|
Post by postdoc on Nov 19, 2011 19:20:13 GMT -5
I get really tired of people pointing out that schools often advertise positions that have a VAP that fits the position well. Well DUH! A school is hiring a permanent faculty member to teach courses or fill a gap in their curriculum that the currently faculty cannot teach/fill. So the school is currently using a VAP to teach those classes. Clearly, most schools would not be advertising a position to teach x, y and z if they had x, y and z covered (unless they wanted to continue to build strengths in x, y, and z but that is typically reserved for research schools). The VAP was hired to teach courses that the faculty cannot teach. Perhaps the VAP will have an advantage because they fit what the department needs but it is highly doubtful that departments are writing job ads specifically for their VAPs. And I can tell you that coming from an R1 that had VAPs - we never hired them! We never even interviewed them! I am sure there are rare cases where the VAP is a spouse of someone at the university, trying to get on the tenure track or the VAP is an active researcher that the department loves, but mostly these are exceptions.
I wish people would think about how departments work and fill courses and get funding from Deans before they assume every position is a vast conspiracy to hire their VAP.
Rant done.
|
|
|
Post by huh on Nov 20, 2011 13:36:49 GMT -5
Note: I'm reproducing a post from a different thread here.
Inside hires happen, but nowhere near the frequency suggested in these boards. Just this past 10 days we've had winona, georgia southern, southern oregon, cal poly all accused of having an inside hire.
And while it may be the purpose of this rumor mill to discuss actual inside hires, it is certainly not the purpose of this rumor mill to have people virtually named here in an attempt to poison the well.
For the record, an inside hire isn't just that there happens to be a candidate inside that can potentially do the job. An inside hire is when a search is a sham, when the department just goes through the motions to pretend to give other candidates consideration even though they never had a chance. In other words, by accusing a department of doing an inside hire, you are accusing them of violating institutional policy at a minimum, and potentially breaking state law. Taking these sorts of things lightly seems to me a lot more unkind than calling people names.
I am not at winona or likely applying to it (born and raised in the south, cant stand the cold). But I am a VAP here in the southeast, and I teach methods. When my contract is up, they will have to hire someone to teach methods. The way things are going, people will undoubtedly call this an inside hire no matter how hard the department tries to get a large number of applicants.
Now, to put this in a different way: is there any school in the country that wouldn't be accused of doing an inside hire for a theory/general soc. search?
Inside hires are marked by attempts to reduce the applicant pool so the dean signs off on hiring the person who is already there. It involves ridiculous deadline, strange combinations of required specialties, or strange requests for certain materials. Just having an ad for a position that is so broad that most adjuncts anywhere in the country could fit is not an inside hire.
|
|
|
Post by annoonn on Nov 20, 2011 13:39:46 GMT -5
Note: I'm reproducing a post from a different thread here.
Let me try to defuse this and explain more civilly why most positions that people claim are inside hires actually aren't.
It is very, very common to have a VAP teaching in an area that a school wants to hire in. Look elsewhere on the board and you will see that multiple people have noted just how many assistant professors are in the market right now. Some of them will inevitably get and accept offers elsewhere. Which means that their schools will probably find out that they are out a faculty member for next year at the end of this semester or start of the next. So they will have a relatively short turn around time to hire someone. In these situations, they will try to get the dean to approve a VAP position, because it is unlikely that the dean will sign off on a tt search this late in the season. So they will hire a VAP to cover the classes that the assistant professor was going to teach next semester, and then, if they are lucky, get a TT line approved at the regular time for 2 years from now. This is generally what happens whenever you have a professor leaving or suddenly retiring.
As for why these can't be inside hires, it is because even if the department loves the VAP, they still need to get the dean to sign off on hiring the person. If the department runs a search wide enough, advertised broadly enough, for a position defined broadly enough, the dean will likely question why the offer is going to that person instead to some other super star who is applying. Which is why inside hires involve a distinct attempt to limit the applicant pool. Last year there was one that I thought was a good example of a potential inside hire: 2 week deadline, requested syllabi for 2 or 3 different, specific classes they needed taught, and a teaching philosophy that outlined the candidates experience teaching those classes. Things like that are inside hires.
