|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ACCORDING to a survey conducted by the MLA's graduate education project, organized in 1984–85 under the auspices of the Commission on Foreign Languages, Literatures, and Linguistics and funded by a grant from the US Department of Education, the number of PhDs awarded annually is declining (948 in 1976–77 compared to 855 in 1983–84) while the number of positions is increasing (Devens and Bennett). 1 In fact, the October 1986 issue of the MLA Job Information List listed 30% more openings than the October 1984 issue, more positions than had ever been posted before in this publication. With the number of new PhDs declining and the number of openings increasing, the full-time employment rate should improve considerably during the next decade. At present, however, there is still great cause for concern: even though the 1983–84 placement survey shows 95.6% of PhDs employed (97.9% of men, 91.2% of women), only 60% held full-time academic positions (70% men, 52% women). A discouraging 38% of PhDs hired were in tenure-track positions. Men, trailing women in the number of PhDs produced (391 men, 464 women), fared better in obtaining tenure-track positions, 53% versus 47% for women.
That fewer PhDs are being awarded at a time when faculty positions are being restored or added to departments offers excellent career prospects for future candidates. Yet, these developments also trouble those of us who are looking toward the year 2000. In some languages the decline in the number of PhDs is reaching alarming proportions: in 1976–77, 141 PhDs were awarded in German, as compared with 82 in 1983–84; similarly, 212 PhDs in French were awarded in 1976–77 and 116 in 1983–84.
Thus we have fewer entering junior faculty at a time when thirty states have imposed some form of foreign language requirement for graduation, when interest and demand in foreign languages are rising, and when retirements will severely diminish the ranks of the field's established scholars and teachers. Add to that the demands made on departments by the movement toward a proficiency-based curriculum, and it becomes clear that this millennium will end with thirteen challenging years of “mounting competition”for faculty members in all fields (Prokesch).
At the same time, we must take into account the reality of competition from the “revolving door” faculty members, who are unable to find tenure-track positions or who are not awarded tenure; from those who have fallen victim to institutional “reallocation” or retrenchment; and from scholars from abroad who have been unable to find employment in their own countries. Such applicants frequently have extensive publication lists and considerable teaching experience.
With respect to the pursuit of careers outside academe, the survey indicates that of the eighty-six respondents who left academe in 1983–84 for business, government, and nonprofit organizations, most were women and none were still seeking employment after one year, suggesting that they were satisfied with their choice.
A second function of the MLA project was to gather information about the curriculum and training in doctoral programs. The results are of value to recent PhD graduates and junior faculty members who are seeking positions and who wish to assess their strengths and weaknesses and to form a picture of the competition. The data point to continued discrepancies between the training of future faculty members, on the one hand, and departmental needs and ongoing curriculum reform, on the other. The following findings may serve as examples. Only 9% of departments listed contemporary culture and civilization as a required course category. Yet culture courses and culture studies are gaining prominence in the curricula of many undergraduate foreign language programs, and most faculty members will be asked to teach such courses. Not surprisingly, although most departments emphasize literature in their upper-division courses, only 5% of them consider training in the teaching of literature important. Linguistics is required by 29% but applied linguistics by only 8%, despite the push toward a proficiency-based curriculum. Fewer than half (37%) of all doctoral programs require preservice and inservice training in methods or techniques of language teaching. In this area German departments lead all other departments surveyed (Romance, classics, linguistics, “other”): 64% require such courses. One of the most alarming findings of the survey is that only 1% of departments require training in the use of film and other visual media. With most departments now routinely using such materials as integral components of instruction in language, culture, and even literature courses, the failure to prepare graduate students accordingly must be viewed as a serious weakness in departmental programs.
