7bec3b03_s_to_fear___Academic_Jobs_Wiki___Department
[School] Roger Williams University, RI [Issue and Date] 2012: Very strange, very hostile phone interview with the American Studies/history dept. There seemed to be about four to seven people involved, though maybe some never spoke. The conference phone device kept getting moved, which caused a lot of static and noise on the line. I tried to joke about it a little but it fell flat. It was all very awkward and quite cold. Their first question was, "Why do you want to work for American studies at Roger Williams?" Answered that. Then, a very blunt very hostile creative writer said she didn't see a lot of history courses on my grad transcript, and would I feel comfortable teaching history courses there? Actually, there ARE a lot of history courses on my transcript, but they were a secondary focus. Kind of like a minor. Also, I tried to explain the role of history in my teaching, but there was only blank silence on the end of the line, I wondered why they were calling me if essentially they had already decided I wasn' qualified. And WTF does a creative writer know about that kind of judgment call?! There were NO questions about my background, my research, how I pull history into my work, NOTHING. Only, basically, "Can you teach our courses?" So obviously, I got called as a formality. The person in the visiting position now that seems to correspond most with this position is a publication powerhouse who also has obviously been heavily mentored by the chair. I don't know if she was an internal candidate, or if she flew the coop and there was some acrimony there, But bad bad vibes all the way. Any incoming poor bastard who gets that job should beware: it seems like a VERY exploitative situation. I was a finalist for a job in the American Studies / History department. The search committee obviously favored the inside candidate whom they ultimately hired. The chair of the search committee was hostile to me during the group interview. He also expressed his lack of interest during the scheduled one-on-one interview when he barely talked to me and instead organized his desk and school bag. He made his feelings about my candidacy apparent when he did not bother to show up to my teaching presentation, research presentation or any of the scheduled meals. In fact, for the first half hour of my research presentation, only one committee member (a member of a different department) bothered to show up. I had to restart my presentation three times as two other individuals wandered in and out. At the time of my campus visit, it felt like the outcome had already been decided. The result of the search confirms my suspicions. [posted March 2012] Whatever you do, NEVER accept a visiting position at this university unless you are sure you can get out after the first year. You will be hired on a 3-year non-renewable contract, given a 4/4 teaching load and expected to participate in full administrative and advising duties. You will have no time to do research or publish, and they will toss you out at the end of the three years. Under the current administration visitings are never converted to tenure track. They have instituted an abominable 5-course Core Curriculum that is taught at the 8th grade level - many of the best students transfer after their freshman year. As a Visiting, you will be teaching 2 sections of one of these core courses every semester til you leave. (ex. Core 105 - the history of art, architecture, music, theater, ballet, and opera in 14 weeks). If you don't mind working your rear off and are not that interested in research and publishing, a tt job is not so bad - the faculty is unionized, and the benefit package is EXTREMELY generous (and inexpensive), including $2000 a year in professional development money (as of 2007-8) (So much money to spend on books that you have no time to read). Architecture school is the best school on campus, should you be applying. Just don't get hooked into the visiting positions - they will ruin your academic career. And, if you want some fun reading, google Ralph J. Papitto to see how the Board of Trustees behaves. Applied for Biology job (2007). Didn't hear anything back, however, I saw one (!) interview scheduled, so I sent an e-mail to the chair of the SC. Got a response back, asking if I was still interested (seems that the one person that they interviewed turned them down), and scheduled a phone interview. Evidently, the main criterion for my phone interview was the e-mail inquiry about my application. Had the phone interview, and never heard from them again. Discovered later that the position had been filled. Seems very disorganized. The National Education Association warned people last year that the tenure process is so repeatedly and flagrantly violated here that almost every prof trying to move up has had to sue (7! 4 granted tenure after mediation, 3 after court cases) with clear findings of violation of procedure, Dean overruling dept heads, etc. Who wants a tenure-track job where you'll have to hire a lawyer when it comes time for your tenure review? Beware, beware... New faculty contract this year - salary and benefits for new hires have been substantially reduced, with all the money going to senior professors. Ditto the above mentioned problems with tenuring. The students are children of wealthy parents (tuition is $23,000 a year) who are too lazy or too stupid to get into a better school. Prepare to spend the entire last week of classes each semester documenting plagiarism cases. Severe alcohol culture among students, as campus is isolated from the nearby city, and there is nothing to do in the evening (God forbid that they would do their homework). The History Department has searched for a Latin American Historian for the past three years. The interview is absurd. It was a telephone interview with seven faculty. Much of the interview (again, for a Latin America position) was dedicated to a discussion of "Core" readings on democracy that only included works from West Europe and the United States (such as Hobbes, Locke, and George W. Bush). It sounds like you need to take a break from teaching. Teaching is certainly not for everybody--one needs to see the potential in their students despite their weaknesses. Well, if that's the case, 70% of the faculty at RWU needs a break. Actually, the real issue is the Core Curriculum, which is organized in a way that it encourages students to perform at their lowest possible capability (there is a fixation on retention at RWU). Were the administration to eliminate it, many of the problems at RWU could be resolved, and many of the lowest performing students, who have no business studying in a liberal arts institution, would leave to find a more appropriate venue for their education, giving the faculty the opportunity to develop more competitive programs. Check on line for how the students lost the right to use a capital "R" in their Republican club after dressing up as giant penises and attacking people in line to see the Vagina Monologues. Not that there's not a rather funny side to that mental image... [Department] 
Any
Universities to fear - Academic Jobs Wiki
Department