Please note that the supporting documentation for this report is contained in linked tables that will appear in resizable pop-up windows so that they may be consulted alongside this report; these pop-up windows should be closed as you finish consulting each table. The full report is available as an Adobe Acrobat file that may be downloaded and printed (printable version of report); all the placement tables and figures for 2001-2002 are available in separate Acrobat files (printable version of tables and printable version of figures). It is best to use the “Print as Image” command when printing Acrobat files. For further placement statistics, consult the Joint Committee on Placement's report, also available on this website.
The APA mandates the Committee on the Status of Women and Minority Groups (CSWMG) to serve as an advocate for the inclusion of women and minority groups in all aspects of the profession of classics. The Committee does so in part by conducting an annual survey to monitor the experiences of women and members of minority groups in the placement process. Recently, and largely through the efforts of Barbara McManus, the Committee has begun to coordinate its study of the hiring process with the data collection done by the APA Placement Service and the analysis of it performed by the APA Placement Committee. Three sources of information are now drawn upon to analyze placement practices and hiring trends: a form filled out by candidates when they first enroll in the Placement Service, a “Professional Matters Division Survey” asking candidates about the resulting interview and hiring experiences sent out to them the following fall, and statistical placement information provided by the APA office.
Unfortunately, this year the survey responses were not able to be correlated with the other statistics because the surveys were mailed without the codes allowing the anonymous matching of responses with other Placement Service data. Therefore, for example, this year it is impossible to tell which positions reported on the survey are also included in the Placement Service data. For this report, the more complete Placement Service data will be used whenever possible, but supplemented with information available only in the survey.
The Committee would like to thank Barbara McManus and the APA office for their continuing efforts to gather and organize data about this critical aspect of our profession. We also thank all the candidates who completed the survey. The results of this report should be compared with those of previous years, as well as the reports of the APA Placement Committee. The 2000-2001 reports of both committees are available on the APA website.
I. Demographic Information
Overall, the basic demographic patterns (gender, citizenship, domestic status, age and ethnicity) of those registering with the Placement Service, attending the Annual Meeting, and responding to the survey in 2001-2002 are extremely similar to those obtained in 2000-2001, both in terms of numbers and percentages.
Placement Service Data
The Placement Service data is the best source of information about the representation of women and members of other minority groups in the field of candidates applying for jobs in a given year. In a sense, it lets us put a finger on the pulse of the demographics of the field. Excluding Subscribers Only, 359 candidates registered with the Placement Service in 2001-2002 (see Figure 8 and Table 2 ).
Of these, in terms of gender, 57% (204) were male, 43% (155) were female. The ratio of male to female candidates was comparable among those candidates who attended the Annual Meeting (175 men or 58%, 127 women or 42%, 302 candidates attending the meeting in total). Figure 1 shows the relatively unchanging percentage of female candidates registered with the Placement Service over time since 1986. This is somewhat disappointing, since data from the National Academy of Sciences National Research Council show the percentage of doctoral degrees in the Humanities as a whole earned by women rose steadily from 44% in 1986 to a near parity of 49% as early as 1999 (Figure 2).
In terms of citizenship and residency status, of the 302 candidates attending the convention, 224 were U.S. citizens (74%), 22 were U.S. residents (7.3%), 14 Canadian citizens (4.6%), 9 with “other” resident status and a U.S. degree (3%), 19 with “other” resident status and a foreign degree (6.3%), 14 “other” with unknown degree or who declined to state (4.6%) (Table 10A). In terms of domestic status, 55 of the candidates attending the meeting (18% of all candidates at the meeting) were single women, 56 (18.5%) were married women, 10 (3.3%) were women in a long-term relationship, while 6 women (2%) did not specify. Among men at the meeting, 73 (24.2%) were single, 80 (26.5%) were married, 12 (4%) were in a long-term relationship, and 10 (3%) did not specify (Table 11A). Concerning age, of the candidates at the meeting, 51 (17%) were under the age of 30, 182 (60%) were between the ages of 30–39, 38 (13%) were between age 40-49, 13 (4%) between 50-59, and 18 (6%) declined to specify (Table 7A).
