next »

[tenured_feminist]

Subject line says it all. What kinds of ethical concerns would make a candidate a non-starter for you? I have a specific scenario, but the topic has broader applications and might provoke a valuable discussion.

A word of background: one of our applicants accepted a job at a good but undistinguished liberal arts college. Before setting foot on campus, Mr. Bigshot won a very nice postdoc at Fancypants University. The college agreed to let him take a year's leave to do the postdoc. Now he's applying out for a new tenure-track job, which he would presumably accept and start without ever breathing the undistinguished air of the college with which he's been affiliated for the 2011-12 academic year. He's done nothing illegal here, but I feel pretty bad for the department that's kept that line vacant for what will likely turn out to be two years because Mr. Bigshot decided to hunt for greener pastures.

[alleyoxenfree]

Really?  I think he's just playing by the rules that have defined academia, particularly its tenured faculty, for some time now, which are, Get Yours.

[helpful]

Did said applicant accept a tenure track job, or a just a VAP or instructor position?

If it was a tenure track job, I would worry he would do the same to you.

Not the same issue, but we once conference interviewed an applicant who was vicious about their opinions of a university they had worked at. This was in the formal interview. The SC quite naturally wondered how this person would speak of our place if they got a job with us. So, this person dropped to the bottom of our applicant list.

[scampster]

Really?  I think he's just playing by the rules that have defined academia, particularly its tenured faculty, for some time now, which are, Get Yours.

The school he committed to hasn't been shopping around for someone better in the year he has been doing his postdoc.

TF, I know some people disagree, but I think this says things about someone's character, and not good things. But I'm just an applicant (but I also know I would never do what this guy is doing).

[msparticularity]

So, do we think this dude has a backup girlfriend/boyfriend, too, in case none of the really hot possibilities pan out?

[lyndonparker]

Really?  I think he's just playing by the rules that have defined academia, particularly its tenured faculty, for some time now, which are, Get Yours.

The school he committed to hasn't been shopping around for someone better in the year he has been doing his postdoc.

TF, I know some people disagree, but I think this says things about someone's character, and not good things. But I'm just an applicant (but I also know I would never do what this guy is doing).

I agree with this. My very good but not distinguished SLAC would be really put out if a candidate did this to us. People have different opinions about the ethics of applying for jobs one knows one would not take, but after one accepts the job you owe them at least a year before you start looking for other posts. If it's a lousy fit, so be it, but if you really don't want to go there don't take the job.

[paulsa]

I'm not sure that what's being described here is ruling someone out on "ethical grounds."

It sounds more like ruling somebody out for being a potentially unreliable employee on the the basis of a clear record. The concerns are practical more than ethical: is your department willing to risk going through the time and expense of another job search if the candidate does the same thing again?

On the other hand, it sounds like the "good but undistinguished" liberal arts school that agreed to let their new employee do a fancy postdoc without setting foot on campus should probably have seen this coming.

So, do we think this dude has a backup girlfriend/boyfriend, too, in case none of the really hot possibilities pan out?

Telling your girlfriend/boyfriend that instead of a honeymoon after your wedding, it would be okay for them to take a beach vacation with a swimsuit model would be a bit naive. The "good but undistinguished" liberal arts school shares some blame here for letting their new hire do that fancy postdoc.

[larryc]

Is the SLAC job TT or visiting?

[donstefano]

I've done the same thing in the past. Anyone hiring a postdoc knows (should know) this person can leave whena  TT comes up. Why would applicant spend a year in a postdoc and so postpone entry into a TT with a year? The reason why he applied for the postdoc was probably to strengthen the CV, or to get an income in between jobs.
I agree with alleyoxenfree - this applicant just plays by the rules set by academia.

[doctorcat]

But the subject line doesn't say it all. Surely once he was offered the job and accepted he was no longer a candidate.

I agree with the others (above) it sounds like the college should have been more firm with this ... er... employee (I guess that's what he was/ is).

Sounds like you want to give him the boot.

[busyslinky]

Stupid decision by the SLAC.  Not unethical to keep looking and taking offers from others.  Is your school "better" than his SLAC?  If so, then he is doing the right thing for his career.  It is even less unethical than those who search while being paid by their current schools (at least he is not wasting the SLAC's money by not being on their payroll).

[tenured_feminist]

SLAC job is tenure-track. My view is that VAPs are completely in the clear in continuing their searches for a TT position and should be sent off to a new TT job with the VAP department's blessing.

Slinky, I disagree. I have no problem with someone searching for a new job while in a current job, because presumably the current job is getting the benefit of the searcher's work, which s/he was presumably hired to do because the department needed it.

And Doctorcat, the "candidate" is a candidate for new jobs. He has a job at his SLAC. I'm concerned about the ethics of his candidacy for new positions.

