rrr
Full Member
Posts: 113
|
Post by rrr on Dec 3, 2011 11:59:53 GMT -5
I don't know about other people, but I find the VAP fear to be excessive because it is a waste of time worrying about this. It can happen, but all of that time spent worrying would be much better spent applying for other positions or working on publications/teaching.
|
|
|
Post by Because on Dec 3, 2011 17:23:43 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. It's pretty easy to explain the backlash. Since the intentions of a department regarding charges of "inside hire" often cannot be seen, the VAP and his/her vita unfairly become an object of scrutiny. Many of us have been VAPs ourselves and/or as faculty members have relied on the valuable services they provide. We understand the unique pressures they face as they learn the craft of teaching in a brand new environment even while they're struggling to complete theses or publications. We feel protective of this entire class of workers/colleagues. I have yet to see any of the posters making these claims state their names, provide a link to their vitas, or invite an open discussion of their credentials. Making anonymous allusions to the qualifications of one specific potential candidate in a public forum is naive, rude, and unprofessional. Those of us who object to this practice feel the need to point out your incivility, because we want you to become better disciplinary citizens.
|
|
|
Post by venter on Mar 2, 2012 14:08:35 GMT -5
Enough time has passed since my interview that I feel that I can share it now, and I also need to vent and get this off my chest, because it eats away at me.
1- I don't know about any of the cases mentioned so far, but the "inside hire" phenomenon is real 2- At least in my experience, when it is the case that there is an inside hire, it will be patently obvious to you.
My experience is from some time ago, and I won't divulge how long or where so as not to out myself, but I was interviewed for a position where there was a clear inside candidate. Now, some of you may be thinking "you must have bombed the interview and are looking for an easy excuse for why you failed." And while it is perfectly possible that I bombed the interview, that is not the reason I didn't get the job simply because most of the search committee did not even participate in the interview. As a vent as and as a cautionary tale, here's what happened:
1- prior to my departure, I did not receive an interview schedule. 2- Once I got there, a junior faculty picked me up from the airport and then drove me around most of the time after that (important later). 3- My schedule consisted of: a 30 minute talk with the head of the department (unclear if s/he was in the search committee, since this is a multidisciplinary dept. and this person is outside of sociology), a 30 minute talk with the dean, and a lecture to undergraduates (this place emphasized teaching more than research). No interviews or meetings with anyone else. 4- My lecture to undergraduates was so poorly advertised that only 2 students showed up. They never said a word and left as soon as I opened the lecture to questions and discussion. 5- Other than the above, I had a lunch and a dinner there. Lunch was with 2 people, one of them the junior faculty who was in charge of driving me around. During lunch, the only person to ask questions related to the job (teaching philosophy, experience, etc.) was the junior faculty (again, important for reasons that will soon be explained). 6- For dinner, we ended up with a table much larger than our group, because the reservation was for twice as many people who showed up. Of the people who showed up, one was the junior faculty mentioned above, one was someone outside the university, and then 2 senior faculty. We did not discuss anything at all remotely related to the institution or teaching, mostly current events, and they would frequently discuss amongst themselves. 7- The next day, the junior faculty took me to the airport. Since this was the only time I had a chance to, I started asking about timelines for the decision, notification, etc. At which point the junior faculty revealed to me that s/he was not a part of the search committee. So, really, the only two people I discussed anything related to the job were: a junior faculty outside the search committee, and the head of the department who may or may not have been a part of the search committee. 8- no replies whatsoever to the usual "thank you" emails post interview
And no, this is not something I made up. It still pisses me off that I wasted 3 days of my life on this, hence the need to vent.
|
|
ok
Junior Member
Posts: 64
|
Post by ok on Mar 2, 2012 14:30:45 GMT -5
How is that a waste of time? You met some people who were interested in your work, you got to practice your talk, you had a practice session talking to a dean.
True, it is a let down to go on one of these to find less than enthusiastic interest, but wasn't this an invaluable opportunity to practice being a class act?
|
|
|
Post by venter on Mar 2, 2012 16:03:07 GMT -5
How is that a waste of time? You met some people who were interested in your work, you got to practice your talk, you had a practice session talking to a dean. True, it is a let down to go on one of these to find less than enthusiastic interest, but wasn't this an invaluable opportunity to practice being a class act? I would say that "less than enthusiastic interest" is an understatement. And I can talk to people (plural) who are interested in my work, do practice talks, practice talking to the dean, and be a class act any time I want at my home institution. So there is no word other than "Waste" to describe using up 3 days of my time, plus however long it took me to prepare and practice the talk, and to make travel arrangements.
|
|
ohh
Full Member
Posts: 224
|
Post by ohh on Mar 2, 2012 16:07:47 GMT -5
I'm sorry you had that experience!