In terms of race and ethnicity, of those attending the meeting, 1 (0.3%) self-identified as Native American or Alaskan Native, 1 (0.3%) identified as Black, 3 (1%) identified as Hispanic, 8 (2.6%) as Asian/Pacific Islander, 273 (90.4%) as White, and 16 (5.3%) gave no response (Table 12A). These numbers are particularly disappointing. By comparison, the National Academy of Sciences reported that of doctoral degree earners in 1998-99 in the Humanities as a whole, 0.6% identified as American Indian, 4.8% as Asian, 4.2% as Black, 4.7% as Hispanic, and only 85.8% as White (Figure 2). Figure 3 demonstrates graphically the racial and ethnic homogeneity of the field of candidates in Classics in 2001-2002.
Questions arise as to why women and members of racial and ethnic minority groups continue to be underrepresented in our discipline. A study conducted by the U.S. Department of Education on degrees earned in 1999-2000 at the bachelor’s, master’s and doctoral levels is suggestive (Figure 4). That year, in the field of “Classical and ancient Near East languages and literatures, including Classics, Greek and Latin,” women earned 52% of the undergraduate degrees, 48% of the master’s degrees, but only 43% of the doctoral degrees. Do these data predict a rise in the representation of women in the higher degrees in the coming years, or do they suggest that we should be monitoring doctoral programs more closely for the experience of female students? Unfortunately, the data in that study were not broken down by race or ethnicity.
Professional Matters Division Survey
The Professional Matters Division Survey (hereafter “survey”) was sent out to all registered candidates except Subscribers Only; 139 were returned, or 39%. This is very close to the 40% response rate in 2000-2001, and the committee is glad to see the upturn in the response rate from previous years, although we would of course like to see it improve further. Of the 139 respondents, 117 (84%) attended the Annual Meeting, 59 women and 54 men. Return of the survey is thus still strongly predicated on a candidate’s attendance at the meeting; 46% of those attending the meeting returned their surveys. The remaining 22 respondents did not attend for various reasons (Table 17), with no strong patterns evident except candidates deciding not to apply for jobs that year (8, or 36%).
Of the 2001-2002 respondents, in terms of gender 72 (52%) were female and 63 (45%) were male (Table 16A), which shows a large increase in the percentage of women vs. men responding over the last two years (44% women, 56% men in 1999-2000; 46% women, 54% men in 2000-2001). The average age of respondents, 34 for both men and women (Table 16E), was nearly identical to the respondents over the previous two years. In terms of race and ethnicity, survey respondents predominantly identified themselves as white (63 female, 55 male, overall 85% of respondents). Of the remaining 21 respondents, 3 identified themselves as Asian, 2 as Hispanic, and 16 chose not to specify (Table 16B). This year the CSWMG has been reviewing the racial and ethnic categories used on the survey and Placement entry form and has changed the terminology to reflect that of the U.S. and Canadian census. Concerning domestic status, 31% of survey respondents identified as “single/divorced/widowed” (25 women and 17 men), 59% claimed “married” (42 women and 40 men), and 7% claimed a “permanent long-term relationship” (5 female, five male). Four respondents did not answer this question (3%) (Table 16C). Four candidates identified themselves as members of a minority sexual orientation (3%); all but one of these was male (Table 16D).
In the following report, readers should keep in mind the statistical difference between the survey data (with 39% of the candidates reporting) and other modes of collecting information that were able to account for the entire population of candidates attending the Annual Meeting or registered with the Placement Service. Notice, as well, that the survey respondents do not match the larger group of candidates demographically. For example, married persons and women responded to the survey in greater percentages (59% and 52%) than their representation in the candidate pool (of candidates at the meeting, 45% and 42% respectively).
II. Interviewing at the Annual Meeting
In looking for patterns or discrepancies regarding who is interviewed and who is not interviewed for jobs at the Annual Meeting, the reader should keep in mind the demographics of the candidates attending the meeting outlined above. Also, note that this analysis of the interviews does not always correlate data about the number of applications submitted by each candidate, although that data is available from the APA (e.g., Table 10A and Table 11A). The success of each group (or lack thereof) in obtaining interviews will be compared with hiring rates in the next section.
