Please note that the supporting documentation for this report appears 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 with tables at the end is available as an Adobe Acrobat file that may be downloaded and printed (printable version).
The CSWMG is mandated by the APA to monitor both the fairness of the employment process and compliance with professional ethical standards. During the past two years, the process of collecting information about the APA Placement service and general hiring practices has been changed to allow the CSWMG, the APA Placement Service and the APA Placement Committee to work more closely in sharing and interpreting data. Three types of information are now collated in completing our analysis of placement practices and hiring trends: an initial candidate form filled out when candidates first enroll in the APA Placement Service, a “Professional Matters Division Survey” sent out to candidates the following fall (in which candidates are asked to report their interview experiences at the APA Annual Meeting and their resulting job status), and statistical placement information provided by the APA office. The database produced from all these types of information is correlated by use of an ID number rather than names so that candidate anonymity is preserved. The CSWMG would like to thank Barbara McManus and the APA office for all their work in organizing the methods by which the data is now collated and reported and Kathryn Gutzwiller (former CSWMG chair) for guiding our committee through these changes. We would also like to thank all the candidates who took time to complete the fall survey. To put this discussion in broader context, readers are invited to consult previous CSWMG placement reports (the most recent in APA June 2001 Newsletter, Adobe Acrobat file) and the concurrent report of the APA Committee on Placement on this web site.
Demographic Information
There were 415 total candidates registered with the Placement Service in 2000-2001; of these, 234 (56%) were male, 181 (44%) were female. The ratio of female to male candidates was lower among those candidates who attended the Annual Meeting , with 115 female candidates attending (39%) compared to 182 male candidates (61%). The total number of candidates attending the Annual Meeting was 297 (see Table 20). Figure 2 shows the percentage of female candidates in the Placement Service from 1986-2000.
Of these 297 candidates attending the Annual Meeting, 220 were U.S. citizens (74%), 19 were U.S. residents (6.4%), 14 Canadian citizens (4.7%), 6 with “other” resident status (with a U.S. degree) (2%), 15 with “other” resident status (with a foreign degree) (5%), 23 “other” with unknown degree or declined to state (7.7%). In terms of domestic status, 52 of candidates attending the meeting (17.5% of all candidates at the meeting) were single women, 48 (16.2%) were married women, 9 (3%) were women in a long-term relationship, while 6 women (2%) did not specify. Among men at the meeting, 72 (24.2%) were single, 90 (30.3%) were married, 11 (3.7%) were in a long-term relationship, and 9 (3%) did not specify. These percentages were within 2-3 percent of the range among overall candidates enrolled in the Placement Service.
Of the 297 candidates attending the Annual Meeting, 59 (20%) were under the age of 30, 171 (58%) were between the ages of 30-39, 38 (13%) between the age of 40-49, 13 (4%) between 50-59, and 16 (5%) declined to specify.
There were 166 Professional Matters Division Surveys (hereafter simply “survey”) returned, although two had to be discarded in some categories of reporting because they were unable to be correlated with other information. We are very pleased that the return rate of the survey continues to increase (40% of all candidates this year, compared to 28% last year), due in part to its revised form, but would obviously hope to encourage an even larger percentage of candidates to comply with the request for such information in the future. In a few cases, information from the surveys could not be directly correlated with other data. In these instances, prior information obtained by the APA office was used for reporting purposes.
Of this year’s survey respondents, 76 were female (46%), and 89 (54%) were male. This is very close to last year’s gender ratio of respondents (44% women to 56% men); the average age of respondents (35 years of age for women versus 36 years of age for men) was almost identical to last year’s group of respondents. Of the 164 survey respondents, 136 attended the Annual Meeting, 62 women and 74 men. Return of the survey is thus strongly predicated on a candidate’s attendance at the Annual Meeting. The remaining 28 survey respondents did not attend the meeting for various reasons: 8 undeclared, 8 decided not to apply for jobs this year, 10 did not have enough interviews scheduled, 1 changed plans, and 1 applied for jobs only in his/her geographic area.
