next »

[zoelouise]

This made no sense to me:

http://chronicle.com/jobs/news/2008/04/2008042201c/careers.html


The article seems to say that if the trailing spouse is talented, a department should be happy to have them in every case and they're stupid if they aren't thrilled. What?

What if you already have 2 specialists in 17th century Tasmanian basket-weaving and you just don't need another? What if you have a young and promising faculty person in the same area who will struggle in the shadow of the new hire? What if you have no office or lab space for an unplanned addition?

The author starts out with an anecdote about a friend who was allegedly turned away from a job because the U didn't want the spouse. Seems like the perogative of the U, if you ask me. But it would make more sense for them to offer it without spousal hire and let her choose, if they wanted her. Could it have been an excuse?

In the interest of full disclosure, I don't really "get" spousal hires; in most businesses such a thing would be considered ridiculous. And I have seen more than one spouse make a career of being a trailing spouse.

Urgh.

[dundee]

I am part of an academic couple and liked the article a lot. I really dislike the term "trailing spouse," especially the implication that one of the two academics is inferior or some kind of freerider. In all the academic couples I know and know of, both people are excellent academics. Stars don't usually marry losers - "birds of a feather stick together," etc., etc.

So, institutions that have a spousal hiring policy or are willling to make accommodations often stand to secure two excellent faculty members from one search. Institutions that can't or won't make a spousal hire will often miss out on their top candidate(s). I turned down an offer this year because they couldn't do anything for my wife.

It's easy for people who are not part of an academic couple to perceive spousal hires as some kind of freebie or queue-jumping, but the reality is that academic couples often have a much tougher time on the job market and have far fewer options.

[castafiore]

Yeah, I liked the article a lot too (as another member of an academic couple). The nice thing about it is that it distinguishes between two kinds of spousal hires, the ones zoelouise is referring to (Bah, we don't need that person) and the ones dundee is referring to (Wow, we could really score a coup, how lucky we are to have the chance to hire this person!). I have found the quest for 2-jobs-1-location pretty tough, so it was nice to see this distinction.

[tenured_feminist]

Well, the power issues are also disturbing to me. I am now in the happy phase of my life where I can say, "If you want to recruit me, you have to come up with something for my partner." And that recently led to a highly positive outcome. But early on, we had no power and no leverage and those unenthusiastic about the particular cow were happy to go on taking the milk for close to free for a long time. Too often, partners have to prove not just that they are good candidates, but that they are unquestionably far superior to any other candidate who did apply or who might have applied.

It just seems radically unfair that I can basically look down my nose now and call the shots while so many excellent junior couples have to struggle to get the partner taken even remotely seriously as an independent and strong scholar in (too often) her own right.

[zoelouise]

Too often, partners have to prove not just that they are good candidates, but that they are unquestionably far superior to any other candidate who did apply or who might have applied.

But often, there was nothing to apply for, so nobody else has a chance. The University wasn't looking for a specialist in widgology, but that was the spouse's specialty, so now they have created a position for a new widgologist. There was no chance for anyone else to seek the job. What if the spouse wasn't the best person they could get? If the spouses are in 2 different departments, the spouse's department has someone inflicted on them that they may not have chosen in an open search, but there is no open search. The spouse may be excellent, but still might not be the one who would have been offered the job in a search. If they were even seeking someone who did what the spouse does.

In no other business would you say, well, we really need some bakers, we haven't been looking for a window washer but we're going to hire another one anyway.

Is this how the student and taxpayer money is best spent? Not by identifying needs and seeking to fill them, but by creating positions where no need was perceived? It just doesn't make sense to me. There are only a limited amount of dollars, so the funding for these unsought spouses means something else is not funded.

[tenured_feminist]

Too often, partners have to prove not just that they are good candidates, but that they are unquestionably far superior to any other candidate who did apply or who might have applied.

But often, there was nothing to apply for, so nobody else has a chance. The University wasn't looking for a specialist in widgology, but that was the spouse's specialty, so now they have created a position for a new widgologist. There was no chance for anyone else to seek the job. What if the spouse wasn't the best person they could get? If the spouses are in 2 different departments, the spouse's department has someone inflicted on them that they may not have chosen in an open search, but there is no open search. The spouse may be excellent, but still might not be the one who would have been offered the job in a search. If they were even seeking someone who did what the spouse does.

