next »

[msparticularity]

So, having one of those experienced folks on your short list is reasonable--or perhaps even two. But I think having at least one viable candidate who clearly needs the job is the prudent course.

[dundee]

I'm interested in the focus on perceived "prestige" in this thread. I think that for a lot of candidates, prestige is irrelevant. I don't think you can just assume that people want to come to your institution because it is supposedly more prestigious. I have a good t-t position, and if I ever move, prestige will have nothing to do with it. I would move in order to have a lighter teaching load, higher salary, more research funding, and to be closer to my spouse's institution - all very practical concerns. I guess what I really want to say is don't make assumptions about why someone might want to come to your institution - just ask them.

[janewales]

Thanks again, everyone. I will try to suggest that the list should be a judicious mix of the experienced and the new. Your list is helpful, Dundee-- we would represent higher salary and less teaching for all but one of the experienced people likely to make the list, and some of these people have told us we would put them nearer a spouse-- but the spousal thing so often turns into a request for a job _at_ our place, and as I've said, we're hardly ever able to do that (and certainly not right now). We've got permission from the HR people to mention that we can't do spousals, but only in those cases where the applicant has raised the issue in a cover letter. Otherwise, we're not allowed to say anything even in an informational way ("By the way, we don't do spousal appointments"), lest we flirt with the forbidden territory of asking personal questions. So if there are hidden spousal issues with some of these people, we won't know until the point of offer. And of course eliminating the experienced people wouldn't in any case solve the potential two-body problem, since any applicant could in fact be looking for two jobs. Ah well, we'll cross that bridge if we come to it, I suppose.

[klausk]

That makes me uncomfortable for a whole bunch of reasons

Why? One can always try to get a new job and there's nothing wrong with it.

[janewales]

That makes me uncomfortable for a whole bunch of reasons

Why? One can always try to get a new job and there's nothing wrong with it.

Sorry, klaus, I thought I made it clear in the list that follows, and in some of my subsequent comments. First, I'm worried about filling a shortlist with people who aren't in fact seriously looking for a new job, but are instead trying to improve conditions at their current position. We have had this happen to us several times in the past-- so shortlisting well-qualified applicants who already have good tt jobs requires a bit of a triumph of hope over experience. This year in particular, if our search were to fail, I'm not sure we'd ever get the position again. That's the pragmatic problem. The more philosophical problem is again related to the current climate: whereas in the past, hiring a person away from another institution simply opened a new line at that other institution, these days a resignation is more likely to lead to a lost line. I don't blame seekers for looking to move, nor would I blame us for trying to hire one of these people if s/he best fits our needs-- but I remain uncomfortably aware of the shrinking pool of available jobs (I have doctoral students of my own on the market this year).

[ruralguy]

The burden is on the candidate, whether green or very experienced (in a TT or higher position), to say why they want to be in your dept. and at your school or in your town, or whatever their motivation might be.
Though you can not ask much about personal issues, the candidate should make it clear, why professionally and personally they would wish to move.

If the candidate does not make this clear, then don't even interview them, or certainly don't go past a phone interview.

I was in a couple of searches myself while on the TT. I think one reason why I was denied some positions is that I was a little too nice in sounding like I was perfectly at home where I was. I think this made them think "So then why in the world would you come here?" This was especially true for the place that was lower ranked or whatever you call, but I think a better fit for me. I just didn't make it clear why I would give up a job at an ok slac for a pretty much unranked inner city school.  My advice for any such folks would be to hedge this much less. Don't badmouth your school or dept., but make it clear why the new one wouldn't just be a BETTER fit, but the best fit.