Survey respondents predominately identified themselves as white (72 female and 80 male; overall 93% of respondents). Of the remaining 7%, the following racial/ethnic identifications were made: 1 Arab-American, 7 Asian Pacific Islander, and 4 Hispanic (see Table 12A). In collecting this data about racial/ethnic classifications, we have been faced with some difficulties in establishing relevant terminology (comparable to the changing practices in this regard established by the U.S. census). The CSWMG would like to review the terms of such classification in the future; input from APA members on this topic is welcome.
Concerning domestic status, 36% of survey respondents claimed “single, divorced, or widowed” (29 female to 30 male), 52% claimed “married” (38 female to 47 male), and 11% claimed “permanent long-term relationship” (9 female, 9 male). Two respondents (1%) did not respond to this question. These statistics should be compared to those about domestic status provided by the APA office and reported above; for example, there is a larger percentage of married respondents in the survey than in the general population of candidates. Eleven candidates identified themselves as members of a minority sexual orientation (6.7% of survey respondents); all but one of these was male.
In the following report, readers are reminded of the statistical difference between survey data (with 40% of candidates reporting) and other modes of collecting information, which were able to account for the entire population of candidates attending the Annual meeting or enrolled in the Placement Service.
Interviewing at the Annual Meeting
In assessing the pattern of interviewing at the Annual Meeting, it is useful to begin with a discussion of relative number of interviews (see Table 3). Once again, the total number of candidates attending was 297, with 115 female candidates (39%) compared to 182 male candidates (61%). Please note that in discussing interview and hiring rates, this report does not correlate data with the number of applications submitted by each candidate, although that information is available from the APA and has been used in other studies.
Of all the candidates at the meeting, 28.6% received no interviews (30 female to 55 male), and 23.6 received only one (28 female to 42 male). In the first category, this meant that women did slightly better than their rate of attendance (they were only 35% of the population with no interviews) while the category of one interview closely corresponds to their proportion of attendance (they comprised 40% of the candidates with only one interview). With increasing numbers of interviews, women were represented in the following percentages: 2 interviews (43% of 42 candidates), 3 (21% of 24 candidates), 4 (33% of 24 candidates), 5 (50% of 18 candidates), 6 (45% of 11 candidates), 7 (56% of 9 candidates), 8 (33% of 3 candidates), 9 (50% of 8 candidates), 10 (0% of 1 candidate), 15 (100% of 1 candidate), 16 (100% of 1 candidate). Women therefore were 39% of candidates with 2-7 interviews (50 out of 128 candidates), and 50% of those candidates with more than 7 (in this latter category the numbers drop dramatically to 14 total candidates). Tracking a different indicator, female candidates averaged 2.6 interviews compared to 2.1 for male candidates among all candidates at the Annual meeting. The relative advantage this suggests for female candidates should be compared with the final hiring rates (see Table 16).
The average number of interviews per candidate reveals an advantage for U.S. citizens and residents (3.3 for citizens, 3.6 residents), with groups declaring other citizenship or residency status averaging only one interview. Interview rates by ethnicity favored white candidates (89.9% of the candidates at the meeting), who averaged 2.4 interviews, with the next highest average 1.4 for Asian/Pacific Islanders. It is important to specify that 18 candidates at the meeting did not respond to this category (comprising 5.1% of candidates at the meeting), meaning that only 5% of candidates at the meeting explicitly classified themselves in categories other than white (this was a slightly higher percentage than those identifying in categories other than white in the overall pool of candidates registered with the Placement Service).
Interview rates at the APA Annual Meeting are also influenced in no small part by candidate field of specialization, so it is useful to review the intersection of specialization with gender. Candidates in the field of Latin literature had the highest average number of interviews 3.5, with Greek literature and Comparative literature tied at 2.8. There is a notable drop-off after this with Roman history (1.6), Religion (1.5), Greek history and Art/Archaeology (1.4), Ancient Philosophy (1), and Linguistics (0.7). (“Other” reported 2.4 average interviews). Keeping in mind that the ratio of attendance at the Annual Meeting was 39% women to 61% men, Table 6A documents the ratio of men to women in each field among candidates attending the Annual Meeting.
