Colorado State criticized for job posting favoring recent Ph.D.s | Inside Higher Ed
CSU English Department post a job ad that limits applications to those receiving their Ph.D. between 2010 and date of appointment. Unbelievable. At least they’re being honest, but this is not the direction I would like to see the job market go in.
Particularly infuriating is the explanation by CSU: “Louann Reid, chair of English at Colorado State, sees it differently. When asked if the ad discriminated against adjuncts, she said her department is seeking an entry-level professor with an entry-level salary and expectations, and added that the posting was approved by the university’s office of equal opportunity. ‘I think people are assuming things that we are not assuming,’ she said.”
My guess is that Louanne Reid was never contingent faculty. If she had been, she would not fail to realize that the vast majority of applications who might apply for her position with a PhD granted before 2010 are not tenure-track faculty, they’re contingent faculty. Secondly, she would realize the enormous increase in pay/benefits/job security/and work load contingent faculty have to gain from an “entry level” position. Her statement is insulting to all contingent faculty.
My suggest to those on the English job market is to flood them with applications expressing just how qualified you are for the position, and just how much you hope to gain from an entry level position. Also, you might spend some time schooling them on the state of education in this country, treatment of contingent faculty, the economic recession of 2008, and all the many other reasons why you do not yet have a tenure-track position.
Equally frustrating is the reality that is being discussed by faculty on a blog by Chad Black. Comments, while thoughtful and likely spot-on, explore the possibility that extensive publications prior to hire in a tenure-track position can be used by the successful applicant to negotiate for a shorter tenure clock, and thus higher salary sooner than CSU would like financially.
So last year the job wikis argued that monographs are necessary to even secure an interview, and this year people are positing that extensive publication records might actually hurt their chances at a tenure-track position. Seriously. I give up.