next »

[janewales]

Sloth's recent question about what a current institution might offer to retain him/ her, should a job search yield an offer elsewhere, has me thinking. In the search I'm currently involved in, it's looking like over half the people on the long list will be those applicants who already have good (really good) t-t jobs elsewhere. They all offer reasons for wanting to move-- wanting to go to a different part of the country, hoping to get a job for a spouse, wanting to get closer to family, etc.-- but there's really no way of knowing how serious they are. It's possible that some of them will interview poorly in the first stage, but if not, then there's an excellent chance that every person on our short list will already have a good job.

That makes me uncomfortable for a whole bunch of reasons-- from thinking about all those new PhDs being squeezed out, to pragmatic concerns about being used by applicants who are really only trying to improve their current conditions. Does anyone have any advice to offer? If you're searching, do you have policies about listing or not listing those currently employed? Do you have any methods for figuring out how serious applicants like this might be? If you're currently on the market with a t-t job in hand, do you really want to move? Really really? What could we ask you, that would convince us you're serious? Some of the top files explicitly mention spousals; spousals are vanishingly rare here (and getting harder all the time)-- if we tell you that frankly in a long-list interview, would you believe us and take your file off the table, or would you hope to be an exception? If you stayed on the list, and we picked you but couldn't produce the spousal, would you move or stay put?

I know context is everything here. The apparently good jobs could in fact be awful. We would, I guess, be thought of as a desirable position, in some ways a step up for some (but not all) of those with the apparently good jobs. But we've been burned in searches before, and the economic climate being what it is, we really, really can't let this search fail. So, the wisdom of the forumites would be most welcome-- what do you think?

[norvell]

My thinking is that the new PhDs are going to be surer bets to really, really want the job. Interview a couple of them if you absolutely can't let the search fail.

[janewales]

My thinking is that the new PhDs are going to be surer bets to really, really want the job. Interview a couple of them if you absolutely can't let the search fail.

Yes, that had occurred to me too. But it's not always easy to convince colleagues, who've been dazzled by the admittedly really impressive cv's of the more experienced applicants...

[seniorscholar]

We fought over this about 8 years ago . . . and eventually lost all three of the candidates we'd brought to campus because of their impressive publications because of there being a spousal hire issue, a successful appeal against negative tenure decision at an Ivy university, and a long long long negotiation that probably meant there was also a long counter-negotiation at the current university. We were, however, able to go back to our list of people we'd spoken to at MLA and bring two people with new PhD's to campus and hire someone very good who's now happily tenured here. As a result, although we really do find many of our best hires are people who have already demonstrated that they can teach full-time and publish too, we have ever since not invited three such people to campus, and have been careful to move very quickly after MLA (our goal is to have the campus interviews within the first two weeks of spring semester and to finish the hire by the end of January).

[pournelle]

In my experience, being on both sides of the fence: a) If your institution is more prestigious than the one the applicant is currently tt at, then I think it makes sense to assume they're sincere in wanting to move. Of course this isn't always true, but I think it's an ok rule of thumb. b) If your institution is less pretigious or would be a lateral move, then I think the issue should be raised in the interview, and, really, the applicant's job materials should speak to it. Of course, the big unknown--besides spousal issues--is the tenure question. Are they on the market to hedge their tenure bets, or do they fear they'll be denied?

All-in-all, there's marginally more risk with a short-list focused on experienced tt people, but the payoff is also potentially greater. And in this market, I think it simply takes experience--whether in postdocs or tt--to be truly competitive against the kinds of applicant pools you'll get. We're doing a search, and it's just hard to make the case for the abd with one article vs the 3 year tt with a book forthcoming from a top press, lots of great articles, etc. Think about if we hired the abd. Best case scenario, they'll turn out to be just like that 3 year tt applicant we can get today. It's not fair, but it's a buyer's market.

[neil9]

My department recently hired two full professors. In each case, the top candidate accepted the job and have played key roles in the department.

Oh, since then we hired another full professor and an associate professor, all worked out well.

[history_grrrl]

OP, are these applicants indicating why they are interested in your university and your department? If so, that gives you something more to go on. If they're only offering personal reasons for the desire to move, I'd be less inclined to favor their applications. You wouldn't be interested in a newly minted Ph.D. who only said s/he wanted to live in your town and couldn't convince you that s/he wanted to join your faculty in particular; the same standard should hold for the t-t folks, I think.

[msparticularity]

You don't mention the other category: people with good non-TT faculty experience (VAPs and continuing lectureships). My department has done the best with those hires. You get someone who has some idea how a department really functions and to work within that, but who really, really wants a TT job.

I was involved in a search in my old department that failed precisely for the reasons discussed here: spousal hires and negotiation tactics. We advertised for a mid-career person, and got applications from several people who were looking to make lateral and or even downward moves. Two of them looked really promising, and dazzled my colleagues. They were especially certain of the one whose undergrad degree was from our department and whose family (we knew) still lived in the area.  It turned out that one would only move with a tenured slot for her spouse, and the other one (the local!) was using us to negotiate with her current institution.

I would be very suspicious of anyone for whom your job would not be a clear move up--and I think it would be very risky to interview more than one person in that category if there is no chance of a spousal hire.