Just having someone who can fill one of the very broad areas of sociology ("theory," "methods," "inequality") isn't. Not unless you think that every department that has a search in a broad area has an inside hire.
|
|
|
Post by I agree on Nov 20, 2011 13:49:42 GMT -5
I concur with the recent comments by "huh" and "annoonn." I would like to add another civil attempt to analyze and defuse the discussions on this topic.
One poster (in a different thread) wrote:
Inside hires happen, and for someone to state that they suspect one is happening is not unkind - it is stating a suspicion that a particular practice is occurring. ... My hope was to post my suspicion and see if anyone with closer knowledge of the situation would/could confirm or refute my suspicion.
Stated suspicions of an "inside hire" situation generally do not come across as neutral observations, but seem charged with negative connotations. They challenge the integrity of a department, and prejudge the legitimacy of their eventual hire. They also invite public scrutiny of the specific attributes of a current faculty member, who will possibly (but not necessarily) apply for this position. Given that all of this occurs behind a veil of anonymity but in a permanently archived public forum, that seems out of bounds to me.
Posting unfounded speculations and then asking for proof to the contrary has a "guilty until proven innocent" feel to it (i.e "This has the distinct odor..."). That sounds more like creating a rumor, rather than requesting more information. When posters do not actually ask questions but rather make statements, others are likely to cry Foul!
In that same thread another poster stated:
I thought one of the points of the rumor mill is to discuss when:
a) you suspect an inside hire is possible. b) when you have insider knowledge about an inside hire.
I'm puzzled by the intensity of emotion coming through from folks who don't want the possibilities of an inside hire to be discussed.
I would agree with (b) but I have many concerns about (a) for reasons stated above. Many of us react strongly to such accusations because individual reputations and careers are at stake here. That, I believe, is why some accusers get labeled as "idiots." Yes, it would be more appropriate to say a particular post is idiotic rather than make a personal attack.*
Instead of focusing on an inappropriate response to an inappropriate comment, consider how anonymous accusations in a public forum might taint all those involved in the hiring process. I'm not talking about intentions here, but rather consequences. I'm not challenging any individual's motivations or mindset, but actions can have unintended results. I urge everyone to use more discretion in the future.
* I hold this as a general rule: criticize the actions rather than actor to maintain the focus on the behavior we can observe and critique. Calling people names often distracts us from holding people accountable for their offenses.
|
|
|
Post by inside candidate on Nov 20, 2011 14:43:59 GMT -5
A few years ago I got pegged in the rumor mill as the inside candidate. My name, interests, vita and other links were readily available on the department's web site. People began reading the tea leaves of the job ad, and mentioned my thesis and publications as proof that this was an inside hire masquerading as a real search. While I might have appreciated the attention to my research, it felt really weird to see this all unfold in front of my eyes. It was a bit creepy, to be honest, like I had attracted a bunch of stalkers.
I was later able to have a good laugh about this with my department chair, because we both knew that I wasn't even going to apply for the job for personal family reasons. (My husband had just taken a job in a different state, and I was going to try my luck elsewhere.) (By the way, some SC members DO read the rumor mill.)
In my current position I've been on two search committees, and while there was an "inside candidate" for each the biggest problem was how to let our young colleagues down easy when it became apparent they weren't going to make the final cut.
I also agree with some the other thoughts posted above. The job postings you see are usually the end result of several years of negotiation amongst the faculty members and the administration. They often get rejected the first time around, which is why you see a visiting professor handling the workload. I do know of real "inside hires" that have taken place, and believe me when I say that you'll rarely get any true confirmation of that on a site like this. Those in the know will not be responding here, and chances are high that you won't even be aware that this search is taking place. In my school we refer to these as "targeted hires" and have a special procedure in place that avoids all of the trouble of creating a fake national search.
Morals of the story:
1. If you aren't embedded in the department, you probably don't have any business talking about whether a job is an "inside hire" or not. You sound foolish when you try.
2. If you're wrong about your "suspicion" it is very difficult for those in the know to convince you otherwise without divulging private information.
3. Visiting professors and adjuncts might be better able to craft their letters tailored to the job listing but they are often in a worse position because everybody already knows their warts.
4. Good luck to everyone on the market! Don't let the stress allow you to turn on your fellow applicants!
|
|
rrr
Full Member
Posts: 113
|
Post by rrr on Nov 20, 2011 16:24:31 GMT -5
Thank you for your sound logic.
