next »

[ASCM]

Today's Chronicle had an editorial about someone who was left by her husband after he got a spousal hire. We deal with these issues on search committees and had a case where a couple divorced after we'd hire one for the other. What do other people think of this issue? Spousal hires aren't typical in other fields, I don't think. Does anyone know if the divorce rates among academics is higher or lower than on average?

[babyface]

I fear that I am going to incite some inflammatory oratory but... as anyone can see from my previous post, I have a blue collar mentality.  I apologize now for the fact that I am certain my post will rile people up.   If anyone agrees with me, please have the guts to speak up.

Frankly, I think there is a reason why most other fields don't do spousal hires.  Its called NEPOTISM and it is unfair.  It is especially unfair when the spousal hire doesn't even possess the needed job skills, as in the case of the writer of today's article.  Hiring someone who is unqualified doesn't happen in the business world, because it’s not cost-effective.

I have a life-long partner.  On principle, I would never ask for him to be hired along with me.  We have made sacrifices for each other and followed each other to different places in order to work towards a better future, and that is part of what a relationship is about.  In order to achieve something difficult, you always have to pay a price.  That price may include not accepting your favorite offer, having an insanely long commute,  or being separated from your partner for awhile.

When I see unqualified people hired in academia because of nepotism, it makes me sick.  This lowers the productivity of our academic institutions.  The quality of student's education can be enhanced or detracted from based on the work done by administrative support staff.  If that staff is unqualified, it lowers a school's integrity overall.  By participating in "spousal hiring" of unqualified people, we send the message to students that academia is NOT a meritocracy and that it IS all about who you know.

I think that the writer of the article succumbed to nepotism and that it came back to bite her in the butt.  Unfortunately, she was karmically deserving of this predictable turn of events.

[babyface]

If a position is open, and the spouse is actually eligible and qualified from the start, and there are no better candidates, then I have no problem with a spousal hire! ... So if you have a qualified spouse working at your institution, please don't think I am against that!

[Zarkov]

Whether you agree with it or not, spousal hire is not nepotism.

nepotism : favoritism shown to relatives or close friends by those in power (as by giving them jobs)

I have seen both (real) nepotism and spousal hires in business, although they happen at the executive level, not among middle managers and below.  (Although spousal hires in business are not usually part of a formal process, as they are in academia.)

[new anon]

I'm not sure where the idea that spousal hires, nepotism, or other kinds of favoritism is non-existent outside of academia.  It happens all the time, particularly at the professional level.

[babyface]

Zarkov -

With all due respect, I think the distinction you are drawing is one of semantics.

What is a spousal hire of an unqualified person other than favortism shown towards the relative of a person in power?

I worked in the business world for ten years before teaching and I have never seen a spousal hire.  Regardless of how often it happens, it doesn't make it logical.

Again, I believe it is extremely important to convey the message to our students that academia is a meritocracy, and spousal hiring of unqualified people conveys the opposite.

Babyface

[Skirt]

babyface wrote:

> Again, I believe it is extremely important to convey the
> message to our students that academia is a meritocracy, and
> spousal hiring of unqualified people conveys the opposite.

I don't think anyone can disagree with this particular statement. However, in reference to the article in today's chronicle about the spousal hire gone sour -- my understanding was that the spouse in question was hired to do something non-academic within the university or college. He was not hired as a professor or lecturer or anything in that sort of general ballpark.

So we're actually talking about a different sort of spousal hire. My understanding of the use of the term spousal hire in the academic world is the spouse being given special consideration within the same department as either a lecturer or ranked professor, often not tenure track, but sometimes tt if there is a line or other opening available. Such hires are also often negotiated BEFORE the main person being hired finalizes all the other negotiations -- i.e., before they are actually "in power."

So it's not just semantics-- nepotism as it is used in the real world doesn't apply here. Nepotism in academia would be if the dean of your college hires one of his relatives for a job under his supervision. I would concede that a spousal hire is marked by some degree of favoritism. But I've never known a trailing spouse who was hired when unqualified for an academic position (i.e., requiring a PhD), no matter how much they wanted to keep the non-trailing spouse. I'm not sure babyface knows what he's talking about in terms of power within academia. From where I'm standing, assistant professors have zero power.

[TBD]

My issue with the article was not with the "spousal hire."  It was with the desire to absolutely control everything that happened to her/his spouse after the divorce.  So he got hired that way.  So he might have said some things about the writer during the divorce.  Happens all the time.  The writer said some things about him too, no doubt.  In spite of the one grocery store, in spite of the one campus, the writer needs to let the issue and the spouse go.

[babyface]

For clarification, I am an assistant professor also.

If you read the article carefully, the husband was given an administrative support job (not a faculty position), which he STILL WAS NOT qualified for.  Despite the fact that it was not an "important" job, his lack of experience and qualifications still would have a negative impact on some aspect of student's daily lives, which in turn means a negative impact on their education overall.

