Over the past year, I’ve written a lot about the challenges of recruiting faculty members to my small, rural institution. We are not part of the dominant narrative of the job market in any significant way — we’re out of the way, teaching-oriented, and not glamorous. However, as I mentioned in a reply to comments on my last post, there are a number of very attractive things about the institution and the jobs we can offer.
This year, as far as I know at this point, we will undertake a total of five searches in management, economics, composition, secondary education, and athletic training. The management position is to replace a retiring, longtime faculty member, as is the position in secondary education. The economics position is a consolidation of two previous economics positions reflecting enrollment shifts. The composition position is to replace someone who left two years ago because last year’s search failed.
The athletic-training position is new. Our program in that area has grown rapidly, has outstanding outcomes, and very high alumni satisfaction, and the addition of another faculty member was recommended last year by the Commission on Accreditation of Athletic Training Education, or Caate, during our accreditation-reaffirmation process. I am most pleased to be able to follow their recommendation in these tough times.
Over this year, I will try to update On Hiring readers on the progress of these searches, within the bounds of confidentiality and — I’ll just admit it here — naked institutional self-interest. But I think there’s something to be gained by demystifying the process at an institution like mine, where we don’t get huge pools, and where we sometimes struggle to attract the right candidates.
I will also do my best to answer any questions you might have about the process as we go along, and I am always happy to receive any feedback.
Classes start in less than two weeks. Here we go.
Follow On Hiring through your favorite RSS reader:
5 Responses to This Year’s Searches
jruiz - August 19, 2009 at 8:01 pm
“But I think there’s something to be gained by demystifying the process at an institution like mine, where we don’t get huge pools, and where we sometimes struggle to attract the right candidates.”As I indicated on another thread, I interviewed at your institution some years ago. The then VPAA was willing to hire me at Associate Prof, which at that time would have been a lateral move for me. He opted instead for an entry-level, beginning Asst Prof, a brand new PhD. It was at that point that I came to the conclusion that economics and not experience mattered at BVU. I don’t think there is much demystifying involved, if that is still the priority.
david_r_evans - August 19, 2009 at 8:27 pm
J, can you find me a single institution–especially now–where economics aren’t a priority?My priority is to get the best people we can within the parameters we have available. If I don’t have the money in the budget, I can’t pay it. I can’t just give someone a 1-1 teaching load, either. I don’t, of course, know the specifics of your situation, but if we advertise at the Assistant level, that’s what we’re going to hire, since AA/EOE rules strongly suggest that you hire for the job you advertise, rather than the one your candidates might want.I’d love to know if the new Ph.D. who was hired in your stead is still here. I have offered our candidates the best salary, credit towards t&p, and such, that I can in conscience offer given what others already here have accomplished, how much experience and relative strength the newcomer might bring, the extant salary situation, etc. I have no idea if that’s what happened in your case or not: maybe, even probably not. But it’s pretty disingenuous to suggest in a discussion of hiring that if economics are a primary institutional concern there’s basically nothing else to say.
chemmens - August 20, 2009 at 12:45 pm
“I have offered our candidates the best salary, credit towards t&p, and such, that I can in conscience offer given what others already here have accomplished, how much experience and relative strength the newcomer might bring, the extant salary situation, etc.”This is a pretty common response from administrators and senior faculty in a hiring department. So if the folks who were hired previously came in at a “low” (whatever that is) salary, and have gotten at best modest raises because times are tough, we should continue to bring people in at a low salary so as not to offend those already here? How about this approach instead–in my department, we have pushed to bring in new hires at the highest possible salary (using evidence from other, like institutions), even when that salary was higher than the salaries of folks who had been here a while, and perhaps even where tenured. THEN, we go to the administration and ask that the faculty already here have their salary raised above that of the newcomer’s salary. Perhaps my institution is unusual, but this approach has worked, and everybody is happy–we get a new hire who comes in at a salary that is at least close to the market rate, and those who have been here a while and can’t get a significant raise otherwise, get a raise. New hires don’t use us as a stepping stone for a better job in two or three years, and long-time faculty who want to stay and can get a raise without having to go on the market and get a competing offer they never intend to take anyway. Call me crazy, but this approach seems preferable to the same old “wish I could pay you more, but then others would be upset” refrain that is used to (perhaps unintentionally) keep faculty salaries down.
jruiz - August 20, 2009 at 1:22 pm
It was an open rank position, which is why I applied. As others have stated on numerous threads, university strategies designed to develop large pools in this way, while never intending to hire beyond entry-level, are fairly common. The new hire is no longer there. As for economics, they always seem to be a priority at the faculty level, not for administrator or head coach hires.
david_r_evans - August 20, 2009 at 1:54 pm
chemmens, our salaries are already the highest among comparable institutions in our region, as are our total benefit packages. CUPA data support these assertions, by the way, so I’m not just making it up.You’re right, though, about trying to raise other people’s salaries. Last year I offered our chosen candidate in the (failed) composition search a couple of thousand dollars more than we were paying some of our current comp faculty. Before I did this, I went to the VP for Business Services and we found enough money to prevent inversion in that close comparison group. But it doesn’t always work this way, and can’t, simply because of fiscal constraints. Every dollar needs to come from somewhere, and right now that is very close to a zero sum game. In better times, there’s more flexibility, but these are not good times.Finally, j, I’m only going to allow advertising at open rank when we actually have the money to hire that way, and when we might actually intend to do so. In both the econ and management positions this year, we’re going to look at the assistant/entry associate level, and the ads state that. In fact, one of the things I hope we might be able to do is promote someone into the job from assistant somewhere, which would be a nice enticement.It may be true that faculty hires take a lower priority in terms of $ to administrator and coach hires a lot of places, but it’s not usually true at a small DIII school such as BV. I know what our coaches make (three of them, oddly, report to me), and they don’t make more, relative to time in rank, performance, and competitive comparisons, any more than our faculty do.As for administrators, I don’t know what the others make, but I’d say my compensation is fair but in no way outrageous. De-annualized back to a 9-month contract, it’s about 25-30% more than I’d make as a professor with my level of seniority and experience.