Another logical reason why there might be cries of "inside hire" on the wiki is that they originate from someone who is applying for the position and is trying to fake out the competition to prevent them from applying. So people - always take the wiki with a grain of salt. That poster calling inside hire might just be trying to dissuade you from applying for the position s/he wants.
|
|
|
Post by qwerty on Nov 20, 2011 17:01:28 GMT -5
Well, it is not always malicious. In a tough market such as this people will often come up with these things as a sort of protection mechanism.
Now, just so people understand how rare these "sham" searches are, not even most state schools are required to advertise positions widely. There are a number of legal measures put in place that allows institutions to do "targeted hires," as mentioned above. Hell, while every other business has to legally show they tried to hire an American before making an offer to a non citizen, federal law even grants an exemption on that to universities.
Which means that, as "inside candidate" above has mentioned, most inside hires happen without ever having a search advertised. That is how most spousal hires happen, for example.
To have the sort of sham search people are quick to accuse institutions of having around here, a very particular set of circumstances has to take place. The department has to want the inside candidate, but the dean or administration has to have refused to sign off on a targeted hire. In this situation, the department will then have to go through the motions of a search, and will need to restrict (ridiculous requirements, very short deadlines, etc) applicants so that the dean signs off on the hire.
As you can imagine, that is quite rare.
|
|
|
Post by therefore on Nov 20, 2011 17:29:30 GMT -5
To summarize, actual cases of an institution planning an "inside hire": - will be difficult to verify or refute to anyone's satisfaction
- probably won't involve a well-publicized national search
- would violate many institutional guidelines for hiring
In addition, rumors about an impending inside hire: - are unlikely to originate from somebody who actually knows
- could unfairly disparage departments, candidates, or hires
- might be a deliberate red herring to scare off other applicants
Ergo, we should dismiss most claims that a department has already de facto selected an internal candidate. Ergo, we should also ignore potentially valid claims of "inside hire" because we can't definitively determine if we should trust them. Ergo, nobody should make such a claim in this forum because every subsequent discussion will send us down the same rabbit hole.
|
|
|
Post by why on Nov 20, 2011 19:12:00 GMT -5
Well, (trying to fake out the competition to prevent them from applying) is not always malicious. In a tough market such as this people will often come up with these things as a sort of protection mechanism. And you would not call that malicious because... ;D Seriously, I personally do not think that is going on very much but I am against anything that in any way implies people should not bother submitting an application. "They will only hire Top 10 PhDs" or "They never give tenure" or "The department chair is a jerk" might all be true, but they are inappropriate if there is any chance these comments result in discouraging somebody from applying. Just wait until after the deadline passes, then dish all the dirt to help candidates be better prepared if you want. (Or do it if you only want to spread some gossip Just wait!) People here like to talk about inside hires and such because it gives them some sense of control in a pretty much powerless situation. It helps justify their feelings that the system is unfair because the cards are stacked against them. I am not saying it is right or okay, for many of the reasons already mentioned. It is a big waste of everybody's time, especially for the junior detectives digging through a VAPs cv and posting speculations that are usually grossly misinformed. They should spend more time worrying about themselves than about the competition. Just my opinion. Anyway I support not making any accusations before an application deadline, if ever. It is a pointless exercise that does not really help anybody out, and it usually results in an extended argument.
|
|
|
Post by am35 on Dec 1, 2011 17:03:13 GMT -5
Maybe it is just me and my experience, but I dont see these "inside hire" comments as rumor, or even ridiculous. I understand all of the realities that have been outlined by posters above, BUT as someone who last year did a campus interview for a job where they seemed entirely interested in me, only to find out from a friend in the department when I got turned down that they hired someone who had been working there for several years, I have to say that I think that it is important knowledge to share when there could be other factors at play. I dont think the search was a "sham"--but I do think that someone has a leg up if they work in the department already. I dont think posters saying it might be an inside hire is malicious, I think it is positing one possible outcome thats useful to other potential candidates. I think most people are just trying to figure out this crazy thing we call the job market--and to ignore the fact that sometimes being on the "inside" matters in a search is to brush serious power structures under the rug.
|
|
|
Post by Insider on Dec 1, 2011 17:38:38 GMT -5
The concept of "inside hire" doesn't mean only someone who is already teaching or doing research there. A candidate can have an inside advantage because of mentor networking, or shared scholarly links to a current faculty member, or having been an undergraduate at the department, or other advantages over the previously unknown applicants.
