On April 26, The New York Times published Mark C. Taylor's instantly infamous essay, "End the University as We Know It." Taylor argued that we need to rethink, restructure, and regulate university education for the 21st century. In the meantime, however, as Taylor observed, the outlook remains grim: "Most graduate programs in American universities produce a product for which there is no market (candidates for teaching positions that do not exist)."
I'm one of those candidates. On May 1, I received a letter from a university in Oklahoma regarding one of the few tenure-track jobs that still exists. It was the first I had heard from the search committee in six months, since a brief acknowledgment of my application. The chair wanted me to know that the search had been successful—not for me, but for the department. It had hired an exceptional candidate for an American-literature position, someone with two Ph.D.'s, no less, one in English and one in history. The committee was grateful for my interest.
So the solution to market saturation is not for departments to produce fewer Ph.D.'s but for candidates to earn multiple doctorates? Maybe, but as someone who occupies a contingent position—a good one, admittedly, but one with no hope of renewal—I saw the rejection letter as the perfect, end-of-the-week, microscopic-level complement to Taylor's ominous, Sunday-morning macroscopic vision.
I write this essay not because I am more deserving than other rejected candidates. (And I'm also no more likely than they are to dust off my GRE study guide and earn a second Ph.D.) No, this essay is meant as a simple proposal to counter Taylor's extravagant one. While I agree that we need to think about the future of the university and, in particular, the role of the humanities, what I am proposing in the meantime is a stopgap measure to make an unfortunate situation on the job market slightly more humane.
And my proposal is actually doable, right now, before the job openings get posted and thousands of us update our CV's and cover letters. It would benefit both applicants and search committees, and might help us weather this nearly untenable situation until a better solution appears.
We tend to accept bad behavior in academe, often on the grounds that only social misfits like to spend their lives burrowed in university libraries. I'm simply suggesting some decent manners.
Require a cover letter and a CV only. Restricting the initial application to those two documents would be the simplest way to alleviate some of the pressures and expense imposed on job candidates. I have served on a search committee and observed it in action; departments do not need more than those two documents to make their initial cuts.
A narrower application would not only help applicants, it would also simplify the lives of the committee members by reducing the material they have to read in order to weed out applicants.
Requiring only a letter and a CV used to be standard practice, but the current buyer's market has fostered a kind of "application creep," allowing departments to make onerous demands as part of the initial packet. About half of the job ads I responded to last fall requested writing samples and recommendations upfront.
It is no exaggeration to claim that you spend the better part of a day on such applications: crafting the job letter, selecting and revising an appropriate writing sample, assembling a portfolio of teaching materials appropriate to the position, submitting requests for recommendations and transcripts. Applicants are thrilled to commit that kind of time if the committee is genuinely interested in hiring them. But that genuine interest only emerges later in the process.
Every day that applicants spend obsessing over a front-loaded application request is a day they are not reviewing drafts of student papers, preparing for class, revising an article that might bolster their CV, or spending time with their families.
Clarify dossier requests. Search committees use the term "dossier" as if it signified an agreed-upon entity when, in fact, each committee seems to have something unique in mind. The key is clarity: Committees will get what they want if they say what they want. I propose a clarification of two typical dossier components:
n The writing sample. A request should come in three varieties: the conference paper (10 pages); the article (25 to 35 pages); and the chapter (35 to 50 pages). Departments should request the kind of writing sample they would expect the candidate to produce as an active scholar in his or her field.
n Teaching materials. I cannot count the number of times I've been asked to submit "examples of teaching excellence." That's inviting a flood of material that will probably prove unenlightening. Once the initial herd is culled, committees should ask the viable candidates to submit the types of teaching materials that junior faculty members would be expected to produce for evaluation.
