Post by Archivist on Jun 3, 2014 19:43:27 GMT -5
I am proposing a new general guideline for next year's boards:
Suggestions of "inside hires" imply a search committee's final decision is a foregone conclusion. Because one can not fully confirm (or deny) an outcome that has not yet taken place, such debates can never be fully resolved. Even after the successful conclusion of a search, the selection of an internal candidate is not sufficient proof that this outcome was predetermined. In addition, as others have pointed out, belief that a "committee" is internally unified in its desires is often an unjustified assumption.
As many have also pointed out before, most of these rumors are not based on actual inside information: if this situation really is taking place, those "in the know" have strong disincentives for leaking it. Some institutions really do have favored internal candidates, but in many of those cases we won't even know about the position; some have bureaucratic "conversion" mechanisms to promote adjuncts to assistant profs, and others have processes in place for "targeted hires."
These speculations generally come from other applicants outside of an institution who notice a strong match between a notice of vacancy and the qualifications of a current untenured faculty member. Since the job posting is already known, our junior detectives scrutinize the posted CVs of department VAPs. After posting this information, there is a natural inclination for others to go hunting themselves, even if they aren't interested in that position. The scrutiny then invites discussion about whether the proposed match really exists, until somebody (not necessarily a moderator) comes in and says to knock it off.
Here's my rationale for not speculating about the possibility of an inside hire prior to an application deadline:
Personally, I would like to see such speculation curbed even after a deadline has passed, but I want to start with this proposal and see where it goes.
Avoid speculation on the possibility of "inside hires" prior to an application deadline.
Suggestions of "inside hires" imply a search committee's final decision is a foregone conclusion. Because one can not fully confirm (or deny) an outcome that has not yet taken place, such debates can never be fully resolved. Even after the successful conclusion of a search, the selection of an internal candidate is not sufficient proof that this outcome was predetermined. In addition, as others have pointed out, belief that a "committee" is internally unified in its desires is often an unjustified assumption.
As many have also pointed out before, most of these rumors are not based on actual inside information: if this situation really is taking place, those "in the know" have strong disincentives for leaking it. Some institutions really do have favored internal candidates, but in many of those cases we won't even know about the position; some have bureaucratic "conversion" mechanisms to promote adjuncts to assistant profs, and others have processes in place for "targeted hires."
These speculations generally come from other applicants outside of an institution who notice a strong match between a notice of vacancy and the qualifications of a current untenured faculty member. Since the job posting is already known, our junior detectives scrutinize the posted CVs of department VAPs. After posting this information, there is a natural inclination for others to go hunting themselves, even if they aren't interested in that position. The scrutiny then invites discussion about whether the proposed match really exists, until somebody (not necessarily a moderator) comes in and says to knock it off.
Here's my rationale for not speculating about the possibility of an inside hire prior to an application deadline:
- Bad for VAPs
We have an ethos here of not naming names for candidates receiving interviews. This obviously extends to not naming names of those who might consider applying. Singling out one individual who might be interested in a job (and doing so anonymously on a public website) is inherently unfair. Working as a VAP and going on the market is hard enough as it is, and subjecting yourself to higher scrutiny from your current colleagues creates new stresses that most ABDs can't even imagine. At the very least, let's give all potential candidates some privacy until they get their applications together. - Bad for other potential applicants
Whether intended or not, the essential message sent by this this rumor to other candidates is "don't bother applying." After all, why go to the trouble of tailoring a cover letter and bugging your mentors for yet another recommendation when the cards are stacked against you even more than usual? The possibility of this reaction -- in effect depressing the applicant pool -- might be enticing enough for some to spread false rumors to increase their relative chances. If the ultimate response to such speculation is "you should ignore this rumor and apply anyway," then why not remove the source of anxiety in the first place?
Personally, I would like to see such speculation curbed even after a deadline has passed, but I want to start with this proposal and see where it goes.