next »

[kurejara]

I feel like it encourages an instinct to welcome traditional nuclear families in the name of "fit" rather than hiring based on professional qualifications.

But I seem to be the only person I know who gets antsy about this.

I agree that candidates with families (especially men) cash in on hetero privilege when they mention their "traditional" family structure. 

However, I could have stayed a grad student for another year if the market didn't work out.  The faculty in my R1 program only bring their kids to campus on the weekends (when it's okay to dress 'casual').  I didn't want that atmosphere for my career, so I made a point to figure out where folks stand ahead of time.  But your "antsy-ness" is valid.  Male candidates with families definitely get bonus points.

[monkeydoc]

OP here. Just to clarify, my question wasn't about demonstrating that my family structure was normative by local/institutional standards and that I was therefore a better "fit" than a single/lesbian/reticent/etc. candidate, but rather that the specific line of work my spouse is in has a direct impact on me and the way I frame my work in a way that is directly relevant to the primary mission of the place I want to work. I think the discussion that's going on here is valid as it relates to gender politics, and I also take the point that "going on and on" about one's spouse is creepy which is why I noted that I had *no* intention of doing so.

Carry on...

[the_honey_badger]

I'm actually a little uncomfortable when a candidate repeatedly mentions spouse /baby.  SCs may try to follow the lead of the candidate in these matters, chatting about such things at length when the candidate seems to enjoy it.  However, it always makes me feel as if we're not having the same kind of interview with the single or just more reticent candidates.  Bonding over family issues in an interview seems to me not the violation that intentionally avoiding hiring, say, mothers with children would be, but I feel like it encourages an instinct to welcome traditional nuclear families in the name of "fit" rather than hiring based on professional qualifications.

But I seem to be the only person I know who gets antsy about this.

Exactly why I won't talk about family and don't encourage candidates to do so. I know the local dynamic and it values the young-nuclear-family. Period. Its the comfortable default for all their talk. I fit the model but they didn't know for sure and I won't help perpetuate it now that I'm on the other side of it.

[limbo_postdoc]

I don't know whether this is ok, but as a candidate, I've tried to follow the SC's lead. If they all mention their spouses/partners in conversation, then I've concluded that it's probably ok for me to casually mention my spouse at some point (or ok if I slip up accidentally and refer to hu without meaning to). I've tried to keep these slip-ups/comments to a minimal number, and in reference to specific issues (e.g., "Spouse is in [x line of work] and can easily move to a new location without having to change jobs").

Of course, I've also been "outed as married" by a realtor and secretary on at least one interview this year. So annoying!

[pink_]

I'm actually a little uncomfortable when a candidate repeatedly mentions spouse /baby.  SCs may try to follow the lead of the candidate in these matters, chatting about such things at length when the candidate seems to enjoy it.  However, it always makes me feel as if we're not having the same kind of interview with the single or just more reticent candidates.  Bonding over family issues in an interview seems to me not the violation that intentionally avoiding hiring, say, mothers with children would be, but I feel like it encourages an instinct to welcome traditional nuclear families in the name of "fit" rather than hiring based on professional qualifications.

But I seem to be the only person I know who gets antsy about this.

Nope.
It makes me uncomfortable too.
I guess I can't really give good advice to the OP, because I can't imagine a way in which that would work in my discipline.

[bacardiandlime]

Of course, I've also been "outed as married" by a realtor and secretary on at least one interview this year. So annoying!

This is a tangent, but what is WITH that? I mean, I think the Realtor trip (on a campus interview) is a bit of a waste of time anyway, since you don't know if you'll get the job at that stage.

But I have been curious about whether the realtor would report back in some way whether you were looking for a studio apartment or a house with room for your 19 children.

[dundee]

My spies inform me that the realtor is often a spouse or relative of a dept. member. Moreover, they often take candidates to view houses way out of their price range. I have declined real estate "tours" when offered, telling them that I'd rent for the first year anyway.

[the_honey_badger]

My spies inform me that the realtor is often a spouse or relative of a dept. member. Moreover, they often take candidates to view houses way out of their price range. I have declined real estate "tours" when offered, telling them that I'd rent for the first year anyway.