Candidates at the meeting (numbering 302) fall into three groups: those receiving none or one interview (145 or 48%), those receiving between 2 and 7 interviews (136 or 45%), and those receiving more than 7 interviews (21 or 7%). In terms of gender (Table 4A), recall that women comprised 42% of the candidates who attended the Annual Meeting. In turn, women were 38% of those receiving one interview or less, 48% of those receiving between 2 and 7 interviews, and 29% of those few people receiving more than 7 interviews. To track their success in obtaining interviews other ways, female candidates averaged 2.9 interviews (males 3.1), and women were interviewed in 41% of the 909 interviews for which the gender of the interviewee was recorded. All of this data suggests that women candidates were interviewed in numbers corresponding well to their representation at the meeting. This contrasts slightly with the results of the 2000-2001 report, in which women overall were shown to be slightly advantaged at the stage of obtaining interviews. Table 18A shows the gender breakdown of meeting interviews reported by candidates responding to the survey, and Table 18B adds information from the survey about campus interviews.
Interview rates at the Annual Meeting are influenced by the field of specialization of each candidate. If we limit our analysis to the fields with significant numbers of applicants, candidates in the fields of Latin and Greek literature had the highest average interviews; the 71 candidates in Latin averaged 4.0 interviews, the 72 in Greek averaged 3.9. Roman history follows with 2.9 average interviews for each of its 39 candidates, and a sharp drop after that to Greek history at 1.9 for its 14 candidates, and art/archaeology at 1.7 for its 55 candidates. Twelve or fewer candidates identified the other sub-fields as their specializations. These data are correlated with gender in Table 6A. Since women comprised 42% of the candidates attending the Annual Meeting, they were under-represented in the fields of Greek literature (32%), Greek history (36%) and Roman history (38%), represented in proportion with their attendance in Latin literature (41%), and over-represented in art and archaeology (58%). Since women are over-represented in the field with the smallest number of interviews per candidate, and yet managed to interview overall in proportion to their attendance at the meeting, specialization does not seem to have negatively impacted women in obtaining interviews. In terms of changes in the sub-fields compared to the previous year’s data, 2001-2002 shows dramatic improvement in the representation of women in Roman history (up from 21% in 2000-2001), but little or no change in the other fields. In the smaller sub-specialties, most notable is the rise in the representation of women in philosophy, up to 50% in 2001-2002 from 17% in 2000-2001.
Publication rates can also affect interview rates, but they do not seem to have affected men and women differently according to Table 13A. Female and male candidates received very close to the same number of interviews whether they had published a book (1.9 for both), not published a book (3.2 vs. 3.4), published no articles (3.3 vs. 3.4), published 1-2 articles (2.9 vs. 3.0), or published 3-4 articles (3.8 vs. 3.9). Gender disparity did become evident among the small number of candidates who had published more than 5 articles; the 14 women who had 5-9 articles had an average of 1.7 interviews, the 17 men an average of 2.7. The 5 women with over 10 articles averaged 0.8 interviews, the 18 men 1.7. This apparent disparity, however, involves a very small statistical pool.
In terms of age (Table 7A), candidates below the age of 39 received far more interviews than their older colleagues. Candidates under 30 (17% of those at the meeting) received an average of 4.5 interviews each, while those between 30 and 39 (60% of those at the meeting) received an average of 3.1 interviews each. In contrast, the 13% of candidates between 40 and 49 received only 1.7 interviews on average, and the 4% of candidates between 50 and 59 received only 0.8. At first we thought this discrepancy might be a result of established professionals applying for very few jobs skewing the data for the older age categories. However, this disadvantage for older candidates is evident no matter how many jobs the candidates applied for; even among the candidates who applied for over 10 positions or over 20 positions, the average number of interviews obtained by those 40 or older was about half the average obtained by those between 30 and 39.
In terms of citizenship and residency status (Table 10A), candidates in most categories enjoyed roughly equal success in obtaining interviews: U.S. Citizens (74% of those attending the meeting) averaged 3.2 interviews each, U.S. Residents (7.3% of those attending) averaged 2.8 interviews, Canadian citizens (4.6%) averaged 2.4 interviews, and the 3% of candidates attending with “other” resident status and a U.S. degree averaged 3.3 interviews. The only marked contrast is the 6.3% of attending candidates with an “other” resident status and a foreign degree, since they averaged only 1.3 interviews each.
