next »

[mdwlark]

Ah heck, it is just hard no matter how it's done if you really wanted the job.  We recover. 

[post_functional]

Getting one-offed a few times here on the fora helps one to buck up and develop that proverbial stiff upper lip.

[alleyoxenfree]

Well, there are obviously strong differences of opinion about this. Perhaps search committee chairs ought to ask finalists at some point in the process how they'd like to be notified of developments in the search? That wouldn't be difficult at all.

I don't understand why, however, if you're gonna feel crushed by not landing the job, an email is really any better. The email could also arrive during the weekend, right before you teach a class, just before you head to the doctor's office for your colonoscopy, etc., and the real problem is the news, not the medium. You've got to get the news somehow, and do you really expect them to be able to somehow time the news to your personal schedule and emotional ability to receive it? How are they supposed to do that?

No, the beauty of the email is that it can be opened ONLY when you want and when you're emotionally prepared for it.  And it doesn't want anything back.

[post_functional]

And the problem with the phone call is that you're still being judged, particularly in your weakest moment.

I say that crosses the International "Enough!" Line.

[pink_]

People please.  If you are not emotionally ready for the phone call, don't answer.  That's what voicemail is for.

[sagit]

People please.  If you are not emotionally ready for the phone call, don't answer.  That's what voicemail is for.

No, not really.  In my experience, a phone call from the SC means that you are getting a job offer or at the least encouraging information (such as, your file is being sent to the dean as our top choice).  If I saw that the phone call appeared to be from the SCC I would assume that it was good news in which case of course I would answer it. 

[omgacademe]

I just wanted to chime in and say that I prefer a phone call rejection.  Granted, I have only received rejection by phone twice, and those two interviews were among the best interviews I've had.  Both of the search committees seemed genuinely interested in me and were very friendly during the interview .  Also, both of the rejection phone calls explained why they chose the other candidate, which I personally really appreciated.  I WANT to know any weaknesses in my CV or interview. 

But I can understand how that would not be true of 90% of applicants.  If I were on a search committee, I don't know which way I would inform people. 

[pink_]

People please.  If you are not emotionally ready for the phone call, don't answer.  That's what voicemail is for.

No, not really.  In my experience, a phone call from the SC means that you are getting a job offer or at the least encouraging information (such as, your file is being sent to the dean as our top choice).  If I saw that the phone call appeared to be from the SCC I would assume that it was good news in which case of course I would answer it. 

Well, if this thread proves nothing else, it's that you can't tell what kind of call you're going to get.  It hardly seems fair to fault a SC (or anyone else for that matter) for an incorrect assumption. 

[monsterx]

A couple of years ago I interviewed for a job and did not get it. I didn't want to interview in the first place but they recruited me. It was not an R1 position, but it's a program that has a growing reputation. I knew 3 of the people on the SC quite well. I AM STILL PISSED OFF that they sent me a rejection e-mail. I wanted a phone call. I still want that phone call- it doesn't matter that I'm at a R1, top 10 program with way more lab space than they could have managed. It doesn't matter that the top of their salary scale was lower than mine (at the time) and that I'm in a state where there is no state income tax. I want a phone call.

I had something like that happen to me, but I got a phone call instead.  Boy, was that an akward phone conversation!  But it had to be done; I was (and am) in a research network with two of the SC members, and we would have needed to talk about it sooner or later.  My friends on the SC and elsewhere in that department wanted to make sure I understood the blame for me not getting hired lay elsewhere, and they were also upset about it.  At that moment, a rejection email would have been better, but the reality of the situation had to be confronted sooner or later.

Except the above situation, I prefer to receive my rejections by email.  It gives me freedom to curse the pathetic little toads on the SC, to speculate as to their ancestory and the marital status of their parents, to declare that I would never have taken a job at that turd of a department in that cesspit of a town in any case, because of the evident lead poisoning in the water supply.   On the phone, much of that would be considered impolite. But if you write an email reply, you just have to be sure to click "delete" rather than "send" and you can say what you like.   

[mystictechgal]

For those of you that prefer a phone call, please know that my HR department (not in academia) would have had my head on a platter had I ever made a phone call to reject an applicant.  Their fear was that something might inadvertently be said in the course of the call that might leave the company open to a lawsuit.  Perhaps that's universally not the case in academia, but I suspect it's likely that there are academic HR departments that have the same mindset and rules. 

Letters (or emails--we never did that, either) are more impersonal, but they also have the advantage of providing documentation of exactly what was said and they don't invite a give and take, or possible misinterpretations on the part of the candidate, that could lead to issues down the road.

[kedves]

Academia is not so litigation-conscious, at least not yet, and it probably never will be for faculty.  It's a small world and except for stars and the tenured, all the power is on the employer side.  People rarely sue without overwhelming evidence of outright illegal discrimination, and even then, they usually don't sue.  We hear repeatedly in the fora about astonishing things that candidates are told in person, so I don't think that can be the reason. I think search committee chairs use email because they don't want to talk to people they are disappointing. 

