A friend e-mailed me to ask about a position at an institution in which he had some interest. He asked me to click on the link and see what I thought about his suitability for the posting. I couldn’t make heads or tails of the ad; it seemed to contradict itself in places and had other elements that just did not seem to make sense. I sent those observations to my friend, and he replied, “Whew! I thought I was the only one.”
At most colleges, ads are crafted in a dance that involves the department, the dean’s office, and the human-resources office. A weakness in any of the three can create problems with the clarity of an ad, so each office should work carefully to make sure that the ad reflects everyone’s needs.
It’s easy to pick out ads created without such a partnership. Sometimes the boilerplate details (institutional location, size, mission, facilities, etc.) overwhelm the actual description of the position, leaving prospective applicants scratching their heads as to specialty or other details. Sometimes the position’s details seem to float as if detached from the institutional context, making applicants wonder if the department really has permission to advertise.
The primary advice I give to folks on the job market is “Read the ad and apply for that position.” By the same token, the best advice I can offer to institutions and departments is to do the same: Read their own ad with a fresh set of eyes and encourage the best applicants to take the announcement seriously.
What errors, ambiguities, or omissions in job advertisements have frustrated you in the past?
Follow On Hiring through your favorite RSS reader: 
17 Responses to For Pete’s Sake: Read the Ad!
abelragen - November 17, 2010 at 4:54 pm
I would like it if positions that will be offered only to members of a certain sex, ethnic group, or political outlook were announced with those requirements frankly spelled out. That would probably be illegal, of course, but so is offering jobs on that basis, and that happens all the time.
crunchycon - November 17, 2010 at 5:05 pm
or if the job is only going to be filled by someone already at the institution or that someone has already been selected, but that that the institution is required to advertise in major publications. Sometimes the mere wording of the ad gives this away.
nathanielcampbell - November 18, 2010 at 8:55 am
My wife got sandbagged by the situation mentioned by crunchycon; she applied for a job in the department she just finished in (while I was finishing my degree at the institution where we met), and her application included letters of rec from three of the department’s own faculty. Only after she never heard back and eventually discovered the name of the person they hired on the “New Faculty” section of the website did she realize that they had never seriously considered anybody other than their handpicked candidate from the start.
And as for misleading job ads: we saw one the other day here in the Chronicle that sounded perfect… Until some digging on their website (and it was buried) revealed what the ad left out: it was a one year, non-renewable, non-tenure track job. One would think that’s the kind of info that would need to be in a job posting.
phdeviate - November 18, 2010 at 9:22 am
I agree with @nathanielcampbell that the details of the structure of the job TT, or non, one year, two year, five year contract, renewable? should be spelled out.
Also, I get confused when I see something a job with a standard periodization (I’m in English, so, say 19th century American literature) also asking for subfields that are radically divergent. (Completely hypothetical example): Someone who works 19th Century American literature on the border of Asian American poetry, transcendentalism, and labor history. I can only imagine at those times that they *do* have someone in mind. But the gymnastics to figure out how to write letters for such positions is exhausting.
11196496 - November 18, 2010 at 10:48 am
Commenting on phdviate’s post: sometimes those ads with radically divergent subfields do not mean that the department has anyone in mind at all. These ads are often the result of factions in a department being unable to agree on what new position would be best for the department as a whole. So unless an applicant really does specialize in all those subfields simultaneously (hah!), the applicant should be very wary of intra-departmental factionalism when s/he interviews and comes for a campus visit.
11246028 - November 18, 2010 at 11:25 am
Well, I see advertisement for administrative positions that want such a breadth of skills and accomplishments that they might as well say “Walks on water. Does not get feet wet.”
11246028 - November 18, 2010 at 11:27 am
Oops that should be advertisements.
dialloab - November 18, 2010 at 11:29 am
I got a letter from the HR, saying that they do not have my references. On the job posting, it says names/address/emails of contact. I called them and spoke with the head … She said her worker might have made a mistake.
