negotiate confidently
Guest
|
Post by negotiate confidently on Feb 29, 2012 15:00:58 GMT -5
Perhaps, but more and more schools are falling to the seriously inadequate side of the spectrum of compensation and institutional resources. What makes it possible is the job market: so many people want the job that when push comes to shove, they're willing to take it. That's why, for example, salaries in English have dropped ludicrously low, except for a lucky few. This might be the case in some places, but certainly not at most R1s. The salary expectations for new hires are only going up, and the fact that there is a lot of talent on the market doesn't mean that departments are just going to settle for whomever takes the least money. I negotiated a contract in the high 60s (I asked for low 70s) in a low-COL area and got a good number of perks with it, and that was before I even went on other interviews; by the time some other places started contacting me, I was already in contract negotiations. Trust, if you are in negotiations with a department and accept a low-ball offer because you fear that you will be passed over otherwise, then you are doing yourself a disservice. By the time you have an offer in hand, the department has already invested a lot of time in you and the university is prepared to invest a good amount of money, so you are in the driver's seat no matter what the market looks like. If one candidate was just as good as another, departments would save time recruiting and instead just pull names out of a hat.
|
|
|
Post by yepyepyep on Feb 29, 2012 16:01:50 GMT -5
Perhaps, but more and more schools are falling to the seriously inadequate side of the spectrum of compensation and institutional resources. What makes it possible is the job market: so many people want the job that when push comes to shove, they're willing to take it. That's why, for example, salaries in English have dropped ludicrously low, except for a lucky few. This might be the case in some places, but certainly not at most R1s. The salary expectations for new hires are only going up, and the fact that there is a lot of talent on the market doesn't mean that departments are just going to settle for whomever takes the least money. I negotiated a contract in the high 60s (I asked for low 70s) in a low-COL area and got a good number of perks with it, and that was before I even went on other interviews; by the time some other places started contacting me, I was already in contract negotiations. Trust, if you are in negotiations with a department and accept a low-ball offer because you fear that you will be passed over otherwise, then you are doing yourself a disservice. By the time you have an offer in hand, the department has already invested a lot of time in you and the university is prepared to invest a good amount of money, so you are in the driver's seat no matter what the market looks like. If one candidate was just as good as another, departments would save time recruiting and instead just pull names out of a hat. Totally agree. If the salary is shit, it's likely the department, not the field. There are lots of jobs that pay quite nicely and come with tenure, but yes those are desirable and the competition is fierce. If you're unhappy with the pay, don't take the job, but don't try and blame academia for this one department's subpar salary scale. If you take the job and feel underpaid, then it's your own fault for taking that job offer in the high COL area. Can you really complain about the system that you're not more marketable in if there are well paid positions out there? Also, using English salaries as a comparison to Sociology salaries isn't really appropriate. Different fields, different research, different implications of research, different public/private opportunities for PhDs outside of academia, different levels of supply (PhDs) to demand (jobs).
|
|
|
Post by yes on Feb 29, 2012 17:55:38 GMT -5
Must be really nice to live in an academic world where there are no furloughs, no salary and hiring freezes, no lines being pulled and no tt people being replaced with adjuncts. But of course, the solution to all these problems is to get a better job. After all, academia is just like lake woebegone if we really want it.
|
|
|
Post by or on Feb 29, 2012 18:47:39 GMT -5
Must be really nice to live in an academic world where there are no furloughs, no salary and hiring freezes, no lines being pulled and no tt people being replaced with adjuncts. But of course, the solution to all these problems is to get a better job. After all, academia is just like lake woebegone if we really want it. ...Or you find an alternative job. If the solution is not 'get a better job,' what the hell can people reasonably do, and what is the use of whining?
|
|
|
Post by Answer on Feb 29, 2012 19:17:12 GMT -5
Change the system!
|
|
|
Post by yess on Feb 29, 2012 22:49:55 GMT -5
Must be really nice to live in an academic world where there are no furloughs, no salary and hiring freezes, no lines being pulled and no tt people being replaced with adjuncts. But of course, the solution to all these problems is to get a better job. After all, academia is just like lake woebegone if we really want it. ...Or you find an alternative job. If the solution is not 'get a better job,' what the hell can people reasonably do, and what is the use of whining? Err... other than the clear contempt for those who didn't get as good a job as yours and the need to pat yourself on the back, isn't "find an alternative job" the precise point I'm trying to make? And good to know that wanting better work conditions is whining. And the sad thing is that you likely express this same attitude towards your students, helping keep them thinking that wanting more or leaving academia is failure, so they end up the army of underpaid professors, or, more commonly, adjuncts holding on to the dream of academia, providing cheap labor so you can get your 2 2, your 70k, and your cheap graduate student labor.
