When I was on the job market for the first time, back in the 1990s, most of my mentors told me to ignore applying for positions that were posted “pending final approval” or “pending funding.” The logic was that most institutions viewed such advertisements as having a built-in escape valve, and that there was nothing more maddening for candidates than to go to the trouble of applying, interviewing, and expending the mental energy required to go that far into a search, only to have the position vanish with the final budget numbers in the spring. When I became an administrator, I heard the same arguments from my department chairs: “Pending funding” will eliminate the strongest candidates. For that reason, I’ve resisted using such a label except under very specific circumstances.
What I’m hearing now in administrative circles is that many institutions are requiring that almost all position announcements include such a disclaimer. I don’t know that I’ve noticed this yet in the advertisements in The Chronicle, but it’s early in the year, and I’ll be curious to see if there is a sharp increase.
Would you advise someone to ignore postings that are “pending funding”?
Follow On Hiring through your favorite RSS reader:
10 Responses to Pending the Money
neudy - September 2, 2010 at 4:23 pm
That happened to me last year.
b11man - September 2, 2010 at 5:02 pm
Most jobs are subject to funding, whether the ad says so or not, especially in these tough times. To ignore jobs labeled “pending funding” is foolish imho.We don’t always know that we’ll be able to conclude every search with a hire. In some cases, we don’t find a sufficiently suitable candidate. In other cases, due to budget cuts, we have to hire only our highest priorities. In general, we have been able to fill most positions, but many universities have not been that fortunate.
tuxthepenguin - September 2, 2010 at 5:20 pm
Until you have a contract, the university can back out.
cwinton - September 2, 2010 at 7:15 pm
Since there are real expenses associated with searches, they should not be conducted unless there is some certainty of funding. To advertise as “pending funding” implies there is wishful thinking at work, and so should not be in the wording that advertises a serious position search. That being said, #3 is absolutely right.
koufax33 - September 3, 2010 at 9:18 am
As someone on the administrative market (my faculty market ended 6 months ago with only open-rank postings this year), I have seen this several times in my job search in academic affairs administrative positions (asst. dean-type jobs). One job reposted months later as an internal-only position. Others have deferred for a year.Sadly, the contract is crucial, and even then, I would be a little nervous until I was on-campus filling out my paperwork and picking up my office keys.
astroprof - September 3, 2010 at 2:04 pm
We usually use “pending funding” because it allows us to get started on advertising a search without waiting for final review by the faculty budget committee, which doesn’t meet over the summer. But pulling a search after advertising is very rare, and in any case we don’t actually invite candidates until the funding is secure. Candidates who ignore searches with such language in the ads are shooting themselves in the foot.
mchag12 - September 9, 2010 at 11:28 am
I interviewed for a senior position where I was told that all faculty come in basically on probation, coming up for tenure the following year. Even with assurances, given the financial circumstances of even stable colleges and universities, I would say (and did say) no to that too.
rboscow - September 9, 2010 at 2:16 pm
I’ve hired about 115 post-docs for research positions at a national lab in the last year, and while it’s not entirely the same as a university, all of our research positions are pending the availability of funding (same thing for interns). My advice for the hiring managers we work with, in situations where funding certainty is not 100% (but at least 50/50), is to go ahead and post the position, but hold off on paying for interviews until the funding is confirmed.There are so many other issues that can play into the hiring process and delay start dates, that I think trying to minimize the lead time on a new hire is a good plan. But at the same time, once you interview a candidate you do have an ethical responsibility to certify that the funding will/has come through.
phoenix_rising - September 9, 2010 at 5:45 pm
That happened to me in my academic search. The univ was hiring for more than one position, but when it came to actual hiring, it could manage funding for only one. So, even though the search committee chose and informed several candidates, only one was actually hired.
mchag12 - September 9, 2010 at 11:41 pm
Number 9: If they told you (or whomever) that they had been chosen and then didn’t hire them, they violated the law. Beyond the verbal contract, they misled the candidates. It would be good to know what kind of a place plays those games.