|
Post by Ummm on Mar 31, 2014 14:57:46 GMT -5
No one has said that people shouldn't look for ways to improve what they're doing. "I've done a lot of reflection and postmortem to improve or see whether there was a common weakness. And you know what me and my advisors think? I'm not doing anything wrong."
|
|
|
Post by It happens on Mar 31, 2014 18:33:42 GMT -5
No one has said that people shouldn't look for ways to improve what they're doing. "I've done a lot of reflection and postmortem to improve or see whether there was a common weakness. And you know what me and my advisors think? I'm not doing anything wrong." Perhaps you should reread that, because I would say that reflecting on things and doing "postmortems" with one's advisors is pretty much "looking for ways to improve things," even if they can't spot anything wrong.
|
|
Time for a new thread
Guest
|
Post by Time for a new thread on Mar 31, 2014 21:50:56 GMT -5
Perhaps we could make a new thread for "things we could improve in interviews"?
I agree that the market is both seriously random, and that there are at least a few tricks that even excellent job candidates could learn. It's like writing - we can always improve it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2014 22:42:31 GMT -5
“Better to stay in school another year and be a "fresh" PhD than to be the candidate who still doesn't have a TT job several years after getting the degree. Obviously this doesn't count for folks doing high-status post-docs and fellowhips, but but everyone else is going to be looked at with increasing skepticism.”
Actually, this can also count for post-docs and fellowship if you don’t produce.
And for those who continue to refer to the job market and departmental decisions as “random” are really scaring me….do you not understand what random means at this stage? I don’t mean to be snarky and this isn’t simply a matter of semantics. While I actually think what people really mean that the process is “subjective” (and it is), a great deal of time and thought is put into hiring decisions and faculty are not sitting back flipping a coin. You can point out rare cases involving “shame” hires (and they do happen on occasion) but we do not draw such generalities on such anomalous cases in our research so why would you do this here? Not to mention this doesn’t equate to “randomness.” I’m really not trying to be a jerk here (though I may just be;), I’m just trying to point out that in most cases if you didn’t get an offer then it was not likely anything against you personally and there was likely nothing you could have done differently but that doesn’t mean it is random. And, as others have pointed out, it also doesn’t mean you should think about ways to improve your approach…or maybe you just came across as a jerk during your visit;) Just kiddin, best wishes to all
To stay on target with the thread:
1st time on market: ~80 apps 10 job talks 3 job offers and 2 post-doc offers (took a postdoc)
2nd time on market (economy just crashed and a horrible time to be on market): ~30 apps 2 job talks 1 offer (accepted)
Note, my record was much stronger the second time around but I don’t chalk the relative lack of interest up to randomness…there are likely specific, non-random, explanations for this (e.g., fewer positions in my area, more competition, stronger competition, etc.)
|
|
|
Post by it happens on Mar 31, 2014 23:40:35 GMT -5
“Better to stay in school another year and be a "fresh" PhD than to be the candidate who still doesn't have a TT job several years after getting the degree. Obviously this doesn't count for folks doing high-status post-docs and fellowhips, but but everyone else is going to be looked at with increasing skepticism.” Actually, this can also count for post-docs and fellowship if you don’t produce. And for those who continue to refer to the job market and departmental decisions as “random” are really scaring me….do you not understand what random means at this stage? I don’t mean to be snarky and this isn’t simply a matter of semantics. While I actually think what people really mean that the process is “subjective” (and it is), a great deal of time and thought is put into hiring decisions and faculty are not sitting back flipping a coin. You can point out rare cases involving “shame” hires (and they do happen on occasion) but we do not draw such generalities on such anomalous cases in our research so why would you do this here? Not to mention this doesn’t equate to “randomness.” I’m really not trying to be a jerk here (though I may just be;), I’m just trying to point out that in most cases if you didn’t get an offer then it was not likely anything against you personally and there was likely nothing you could have done differently but that doesn’t mean it is random. And, as others have pointed out, it also doesn’t mean you should think about ways to improve your approach…or maybe you just came across as a jerk during your visit;) Just kiddin, best wishes to all To stay on target with the thread: 1st time on market: ~80 apps 10 job talks 3 job offers and 2 post-doc offers (took a postdoc) 2nd time on market (economy just crashed and a horrible time to be on market): ~30 apps 2 job talks 1 offer (accepted) Note, my record was much stronger the second time around but I don’t chalk the relative lack of interest up to randomness…there are likely specific, non-random, explanations for this (e.g., fewer positions in my area, more competition, stronger competition, etc.) Who has said that department decisions are random (though they can always have a random component)? The people who have used random in this thread have clearly referred to the market, myself included. And I backed it up by personal examples. I mean, do YOU understand what random means? No one is talking about "subjective," but actual randomness. One department moves faster than another and suddenly an interview candidate drops out because they already have an offer from one place while the other is still interviewing, and suddenly one's odds of landing a job increase. Someone's family situation changes and suddenly someone is on the market, and another's chances of landing a job decrease. This isn't a deterministic universe. Unless you want to be extremely pedantic and start to discuss chaos theory, free will and laplace's demon, both the context and the meaning of "random" were very clear.
