next »

[wayne1143]

Two interesting things happened to me recently and I am seriously confused as to how to react (beyond ignoring them and moving on).

1.  Had a great on campus interview.  Two days of conversation.  Great faculty who seemed excited about my work &c.  Lots of compliments &c.  When it came time for meals (dinner the night I got there and dinner the night of the interview) over half of the search committee begged off because they were "too busy" with advising, papers, etc.  This included at least one person I never got a chance to meet (who would soon be voting on the hiring).  I didn't get the job.

2.  Had a great hotel room interview at MLA.  Both members of the committee were thrilled with my work.  At this meeting a definite offer of an on campus interview was made (we all had our appointment books out); while I thought this was strange, since I know the program has just received a bunch of external funding, I figured they knew what they were doing.  Upon returning to campus I received an email telling me that "due to budget and personnel needs" that they couldn't bring me to campus after all.  Had I rearranged my schedule for this, I would be pissed; as it is, I am simply depressed.

Any thoughts?

[eugenides]

1.  Had a great on campus interview.  Two days of conversation.  Great faculty who seemed excited about my work &c.  Lots of compliments &c.  When it came time for meals (dinner the night I got there and dinner the night of the interview) over half of the search committee begged off because they were "too busy" with advising, papers, etc.  This included at least one person I never got a chance to meet (who would soon be voting on the hiring).  I didn't get the job.

For (1), which is unfortunate indeed, I have seen similar scenarios at one R1.
At one search, there were 3 candidates coming to campus.
#1 is least experienced; #2 is in the middle; #3 is the most experienced and the most published.
(But you know #3 is not necessarily the best scholar eventually)

When #1 gave her job talk, only 1/3 of the faculty members (of the dept which did the search) showed up.
When #2 gave hers, 2/3 faculty members came.
When #3 gave hers, 3/3 faculty came.

Of course, #3 got most votes, and #1 got the least.
Obviously, many faculty members even did not go to #1's talk
but they voted against her.

I am afraid such cases are found everywhere.
Certainly, it is unprofessional for the faculty members
to miss the job talk, any job talk.
But what can we do to the absent faculty members?

[eugenides]

2.  Had a great hotel room interview at MLA.  Both members of the committee were thrilled with my work.  At this meeting a definite offer of an on campus interview was made (we all had our appointment books out); while I thought this was strange, since I know the program has just received a bunch of external funding, I figured they knew what they were doing.  Upon returning to campus I received an email telling me that "due to budget and personnel needs" that they couldn't bring me to campus after all.  Had I rearranged my schedule for this, I would be pissed; as it is, I am simply depressed.

Any thoughts?

(2)
The SC's decisions at MLA can be vetoed by their dept and/or the dean.

[notaprof]

On #2, I would suggest printing out the email and then putting it through what ever torturous procedures you can imagine - wad it up violently, rip it up, stomp on it, slash it with a knife, cut it into tiny slivers, or shred it if you have a shredder, burn it and then stomp again on the ashes and let the wind scatter the ashes to the ends of the world, or at least to the ends of the neighborhood.  You'll feel better.

On #1, you were closer to a real job on this one.  A more wistful ceremony is probably called for.  Print out the home web page of the institution.  Put up a shrine to the web page print-out with candles and flowers and food offerings (you can eat the food if you like).  Leave this up for a few days and then very respectfully bury the page in a lovely place in your garden and mark the spot with an interesting rock and when appropriate, plant your favorite flower on the spot.  

Hope this helps.  

[harsh_critic]

1. Rude. Indicative of a non-collegial atmosphere within the department and which would indicate that you would not want to work there even if you were offered the job.

2. Sad. The committee apparently overstepped their authority here. Again indicates a certain level of non-professionalism within the department and points to why you wouldn't want to work there either.

Thus you can rationalize your way into believing "I wouldn't have accepted the position anyway even if they had offered it" and emotionally move on.

[mrhistory]

Wish those were unusual but consider that if you go on more campus interviews you can expect to be voted up by people who "only value teaching" and so only go to the teaching demo and vice versa with the research talk. Some you will never meet at all as they find what they want in reviewing the application file or "trust Joe's impression, he and I always agree."  And, there are the stranger cases like one colleague who votes by such things as doctoral degree school ranking, who the advisor is or other things like that---it tells him all he needs to know he claims.   But, faculties seldome *actually* do the hiring. They vote on who they would like the admin to hire.  There has been more than one case of unanimous faculty support for a qualified candidate who the Dean (or whomever) didn't approve. I know of one woman who *did* get her job that way because the Dean thought if you had a Harvard grad in the pile, you hired the Harvard grad.  The faculty had voted her unsuitable.  My, that was a *wonderful* first year experience for her and she left. 

The fact is that your committees either overstepped #2 or, I hate to say it, in the case of example #1 your interview might not have been so great from *their* perspective if people were bailing on the social event.  And, you could argue "rude" but "illegal?"  I'm not sure where that comes from.  Scheduling and interview and then cancelling it is a common fate in job searches of any sort anywhere.  Having half-attentive people interviewing you and even making the final decisions is a feature not only of academia but I'd argue from experience even more common in private businesses...

[yellowtractor]

Agreed with everything already said here.  But, like mrhistory, I am curious:  what about either scenario strikes you as potentially "illegal"?

Unfortunate, yes; rude, yes.  That's all.

I had a campus interview once where the SCC set up a round-robin schedule for me to go by the offices of various faculty.  Some of them weren't there at the time(s) I was supposed to call.  Some were there, but expressed an implicit ("too busy") or even explicit lack of desire to talk with me:  they had, as mrhistory suggests, already made up their minds, and I was not their candidate.  Rude, yes.  And seemingly indicative of the overall tenor of that department.  I'm glad I didn't get the job.  At the time, though, I was simply, and rather thoroughly, demoralized.

