The Internet is reshaping administrative searches, Gary Olson observes in his latest column, but not always for the better. While information found on the Web may sometimes keep an institution from making a colossal mistake, Olson writes, other times it can be downright destructive to a search.

As a result of the Internet age, search consultants are seeing a rise in people using information "glean[ed] from the Internet to further their own political objectives—even going so far as to sabotage the candidacy of one finalist because they favor another," Olson notes. One frustrated consultant told him, "We are constantly doing damage control because committee members or even just other faculty on campus will dredge up what they believe to be damning information on one candidate or another."

Even a well-meaning Internet sleuth can "contaminate a search" with with information discovered...

According to an article in Friday's Chronicle, the job market for English and foreign-language Ph.D.'s isn't as bleak as it seemed back in December 2009. Apparently, it's only mostly bleak (to borrow from Monty Python — or is it from The Princess Bride?). The good ... er ... less-bad news is that the Modern Language Association now estimates that the number of job openings in English will dive by only 27.5 percent from last year, as opposed to the 37-percent free fall that was previously estimated for 2009-10. The number of job openings in foreign languages is similarly now expected to decline by only 26.7 percent. Of course, this year's job market may still wind up being the worst in at least 35 years -- and if "this year's projections hold true, there will be a two-year decline of 45.2 percent in English jobs and 46.4 percent in foreign-language jobs," a Chronicle reporter notes -- but...

Given the state of the job market, many academics are reflecting on rejection these days. In this enlightening thread on the Chronicle Forums, academics on both sides of the table debate which medium — phone, e-mail, or letter — is best for rejecting finalists and receiving the bad news.

barred_owl, for one, thinks a phone call is the way to go because ...

(1) it's faster, and (2) it's more personal. After all, the committee spoke to you in person, probably had dinner with you, etc. You were one of 3-4 invited for a face-to-face interview, so there may be some sense of obligation to deliver the news more personally, via a phone call, than to send a relatively impersonal letter.

She notes that while a rejection call is uncomfortable for all parties involved, in some ways it's "a blessing" for candidates, leaving them more time to consider their other options.

libarts points out that...

• C.L. Max Nikias, provost of the University of Southern California, has been chosen to lead the institution starting in August, The Ticker reports. He replaces the longtime president, Steven B. Sample.

• The faculty union at the University of Vermont has filed a grievance on behalf of five female assistant clinical professors of nursing, who say the institution pays its female professors less than it does their male peers, the Associated Press reports.

• Ekow Hayford, a former business professor at Stillman College, is suing it for wrongful termination, claiming that he was sacked in April 2008 in retaliation for criticizing the college and its president, Ernest McNealey, The Tuscaloosa News reports. The college, which issued a statement saying his suit is without merit, says he was spreading malicious gossip, which is a fireable offense, according to the faculty handbook. The American...

A recent blog entry, on whether the tenure (or, for that matter, hiring) process can be considered fair if the bar for many of today's junior professors is higher than it was for some of the senior professors passing judgment on them, generated some interesting responses.

According to one respondent, supertatie, what ails the tenure process isn't rising requirements, but those people who treat it like a popularity contest:

The system is questionable, not because those using it wouldn't now satisfy it, but because it has become what it was intended to protect faculty from: a blunt instrument of power held in the hands of a few [...] to keep out people [they] don't like, whether their work is satisfactory or not. It has become like the "intellectuals'" version of fraternity and sorority rush.

skaking agrees, adding that unfairness tends to creep in when fuzzy terms like "collegiality" a...

In a recent post, Historiann laments the departure of three associate-professor colleagues and wonders whether associate professors in history are more mobile today than they were, say, a couple of decades ago. She writes:

I've noticed a lot more movement at the Associate level in history hires in the past five or ten years than I was led to believe existed 15 or 20 years ago. I've been invited to apply for some jobs at the Associate level, too. When I was in graduate school and making my first forays onto the job market, the conventional wisdom was that all of the movement was at the Assistant Professor level, and that if you were tenured somewhere you were pretty much stuck there unless and until you turned into a "star" who was recruited somewhere else at the full Professor rank. Are any of you seeing the same thing?

An interesting discussion ensues. One respondent, Perpetua,...

In a recent post, Female Science Professor considers the "not-uncommon" gripe voiced by many an anxious professor who is going up for tenure — that those "deciding their Fate" had it easier in their day and would probably not win tenure under today's tougher standards — and wonders, by extension, whether the tenure process is a just one:

"How can the process be fair if people unqualified for tenure today participate in decisions about the tenure of others?," she asks.

But hold on a minute. Few would dispute that tenure bar keeps being raised, but how can we know "whether someone who had too-low-for-tenure-today productivity way back when would rise to the challenge of today's standards or not"?, she asks. Sure, she's met the odd deadbeat senior professor here and there who seems to have succeeded because ... well, who knows why? FSP admits: "These particular senior professors have...

• Brandeis University, a nonsectarian Jewish-sponsored research institution, may wind up axing its undergraduate major in Hebrew language and literature, as well as its undergraduate minor in Yiddish and East European Jewish culture, in an effort to slash its long-term budget, The Ticker reports. The theater department's graduate design program, among other programs, could also be on the chopping block if a faculty panel's proposals are adopted by the university's board in March. 

• Joseph R. Urgo, vice president for academic affairs and dean of faculty at Hamilton College, in N.Y., will become the next president of St. Mary's College of Maryland on July 1, The Washington Post reports. He'll succeed Larry Vote, who has been serving as interim president of the college since Margaret O'Brien retired last summer. See a St. Mary's College press release for details.

• Gary W. Streit, president...

In a provocative column on The Chronicle's Web site today, Amy Kittelstrom, an assistant professor of history at Sonoma State University and a visiting fellow at the Center for the Study of Religion at Princeton University, argues that "academic mothers should unblushingly total up the time spent on reproduction and credit it on their vitas." She writes:

Give it its own category; call it "reproductive allowance." For my two "easy" pregnancies conceived exactly when I planned them with complication-free deliveries, quick recoveries, and no lactation problems, my conservative estimate is 1,810 hours spent. Each. That's a book right there, and then some.

Let's face facts, she writes: Time spent on childbearing and child rearing "is time away from scholarship," so why not openly acknowledge that motherhood limits scholarly "productivity in ways that fatherhood does not"? Not talking about ...

• Dartmouth College will cut 38 staff members this week, and a similar number in April, as part of an effort to trim its budget by $100-million, according to The Boston Globe and The Chronicle. Last year the college laid off 72 staff members, though 24 were rehired, the Globe writes. More than 100 workers also opted to retire early, The Chronicle notes.

• Skidmore College won't be firing employees this year, after all, The Saratogian reports. As recently as December 2009, the possibility of 30 to 70 layoffs had seemed likely, since college officials were projecting an 8-percent revenue shortfall in the 2011 fiscal year. However, thanks to a hiring freeze, more early retirements than expected, and other cost-containment measures, not to mention a favorable endowment bounce at the end of 2009, the college's financial picture is improving, Philip A. Glotzbach, Skidmore's president, said.

...