According to this table, women were represented in excess of their proportion of attendance in the following fields: Greek history (44%), Comparative Literature (40%), and Religion (50%). They exceeded the ratio most dramatically in the field of Art/Archaeology, representing 57% of the candidates. They were slightly below their attendance in Latin literature (by only 1%, 38%), Greek literature (33%), and Linguistics (33%), while more noticeably below their proportion of attendance in Roman history (21%) and Ancient Philosophy (17%). The percentage of women in these fields goes up in most categories by 4-7% when the calculation is done for the entire pool of candidates (given that women comprise a larger percentage of the candidate pool, 44%, than they did attendees at the conference, 39%), as shown in Table 17. Notably, the average number of interviews per candidate by field does not correspond directly with the number of positions eventually offered in each field (see discussion below).
The amount of publication can also be traced with regard to hiring trends and the gender of candidates. Table 19 indicates that of all candidates registered with the APA Placement Service (415 total), 112 candidates (27%) had published books, 45 of which were women (40% of candidates with books), 67 were men. The number of women with books is thus slightly lower than their ratio among all candidates (44%). In terms of articles, women were 54% of the candidates registered with the Placement Service with 0 articles, 42% of the candidates with 1-2 articles, 43% of the candidates with 3-4 articles, 45% of candidates with 5-9 articles, and 35% of candidates with 10+ articles. Out of 26 candidates who did not specify their publication record, 8 (31%) were women. The table also allows a comparison among the smaller group of candidates attending the conference, in which the ratios show a similar pattern—an over-representation of women with no articles, an approximate balance in most mid-range categories of article publication (with some exceptions), and an under-representation at the higher number of articles and book publishing. Among candidates attending the conference, 33% of those with a published book were women, lower than their proportion of attendance at 39%. Women were 47% of candidates with 0 articles, 37% of candidates with 1-2 articles, 37% of candidates with 3-4 articles, 32% of candidates with 5-9 articles, and 35% with 10+ articles. They were also 35% of candidates who did not state a publishing record. Readers are invited to examine these figures in the broader context of publishing ratios in our discipline by consulting the CSWMG report on journals.
Survey respondents who attended the Annual Meeting were asked to evaluate the conduct of interviews, noting in particular the discussion of certain questionable topics and whether the respondent believed the topic conferred either an advantage or disadvantage. The overall reporting suggested that the majority of candidates did not encounter any such topics (see Table 15). Of all topics, religion and marital status were the most cited by male and female candidates, followed by a partner’s willingness to locate and children. Whether such topics provided the candidate with an advantage or disadvantage provoked a mixed response among candidates; the mention of religion, for example, was cited more often as an advantage by male candidates, so also it was cited by more male candidates. Female candidates were evenly divided on whether the mention of a partner’s willingness to locate was an advantage or disadvantage—a topic that was more frequently raised with women. Nationality, on the other hand, was cited by more male candidates as a topic raised.
Finally, candidates were invited to include on the survey response any comments they wished about the process of interviewing and hiring. Aside from a comment raising the question of age discrimination, the comments otherwise addressed procedural issues outside the domain of the CSWMG mandate.
Hiring
Compiling the most comprehensive set of data, information about 143 positions received in 2001-2002 can be studied. While this figure helps establish a useful hiring profile, these reported results do not account for all the postings received by the Placement Service. Using a separate mode of data collection, the APA received more limited data about a total of 209 positions (see Table 16). Of these positions, 66 (32%) went to candidates not registered with the Placement Service, a statistic that is important to bear in mind in all the subsequent analysis which is confined to discussion of candidates registered with the Placement Service. 120 of these 209 positions (57%) were temporary (adjunct or non-tenure-track), while 82 (39%) were permanent (7 were of unknown status). Figure 3 graphically represents the gender ratio of these jobs: 47% of temporary jobs were given to female candidates, and 37% of permanent positions—these numbers are close to the percentages reported for 143 of those positions now discussed in greater detail.
Of these 143 reported jobs, women received a total of 65 (45%), while men received 78 (55%), a ratio equivalent to the overall proportion of male and female candidates registered with the Placement Service (56% male to 44% female), but slightly higher for women with regard to their proportion of attendance at the Annual Meeting. Of the 65 jobs reported by women, 42 were non-tenure-track, while 22 were tenure-track, with 1 of unknown status. In contrast, of the 78 jobs accepted by men, 39 were non-tenure-track, 36 were tenure-track, 1 tenured, and 2 of unknown status. Thus, women received 52% of the non-tenure-track positions and 38% of tenure-track positions. Overall, these 143 positions were of the following types: 3 adjunct (2%) positions, 78 (55%) non-tenure-track, 58 (41%) tenure-track, 1 tenured, and 3 of unknown status.