|
|
|
Post by get up on Feb 29, 2012 22:55:32 GMT -5
Sure, there are a lot of sucky jobs in academia. And it sure sucks to stay in them (for some: not everyone's suckage is the same). But for those willing to buckle down, give up free time, and start publishing in decent places (and that doesn't mean top 2 or 3), options will present themselves. See: orgtheory.wordpress.com/2012/02/27/planning-your-academic-mobility/. Many can and do move up from a first gig, whether it's a postdoc, VAP, low status institution, etc. If you've got the chops, you can do it. Maybe not all the way to Harvard, but at least to an institution that pays you commensurate with cost of living and will allow to enjoy all the fringe benefit of being an academic. My moral would be "Get up, get on up..." www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ajzpd-ONOdo&feature=related
|
|
|
Post by or on Feb 29, 2012 23:43:28 GMT -5
...Or you find an alternative job. If the solution is not 'get a better job,' what the hell can people reasonably do, and what is the use of whining? Err... other than the clear contempt for those who didn't get as good a job as yours and the need to pat yourself on the back, isn't "find an alternative job" the precise point I'm trying to make? And good to know that wanting better work conditions is whining. And the sad thing is that you likely express this same attitude towards your students, helping keep them thinking that wanting more or leaving academia is failure, so they end up the army of underpaid professors, or, more commonly, adjuncts holding on to the dream of academia, providing cheap labor so you can get your 2 2, your 70k, and your cheap graduate student labor. Yes, find an alternative job is the point. I'm not sure if we agree and are passing in the night, or if you're being facetious. If you're not happy with you current position, publish your way out. If you can't publish your way out, find a non-academic job that makes you happy. If you can't do either of those, adjust your expectations (goals) to fit your abilities (means). MY point was if you're unwilling or unable to get a better/alternative job that makes you happy, whining about it (and yes, wanting more money than can be supported by your current skillset and opportunities, is whining). Don't like adjunct pay? Don't adjunct. But don't expect adjunct pay to magically change to $10,000 per course because of your unhappiness. Don't like a 5/5 load? Find a lower teaching load position (which probably requires publishing) or leave academia for greener pastures. If you are simply unable to find another position than the one you have, then you might as well "love the one you're with" until you build the CV to get out. So... do we agree on this point, or would you like to insult my future mentoring skills some more?
|
|
|
Post by yes on Mar 1, 2012 0:37:35 GMT -5
Err... other than the clear contempt for those who didn't get as good a job as yours and the need to pat yourself on the back, isn't "find an alternative job" the precise point I'm trying to make? And good to know that wanting better work conditions is whining. And the sad thing is that you likely express this same attitude towards your students, helping keep them thinking that wanting more or leaving academia is failure, so they end up the army of underpaid professors, or, more commonly, adjuncts holding on to the dream of academia, providing cheap labor so you can get your 2 2, your 70k, and your cheap graduate student labor. Yes, find an alternative job is the point. I'm not sure if we agree and are passing in the night, or if you're being facetious. If you're not happy with you current position, publish your way out. If you can't publish your way out, find a non-academic job that makes you happy. If you can't do either of those, adjust your expectations (goals) to fit your abilities (means). MY point was if you're unwilling or unable to get a better/alternative job that makes you happy, whining about it (and yes, wanting more money than can be supported by your current skillset and opportunities, is whining). Don't like adjunct pay? Don't adjunct. But don't expect adjunct pay to magically change to $10,000 per course because of your unhappiness. Don't like a 5/5 load? Find a lower teaching load position (which probably requires publishing) or leave academia for greener pastures. If you are simply unable to find another position than the one you have, then you might as well "love the one you're with" until you build the CV to get out. So... do we agree on this point, or would you like to insult my future mentoring skills some more? Who is expecting anything to happen "magically?" Do you have any point here other than to reestate what I said with some reactionary self congratulatory spin? And who the fuck is whining? I merely said that in a recent interview I was discouraged by working and living conditions and was tempted to give up on academia altogether. Not for some pie in the sky alternative, but for a concrete lead to a better paying job, although outside academia. So other than being a dick for the sake of being a dick, do you have any other advice?
