Rutgers, Slavists, jobs

[Jason Pontius]

Seelangovci:

I too would like to register my dismay at the specificity of Rutgers'
recent job posting, for three specific reasons: (1) the limitation to
"native" speakers excludes the great majority of American scholars from
consideration; (2)  speakers and scholars of other Slavic languages are
apparently excluded; and (3) for a position whose duties involve the
teaching of an introductory Slavic linguistics course, no training in
linguistics (other than pedagogy) is required.

As an American Slavist specializing in Czech linguistics, I am clearly not
right for this position.  But I see no reason why a trained Slavic
linguist, with a couple of years of experience teaching Russian and
experience abroad, would be anything but an ideal candidate for the Rutgers
position irrespective of the "native"-ness of his command of the Russian
language.

I think this matter could and should lead us to a renewed discussion of the
status of Slavic in the academic world.  To get the ball rolling, I'd like
to put forth a few questions for discussion which relate to job
qualifications in Slavic:

1)  Should a Slavic linguist whose command of Russian is not "native"
bother applying for the Rutgers position?  Will he/she be screened out of
consideration in the first round based on language fluency?

Broadly conceived, this question reflects a concern that I have seen in
many of my classmates who are applying for jobs.  The increasing
specificity of job postings leads to a situation in which many people are
applying for jobs for which they meet only some of the qualifications; for
example, a specialist in 19th-century Russian literature might apply for an
18th or 20th century job.  Will this 19th-century specialist have a chance?
Anyone who has been hired to a position for which they did not meet all of
the advertised qualifications is encouraged to respond.

2)  The increasing size of the PhD pool relative to the size of the field
has led to more specific and targeted job searches (if that point is
arguable, please argue it).  Should students respond by narrowing their
fields of specialization so as to be a better fit when the "perfect job"
comes up?  Will those students who have sought a broader range of
experience, or published or presented papers on diverse topics, be at a
disadvantage?

3)  Is it the responsibility of the student to apply for jobs for which
he/she is not completely qualified, and try to sell him/herself in the
cover letter and CV; or is it the hiring institution's responsibility to
state firmly which qualifications are essential and which are optional or
preferred (or to rank them in order of importance)?

Thanks for your time.  If anyone would like to respond anonymously, please
reply  to me off-list and I will post a summary.

Jason Pontius


------------------------------------------------------
jason allen pontius    slavic    university of chicago
7 7 3 . 3 2 4 . 7 1 7 3   japontiu at midway.uchicago.edu