate students or university community. It makes sense to respect the delicacy of the process of moving from offer to contract - and therefore not reveal names online during that time. However, once it is on paper and public info, who in their right mind would think that their name should remain secret? In just a few months, you will be standing in front of undergradates. Surely, you wont be expecting them to call you "Professor Anonymous."

Yeah, obviously. That was the whole point of the original discussion. It was always about not posting names until the information is truly public. You wasted your sarcasm on an obvious point that has already been made.

Sounds like you have a lot of wasted sarcasm of your own.