I had a similar experience, but I think it was due to a lack of faculty interest (they were mostly older and ready to retire and didn't seem to care about a new candidate hire) and not to having a VAP.
So there might have been multiple things going on with that search.
|
|
|
Post by oh it happens on Mar 2, 2012 17:24:37 GMT -5
I have been the unwitting participant in not one, but two sham searches. Both were at top 25 departments (one Ivy, one public flagship)
In the first, I had no idea who the other candidates were before hand. When I later found out who got the job it was clear that the search could have only yielded one result. The person hired a) was already in a research associate position at the institution and had built long-term NIH-funded collaborations with a number of the faculty b) had been out 5 years longer then I had (and I was coming out of a postdoc) c) had an amazing CV, complete with funded R01 d) had a partner who was tenured in another department
I and the third candidate were only there to provide window dressing legitimacy to the "search". I may have still gone on the "interview" had I know the truth, but I would have thought about it completely differently. I would not have thought of it as a job interview per se, rather an invited talk with the chance that I might make a good impression and that might do my career some good down the line at some point.
The second time this happened to me I learned after the fact from someone on the faculty that deal had been struck between different factions to hire a specific candidate before any of us had even set foot on campus. Again the "winning"candidate was collaborator with a senior faculty member they were trying hard to retain at the time. I was really bummed because that was one of my dream jobs.
|
|
|
Post by But on Mar 2, 2012 21:57:23 GMT -5
My institution brought 3 candidates in for interviews a couple weeks ago. One of the candidates is a current VAP, and we hired one of the other two. Just thought I'd share.
|
|
|
Post by can be legit on Mar 3, 2012 10:39:17 GMT -5
I just want to reiterate that it is nonsense to expect that VAPs should automatically be excluded from the candidate pool. Perfectly legitimate searches can and do end with the hiring of a VAP, so I'd caution people against treating VAPs the way many in society treat minorities: like the only way they can possibly win any competition is by having odds rigged in their favor.
|
|
|
Post by a different view on Mar 16, 2012 21:46:12 GMT -5
I agree with pp, there seems to be an underlying assumption in these accusations that the VAP is obviously less qualified than you (generalized you) and just got the job because they already knew the dept. It couldn't possibly be that the VAP was actually the best candidate for a fair, non-rigged position, right?
I would like to suggest that maybe we are looking at this the wrong way. Rather than seeing it as unfair that the VAP might have a possible advantage, might we consider it more unfair that previous experience with dept is expected to have no benefit for the tenure-track position? Why shouldn't visiting positions be a pathway to permanent positions? In alot of other businesses, direct experience with the company and the development of the skills specific to the position would be considered an asset. The fact that it isn't considered so in academia seems more unfair than a supposed "inside hire". I agree that the possibility of the job interview being a sham is unfair and frustrating, but it is because we have this weird disdain for hiring from within and promoting up which to me is the source of the subterfuge. Being a law clerk at a certain firm, for example, openly gives one an advantage in obtaining full-time employment there after law school. Keeping a group of VAPs as second class, highly exploitable workers, just enhances the divisiveness and competition among candidates (as this thread demonstrates!). What would dear old Marx say about this?
|
|
|
Post by venter on Mar 16, 2012 23:49:15 GMT -5
I agree with pp, there seems to be an underlying assumption in these accusations that the VAP is obviously less qualified than you (generalized you) and just got the job because they already knew the dept. It couldn't possibly be that the VAP was actually the best candidate for a fair, non-rigged position, right? I would like to suggest that maybe we are looking at this the wrong way. Rather than seeing it as unfair that the VAP might have a possible advantage, might we consider it more unfair that previous experience with dept is expected to have no benefit for the tenure-track position? Why shouldn't visiting positions be a pathway to permanent positions? In alot of other businesses, direct experience with the company and the development of the skills specific to the position would be considered an asset. The fact that it isn't considered so in academia seems more unfair than a supposed "inside hire". I agree that the possibility of the job interview being a sham is unfair and frustrating, but it is because we have this weird disdain for hiring from within and promoting up which to me is the source of the subterfuge. Being a law clerk at a certain firm, for example, openly gives one an advantage in obtaining full-time employment there after law school. Keeping a group of VAPs as second class, highly exploitable workers, just enhances the divisiveness and competition among candidates (as this thread demonstrates!). What would dear old Marx say about this? But I don't think anyone has said that vaps should never get the position, and in plenty of cases the vap is clearly the best qualified. The problem is when the search is clearly a sham, and candidates are treated with indifference or disdain. Requirements for open searches are there to try to prevent the good ol boys network from determining the outcome of them. It is a good thing. And if the vap is indeed the best candidate, there is no need to make the search a sham. So while there is some rampant paranoia over vaps, there are also clear examples of sham searches. I was a part of one, as I mentioned above, and the frustration is enormous. I've no problem with an institution thinking the candidate they know is the best one. I've got a huge one with ones where the result is predetermined and the search committee sends clear signals that that is the case.