|
|
|
Post by advice on Mar 1, 2012 3:41:02 GMT -5
Yes, find an alternative job is the point. I'm not sure if we agree and are passing in the night, or if you're being facetious. If you're not happy with you current position, publish your way out. If you can't publish your way out, find a non-academic job that makes you happy. If you can't do either of those, adjust your expectations (goals) to fit your abilities (means). MY point was if you're unwilling or unable to get a better/alternative job that makes you happy, whining about it (and yes, wanting more money than can be supported by your current skillset and opportunities, is whining). Don't like adjunct pay? Don't adjunct. But don't expect adjunct pay to magically change to $10,000 per course because of your unhappiness. Don't like a 5/5 load? Find a lower teaching load position (which probably requires publishing) or leave academia for greener pastures. If you are simply unable to find another position than the one you have, then you might as well "love the one you're with" until you build the CV to get out. So... do we agree on this point, or would you like to insult my future mentoring skills some more? Who is expecting anything to happen "magically?" Do you have any point here other than to reestate what I said with some reactionary self congratulatory spin? And who the fuck is whining? I merely said that in a recent interview I was discouraged by working and living conditions and was tempted to give up on academia altogether. Not for some pie in the sky alternative, but for a concrete lead to a better paying job, although outside academia. So other than being a dick for the sake of being a dick, do you have any other advice? 1) First things first, regardless of what you gain or lose, don't lose your dignity; your voice should never be louder than your message. 2) The point is that giving up on academia because you were discouraged by the lifestyle that profs at that department had is shortsighted, because that is not normative. Yes, I know that I am fortunate to have gotten an R1 position, because there really is an element of randomness to the process, but if academic life at an R1 or an SLAC appeals to you, then don't let the pay at stopover institutions derail you, because life isn't much better in the private sector. In fact, the reality of having a family to support is what made me go all-in with academia, because I don't much cherish the idea of a job that can be taken away at a moment's notice. 3) In general, the job market is pretty weak right now, so while frustration with the opportunities on offer is to be expected, don't decline any and all offers while insisting on waiting only for that dream job, because it probably isn't coming. Rather, think in terms of career trajectory and where you want to be 5 to 10 years from now. What you do NOT want to do is make a decision under duress that is going to make reaching your desired status less likely in the long term. (In my case, I decided that I wanted R1 of a path to it, so I only applied to fewer than five liberal arts schools with low teaching loads and some research support in addition to a slate of "lesser" programs that offered prospects for mobility. I was prepared to go the postdoc route or do government research that is consistent with my existing research agenda if that didn't work out, but I refused to get stuck on a track that wouldn't be conducive to getting research done that would appeal to an R1.)
|
|
|
Post by or on Mar 1, 2012 9:13:44 GMT -5
Yes, find an alternative job is the point. I'm not sure if we agree and are passing in the night, or if you're being facetious. If you're not happy with you current position, publish your way out. If you can't publish your way out, find a non-academic job that makes you happy. If you can't do either of those, adjust your expectations (goals) to fit your abilities (means). MY point was if you're unwilling or unable to get a better/alternative job that makes you happy, whining about it (and yes, wanting more money than can be supported by your current skillset and opportunities, is whining). Don't like adjunct pay? Don't adjunct. But don't expect adjunct pay to magically change to $10,000 per course because of your unhappiness. Don't like a 5/5 load? Find a lower teaching load position (which probably requires publishing) or leave academia for greener pastures. If you are simply unable to find another position than the one you have, then you might as well "love the one you're with" until you build the CV to get out. So... do we agree on this point, or would you like to insult my future mentoring skills some more? Who is expecting anything to happen "magically?" Do you have any point here other than to reestate what I said with some reactionary self congratulatory spin? And who the fuck is whining? I merely said that in a recent interview I was discouraged by working and living conditions and was tempted to give up on academia altogether. Not for some pie in the sky alternative, but for a concrete lead to a better paying job, although outside academia. So other than being a dick for the sake of being a dick, do you have any other advice? Yep, here some more advice, chopped into a tiny little digestible bit: Stop being a negative nancy about one bad experience and apply more broadly. Also, you might want to fix your attitude, as I'm sure that's going not helping your job search.
