next »

[wsampsonpuc]

I noticed that many institutions require candidates to appear for preliminary job interviews at conferences such as the American Historical Association (AHA).  This disturbs me.

Historians frequently pontificate that they are on the side of the downtrodden, yet they act like nineteenth-century Robber Barons toward those aspiring to enter their profession.  They can do so, of course, because there often is a vast pool of candidates for open positions.  When I obtained my tenure-track post, for example, I competed with about 300 applicants.

After I earned tenure and published, I decided to test the waters.  When I found openings which interested me, I looked on line at the composition of the departments.  They usually had doctoral programs, but they only seemed to actually hire Ivy-Leaguers or graduates of a few other name-brand programs.  The most recent hires always seemed to be very good-looking to boot! (looksism anyone?)  Thus, they were implying that the only historians "worthy" of their department were grads from elite schools.  I wondered how they in good conscience could offer the doctorate at their own "non-elite" institutions.

Then, they required candidates to attend preliminary interviews at the AHA.  The nerve!  The poor (literally) candidates had to fork over big money for travel, food, and lodging.  The arrogance!  YOU have to pay in order to talk to US!

But, I got a couple of interviews, so I went.  My experience was anything but good.  I'll bore you with only one example from AHA.  I was assigned the last interview slot of the conference--that can be good actually.  The mid-sized Mississippi university kept me waiting on a folding chair for 45 minutes after my scheduled interview time--I understand how things can get a little behind.  Then I met my interviewers.  I sat down, and the chair, a pretty prestigious historian, asked me to tell him about myself.  Literally 2 minutes into my answer (I kid you not), he let out a yawn so loud that interviewers from other tables stopped and turned--ok, it's been a long day.  But, he never even had the common courtesy to excuse himself.  It was a humiliation that cost me about $1000.

As far as the networking, things were weird.  As I would talk to other historians, I noticed that their eyes would dart to my name tag.  I did not seem to be worth their time, because they quickly excused themselves.  I would run into historians who had recently interviewed me. I would wave or nod my head in passing, but would be ignored.  The worst was when I entered a crowded elevator and nodded hello (after all, we were all historians), and one middle-aged female professor scowled and turned her name tag around to the blank side!

Later that year, I received a call from a university in Florida.  The search committee chair asked if I was going to be at the upcoming OAH meeting, because he was interested in talking to me.  I did not plan to attend, but I said yes.  I scrambled to make last-minute arrangements, which cost me $700.  I emailed him back with all of my info and told him that I would be in Boston for the entire conference.  Bottom line, he NEVER contacted or even talked to me.  I ran into him at the conference and he turned his head away.  OK . . .OK he made a mistake.  I emailed him after the conference expressing my continuing interest in the position.  He never answered back.

Is it just me, or is the History profession filled with rude "butt-heads?"  Is it really fair to candidates to make THEM pay money for interviews?  Come on, you elitist jerks, treat your fellow professionals with respect!

[tenured_feminist]

Is this a question or a vent.

To take your contribution more seriously, I ask a genuine question of the historians out there. Is is usual practice in the discipline to expect candidates for associate level positions to do screening interviews at AHA?

(BTW, OP, for what it's worth I was on an entry-level history search at an R1 for which we interviewed the people who were going to AHA there but did phone interviews for the people who weren't going to AHA.)

[the_honey_badger]

Is this a question or a vent.

To take your contribution more seriously, I ask a genuine question of the historians out there. Is is usual practice in the discipline to expect candidates for associate level positions to do screening interviews at AHA?

(BTW, OP, for what it's worth I was on an entry-level history search at an R1 for which we interviewed the people who were going to AHA there but did phone interviews for the people who weren't going to AHA.)

Qualified "yes"---most of those would be Asst Prof positions or open rank that stated they were interviewing at the conference. You see a lot of movement in the Assoc and Full ranks but few ads. The convention is so long tied to the interview system that many schools either have junior searches going or just go to it out of default. More and more are moving to phone or video because of costs. My question would be if the OP was applying for what were advertised as "TT Asst Prof" jobs. The people I know who have "moved on" after tenure have all been recruited and gone straight to campus. None of them is a huge "name" either.

Having been in three state systems I have to say that in all of them the institution dictated that a "level playing field" be offered all candidates---you interview one in person you interview them all in person.  The "historians" have nothing to do with a lot of the elements of how we are to conduct searches and the administrators have everything to do with it.

