next »

[daniel_von_flanagan]

Also keep in mind that if you or he are hired and the other receives some adjuncting (full- or part-time) work as part of the package, there's no guarantee that the adjuncting work will continue indefinitely.  My former school often was able to swing a year or two of guaranteed adjunct work for a spouse, but no more than that and no guarantee.  This can make for trouble down the line.

It turns the 2-year point into a kind of pre-tenure review.  If the department is sure they will want to keep you at that point, they will try to do something more for the spouse.  If they are ambivalent, then they will let the spousal position die in hopes that the tt member of the couple will go away on their own.

Incidentally, this is something I consider much worse behavior on the part of a department than not thinking to bring up spousal hire at the phone stage. - DvF

[patio_chair]

(as the handle suggests, I'm a department chair)

These partner hire threads always go on for pages and pages.  Many of the positions have already been staked out, but if the question is an institutional one, it's completely straightforward.  If the institution doesn't want to deal with candidates who want partner hires, they can say so in print (in the ad and on the website) and verbally (when offering the interview).  Alternatively, I know of a case where the dean actually tells candidates about the institution's partner hire policy in the interview without solicitation, so that the candidate knows before he or she has to negotiate anything.  My institution has a pretty standard partner hire policy that provides some funding and some incentive but also requires some buy-in from the department.

As to how to look at it, that depends.  If, like me, you believe that there are many more qualified people in the world than there are academic positions, then a partner hire is an opportunity -- like an affirmative action hire or any other hire that doesn't go through the "normal" search process -- assuming that there's institutional backing (ie, money) and assuming the partner in question is interesting to the hiring department.  I've seen depts hire spouses when they were excited and refuse spouses when they didn't like the spouse's work (or didn't think it was a good fit) even when they really wanted the other person.  To me, this is a system that works.  It's fine if you don't like it, but you can't really blame people for going elsewhere.

As to candidates who refuse offers having to pay for their travel, that's completely classless.  Sure, interviews are expensive, but they are a drop in the bucket of an institution's budget. 

[sibyl]

My question for all of you is as follows: my upcoming interviews are all at major public universities with large departments in my discipline.  Do you think spousal hires are more or less likely to happen at these institutions than at private ones, or SLACs? 

I would think that the best index for a spousal hire is the size of the department in the spouse's discipline.  Any department with 60 or more faculty offering 200 or more courses per semester is more likely to have a few openings, including late ones. 

That's for adjunct positions, by the way.  TT jobs for spouses are harder to predict.  They tend to be governed by institutional policies and there's no way to know whether a given institution has decided it will facilitate spousal hires.

I need help understanding what the possibilities are for spousal hires short of tenure-track positions (which I assume, at this stage in our careers, is untenable to even ask for).

Yellowtractor is right to suggest you include administrative jobs in your considerations.  But otherwise the hierarchy for your spouse is just like the hierarchy for yourself. 

Bear in mind, though, that spousal hires are uncommon.  You can, and should, ask for what you want, but you should not be offended or upset if the answer is no.

The candidates aren't being "gamed" if they are informed of the nonexistence of spousal positions at offer time, they are being informed.  The department isn't trying any sneaky manouvers, in particular isn't holding back this information to gain leverage.  On the other hand, a candidate who intentionally suppresses information they intend to disclose later on is very much gaming the system.

I don't think your department is gaming.  But some departments do:  they use information about spouses to filter out candidates, and candidates who reveal this information at the phone stage may not be invited to campus for this reason.  It's impossible for the candidate to know at this stage whether they are dealing with the gaming or the non-gaming department.

It is impossible for a department to anticipate every dealbreaker; every candidate has a different set of dealbreakers, and a chair will sound like a doofus if he starts playing 30 questions with a candidate.

Quite right.  It only works if you have one or two specific issues that separate your department from desired candidates, and I probably erred in drawing that inference from your statement. 

I understand and sympathize with your frustration.  And you seem to have nowhere else to point it but the candidate.  I just happen to think that there are other places to point it, but we will have to disagree respectfully.