|
|
|
Post by yes on Mar 1, 2012 10:22:57 GMT -5
1) First things first, regardless of what you gain or lose, don't lose your dignity; your voice should never be louder than your message. 2) The point is that giving up on academia because you were discouraged by the lifestyle that profs at that department had is shortsighted, because that is not normative. Yes, I know that I am fortunate to have gotten an R1 position, because there really is an element of randomness to the process, but if academic life at an R1 or an SLAC appeals to you, then don't let the pay at stopover institutions derail you, because life isn't much better in the private sector. In fact, the reality of having a family to support is what made me go all-in with academia, because I don't much cherish the idea of a job that can be taken away at a moment's notice. 3) In general, the job market is pretty weak right now, so while frustration with the opportunities on offer is to be expected, don't decline any and all offers while insisting on waiting only for that dream job, because it probably isn't coming. Rather, think in terms of career trajectory and where you want to be 5 to 10 years from now. What you do NOT want to do is make a decision under duress that is going to make reaching your desired status less likely in the long term. (In my case, I decided that I wanted R1 of a path to it, so I only applied to fewer than five liberal arts schools with low teaching loads and some research support in addition to a slate of "lesser" programs that offered prospects for mobility. I was prepared to go the postdoc route or do government research that is consistent with my existing research agenda if that didn't work out, but I refused to get stuck on a track that wouldn't be conducive to getting research done that would appeal to an R1.) But isn't that exactly what I was referring to as one of the reasons why academics can be so underpaid? The willingness to accept subpar conditions and pay in order to chase the dream of moving up, which, as even research has shown us, very rarely happens (after initial position most mobility is lateral or downward in academia)? Someone gave the example of English professors and I think that is exactly right. The reason the humanities are paid lower than pretty much everybody else is not because of differing research expectations (you pretty much have to have a book under contract at a top press to land a good job there). But because of inability or unwillingness to take a position outside academia. Just like econ salaries are higher not because they are expected to produce more than sociologists, but because they have more opportunities and more willingness to take a job outside academia. And in my case I am talking about a situation that is actually pretty good by comparison. I am talking about a tt offer. Which at this point probably only about half of us on the market are going to get. And again, the reason they can get away with those offers, with those conditions is because people are willing to take them. The reason states can cut university salaries before anything else is because people are willing to take it. And the reason universities can decide to cut lines and budgets of humanities first, and then of the social sciences, is because people are willing to take it. They are willing to be underpaid because of precisely this, this notion that if only they stick through it they will be able to leave for greener pastures, and that taking a higher paying job outside academia is failure. And the truth is that the vast majority will be stuck in those jobs. This isn't woebegone. Everyone can't move up at the same time. Please save your self help book style advice for someone else. I know donald trump would be proud of you, but in case you haven't noticed, I was actually the finalist (and now have an offer) for a tt position. So my "attitude" in the interview seemed to work just fine.
|
|
|
Post by advice responds on Mar 1, 2012 11:10:14 GMT -5
1) First things first, regardless of what you gain or lose, don't lose your dignity; your voice should never be louder than your message. 2) The point is that giving up on academia because you were discouraged by the lifestyle that profs at that department had is shortsighted, because that is not normative. Yes, I know that I am fortunate to have gotten an R1 position, because there really is an element of randomness to the process, but if academic life at an R1 or an SLAC appeals to you, then don't let the pay at stopover institutions derail you, because life isn't much better in the private sector. In fact, the reality of having a family to support is what made me go all-in with academia, because I don't much cherish the idea of a job that can be taken away at a moment's notice. 3) In general, the job market is pretty weak right now, so while frustration with the opportunities on offer is to be expected, don't decline any and all offers while insisting on waiting only for that dream job, because it probably isn't coming. Rather, think in terms of career trajectory and where you want to be 5 to 10 years from now. What you do NOT want to do is make a decision under duress that is going to make reaching your desired status less likely in the long term. (In my case, I decided that I wanted R1 of a path to it, so I only applied to fewer than five liberal arts schools with low teaching loads and some research support in addition to a slate of "lesser" programs that offered prospects for mobility. I was prepared to go the postdoc route or do government research that is consistent with my existing research agenda if that didn't work out, but I refused to get stuck on a track that wouldn't be conducive to getting research done that would appeal to an R1.) But isn't that exactly what I was referring to as one of the reasons why academics can be so underpaid? The willingness to accept subpar conditions and pay in order to chase the dream of moving up, which, as even research has shown us, very rarely happens (after initial position most mobility is lateral or downward in academia)? Someone gave the example of English professors and I think that is exactly right. The reason the humanities are paid lower than pretty much everybody else is not because of differing research expectations (you pretty much have to have a book under contract at a top press to land a good job there). But because of inability or unwillingness to take a position outside academia. Just like econ salaries are higher not because they are expected to produce more than sociologists, but because