|
Post by PSA on Aug 26, 2015 16:31:56 GMT -5
I am a faculty member at a small regional university. We are starting the year severely short staffed. And the reason for that is easy to determine: failed searches. We had at least 3 searches fail last year in our department (and at least one of those someone had actually said yes to our offer). Ultimately, the reason for the failed searches was that the individuals would have never accepted the position anyways. These weren't people that had competing offers that outbid us. They either chose to go back to their old positions/grad school/drop out of academia completely. As a state school, our salaries are publicly available, as is all sorts of information.
I know that the market situation makes people apply for places they wouldn't have considered before. But I urge the young grad students and others around here to think long and hard about whether they would actually accept the position at the place they are applying for. In this current climate, everyone loses when a search fails.
|
|
|
Post by Miss Ann Thrope on Aug 26, 2015 20:49:38 GMT -5
Perhaps the reason they didn't accept the position is not because they knew they wouldn't work there, but because during their interview, they saw that the department wasn't a good fit. Interviews are a two-way street. Candidates are interviewing you, the department, and the university/college as much as you are interviewing the candidate.
|
|
|
Post by PSA on Aug 26, 2015 21:30:09 GMT -5
Perhaps the reason they didn't accept the position is not because they knew they wouldn't work there, but because during their interview, they saw that the department wasn't a good fit. Interviews are a two-way street. Candidates are interviewing you, the department, and the university/college as much as you are interviewing the candidate. I am sure that there is a non-negligible chance that these candidates lied to us about the reasons they didn't come here. But the reasons they gave us (being closer to family, salary too low, town too small) were all knowable ahead of time.
|
|
|
Post by however on Aug 27, 2015 13:48:47 GMT -5
I will say, there are a lot of places Id be skeptical of going to (precisely due to things like family, salary, small town considerations) that I would visit if invited that I would give a good hard look to with an open mind. If I literally can only get one job offer (or even just fly out interview), and it happens to be at such a place, its well worth my while to check it out and weigh my options. In the end, I may get cold feet, back out, and just leave sociology and do something else where I can live where I want to, but I wouldn't take that as my being disingenuous. Ive invested a lot of time getting a phd and publishing my work. I can't quit and be ok looking back on all that if I don't at least check out the few places willing to interview me.
|
|
|
Post by PSA on Aug 27, 2015 18:52:34 GMT -5
Candidates who are on the fence should of course apply. My rant wasn't aimed at those. But there are individuals who apply at places that they would clearly never work at. In fact, in my state university system there are a number of institutions here with open vacancies precisely because of that. Not to open a can of worms, but it is this situation that leads to things like hiring someone as a VAP first and then turning it into a TT line. Nowadays it is getting very hard to know who is genuinely interested in us. We don't misrepresent our situation: we are a low salary institution in a remote location with a university system that is struggling. We know we are not for everyone, and we are pretty upfront about all that. But now we have to go through the entire search committee song and dance again because the searches we ran failed. And the reason wasn't even that the first choices said no. But that they asked for time to think about it, took a couple of weeks, and didn't even come back with a good faith attempt to negotiate things we might grant.
I understand how tough the market is for candidates. I understand that people may feel pressured to look for places like ours during times of desperation. All I ask is that people take those two weeks to reflect on whether they'd really work here before they apply, not after the offer is made. I understand wanting to check things our personally. But there is no big mysterious show that we can put on during an interview that will make up for the fact that we are a place that pays in the mid-upper 40s that is 3 hours from the nearest major metro area. If either of those are deal breakers for you (or any other similar number of factors), don't think that there is some card up our sleeves that will make you forget those things.
|
|
|
Post by 40s on Aug 27, 2015 19:05:25 GMT -5
Well isn't the fact that you are unable to attract employees even in this horrible job market enough of an argument for your higher ups that paying mid to high 40s to someone with a PhD is simply below the market rate (besides being something of an insult) and that they need to raise starting salaries? I mean, what other ways do workers seeking employment have to defend their interests than turning down a job offer that corresponds to neither their skills nor the market price of their labor? Seriously, even as a VAP teaching 4/4 (i.e at a very pedestrian institution, and in a low-cost area of the country) I was making more than that. I sympathize with you personally and hear what you are saying but offering mid-40s is simply wrong.
|
|
|
Post by PSA on Aug 27, 2015 20:22:42 GMT -5
There are two responses here that speak to that:
- You can bet that we make the case that we need higher salaries to attract people to the higher ups. But this is a state institution, in an era when gutting faculty pay is seen as a positive by many.
