next »

[been there, still there]

anany wrote:

> In a recent search we had a couple in the same field apply for
> two positions in our department. They "demanded" that if one of
> them was interviewed, both of them had to be, and if one were
> offered a job, the other had to be too. This was all done in a
> cover letter. Needless to say, we got a good laugh out of it
> and they weren't called.

That's interesting.  Hope that wasn't us.  I figure that, since it will in fact take two tt jobs for us to be willing to move, we might as well tell departments that up front.  I don't think we "demanded" anything, but we did say that we were  only interested if they were able to hire us both.  (This is perhaps two sentences in each cover letter.  The rest of each letter is all about what we can do for THEM, of course.)

Should we have applied without indicating that neither one of us was available without the other?  Would the search committee really have been able to possibly offer us both a tt job if they had only flown in one of us?  I think we'd have wasted a whole lot of time on both sides, and a whole lot of their money if we'd kept the fact that we're a couple under our hats.

Any other search committee chairs want to weigh in?

[too]

"Should we have applied without indicating that neither one of us was available without the other? Would the search committee really have been able to possibly offer us both a tt job if they had only flown in one of us? I think we'd have wasted a whole lot of time on both sides, and a whole lot of their money if we'd kept the fact that we're a couple under our hats.

Any other search committee chairs want to weigh in?"

Yes.

I am of the same opinion as SCM above; wait, then inquire, without being petulant.

[anany]

It was the tone of the letter sent. The rather detailed paragraph that I am talking about contained words like 'must,' 'necessary,' and the like. The real problem was that they weren't the best candidates for the jobs. So, their demands were hollow.

As I said in my original post there are ways of going about this that let the committee know the intent of the couple. The wrong language takes you out of consideration rather quickly if the committee doesn't agree that the couple are the best candidates. With hundreds of applications and many willing candidates, there is no reason to take a demanding couple seriously. Lastly, we were told by administration that we cannot favor couples. The letter receives no additional positive weight; however, it can harm your search by taking both of you out of consideration.

To Been There, Still There, I doubt this involved you. It wasn't during the current cycle. This happened about a year ago.

[%sig%]

[anon]

I recently started a new t-t position.  My wife and I decided to try the gradual approach.  I knew that my department had a need for another adjunct, so I mentioned my wife to the department head.  The department head has agreed to let my wife teach courses as an adjunct.  Our current plan is for me to do a good job, crank out the publications, continue conducting good research, keep bringing in the good evaluations, and generally make a good impression in the hope that the department will develop a strong interest in retaining me.  At that point, we will push for my wife a permanent position.  Anyway, that's our plan.  We're giving it 2-3 years.  If we can't find something permanent for my wife at my current university by then, we will embark on a joint search (like many of you and your partners).

[Zora]

Re: the gradual approach mentioned by anon above (that is, "trailing spouse" takes adjunct/non-tt position at tt spouse's university, hopes for upgrade to tt later) - I've seen this approach fail three times in six years at my current university, and I'm not sure if that's just this university, or if this is generally true. Anyone with experience want to comment?

(Here, once you've been an adjunct, or once they've gotten you "for less," there's a real unwillingness to upgrade - the assumption among many faculty is that if you were good enough for tenure you'd have gotten it in the first place. I don't agree, clearly, but this is the view of enough folks here that, with my partner & I both on the market, we're thinking a LDR for a year or three may result in a better bargaining position than the gradual approach. I just don't know if my university is representative, or if we just have a freakish number of anti-adjuncts?)

[been there, still there]

As I described above, my spouse and are are 0 for 2 for trying to upgrade adjuncts to tenure track, or heck, even non-tenure track permanent, despite departments with openings for which we qualified.  Why buy the cow when the milk is almost free?