Top candidates' effect on market

[anon]

I heard that the top candidates, with their multiple interviews and multiple job offers, kind of hold up the job market until they make their decision. Can someone elaborate on that? How selectively do these folks apply? Do they mostly hold up the market for the top positions, or does it stretch down to the bottom?

[word]

I hear that a top person negotiating between 2-3 offers can lead to a failed search, if the losing department has taken too long for their other viable candidates. That said, I guess those places end up needing VAPs to teach...

[hello hello]

if you search through last year's forum this almost exact question popped up (and it is has likely popped up before).and an Asst prof explained the logic. part of the difference can also be whether there is a deadline to the offer ("exploding") or not.

also keep in mind that some top places will choose to not hire anyone rather than not get their first choice. whereas I know other places will go to 2nd or 3rd.

[anon]

This might be the thread you're talking about:
socjob2010.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=talk&action=display&thread=977

It's obvious that Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin, and the likes will be going after the same people. I'm wondering about how broadly these top candidates apply, and whether schools that are not at or near the top go after these folks. I know I'm speaking in really lame generalizations, but you get the idea.

I guess another way of saying this is, what does all this mean for us non-superstar candidates?

[it depends]

Some apply quite selectively, some less so. Where people apply for jobs and how broadly they apply can depend on many things, including geographic constraints/preferences, spousal constraints/preferences, advice from mentors, how much they care about having particular departmental strengths or prestige, etc.

[negligible]

I once sat on a search committee as a student member and our department (top 20-30) kept an "eye out" to see if more prestigious departments were looking at the top candidates in our pool. If so, we lowered our standards when we came up with our top 3 candidates.

Sometimes it can hurt to be a shining star. When you think about it, most departments really do want to hire someone. It's very expensive to go through the hiring process, so they want to get the most bang for their buck.

[anon]

Sept 20, 2011 15:34:38 GMT -5 @negligible said:

If so, we lowered our standards when we came up with our top 3 candidates.

Why? Just based on the assumption that there was a good chance they would decline an offer?

I'm the original poster. This is all really interesting. I've been really curious about the sorting process, and how it works out that there aren't 200 search committees all trying to get the same 4 or 5 people.

[negligible]

Exactly - thought they would decline offer. We had other really good candidates who we felt we had a better shot at. It's all a guessing game of course.

That being said, if you are a top candidate and for some reason you really want to go to a school that is not top 10, you need to make this clear in your application. Sometimes schools may not take you seriously.

[staying power]

I was talking to a faculty member currently on a hiring committee (not at a superstar school) and he said that they not only think about whether the candidate will actually accept the offer, but also if s/he will *stay* and not use this job as a first-job/stepping-stone.

[AssistantProf]

Hi everybody:

I was one of the very lucky people who had multiple interviews and multiple offers over the past ten years. I think I can clarify a few things based on my experience and that of a few other people I know. I'm writing this in an attempt to ward off wild speculation about particular individuals, but also to help everyone learn a little bit more about the inner-workings of the market at top departments.

1) Most people with superstar credentials apply fairly selectively to top 50 or top 20 departments. Some will occasionally break this rule for personal reasons (as the previous poster mentioned, geography, etc.);

2) It is very possible to be a department's top choice but not get the offer because they thing that you are likely to take one of the other offers. This is because top departments want to protect their reputation and don't like to be turned down, and also because there are significant transaction costs to keeping the search going;

3) Exploding offers do exist, but if a department wants someone bad enough they are often able to hold the line open longer. It really varies from case to case- some years schools will have multiple lines that help them avoid these problems.

4) It may appear that most superstars are selfishly holding offers and holding up the whole market, but this is not always out of greed. It is exceedingly rare to get more than one offer, and because it is the one and only chance we have to negotiate, many people will wait a bit longer. The problem is that it is not just the candidate waiting but often also the administration of the university in question that drags their heels (either trying to produce "another line" or trying to come up with more $ or resources). This gets particularly dicey over the winter break, since deans are on vacation, etc.

5) Also remember that many people with multiple offers are in different places "in line" across top departments. Thus they may know they are the top choice of one department, but "next inline" for another job that they want more. This may also make them wait a bit longer to make a decision. We could certainly argue about whether this is selfish, but keep in mind that entire families are often involved in this decision- and that can make things like geography/schools/partner's employment extremely important.

I am definitely not saying that all superstars are saints- many have massive egos. But I think it is true that there are things that make getting multiple offers more difficult than it seems- one of which is knowing that any time you try to protect your self interest you may negatively affect other people's job chances. I was so worried about this that I turned down several interviews which may have actually helped my case in the end.

The bottom line is that if you are not going for a job at a top department, you are probably not going to be competing with these people anyways, so the notion that 200 search committees are all going after the same 3-5 people is WAY off in my opinion. I would think it would be more like the same 15-20 search committees are going after the same people, depending upon how many top departments are hiring in a given year.

Finally, If you are going for a top job and feel like your jobs are being held up, be patient. If you interview and don't get an offer, just sit tight- this is much harder than it sounds I think. The reason is that in the end most places wind up hiring someone (but then you may ask yourself: if I wasn't first in line for the offer, do I trust these people to vote me up for tenure in 4-6 years)? Maybe, maybe not. Most of us just feel lucky to have a job, but things like tenure do factor into many people's decisions in an environment where the standards for tenure may become increasingly high.

I hope the above was helpful- again, I'm not trying to defend anyone here, just trying to illustrate some of the ghosts in the machine of this crazy job market. Keep your head up, polish your job talk ad nauseum, and keep doing your best- this is about all anyone can do.

[yep]

Something I wonder about is who is able to wait out a few years on the market better.

Do superstars who don't place end up staying out there longer? Or do they end up taking their game over to the nonprofit or corporate world instead after striking out once or twice, meaning that more "normal" teaching focused people are actually more likely to get an academic job in the end? Or is there no effect?

[confused]

ok, I'm a little confused (especially in light of the most recent posting). When you say "superstar candidate" what exactly do you mean? Do you mean someone whose record reaches a particular level of excellence, in which case, I'm curious as to what exactly constitutes a superstar record? Or do you mean someone who, by the time the the job market year is over, was lucky enough to receive multiple offers? If it's the latter, then obviously they don't need to wait out the job market, right? Thanks to those who can clarify definitions/criteria here. Also thanks to AssistantProf for your insights.

[you know youre a superstar if]

you may have many informal "interviews" with top departments at ASA
you may win the ASA dissertation award
your super-famous adviser may call you the best student hu has ever seen
you may have multiple ASR/AJS articles published while on the market
you may have multiple flyouts at top 10 schools
you may have published a scholarly book in a top uni press as a student

you certainly receive multiple non-exploding job offers at top 10 schools
well-regarded sociologists are talking about and citing your work

Every year there are one or two "it" ABD candidates on the market. These it candidates become known early on by faculty at top departments exchanging information via networks. As the market progresses, it becomes a bit more clear to others on the market who those folks are, especially if you know who else is interviewing for the same job as you or your friends. Students at these top schools often know who the superstars are early on because they are classmates, or by hallway conversations among faculty interested in these candidates.

[aka]

Anyone want to weigh in on who the stars are in this year's market???
No need to put full names, but initials maybe?
This is just for voodoo-doll-making purposes, I swear. haha

[ElDuderino]

no names, initials, or any other identifiable info.