In no other business would you say, well, we really need some bakers, we haven't been looking for a window washer but we're going to hire another one anyway.

Is this how the student and taxpayer money is best spent? Not by identifying needs and seeking to fill them, but by creating positions where no need was perceived? It just doesn't make sense to me. There are only a limited amount of dollars, so the funding for these unsought spouses means something else is not funded.

Sorry, but my experience and the experience of everyone I've known has been that the SOP is to advertise for a national search in widgetology in which the spouse/partner has to come out on top. There may be some gaming in the job definition, but the ad has to go out broadly.

And I think that searches very often do not get defined around a neutral process of identifying needs and then searching in those areas. To wit: how often does a retirement in area A lead to a department-wide in depth conversation about the state of the field, the interests of the student population, and the department's relationship to the rest of the university, with the end result of a redefinition of the line in area G? Much, much more frequently the line is simply reallocated to the same field with perhaps some minor definitional tweaks so that the people in the field can get a colleague they want to work with. Is that substantially more rational?

[zoelouise]

Sorry, but my experience and the experience of everyone I've known has been that the SOP is to advertise for a national search in widgetology in which the spouse/partner has to come out on top. There may be some gaming in the job definition, but the ad has to go out broadly.

Wow! That is not how it works here. I guess I am not someone you've known.

Why are you sorry?

To wit: how often does a retirement in area A lead to a department-wide in depth conversation about the state of the field, the interests of the student population, and the department's relationship to the rest of the university, with the end result of a redefinition of the line in area G? Much, much more frequently the line is simply reallocated to the same field with perhaps some minor definitional tweaks so that the people in the field can get a colleague they want to work with. Is that substantially more rational?

Again, my experience is so much different from yours; my department is very focused on modernizing, so the guys who retire are definitely not automatically replaced with very similar folks; we really do talk about what we need next and most as least as much as what we are losing. I am in a science field, maybe that is why?

We are definitely approaching this from a very different set of experiences; perhaps that explains much of our difference in viewpoints.

[nothernprof]

I guess I don't know Tenured Feminist either. Where I am, there isn't even a pretense of a national search. The spouse is just offered a tenure line. Period.

[dundee]

Wow, I wish I could find one of those places where "the spouse is just offerred a tenure line. Period."

I am surprised by the opposition to spousal hires on this thread and the suggestion that "trailing spouses" (hate that term) get some kind of free ride and dream job. I'm pretty sure that the people making such claims aren't part of an academic couple.

[monklein]

"I'm pretty sure that the people making such claims aren't part of an academic couple."

Yes, I think this is a pretty astute observation.  If you are part of an academic couple, you might believe that your private choices in life should be supported by your employer.  If you are a single person or if you simply have a partner whose career is entirely independent of your own, as I am, it is rather difficult to understand why any one should expect one's employer to also employ one's spouse, partner, lover, etc. 

I am just a lowly graduate student, but I could never imagine imposing my personal life choices on my employer.  We have two recent hires in my department and both of them demanded employment for their significant others.  Neither of the new hires were  stars who married stars.  Rather, both are stars who choose partners who know how to shine the light just right, so the stars are always assured to feel like they are in the heavens.  Both trailing spouses were given admin jobs and seemed nice enough at the last department party.  But, why shouldn't they be nice?  If your personal relationship ensures your economic stability through the guarantee of employment and no one would ever dare whisper that nasty word nepotism in the presence of your star significant other - of course you are going to be happy and be amazed that everyone doesn't believe you have every right to be employed based on who you sleep with.

Ok, enough rant.  Hopefully, I put out enough bad karma here that one day I may be forced to suffer the karma comeback of actually having a significant other and believing that my employer should financially support not just my professional life, but my personal life as well.   Now I'll just go crawl back under my rock of a dissertation....

[tenured_feminist]

Sorry, folks, but it took us ten years to get an entry level job for my partner, who holds a Ph.D. from a top ten program. Ten years, and I should add, more than one outside offer.

[sjsmith]

I am surprised by the opposition to spousal hires on this thread and the suggestion that "trailing spouses" (hate that term) get some kind of free ride and dream job.