In terms of bad interview/convention experiences, we all can certainly offer them. I don't go to AHA unless I'm compelled to --- three years of abd and degreed interviewing seasons was enough to give me a lifetime aversion.

[jackalope]

I looked on line at the composition of the departments.  They usually had doctoral programs, but they only seemed to actually hire Ivy-Leaguers or graduates of a few other name-brand programs.  The most recent hires always seemed to be very good-looking to boot! (looksism anyone?)

I have said elsewhere that the conference interview system is arrogant and abusive. Which is not to say that you don't have a persecution complex...

I was a dozen years at my previous institution and on 6 or 7 search committees. We did preliminary screening by phone and it worked just as well as a face-to-face interview. And it was easy, it was more inclusive of both our faculty and a variety of candidates, and it cost nothing. When we got it down to the final three we scheduled campus interviews and prepaid their air tickets and hotels and took them to all meals and gave them a tour of the area as well as normal interview stuff. That is the ethical way to run a search.

I think the AHA interview system serves the committee members by giving them a free trip--indirectly subsidized by the poor graduate students. Horrible.

[svenc]

They usually had doctoral programs, but they only seemed to actually hire Ivy-Leaguers or graduates of a few other name-brand programs.  The most recent hires always seemed to be very good-looking to boot! (looksism anyone?)  Thus, they were implying that the only historians "worthy" of their department were grads from elite schools.  I wondered how they in good conscience could offer the doctorate at their own "non-elite" institutions.

I am fortunate enough to be in a field where even only moderately good-looking applicants from places like Michigan or UCLA still manage to get jobs. 

However, it really shouldn't be surprising that less prestigious departments are populated by graduates of more prestigious programs.  Each doctoral-granting program typically graduates far more students than it hires in a year.  The applicants from the most famous programs compete for the handful of spots at peer departments, and most of them will take jobs at less prestigious institutions.  The graduates of those departments compete for those same jobs plus the jobs further down the pecking order, etc.

There is no question that the quality of an applicant is not the same thing as the prestige or fame of her graduate alma mater.  But on average, there is some positive correlation between the two.

Come on, you elitist jerks, treat your fellow professionals with respect!

You did intend the irony here, right?

[the_honey_badger]

You know, I'm definitely on the wrong side of homely and graduated from a "lower R-1" and I got four offers the year I got my degree. Since I was hired, we've hired quite a mix of "lookers" too. Schools? All over the map.  I think what we had in common is that we all had publications, teaching experience and book contracts.  And, from what I hear, lots of interview year credit card debt...

I find that in history, a book contract aces "cute" but that's just my experience.

[systeme_d_]

I am just not understanding these complaints about having to attend one's field's major annual conference for an interview.

When I was a grad student, we went every year.  We looked forward to it with relish!  Sure, it was a big financial stretch.  But we planned ahead.  We packed six of us into a hotel room.  We sometimes found accommodations very near to the conference sites that were much cheaper than the official hotels.  When the conference was within a few hundred miles, we roadtripped together.  When it was far away, we researched flight prices separately, and reported our great finds to one another.

When we got there, we went to panel after panel.  When papers sucked, we talked about them, and figured out why they sucked.  When a paper was terrific, we learned what a good presentation should contain.  We learned about effective and poor presentation techniques.  We networked.  We met other grad students from other programs with shared interests.  We gossiped. We drank.  We met scholars whose work we had admired for years.  We learned how to present ourselves to les eminences grises.  (And we overanalyzed every detail of every chance meeting.)  We eventually learned how to summarize our own work in a well-crafted sentence or two.  We expanded our theoretical and methodological scope.  We learned what not to wear.  We learned what sub-subfield was hot that year, and what was not.  We drank some more. 

Conferences were a revelation, filled with opportunities, both expected and unexpected.  We learned how to be scholars.  Or at least how to act like one.

When we got interviews, we rejoiced in one another's good fortune.  We helped one another, borrowed clothes, shared tips, gossiped about odd search committee members and unanticipated questions. 

A grad student complaining about going to a conference?  In case they had an INTERVIEW?  For a JOB?

I am simply gobsmacked.

[the_honey_badger]

This reminds me of 1998(?) in NYC when 3 of us got a room and 6 of us stayed in it! The Hilton was none the wiser.

[secretweapon]

The most recent hires always seemed to be very good-looking to boot! (looksism anyone?) 

This does not make any sense.  I am, quite frankly, the sexiest thing that has happened to the historical profession since LarryC and I didn't get a TT job last year.

What gives?