In tracking gender and domestic status with regard to these 143 positions (see Table 11B), single women received 20% of the positions (29 jobs, 10 tenure-track), married women, 22% of positions (32 positions, 11 tenure-track), women in a long-term relationship 2% (3 positions, 1 tenure-track), with one woman of undeclared domestic status receiving an unknown position. In contrast, single men received 22% of positions (32 total, 17 tenure-track), married men 30% (43 total, 18 tenure-track), and men in long term relationships 2% (3 total, 1 tenure-track). Of these figures, the ratio of married women diverges most from their proportion of representation at the Annual Meeting (16.2%).
In hiring with regard to these 143 reported positions, the age of the candidates reveals a pattern (see Table 7B). Candidates under 30 received 35 positions, 16 tenure-track (making them 24.5% of total candidates with 2001-2002 positions), candidates between 30-39 received 91 positions, 35 tenure-track (63.6%), candidates aged 40-49 received 13 positions, 6 tenure-track (9.1%), aged 50-59 received 4 positions, 1 tenure-track (2.8%). If we compare these figures to ratios of attendance (discussed above), there is a discernible advantage for candidates under 39, a trend that has also been noted in previous years.
Tracing citizenship/residency status in terms of hiring trends also reveals a pattern (see Table 10B). Attendance at the Annual Meeting, as described above, broke down to the following ratios: U.S. citizens (74%), U.S. residents (6.4%), Canadian citizens (4.7%), “other” resident status, with a U.S. degree (2%), 15 “other” resident status, with a foreign degree (5%), 23 “other” with unknown degree or declined to state (7.7%). The ratio of U.S. citizens and residents in the overall pool of candidates enrolled in the Placement Service was only slightly different (75.7% and 6%). Given these proportions, U.S. citizens and residents can be seen to have accepted jobs at a higher rate; U.S. citizens comprised 82.5% of candidates hired for 2001-2 and U.S. residents, 7%. Canadian citizens (the only other citizen group explicitly named in the data) received only 3.5% of the jobs, all non-tenure-track.
Table 12B indicates that of the 143 positions, 133 (93% of positions) were obtained by candidates who identified as white (35.5% of all candidates who identified as white); of these positions, 65 (or 42%) were tenure-track, with one tenured position offered. Arab-Americans received 1 non-tenure-track position (100% of all candidates identified as Arab-American). Candidates identifying as Asian/Pacific Islanders received 6 total positions (54.5% of candidates so identified); of these positions 1 (17%) was tenure-track. Two Hispanic candidates received positions (40% of candidates), 1 position (50%) was tenure-track.
According to Table 6B, Greek literature led all fields with 44 total jobs accepted (20 identified as tenure-track), followed by Latin literature (with 32, 15 tenure-track), Art/Archaeology (26, 8 tenure-track), Roman History (19, 9 tenure-track), the rest of the fields combined for 21 jobs (5 tenure-track). Of the four fields populated by women above their proportion in the overall pool of interviewing candidates, all but Art/Archaeology fall into this final category (i.e., Greek history, Comparative Literature, and Religion). The field in which women occupy the highest percentage of candidates at the Annual Meeting, Art/Archaeology, also stands out in this list for holding the worst proportion of tenure-track to non-tenure-track positions.
Since we discussed the intersection of gender and publication rates above, it is worth pointing out the lack of correlation between greater publishing amounts and hiring (see Tables 13C-D). Of the 143 positions, 118 (83%) went to candidates with no published book; a majority of positions similarly were accepted by candidates with either 0 or 1-2 articles (94 positions, 66%), with only 20 (14%) positions going to candidates with 5+ articles. This lack of correlation with publishing record perhaps points to the relatively high number of non-tenure-track positions offered; 57% of positions were non-tenure-track and adjunct vs. 41% tenure-track.
