next »

[profxfiles]

I am trying to figure out when to bring up the question of potential spousal hiring. I teach (IIA) and my spouse works for our current university foundation. I am going back on the job market due to a state legislature that is out to destroy our university system. I have been publishing like crazy in the past two years and I am pretty sure I can get offers from several departments. At what point in the process should I bring up my spouse's position? Should I mention it during the on-campus interview? In my cover letter? Should I wait until I have an offer?
I don't want to jump the gun and turn off potential employers, but I also do not want it to look like I am holding the information back and "ambushing" the university at the very end of the process. Is there a norm for this?

[anon]

spousal hires are best negotiated when they offer you a contract.  and fyi, all state legislatures are destroying university systems.... it is part of a systematic change in what people think universities do, and from that people question, who pays.

[profxfiles]

There may be other states doing as much damage mine is doing, but everyone else in our region is doing MUCH better than we are in terms of funding, positions, etc. I can't speak to national data, but our system has dropped to LAST in terms of raises, new positions, and overall rate of funding increases in the past decade for the region. This is truly a system on the decline compared to its regional peers and everyone who looks at the data can see it. the legislature simply doesn't care--it is a ideological crusade for some of them.

[Been There]

Good luck.
They will certainly ask you about your family at interviews, but how much they will do varies from cases to cases.
My husband was offered a TT position at a state university that advertized a policy on spouse employment at their website. They even have listed on their website contact information for the persons who are responsible for spouse employment. Still, I am two thousand miles away from him now.

[%sig%]

[Retain the Null]

By any chance are you in the great state of Louisiana??

[Profxfiles]

No, not Louisiana... I'm in the Midwest.

[Dr. D.]

I've chaired a couple of search committees and have been on several others. We need to know as soon as possible (perhaps when the candidate is invited to interview) about a need for a spousal hire. The more time we have the more we can ask around, go to the Dean, Provost, etc. if it's at the last minute it may be too late to do anything.

[Profxfiles]

That was my real concern--I hate the idea of "springing" it on the school. Given that, how should I approach it? The truth is that my spouse could probably find other employment in the community she would just prefer to work at the university foundation. If I make it sound like too much of a demand, do I run the risk of losing out on the position? On the other hand, if I am too wishy-washy about it, will they not take me seriously?

[Experience]

I was always told not to bring up a spouse until the hire was made.  The logic was that advance notice of potential complications could make them less likely to make an offer.  In many jurisdictions, questions about family in the interview process are illegal, and advice not to talk about family issues corresponds with that:  the interview is about professional matters.

Last year, however, a committee chair got a bit belligerent with my husband when, as instructed, he mentioned me immediately upon hearing that they were planning to offer him the position.  A colleague also got a negative reaction from a committee when he, again according to advice about what we'd been told was standard, mentioned the need for a spousal hire upon receiving an offer.  Neither place came through with a spousal hire (in my husband's case, because they genuinely could not make it work; in my colleague's case, because they have a strong through unwritten policy against spousal hires).

[Anon]

I've chaired a few search committees for a SLAC.  In some disciplines there is a welcome trend opposing spousal hires.  They are, in my view, indefensible; if there really is a 2nd position, and the spouse is the best candidate for the position, then fine...if not, sorry.

[Experience]

My first line should have read "until the offer is made", not "hire".

[Jane]

I have done this two times (two tenure track jobs). First job: never mentioned spouse until after I accepted the offer.  He got a visiting position the first year, reduced to adjuncting second year. Even after I got another job offer (see below) they only offered him a "permanent instructor non-tt" position.

Second job: discussed spouse after receving but before accepting the offer. Much better results. Hired as a full time visitor at first, put on tenure track in second year. But we started the ball seriously rolling, let everyone know we were a team. Hit the ground running and secured his TT status by end of first semester there.

I recommend against even mentioning that you are married during the interview process. This is from a lot of personal experience. (3 times on job market, all successful)

[history grrrl]

I was going to guess Colorado, but now I'm going to guess Wisconsin. Say it ain't so.

[%sig%]

[Tenured Feminist]

I have some experience with this one as well.  I think a lot depends upon institutional culture, so if you can get anyone at a place you're applying to talk confidentially, that might be helpful.

I have a perpetually trailing partner, and we both went on the market a few years ago.  I mentioned our situation vaguely in the cover letter as part of my justification for seeking to move.  It didn't seem to hurt me (got interviews and an offer), but then, the whole reason I was on the job market was to try to find something better for him.  We were able to negotiate something better for him here through the leverage that my outside offer provided, but it was like pulling teeth.  (I kept having these conversations in which I would tell the admin "It's not about me, it's about him," and they would respond "Oh!  How 'bout a bigger raise for you?  How 'bout a new computer for you?")  Another option is not to mention it yourself but allow your recommenders to address it.  It is important to raise the issue at the latest when you receive an informal offer, so that they can work on putting something together.  I think you could probably mention it in the interview stage without causing too much trouble.  And really, do you want to move to a place that would exclude you from consideration the minute you brought up the fact that you are not an isolated monad in the world?  And you do have to bring it up yourself, as state university folks are strictly admonished not to ask questions about family circumstances.

This is a difficult and fraught issue, though.  Anon above suggests that the whole idea of partner hires is ridiculous and universities should only hire the best possible candidate for every position.  I'm somewhat close to that standpoint with respect to tenure-track jobs, but I wish that more universities would think about creating an intermediate status for highly qualified people who happen to be partnered with people in tenure-stream positions.  Adjunct teaching for years and years just isn't satisfying, especially when a partner knows that s/he could probably get a "real" job if s/he went on the market nationally.  

Also, the idea that there is an objectively "best" candidate for every job seems to me to be a nonstarter.  Rather, there's usually a range of people, sometimes as many as five, who would be absolutely fine as colleagues and scholars.  So if you're choosing among these candidates and a partner is among them, is it illegitimate to take into account the retention of a proven colleague and scholar who's partnered with the candidate?  No, it shouldn't be the deciding factor, but I don't think there's anything wrong with taking it into account.  Unfortunately, it all too often seems to work the opposite way: a partner has to prove that s/he is way BETTER than anyone else in order to get a foot in the door because everyone screams nepotism.

Anyway, I fear that my home institution will eventually learn this lesson (again) the hard way with respect to me, as it's very clear that they want to retain me and equally clear that they are relentlessly uninterested in employing my partner as anything other than an adjunct, despite his having established a strong research record with absolutely no institutional support.

[another anon]

Jane-- I was fascinated by your post because of your success ratio-- good for you!  You wrote the following:

"Second job: discussed spouse after receving but before accepting the offer. Much better results. Hired as a full time visitor at first, put on tenure track in second year. But we started the ball seriously rolling, let everyone know we were a team. Hit the ground running and secured his TT status by end of first semester there."

I was curious to know what you meant by "hit the ground running"?  Did you do as Tenured Feminist suggested which is to have a recommender mention the spouse indirectly/directly to the search committee? Or did you say something like the following in the interview "I would like to be at a place that is a good location for both of us."  I am just trying to get some ideas for how to "hit the ground running" without being mistaken as saying that "sharing one t-t position" would be okay (because we would really rather have 2 jobs, t-t or otherwise).  

To Both Jane and Tenured Feminist (and anyone else): were your spouses in the same departments as you?  How much does that complicate matters?
Thanks for all of your great insights!