2000-2004 CSWMG Placement Report
Division of Professional Matters of the American Philological Association17 May 2006
(Please note. For the cumulative figures and tables mentioned in the report, please see the links at the bottom of this page
Preamble
The Committee on the Statue of Women and Minority Groups (hereafter “CSWMG”) is mandated by the APA to serve “as an advocate for the inclusion of women, minority groups, and those with physical disabilities in all aspects of the profession of classics” and “where appropriate to provide constructive remedies for the ills resulting from historical patterns of discrimination.” For the last several years, the CSWMG has conducted three annual surveys monitoring three key aspects of the profession—placement, promotion, and publication—as they impact women and members of minority groups. The work of collecting and compiling statistical data and writing these reports has consumed the energy of the CSWMG; in light of the quantitative data amassed and presented to the membership of the APA, we take it as a given that inequities remain within our profession. In an effort not just to report these inequities but to advocate for greater equality within the profession, and so to more fully embody the latter charge with which the APA has served the CSWMG (quoted from the “APA Officer/Committee Descriptions” posted on the association’s website), we shall no longer prepare three reports annually, but shall report to the membership on these three key aspects of the profession once every three years, in alternation. Our quadrennial reports will place each year’s data into a larger historical context, and work to pinpoint long-term trends, as well as offering concrete suggestions for addressing inequalities in the field.
This Placement Report
This Placement Report covers the 2000 – 2001 through the 2003 – 2004 Placement Years, and attempts to place the annual data into historical context; this report complements and supplements that of Joint Committee on Placement penned by Ortwin Knorr and published in the April 2005 Newsletter. Both reports rely on the same data set; the CSWMG has benefited greatly from the indefatigable efforts of Barbara McManus, who prepared the statistical data seen in the tables accompanying this text and posted on the APA web site.
Status of the Job Market
The number of candidates enrolled in the Placement Service has remained steady since the 1999 job cycle, but there was a marked drop in the number of candidates registered with the Placement Service between 1998 (421 candidates) and 1999 (349 candidates; see Table 2 posted at http://www.apaclassics.org/profmat/PS04_tables.pdf and Cumulative Figure 1, attached). For the last four years the number of registered candidates was 355, 359, 359, and 362 respectively. This implies a now-steady stream of candidates seeking academic jobs, but we are unable to account for the disappearance of 72 candidates between 1998 and 1999, especially since this drop does not seem to coincide with a decrease in positions available (which, as Table 1 shows, actually increased from 166 to 181 positions between 1998 and 1999). Reviewing data for the last 18 years, the ratio of candidates registered with the Placement Service to the estimated vacancies is 2.61; when limited to the last four Placement Years for which statistical information is available (and which are the focus of this report), that ratio is 2.0. The ratio peaked in the 1993 Placement Year at 3.42; the statistical reality of the bleak years in the early 1990s raises the candidate to vacancy ratio for the past 18 years, however even a ratio of 2.0 is hardly good news. (See Cumulative Table 2 for the last four years and Table 1 posted at http://www.apaclassics.org/profmat/PS04_tables.pdf for historical data covering the last 18 years.) As Cumulative Figure 4 clearly shows, there has been a marked increase in the ratio of Placement Service candidates to academic hires, with in 2003 more than 7 registered candidates per permanent position obtained and almost 4 registered candidates per position obtained; these higher ratios are due, in part, to the fact that during the last four years 32% of academic jobs known to the APA are going to candidates not registered with the Placement Service. Specifically, as shown on Cumulative Table 1, in 2000 32% of all jobs went to candidates not registered with the Placement Service and this number increased to 40% in 2003. Behind these numbers lies the sad reality that there are many more candidates than there are positions. For many candidates, the lived reality can be worse, as they remain candidates for jobs over the course of multiple years; currently our statistics do not record how many years a given candidate has been on the job market, and this may be an area for further investigation. Further, as Table 5A and 5B (posted at http://www.apaclassics.org/profmat/PS04_tables.pdf) demonstrate, only 14% of job candidates registered with the Placement Service wound up with tenure-track positions at the end of the Placement Year; those with teaching experience as “Full-Time Non-Tenure Track” faculty were more likely to obtain Tenure-Track positions (36 positions, or 22%; see Table 5B). As a profession, we need to be cognizant of this discrepancy between the number of candidates and the number of jobs, as well as the increasing institutional reliance on non-tenure track faculty to perform the work of the modern university. Collectively, we need to find ways to redress the imbalance.