[ambient]

I was on an SC two years ago--during my first year on the job--and we got burned by one applicant who ultimately decided he was unwilling to move from his current tt job.  And we interviewed someone else who's motives were, in my opinion, suspicious.  In other words, his job seemed too good to warrant any serious interest in our position.  However, other members of the SC were enamored and ignored what seemed obvious to me.  So two of our campus visits turned out to be wasted on dabblers looking to improve their current positions.  Now, I'm one of those applicant's who already has a job--and a job I like quite a bit.  However, I have very good reasons for applying to a very small number of jobs. In fact, one of the jobs seems like a dream job for me.  That's not to say it's drastically different from my current TT position, but it benefits from a slightly lighter teaching load, a bit more prestige and therefore colleagues who have active and thus inspiring research agendas, and a location that would greatly benefit me, my spouse, and the children we are planning to have in the next several years.   I've tried to make it patently clear that I'm very interested in these jobs, but I'm also painfully aware of the fact that most candidates say that kind of stuff and there's no real way for an SC to separate the serious applicants from the dabblers. 

I've tried to tailor my applications a great deal and include the kinds of details that should dispel the Sc's doubts--far more than I did when applying as a fresh PhD.  I spelled out what drew me to those schools, while avoiding disparaging my current institution.  In one case, I know someone at the institution where I applied and I did make it very clear to him that the job appeals to me because of geography (my partner will find it much easier to find a job in relatively close proximity than in our current location) and the specifics of the institution itself.  Though I like my current tt position, the service load is out of this world and I've been put in a position of playing a role normally assigned to tenured faculty.  This means I have very little time for my own research.  I find a way to fit it in, but it's exceedingly difficult.  Also, I am hoping to move to a location where raising a non-traditional family might not prove so difficult.  I am very concerned, however, that SCs won't take me seriously or will think that our institutions are too similar to warrant such a move.  If I were on an SC faced with this dilemma, as I was recently, I would ask more questions about "fit" during the preliminary interview and try to get the candidate to say a bit more about how his/her current institution compares to ours.  This might help one determine how serious the candidate is about potentially moving.  On the other hand, a seasoned candidate who has been in a job for a few years likely knows exactly what to say to help dispel such fears.  I guess it's just always going to be impossible to know for certain.

Here's hoping I get a chance to show that I mean it when I say I want to move.  And I hope that the OP can filter out the folks like me from the insincere applicants!

[johnr]

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 DOES seem like a stunningly bad search failure rate. Nine out of ten? That really makes me think that maybe your are messing up in some ways, or something else is going on.  I've never heard of such bad luck.  Is there a cost of living vs. salary issue?  Even then, a 90% search failure rate, ouch!

[temporaryname]

This last year I moved from a TT position to another TT position in a downward (not even lateral!) move. Why? Because I was at a toxic university and I was watching my department rapidly becoming toxic, and I wanted to work in an environment I might actually enjoy being in. Also, my personal history makes me more comfortable teaching students who aren't necessarily fully prepared rather than those skimmed from the top of their classes, and I knew a downward move was my most likely bet for that.

Now, I certainly raised the second of these in my cover letters to the place I ended up as well as other similar institutions--but the first reason was the more important one, and that's not really something you can say out loud.

So I'm glad I made the first cut--I'm more than happy where I landed. I sometimes wonder, though, how many of the other places I applied dismissed me out of hand as someone who obviously wasn't interested in a "downward" move.

[new_bus_prof]

Success here has come through the devil you know hires. Success here has been because hired people know so-and-so in the department...either because of grad school mentor/colleague, fellow colleague reference (worked with current dept. person and new hire), or third on paper X years ago.

[hyperbole]

About that dismal hiring rate: I was an on-campus candidate for a job my first year out. I ended up getting the offer but turning it down for a better position. The chair of that search at the school I didn't end up going to eventually became a friend. At a conference last year, he complained about the terrible rate of hiring and the many failed searches at his institution and then asked me whether I thought he and his department had done anything wrong in the process.

