next »

[Ephraim Snow]

One institution in the mountain West displays this message in bold-face font on their HR Web site:

"Applicants who are invited on campus for an interview are responsible for their own travel expense."

[B.F.]

aNon,

A school that will not reimburse a candidate is the exception, not the norm, so I agree with Professor Broke. How a school treats a potential candidate is a reflection on the school. It says something about a school that it will not reimburse the candidate or at least have the courtesy of picking the candidate up from the train station.

When I was on the job market, even small community colleges usually offered to reimburse me for traveling to an interview. I would graciously decline this interview, letting them know why, and move on.

[Shall remain nameless]

I agree with Rana and other posters. Searches typically provide for these costs because they are a deduction for the university. In business, many people have to pay for their interview travel, but not in academia.  

The other odd bit in here is that they have eight (!) candidates coming to campus. That must be why they aren't paying for your trip. That signals a search-committee chair who is willing to cut corners.  

If you really, really can't afford this, you might call the relevant dean's office and ask if it is true that there is no coverage of travel expenses for this search. They may not even know what is going on.  

Then if there is no remedy -- since you spent so much already (on conferences, etc.) -- borrow the money from a friend and go.

[aNon]

Dear Rana,

I never argued it is common or right for an institution not to pay for a candidate's interview expenses. I only offered my opinion that the candidate should seize the opportunity (i.e., find or borrow money) and consider the travel expense as an "opportunity cost" to get in front of the hiring committee.
 
I also said that nickle-and-diming is poor form and expressed my particular distaste toward the practice. From the candidate's response, it was clear that money was not an issue.

How many candidates a committee brings on campus is none of my business and I could care less what filtering methods (i.e., telephone interviews) they use to reduce the number. The candidate stated they have 8 finalists. Not 4, not 3 and not 100. Your point is irrelevant.

Finaly, the prose about "... desperate people grasping at any straw they can to avoid drowning, while their employers and 'colleagues' make them itemize the expenses of everything but the air they breathe" indicates that you have been well-shielded from nasty faculty meetings fighting over a $500 conference budget and deans that cut budgets and ask for more out of already overworked faculty members. If you think that academe is a flowery place with no cutthroat politics and where the forces of supply and demand are muted for courtesy and love, you are in for a huge surprise (reading the Leaving the Academe newsgroup here will give you good insight).

As far as my working environment, I consider our department a typical academic environment --with its problems and wonderful moments. With regard to my conduct during candidate interviews, I am very frank and honest about what we can offer. As frank and as honest as I have been in this forum. In candidates I tend to look for character, determination, a work ethic and a sense of humor. Prima donnas, slackers and petty folk may go elsewhere.

Truly, best of luck in your own search.

aNon

[Asst. Prof.]

You know, I respect different perspectives on this forum and am glad to hear what others have to say, sometimes even more so to hear from those with whom I disagree. But I have to say this: aNon comes across like a mean-spirited, elitist whom I wouldn't ever want for a colleague (and I doubt I'm alone in this).

[Rana]

You say this now: I never argued it is common or right for an institution not to pay for a candidate's interview expenses.

Before you wrote this: There are very few departments that run a "proper" search, and even fewer that run "proper" day-to-day operations, so you are in for a big surprise.

Given that the question is whether paying for travel expenses is part of a proper search, it is hard to avoid the implication that either (a) you think it is, but uncommon (because proper searches in general are uncommon), or (b) you think it is not part of a proper search. Either way, you seem suspicious of the practice and the degree to which it is common.

You also wrote: I admit that I personally hate ... cheap skates who nickle-and-dime you about everything. I really don't want them in my department. ... Today it is a $5.00 cab ride from the train station, tomorrow they will be bagging filters from the coffee maker for their home, and it will always be something ... it will never end.

This does not strike me as the attitude of someone who thinks it is "right" to pay for a candidate's travel expenses. I hate to think how you would react if more than "a $5.00 cab ride" was involved.

You say this now: How many candidates a committee brings on campus is none of my business and I could care less what filtering methods (i.e., telephone interviews) they use to reduce the number. The candidate stated they have 8 finalists. Not 4, not 3 and not 100. Your point is irrelevant.

But before you said: Do you think that in a market with over 300 candidates for each position they can't find an equally (if not better) capable candidate that won't fight them over a cab fare?

So which is it? 300? 8? I think you are confused, not me.

