next »

[caelia]

What about this?  My husband and I are both on the market this year in different fields.  We have about 5 schools in common.     Is "my husband's applying for a job in your X department" something appropriate to bring up at in interview?

[Don Miguel]

Jane wrote:

> 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)

I agree (speaking from experience as well--my spouse is in the very same field).  There's really no good way to bring it up at all until you have been offered the job.  At that point, of course, you do risk irritating the person who offered you the job by springing the news about the spouse, but unfortunately I don't think there's a better way.  

For various smart and not-so-smart reasons, I haven't always followed my own advice--I've had six campus visits, and mentioned my spouse three times.  Once I think it worked against me, twice I think it had no effect either way.

The one time I thought it was a good idea was when

a) the school was very clearly *extremely* interested in hiring me (the search committee chair basically offered me the job at the end of the campus visit) and

b) the school was short of instructors and therefore was more likely to need my spouse

I wouldn't mention spouses unless those two conditions were met.

Of course, the frustrating thing about these message boards is that you're likely to get a dozen different answers, each one contradicting the other...

[%sig%]

[Tenured Feminist]

Partner's in the same field as me, which definitely complicates matters.  But on the up side, we need not worry that the humanities department that was stiffed on a partner accommodation last year will stiff one of us for revenge . . .  But as I think I've indicated, we still haven't managed to solve the problem.

Institutional norms differ a lot, as Don Miguel suggests.  But also individual circumstances differ.  I say that the more important it is for partner to have a "real" job, the earlier in the process the issue should be raised.  After all, if this is a dealbreaker, why put everyone through all the time and trouble of first reviewing your file carefully, then possibly interviewing you by phone, then bringing you to campus, and finally opening negotiations only to discover at that point that you were never going to move there under any circumstances?

Many search committees and departments appreciate honesty on this issue.  I know I do when I'm on the other side.

BTW, my advice would differ a bit if we're talking about two new Ph.D.s or ABDs on the market for their first jobs.  There I think you raise it either with a VERY light hand at the interview or after the informal offer is made.  It's less difficult to negotiate this sort of thing if you are in a job and deciding whether or not to stay than if you're looking at your first job.  As for the two different fields question, I think you raise it at the interview stage, unless there's likely to be a major problem due to divergent deadlines.

[Harry]

I think there is a bit of a happy medium, especially if--as TF just noted--you're on the market from somewhere you already have a position. My experience in those situations (adv. asst./associate searches) is that the committee is more open (at times refreshingly so) about outside factors. Often the matter subtly comes up in a question like "what attracts you to our school?" (i.e. why do you want to leave your current university). After--and I stress after--you answer based on your own work, their research opportunities, etc. you might simply note that the area provides more opportunities for a spouse/partner. Then it's not entirely out of the blue.

Does this square with any other people's impressions?

[ABD]

 I've been following this thread with great interest, as my husband and I are working on our PhDs in the same discipline (although not the same field).  It will be a couple years before we go out on the market, but the thought of the "two-body problem" already fills me with dread.

Our situation is perhaps a bit different than some of those mentioned above: while we would love to have two tenure-track positions, the reality is that we're in an immensely competitive discipline and will be thrilled if one of us is offered a TT job and the other a lecturer position.  (This prospect seems a little more realistic, as we're in a field in the humanities in which most students are usually required to take two or more semesters of basic coursework in order to fullfill a general education requirement.)  With this situation in mind, would it be best to bring this up on the on-campus interview by nonchantantly asking about teaching opportunities at their university and other campuses around the area for the spouse?  Or would it be best to wait, as other posters have advised, until an offer has been extended?
 
I really appreciate the intelligent responses posted here and would love to hear any feedback/advice.

[%sig%]

[profxfiles]

history grrrl wrote:

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

Yup, you got it--getting out while the getting is still possible...

[another anon]

Thanks Tenured Feminist and Harry for your advice- it is VERY helpful to hear about your experiences and your suggestions for negotiation.  Particularly the differences in negotiation that would arise for a junior and for a more senior applicant.

[Reilly]

I heard a talk yesterday on running effective searches, and the presenter said the best thing for the institution to do is provide information to everyone.  Without asking the candidate anything specific, they point out spousal hire policies, child care options, what the school systems are like, etc., "in case you might be interested in this information".  I think this is a good idea and takes the pressure away from the candidate.  Now if just EVERYONE could do this for both male and female candidates, it would be great!

[pragmatic]

The original  post wasn't clear as to whether this spousal hire was a faculty hire. The poster wrote: "my spouse works for our current university foundation."

Whether or not "spouse" is a PhD or not is crucial--most have these posts have assumed yes. But if your spouse isn't, then it's probably MUCH easier to bring up. At my university a recent hire made the same inquiry about a non-PhD spouse, and he ended up being fought over by various administrative departments who found his skills highly desirable.

If this is your case, I think you'll find far less animosity than has been recounted above.

Best of luck.

[profxfiles]

thanks for pointing that out, pragmatic. You are correct--my spouse would NOT be a faculty hire. She specializes in major gifts for our foundation here. I hope you are correct about it being easier to work out...

[anon]

I think it would be wonderful in these times of dual career academic couples, if there were a bit more flexibility on the part of departments in terms of tt jobs for spouses.
I am tt at a top ten school in my field, my spouse has a tt offer at a top ten department in his field, but hundreds of miles apart; we are both willing to move down to lower tier school to be together (and in my case, interested departmens have even offered to talk to admin/the other departments); we always get a reply from the other department along the lines of "the spouse has a fantastic cv; but we are currently not thinking of expanding in exactly that area of research"; even if admin offered an additional position to that dept, they are still worried that down the line they may be assigned fewer positions for other areas. That may be true, but come on! Why don't they grab the chance to get a candidate that, without spousal issues, would  be at a much higher ranked school??

[AF]

profxfiles wrote:

> thanks for pointing that out, pragmatic. You are correct--my
> spouse would NOT be a faculty hire. She specializes in major
> gifts for our foundation here. I hope you are correct about it
> being easier to work out...


Your spouse specializes in major gifts?!  There's always demand for people with those skillls.  She might end up helping your candidacy!

[Postdocs 1 & 2]

Question 1: What if the "spouse" isn't exactly a spouse, but a partner you have no intention of leaving?-- We've discussed getting engaged, for the reason that it's easier to be taken seriously by a hiring committee, but - for many reasons - now is not the time.  My assumption has been that we just will have to hope we can find jobs near one another (we're both postdocs in science).  Could I (or he) ever mention to a hiring committe "I have this boyfriend..."?

Question 2: I want a research job at a large school.  He wants a teaching job at a liberal arts school.  We refuse to live in different towns/cities.  Is there any leverage one university can exert on a nearby college, or vice-versa?

Thanks.  This thread has been useful.

-Postdocs 1 & 2.

[Canadian]

This might be different south of the border, but here, common-law spouses (living together for something like 6 months) have almost the same legal status as married couples, and so university practice, following government practice, is to make no distinction.  Just tell them you have a partner (partner, not boyfriend, which will make it sound less important).  The particulars of the relationship (or, for that matter, whether you're common law or living apart) aren't really relevant to a hiring committee; what matters from their perspective is that he's going to be a factor in your job decisions.

[Phil]

An Anon writes:
"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."

So the assumption is that you only want to hire the best person for each position, and that spousal hires result in your failing to do so.  Okay, but by hypothesis the person with the spouse is the best available person for a position you have advertised.  If they turn you down because you won't accomodate the spouse, and you have to move down your list to other candidates, then you have still failed to hire the best person for the job.