[the_honey_badger]

For those of you that prefer a phone call, please know that my HR department (not in academia) would have had my head on a platter had I ever made a phone call to reject an applicant.  Their fear was that something might inadvertently be said in the course of the call that might leave the company open to a lawsuit.  Perhaps that's universally not the case in academia, but I suspect it's likely that there are academic HR departments that have the same mindset and rules. 

Letters (or emails--we never did that, either) are more impersonal, but they also have the advantage of providing documentation of exactly what was said and they don't invite a give and take, or possible misinterpretations on the part of the candidate, that could lead to issues down the road.

The second issue is one reason why you will be getting an e-mail from me.  I could send a letter but then you'll need to wait an extra week for the thrill of our attractive letterhead/logo and my guess is you want the suspense to end.  But, if you do decide to threaten to sue (as did one applicant in a search a few years back),  I'm going to happily send you every "conversation" we ever had and you can do what you like from that point. 

The primary reason I stopped calling the finalists who didn't finish first is that those who would rather have personal contact prefer it out of their own personal or even regionally-based social ideas about what is correct.

  On the other hand, those who don't want to have an "awkward" conversation feel very viscerally that they don't want the "ambush" of a call (no, not everyone has caller ID or their kid answers the phone and calls them to it, etc).  That for me trumps any ideas about proper social practices.  The person isn't getting a job they probably both want and need. I don't think they should have to "perform" at a moment of high stress.  If they want to initiate further contact about the results?  I'll pitch it over to the chair.

[elven]

I had something like that happen to me, but I got a phone call instead.  Boy, was that an akward phone conversation!  But it had to be done; I was (and am) in a research network with two of the SC members, and we would have needed to talk about it sooner or later.  

This surprises me. If the SCC can report that the rejection had nothing to do with the individual and everything to do with the budget or some administrative problem, I can understand a phone call. In every other case, the SCC is usually unable to say anything but platitudes, "we were so impressed with your research/presentation/teaching but we have offered the position to someone else; we're sure you'll be successful in your next endeavor, etc."  

If it were possible for the SCC to discuss the deficiencies that the candidate can address, and, even better, offer some helpful suggestions, it would be great. But that puts SCCs in a difficult position, so it can almost never happen.

Once I asked to find out the names of the other finalists for a school whose website stated that names of all finalists are released to any member of the public upon request, unless the candidate has asked that his/her name be withheld.  I could not get any information about "fit" from the SCC, and I wanted to see if I could learn anything about the difference between the successful candidate and those of us who were not. An attorney for the university called me back. Clearly, the request made the HR officials very nervous. Actually, I found the information reassuring - the other rejected candidates were very impressive, so I did not feel as badly once I knew who also had been rejected.

Unless the rejection call can be informative to the candidate, I'd prefer a well-crafted and kind letter or email.  

[monsterx]

This surprises me. If the SCC can report that the rejection had nothing to do with the individual and everything to do with the budget or some administrative problem, I can understand a phone call. In every other case, the SCC is usually unable to say anything but platitudes, "we were so impressed with your research/presentation/teaching but we have offered the position to someone else; we're sure you'll be successful in your next endeavor, etc."  

It was for a position in the UK.  The situation was that they offered the position to another candidate because a minority of the SC prefered him over me, and he had an EU passport while I didn't.  In HR's opinion, that meant he was qualified for the position, and they legally had to hire him over me because of the conditions put on issuing work permits, even if the SC chair preferred to hire me. HR had been given the right to assert itself in hiring decisions because of past lawsuits at that university.  So the SCC, with whom I have been involved in a number of ongoing activities, pretty much felt he had to explain this to me, probably to minimize the effect of bad feelings on my involvement in the projects they were organizing.   

[southbound]

I've just made a couple of these calls, and worried about many of the factors mentioned--I don't know what a person is doing, or where, when I call--especially if I have a cell number.  The call will almost certainly spark initial hope which turns to disappointment, while still talking to me.  But these are people who have visited our campus, classroom and table and my conviction (having not seen this thread) was that a personal call was appropriate (even though the call had no more information than a letter or email would have).

You can't really ask people in advance: "Would you rather have a letter, an email or a phone call if we don't hire you?" but I suppose it might be helpful to let people know how you'll do it.  We were careful to say "we'll let you know as soon as we know, whether the news is good or bad."   We could have said--I'm pretty sure we didn't--"we'll let you know by phone..."

The bottom line is that these were all very good candidates (as are the vast majority who make it to a campus interview), we genuinely appreciate their interest, the news is bad and possibly hope-crushing as the OP indicates, and we want to treat the candidates with as much dignity and respect in the situation as we can--as they deserve.

Thanks to all who have contributed to this thread.