next »

[canadia]

My partner is a finalist for a position at a prestigious, research-orientated SLAC. We are in the same field, different subfields, though. The department in question is growing, and their next hire will be an emerging sub-field in which I (fortunately) have begun to direct my research. (We're not sure if the position will be opened this coming fall or next; more than likely next fall b/c they have another hire to make after that plus a replacement for a retiring prof.)

Thus far I have 2 stellar conference presentations that were well received in this sub-field, and as soon as I defend my dissertation, I will turn them into articles.

I've already got several course syllabi designed and more importantly, a book project that my advisers are excited about (more than they were/are about my dissertation).

More than likely, at the very least we should be able to swing me a VAP for a couple of years or a lectureship. But my question is what are the chances of getting that job when/if it were to become available?

They LOVE my partner, who is very cutting edge in a sub-field known for a lack of cutting edge scholars, so they would be especially averse to losing my partner (if hu's so fortunate).

Also, my "emerging subfield" is quite problematic in practical terms b/c it crosses sub-fields and hence truly limits the candidate field b/c it is difficult to find somebody that doesn't step on two, three or four sets of toes.

My research and teaching interests don't step on anybody's toes in that department!

I know that some state schools and certain SLACs like to hire "inside candidates", but I'm completely unfamiliar w/ SLACs and especially elite SLACs.

[tenured_feminist]

In the abstract, vague promises of future TT openings in the candidate's partner's subfield are worth just a tiny bit more than the air they consume as they are articulated. People will shade the facts to recruit candidates, financial pictures change, chairs rotate, deans find other priorities.

Your prospects depend heavily on your field. If you are in an MLA field or history, it's going to be uphill for you with just two conference presentations, even if you send some articles out for review. It generally takes a while for articles in those fields to be accepted for publication, and that's what will count. Things are a little better if you're in the social sciences, but still tough. Even if a job opens up in your subfield, you will likely have to compete for it in a full scale national search, and be able to demonstrate convincingly that you belong in the top tier of candidates, even if the uni is generous enough not to require you to be clearly superior to everyone else in the pool to quell fears of nepotism.

Your best bet is to do some investigation of the university. What's their record on partner hires? Do they have a specific program or is it all ad hoc? Have other people seen these sorts of arrangements work out? How many people in your partner's prospective department have academic partners/spouses elsewhere?

But bottom line: do not rely on anything that people are not willing to put into writing.

[canadia]

In the abstract, vague promises of future TT openings in the candidate's partner's subfield are worth just a tiny bit more than the air they consume as they are articulated. People will shade the facts to recruit candidates, financial pictures change, chairs rotate, deans find other priorities.

They mentioned the "directions in which the dept. is going" at a (very lengthy) conference interview, and my partner didn't mention me for fears of having them turn on hu. The entire dept. is behind the next job listing, so it's a pretty safe bet that they'll get that line given their growing enrollment, their certified need for more faculty and the dept. unified voice regarding the subfield.

So the question will boil down to the other issues you've pointed out.

[tenured_feminist]

Wait -- this is a new line they are talking about? Not one opening up due to an anticipated retirement?

Hooooo, boy. I love the smell of b^llsh!t in the morning. Smells like . . . successful recruitment.

[canadia]

Wait -- this is a new line they are talking about? Not one opening up due to an anticipated retirement?

Hooooo, boy. I love the smell of b^llsh!t in the morning. Smells like . . . successful recruitment.

They don't know about me, at all. So I doubt it's recruitment.

They mentioned their anticipated lines as part of the general spiel that they gave to every candidate. They gave the same info to a friend of ours who also interviewed w/ them and who is not part of a two-body problem.

We honestly get the impression that that's what they want to do. So the question is, "Do elite, research-oriented SLACs hire inside candidates?" (plus the other stuff you mentioned in post #2...)

[larryc]

You should go into this regarding the chance of future employment at this institution as an extreme long shot.

[tenured_feminist]

My point is that "oooh, we have growing enrollments so the dean is adding lines!" is a classic bait-and-switch for candidates.

What LarryC said. Which, by the way, is always good advice.

I'm not meaning to be cranky or score points. The reality is that you are in a tough situation, and all too often universities like to paint pretty pictures for people that don't really meaningfully commit them to anything. Keep your eyes WIDE open.

[dundee]

I had a Dean flat-out lie to me in an interview about new lines, but it took two years for the lie to be revealed. Now I don't trust administrators, at all. I only believe the promises once I see it in writing or have the money in the bank. Be careful of people who tell you what you want to hear.

[lobster]

I have to agree completely with dundee. I've been told for the past two years that there would almost certainly be a TT line for my SO so we've stayed at my R1, highly optimistic about our future here. Now the dean is saying there's nothing and wondering what could have ever given us the idea that there would be a line...