[janewales]

OP, are these applicants indicating why they are interested in your university and your department? If so, that gives you something more to go on. If they're only offering personal reasons for the desire to move, I'd be less inclined to favor their applications. You wouldn't be interested in a newly minted Ph.D. who only said s/he wanted to live in your town and couldn't convince you that s/he wanted to join your faculty in particular; the same standard should hold for the t-t folks, I think.

That's a very good point, grrrl-- slightly complicated for us, though, by the fact that we're located in one of those places that people do really, really want to live in-- so it's really common for people to burble on about our location, before remembering it might be wise to say something about the school, too! It doesn't help that our self-representation to the world does tend to dwell as much on where we are, as who we are...

[johnr]

OP, are these applicants indicating why they are interested in your university and your department? If so, that gives you something more to go on. If they're only offering personal reasons for the desire to move, I'd be less inclined to favor their applications. You wouldn't be interested in a newly minted Ph.D. who only said s/he wanted to live in your town and couldn't convince you that s/he wanted to join your faculty in particular; the same standard should hold for the t-t folks, I think.

That's a very good point, grrrl-- slightly complicated for us, though, by the fact that we're located in one of those places that people do really, really want to live in-- so it's really common for people to burble on about our location, before remembering it might be wise to say something about the school, too! It doesn't help that our self-representation to the world does tend to dwell as much on where we are, as who we are...

Yes, don't underestimate the lure of a good location.  We're a masters granting, directional university in a very desirable location and we successfully hire many "lateral transfer" types because they just want to live here and they really, really mean it. Anecdotally, and for a variety of reasons, we've had much less success with those that are looking to move because of a spousal hire situation.  Either we can't place the spouse, or the spouse isn't satisfied with the position we can offer, or the spousal hire is not approved by the dean, etc..., I'm giving myself a headache just thinking about all the headaches those situations have caused me in the past!

[newhere]

to add a perspective from someone on the other side of the fence...

I am in the second year of a TT position at one of the top 4-5 schools in the country for my field.  I am in a heavily research focused university with a 0.5/1 teaching load.  That said, there are a lot of things that I am not that thrilled about in my current job.  I still look at the job ads, and sometimes wistfully wonder what life would be like at a SLAC.  I have sent my CV, but not full application, to 1 open position since starting on the TT.  I would only apply to a position that I was seriously interested in taking.  I have the impression that there is a significant risk to me (in my current post) if it were known that I was 'shopping' for a new job, regardless of the reason.  I am in a dept with people that are very much the whos-who in their field, and I imagine that some of them would take it as a real slight if they knew I was considering leaving (not that seriously, yet).  So I can't imagine applying for another job, unless I was very serious about the position.

Reasons that I would want to leave my TT, hard-money research post include:
1) moving closer to family (1000s of miles closer)
2) having the effort I put into teaching actually be valued
3) working in a dept that had more than (very) token representation of my gender (or anything more than white males, really: what a relief that would be)
4) a more sane work-life balance (maybe a mirage? especially for those with little kids).

Just my 2 cents.  I'd take those applications as serious in intent, unless you have good reason to believe otherwise.  From my perspective, I can imagine that there would be people out there at 'more prestigious' institutions that might be seriously interested in trying out a different type of academic life.  I have no comment about spousal hires: sounds like a problem if that's what they are seeking and you can't offer it.

[janewales]

Thanks, newhere. I guess the problem is that we've been burned in the past-- even though we are, for most of these applicants, the more prestigious institution, in the more desirable location. Fact is, people tend to underestimate, when they're wistfully thinking about what life might be like elsewhere, how reluctant they will find themselves, once faced with the prospect of actually uprooting and moving. But-- and here's why it's hard-- every now and then, someone really, really does want to move, and really, really is a good fit, and turns out to be a great hire. We do try to ask questions in the long-list interviews that might give us a read on the seriousness of the application; if we bring someone to campus, we do the same. But 9 times out of 10, turns out the move doesn't happen. Maybe we're messing up in some way-- that's a reason I'm checking out the foricular wisdom-- but maybe it would just be smarter to go straight to those without good jobs. But it's hard to do that, when our mailbox is stuffed to overflowing with superbly qualified, wonderfully experienced people...

[systeme_d_]

Janewales,

I am very fortunate to have a great job now, but as some on the fora know, I apply very selectively when an extremely appealing position is posted.  I always try to express this in my cover letter.  You might scour the cover letters for the kind of language I use, which (hopefully!) clearly expresses selectivity in application, and evidences thorough research of your particular institution and its needs and expectations. 

[glowdart]

Every now and then, a "dream job" opens up, and I will apply.  (I'm also TT in a good job).  I wouldn't be applying for a job while on the TT unless I wanted to seriously entertain taking it.  I would presume that people on the TT would not be using the scattershot approach, but that might be shaded by my own ethics. 

Are these not the kinds of questions that can be asked in a phone interview? 

[janewales]

Glowdart, you certainly can ask in a phone interview-- and we have-- "Why would you want to leave R1x for us, R1y?" The interviewee will always provide a compelling reason (remember, these are by and large people who've already been hired once or twice before, and have some skills...). But that compelling reason sometimes doesn't stand the test of the offer. And sometimes, it was always a bit of a fib, and the real plan was to get a better deal at the current location.

Some schools actually encourage this latter kind of thing, by more or less requiring their faculty to get other offers, in order to see some kind of improvement to their own conditions. Yes, prestigious state flagship R1, I'm looking at you...