Of the 164 survey respondents, 97 (48 female, 49 male) reported accepting positions for 2001-2001, 2 (2%), of these positions were adjunct, 54 (56%) were non-tenure-track, 40 (41%) tenure-track, and 1 tenured, percentages very close to other modes of reporting (see Table 18). Within these categories, women (roughly 50% of the sample) received 50% of adjunct positions, 57% of non-tenure-track positions, and 40% of tenure-track positions. Of the 11 survey respondents who claimed minority sexual orientation, 7 (all male) reported receiving positions, 4 in non tenure-track positions and 3 in tenure-track ones.
In the survey, 67 respondents (a notable 40.9% of survey respondents) reported employment outside the academy. Of these, 28 were female, and 39 male; the majority of these respondents, both female and male, did not specify the precise type of employment they had accepted.
Survey respondents also gave information about salary accompanying their positions . Female candidates were approximately half of those reporting positions in the survey and were represented in the following salary categories: 50% of 2 positions with salary between $0-10,000, 100% of 3 positions with salary between $10,000-20,000, 75% of 8 positions with salary between $20-30,000, 53% of 32 positions with salary between $30-40,000, 43% of 46 positions with salary between $40-50,000, and 17% of 6 positions with salary over $50,000 (this information is presented graphically in Figure 4).
Finally, survey respondents enable us to identify the way women’s hiring might correlate with the highest degree offered by a department (see Table 18). Thus, women responding to the survey received 42% of the 31 total positions in departments offering a Ph.D., 69% of 16 positions in departments offering an M.A., 45% of 44 positions in departments offering a B.A., and 80% of 5 positions in departments that do not offer a major.
Conclusions
Throughout this report, a number of general trends seem to emerge, but it is critical to note that their interpretation is often dependent on the type of group established as the control. For example, the overall hiring rate of female candidates corresponds closely to their ratio within the group of all candidates registered with the Placement Service. In contrast, since women comprised a smaller proportion of those actually attending the Meeting, their hiring rate with regard to those attending the Meeting seems to grant them an advantage. So, too, the average number of interviews at the Meeting seems to benefit female candidates. Yet, if women’s smaller ratio of attendance at the Annual Meeting includes a significant portion who did not attend because they had no interviews (something 10 of 28 survey respondents identified as their reason for not attending the Meetings), the numbers might require some adjustments. In considering these statistics, it is also significant that approximately 32% of the 209 positions announced to the APA were filled by candidates not registered with the Placement Service. These positions influence considerably any conclusions we might like to make about the correlation between interviewing at the Annual Meeting and subsequent hiring.
It is clear that, however the hiring statistics are interpreted overall, female candidates are still disproportionately receiving temporary rather than permanent positions; Figure 5 graphically represents gender breakdowns of various aspects of the placement and hiring process. Women received 45% of the 143 reported positions, but of these, 65% were of temporary status (compared to only 50% of temporary status among positions for men). These numbers correlate closely with the salaries reported by survey respondents, in which women are under-represented among groups of $40,000+ salaries. Other interview and hiring factors deserve broader disciplinary contexts. For example, given the frequent correlation of number of interviews with specific Ph.D. programs, it would be helpful to consider the relative proportion of female graduate students in “top” Ph.D. programs (see the results of the CSWMG departmental survey). So, too, the publication rates of female candidates (lower in some categories than their male counterparts) can be considered within general publishing trends (see the CSWMG journal report). The discipline continues to be vastly underrepresented by candidates identifying in racial/ethnic categories other than white. The sample is too small to make any firm conclusions regarding the correlation of advantage with specific racial/ethnic identifications, although the disparate interview averages are of some concern. With regard to nationality/residency status, however, there does seem to be an advantage for U.S. citizens and residents in receiving a position. The other category that seems most relevant to hiring is the age of the candidate, with candidates 39 and under receiving distinct advantage. In closing, although there have been advancements in many categories, the CSWMG believes that questions of parity continue to be relevant 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 current Chair of the CSWMG, Professor John Kirby, Program in Classical Studies, Coulter Hall, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907, or via e-mail at corax@purdue.edu.
Report submitted by Denise Eileen McCoskey, Member, CSWMG
APA Division of Professional Matters
American Philological Association
January
2002