Notify candidates at each stage of review. The final point of this modest proposal hinges on two fundamental principles: openness and timely communication. Applicants want to know their status as soon as possible. In my field, that is especially crucial for those applicants who are not invited to interview at the annual convention of the Modern Language Association. Unfortunately, graduate students and contingent faculty members cannot afford to go to the MLA for the sole purpose of professionalization. Conservatively speaking, if you travel by plane, spend two or three nights in a hotel in a major city, pay the conference registration fee, and require food to survive, you can expect to spend about $1,000. That's an investment if you make $40,000 a year; it's courting indigence if you make less.
Yet applicants must register for the MLA convention, book flights, and reserve hotel rooms simply on the off chance that they might receive a last-minute interview invitation.
Perhaps this is simply another consequence of the buyer's market, but the lack of communication borders on shameful when you consider the resources that candidates expend on each application. Recently, I spoke with a colleague in religious studies who has yet to receive word from three departments she applied to last fall. While I wouldn't be so brazen as to call that the norm, such total lack of regard is familiar.
It needs to end, and it would be so simple to remedy. I served on a search committee this past fall. In early December, after we had narrowed the field of candidates, every applicant not on the list of finalists received a letter notifying them that they were no longer under consideration. Every year, other searches follow similar protocol; there's no reason every committee cannot be equally forthcoming in its communication practices at every stage of the process.
It makes sense for the committee to play its cards close to the chest, but that does not excuse keeping everyone on the line. A simple e-mail message would suffice: "At the moment, we cannot offer you a campus interview, but we would like to keep you on a short list of reserve candidates for the position."
What shouldn't happen is what so many candidates experience after the initial interview. I have sent follow-up e-mails to committee members only to have those messages ignored. As of July, a friend has yet to hear a single word from the departments she interviewed with at the MLA conference in December. Committees have typically left me wondering about my status well into April. One post-MLA letter, dated several months after the initial interview, began with this line: "I regretfully write to inform you of what must be painfully obvious by now."
Though reviewing applications can be harrowing work, that does not excuse the kind of rampant disregard that candidates report every year. We can do something to raise the level of professionalism in what is necessarily an impersonal process.
Indeed, I am not arguing against the impersonal nature of the market. If you're receiving 50 rejection letters a year, it's nice to know that all of those committees do not personally find you unfit for the profession. But imposing expensive and time-consuming demands as part of the initial application, keeping candidates in the dark, or not responding to them exceeds the boundaries of merely being impersonal.
Those of us seeking tenure-track jobs are coming to terms with our diminished prospects. In the meantime, the least departments could do is make a grueling situation slightly more humane. It's called the humanities after all.
Comments
1. ksledge - August 31, 2009 at 07:49 am
Agreed. Now that we live in the age of e-mail, it doesn't even cost them anything to send out rejection letters in stages, or "status updates."
2. jmittell - August 31, 2009 at 08:47 am
I agree with almost all of your proposals, and am adhering to nearly every one in the search committee I'm currently chairing. My one change is that there's a good reason to require reference letters in the first wave of materials. These are often the items least in the candidate's control, so lead time is vital. While we can certainly expect that a candidate could mail or email a (defined) dossier within a week, it would be difficult to ensure that letters would be ready to go on short notice, and there's just too much potential for delay. As someone who is often on the writing side of reference letters, I think giving advance notice as part of the initial fall wave is important and fair.
3. drj50 - August 31, 2009 at 10:35 am
I concur wholeheartedly.
I'll resist the urge to relate some of my own horror stories. But on the positive side . . .
I once received an acknowledgement of my application that said (in part) "If you don't hear more from us by January 15, you should conclude that we are pursuing other candidates." Simple, not all that warm, but at least I knew what to expect and where I stood.
Several years ago, I applied for a mid-level administrative position at Notre Dame. I applied by email. Within 48 hours, I recieved an acknowledgement BY SNAIL MAIL! I was so delighted at this simple act of kindness that I immediately wrote back, groveling, professing that I would DO ANYTHING to work in an environment where people did things like that. My passion was, alas, at that time unrequited, but I still think back on the experience fondly and wonder why others can't be similarly professional. (One key, I suspect, would be taking the mechanics of the search out of the hands of faculty and entrusting the acknowledgements and progress reports to departmental secretaries, who after all, are administratively talented.)
