next »

[godoc]

Hi,

I am a TT in R1, and my spouse is a TT in another R1 in another state, very far from me. We've found out there are only little chances for current ones. Even worse, my spouse's institution doesn't have my field.

We are applying for other universities. Assuming our application look charm to other universities, we may receive some questions through emails, phone calls, or during potential interviews: why we want to move? In such cases, how should we answer? In fact, there are no problems at all except we live apart.  We are very satisfied with teaching/research environments at current ones and in fact do not want to leave current ones. We are trying to move just for the family reunited.

Any thought? I am pretty sure this type of questions has been addressed in this forum several times, but hard to search.

Thanks,

[jacaranda_]

Your perspective is not the same as the Search Committee's perspective.  This means that most of them will assume, "Oh, Prof. Gogunhwa is applying for a job in our department because we are a terribly important institution."  Don't say anything about the situation with your spouse until they offer you the job.  That's the moment when you have may have some leverage to discuss the possibility of a spousal hire.

If you apply for a job at an institution that is not an R1, or clearly an institution that is inferior to the one where you are presently teaching, then you _might_ get a question about this during the interview.  In that case, you can say that you are very interested in moving to the area for personal reasons.   

[offthemarket]

The search function is horrible, but there are a variety of perspectives on this.  Some schools of thought mirror Jacaranda, while others think that your odds might be better if the topic is broached pre-offer.  That way, if they actually do want to hire both of you, they'll be prepared to make an offer to both of you rather than be blindsided after making an offer.

Also, it helps if the trailing spouse is more of a rockstar than the person being offered the job, especially since both of you are junior faculty.

[janewales]

I'm chairing a search right now, and several of our applicants have made clear that they're looking for two jobs. We don't have two jobs, and we don't have the ability to make an extra job, no matter when it's made clear to us that there is a spousal issue.

I hear the leverage argument a lot, but here's what would happen if you told us, at point of offer, that you wanted a spousal. We'd go to the dean. The dean would go to the provost. Together, they would offer a couple of scenarios. If the second job is in our department, they'd ask us if we were willing to give up a future line. That would go to a department meeting. The department would say no, unless by some miracle the spouse was a) in a field we need; and b) equally appealing to us as you might be. That hardly ever happens. Or, if the spouse is in another department, then that department would be asked to give up one of its lines, or a partial line, or to pony up cash-- and 9 times out of 10, they'd say no too-- because they have their own hiring priorities, and lines are precious, and it's hard to get people to give them up in situations like this.

By this time, a month would have passed. Or two. In the end, we'd be unable to offer what you needed. You would of course turn us down at that point, in order to keep looking for two jobs. We'd understand-- and we'd go to our next candidate. Who would already have accepted something else. And our third candidate would already have proven to be unsuitable. And our search would be cancelled....

As you can tell, I've been through this a lot lately. We're a public R1, and we just can't routinely do the spousal thing. I completely understand why you want two jobs, and we run our searches on a qualifications only system-- in other words, we won't discriminate against people who say they want a spousal, because that seems like punishing honesty, and because it feels wrong to make these decisions with any regard to personal matters beyond professional competency and qualifications. But we also don't have the power to make a spousal happen. So from our perspective, the sooner the issue arises, the better-- not so we can cross you off our list, but so that you can cross us off yours. In the long run, that's better for all of us.

[godoc]

It is disappointing that search chairs want to cross off dual-career people, even though it is not intended discrimination. It sounds like search chairs want to drop off those applicants before even trying to get things happen. But, I understand the position of search committees.

However, would it be still true for public universities with spousal hiring program (usually spouse's salary comes from 1/3 original hiring department, 1/3 from spouse's department and 1/3 from provost) or (more flexible) private universities?

[jacaranda_]

However, would it be still true for public universities with spousal hiring program (usually spouse's salary comes from 1/3 original hiring department, 1/3 from spouse's department and 1/3 from provost) or (more flexible) private universities?

In this economy, I think you need to assume that public universities (especially now) may not have those funds or that flexibility this year, and perhaps for a few years down the road.  The hiring math you offer above sounds very unusual to me, but I'm in the humanities.

Again, your perspective, priorities and sense of what is "fair and reasonable" are unlikely to match those of hiring institutions and you just need to deal with that reality.  The cases in which two working academics can find tenure-track employment at the same institution or even the same general region are the exception, not the rule.

[janewales]

In my case at least, I didn't say we were eliminating dual applicants without even trying. What I was trying to suggest was that we _won't_ discriminate, but the result of that principled stance, in combination with our inability to make spousals happen (and we're actually an R1 which claims to have spousal policies, even down to the provost/ dept/ dept split), is that we've actually had searches fail, because of all the time and ultimately fruitless negotiations involved. I think one of the worst things about the spousal situation is in fact the huge gap between many institutions' public representation, and what really happens. In my field at least, routine spousal hirings, with smooth, easy negotiations between departments and various levels of administration, are simply a myth. The result of this myth is that a lot of us, on both sides of the search, waste an enormous amount of time, energy, and hope...

[larryc]

OP, by all means apply widely and hope for two positions. You will improve your chances somewhat  if you try to move downward on the academic food chain. A comprehensive state U. might be dazzled by your R-1 research profile and come up with joint positions. Not likely in the best of times, and harder in the current economy, but it is your best chance.

On the other hand the way most dual career couples solve the problem is that one gives up on an academic career and finds something else to do. Usually whichever one becomes pregnant. Or, they get a divorce. I am sorry but those are the hard realities.

So apply. I think you should put the dual career thing in your cover letter since if you wait until an offer is made there is not enough time for the institutional heavy lifting needed to make a spousal offer as well. But some smart forumites disagree with this, so it is really a crap shoot.

Apply, but also take stock of each of your skill sets and begin thinking of alternate lines of work for both of you. Good luck.

[tenured_feminist]

I'm now working at the same institution as my spouse and both of us have FT positions. He trailed for all of my early career. I went on the market twice and got job offers both times (the second time we moved). In my cover letters I explained the substantive reasons for applying at those institutions, largely related to the programs/departments to which I was proposing to move, but I also honestly stated that we were looking to move because of a dual career dilemma. Small N, to be sure, but there you have it. I suspect my current institution might have thought I was merely jockeying for a raise had I not made it clear that I was serious about moving if they could resolve the dual career issue.