Don't be naive. They want your partner now so they'll say anything to get them (tenured_feminist, I love how you phrased this). If it's not on paper, it's worth NOTHING. NAAAAAAAAHTHING!

[canadia]

Our discipline is growing. I can't count the number of colleagues and friends who have been told about anticipated growth while at an MLA interview and then the next year there they are on hiring committees for these same "promised" lines.

And again, they don't know about me. At all. So they're not blowing smoke up anybody's ass.

If my partner ends up taking this job, I'll just publish my butt off in the emerging sub-field. Fortunately, one of my friends was on a hiring committee for a prestigious R1 in which they received less than a dozen applications from qualified applicants. They anticipated this and made the search for either Emerging Sub-field OR Traditional Sub-field (w/ not that many candidates).

Even still, I know that the odds are stacked heavily against me/us and will proceed accordingly.

[secretweapon]

Well, you seem to already have all the answers.  I hope it works out for you!

[canadia]

Well, you seem to already have all the answers.  I hope it works out for you!

It's not that I have "all the answers". It's just that I happen to know that they're not blowing smoke about future TT lines.

I've found the suggestions here to be quite helpful. I guess I'm just digging to see if prestigious SLACs are a bit more amenable than R1s w/o partner accommodation programs in place) when it comes to spousal hires.

To clarify for tenured_feminist, the current line and the future lines are not and will not be "new lines". They are replacement lines (retirees, profs leaving, etc.). In comparing different syllabi, it is quite clear that the current faculty are pointing their courses towards the sub-field in question, as much as is possible. Comparing syllabi from 4+ years ago to today, this is evident. And it jives w/ what they said on the campus interview, that they've been trying to cover that gap themselves, but they really want a prof who dedicates his/her research and teaching agenda to the sub-field.

[fiona]

I don't think the OP gets the point, which is that hiring lines don't exist until the job ad goes up, and even then they can sometimes be cancelled--if, for instance, there's a sudden hiring freeze, which happens.

The OP really doesn't want to hear that. Which is understandable.

The Fiona

[canadia]

I don't think the OP gets the point, which is that hiring lines don't exist until the job ad goes up, and even then they can sometimes be cancelled--if, for instance, there's a sudden hiring freeze, which happens.

The OP really doesn't want to hear that. Which is understandable.

The Fiona

No. I absolutely get that.


I know that at most R1 institutions, a spouse "waiting to get hired" will never get hired. I'm asking if the dynamic is slightly different at prestigious SLACs.

[alwayswondering]

Here's my understanding of this - this is based on information that my friends and colleagues from graduate school and from my academic networks, etc. (they seem to be obsessed with this for obvious reasons).
The sad reality is it is VERY VERY rare that a school, R1, R2, SLAC, whatever, will make a spousal hire to a person who is already in a temporary (but renewable) line. Usually, when a spousal hire is made for a junior faculty, it is usually as a VAP or other non-tenure track line. In this situation, the spouse who came along as a non-tt person is almost ALWAYS at a disadvantage for the t-t job that opens up. First, why would they give you a t-t job when they know you will still be there teaching more classes for less pay? In addition, at most places, hiring the "inside" candidate is actually more difficult as the department has to justify to the dean, provost, president, etc. that they really did do a "national" search and "just by chance" the most qualified person was the person who was there after all.
The only time I've heard a spousal hire into a t-t line being made is when the job is offered - and usually only if the other person is either a superstar or such a rising star that there are multiple offers that the person is fielding, including offers that include a spousal hire OR the school has a very clearly outlined spousal hiring policy (and only a very few schools have this).
The question you are asking is, at this prestigious SLAC will you have an advantage should a t-t job in your field open up? The short answer is NO. In fact, it is more likely that you will be at a disadvantage. While there are many schools that prefer to hire the internal candidate, these tend to be schools that have a harder time recruiting (for whatever reason: heavier teaching loads, lower salaries, etc.). Schools that fancy themselves as somehow being "better" make it harder for internal candidates under the assumption that if that person was so great, he/she would have had a job.
But don't they understand that the only reason you don't have a "real" job is because you followed your SO? NO - they see that as a lack of commitment to your own scholarship. Sad, I know, but...
I know this is hard to hear because it seems that you are hoping someone tells you that you will have an advantage if you go there as a VAP, work your tail off publishing, and "fit" the job description. In the real world, this is how it would work. An internal person that has been committed to the work, did very well, and fit the description would be hired over any external candidate. But it is the opposite in academia where the unknown and "potential" is preferred over the "known" and the proven.