4. kvcclibrary - August 31, 2009 at 10:43 am
The author is absolutely correct. Requiring letters of reference and official transcripts at the time of initial application is a completely thoughtless imposition.
Today's job search will almost certainly require multiple applications. Do you want to be the supportive reference who's asked to write 4 or 8 or more different thoughtful, job-specific letters without knowing whether your candidate is even in the running?
5. alvitap - August 31, 2009 at 11:13 am
Asking job seekers to provide any number of reference letters is classist. It reminds one of Victorian England. There are many other social relations that may compound an applicant's ability to be considered for an interview. As a graduate student -- and later as an adjunct -- I overheard many ugly comments made by faculty during a search. I learned that some faculty members frequently have the same racist, sexist, homophobic, etc., biases as those held by the general public. These ideas sometimes come from the information provided in cover letters (even though applicants are advised not to provide personal information that socially differentiates them. Sometimes faculty telephone applicants (outside the interview process) to obtain information that they filter and share with others. This seemingly happens as the annointed search chair -- usually early associates -- goes about the halls debating with colleagues the value of a particular candidate's dissertation when that isn't even the real reason why some are hired, I don't think, because some hires are totally unintelligible.
It seems to me, that the needs of the department and who best fills the need should be the primary reason faculty are hired. Including other discriminatory considerations is unfair and undoubtedly illegal. (But who can complain?)
I think the cover letter and curriculm vitae is an acceptable request at the pre-interview stage, but even the curriculum vitae provides too much information for search committees to consider for a first cut. One hundred appicants alone is too much work for a selection committee to review. Understandably, to be fair, committe work would take a long time under this protocol. Changes
by more enlightened departments will be made. Other departments will continue to request this superfluous gatekeeping strategy to prevent hiring democracy to take hold.
It is better to ask for formal letters of application that details the applicant's interest and qualifications for the job.
Asking for grade transcripts (and even the curriculum vitae) before hiring provides too much information (age and duration of education, for example).
The C.V. needs to be defined. I am sure that there is a wide-range of information that is placed in the C.V.
The C.V. should fit the position posting. Many jobs call for applicants with "a strong history of publications". The universities that ask for such prolific writers and ask, almost in passing, that the applicant should be dedicated to teaching makes my head whir. What liars.
Institutions that proclaim their dedication to teaching and then (almost covertly) hire someone with tremendous writing credentials should be sued for false advertising.
This doesn't need to happen.
The detailed letter of application, say no more than five pages, would be plenty of space for an applicant to convey all the information an academic employer should need to know and all that an appicant would want to broadcast.
Colleges and universities that rely on rationalized (computerized) application systems make the application process unbearable and places a heavy load on some applicants to obtain personalized letters of recommendation from academic mentors. I for one, don't like to do that. I for one, don't like to continue to ask present or former colleagues for letters of recommendation because I don't want them to know that I am looking for another (a better) job. I am already vulnerable because I am contingent.
6. arced - August 31, 2009 at 11:20 am
I absolutely agree with the proposal, especially the one not requiring letters or transcripts (which, IMHO, is arrogant and disrespectful to one's colleagues). I feel it's a bunch of busywork for both sides (the search committee and the applicant/letter writers). The big problems that job descriptions are often very broad (justifiably so) and search committees come to understand exactly what they're looking for after getting the applications. It's during this time that no criteria appear (e.g. no ABDs, 3 journal articles, theoretical approach, etc.) that serve to automatically eliminate a large percentage of the pool without much consideration. New criteria is all part of the process, but search committees need to be a bit more humble and realize that they can make the first cut with just a cover letter and a cv. In terms of jmittell's concern, I think that if letters were not required in the first wave, thousands of professors would stop having to write hundreds of letters each. If they knew that their letters would be read because the applicant made to the long short list, they'd have a greater incentive to write the letter and send it out. It's for the good of academia to stop all the letter writing.
