next »

[Apricot]

> 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?
 
No, I've never heard of such a thing and can't really imagine it.  The horse-trading gets complicated enough simply between departments in one university.  

On the other hand, I have heard of a case like this.  Candidate is up for a job at Large University.  Candidate's partner, who is equally talented/viable (in a different field), contacts College in same town, applies for a job there and mentions in the letter that her partner is in the final rounds of a job search at the University.  I'm sure some people would have advised this person not to mention this, but it seemed to work.  She already had an excellent (better) job, so College probably saw her as a plum they might be lucky to get, and the spousal situation clarified why she'd be willing to move.

When people advise not to bring up a partner issue until the offer is made, I worry that they overlook one factor.  If you already have an excellent job and seem very talented, the school might well wonder if you are serious about your candidacy: are you just negotiating for a raise back home?  The information that there's a partner situation might offer the necessary context to explain why you are serious about the position.  Without that context, they might decide to skip you.  

On the other hand, this is always risky, and I can see that it might be best to somehow allow someone other than you to convey this information.  And this really only applies to situations where you seem so desirable that they might question whether you're serious, usually meaning you're applying to their position from an objectively superior one.

[%sig%]

[WisconsinRefugee]

I agree wholeheartedly... I just escaped from Wisconsin last year. People here complain about their state legislatures. Only faculty members in Wisconsin can truly understand what a legislature can do to faculty morale. One problem is that they need to organize and not be reliant on the nuts down in Madison.

[new to WI]

I escaped a truly horrible job in Illinois, to Wisconsin! I worked my but off in an instructor position in Illinois and never got a raise in 3 years. And I got a raise in my tenure track position in Wisconsin after just one year! So, it could be worse.

[kajey]

I decided to be clear about the spouse situation during interviews, because my graduate work was heavily based on the city where the grad institution was located, people were always wondering why I wanted to move.  It felt weird not to tell them, so I told them:  we were looking for 2 tenure-track jobs, though in different fields (I published a First Person column about this a few years back.  I had the advantage of being able to list the First Person column about my dilemma under "other publications" on my CV.  Enterprising search committees had already read it and were able to bring up the issue by saying so. A simple google search turned it up as well.)  

Due to this candor, in 2003, Liberal arts college called with an offer for me, and asked to look at spouse's CV, called him for a phone interview, flew him out within a few days, and offered him a one-year contract.  Contract was renewed semester by semester for a 2nd year, now he's been demoted to adjunct as department chose another faculty spouse for the full-time (though not TT) contract, so he's on the market again.   I'm sitting out, as it is easier for me to find something once we are settled in a new place.  I might opt out of academe altogether, as our experience here has been discouraging.  

However, he plans to carry my CV with him on interviews, in case the question is asked.  After all, he needs to have a way to explain why he has been visiting for the previous 2 years--that way he can say it was for me, and we've decided to prioritize his career this time (which is true--he turned down a TT job shortly after he signed the first one year contract--we now consider this a HUGE mistake since his field is much more competitive. We decided to be loyal to our contracts to Liberal Arts college, even though it was only April and we hadn't even moved yet.  And they have returned the favor by demoting him (in case you are wondering, he has STELLAR teaching reviews, has published and presented in the two years he was full-time, and has students clamoring for him to stay.  We think that A) they are being penny-wise and pound-foolish by hiring the other spouse who has only a M.S., not a Ph.D. OR B) they are threatened by a nonTT person getting better teaching reviews than almost anyone in the department or C) other spouse's TT wife threatened to leave and they felt compelled to hire him, though somehow didn't realize the same thing would happen with me. C'est la vie).

So, I guess my advice is:  If you really don't plan to accept an offer without your spouse, than there is no reason to keep it secret.  It might turn out well (we thought our situaton would).  But my best advice would be to marry someone not in academe, or if you must, always prioritize the person with the more competative field, even if it means playing chicken with various offers until April or May. We are looking at another move after only 3 years here, and these moves seems to get harder now that we are older....

[%sig%]

[Me]

We're back on the market this year after discovering that what looked like a promising department with one TT position for him and an endless stream of work for me with two positions likely to open in the year... well, it was a snake pit and didn't approve of non-TT faculty doing research on their own time.  Let alone writing grants.  Yep, apparently I was supposed to rot while hoping for a TT job to open up - a job that then got cut.

We've now each been trailing spouse, each gotten burned.  This year, we're applying to nothing but places with two jobs, marital status (last names non-explanatory) entirely clear in our apps.  We basically tell them we're a package deal, take us or leave us as the pair.

No telling yet if we'll have any luck this year, but I'm not moving again without better than one good job, one dodgy job.  Our furniture and our psyches can only take so many cross-country moves.