[random]

Here's one way one humanities department has been handling the spousal issue.  They make the offer to the candidate early, much earlier than the usual timeline in the discipline, so to give themselves sufficient time to work out the spousal issue.  This is at one of the UC schools--I don't know if all departments at that campus do it that way or just the one I know of.  This will give hiring departments time without asking the candidate to torpedo their own candidacy.  This method is consonant with the suggestion already made to make the department's policies clear to the candidate (instead of trying to pry information from candidates with illegal questions).

[spectacle]

I'm half of a "two-body problem." We're in entirely different fields and it's my second year on the market, my partner's first and we find a lot of this really confusing - so sorry if this is a dumb question or if it has been previously addressed.

If a job listing specifies that they are "sensitive to the needs of dual-career couples," what does that mean? That it's safer to bring up the spouse sooner rather than later?  That they'll negotiate with other departments or schools?

Also, I'm assuming that it's not an issue in this day and age, but we're not technically "spousal."  We're more "living in sin for years-al."  Would that make a difference to you - would you feel less inclined to help find a trailing position for a non-married couple?

[derosa]

As stated several pages ago, I am of the opinion that you bring this issue up as soon as possible so as to allow the department and school an opportunity to work with the situation.  If an ad specifies, "Sensitive to the needs of dual career couples" then you should broach the subject in your cover letter.  They have already thought about the two-body problem.

It would not matter to me if you were married or not.  I doubt it would come up, unless you brought it up.  I certainly would not ask.

[canadia]

How common is it to ask for and get a VAP for one year while the spouse settles into the area?

[canadia]

Another question:

My partner is a finalist for an institution that has a program for dual-career couples in which an institute on campus splits the cost of the 2nd person for 3 years. From what I can gather, in our case it would be that our department would foot 67% of my bill (to recap, I'm the trailing spouse) while the university covers 33%.

That sounds like a good deal. Should my partner bring this up during her campus visit (coming pretty soon)?

I know that the advice in this thread has been to bring it up as early as possible, but I gotta say that after weeks of sleepless nights, weight gain/weight loss, gray hairs popping up left and right, countless tears... we're scared to death of frightening off great institutions.

[derosa]

If she is a finalist in an institution that has a program for dual career couples, why wouldn't you bring it up as soon as possible?  Let's say that the funding to do this is limited, by waiting you risk this opportunity going to someone else.

[assochumanitiesprof]

I have searched successfully for tt jobs three times, currently have tenure, and have served on a search committee four times. I am actually interviewing right now for assoc. prof positions, and have reached the flyout stage.  I also have a partner in a related field, also tenured.

There has been a lot of absurd advice doled out on these boards, but nothing as ridiculous, in my opinion, as asking finalists to tell chairs about their partners "so the chair has more time to find an accommodation." Do you seriously think a chair is going to start looking for a partner hire for a finalist? In many institutions, getting the partner hired requires the searching dept. to cash in a lot of favors -- to forgo other planned hires, to ask favors of the dean, to get cooperation from another department. What chair is going to make an investment like that for a finalist? 

And what kind of power does the chair have with hu's own colleagues and dean when hu can't say to the dept: "look, our top candidate won't come without this." 

The relationship between a candidate with no offer and a chair is not a negotiation. Asking for anything at that point is just begging.

Finally, many candidates -- especially first timers --  simply do not know what is a "deal breaker" for themselves until they negotiate. My partner and I have been through this twice before, and yet I honestly do not know whether hu's status is a deal breaker for us.
I won't know whether the job itself is as terrific as it seems until after I interview there.

While I like the idea of the chair telling every finalist about their accommodation policy, we all know that these policies exist just to make it legally possible to hire without a national search, that may other factors determine whether a partner is in fact offered a job, and that said "job" could be anything from a couple of adjunct courses, to full time lecturer, to tt.  Many  partners get hired at unis without such policies, and many partners get rejected even when such policies are in place. So I doubt general information will be helpful.