7. thomaskdean - August 31, 2009 at 11:29 am
I received my PhD 18 years ago. The sad thing is that your article could have been written exactly as it stands 18 years ago.
8. thomaskdean - August 31, 2009 at 11:32 am
And I would add that articles like this WERE written 18 years ago, too. Sad to see things haven't changed one iota.
9. ynori - August 31, 2009 at 01:55 pm
Like others, I sympathize strongly with the recommendations made here. However, there are two important factors to take into consideration in explaining why things are the way they are, namely, the search committee's workload and limited time. Six years ago when I was on the job market for the very first time, neither of these factors occurred to me when trying to figure out why the job application process is the way it is. But, after serving on a hand full of search committees, I now see things a bit differently. Committees are overworked and have little time.
Here are some quick responses to the author's recommendations:
"Require a cover letter and a CV only"
This sounds great in theory but ill advised in practice. Not only does a committee usually take more than one meeting to determine the long short list (i.e. first cut), one would need to schedule a two to three week window of time to allow for the long short-listed (i.e. second cut) candidates to submit the second round of materials (writing sample, letters of rec, teaching evals, etc.). A committee would then have to schedule another meeting to discuss the newly submitted materials to determine the short list. By this time, it could easily turn into January before a short list is made, i.e. too late for MLA fields.
Moreover, committees rarely ever agree after just one meeting. A lot of informal horse trading and compromise making takes place outside of the meeting. As a consequence, one needs to have yet another meeting to give legitimacy to the informal discussions. This sounds crazy, but this is the reality that I've seen so far (as have all of my friends who have sat on search committees).
And, finally, as an anecdote:
We recently hired a candidate despite his cover letter (it was short, lacked detail and was even addressed to the wrong person) and CV (a curious mess of information). His application made the short list based solely on his (incredible) writing sample. He is now my wonderful colleague, a caring teacher to our students and a highly productive researcher.
"Clarify dossier requests."
One would have to agree that the term "dossier" is incredibly vague. I hate the term. However, committees don't even agree on what they want in a "dossier"--and that's why they call it a "dossier." Example: One committee member says that a dossier consists of XYZ the other says it consists of WXY but never Z. The first member says the other member is out of touch (i.e. old); the second says the first is naive (an upstart). The chair calls for a compromise: let's just ask for a "dossier."
"Notify candidates at each stage of review."
Sounds great, but this is impractical and may increase the chances of a failed search. Once one tells someone that he or she has been cut, one cannot go back into the pool of those who were initially cut to ask them to interview. That is why notices should only go out at the very end of the search process.
If it happens that a department does not notify a candidate that he or she is no longer under consideration at the end of the search process, it is usually because the staff is overworked by the time the search has concluded. Even with e-mail, it is a daunting task to type in 200+ e-mail addresses correctly and deal with the inevitable follow up e-mail from deranged candidates who were not selected because they were clearly deranged. Sometimes, silence is best.
10. madamesmartypants - August 31, 2009 at 03:47 pm
ynori, your comments suggest that search committees tend to commute, rather than resolve, their confused and conflicting demands to hapless job applicants. I have no doubt that that's the case. However, I don't think you make the case for why they should stay that way. Wilhite's recommendations are sound, plausible, and work in the committee's self-interest (e.g., paperwork reduction)--which means there's a real chance that a fractious committee can coalesce around them. As far as the dossier is concerned, committees will need to do some groundwork before they post jobs, like deciding what they want in the dossier (or avoid that term all together--have everyone state what they want to see)-- but that's something that can be decided right away, in an initial meeting early on in the process, and put to a vote.