|
|
|
Post by not popular on Mar 17, 2012 9:39:14 GMT -5
I agree with "a different view." I'm in a TT position but I feel extremely guilty about a temp in my department. Students seem to be loving this temp and doing an awesome job at the position (I hear more positive things about this individual than all others in the dept). It just seems like we are exploiting the person for his/her labor. I talked about this issue at a departmental meeting, and while one person was sympathetic to what I said, others were not. There are legal issues with making a position only available for certain people to apply so it's often open to all who happen to fit the position description. All I got to say is that the situation sucks all around. From the SC standpoint, I'm frustrated that we have someone we know is doing an awesome job and not putting on a front, but we cannot hire the individual outright and have to open the search to all. I also understand the frustration of other applicants, especially when you don't get the position and a VAP/adjunct happens to get the position. Trust me though, we are very fair to ALL applicants as long as they fit the description - at least my department is - not sure about others. Finally, I understand the frustration of the VAP/adjunct. You've been doing a bang-up job for the dept, maybe even paid shit money for several years, and yet you might not get the position you have been waiting so patiently to possibly fill. The situation just sucks
|
|
|
Post by venter on Mar 17, 2012 11:36:23 GMT -5
I agree with "a different view." I'm in a TT position but I feel extremely guilty about a temp in my department. Students seem to be loving this temp and doing an awesome job at the position (I hear more positive things about this individual than all others in the dept). It just seems like we are exploiting the person for his/her labor. I talked about this issue at a departmental meeting, and while one person was sympathetic to what I said, others were not. There are legal issues with making a position only available for certain people to apply so it's often open to all who happen to fit the position description. All I got to say is that the situation sucks all around. From the SC standpoint, I'm frustrated that we have someone we know is doing an awesome job and not putting on a front, but we cannot hire the individual outright and have to open the search to all. I also understand the frustration of other applicants, especially when you don't get the position and a VAP/adjunct happens to get the position. Trust me though, we are very fair to ALL applicants as long as they fit the description - at least my department is - not sure about others. Finally, I understand the frustration of the VAP/adjunct. You've been doing a bang-up job for the dept, maybe even paid shit money for several years, and yet you might not get the position you have been waiting so patiently to possibly fill. The situation just sucks If you are fair to all candidates, then by definition you are not conducting a sham search and the whole discussion over inside candidates doesn't apply to you. And there is good reason for the open search requirements. Academia is still marked by a good ol boys network.
|
|
|
Post by a different view on Mar 19, 2012 16:20:42 GMT -5
venter, I think you are missing my point. I stated in my post that, yes, the sham job searches are unfair to all involved.
My issue is with the fact that one usually can't just be "promoted" from adjunct/visiting to full time tenure track, that there has to be a job search at all for people who have demonstrated already that they are good at the position. Take "not popular"'s example: that dept should just be able to hire that person into a full time position without a ridiculous job search, which is inherently unfair because even the "fair" searches are unfair to the adjunct who's time invested in the dept is not supposed to carry any weight in the hiring decision. With the exception of heavily research oriented depts, I think that, at least among teaching schools, a promotion track for adjuncts would be the fair approach. But yet, in most places, being adjunct gives you no edge in getting a ft position in that dept and in some cases it might be a disadvantage.
I also think that if depts considered their adjunct/visiting faculty as potential future full time permanent colleagues, the social experience of being an adjunct would significantly improve.
|
|
|
Post by venter on Mar 19, 2012 19:45:54 GMT -5
venter, I think you are missing my point. I stated in my post that, yes, the sham job searches are unfair to all involved. My issue is with the fact that one usually can't just be "promoted" from adjunct/visiting to full time tenure track, that there has to be a job search at all for people who have demonstrated already that they are good at the position. Take "not popular"'s example: that dept should just be able to hire that person into a full time position without a ridiculous job search, which is inherently unfair because even the "fair" searches are unfair to the adjunct who's time invested in the dept is not supposed to carry any weight in the hiring decision. With the exception of heavily research oriented depts, I think that, at least among teaching schools, a promotion track for adjuncts would be the fair approach. But yet, in most places, being adjunct gives you no edge in getting a ft position in that dept and in some cases it might be a disadvantage. I also think that if depts considered their adjunct/visiting faculty as potential future full time permanent colleagues, the social experience of being an adjunct would significantly improve. No, I think you are missing mine. I sympathize with the lack of working conditions for adjuncts, and think increasing the number of adjuncts over tt lines it is one of the worst trends in higher education today. But that doesn't change the fact that the reason we have requirements for open searches is a very good one. Should a search committee take into account how well the adjunct has fit in there? Sure. But it still should be an open competition. The solution to adjunct mistreatment should be hiring TT from the start, not trying to sneak it in afterwards.
|
|