next »

[helpful]

I was surprised to read this article and see that the author is the chair of an English department. It is badly written and so full of generalizations without any backup information that it lacks credibility. (For example, saying that unmarried couples have a higher possibility of breakup than married couples??)
Somehow, I expect better writing from someone in an English department!
What say others?

[case_insensitive]

I was surprised to read this article and see that the author is the chair of an English department. It is badly written and so full of generalizations without any backup information that it lacks credibility. (For example, saying that unmarried couples have a higher possibility of breakup than married couples??)
Somehow, I expect better writing from someone in an English department!
What say others?

Do English PhDs have to learn about research methods in the way most of us do in our PhD programs in other fields?

[menotti]

I found the article annoying on a number of levels - he seemed to be going out of his way to imagine every catastrophic possibility that hiring a couple might bring around - but do you really think that unmarried unions are more stable than married ones?



This is for families with children -
The relative stability of cohabiting and marital unions for children, Population Research and Policy Review
135-159;    Volume 23, Number 2 / April, 2004

[tenured_feminist]

Yeah, what a nudnik -- "people should be required to disclose their partner status to me when they apply!" AND "I hate hiring couples because they can potentially make so much trouble!" I'm sure if I were on the job market, I'd really pick him for an honest heart-to-heart about my partner-based issues before coming out for a job interview.

[au_fait]

I was surprised to read this article and see that the author is the chair of an English department. It is badly written and so full of generalizations without any backup information that it lacks credibility. (For example, saying that unmarried couples have a higher possibility of breakup than married couples??)
Somehow, I expect better writing from someone in an English department!
What say others?

Do English PhDs have to learn about research methods in the way most of us do in our PhD programs in other fields?

Yes, we must take research methods. I had to take research methods for my MA and in my doctoral program--felt a bit repetitive, but hey, nothing like really *knowing* it! (Of course the fact that I have to use various research methods based on the kind of work I'm doing and have to explain that in reports and articles I'm sure doesn't count as understanding research methods...)

[lorenz]

Was anybody else as appalled as I was by today's First Person article "Too many couples"? The author argues against hiring academic couples into a single department for the following reasons (and I quote):

1. "The primary problem with a single department hiring both members of an academic couple is that the department can't know in advance how the two will function as a pair."

2. "Even if the partners are hired by two different programs (our department has many programs) so their vote in any one program would be limited, those two programs' meetings could no longer be considered confidential once a couple was on board."

3. "Members of academic couples also might not be full supporters of the needs of their own programs. Rather, they might be more inclined to urge compromise on controversial issues that affect their own and their partner's programs."

These three concerns apply equally to faculty not hired as part of a couple. Any new faculty might not function well with other members of the department. Any faculty member might inappropriately share confidential information. Any faculty member might be subject to all kinds of pressures potentially causing them to compromise on issues affecting the program. I am absolutely baffled as to why couples are being singled out here.

Incidentally, I have anecdotally observed that many academic couples are hyperconscious about not letting their status as a couple interfere with work issues.

Even if you don't buy that argument, though, what is the evidence for thinking any of the aforementioned problems are worse when a couple is involved than when one is not? If some evidence were presented, I would have been more convienced. Furthermore, why the negative framing of the issue? Why no mention of potential benefits of hiring a couple?

I will conjecture (wildly, without evidence) that the author of the article as simply had a bad experience with a couple in his department at some point in his career. I find his thinking to be illogical. The article is misguided at best. At worst, it is unacceptably unscientific, misleading, and unnecessarily discouraging to academic couples.

-Lorenz

[case_insensitive]

Was anybody else as appalled as I was by today's First Person article "Too many couples"? The author argues against hiring academic couples into a single department for the following reasons (and I quote):

1. "The primary problem with a single department hiring both members of an academic couple is that the department can't know in advance how the two will function as a pair."

Using this logic no department should ever hire any two new folks of any kind since we don't know a priori how they will function among/between dept members and themselves...

2. "Even if the partners are hired by two different programs (our department has many programs) so their vote in any one program would be limited, those two programs' meetings could no longer be considered confidential once a couple was on board."

Got a lot of state secrets in that dept, don't they... Not much of anything in academic stays truly confidential when it comes to dept politics, in my experience.

3. "Members of academic couples also might not be full supporters of the needs of their own programs. Rather, they might be more inclined to urge compromise on controversial issues that affect their own and their partner's programs."

This is true of any folks in any dept. Say my best friend is in field B and I'm in field A. Well, i'll probably be more amenable to decisions that help field B, won't i?  DUH.  Just because they are married doesn't make them unique in this way.

These three concerns apply equally to faculty not hired as part of a couple. Any new faculty might not function well with other members of the department. Any faculty member might inappropriately share confidential information. Any faculty member might be subject to all kinds of pressures potentially causing them to compromise on issues affecting the program. I am absolutely baffled as to why couples are being singled out here.

Incidentally, I have anecdotally observed that many academic couples are hyperconscious about not letting their status as a couple interfere with work issues.