In terms of domestic status (Table 11A), no groups suffered a clear disadvantage in obtaining interviews, while both women and men in long-term relationships other than marriage seem to have enjoyed a marked advantage. Single women averaged 2.9 interviews, married women 2.8, and those giving no response 2.3, while the ten female candidates claiming a long-term relationship averaged 4.2 interviews each. Single men averaged 3.0 interviews, married men 2.9 and those giving no response 3.2, but the twelve male candidates claiming a long-term relationship averaged 5.3 interviews.
In terms of ethnicity (Table 12A), the very small number of candidates self-identifying as members of particular racial and ethnic minority groups make it very difficult to draw viable conclusions. If we compile them into one category, Persons of Color, we obtain a group of 13 which we might be able to compare to their 273 White peers. While those identifying as White (90.4% of those attending the meeting) averaged 3.0 interviews each, the 13 candidates of Color received an average of 4.8 interviews each. This suggests an advantage for the candidates of Color at the interviewing stage, but these results need to be compared with the statistics on hiring presented in the next section.
To conclude the analysis of the statistical data on how various groups faired in obtaining interviews, candidates older than 39 years old and those with an “other” resident status and a foreign doctoral degree suffered apparent disadvantages. In turn, although very small in absolute numbers, members of ethnic and racial minorities and those candidates claiming a long-term relationship other than marriage enjoyed apparent advantages. Members of other groups were interviewed in proportion to their representation at the meeting.
Professional Matters Division Survey
The survey that some candidates chose to complete following their interview experiences at the Annual Meeting and the hiring process provides a different kind of information. For example, Table 20A shows that the overwhelming majority of survey respondents reported that they received no direct or indirect questions of an inappropriate nature during interviews. The inappropriate topics that were most often noted by the candidates who did report them include questions about religion (8 candidates), nationality (9), marital status (10), and a partner’s willingness to relocate (9). Women tended to have more complaints about inappropriate questions, and felt more disadvantaged than men did by those about marital status and a partner’s willingness to relocate. The questions about nationality should be taken seriously in light of the disadvantage suffered by candidates of “other” resident status and with foreign doctoral degrees discussed above.
Candidates were also asked to comment on any guidelines they believed were violated during their interviews (Table 20D). Overall, more complaints seem to have been raised in 2001-2002 than in 2000-2001. Most pertinent to this report are the three candidates who commented that they felt age discrimination was a problem in obtaining interviews (1 female, 2 male). The statistical data outlined above confirms their observations. A few candidates commented about interviewers asking about personal religious practices, but 2 of those 3 people noted that the interviewing institutions were religiously affiliated; under those circumstances, questions about religion are legal.
In terms of spaces used for interviews, one candidate reported an interview in a hotel bedroom, and three candidates reported being interviewed in the lobby or lounge of the hotel. A somewhat related issue was raised by several candidates who complained that institutions sharing interview rooms were going overtime, having candidates wait in the hallway, etc. Some requested that the times allotted for interviews be extended. The members of the CSWMG and of the Placement Committee have begun electronic discussions on how to address this issue. We may have recommendations for the Placement Service at the next Annual Meeting. In terms specific to the mandate of the CSWMG, bedrooms, lobbies and lounges are difficult settings for candidates to present themselves in a professional manner, and it would be prudent for the APA to make it as simple and economical as possible for all institutions to interview candidates in appropriate spaces.
Finally, several candidates complained about procedural issues – not receiving acknowledgement of applications, not hearing that they had interviews until very late, not receiving word that institutions had completed their hiring process, etc. Only one candidate indicated that he had reported the guideline violations (Table 20B); the most common reasons given for not reporting violations were personal indifference and lack of faith in the process (Table 20C). At the 2003 meeting of the CSWMG, a suggestion was made that institutions registering with the Placement Service receive a quick ‘check-list of do’s and don’ts’ for the hiring process. Such guidance may address many of these complaints.