You write: you have been well-shielded by nasty faculty meetings fighting over a $500 conference budget and deans that cut budgets and ask for more out of already overworked faculty members.

Really? You know nothing about me. I've had the luck to sit in on a number of department meetings, and to talk with colleagues in a variety of funding situations. In my experience, departments that are that strapped for funds should not be in the position of running a job search. Either the funds exist for the search (including travel expenses or phone calls if an on-campus visit is too expensive) or they don't. If they don't, you don't hold the search.  

An institution that can't pay for train fare is highly unlikely to be able to pay the "lucky" hire's salary and benefits over the next 20-30 years.

Finally, you write: If you think that academe is a flowery place with no cutthroat politics and where the forces of supply and demand are muted for courtesy and love, you are in for a huge surprise (reading the Leaving the Academe newsgroup here will give you good insight).

I have NO such delusions. I do have ideals and ethics. Are you going to be part of the problem of the increasing irrelevance and corporatism of academia, or are you going to stand against increasing adjunctism and the kind of nickle-and-diming you seem to think is reasonable?

This isn't about "love" -- but it is about courtesy. It is also about professional integrity, dignity and defending what is right over what is personally convenient. I know what I would prefer.

And I am well aware of the Leaving Academe thread and experience. I myself have left academia.

[To Rana]

Hello, all,

Rana, thank you. When I read aNon's post, I was so utterly taken aback by the contempt it displays for job seekers. I wondered how old aNon is, and whether this individual hails from back in the day when it was relatively (relatively, I said relatively) easy to get a job. I cannot imagine anyone who graduated within the last five or six years being so disdainful of job seekers. 

Personally, I would not want to work in a department with someone who was that out of touch with today's reality in the job market. I would not want to work with somebody who is capable of displaying such a sneering attitude towards others. I would not want to work with someone who demonstrates such a mean character as this person. 

I would, however, love to have a colleague who is dignified, plain-spoken, and who stands up for herself. You sound like a really grand person, Rana, and I hope that things go well for you!

A colleague

[Professor Broke]

Thank you, Rana, and thank you all for the support. Not suprised by the general consensus and unanimous disdain of  aNon's comments. Whoa ... .

FYI, I've requested a phone interview from the Big School in the Northeast. I'm suspicious about proceeding further and figured a phone interview would be a good place to start before wasting time or money. I'm also happy to report on returning from a wonderful campus visit from a large university in the Southeast. It was positive, professional and paid for! I met the most wonderful people who would make great colleagues.

[aNon]

I sincerely apologize if my comments were perceived as mean-spirited. This was neither the intention nor the reason for my comments.

I certainly don't have anything against candidates (I have been one myself).

However, I do have high expectations from candidates to be receptive and flexible to assess the market, understand the new dynamics (whatever those are, good or bad), adopt appropriate strategies to face them and not be consumed by the little things (i.e., travel expenses) when trying to accomplish bigger things (i.e., life-long career).

There have been numerous misconceptions in Rana's posting about what really goes on -- i.e., "department with no travel budget should not be running a search or that if they cant pay for travel how will they pay 20-30 years of salary" ... . These comments clearly indicate that she has never been confronted with the idea of a "faculty search budget" which is completely unrleated to salary and benefits. Nevertheless, I will stop here.

Again, best of luck to everyone on the search for a  tenure-track position. For all it is worth, have a positive attitude, and don't get sucked into the role of playing the victim, as many in this forum are. I assure you, this process may require a strong stomach, but at the end, either way, the rewards are well worth it.

Over and out.

aNon.

[Experienced]

I just had to turn one down because they wanted me to pay the reimbursed travel expenses back to them if I didn't accept the position, if offered (first one of these I've encountered).

This seems like desperation to me. OK -- you can have the travel money, but give it back if we decide we want you and you don't take the offer.

So if I go to the interview, I could (probably would), end up owing them after they pay me? Life is sometimes a gamble. "Have the sack to ante up, and get in the game." None of this, "now you see it, now you don't." Convince me you really want me -- "show me the money" -- no strings attached. Or leave me alone so I can find a better position at a better institution.

I will pay my own travel expenses, if need be, within reason. But I'm not dropping a grand a tour to wind up losing out to an internal favorite, or to find out the building my office was to be in has been sold and moved across state lines (believe me, it can happen.)