For all of these reasons, I still advise candidates to wait until an offer is made before asking for a job for their partner, unless they have very good reasons to think it will be to their benefit to speak sooner.




 

[daniel_von_flanagan]

There has been a lot of absurd advice doled out on these boards, but nothing as ridiculous, in my opinion, as asking finalists to tell chairs about their partners "so the chair has more time to find an accommodation." Do you seriously think a chair is going to start looking for a partner hire for a finalist?

Yes.  We did this two of our last three searches.

My partner and I have been through this twice before, and yet I honestly do not know whether hu's status is a deal breaker for us.

While I find this hard to imagine, I think that if this is the case then it is probably reasonable to wait to ask.  - DvF

[aandsdean]

I just have to say, you all need to try this from an administrator's position, both in terms of what we might be able to do, and in terms of what people searching for administrative positions deal with.

First and more important things first.  While I would LOVE to accommodate spousal hires, I've been fighting for three years to get three new positions in fields of desperate need.  I've finally got them approved, but it's been about the most exasperating ordeal of my life thus far.  I'd love to be able to pick up the phone to the provost and the VP of business and finance and just get a new line for a spouse of our priority candidate, but it isn't going to happen in my lifetime. 

Most schools are like this.  It absolutely sucks from a candidate's perspective, but there aren't that many schools that are flexible enough (read, really rich) just to do a spousal hire.

I would try.  I have tried, both at my first job when I was chair and now as dean (in my 2d job it miraculously didn't come up in 5 years).  I've failed every time, and I think I'm generally quite persuasive, but money talks and there's not enough of it to go around.

Now, as for searching as an administrator, which is a personal interest of mine.  Right now, my wife is teaching at an excellent SLAC, a much better school than the one where I'm dean.  Catch:  It's 800 miles from here.  No need to enumerate the problems with that.

I interviewed recently for a job near there, but didn't get it.  I'm a finalist for three more, one of which is close to where she is and two of which are farther.  You'd think that I might be able to work something out for her, as these are VPAA/Provost-type positions, and that kind of position gives candidates power that potential assistant profs don't have.

However, almost every place has nepotism rules, which I agree with totally, and I wouldn't want to be my wife's boss under any circumstances even in the absence of these rules (if she were here, she'd be snorting with derision at the very idea).  Some schools are relatively remote, too, and don't have other nearby schools where we might look.  It's difficult.

I'm not seeking sympathy here.  I'm well compensated and apparently shockingly mobile.  The point, though, is that the dilemma of the two-body problem never, ever ceases, no matter at what level you arrive.  The academy just isn't built to accommodate dual-career couples, and a great deal needs to change before it would do it right.   

[helpful]

Has anyone mentioned that the two body problem is only a problem when there is only one institution of higher learning in a particular location or within a 100 mile radius of that location?

I can't imagine the two body problem being a problem in Boston, New York, Seattle, Austin, Atlanta, Chicago etc. etc. I think it is mainly a problem in a college town in the middle of a rural area but even Bloomington (Indiana U) isn't that far from Indianapolis, etc. etc.

[larryc]

Has anyone mentioned that the two body problem is only a problem when there is only one institution of higher learning in a particular location or within a 100 mile radius of that location?

I can't imagine the two body problem being a problem in Boston, New York, Seattle, Austin, Atlanta, Chicago etc. etc. I think it is mainly a problem in a college town in the middle of a rural area but even Bloomington (Indiana U) isn't that far from Indianapolis, etc. etc.

Are you kidding? I have forgotten your discipline Helpful, but in the humanities we count ourselves lucky to get a job at all. If I land a TT job in Boston and my wife is also a historian we will be damned lucky if she finds a TT job within 100 miles, despite the concentration of schools in that area.

[helpful]

Sorry, Larry, I meant that it would be less of an issue. I was just pointing out that sometimes in the case of large cities, the solution is beyond a one school solution and should be expanded to include looking for possibilities at other schools in the area. Of course there is no guarantee of finding something in that city, but at least there is a better chance than being in East Podunk where the closest university is hundreds of miles away.