****

On a serious note, I don't have a problem with interviews at the annual conference, for the reasons that System D outlines.  However, I don't agree with the "conference or nothing" attitude, and wish that more schools wouldn't balk at the idea of a telephone interview for those who can't attend the conference. 

[canadatourismguy]

I hate conferences as well...I absolutely hated them as a grad student when you get snobbed off so often. 

I had the same attitude as you - I am paying how much for being treated like this?  Then there is the cattle call interviewing.  Is there nothing more depressing than sitting in a waiting room with 20 other hopeful grad students knowing most of them will barely get a sniff of a job?

I really think schools should gibe the option of phone or conference. 

That being said, I got my current job by going to a conference and meeting a couple of the faculty there who encouraged me to apply.  It was a job I was not even planning on applying for.  So they are not all that bad (though I still dread attending them). 

CTG 

[locutus]

I don't get all the anguish about having to go to one conference. It doesn't seem any more stressful than the other aspects of the job search. My field doesn't do conference interviews and doesn't have one big conference. So the year I was looking for a job I went to maybe 4 conferences in 6 months. That was just to present research and network. No interviews.

Though I do think it's reasonable to do phone interviews instead. It seems to be the norm in my area.

[secretweapon]

I don't get all the anguish about having to go to one conference.

With the two biggies, AHA and MLA, it's about timing and cost.  They are both around New Year, over four or five days, in major cities.  Despite their best efforts to negotiate group rates, hotels are still expensive (and they often don't include breakfast or wifi - interthreaduality).  So, it's not a question about going to a conference, any conference - and some schools have the attitude that if you aren't at THE conference, you don't get any interview at all - no ifs or buts. 

[doctor_torrseal]

I was a dozen years at my previous institution and on 6 or 7 search committees. We did preliminary screening by phone and it worked just as well as a face-to-face interview. ...

I think the AHA interview system serves the committee members by giving them a free trip--indirectly subsidized by the poor graduate students. Horrible.

Disclaimer: I am not a historian nor have I been to the AHA.  So far as I know, though, being a prof on committees that do cattle-call interviews with 15-20+ people per day is exhausting and, while not stressful like it is for the interviewees, it's just no fun.  Most of the people I know who conduct mass conference interviews barely get outside and don't get to go to any talks.  They would turn down the free trip if they could.

You could conclude from this that the present system serves nobody's interest.  I wouldn't argue.  However, from my experience interviewing for a postdoc, I was from a not-top rank institution and as an unknown grad student, doing face-to-face interviews helped me.

[relationalista]

This is common practice in art history too (my field), at the annual College Art Association conference.

Requiring potential candidates to travel to conferences for preliminary conferences is exploitative. It is perfectly fine for employers to ask whether candidates are intending to attend, but in my experience, it's so often assumed that a candidate will turn up, or interpreted that way by the candidate from the correspondence making such an inquiry -- even if it's far from their home, costly to get to, they're not giving a paper and there is less than two weeks notice -- that many candidates feel sheepish enquiring whether there are other ways to be interviewed, and feel that they will be risking career advancement if they don't go. I've been in this situation, and my conference interviews were often followed by dead silence -- forever. No follow up from the interviewers, no indication of timeline for the hire, no notice that someone else had ultimately been hired. This is just plain rude. (Mind you, this has also happened following on-campus interviews prior to which there had been either a phone conversation or no preliminary interview, though this has far less often been the case.)

Of course it's efficient to meet candidates at these conferences, but it's also unfair to many of those candidates (even as it's also exhausting and intense for those doing the interviews). It's often frightfully expensive for one thing, offering little opportunity for advance planning, and takes advantage of Employment Eagerness Syndrome. If it turns out that the candidates will be at the conference anyway, then great. But institutions really should do more to make sure that candidates know they won't be excluded from consideration if they're not at the conference.

[jwormold]

This has been said elsewhere on these fora, but seems to bear repeating, isn't this just one of the things you plan on for the year you're on the market?  Like postage to mail the apps and cost of the shiny new interview suit (and shoes)?  It's just another cost of the job search? Not to mention that the conference is a place to network, be introduced to people, and talk to people outside your department? 

Yes, it's horribly unfair that the least financially stable are burdened with all these expenses (and lord, if you get a job, you have to move! And sometimes, they don't reimburse the entire expense!).  I end up spending a lot of my own money on things to advance my career (books, research travel, etc. etc.), but it's money that I hope is well spent.

And I'd take an in-person interview over a phone interview any day, but that's a different discussion.