Graduate-level training in the major language—in stylistics, for example—is required by fewer than half the departments. This represents yet another failure by departments to recognize the need for pedagogical and linguistic competencies essential for such teaching objectives as communicative skills and proficiency-based instruction. With the recent focus on authentic texts (other than literature) in the production of teaching materials, teaching methods, and testing techniques, departments should require at least one course that gives students an opportunity to work with different text types and stylistic modes, with the objectives of improving the students' linguistic competence and preparing them for the use of such text types in their teaching. While native speakers, who, according to the survey, represent one third of all graduate students in foreign language departments, have an obvious advantage in language proficiency, my experience in teaching graduate stylistics courses has shown that native speakers need this type of intense and advanced training as much as students whose native language is English. If such advanced language instruction is not available, students should make every effort to teach themselves while teaching language courses (assigned to 82% of teaching assistants) or literature courses (assigned to 29% of teaching assistants). Most recent PhD recipients surveyed expect to teach language courses, reflecting departmental realities in most institutions.
The above-mentioned shortcomings in graduate training for the profession of teaching are echoed more broadly in Integrity in the College Community: A Report to the Academic Community , commissioned by the Association of American Colleges. While most foreign language departments are more committed to training for teaching and to training while teaching than, say, English or comparative literature departments, foreign language departments do not seem to have responded sufficiently to the needs and changes in the field. The AAC report describes the “initiation rite” of the teaching assistantship as being “almost invariably a disaster,” an experience that “says to the initiate that teaching is so unimportant we are willing to let you do it.” Continuing its harsh evaluation, the report states, “Only in higher education is it generally assumed that teachers need no preparation, no supervision, no introduction to teaching” (35–36). Even in foreign language departments, numerous problems remain, as we know from the scathing criticism of teaching in undergraduate education, which is, of course, directly linked to the poor teacher-training programs in graduate school. Surprisingly, the recent Carnegie Foundation book, The Undergraduate Experience in America , devotes only one page to the lack of good teacher training, even though many of the educational weaknesses it cites are attributable to college teachers' being largely “self taught” (Boyer 156).
Teaching experience in language, culture, and literature at a variety of levels can be an immense advantage for those seeking faculty positions. During an interview or the campus visit, such experience should be described in detail and related to corresponding courses in the department. Other teaching interests and ideas for new courses should also be presented. If a campus visit is possible, a candidate would do well to speak informally with junior faculty members to ascertain the type and range of teaching options and the freedom of faculty members to choose course content and teaching methods. Such information will help candidates predict their role in the department five to ten years hence and offers some clues to the institution's reward system as well as to the potential for professional development and job satisfaction.
Before a candidate makes a decision, particularly if he or she is fortunate enough to have several offers, other considerations should be weighed carefully. Most of us might dream of the life of a scholar at an Ivy League school. But it is there the dreams of junior faculty members most frequently turn to nightmares. Tenure is rarely granted except, of course, to the eminent scholar, a practice that generally has a negative impact on student enrollment, the quality of instruction, and faculty morale. New PhDs have nevertheless accepted positions in such institutions, in the hope that they will be the exception, but then they never are. Some senior faculty members at these schools are deeply concerned about the misuse and ultimate loss of much talent but have so far been unable to change institutional philosophy. As the market forces described above begin to take effect, departments may have to compete for candidates—and not just for the best as they do now. Consequently recent PhDs will look much more closely at such factors as job security, working conditions, compensation, and the freedom to teach a special-interest area. Competition for recent PhDs in foreign languages is likely to become fierce in the 1990s. Already at the 1986 MLA convention department chairs were acutely aware of the competition among departments for candidates.
Once a position has been found, the next challenge is to keep it and, eventually, undergo the awesome process of tenure review. Experienced faculty mentors might offer their junior colleagues the following counsel: It is best to maintain one area of specialization in literature and continue to publish in that. It is your base and your scholarly footing. Do not leave it. Many of us become generalists out of departmental necessity, impatience, frustration, or the desire to change things. At tenure and promotion time this direction backfires. From a solid scholarly base, however, you can and should branch out. Again, become a “specialist” in the teaching of language—here the proficiency movement, spearheaded by ACTFL and ETS, offers endless possibilities—or become the departmental media or film expert and design and teach functional courses like business French (there are now 109 such courses in the US) or business German. Examinations and diplomas in these two languages have been developed, lending credibility, course content guidance, and quality control to such courses. Carve out your own niche. Read journals like the ADFL Bulletin, Modern Language Journal , or Foreign Language Annals in addition to the scholarly journals in your own field. Always be a step ahead. Apply for grants. After publications, receipt of grants is perhaps the single most important factor in your favor when you are reappointed or evaluated for tenure and promotion. Develop and teach a course for the “new” core curriculum. Use technology to improve teaching: new programs in computer-assisted instruction offer a wide range of options for the teaching of language and culture.