- That said, our salaries are public information. Our ad lists the salary range. And even then, we have had no problems attracting candidates. Last year we had 60+. Which speaks to how bad the market is. And while the salary is terrible, I am sure that one of those 60 plus would have accepted it. Hell, one of those 60 plus was our current VAP who is making less than that (and who we've had to hire again because of the failed searches - awkward).
|
|
|
Post by Hmm on Aug 28, 2015 8:42:09 GMT -5
So why not just convert VAP into TT, seems like everyone would be happy (or at least have their needs reasonably met).
|
|
|
Post by guess on Aug 28, 2015 9:04:30 GMT -5
My understanding is that most state institutions do not allow for a closed search, at least at the entry level. As such, even if they do decide to just hire the VAP, they will need to announce the search. This entire thread highlights why it is absolutely rational sometimes to just go with the VAP.
|
|
|
Post by 40s/Hmm on Aug 28, 2015 9:45:34 GMT -5
This entire thread highlights why it is absolutely rational sometimes to just go with the VAP. Completely agree, I have made that argument here several times before (as I was a member of such a department and saw the need, as well as desire to do so on the part of the existing faculty, firsthand).
|
|
|
Post by Miss Ann Thrope on Aug 28, 2015 16:22:21 GMT -5
In this market, JMCs do not have the luxury of not applying places. They apply everywhere. Maybe they thought that they'd be willing to be farther from family/have a lower income etc if they felt the department was a good fit. It's a negotiation for the JMC too in terms of what they are willing to give up for a tt job. You are taking the rejections too personally and honestly if you came across in person as your response here (on the defense, irritated, not giving the benefit of the doubt to people), then I would think that maybe the faculty have something to do with not being able to recruit the candidates they want. No one wants to work in an atmosphere that comes across in an interview setting (in particular!) as "off"
|
|
|
Post by 2bodies on Aug 28, 2015 17:36:09 GMT -5
Has your department ever offered a spousal hire? I can't help but wonder if one of the "family" concerns is lack of opportunities for a spouse, especially an academic spouse. 40 is low range in salary but if you could hire both candidate and spouse, that would be more enticing. And sounds like it could help with retention too. I always wonder if departments/schools that have repeated failed searches are more likely to consider spousal hires because they know the difficulty of getting someone.
|
|
|
Post by PSA on Aug 28, 2015 19:45:54 GMT -5
In this market, JMCs do not have the luxury of not applying places. They apply everywhere. Maybe they thought that they'd be willing to be farther from family/have a lower income etc if they felt the department was a good fit. It's a negotiation for the JMC too in terms of what they are willing to give up for a tt job. You are taking the rejections too personally and honestly if you came across in person as your response here (on the defense, irritated, not giving the benefit of the doubt to people), then I would think that maybe the faculty have something to do with not being able to recruit the candidates they want. No one wants to work in an atmosphere that comes across in an interview setting (in particular!) as "off" While I appreciate the suggestion that I might be the culprit for our recruiting woes (and I should note the irony of the accusation even as I am also accused of taking things too personally), I wasn't involved in 2 of the searches, and similar problems also are occurring at nearby institutions in the same situation. And a quick glance at this forum and related discussions about how to apply to teaching oriented places seem to indicate that the concern over whether candidates really want to go where they've applied is not restricted to my particular institution or university system. Universities like mine went from getting 2, maybe 3 candidates to getting 60 over the span of maybe 4 years. Some of the suggestions I've started hearing internally are likely to make the process worse for everybody, even if they end up likely leading to more successful hires. It would be much easier if candidates simply did not apply to places they would never go to. Now, to clarify, you seem to be under the impression that I am saying that people who are on the fence about the institution shouldn't apply. That is not it at all. If you think there is a chance you might come, then by all means apply and let us try to convince you. But the fact is that there is a large, and growing number of people who would never, ever consider coming here and still apply. Candidates should think long and hard about whether there is anything at all that might convince them to come to a 4-4, uppers 40s, rural institution. I'd never think this would be a controversial bit of advice, but I guess not. As financially strapped as we are, we can't open lines that quickly. Sometimes we can work something out with the big company in town, but that requires quite a bit of luck in getting good matches both ways. 2 of our hires worked out because they had spouses working at said company.