III. Hiring
The most detailed data provide information about 111 positions taken for 2002-2003 by Placement Service candidates who attended the Annual Meeting; we also have information about 9 additional positions obtained by candidates who did not attend the meeting. While this information helps us evaluate the success in being hired (or lack thereof) for most groups monitored by the CSWMG, the APA received more limited data about a total of 167 positions (Table 15A and Table 15B). Of these positions, 47 (28%) went to candidates not registered with the Placement Service, so we have information only about about the type and rank of the position and the gender of the hired. Eighty-six of these 167 positions (51%) were temporary (adjunct or non-tenure-track), while 76 (46%) were permanent (5 were of unknown status). In regard to the gender ratio of these 167 jobs, females obtained 38% of temporary positions and 46% of permanent positions; these numbers are very close to the percentages reported for the 111 positions we are able to evaluate in greater detail. It is important to keep this larger group in mind when reading all the subsequent analysis, which is confined to discussion of candidates registered with the Placement Service who attended the Annual Meeting.
As Table 11B indicates, these 111 jobs were of the following types: 1 adjunct (1%), 60 (54%) non-tenure-track, 46 (41%) tenure-track, 1 tenured, and 3 of unknown status. Of these, women received a total of 47 (42%), while men received 64 (58%), a ratio equivalent to the overall proportion of female to male candidates in attendance at the meeting (42% to 58%). Of the 47 jobs received by women, 21 were non-tenure-track, 22 were tenure-track, 1 adjunct, and 3 of unknown status. In contrast, of the 64 jobs received by men, 39 were non-tenure-track, 24 were tenure-track, and 1 tenured. Thus, women received 35% of the non-tenure-track positions and 48% of the tenure-track positions – a dramatic reverse of the ratio seen in 2000-2001, when women received 52% of temporary positions and 37% of permanent positions (Figure 5). Tracking hiring by gender in another way, 37% of the female candidates at the meeting obtained positions, as well as 37% of the male candidates, but 17% of the female candidates received tenure/tenure-track positions, while only 14% of the male candidates did. Women therefore enjoyed an advantage in 2001-2002 in tenure-track hiring.
Since we tracked the interviewing of women and men by sub-fields above, we should make note of the effect of these factors on hiring as well. In the 5 fields with the largest number of candidates, the following percentages of candidates in those fields received a job: 43% of those in Greek literature (17% tenure-track), 51% in Latin literature (27% tenure-track), 21% in Greek history (0% tenure-track), 26% in Roman history (13% tenure/tenure-track), and 27% in art/archaeology (7% tenure track). Table 6B also shows how this information was broken down by gender. As was noted in the 2000-2001 report, the field with the highest percentage of women candidates, art/archaeology with a candidate pool of 58% women, had the smallest number of permanent positions open in 2001-2002.
Table 13B shows hiring trends broken down by publication rates. Of the candidates at the meeting who had published a book, 27% were hired (12% into tenure/tenure-track positions), while 40% of those who had not published a book were hired (17% tenure/tenure-track). Article publication shows roughly the same pattern: 38% of those who had published between 0 and 2 articles obtained jobs (17% tenure/tenure-track), 43% of those with 3-4 articles (24% tenure/tenure-track), and 32% of those with 5-9 articles (13% tenure/tenure-track). Overall, 64% of the jobs went to candidates who had published 2 articles or less, a trend that was noted in the 2000-2001 report as well. Some difference is seen between the genders in these hiring rates in Tables 13D and 13E. Of women who had published books, 28% were hired (10% tenure/tenure-track), for men, 26% (13% tenure/tenure-track). However, 44% of the women with no articles were hired (16% into tenure/tenure-track jobs), while only 35% of the men with no articles were hired (18% tenure/tenure-track). In turn, of women who had published 1-2 articles 34% obtained jobs (20% tenure/tenure-track), while of those men 41% were hired (but only 11% into tenure/tenure-track jobs). Certainly, these figures do not support the argument that women need to publish more than men in order to be hired. Otherwise, the results probably reflect the fact that there were fewer jobs for candidates further along in their careers, i.e., who have already published a book or several articles. Our statistics also indicate that candidates with higher publication rates tended to apply for fewer positions (Table 13C).