I agree that assistant professors have little power.  But I believe she was in a position of relative power, because she was their top candidate.  Had she not had that power, she would not have been granted the spousal hire.  That power was abused when it was used to put somebody unqualified into a position, regarless of how "menial" the position was.

I put the word "menial" in quotes because I believe that having a qualified support staff is extremely important to a school's quality, reputation, and well-being.

Babyface

[ASCM]

I don't care if people want to call this nepotism or not. And we can argue about power, but if you have the ability to get a school to hire your spouse (when they otherwise wouldn't) that is "power". No matter what we decide to call this, it is giving someone a job based not on their only own resume, but also on the qualifications of their spouse. In every spousal hire, the person would not be hired if not for the spouse - otherwise it wouldn't be a spousal hire. We do this all the time because otherwise it's more difficult to get people to move to this small town. But it's a huge problem. Not only in case of the couple splitting, but if the spousal hire is just really bad. Can you fire him/her? What if the initial hire doesn't get tenure? Are you stuck with the other person? It's a complete mess. We have one tenure-track woman whose husband was given a non tenure-track job as a spousal hire only for him to cheat on her a few years later. So now they're getting divorced and what do we do? I've seen spousal hires slack off on their teaching and research because they can. I've also seen some spousal hires that are simply wonderful and we feel lucky to have them come here. But those are 100% people that we would have hired on their own anyway.

[babyface]

I agree 100%.

[A spousal hire]

"In every spousal hire, the person would not be hired if not for the spouse - otherwise it wouldn't be a spousal hire."

I agree with you on this. Duh? It's a spousal hire b/c the person only got the job because of the spouse.

"I've also seen some spousal hires that are simply wonderful and we feel lucky to have them come here. But those are 100% people that we would have hired on their own anyway."

The fact of the matter is, you did not hire them. Why? Perhaps because you did not have a tenure line open and weren't even advertising a position.

As a "spousal hire," I'm offended that so many people here think that spousal hires are such slackers. The reality of academic jobs is that it's very very difficult for a couple to get jobs at the same place. We tried and failed two years in a row. No, we are not "slackers." Both of us were offered tenure track jobs, both years (I think that says something about us in this tight job market). Unfortunately, neither of us were offered jobs in places that were even remotely close to "communting long distances." You can judge us in anyway you want about our "commitment" to our careers, our commitment to our family is greater. The department that I am now teaching in on "temporary" contracts did not have a tt line, but the school was the first to give us a spousal hire. In some aspects, it's the school that "benefitted," given that they got their first choice (in my partner) and a full-time instructor who is still continuing active research at half the price.

[struck]

Spousal hires...try working in a department where one of the already married senior  faculty  begins a relationship with his grad student and then decides to leave his wife to marry this student.  Once the student completes her MA, the senior faculty member demands a full-time lectureship for her.  The department goes through the motions of doing a search and conducting interviews where several high quality folks tried out for the position.  The position was then offered to this student-turned-spouse even though the remaining faculty all knew it was a mistake in that she was not of the quality of several of the candidates.  

I am not sure if you call this nepotism, but it certainly is wrong.

[Skirt]

> The fact of the matter is, you did not hire them. Why?
> Perhaps because you did not have a tenure line open and weren't
> even advertising a position.
> As a "spousal hire," I'm offended that so many people here
> think that spousal hires are such slackers.
> In some aspects, it's the school that "benefitted," given that they got >their first choice (in my partner) and a full-time instructor who is still
>continuing active research at half the price.

With regard to the social sciences, I'm with "spousal hire" on this one. The ones I actually know of personally -- as in for real not just theoretical or hearsay -- don't fit any of the negative slacker "got in without the necessary qualifications" descriptions put forth by previous posters, and it was never the case that the main hire was able to pull any strings. Sometimes the department or school just doesn't have the resources or the line available. And sometimes (majority of cases I know) they just don't give a **** because they know how tight the job market is. The spousal hire that someone like babyface might resent for getting favoritism or "nepotism" is more often than not treated as the lowest of the low, regardless of their talents or no matter how quantifiable their contribution to the department may be (what meritocracy??). Some stories of maltreatment of spousal hires I could tell would break your heart. Again, from where I'm standing, it's the university who profits more from the spousal hire (as in cheap labor), while the spouses question just get the lesser of other evils (the alternatives being unemployment, long-distance marriage, or ultimately, divorce -- all of which will turn the kids' lives upside down).

[anonymous adjunct]

As one of the earlier posters noted, the author needs to understand that she cannot influence her ex-husband's actions.  He may be the biggest creep in the world, but she cannot force him to leave his job, or their town.  She needs to decide if she can rebuild her life and be happy in her job and town even if it means frequently running into her ex husband.  If she cannot, as difficult as it may be to uproot her life again and obtain  another tenure track position, she needs to consider moving since no one can spend the rest of their life hiding in a grocery store parking lot.