I don't think though that being better known is necessarily an advantage, though, since you are likely to have made some enemies, posed a threat to someone, or simply made a weak impression because they know you, but can instead project all miraculous attributes and fantasies upon the newcomer applicant. Remember, the search process is often compared to flirtation and courtship. There's the romance and thrill of the new potential partner, versus the familiarity of the companion.
|
|
|
Post by nice to know on Dec 2, 2011 14:19:39 GMT -5
I considered coming on the board and posting the question, whether or not it would be appropriate to ask a department whether they were considering "x" for the job since s/he looks like a perfect fit. But the obvious answer is no, of course that's not appropriate. Nonetheless, having gone through the motions with another job to only find out they hired their VAP, it makes me very suspicious for an upcoming interview knowing that there is a VAP who seems to fit their call. Lots of unknown factors at play, of course. But geez, it'd be nice if I could just say, "Hey, so what are the odds you AREN'T going to hire X?" just so I don't get my hopes up too high. Ugh. Even good news is crappy now a days.
|
|
|
Post by why on Dec 2, 2011 18:53:32 GMT -5
Maybe it is just me and my experience, but I dont see these "inside hire" comments as rumor, or even ridiculous. I understand all of the realities that have been outlined by posters above, BUT as someone who last year did a campus interview for a job where they seemed entirely interested in me, only to find out from a friend in the department when I got turned down that they hired someone who had been working there for several years, I have to say that I think that it is important knowledge to share when there could be other factors at play. I dont think the search was a "sham"--but I do think that someone has a leg up if they work in the department already. I dont think posters saying it might be an inside hire is malicious, I think it is positing one possible outcome thats useful to other potential candidates. I think most people are just trying to figure out this crazy thing we call the job market--and to ignore the fact that sometimes being on the "inside" matters in a search is to brush serious power structures under the rug. But here's the thing: if the search is not a sham, then why should it matter if there is a VAP that matches a loose position description? Can he or she have an advantage of being an insider? Sure. But there is also possibly a disadvantage, too (your warts will be a lot more visible than all those wonderful-on-paper candidates). More importantly, if the search is not a sham, then it should have no impact whatsoever on your decision to apply for the place, especially since if the search is not a sham the VAP will be applying elsewhere, too. Also, being more careful before suggesting a colleague and a department are conducting a potentially "fake" search isn't "brush[ing] serious power structures under the rug" It is certainly much better than singling out people for unwanted and possibly unfair scrutiny. I am pretty sure that next year, when we look back at all these "inside hire" claims, we will find that a tiny minority, if any, were filled by the inside candidate (which by itself isn't even a guarantee of a sham search).
|
|
|
Post by flipside on Dec 3, 2011 10:32:01 GMT -5
People, it makes no sense whatsoever to lament the presence of a VAP who appears to "fit the description" of what a department is looking for. For one thing, we know that success as an instructor does not translate into excellence as a researcher and vice versa, so assuming that a research-oriented department is automatically in love with the scholarship of people who were hired to teach specific courses is silly. Second, NOBODY comes out of grad school looking to be a visiting assistant professor; therefore, the very status of being VAP suggests that this person fell short of his or her preference, and the current department may have just been what was available rather than what was desirable. Related to this, a person may work at a place and decide that this department isn't one in which he or she would want to set up shop long-term, and a stated intent to look elsewhere might be impetus to search for someone who can replace this person, except through a newly-available tenure line that was not offered during the exceptionally bad markets of years past.
The bottom line is this: among the many moving parts that others have already acknowledged are the factors that contribute to one arriving at a place as a VAP, and those very factors dictate some likelihood that the marriage between said VAP and the department may be about to end. Therefore, the presence of a VAP who fits the description may actually be one of the factors that works IN FAVOR of outsiders. We've heard more than enough of the paranoid ranting about this or that department and, as a previous poster has alluded to, we are decidedly likely to look back a year from now and realize how absurd all of the claims of "inside hire" really were (as they often are).
|
|
|
Post by dragons on Dec 3, 2011 11:39:15 GMT -5
While VAP hiring/advantages are almost certainly the exception rather than the rule, I find the backlash against "VAP paranoia" to be excessive. There are situations where being an internal candidate gives someone an inside track, or gives them better odds for an interview/hiring than others. It's not like VAP hiring never happens.
|
|