Even if you don't buy that argument, though, what is the evidence for thinking any of the aforementioned problems are worse when a couple is involved than when one is not? If some evidence were presented, I would have been more convienced. Furthermore, why the negative framing of the issue? Why no mention of potential benefits of hiring a couple?

I will conjecture (wildly, without evidence) that the author of the article as simply had a bad experience with a couple in his department at some point in his career. I find his thinking to be illogical. The article is misguided at best. At worst, it is unacceptably unscientific, misleading, and unnecessarily discouraging to academic couples.

-Lorenz

Yes, yes, and yes.

The author of this article needs to propose problems that are unique to having married couples not just to having humans in the department, regardless of marital status or who is sleeping with whom.  What a crock.

[tintern]

For what it's worth, my graduate program had a married couple on the faculty, and it caused a lot of headaches for myself and other grad students.  Informal  conversations with faculty members suggest that they sometimes felt they were dealing with a two-headed monster when dealing with this married couple.  For many, it added an undesirable element to departmental politics.

Granted, this is just one example, and I'm sure there are numerous counter-examples (some good friends of mine are doing the two-body thing, so I definitely sympathize).  That said, I am happy to see that there are no married couples on the faculty at my department.

[hkjl5768]

1.  Why should the applicant tell you whether they are married?  If you don't want to offer spousal hires, don't, and say as much in the job posting and preliminary (conference, phone) interviews.

2.  At least in my state, not only can you not ASK a candidate's marital status, should they reveal that information, it MAY NOT be considered when deciding whether to offer them the position.

The rest of the BS about collegiality and so forth isn't worth commenting on.

[katherineparr]

I also objected to the assertion - supposedly proved by "statistics" but no evidence provided - that unmarried couples are more likely to break up than married ones. This strikes me as rank Horse Hockey, and also thoroughly illogical. My observation, across four institutions, has been exclusively of the end of academic marriages. When they end, they end ugly, and everybody pays.

[reluctant]

I think hiring too many couples is an issue, but not for the ones stated in the article.  It's outrageous and ridiculous to suggest that a couple might always vote the same way.  THe same argument was used against women's suffrage.  I think the real issue is: given the extreme competition of the academic job market, doesn't hiring couples prevent departments from hiring the BEST candidates (even if one of the two IS a first choice, the spouse likely is not)?  Also, don't spousal hires take up valuable tenure lines that might go to better use depending on the needs of the department? Any random person is not going to have specialty needed by the department at that particular time. 

[pyrope]

I certainly would never want to put my marital status in a cover letter to this department if I would then be discriminated against based on the ridiculous attributes the author assigns to all married couples - that my pillow talk will spread confidential department secrets and that I will always hold the same opinion as my spouse on every issue.
Perhaps we should use similar criteria for evaluating other applicants - should we assume that all single women will be slutty and all single men will hit on the undergraduates?  How will that affect their departmental rapport? 
Stereotyping couples in no advances any discussion of this issue.

[kishter]

Yeah, what a nudnik -- "people should be required to disclose their partner status to me when they apply!" AND "I hate hiring couples because they can potentially make so much trouble!" I'm sure if I were on the job market, I'd really pick him for an honest heart-to-heart about my partner-based issues before coming out for a job interview.

Yes, he's wacko if he thinks couples will disclose their status before getting an offer, especially in fields like English.  This guy has basically admitted that doing so would seriously hurt such candidates' chances.  An offer should be an offer, period.  The couple can then decide whether to accept it or not. 

He sounds just like the chair of one of the departments I interviewed with.   

[cat_on_track]

Ditto to all the outrage already expressed plus to

"Should there be policies for unmarried partners similar to those for married couples? Does a department owe a candidate's boyfriend or girlfriend a tenure-track job? A visiting or adjunct position can be provided if it will make the move easier and the department badly wants the candidate."

In the US, same-sex couples are not allowed to get married; so, a candidate's partner should not be treated like a spouse, but, by law, is not allowed to become a spouse ... I find it quite fascinating that opposite-sex un-married couples have actually profited from the political work done by same-sex un-married couples (e.g., domestic partner insurance policies) - maybe it will work in this case, too?

[pyrope]

I think the real issue is: given the extreme competition of the academic job market, doesn't hiring couples prevent departments from hiring the BEST candidates (even if one of the two IS a first choice, the spouse likely is not)?  Also, don't spousal hires take up valuable tenure lines that might go to better use depending on the needs of the department? Any random person is not going to have specialty needed by the department at that particular time. 

If the spouse is truly inferior, then the department should be upfront with both partners about long-term potential for employment.  No one wants to be set up to fail.  However, I think that the assumption that a trailing spouse is inferior is one that is made all too readily.  I see it written all the time, and yet, when I truly think about friends and colleagues who are part of a dual-career couple, I can't think of any where one individual is markedly inferior (in a research/teaching sense) to the other and still pushing for a tenure track position.
I think a more realistic and accurate assumption is that both partners are good and would potentially be solid contributors to the department.  Then the pros and cons can be assessed more readily - hiring an individual who doesn't fit your specific needs at that time vs. the added benefits from spouses of stability (both will be staying a long time), productivity (both are in the same place and probably happier that way), and talents that might fill a niche you didn't realize was missing from the department.