[curious]

I don't know how such things are arranged, but I would be very interested in a First Person piece on this site by the previous poster ("Me"), chronicling (no pun intended) the all-cards-on-table job search described in the post.  It could be extremely informative for all who have read this forum!

[Jane]

another anon wrote:

> 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!


Sorry for the delay -- I have been at a conference.

Here are some answers based on my experience. Keep in mind that I am in the humanities, and that both jobs were state universities, decent teaching load, but no grad program in my field.

"Hit the ground running" refers to starting the discussion about my partner after I got the offer. I negotiated with my future chair, not the dean -- it  is done with the dean or provost at other places.  In the process of asking for the usual things, more money for example, I stated that my husband was a XXX [not my department, although closely related -- same college] and asked what would be the opportunities for him. I made it clear that my acceptance of their offer was contingent, although not solely contingent, on this issue. My (future) chair called XXX chair, XXX chair acquired my spouse's c.v., called a department meeting, contacted the dean, and got him a visiting position within a week. It was our luck that (a) my husband is very good, and (b) they happened to want to expand in his field. It is much harder if your partner has a specialty that is already covered -- then you will typically have the faculty in that specialty fight like hell to keep him out. I say this from long experience with poor state universities where people fight over crumbs and no one can afford to be gallant.

As soon as we arrived, I began meeting with my chair to work on getting my spouse put on the tt. I kept the pressure on from day one, although not obnoxiously. My spouse, for his part, gave his every effort to ingratiating himself with his new department, teaching what they asked without complaint, publishing a lot, and contributing in many ways to the department, as if her were already tt. NOTHING will happen if your partner's department doesn't want him/her. Deans usually will not install tt people in departments that do not want them, no matter how much they want to keep you. And when they do, these deans are outlasted by the hostile faculty whose self-governance they compromised, and these hostile faculty will make your partner's life miserable.

The key was getting the two chairs and two departments to work together to bring pressure on the dean. By spring of our first year my spouse had a tenure track job. This success has made me a firm believer in the "sqeaky wheel/ground up" strategy.

Good luck!

[%sig%]

[lib arts search comm chair]

As the former chair of several tt searches at a lib arts college, my preference would be to know up front about possible spousal issues.  As another poster indicated, the sooner we know about the spouse/partner needs, the more time we have to try to come up with possible solutions.  We don't want to lose our strong junior faculty, so it's in our best interest to try to accomodate any partner/spouse needs (as best we can).  I don't need (or want) to see a list of requirements spelled out in the application, but a brief mention of a partner would be nice.

Something else to keep in mind:
Several years ago we hired a promising young PhD who, once we made the offer, surprised us with a list of requirements for her (non-PhD) husband.  We had already spent political capital to have the college make *her* the offer, and felt we had much invested so we did our best to have the college accomodate her demands.  Most of these were met (much more than for other starting faculty), but the distaste left behind was pretty strong.  The new hire was unhappy because not all the demands were met, and continued to let us know this at various times; the dept and admin were left questioning our decision to hire this prima donna and trying to find ways to regain our excitement over this new colleague.  I'm not sure if she recognizes that, while she gained most of her goals with regards to her husband's professional career, she lost much in terms of trust from her colleagues and institution. I don't know how this would have played out in a larger institution, but in our small college it didn't go over well.

[%sig%]

[Jane]

lib arts search comm chair wrote:

 The new hire was unhappy because not all the demands
> were met, and continued to let us know this at various times;
> the dept and admin were left questioning our decision to hire
> this prima donna and trying to find ways to regain our
> excitement over this new colleague.  I'm not sure if she
> recognizes that, while she gained most of her goals with
> regards to her husband's professional career, she lost much in
> terms of trust from her colleagues and institution. I don't
> know how this would have played out in a larger institution,
> but in our small college it didn't go over well.
>

You know what? She would not have done as well by being "nice".  The line between being a "prima donna" and "pushover" for women in academia is vanishingly thin. And I say this as more of less of a pushover who has watched some "prima donna" female collegues do very well for themselves -- MUCH better than me.

So my colleagues may like me better. What does that get me? A lot of smiles and a few dinner invitations. I'll take the smirks the prima donna gets if I can have her lower teaching load and higher salary.

[lib arts search comm chair]

Jane - You are correct.  It's likely she would not done "as well" by being "nice" - if by "well" you mean financial compensation.  However I would argue that there are other long-term costs to being overly agressive.  I, too, could benefit in some assertiveness training, but there is a big difference between being assertive and being agressive to the point of seeming like you have tunnel-vision and *only* your own interests in mind.  This turned out to be an ingrained characteristic of this individual, and she didn't have other positive professional characteristics to balance the negative - she didn't get tenure here and has since moved on to another position. Would she have received tenure if she had been "nice"? I don't know, but I suspect her file would have been viewed more positively in that situation.