In terms of domestic status with regard to these 111 positions (Table 11B), the same percentage of most groups received positions, that is, 38% of the single women candidates were hired, 38% of the single men, and 35% of the married men. In contrast, only 32% of married women obtained jobs, a discrepancy noted in 2000-2001 as well. However, in terms of obtaining tenure/tenure-track jobs, married women did better than their peers; 18% of married women received permanent jobs, 16% of single women, 15% of single men, and only 14% of married men. Table 11C records the number of positions applied for by each of these groups, and may explain the lower over-all hiring rate of married women, since they tended to apply for fewer jobs than their peers (66% of the married women applied for fewer than 10 jobs -- 39% for five jobs or less -- while only 44% of the single women applied for fewer than 10 jobs, 30% of the women in long-term relationships, 36% of the single men, 50% of the married men, and 33% of the men in long-term relationships). In contrast with a statement made in the 2000-2001 Report of the Committee on Placement, these statistics do seem to indicate that married people, and especially married women, are more geographically limited than others and hence apply for fewer positions; the same pattern was apparent in 2000-2001, when 58% of married women and 48% of married men applied for 10 or fewer positions (Table 11D). Thus, married women may have been more selective about the jobs they applied for and accepted, giving them a lower overall hiring rate, but they do not seem to have been discriminated against in being hired for tenure/tenure-track jobs. Finally, in keeping with their unusually high number of interviews, both men and women claiming a long-term relationship other than marriage faired unusually well in being hired; 50% of these women received jobs (20% permanent jobs), 42% of the men (30% permanent jobs).
In terms of age (Table 7B), the patterns seen in obtaining interviews held out in hiring, that is, candidates older than 39 suffered a clear disadvantage. Of those candidates at the meeting under 30 years old, 51% received jobs (31% tenure/tenure-track), while of those between 30 and 39, 40% obtained jobs (15% tenure/tenure-track). In contrast, of those between 40 and 49 years of age, only 13% obtained jobs (3% tenure/tenure-track), and of those between 50 and 59, 15% obtained jobs (8% tenure/tenure-track). This trend has been noted in earlier years as well and presents a discernible problem. Table 7C indicates how many job applications were submitted by candidates in each age group, and those between 40-49 were the only group that was notably more selective than the average.
In terms of citizenship and residency status (Table 10B), most groups were hired in roughly equal proportions. Of those candidates who attended the meeting and are U.S. citizens, 38% obtained jobs (16% tenure/tenure-track); of the U.S. residents, 41% obtained jobs (23% tenure/tenure-track); of those with an “other” resident status and a U.S. degree, 44% obtained jobs (22% tenure/tenure-track). The only discrepancies appeared in the hiring of Canadian citizens, of whom 36% received jobs, but only a very small 7% obtained tenure/tenure-track jobs; however, this involved a very small pool of 14 candidates. Candidates with an “other” residency status and a foreign degree also faired quite poorly, since only 16% of them obtained any job at all, and only 11% tenure/tenure-track jobs. This reflects the pattern seen above, wherein non-resident candidates with foreign degrees were also not interviewed in proportion with their attendance at the Annual Meeting. This also repeats a pattern identified in 2000-2001 and should be noted.
In terms of ethnicity, recall that very few candidates (13 of those attending the meeting) identified as members of a group other than White. Of the candidates at the meeting, 37% of the candidates identifying as White obtained jobs (12% tenure/tenure-track), 25% of those identifying as Asian/Pacific Islander (20% tenure/tenure-track), the one identifying as Black received a non-tenure-track job, the one identifying as Native American or Alaskan Native received a non-tenure-track job, and none of those identifying as Hispanic obtained jobs (Table 12B). Grouping the candidates of Color together gives us a potentially more useful sample: of those 13 candidates, 4 or 31% obtained jobs (15% tenure-track). These percentages are not overly disparate from the percentages of their White peers hired (37% hired, 12% into permanent jobs), but they reveal that the advantage enjoyed by candidates of Color in obtaining interviews did not carry over into the hiring process.
Professional Matters Division Survey
Although the survey gives us access to many fewer positions taken for 2002-2003, it contains some kinds of information not available about the larger pool of positions discussed above. The 139 respondents to the survey reported obtaining 74 new academic positions (35 women and 38 men); 20 of these (9 women and 11 men) indicated that they had received more than one job offer, with an average of 2.6 offers (Table 19A). Interestingly, 55% of the positions reported on the survey were taken by candidates who were not interviewed for the position at the Annual Meeting (Table 19B). Overall, 54% of these jobs were non-tenure-track and 39% tenure-track (Table 19D), which correlates very closely with the types of positions found in the largest pool of 167 positions and the pool of 111 positions analyzed above. Also roughly in keeping with the statistics presented above, women obtained 40% of the adjunct and non-tenure-track positions reported in the survey, but 57% of the tenure-track jobs.