Gender and the Job Market
Similarly, the gender breakdown of job candidates has remained within three percentage points of 60% male, 40% female for the last 18 years, as shown in Cumulative Figure 6; as Kirk Ormand and I reported last year, “While this statistic has been remarkably consistent, it is also disheartening, as it means that the field is moving no closer to gender parity.” While some of us would like to see the discipline attain true parity, we must not overlook the fact that female candidates seemingly outperform male candidates on the job market. On average during the last four years, registered female candidates obtained 2.8 job interviews to the 2.5 interviews obtained by male candidates (see Cumulative Figure 7; for the specific numbers see Cumulative Table 3). 37% of registered female candidates, in the aggregate, go on to obtain academic positions, versus 32% of male candidates, a marked 5% difference. When, however, we consider the type of position over these four years, 16% of registered female candidates obtain tenure-track or tenured positions, versus 14% of male candidates (see Cumulative Tables 4 and 5, Cumulative Figures 8 and 9)—only a 2% difference. The fact that women are basically on par with men in obtaining tenure-track positions is why we noted earlier that women seemingly outperform men. This disparity based on the gender of the candidates continues when we distinguish jobs obtained by the type of institution and the level of degrees granted. While female candidates obtain during this four year period 44% of all positions announced to the APA, as we see in Cumulative Table 7 and Cumulative Figure 11, it is not consistent across all types of institutions. In the aggregate, female candidates obtained 45% of jobs at Ph.D.-granting institutions, 48% at MA- or MAT-granting institutions, 43% at Bachelors-granting institutions, and 52% at institutions with no Classics majors. Only in this last category does the number of women hired outnumber that of men hired (12 to 11 over the four-year period); compare this to the 93 men over the 4 year period who obtained jobs at Ph.D.-granting institutions, as opposed to 77 women. Thus, in hiring situations whose details are known to the APA, women are doing well. While these women are obtaining interviews and ultimately positions, we need to remember that only 40% of registered candidates are female. There are fewer women obtaining Ph.Ds in Classics (as seen in statistics prepared by the National Center for Education Statistics); this fact may also be coupled with fewer women going on the academic job market (although we do not possess statistics to verify this hypothesis). Until there is actual gender parity among job candidates we need to consider what factors play into women’s ability to enter the job market. We must also ask ourselves whether these women who successfully obtain academic employment are not held to higher standards in order to do so, in a persistence of what we might term a “superwoman complex” (to borrow from Michele Wallace).
Age and the Job Market
Another source of grave concern to CSWMG is the issue of age discrimination. No matter what other variables are taken into consideration, age turns out to be the most salient factor with regard to disadvantage in the placement process. In the following analysis, we have correlated the age group of the candidates with the number of interviews obtained, and further tempered this information in light of the number of job applications submitted. There are greater year-by-year fluctuations in the number of jobs applications submitted by candidates, and this is true across all age groups of candidates (as shown in Cumulative Table 10a). That said, based on the data available, we see a marked difference in the experiences of job candidates over 40. As we see in Cumulative Figures 14e & 14f, the number of applications for jobs submitted remains generally consistent across all age groups (bearing in mind that in these figures, unlike some others, there are separate columns for candidates aged 40 - 49 and candidates aged 50 +). In the aggregate, 44% of candidates aged 50 + applied for 1 - 5 jobs, and 44% of candidates in the same age group applied for more than 11 jobs; thus age is not necessarily an impediment to submitting applications for jobs. Yet Cumulative Table 14f shows that age is a marked impediment to securing interviews based on those applications submitted. Again in the aggregate, candidates aged 50 + obtained 0.65 interviews based on 11 or more applications, compared to the 4.75 interviews obtained by candidates aged 39 or under. (Admittedly this number drops for candidates aged 40 - 49, who obtained in the aggregate at least one interview regardless of number of applications submitted.) There is a clear and obvious difference in the experiences of older job candidates at the level of obtaining interviews, a necessary first step towards obtaining academic employment.
As Cumulative Table 9 and Cumulative Figure 13 show, in the four-year aggregate the bulk of successful job candidates (65% with positions, 68% with tenure-track positions) are between the ages of 30 and 39; these candidates averaged 2.8 interviews (Cumulative Table 10). Candidates under the age of 30 averaged 3.5 interviews. By contrast, candidates aged 40 - 49 averaged 1.3 interviews while candidates aged 50 - 59 averaged 0.6 interviews; candidates over the age of 40 obtained 11% of all jobs, 9% tenured or tenure-track. Cumulative Tables 8, 9, & 10 (Figures 12 & 13) show the number of candidates per age group and their experiences on the job market; as Cumulative Table 9 (four-year aggregates) reveals, there is a drastic decline in the percentage of candidates who are interviewed between those in their 30s and those over 40. Specifically candidates in their 30s constitute, in the aggregate 63% of candidates present at the meetings and 66% of interviews; by comparison candidates 40 and over comprise 16% of the candidates present at the meetings but obtained, in the aggregate, only 7% of the interviews. Thus, while there are fewer candidates over 40, they receive markedly fewer interviews. Figures 14 and 17 dramatically demonstrate the decreasing number of interviews obtained by candidates relative to their increasing age, and their corresponding lack of success in obtaining jobs. Registered job candidates aged in their 30s are thus performing consistently with their representation in the candidate pool, but the comparatively poor performance of job candidates aged 40 and over is matched, and masked, by the marked success of those candidates aged under 30; see Cumulative Table 8 & Cumulative Figure 12 for the details of candidates in the applicant pool, by age, and Cumulative Table 9 & Cumulative Figure 13 for their performance in the job process. As Cumulative Figures 15, 16, & 18 reveal, there is no significant correlation between success, or lack thereof, in the job process and the year a candidate received the Ph.D. among those candidates over 40; this means that the issue of concern is the age of the candidate and not the time since degree.
