33, no. 1 (Fall 2001): 1-6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
No Works Cited |
|
From the Editor
ELIZABETH B. WELLES
THIS fall I am taking advantage of the editor’s column to report on the job market in foreign languages so that department chairs who are hiring or advising new PhD job seekers will have information about current trends in positions and about the number of PhD recipients likely to be candidates. The number of listings in the MLA’s Job Information List (JIL) has been stable for the last five years, but there have been some changes in the languages and characteristics sought by the positions advertised. As readers of this journal probably know, MLA staff members analyze the English and foreign language editions of the October JIL, counting the positions posted and coding the tenure status, rank, and specialization of each position. The October list has always provided the data for this analysis because, containing 50% of the listings, it is the largest of the quarterly lists. Subscribers can now search the October list in the first week it goes online.
The JIL count does not pretend to be a census of academic job opportunities in the modern languages. Not every four-year institution uses it to announce openings on its English and foreign language faculties, and very few two-year colleges use it at all. Virtually all positions listed in the JIL are full-time appointments, so it does not reflect the substantial market for part-time temporary teachers. For information on part-time positions, I refer you to my colleague David Laurence’s report on the MLA staffing survey published in this ADFL Bulletin issue. Over time, however, the list has served as a useful indicator of changes in characteristics of full-time academic employment opportunities in four-year colleges and universities.
Figure 1 shows the number of positions announced in the October JIL in English and foreign languages from 1975 to 2000. In comparison with 1999, the number of positions in foreign languages is nearly flat, falling from 672 to 666. Following the sharp rise and fall in listings between 1985 and 1992, the pattern from 1992 to 1998 was one of comparative stability, except for 1994, when the number rose 25% only to return to the previous level. The past two years represent a significant change; the number of positions in 1999 was 13.8% higher than in 1998; in 2000, 12.8% higher than in 1998.
Table 1 shows the number of positions advertised in foreign languages in the October 2000 issue and in all four issues of the printed JIL since 1975–76. The total for 2000-01 shows 109, or 9%, more positions available than in the previous year. While the number of positions went up, those described as definite tenure-track assistant professorships declined a little and constituted just half of all October listings (fig. 2).
According to data from the federally sponsored Survey of Earned Doctorates (SED), there were 628 degrees granted in foreign languages in 1999. Figure 3 shows the number the SED has reported annually over the thirty-year period 1970–99. In 1999, the SED recorded twice as many new doctorate recipients in English and foreign languages as there were definite tenure-track assistant professor positions in the October 2000 JIL. The exact ratio for foreign languages was 1.89 recipients to 1 position. Before 1997 the disparity was greater; between 1991 and 1996 there were on average 2.7 recipients for each position.
We know from the MLA’s placement surveys, ten of which have been conducted 1976–77 to 1996–97, that fewer than half the PhD recipients are likely to be hired on tenure-track lines in their first year on the market. The percentage of tenure-track placements in this series, highest at 49.6% in 1986–87 and lowest at 34.8% in 1981–82, has varied around 44% since 1991–92 (Welles 8).
Conditions facing applicants are even more difficult than the SED and the MLA data show. The number of people seeking appointments as tenure-track assistant professors each year is of course much greater than the number of new PhDs, since those who do not succeed in their first attempt are usually still on the market for at least two years. Current news regarding state budgets, tax policy, and the funding of higher education does not point to much improvement in the situation.
The data from SED show the distribution of PhDs by language for 1999 (Doctorate Recipients 75; app. table A1): Arabic 12, Chinese 27, French 149, German 90, Italian 20, Japanese 10, Russian and Slavic 43, Spanish 201, and other languages 76. Table 2 shows the percentages of major languages and language groups represented in positions announced in the October 2000 list. For the first time, announcements in Spanish accounted for half of all those listed. Table 3 shows trends in the shares of October listings by languages since 1990.
Eighty-six percent of the 666 positions announced in the 2000 October JIL ask for expertise in literature, while 65% call for expertise in language. Often departments ask for expertise in both literature and language teaching; 55.7% (371) request this dual expertise. In 1999 and 1998, 49% (329) and 58% (344) of the positions, respectively, requested dual expertise. Another 30.5% (203) asked for expertise in literature only, and 9.0% (60) asked for expertise in language teaching only. The remaining 4.8% (32) listings made explicit reference to neither skill. Table 4 shows the distribution of expertise in language and literature sought by different degree-granting types of departments. It should come as no surprise that the percentage requesting both language and literary teaching capacity is highest in BA-granting departments and that the percentage of departments desiring literary specialization rises the higher the degree offered by the department.
Table 5 shows the difference between listings for tenure-track and non-tenure-track positions. Listings that ask only for expertise in literature are more likely to be tenure-track positions than listings that focus on language teaching. Consistent with this difference, listings that ask only for expertise in language teaching are more likely to be at the rank of instructor or lecturer. Of the 431 job listings requesting expertise in language, 74% (319) indicated that what was desired was general language teaching ability or the ability to teach classes at various levels.