Salary is a type of information not available for the larger statistical pools. Table 19C outlines the salary accompanying positions taken by survey respondents, broken down by gender. Female candidates were 52% of those responding to the survey and were represented in the following proportions in the salary categories: 42% of the 12 hired for a salary $29,999 or below, 67% of the12 hired for a salary between $30,000-39,000, 38% of the 16 hired for a salary between $40,000-44,999, 58% of the 19 hired for a salary between $45,000-49,999, 43% of the 7 hired for a salary between $50,000-54,999, and 67% of the 3 hired for a salary between $55,000-59,999. Women are therefore represented in numbers above or not far from their representation in the survey pool (52%) in most of the higher salary ranges (Figure 6). This correlates well with the fact that women obtained 57% of the permanent jobs reported in the survey, which is well above their representation in the survey pool.
We can compare data obtained about the institutions by which men and women were hired (Table 19E). Of the jobs in departments which did not offer a major in classics, only 33% were taken by women; of those offering a B.A. as the highest degree, 43% of the jobs were taken by women; in departments offering up to an M.A., 60% of the jobs were taken by women, and in departments offering a doctoral degree, 54% of the jobs were taken by women.
Overall, these data show a dramatic reverse from previous years in the hiring of women into permanent jobs, into institutions offering advanced degrees, and into the higher salary ranges (Figure 7).
IV. Conclusions
All of the data gathered by the Placement Service and Professional Matters Division survey have their limitations, but we hope they have been pulled together in this report in such a way as to draw out relevant and suggestive trends.
For example, women candidates had a banner year in 2001-2002. In dramatic contrast to previous years, women were hired into permanent positions in a proportion (46% of the 167 positions; 48% of the 111 positions) greater than their representation at the meeting (42%) and their representation among candidates registered with the Placement Service (43%), excluding Subscribers Only. More women than men were also hired by institutions with graduate programs, and women were over-represented in the higher salary ranges reported on the survey. We shall await next year’s report with great anticipation to see if these gains are a fluke or if women continue to make headway in these areas. The CSWMG’s annual reports on Classics departments will also need to be monitored to see that women maintain these permanent positions and begin to bring gender parity to the faculty of all institutions. The only statistic of potential concern involving women is the apparently stagnant number of women finishing graduate school in Classics and coming onto the job market. When we consider that other fields in the Humanities have begun to reach parity and that undergraduate programs are now producing similar numbers of male and female graduates in Classics, we need to give due diligence to the experience of women in graduate school.
The discipline continues to suffer from a severe under-representation of men and women of Color. The sample is far too small to draw reliable conclusions about advantage or disadvantage in obtaining interviews or jobs. Attention needs to be given to the recruitment of students of Color into both undergraduate and graduate programs and to the treatment of students of Color in these programs.
Age discrimination appears to be a distinct problem. The 51 candidates who are 40 years of age or older (of the 302 candidates at the meeting) suffered clear disadvantages in both obtaining interviews and getting hired. Candidates observed this phenomenon anecdotally in survey responses, as well. This is a discrepancy noted in reports of previous years and deserves serious consideration.
A final problem to which attention should be drawn involves citizenship and residency status. The 19 candidates claiming a residency “other” than U.S. or Canadian and who had doctoral degrees from foreign institutions also suffered disadvantages in obtaining interviews and jobs. This also repeats findings from previous years.
In closing, although there have been advances in many areas, the CSWMG believes that issues of parity for women and members of other minority groups continue to challenge the discipline and call for continued diligence in studying interview and hiring trends. We would welcome comments and suggestions from APA members regarding any aspect of placement, or other practices of the APA. Such comments should be sent to the present Chair of the CSWMG, Professor Ann Olga Koloski-Ostrow, Classical Studies, M.S. 016, Brandeis University, 415 So. Street, Waltham, MA 02454-9110, or aoko@brandeis.edu.
Report submitted by Beth Severy-Hoven and Kirk Ormand, Members, CSWMG
APA Division of Professional Matters
American Philological Association
September
2003