they have more opportunities and more willingness to take a job outside academia. And in my case I am talking about a situation that is actually pretty good by comparison. I am talking about a tt offer. Which at this point probably only about half of us on the market are going to get. And again, the reason they can get away with those offers, with those conditions is because people are willing to take them. The reason states can cut university salaries before anything else is because people are willing to take it. And the reason universities can decide to cut lines and budgets of humanities first, and then of the social sciences, is because people are willing to take it. They are willing to be underpaid because of precisely this, this notion that if only they stick through it they will be able to leave for greener pastures, and that taking a higher paying job outside academia is failure. And the truth is that the vast majority will be stuck in those jobs. This isn't woebegone. Everyone can't move up at the same time. Okay, but here's the thing: mobility happens ALL THE TIME -- it is exceptionally rare for someone to spend his or her entire career in one department nowadays. This doesn't mean that everybody will be able to move up, nor should everyone reasonably expect this. What it DOES mean is that if you are good enough, there is no reason to give up on the possibility of mobility if academic life is what you want. You are correct in noting that some people would just be happy to land any tenure track job, but I've known many people who have turned down TT offers because they weren't desirable locations and instead went down other paths, then they re-emerged on the market later on and placed well; others have accepted positions that are beneath what they might have expected in healthier markets, and we are now seeing some of those people relocate after making a name for themselves. Settling is not a matter of circumstance, but a matter of choice, even when the market is struggling. Some people will get no calls, while others have gone on several interviews already and may even have received competing offers; your supposition is that people in the latter position should behave as though they were in the former, but there is no good reason for this. If you don't like the offer, don't take it unless you see good prospects for mobility. In this economy, you run a high possibility of having to worry about money regardless, so first choose something that makes you happy and then worry about how best to be compensated while doing that. If you go the non-academic route and the only thing that excites you about it is getting your paycheck on time, then that is not a recipe for success regardless of what you are offered.
|
|
|
Post by or on Mar 1, 2012 11:29:03 GMT -5
Please save your self help book style advice for someone else. I know donald trump would be proud of you, but in case you haven't noticed, I was actually the finalist (and now have an offer) for a tt position. So my "attitude" in the interview seemed to work just fine. Well congrats on getting the offer for the job you are bitching about. This website might help: tinyurl.com/ymbqqa
|
|
|
Post by market dude on Mar 1, 2012 11:29:57 GMT -5
Warning: obligatory "it's a market" post. What on earth is the problem with all of this? It is a market. Yes, there are tons of people willing to do crap jobs to chase their dream and it may not work out. Probably won't work out, given matthew effect etc. But clearly for those who make that decision the potential reward is worth it, in their view. This tremendous supply of individuals willing to do the job has structural consequences such as the rise of adjuncting, declining salaries, etc. The top end of the market exhibits different structural properties influenced more by prestige, networks, and so on, with competitors for those jobs able to command far more attractive compensation including teaching load, research support, health insurance, the protections of tenure, salary, and control over one's time. As exhaustively commented on, where one ends up is not a precise function of the wonder of one's intellect or even of one's publication record. We all have stochasticity to thank or damn for our fates which can be infuriating, a relief from self-condemnation, both. So why again, to whomever so blithely concluded it must be so, does the system need to be changed? We are so playing to stereotypes by looking aghast at a market and clamoring for protection from the necessary downside of competition. The system is working, albeit with big dashes of cruelty and structural disadvantage that sour but do not destroy its meritocratic aspects. More important, I think, is for people to better understand that system and what it is and is not doing. But isn't that exactly what I was referring to as one of the reasons why academics can be so underpaid? The willingness to accept subpar conditions and pay in order to chase the dream of moving up, which, as even research has shown us, very rarely happens (after initial position most mobility is lateral or downward in academia)? Someone gave the example of English professors and I think that is exactly right. The reason the humanities are paid lower than pretty much everybody else is not because of differing research expectations (you pretty much have to have a book under contract at a top press to land a good job there). But because of inability or unwillingness to take a position outside academia. Just like econ salaries are higher not because they are expected to produce more than sociologists, but because they have more opportunities and more willingness to take a job outside academia. The OP (I think?) is exactly right, and I am in total solidarity with the OP's suggestion that s/he might be getting out of academia (though congrats on the offer). This is the right way to change the system! If one takes a job for miserable pay, this means that they can get someone exactly like that person for that much and no more. If more people were more willing to draw such lines and evaluate the mystique of the academic life as just one part of the compensation package for which they are trading their god-given time, this would be a welcome adjustment. Minimal effects on the market, but good effects on participants in a very tough position. Personally, I'm hopeful about a few pubs, can do another year in grad school, and will be on the market again next year. But I have no doubt about what this career is worth to me, and that any offer must be weighed against my alternatives.
|
|