Thanks v, v much for the article… Now, I am going to call the department to make sure that I have the required doc
hoorayator - November 18, 2010 at 12:48 pm
Why are letters of reference asked for in these times of background checks and drug screens? HR departments typically by policy insist nothing be put to paper not linked directly to performance evals. (Are signed bad-reference letters sent in writing to anyone?)
Some HR’s insist that no one write reference letters at all, except HR (and then only employment dates are confirmed). Read between the lines you say? Would one rest their hire decision on code found in a third party letter?
Additionally, what of the ethics when the hiring person calls the nightmare boss anyway without permission or calls around to someone-who-knows-someone about the candidate (and whom and of which the candidate herself is quite unaware, i.e., the hiring person is collecting and factoring in unverified information from way-outside that requested in the Ad). I have seen this done all the time, as an HR director, dean, and VP.
cgoodson - November 18, 2010 at 1:16 pm
I think the reason the job ads are often so bad is precisely *because* they are written by groups, rather than one individual. I have been part of such groups, wherein the Chair, trying to be diplomatic, feels compelled to include the contributions (pet phrases) of everyone, whether they make sense or not. Ideally, ONE person who can write well should do it, not a committee.
this_is_pete - November 18, 2010 at 2:58 pm
yeah – for my sake, Read the Ad!
;-)
kkrumnow - November 18, 2010 at 3:01 pm
@nathanielcampbell, it was probably not a pre-fabricated, set idea on whom to hire when your wife did not get the position she posted for at the school she had just finished her degree in. Alas, I think the issue was that they did not want to hire one of their own freshly minted graduates. I have heard this mentioned over and over by those in “the know”. Being outside of “the know” myself, I find the internal politics quite mind-boggling, even though I paradoxically want to be a part of the internal, mind-boggling politics.
lpedota - November 18, 2010 at 5:27 pm
“….ads are crafted in a dance that involves the department, the dean’s office, and the human-resources office..” No wonder they are so long winded and have so many responsibilities, job duties, tasks, qualifications, skill requirements…I get tire of reading these lengthy ads…I usually highlight the keywords, capture the essence, and sit down to write the cover letter and tailor the resume…..and, of course, I cross my fingers before hitting “Submit”!
11161452 - November 18, 2010 at 7:26 pm
“And as for misleading job ads: we saw one the other day here in the Chronicle that sounded perfect… Until some digging on their website (and it was buried) revealed what the ad left out: it was a one year, non-renewable, non-tenure track job. One would think that’s the kind of info that would need to be in a job posting.”
*****
Speaking of ads in CHE…I never see anything in the “comments” section underneath the ad itself. But I always check, in case some disgruntled former applicant/faculty member wants to vent about a lousy experience at that institution. Hey, it would be a service to job-seekers. Or does “editorial policy” prohibit such a thing?
eudaimon - November 18, 2010 at 7:52 pm
Position descriptions often reflect the specific configuration of needs at the time. It seems from the article and the comments above that trained academicians have trouble synthesizing these diverse, complicated needs into a short description. A writing course might help. However, a deeper question is whether these job descriptions adequately reflect the needs of the institution over a 30 year period. After all, some jobs announced are still tenure stream, and tenure track jobs last quite a long time. It is strange to think that recruitment for such positions would not proceed on the basis of well defined and well expressed needs.
bedegrayne - November 23, 2010 at 1:48 pm
I applied for a position that failed to mention the position was only a temp position to take place during the busy time at the start of the semester. If I had known that, I never would have applied for the position since it was in Wisconsin and I was living in Michigan.
@kkrumnow. We were just talking about that yesterday in one of my higher ed classes. Some schools even go so far as to tell their graduates to look elsewhere for a position because they won’t get it at the school they just finished at.
snwiedmann - November 27, 2010 at 8:04 am
To kkrumnow and @nathanialcampbell: If a department repeatedly hires its own graduates, it looks bad for the department. People begin to think, “They always hire their own. I guess their graduates can’t get hired anywhere else.” Further, if a department repeatedly hires its own graduates, they DON’T get new and fresh ideas. The reality is that we tend to parent as we were parented, and we tend to teach as we were taught. Hiring your own graduates is a sort of intellectual incest.