next »

[huyoucallinghu]

It seems like there is a growing trend for schools to short-circuit the job-conference system and accelerate their hiring processes. For example, in History, more schools are conducting phone interviews, and then campus visits, and then making job offers, all by mid-December. This is well before the AHA in early Jan. Seems like a great deal for the lucky candidates, or maybe not. More importantly, is it good or bad for the profession, or for candidates in general?

I realize this may not bear on many of the disciplines here, but wanted to get your collective reactions to this phenomenon. What are some of the benefits to this system, downsides, or general things to watch out for? Good thing, bad thing? Penny for your thoughts.

Thanks,
Hu you calling Hu?

[yellowtractor]

The last SLAC I taught at went to this plan last year, because in doing it the old way (MLA and AHA I am talking about) they kept losing their best candidates to larger schools with more money in metropolitan areas, often leading to failed searches.  The idea, of course, is a bird in hand versus two in the bush:  a candidate with a firm job offer in January is much more likely to commit to a school like FormerSLAC, with the future so uncertain, than s/he would be in March, with the possibility of competing offers on the negotiating table.

It's a very good change from FormerSLAC's standpoint, as it cuts down on faculty members having to attend the conferences (expensive) and has a much better track record in terms of securing a candidate.  The downside is (a) SC's have to rely on phone interviews to determine who to bring to campus and (b) SC members have to make a much more significant investment of time during the fall term, as opposed to over the winter break.

From a candidate's point of view, it's obviously more problematic, in that the school in question is demanding a contractual commitment from you before you know what all your options might be.

[historian]

My place tried it and then reverted to the AHA model:  two in a row committed in writing and then backed out with better offers in February leading to failed searches and lost lines.

I'm not going to be harsh about the candidates here, the institutions play it to their benefit, this is a right-to-work state with NO contracts issued, and we clearly went after the *stars* foolishly thinking that a man who only talked about research (we have a book requirement AND a 3/3 load with 3 preps a semester) and who was clearly dismayed by the local "cultural" offerings would spurn an R1 offer in a major city because he accepted by email in December. Right or wrong?  Let's just talk about logical. The man in question clearly just wanted *a job* and took it because its a buyers' market even when you are *a star* and when something better came, he took it. If the school had a crisis, don't fool yourself into thinking they would not have cut him loose.

Frankly, the MLA and AHA have a rotten system.  You have one shot a year to compress all job hunting and its winner take all.  Its the stressful holiday season and we add this mess on top of it psychologically and financially. And, its a lousy season for travel. One interview in 2002 left me 3 days in an airport sleeping on the floor due to storms.  My VAP institution was not thrilled === not with the original 3 day planned trip, certainly not with the resulting 6 day absence. I cancelled a campus visit after that and took my current job because I was afraid to take another two days out in the dead of winter. I needed the VAP job for the additional year if a tt didn't appear.