Turns out he had no idea that a truculent dean had been making a routine of intimidating candidates seeking positions in a particular division (let's say social sciences). Sometimes there's a rotten apple in the bunch, which other apples have a hard time smelling for some reason. I was on another campus visit--that same year--where one faculty member from another dept. during the post-talk dinner, made a point of telling me how vicious the "real" climate was in the dept. that was hiring me, beneath the surface of all the comraderie they were showing me.

[cranefly]

Prestige only goes so far. I'm at a prestigious place, but am considering leaving to go to a "lesser" institution in a nicer place to live, where I've lived before and still have friends, and where there is much more of a sense of community on campus... so don't assume if someone applies there are even "professional" reasons for it. It's awkward to say, "I want to leave this fabulous job because I hate the city its in" so I feel like I have to make stuff up to convince them I would actually leave...

[dr_crankypants]

For what it's worth, I applied to a LOT more jobs that I didn't really want when I was on the market as a new PhD, because I wasn't sure that I'd get any kind of job.  Now, since I have a good job I wouldn't leave lightly, I do have something to lose by applying to other places--risking my colleagues finding out.  And do remember that, until this year at least, not all new PhDs are desperate for your job.  I recognize that the problem of faculty using your university to negotiate, or to get a spousal hire are difficult, but I'd wonder if there's something going wrong in how you're recruiting people: salary? obnoxious dean? appearance of lack of departmental support? If you're only able to hire newbies, that suggests to me that there's something that's unappealing about the university.

That said, some departments/universities do have an inflated sense of their value, and end up focusing all of their attention on the most accomplished candidates, even if there's a misfit there.  I'd agree with the advice of others to make sure that while you go after all the candidates that you like, that you keep some of the fresh PhDs on the list, as Seniorscholar suggested.
 

[carebearstare]

I am on the TT now, and am definitely keeping my eye on the job market. While my job is decent, I would definitely consider moving in almost any "direction" if the job were right, and I wouldn't apply to a job on a whim. (This year, for instance, a few jobs in my field were tempting but ultimately I passed on applying to all of them). But there are many factors that would play into my decision--many more than when I was first on the market and didn't know what I was looking for. Some of those include:

1. Lighter teaching load (at least one class less a year than I currently have)  
2. More desirable location (to me, which might not be the same for everyone else, of course)
3. More research support
4. More dynamic department (not necessarily more "stars," but interesting scholars with active research agendas)
5. Cheaper tuition and solid endowment/fiscal state
6. A stronger scholarly community in the school and/or area
7. A better library
8. Stronger faculty governance and/or more supportive administration

But even this isn't a fair list, because it's calculated. I would go to a SLAC with more teaching in a heartbeat, for instance, if it meant I'd have really invested undergrads and that my teaching were valued. I would move laterally or down if it meant the department was really friendly, cohesive, and supportive.

I think the same reasons you are hesitant to look at someone with experience parallel the reasons it can be hard to leave a job if you have one--there's a lot more at stake, potentially. But my (selfish) hope is that if I were to go on the market and be a good fit, a school would not pass over my application just because I already have a job. Keep in mind that many of us go on the market initially rather naively, and can end up in situations that we are not happy with for complicated reasons. For me, the inertia of staying is strong enough that I'm not going to waste time applying unless it feels really right.

At the same time, if your school is not a good fit for an ABD or a fresh PhD, there is no guarantee that person won't up and move in a year or two or, as Dr_Crankypants notes, that s/he even actually wants your job in the first place.

[janewales]

We do have one huge problem that helps to explain the failure rate (which, I should be clear, is the failure rate for landing the already employed; we do usually make hires by going on to the newer people-- not ABDs, but people on postdocs)-- our very desirable location is very, very, very expensive, one of those places that ends up on "best places to live" and "most expensive real estate" lists simultaneously. Our salaries are high, but they can't be high enough to compensate for the cost of housing. Reality is that unless you have independent means, and/ or a SO with a very good job, a house is likely to be out of reach.

The idea that there may be something happening at the decanal level is interesting-- I'll try to follow up on that.