11. hmaria1609 - August 31, 2009 at 06:05 pm
Timely notification--I'm all for it!
12. ynori - August 31, 2009 at 08:53 pm
@ madamesmartypants,
Indeed you are right that things should not stay the way things currently are. The current system in MLA fields is horrible. Things should not stay the way they are, but they will. It is the reality that one has to live with, I fear.
Given the pragmatic constraints of everyday life in the current regime of faculty demands at an R1--publication demands, endless committee meetings (not just search committees), and of course teaching obligations--tightening things up on side of searches seems near impossible. One only has a certain number of days in a quarter/semester free to serve on a search committee. And, here I write as a person who, very gratefully and fortunately, does not have too many obligations in comparison.
This is to say, all of Wilhite's recommendations are indeed "sound, plausible and work in the committee's self-interest," to quote from madamesmartypants. On this I would agree. However, this assertion presumes that search committees regard themselves as one "self." My point is just this. One reason why things are the way that they are is that no one ever anywhere really agrees. And gratefully so. The current conversation is a performative demonstration thereof.
A consideration of the number of pragmatic and internally political steps that a committee faces when making a hire would serve current job seekers much better than a list of things that can be done "better," whatever this term might mean. We all know what can be "better." But, "better" also usually means, and here I must chime in again with my one and admittedly poor point, time.
The only way to make the search process more "humane" (what this means, I do not know) is to give all search committee members complete course-reliefs for the quarters/semesters of the search so that they can respond to e-mails from applicants, negotiate with their co-committee members, deal with random comments regarding other parallel searches in other departments, speak to concerns that a certain group of students is not being well served due to the current configuration of faculty, and all the rest. But, try selling the idea of selling complete course reliefs for search committee members to a dean. It is just not going to happen for *economic* reasons. It is for this reason that I would like to say to folks in my field (MLA fields), your vocation might be about metaphor versus metonymy, but your livelihood depends on institutional political economy.
So, my depressing short response is: Don't be fooled by what "ought" to be the case versus what currently and simply is the case. The only way to change the currently system is for everyone collectively *not* to apply for positions over three years (i.e. the length of time for which universities budget themselves) But, that simply is not going to happen because the system lives off people thinking they are "better."
--Ynori
13. ynori - August 31, 2009 at 09:13 pm
In my long message, I stupidly forgot to address what I really wanted to address, i.e. the following helpful and insightful comment from madamesmartypants:
"As far as the dossier is concerned, committees will need to do some groundwork before they post jobs, like deciding what they want in the dossier (or avoid that term all together--have everyone state what they want to see)-- but that's something that can be decided right away, in an initial meeting early on in the process, and put to a vote."
I would agree. However the problem is that in most well-functioning departments, as is mine even if it is a bit insane, there is no such thing as "voting" in terms of "majority rules." Rather there is careful consensus building. In a healthy department, one talks, discusses and hashes over things until everyone but the department crank (and there is always at least one) agrees to go along with the dominant opinion. Even then, one wants even the department crank to agree. It's just the way it is when you ask people: which new person (i.e. upstart) do you want to vote on *your* promotion/merit file? That is why the decision making process drags on and on and on and on.
--ynori
14. chelsea_morning - September 01, 2009 at 04:47 pm
Can't agree more with this article!
15. davidhacker - September 01, 2009 at 04:50 pm
I agree that job candidates are often not treated very well. But here are a couple of points that explain (but do not excuse) this treatment.
1. In a perfect world we could treat candidates as human beings and correspond with them as such. However, we live in a world of human resource departments and lawyers. Our communications with candidates are often carefully scrutinized and we are inevitably advised to say as little as we can. So we feel pressured to leave people hanging.
Relatedly, it's rarely just the department involved. Deans, provosts and others (including HR of course) will have some role. These different levels and complexities make it less clear what can be said and when.
Another point - already made above - is that corresponding with dozens or hundreds of applicants and keeping everything straight is a big administrative chore.