In the past, a clear trend has emerged that candidates with more publications do not fare better on the job market. While this may seem counterintuitive, we should acknowledge that the group of older candidates overlaps with the group of candidates who have more publications (typically reflecting their being farther along their career trajectories). However when the statistics of publication are broken down with reference to the age of candidates, we see that it is age, not publications, which puts candidates at a disadvantage. In terms of interview rates, for example, Cumulative Figure 21 shows that candidates 40 and over obtained a consistently small number of interviews, whether they had published books or not; in terms of academic positions obtained, Cumulative Figure 23 shows, with the exception of those under 30, within each age group there is not a major statistical difference between those who have published a book or not. (See Cumulative Figure 23a for the four-year aggregate statistics.) Again Cumulative Figure 26c shows there is no difference in number of interviews obtained based on publication but there is a marked difference based on the candidate’s age; in the aggregate, candidates under 30 obtained 3.5 to 3.6 interviews regardless of number of publications, candidates in their 30s 2.6 to 2.9 interviews, candidates in their 40s 1.2 to 1.4 interviews, and candidates 50 and over 0.4 to 0.8 interviews. In terms of obtaining academic positions, Cumulative Figure 28c shows that it is a significant advantage to be a candidate under the age of 30 and have no articles published, and conversely it is a significant disadvantage for candidates over the age of 50 not to have articles published. We note that absolute numbers of candidates reflected in these percentages (shown in Cumulative Table 27c) are small; rather than marking the statistical insignificance of this information, those small numbers in conjunction with the other information amassed can also reflect age discrimination reducing the chances of these candidates obtaining jobs.
Let us turn now to the intersections of age and employment status. As we see by comparing candidates under 40 with those over 40 in Cumulative Figure 34c (Cumulative Table 34), regardless of a candidate’s current employment status, it is their age which is the decisive factor in the number of job interviews obtained. The same holds true for obtaining academic positions, be they tenurable or otherwise. As Cumulative Figures 39 & 40 (Cumulative Tables 40 & 41) show, the disadvantage faced by older job candidates persists regardless of gender.
Taken together, these statistics paint a bleak portrait indeed for job candidates age 40 or above, be they new job candidates or candidates searching for another position. The statistics gathered demonstrate that we, as a profession, fall prey to a “wunderkind complex”; we encourage and reward younger job candidates for their youthful accomplishments in the field and speedy completion of their academic training. At the same time, we reward them for not publishing; this is ironic in light of our professional imperatives towards greater quantities of publication. We seem to reward younger job candidates precisely because they represent pure potentiality, because they have promise even if they have not yet shown how (or indeed if) they will live up to that same promise.
Consequently, we as a profession must acknowledge that discrimination of job candidates based on age exists; in the interests of equality within the profession we must correct this problem. As reported last year, CSWMG feels these areas “will not improve without a major initiative on the part of the profession”; we reiterate this finding.Citizenship/Residency and the Job Market
Cumulative Figures 41 through 45 (Cumulative Tables 42 through 46) examine the nationality and residency of job candidates and do not demonstrate the presence of any patterns of imbalance or discrimination.
Minority Sexual Orientation and the Job MarketWe are pleased to report that in 2003-2004 the percentage of minority sexual orientation reported by survey respondents (157 total, or a 43% response rate of all job candidates) has reached the fabled 10% (6 females, 9 males, for a total of 15 respondents; see Table 16C posted at http://www.apaclassics.org/profmat/PS04_tables.pdf for full statistical details). This does not mean homophobia does not exist within our profession, nor that we need no longer be vigilant in this regard. But we are pleased to record this degree of progress toward equality within the profession.
Race and Ethnicity and the Job Market
Finally, as noted in last year’s report, the presence of racial and ethnic minorities within the profession remains so depressingly small (65 of 1302 respondents over the four-year period) as to be statistically insignificant (4.8%; see Cumulative Table 47). These numbers reflect poorly on us as a profession, much more so than the (higher, but not equal) percentages of racial and ethnic minorities in all humanities disciplines (as noted in last year’s report).
In sum, we as a profession have made great progress in the areas of gender parity and representation of minority sexual orientations. We must remain vigilant in this regard and redouble our efforts to address the more subtle problems outlined above. At the same time, we must address the serious under-representation of racial and ethnic minorities as well as the age discrimination in our field. Only then can we truly live up to our mandate to welcome all interested parties into the discipline and the professional organization.
We invite comments and suggestions from APA members regarding any aspect of placement, or other practices of the APA. Such comments may be addressed to the Chair of CSWMG, Kristina Milnor, Dept. of Classics, Barnard College, 3009 Broadway, New York, NY 10027, or kmilnor@barnard.edu.
Respectfully submitted,
Cashman Kerr Prince,
for the Committee on the Status of Women and Minority Groups
Appendices: Cumulative Placement Figures
Cumulative Placement Tables