|
|
|
Post by Miss Ann Thrope on Aug 28, 2015 21:01:04 GMT -5
In this market, JMCs do not have the luxury of not applying places. They apply everywhere. Maybe they thought that they'd be willing to be farther from family/have a lower income etc if they felt the department was a good fit. It's a negotiation for the JMC too in terms of what they are willing to give up for a tt job. You are taking the rejections too personally and honestly if you came across in person as your response here (on the defense, irritated, not giving the benefit of the doubt to people), then I would think that maybe the faculty have something to do with not being able to recruit the candidates they want. No one wants to work in an atmosphere that comes across in an interview setting (in particular!) as "off" While I appreciate the suggestion that I might be the culprit for our recruiting woes (and I should note the irony of the accusation even as I am also accused of taking things too personally), I wasn't involved in 2 of the searches, and similar problems also are occurring at nearby institutions in the same situation. And a quick glance at this forum and related discussions about how to apply to teaching oriented places seem to indicate that the concern over whether candidates really want to go where they've applied is not restricted to my particular institution or university system. Universities like mine went from getting 2, maybe 3 candidates to getting 60 over the span of maybe 4 years. Some of the suggestions I've started hearing internally are likely to make the process worse for everybody, even if they end up likely leading to more successful hires. It would be much easier if candidates simply did not apply to places they would never go to. Now, to clarify, you seem to be under the impression that I am saying that people who are on the fence about the institution shouldn't apply. That is not it at all. If you think there is a chance you might come, then by all means apply and let us try to convince you. But the fact is that there is a large, and growing number of people who would never, ever consider coming here and still apply. Candidates should think long and hard about whether there is anything at all that might convince them to come to a 4-4, uppers 40s, rural institution. I'd never think this would be a controversial bit of advice, but I guess not. As financially strapped as we are, we can't open lines that quickly. Sometimes we can work something out with the big company in town, but that requires quite a bit of luck in getting good matches both ways. 2 of our hires worked out because they had spouses working at said company. I don't think it's controversial advice, but I also don't think you can presume to know when someone is "on the fence" and "absolutely won't take the job." Given the tight job market, if they want to stay in academia that may be the reason, and when they visit, they find out that they don't want to be there. There's nothing wrong with that. Maybe you should try skype and/or phone interviews before bringing candidates out. Also, I was talking about the department more generally, if you or anyone else involved in the search (by which I mean they met the candidate and not nec on the search committee) have a defensive or negative atmosphere, candidates can sense that. It was just one hypothesis I put out. My main point is that you cannot know or assume you know that someone you flew out had already decided 100% that they absolutely were not going to take the position prior to their visit. The fact that it's multiple candidates might suggest it is not the things they knew beforehand (teaching load, salary etc), but learn while there
|
|
|
Post by This does happen on Aug 29, 2015 10:23:58 GMT -5
One of my colleagues in graduate school applied (and got interviews) at few places they openly admitted they would never work (had to do with location and quality of life). They claimed accepting the interviews was intended to prepare them for jobs they would accept (I also suspect it had something to do with the ego-boost landing an interview gave them).
While it is certainly true that the experience during an interview may deter people from accepting a position, it is also true (although I can't speak to how common it is) that departments do get played by candidates. This probably contributes to a lot of smaller places passing over people with good records under the assumption that they would never come there.
Mis Ann Thrope is right that you can never truly know the intentions of candidates, however, their assertion that failed searches are entirely the fault of departments for poor impression management is not entirely accurate.
|
|