Third, delays and non-communications are often a sign of internal battles and deadlocks, making it difficult to know what to say. “We will get back to you once Professors X and Y finally come to their senses or get hit by a bus?”
So I agree it's frustrating, but there's some logic to the madness. It's not a case of simple obliviousness.
16. davidhacker - September 01, 2009 at 04:52 pm
Four points there. That's what I get for cut and pasting. Glad I wasn't replying to a job applicant.
17. catmurray - September 01, 2009 at 06:42 pm
I mostly agree.... having gone through the mill myself, taking 3 one year teaching jobs at schools at different ends of the country, before finally getting a tenure track position...
Now that I have to participate in searches, with HR and various administrators nervously vetting each and every aspect of every search, and each step of the search dependent upon the approval of people who have absolutely no knowledge of the field, my experience is that it is not as simple as it might seem from the outside.
We did a last minute search this summer for a visiting prof for fall; the funding came through, in June, from stimulus money. We had no time... the faculty were all on summer break, we got 100 applicants for a poorly paying 2 year gig, when we were expecting about 25. It would have been impossible for me to have emailed everyone at various steps along the search; basically our executive aide and I dealt with the whole thing, except for the committee who would come in, grumbingly, for the selection meetings.... the search was on top of everything else the office (i.e. one executive aide... we lost all of our work study help due to budget cuts) was expected to do this summer.
In a perfect world, we would have sent out notices and have been less harried on the phone. We did not ask for letters of reference, just for contact info for references; it was essential that we had that at hand, since our search window was so small. Ultimately we called references and did phone interviews in a span of about 3 days; our provost had pity on us at the last minute and let us hire the top 2 candidates... both recent grads with wonderful credentials. We already know that we lucked out... they are both great.
My point in all this is that there is another side to these searches.. it may be easy to assume that a bunch of elitists are running the show... in reality, at least in the case of this mid-sized, underfunded dept. at a public university, there are folks who really do have hearts, dealing with these impossible situations.... we had dozens of highly qualified applicants, all with glowing recs..we did our best to operate with compassion, in as timely a manner as possible.
I was on the other side for a number of years, so I do understand the frustration. I guess I would just say that I think it is unlikely that anyone is intentionally stonewalling applicants.... it is more a function of the incredible bureaucracy that we are obligated to deal with. I had to fill out a form which stated, for every applicant we did not want to interview, exactly why we did not want to interview him or her. I spent a day on that. And then had the form sent back by HR because my responses were too honest and therefore might be litigious.
18. cruzlc - September 01, 2009 at 06:56 pm
If you think this is bad. Performing Arts Professorship Applications are even more demanding and it's getting more competitive. The MFA is no longer the standard of what it used to be 20 years ago so, most universities are looking for PhD's in the performing arts... What one has to send with the application is similar within the humanities but just add the DVD's of your work (as well as of your teaching), portfolio, syllabi, etc...... What's worst is most of these materials are not even returned.
19. rcosgrov - September 03, 2009 at 02:49 pm
Ynori,
Do you really not know what making the process more "humane" means? Not even a clue, or any idea? Would you have a better idea of what "humane" means here if the word were not being used by an academic?
20. goddard - September 03, 2009 at 09:19 pm
Dr Wilhite,
I think committees and chairs should be professional and courteous more than humane. I have been with out a job for over a year and applied to hundreds (literally) of institutions. It is a rare occurrence when a phone call is returned or an email responded to. These are actions that would not tolerated in other professional settings. The arrogance and elitism in the academe is alive and well.
21. hspiegel - September 04, 2009 at 09:04 am
Thank you, Dr. Wilhite for expressing every thought, emotion and reaction that I (and many others) have experienced. I also want to thank ("at large") the few search committees who did (and do) bother to extend the courtesy of a response of some sort. I am well aware of how busy these individuals are, but it is a considerate statement that everyone's time is as valuable as anyone else's.