In the past, I've always raised an eyebrow at a candidate who hasn't even been in a TT position for one year and turns up in the pool, but have been willing to hear some kinds of arguments (usually "I have an unresolvable dual career issue"). I'm less convinced by "but I'm underplaced!" claims made before the candidate has been at a place long enough to prove it (usually about 3 years).

Perhaps too I'm too captured by my own position -- if I were at the SLAC, I could easily see saying to my colleagues, "hey, you know what? X is a great candidate and we were lucky to get him. Let's do what we can to make him happy and let him do this postdoc, even if it means having to struggle to cover courses for a year. After all, if it jump starts his publishing, it will pay off for us in the long run, no?" I'm glad to see the posts expressing the candidate's side.

I do think that not fulfilling an obligation and leaving a department in the lurch when one is in a TT relationship can rise to the level of an ethical issue. I have a friend who, a few years ago, had to deal with a tenured faculty member who blithely announced in late June that she was leaving for a new job effective Sept. 1, leaving a fully enrolled core class in the major and several graduate students hanging, and we both agreed that this was Not Cool. Just not completely sure what to think about this one and whether we should still consider the candidate.

(It's also possibly useful for job seekers to know that these kinds of conversations happen.)

[threefive]

I have a friend who, a few years ago, had to deal with a tenured faculty member who blithely announced in late June that she was leaving for a new job effective Sept. 1, leaving a fully enrolled core class in the major and several graduate students hanging, and we both agreed that this was Not Cool.

I've been at an institution where a TT faculty member told the chair that they were leaving 6 months in advance, which was immediately after they accepted their new position. The new provost immediately bumped this person down to adjunct status for the remainder of the spring semester. (We're in an at-will state with no real contract until tenure.) Since then, everyone that leaves hasn't told anyone until they were loading the moving trucks.

It absolutely sucks for those left in the department, but no one faults the faculty member leaving. That new provost became the former provost pretty quickly. Absent those circumstance, though, pulling such a stunt would definitely be considered Not Cool.

[lyndonparker]

SLAC job is tenure-track. My view is that VAPs are completely in the clear in continuing their searches for a TT position and should be sent off to a new TT job with the VAP department's blessing.

Slinky, I disagree. I have no problem with someone searching for a new job while in a current job, because presumably the current job is getting the benefit of the searcher's work, which s/he was presumably hired to do because the department needed it.

And Doctorcat, the "candidate" is a candidate for new jobs. He has a job at his SLAC. I'm concerned about the ethics of his candidacy for new positions.

In the past, I've always raised an eyebrow at a candidate who hasn't even been in a TT position for one year and turns up in the pool, but have been willing to hear some kinds of arguments (usually "I have an unresolvable dual career issue"). I'm less convinced by "but I'm underplaced!" claims made before the candidate has been at a place long enough to prove it (usually about 3 years).

Perhaps too I'm too captured by my own position -- if I were at the SLAC, I could easily see saying to my colleagues, "hey, you know what? X is a great candidate and we were lucky to get him. Let's do what we can to make him happy and let him do this postdoc, even if it means having to struggle to cover courses for a year. After all, if it jump starts his publishing, it will pay off for us in the long run, no?" I'm glad to see the posts expressing the candidate's side.

I do think that not fulfilling an obligation and leaving a department in the lurch when one is in a TT relationship can rise to the level of an ethical issue. I have a friend who, a few years ago, had to deal with a tenured faculty member who blithely announced in late June that she was leaving for a new job effective Sept. 1, leaving a fully enrolled core class in the major and several graduate students hanging, and we both agreed that this was Not Cool. Just not completely sure what to think about this one and whether we should still consider the candidate.

(It's also possibly useful for job seekers to know that these kinds of conversations happen.)

I find it ironic that the folks who support the post-doc ditching his t-t obligation at the SLAC tend to be still in graduate school. Every time someone pulls something like this, the job search gets more difficult for candidates who are still on the market.

Several years ago, my SLAC got burned by a candidate who somehow managed to stretch his time to accept/decline an offer over a month. I know, I know, but the guy was absolutely splendid at this type of manipulation. In the end he left us high and dry, and the other two candidates had taken other offers. The result? People now have a week to accept or decline our offer, and if they cannot do so we move on to the next candidate.

Many SCs are filled with kind, nice, supportive people who want their candidates to be happy. Candidates behaving badly will change that for future candidates.

[thehighking]

I'm not being snarky with this comment, but can someone clarify how this is different than if the person in question *didn't* take the post-doc, showed up and worked for a year, and during that year applied for new jobs without telling anyone there? Is that also "unethical?" Or is the idea that it is "unethical" because he "never set foot" on this campus in the capacity of a faculty? Why does that matter?

NOTE: I haven't decided one way or another what I think about this...I'm just asking for some clarification.