I guess what I'd like to suggest to applicants is that they be assertive in their negotiations (now is the time), try not to surprise your future colleagues (help them to help you find options for your partner), and don't be so agressive that your new colleagues wonder why they hired you.

[%sig%]

[Hopeful Non-Tenured Feminists]

Just thought I'd share our single experience on the matter.  I am a recent PhD in the natural sciences with a spouse in the social sciences both seeking tt positions.  We have been researching and debating this issue for quite some time and welcome the experiences posted on the forum.  

As for our experience, during the last hiring cycle I received an offer from a smaller liberal arts college in the west.  After much discussion we decided as a couple not to mention her position until the offer was made.  The search committee chair did not seem too surprised by our situation but was oddly casual regarding our position.  After talking with both the dean and search committee chair I was told that the university was located in an “educationally rich” area with numerous opportunities and they were powerless to assist us further in securing a position for my spouse.  Of course we had researched the surrounding schools, even applying to some positions, however, in the end we felt best declining the offer.  With some hindsight and the fact that one of the surrounding universities eventually offered my spouse a position (months later) perhaps we did not play our cards in the best fashion.  It was a very frustrating and tiring experience that we do not look forward to during the upcoming years.  Nonetheless, now that post-doc and teaching experience has been added to both our CVs we are hopeful for the current hiring cycle.  

We have extensively researched the universities we have currently applied to, and have actively sought information regarding spousal hiring.  In some cases we have found it helpful to directly contact the human resources department, remain anonymous, and inquire about their official or even unwritten policy on the matter.  Despite our efforts, I fear that given the continued lack of funding for education, one of us may be forced to alter our professional goals away from academe towards the private (slave) sector.  (Ugh!)

For all of those fortunate enough to have found the happy union between the professional and private life within the academe, please provide a voice of reason for the next dual-career couple that comes your way—you might even give them a little advice on how you were successful.  

Cheers

[%sig%]

[applicant's partner]

I can certainly understand why the hiring committee would want to know about a possible partner hire issue up front, but wouldn't that in many instances summarily exclude the applicant from even being interviewed?  Search committee respondents please chime in!

[Socsci]

My spouse and I are on the job market this year--in two different, but related, fields, and both as newly-minted PhDs-- and I very much appreciate the diverse insights posted on this thread.  

In response to the inquiry about whether large universities can exercise influence on local liberal arts colleges, I have found that this is the case. Both graduate departments that I have worked in are parts of large research universities, and on several occasions while I was a graduate student, they drew on connections with local liberal arts colleges to secure tenure-track positions for trailing partners. I don't know how common this is, but it does happen, and is certainly worth asking about at some point during your hiring process. In the cases I know, it always involved the same department so there were significant existing social networks between faculty at the two institutions. I would imagine it could be more difficult if you are dealing with two unrelated disciplines.

As this is my first time on the market, I am, of course, intrigued by this whole discussion of when to bring up spousal hiring needs. Our advisers have all urged us NOT to say anything until an offer is in hand. We're definitely not entirely comfortable with this, but are following that strategy for now.  All I can say is that it is painfully stressful, especially as we now both have interviews and/or short list notifications, none of which are at the same schools or even in the same areas...

[%sig%]

[ProfF]

My search cte experience is that being up front is helpful.  THe more time we have to attempt to influence dept, university, and neighboring places, the better.  If you wait till the offer, as someone else pointed out, much of the dept's political capital is already gone.

And if it's a problem to the cte that you have a partner/spouse, well, you don't want to work there anyway.

[Jane]

applicant's partner wrote:

> I can certainly understand why the hiring committee would want
> to know about a possible partner hire issue up front, but
> wouldn't that in many instances summarily exclude the applicant
> from even being interviewed?  Search committee respondents
> please chime in!


So far I have posted as an applicant, but I have also sat on three t-t search committees at two universities. Here's my two cents:

Yes, if a candidate stated that s/he absolutely could not join our faculty without a t-t commitment to his/her partner, we would very likely exclude him/her, to save everyone some time. We barely have adequate funds to conduct a proper search as it is -- we are not wasting fly-outs on people who won't accept our offer.  

But I can't be sure what our reactions would be to hearing about a trailing spouse up front. I don't think it would help the applicant, and it might hurt. Yes, it might help the applicant's PARTNER, but that's only if the applicant gets the offer. It seems to me the applicant should get the offer for him/herself and then turn the attention to the partner. Hence, my advice from personal experience as an applicant and also as a S.C. member is not to bring it up until the offer is made. This is especially true for women who have a hard enough time getting taken seriously as academics without waving around their marital/personal (and perhaps parenting) status.

[%sig%]