For several years foreign language listings requesting expertise in electronic technologies have appeared with sufficient frequency to deserve a separate count. This year 22.3% of all listings mentioned that electronic skill was either required or desired. For the years 1997, 1998, and 1999, the figures were 24%, 20%, and 19.5% respectively.
The availability of jobs raises questions about whether the number and training of PhDs produced is appropriate for the positions available. The specific requests of hiring departments might be good guides for educating graduate students, not only as attractive candidates but also as effective teachers, scholars, and departmental members.
This issue of the Bulletin encompasses several aspects of the profession that prospective job candidates will encounter when they become departmental citizens. The first essays honor a model scholar, teacher, and administrator in Andrew Debicki, winner of the fifth ADFL Award for Distinguished Service to the Profession in 1999. Roberta Johnson, John Kronik, and Jonathan Mayhew agree that Debicki’s work in Spanish letters and especially poetry helped gain Spanish literature a firm place in the American academy and brought Debicki prominence not only as a Hispanist but also a humanist. The authors show how his critical lens developed throughout the theoretical shifts of the late twentieth century and how, as his career unfolded, he extended his generosity of mind to all corners of the profession, from institutional administration to considerations about the human condition.
The next set of articles focus on the role of the arts, long a mainstay of the language curriculum, in creative approaches. As these innovative teachers say, such approaches, in taking advantage of aesthetic pleasure, draw students into areas of cultural understanding not otherwise available to language learners, especially at the lower levels. The authors also make the point that advances in technology, which provide increased speed and greater adaptability to sound, image, and text, make the arts more viable for teaching and also attract students. Julie Stephens argues that her course on Spanish film offers exciting cultural information that encourages linguistic competence and research. A further advantage is that the films are so varied in their exploration of social themes that students go beyond a monolithic view of culture and are motivated to explore and discuss the complex issues. Enrique Fernández finds a dual role for his short story Internet magazine: not only does it allow writers--some unknown--from all over the Spanish-speaking world to publish their work, it also provides texts that engage students in the reading of literature. By choosing stories for the curriculum that hinge on literary traditions, students are introduced to canonical writers and themes. Taking advantage of the informality and speed of e-mail, the class can communicate with other students to discuss readings and even with the authors of the stories they are reading. Learners are enabled to see Spanish literary texts as part of an accessible body of work brought to life by writers still living. Daniel Kramer, writing about the incorporation of German songs into his language courses, has found that songs often provide students a short, coherent, and authentic text. Giving a detailed account of the course development, Kramer demonstrates that grammatical points are easily practiced and cultural messages are readily grasped through words and music. In addition, the creation of the Web-based multimedia lessons of texts, music, and the work sheets that go with them gives students access to this experiential learning opportunity outside class.
Translation is a place where the borders of languages are reinforced, but it is also a place where languages touch and come together, an ambiguity that sometimes produces murky curricular territory. Does literature in translation belong to English or foreign language departments? What happens to the value of the original? Can languages really be translated? These and other questions are addressed in the next group of articles by authors who are both teachers and translators of literary works into English. As Kathleen Ross says in her introduction, these essays (based on a session at the 2000 MLA convention) are intended to enlarge theoretical discussions about translation with practical implications for the classroom. They draw on different experiences in a range of teaching situations: a great-books course, a multisectioned honors humanities course, a single-author course, a women’s studies course, a literary and cultural translation course. While mostly French, German, and Spanish literatures are treated here, the problems apply to other literatures and especially to those that in the more difficult languages are far less accessible to students.
We also include three short program descriptions. Charlotte Melin and David Van Dyke outline an articulation program initiated by the University of Minnesota in which high school teachers are enabled to teach advanced students a college curriculum. Particularly important for strengthening the long sequence of study needed for achieving language mastery (here of German), the program links the intermediate-level high school course closely to the next-level course at the university. Meanwhile in New Jersey there is a massive teacher education and recruitment effort resulting from the state’s adoption of standards requiring all students K–12 to study a foreign language. As Janis Jensen, coordinator for world languages in the state’s Department of Education, notes, the connection between precollegiate and college levels in the system is key to the project’s advancement. Alexander Rainof explains the establishment of a BA in translation and interpretation at California State University, Long Beach, that adds yet another layer of curricular initiative to our essays on teaching and translation. I call your attention also to three guidelines from the MLA’s Committee on Information Technology: on evaluation of faculty work with digital media for promotion and tenure, on reference information for authors of Web pages, and on institutional support of and access to informational technology on campus.
Doctorate Recipients from United States Universities: Summary Report 1999. Chicago: Natl. Opinion Research Center at the U of Chicago, 2000.
Welles, Elizabeth B. “Employment of 1996–97 PhDs in Foreign Languages: A Report on the MLA’s Census of PhD Placement.” ADFL Bulletin 31.2 (2000): 6–21. [Show Article]
© 2001 by the Association of Departments of Foreign Languages. All Rights Reserved.