Aren't they though?  May be not the "dream job" bit but definitely the "free ride".  Another way to look at it is the news smell test.  If this part of academic hiring was actually publicized in the mainstream news what would the reaction be?  The vast majority of the public would be horrified and scandalized in my opinion.  I can just see the reactions now - Why is my tuition money and tax money being used to support nepotism, I didn't save and scratch pennies for years and pay taxes to support these places to send my kid to a place to be taught by someone who was only hired because of who they slept with etc. etc.?  It doesn't matter if all these stereotypes aren't true of specific individuals in spousal hires, this is the way that a lot of the public is likely to see it.  It is a scandal waiting to blow up in someone's face.  The only thing stopping it from happening is the fact that a lot of academic practices bore the media and are pretty arcane to them.  However, all it is going to take is a spousal hire going dramatically wrong resulting in some dramatic events, reporters actually aiming their eyes at the practice, and well... 

<p>Another possibility is someone taking an institute to court for "losing" a job because of spousal hiring like some white male students took places to court for "losing" a place because of affirmative action.  It may be a bit more difficult because in spousal hiring often a job is created anew but some aggrieved soul could argue that the money meant for their job was "diverted".  I'm sure some one would try this eventually. 

[concordancia]

I have never seen a place that offers automatic tenure track spousal hires. I have seen someone use their outside offer leverage to get one. I have also seen a case where the "trailing spouse" was actually a bigger name than the one they hired, it just worked out for the couple that this was how they could be at the same place because no one offered "hired spouse" a "trailing spouse"' position. (Actually, it could be argued that I have seen this twice, but in the second case the trailer was in a different discipline).

I support spousal hires with discretion. We can't just willy nilly hand out tenure track positions or they loose all their currency. I like offering the trailer a lecturer position, but if they have the stuff, why not let them try for tenure? They have to earn that on their own merits.

[drgep]

Yes, I think this is a pretty astute observation.  If you are part of an academic couple, you might believe that your private choices in life should be supported by your employer.  If you are a single person or if you simply have a partner whose career is entirely independent of your own, as I am, it is rather difficult to understand why any one should expect one's employer to also employ one's spouse, partner, lover, etc. 

I am just a lowly graduate student, but I could never imagine imposing my personal life choices on my employer. 

This just seems an awkward way to frame the issue. If one is established in one's field - tenured or tenurable - it might seem more apt to point out that no particular institution has any innate right to expect your employment.

The married scholar has no right to expect a spousal offer, but neither does any institution have a right to impose on someone to stay when it clearly runs against personal interests. If finances permit consideration of multiple options (granted this is not always true for departments or individuals), then both parties have a decision to make.

As for differences between the academic job market and those in other fields . . . I guess I just fail to see why I should expect two profoundly different markets to look identical. Rather, it just seems obvious (to me, at least) that they wouldn't.

A more serious critique of spusal hiring would start from an institutional, rather than individual, perspective. If the underlying demand works similarly for all academic couples, why do we see so much attention paid to developing spousal hiring practices & policies. It's all very heterosexist. When these situations arise, I feel a whole lot more guilty about the spousal than the hiring.
   

[kilpikonna]

The reason academia has spousal hires is that otherwise, nobody who married in the field would be hireable anywhere, and some of those "whoops, fell in love with my grad school officemate" folks are people you want.  I think it would be interesting to find out whether superstars tend to marry within the field at higher rates than non-superstars.  That would pretty clearly militate for a spousal hiring structure of some kind -- you don't need two-superstar families for departments to have the incentive.

It's not like investment banking where if you marry another investment banker you can just live in NYC and assume that you'll both find jobs somewhere.  The geographic arrangement of potential employers in academia just sucks for keeping families together, and I really don't think it needs to become less family-friendly.

I believe my university has a separate pool for spousal hires.  This is how it ought to be done.  Were I to go on the market for a TT job, I wouldn't want to be competing with spouses of other candidates.  That would be giving them an unfair advantage.  I would rather them be hired from a noncompetitive pot of money (i.e. they only have to meet an absolute, not a relative, standard of quality) so that they aren't mucking up the works for independent searches.

I see spousal hires as something similar to the veteran advantage in government hiring: the hiring institution has some horse in the race that makes them structure the game in a way that does not favor me.  Oh well: it would be much worse if there were no policy about it, because then it would still happen, but I'd never know and couldn't prepare.