22. luabear - September 05, 2009 at 09:09 pm
I totally agree that a little kindness could go a long way here. Last November I attended an on campus interview for a position. In December, they called and told me that I was their second choice candidate, but that their first choice had other offers, so I should sit tight. Well, I still had not heard anything by February. I emailed them and asked about the status of their search. They told me that there was "no news on their end" and that they would contact me as soon as they knew something. Well, I never heard from them again and I ran into several members of the department at a conference in April. Some even attended my talk! Oh, and I know the first choice candidate. We have mutual friends. S/he accepted the position and started work there 3 months ago! Would it be too much for them to send an email to let me know?
23. mariemcsw - September 06, 2009 at 07:21 pm
I have just written a paper and will be doing a presentation at a national conference for social workers in higher education on this topic--or related to it. My paper--The Commoditization of the Self: Describing the Academic Job Search Process develops the point that search committees define the ideal candidate according to the values and goals of their institution. The candidate is fetishized as an overvalued object with power to enhance the status of the hiring institution who acquires her. Candidates, in order to be successful, must agree to become objects--crafting appearances of status enhancing possessions. My point is that the search as it currently exists is dehumanizing to the candidate and does not enhance the moral position of the hiring institutions who dehumanize themselves in the process. 'Job Search Survivor'
24. dgcamp - September 07, 2009 at 07:17 am
Can you imagine how many applications a search committee would receive if they only required a resume (vitae) and cover letter? I think HR departments and search committees are requiring more materials in an effort to decrease the number of appplications that have to be reviewed. They only want serious applicants. therefore, they make them put in some time and effort.
One of the previous commenters is also right. The Human Resources department often demands that we not communicate anybody's status directly with them. They worry about legal issues a lot. In fact, we have been asked to not respond to any e-mail or correspondence from candidates. We are encouraged to refer them to the HR department. The other complicating factor in communicating an applicant's status is that often their status is uncertain. The college has it's top candidates, but often top candidates change their mind and turn down the interview or turn down the position. Sometimes they take another position or, in some cases, the parties cannot reach agreement on salary and/or contracts. Suddenly, a candidate (ranked # 6) who was not initially in the top five has to be considered for an interview. In short, until the official offer is made and accepted, numerous applicants still have a chance. I have served on some committees where about 50% of the top candidates dropped out for one reason or another.
I do believe we could do a much better job of communicating with applicants. Waiting to hear something can be torture when you really, really want the job. Unfortunately, I don't see the process getting any better any time soon. In this economy, it will likely get worse. Therefore, I have the following recommendations or guidelines for those who are looking for employment.
1) When you apply for a position, assume you will not get the job or even get an interview. That way, if and when you are called for an interview, you will be thrilled that you are being considered. This is far better than be dejected because you have not heard anything.
2) Hearing nothing for a long time probably means you are not being considered. Stay focused on applying for other positions that may arise.
3) When you get a rejection letter from a college or university, laugh out loud. Shortly after that, tear it up and through it in the garbage. Stay focused on applying for other positions that may arise. Some people have collected their "rejection letters" as a way to motivate themselves in tha past. If that works for you, you can try it. I personally find it more therapeutic to rip up the letter and toss it. Helps me move forward, rather than hang on and ponder "what if" all the time.
25. insahmniac - September 07, 2009 at 10:51 am
This summer I applied for an adjunct job for fall '09 (teaching composition). The application required the cover letter, c.v., a writing sample, a teaching philosophy, and references. I was surprised, because I had been led to believe that adjunct applications required at most a cover letter and c.v. with reference contact information.
I never DID hear back about that job...
26. rcosgrov - September 08, 2009 at 11:53 am
Hello, MarieCSW,
I would be really interested to know more about your work. I am not working with the same critical frame, but I am working on something similar re construction of professional identity and conceptualizations of intellectual rigor.