On my current tt job interview the happy-friendly-REaltor was too nosy for my tastes (hey, I'm native New Englander with all the suspicion of my Maine forbears...).  I told her I could not say a price range as they didn't give me a salary range, I dodged the question about how big a house asking to see "a range at different prices but to assume the low end of decent single family dwellings."  It was clear she was digging and once I arrived, I was told how "hilarious" it was that the Realtor wasn't able to "get any useful information" out of me.  Frankly, I found that attitude off-putting.  But, that chair used the realtors, spouses (mainly older wives), and staff to ask "questions the faculty can't."   It was like a pathetic game to appear to conform to HR rules but get that all important personal information.  One now retired man's wife said to me: "Now sit here and tell me about your family---my husband can't ask but I can!"  How exactly do you get out of that?  I was lucky that someone standing nearby gave a loud: "Now Cathy, you can't do that either!" 
 I'll freely give credit to his successor for outlawing those practices as *not germane* to the position.

On the other hand, some of our junior faculty will just *badger* a candidate to death and take any avoidance of the topic as being "not family friendly!"  Fortunately, most of the faculty (including many of us juniors) find their obsession with building a colony of like-types sort of tiring and ignore them. 

Beware the Realtor.

[limbo_postdoc]

Beware the Realtor.

I wish I'd known this before I agreed to the tour! Needless to say, if I get the job, I will certainly give my business to a different realtor.

In my case, it wouldn't have been that big of a deal except that the administrative assistant kept badgering me about my marital status before and during the interview (e.g., asking me how many people would stay in the hotel room, asking me in front of 20+ people why I'd kept my 'maiden' name,  and what my spouse's surname is).

But seriously... without going overboard, is it okay to (minimally) disclose once the SC members have mentioned their own family situations?  (Or should I just give up hope on this job right now?)

[pink_]

I wouldn't give up hope.
It's not like there was anything that you could do in that situation.
In a lot of places, it would matter anyway.  It wouldn't, for example, at my SLAC.  And at the R1 where I went to school no one cared about your personal life as long as you published and weren't racking up felony convictions.

[monkeydoc]

...no one cared about your personal life as long as you...weren't racking up felony convictions.

One more place to cross off my list...

[mended_drum]

Of course you can reveal your marital status if you want to.  It shouldn't matter to the sc.  That said, if you feel "badgered" by anyone--realtor, staff, faculty member, administrator--then once the job is filled, you should contact the HR or send a letter to the dean, politely saying how much you enjoyed meeting everyone, but that you were made uncomfortable about X, Y and Z, and that you thought that the administration should know to avoid problems with future job searches.

Honestly, some places don't hire often, or, if they know there's a problem, have no grounds to try to change it without a written complaint.  Someone is at the institution, just waiting for a candidate to complain so that they can have evidence to use to change procedures.

[bacardiandlime]

that chair used the realtors, spouses (mainly older wives), and staff to ask "questions the faculty can't."   It was like a pathetic game to appear to conform to HR rules but get that all important personal information.  One now retired man's wife said to me: "Now sit here and tell me about your family---my husband can't ask but I can!"

Holy cr*p.

Thanks for the advice Grinnellns. I think as with many aspects of an institution's operations, it isn't until someone calls shenanigans that the higher-ups even know what's going on.

[helpful]

Speaking from the SC perspective, of course it matters to the Search committee whether marital status will affect whether you accept the position. If your spouse is gung-ho to move to our area, then by all means mention it. Why would we waste time offering a position to someone who isn't even sure they are going to come?

[kyotokyoto]

Actually I have been asked by SCCs during 2 campus visits (at very different schools) if I am a gay person. I was very surprised and thought I misunderstood the SCCs. But I did not misunderstand them; they were asking if I am a gay person in a very subtle, cautious, and discreet way.

I did not give any precise answer on both occasions. Both SCCs did not persist for long; they simply said that they were open-minded and happy to have faculty members of all kinds.

I thanked them for their open-mindedness but I still did not mention anything about my marital or sexual status at all.

I know the 2 SCCs have good intentions. But just imagine if the (openly) married straight people would , ever, ever, be asked this way-- cautiously, politely, discreetly.