[mrhistory]

Agreed with everything already said here.  But, like mrhistory, I am curious:  what about either scenario strikes you as potentially "illegal"?

Unfortunate, yes; rude, yes.  That's all.

I had a campus interview once where the SCC set up a round-robin schedule for me to go by the offices of various faculty.  Some of them weren't there at the time(s) I was supposed to call.  Some were there, but expressed an implicit ("too busy") or even explicit lack of desire to talk with me:  they had, as mrhistory suggests, already made up their minds, and I was not their candidate.  Rude, yes.  And seemingly indicative of the overall tenor of that department.  I'm glad I didn't get the job.  At the time, though, I was simply, and rather thoroughly, demoralized.

I think you misread, I asked  the poster:
"And, you could argue "rude" but "illegal?"  I'm not sure where that comes from."

I think I also visited the same department you did...that was a loooong afternoon.

[prytania3]

In Connecticut, rude is illegal. Really.

[rattusdomesticus]

It is tempting to want to get back at a SC or campus because they renig on a verbal promise. I had a department chair repeatedly promise me a f/t t/t job. He even assured me that the interview with the V.P. of A.A. was "a formality." In the end, she hired her protege instead... and the department chair stammered something along the lines that he was going to "keep working on it." I'm not sure what "it" he was referring to; I didn't get the job -- even after two campus visits (on my own dime) and a lot of emotional baggage (hoping, wishing, planning and disappointment) over the course of months! I'll never apply there again.

Truth? I have no desire to sue anyone. Or even punish anyone. My belief is that people make their own lives and create their own karma. I don't have to play God; this is already being taken care of. And I am being taken care of. God (or the universe, or Allah, or Buddha) has a place for me where this sort of punching bag activity won't happen -- so I don't have to stay angry and wish bad things on those who have done a bad job. Anyway, as Fitzgerald said, "...living well is the best revenge." So my landing a good t/t job in a wonderful city, making some fabulous friends, publishing in peer-reviewed journals and seeing these administrators at conferences is the payback.

And I really like that idea! It keeps me afloat during difficult times interviewing again and again while trying to maintain my quality of teaching.

[yellowtractor]

I think you misread, I asked  the poster:
"And, you could argue "rude" but "illegal?"  I'm not sure where that comes from."

I think I also visited the same department you did...that was a loooong afternoon.

I was repeating your question, not challenging it--asking just what the OP was thought was illicit in either of these unfortunate scenarios.

I'm always intrigued about what people think is "illegal."  It's common to talk about certain interview questions as being "illegal," but as we discussed in other threads, they're really only actionable.  If you're not going to sue, the point is moot.  There's no other enforcement mechanism, beyond the candidate's willingness to pursue redress.

Yes, it was a long, long day.  There was a moment, going door to door, where I felt like I was an AmWay salesperson (saleshu?).  If you'd been there, we could at least have had coffee.

[mrhistory]

I think you misread, I asked  the poster:
"And, you could argue "rude" but "illegal?"  I'm not sure where that comes from."

I think I also visited the same department you did...that was a loooong afternoon.

I was repeating your question, not challenging it--asking just what the OP was thought was illicit in either of these unfortunate scenarios.

I'm always intrigued about what people think is "illegal."  It's common to talk about certain interview questions as being "illegal," but as we discussed in other threads, they're really only actionable.  If you're not going to sue, the point is moot.  There's no other enforcement mechanism, beyond the candidate's willingness to pursue redress.

Yes, it was a long, long day.  There was a moment, going door to door, where I felt like I was an AmWay salesperson (saleshu?).  If you'd been there, we could at least have had coffee.

Whoa, I definitely misread *yours!*  What an idiot.  That's it, I don't *deserve* a job! 

[drsyn]

Illegal, get real!  Rude - barely. 

It is not a good sign if people start begging off for dinner.

Keep trying.

[infopri]

#1.  Happens all the time.  Don't forget that, especially during a search (or worse, when multiple searches are occurring simultaneously in the same dept), faculty members get "recruited" for these meals and often do not see them as fun.  To (some of) them, it's just another job-related task they have to do before they can get back to their "real" work (lunch) or go home (dinner).  And, in some depts, "social" events are anathema.  At one place I worked, the faculty wanted the "Christmas party" to consist of bringing in sandwiches (instead of having lunch at a restaurant) specifically so they could each grab some food and retreat back into their respective offices and close their doors; they hated to socialize.  As for the vote on which candidate to hire, the folks who don't show up for the job talk and/or a meal probably feel (correctly or not) that they already have enough information, either from your application packet and/or from their colleagues.  It sucks, but there's nothing you can do about it.  (Also, don't forget that some people legitimately can't attend because of a time conflict; they may be teaching or out of town or in a committee meeting or...)

#2.  As other posters have pointed out, the SC may have been overruled by a higher power.  Don't take it personally.

[bigsky]

At least for scenario #1 I find it neither rude nor illegal. People have other obligations that may not mesh with your interviewing schedule. They may have exams to write, papers to grade, a childs basketball game to attend, etc. I am in a department of well over 20 people and we tend to rotate dinners. If you happen to be in my area I might want to spend more time with you due to our common interests. When we have a year where we are filling 5 positions (last year) it gets pretty tiring. So, do not take offense and interview as best you can with those that are there. Can't help with #2 as we don't have an MLA for initial interviews, it does sound rude though.