Friday, April 8, 2011

APA web-only listings are up(dated)

185 posts, but due to the usual numbering wackiness, not 185 distinct positions. Lots of fellowships (go get 'em!) and VAPs and a few TTs in the mix. The total number is pretty similar to last year's offerings in April, for what it's worth (but I haven't done a comparison by type of job).

~zombie

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

are we talking about 189W? that's been out (and continually updated) since 189.

Anonymous said...

I think you're confused, Zombie. May is the new JFP. The web-only ads to which you refer (189W) have been slowly leaking out since February. Only one new ad have was added today (N. Iowa).

That being said: it is weird that the APA sent a random email with such a minor update. Yes?

zombie said...

It is very possible I am confused. I have not been checking APA much lately, and I'm also taking a new cold medicine.

But yeah, why'd they send that email around? Apparently they knew I was cognitively impaired this week.

Anonymous said...

But yeah, why'd they send that email around?

Well, this is the APA we're talking about.

That email made no sense. They've been gradually adding to the list since February 21.

Par for the course.

Anonymous said...

Zombie is out of touch because she already has a TT job. No need to check the JfP when you've already won the prize. OUT OF TOUCH!

Anonymous said...

Exactly. I was also wondering why the APA bothered to send that email. I'm glad that Zombie is out of touch because she has a job!

zombie said...

I do still look at the job listings. Old habits died hard. And I have friends who are still looking for jobs.

I just don't check JFP very much because I have to log in to do it, which means 3 clickthroughs. I'm not out of touch. I'm just lazy.

Small Fish said...

@ 7:41

Yes, seriously. I think it's a good policy. If you are going to penalize a student because of an accusation of plagiarism then that student deserves (out of considerations of fairness) to respond to that charge.

Fairness again would dictate that the accuser not be the judge of the soundness of the defense, too many conflicts of interest there.

So yes. Fairness would indicate going through your academic integrity office. EVERY institution has one and (I'm not stretching because I'm not sure if this is true but) I'd wager that almost all institutions have a policy like this in place.

Just because it might be followed by many doesn't mean it's ok or just.

Xenophon said...

JFP, due out May 6, has already been canceled, according to the APA website's publication schedule.