If you see this comment and are interested in making contact, you can email me at rcosgrov@umich.edu
27. pcastagn - September 10, 2009 at 05:10 pm
It would be a best practice if HR or Academic Affairs posted information about the salary and cost of benefits, so candidates know what they are getting into. If the offer comes in below what you are making and you have any dependents (and your not dealing with a negative situation in your home campus) it becomes a non-starter trying to make it work. This may be truer with admin jobs which have 12 month salaries, and knowledge of retreat policies becomes important. It's tough to finally get the offer, be excited about it, then deflate as reality sets in. And all that time and effort seems for naught. Alas....what's the big secret?
28. ledzep - September 15, 2009 at 12:24 am
I understand the claim that search committees are often held hostage by their HR departments. What I do not understand is the claim that nobody can be notified that they are not being considered until the bitter end. Most searches in the humanities have a mind-boggling number of applicants, many of whom are very highly qualified. I sympathize with the crushing amount of work this makes for the search committees, but it is not remotely plausible that there is any need to keep all 300 (or even 600, as is sometimes the case in my discipline) applicants in the dark. Surely at least three quarters of them have no chance whatsoever.
29. erikj0 - September 16, 2009 at 12:26 am
Surely search committee members would be less put-upon if they did not have to spend time on the side writing preliminary references for every recent advisee for the benefit of other search committees.
But I do feel compelled to correct those who think that in the private sector you always get responses and it is normal to make follow up contact about job applications. The same mantra generally prevails that you assume you're not in the running unless you've heard otherwise. And it is a bit forward to follow up on an application unless you've been given some encouragement to do so. Granted the time frame is a lot shorter.
30. brilliantpebble - September 16, 2009 at 10:57 am
Bravo! You are saying what we are all thinking. In an age of digital communication, there is no reason for untimely responses, even if they simply say "we don't know yet." The worst part of the job market process is not the rejection -- it's the unknown, whether that means not knowing the outcome of your application (or interview, or flyback), or what "dossier" or "teaching excellence" means.
31. laoshi - September 19, 2009 at 12:58 pm
"Notify candidates at each stage of review."
Amen! Had I been notified early enough this summer, I could have accepted a summer teaching job rather than sit around and spend all my savings waiting for a fall tenure-track post that never materialized. Still haven't recieved anything by mail, or e-mail for that matter. Is it too much to expect timely notification?
32. gradgrind - September 20, 2009 at 11:05 am
A response to the following claim by ynori:
"'Notify candidates at each stage of review.'
Sounds great, but this is impractical and may increase the chances of a failed search. Once one tells someone that he or she has been cut, one cannot go back into the pool of those who were initially cut to ask them to interview. That is why notices should only go out at the very end of the search process."
Given the way searches usually proceed, I don't see why this is a serious problem. Let's say we start with 100 applications.
Stage 1: the committee cuts to 50, with near unanimity.
Stage 2: the committee cuts to 25, with moderate consensus.
Stage 3: the committee reaches a short list of 10, with some disagreement and reservations, but perhaps not many.
Stage 4: the committee yields a fly-out list of 3, and perhaps produces a second-round list of 3 as well, with some serious disagreements, perhaps.
Why can't failed candidates be e-mailed after Stages 1 and 2, at least? It's difficult to imagine the cirumstances in which one would return to THAT particular pool. Perhaps you would want to hold off on e-mailing those on the short list who failed to be invited for a campus visit, though I think there's a good argument for letting them know their status, too. But setting that point aside: what possible reason could there be for not informing the bottom 75 IMMEDIATELY that they're out of the running, apart from the laziness and indifference of faculty and staff? This just strikes me as complacency--the idea that if we've always done something a certain way, it must be the right way to do it.
(And just to anticipate the response from ynori that I know is coming: yes, I have served on faculty searches before, and this is precisely the way we did things and the way everyone should do things, for the sake of both transparency and humanity.)