Those PhDs unable to find positions that are compatible with their abilities, training, and interests may have to ask themselves some hard questions. First, is the candidate's curriculum vitae carelessly prepared and is the cover letter the best possible introduction? Chairs and search committees receive anywhere from thirty to two hundred applications per position, and a poorly prepared file, no matter how strong the academic record, suggests that the candidate does not really care that much about the position.
A second question to ask concerns the selection of referees. The faculty members who agreed to write letters of recommendation for the candidate may not make the best possible case; experienced members of search committees are attuned to reading the fine print; the referee's own stature and professional credibility is obviously a major factor. A candidate who is repeatedly rejected ought to consider changing some or all of the referees. Those asked to write letters should be kept informed of the candidate's publications and professional development. Oddly enough, many candidates often assume that their mentors and former professors routinely keep track of all their graduates' achievements.
The third and hardest question a candidate must ask involves the quality of his or her academic record. It is not unusual for ABDs and recent PhDs to have published articles or translations. The publication records of some recent PhDs are comparable to the scholarly output considered sufficient for tenure and promotion in the 1950s. Beyond the considerations of specialized scholarship, a candidate may face considerable competition from recent graduates who have good teaching skills because of longer and more varied classroom experience and good supervision as teaching assistants. The standard letter of rejection will give no clues. It is up to the applicant to ascertain why others seem to be more successful in obtaining a position. Of course, there is always the possibility that the MLA interview or the campus visit revealed a degree of incompatibility—the wrong chemistry. Rarely will a candidate ever know the real reasons for being rejected.
In my view, to continue a job search for more than two years or to accept more than two one-year appointments is counterproductive; the damage to one's self-esteem, personal life, and academic record is too serious, possibly irreparable. In such circumstances, it may be wise to consider using one's knowledge and research skills in a nonacademic position.
The foreign language profession has experienced so many highs and lows, so much promise and disappointment, so much reform and resistance that it is difficult for the older among us, the skeptics and cynics, not to preach caution as we observe the excitement created by the proficiency movement, the reintroduction of foreign language requirements in higher education, the introduction of some form of language requirement by most states, and the record number of Americans now studying foreign languages. But most of us would agree that the career prospects of our graduate students are better than they have been in a long time, that their options are greater, that their training is improving, and that the foreign language profession has a bright future and an important national mandate.
The author is Professor of German at the State University of New York, Stony Brook. This article is based on a paper presented at the MLA convention, 27–30 December 1986, in New York.
1 The US Department of Education gives the total number of PhDs in foreign languages for that year as 462, a 41% decline from the total of 781 in 1970-71 ( New York Times 9 Nov. 1986, sec. 12: 10); even if one deducts comparative literature and linguistics PhDs from the MLA figure of 855, there remains a discrepancy of 72.
Association of American Colleges. Integrity in the College Curriculum: A Report to the Academic Community. Washington: AAC, 1985.
Boyer, Ernest L., ed. The Undergraduate Experience in America. New York: Harper, 1987.
Devens, Monica, and Nancy J. Bennett. “The MLA Surveys of Foreign Language Graduate Programs, 1984–85.” ADFL Bulletin 17.3 (1986): 19–31. [Show Article]
Prokesch, Steven. “Mounting Competition for College Teachers.” New York Times, 12 Apr. 1987, sec. 12: 28–31.
© 1988 by the Association of Departments of Foreign Languages. All Rights Reserved.
|
|---|
|
|
|