|
|
|
Post by blessed on Apr 1, 2014 17:43:55 GMT -5
Status: Asst. Prof.
Submitted: 12 apps.
Phone/Skype: 6 (declined 2)
Invites: 5 (No phone interview for 2 of them-straight to campus visit; declined 1)
Offers: 2 (1 accepted)
|
|
|
Post by Anony on Apr 1, 2014 19:06:33 GMT -5
What can be frustrating is a consequence of the glut of the market. There are so many qualified applicants for a given position. I've learned a lot about hiring processes by reading the blog askamanager - although it's not academic, Alison gives great insight to the process.
Status: ABD
Submitted: 16 TT job apps, 9 post docs, 6 funding apps for another year of grad school
2 interviews (1 R1, 1 SLAC)
Offers: 1 (SLAC, accepted)
|
|
|
Post by Yo on Apr 1, 2014 22:06:10 GMT -5
Status: Adjunct Lecturer
Submitted: 25 tenure track; 10 post doc; 1 full time lecturer
Phone Interviews: 5 Phone Interview
Campus Interview: 1
Offers: 1 (accepted)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2014 22:24:38 GMT -5
“Who has said that department decisions are random (though they can always have a random component)? The people who have used random in this thread have clearly referred to the market, myself included.”
First, my reference to people referring to the market and departmental decisions as random was not solely in regard to this thread. There are many threads (and many years) involved here.
Second, I didn’t just refer to departments but also the market…and these are not unrelated entities.
Third, a random market would mean that all individuals who entered the market would have the same chance of being selected. Nothing that you described is a matter of “randomness.”
|
|
|
Post by it happens on Apr 1, 2014 22:47:41 GMT -5
“Who has said that department decisions are random (though they can always have a random component)? The people who have used random in this thread have clearly referred to the market, myself included.” First, my reference to people referring to the market and departmental decisions as random was not solely in regard to this thread. There are many threads (and many years) involved here. Second, I didn’t just refer to departments but also the market…and these are not unrelated entities. Third, a random market would mean that all individuals who entered the market would have the same chance of being selected. Nothing that you described is a matter of “randomness.” I don't think anyone has ever claimed that the market is solely random. The context in which it was said was pretty clear: there are a number of factors that shape market decisions that are unrelated to candidate quality or search committee preferences, so that it is possible that perfectly qualified candidates with perfectly adequate interview skills end up without a job after 4 or 5 interviews (which doesn't preclude reflexivity). Sometimes the entire difference between getting a job after the 6th interview and afte the 1st is just a matter of timing. Trying to turn this into a discussion of whether it is really "Random" in the sampling sense or some other form of chaotic determinism is so unbelievably pedantic or willingly obtuse that I really see no point in continuing this discussion.
|
|
|
Post by what? on Apr 1, 2014 23:19:41 GMT -5
Third, a random market would mean that all individuals who entered the market would have the same chance of being selected. Nothing that you described is a matter of “randomness.” Uh, there is nothing in the idea of randomness that implies or requires equal probabilities. Not even a purely stochastic system requires equal probabilities. You are either bad at statistics or worse at trolling.
|
|
|
Post by ElDuderino on Apr 1, 2014 23:32:35 GMT -5
Please take this discussion about what is or is not random to another thread, if you'd like, and don't hijack this one.
|
|
|
Post by gotta apply on Apr 2, 2014 13:12:45 GMT -5
submitted: 42 (38 were tenure track, 4 were adjunct) area: a quarter in specialty, a quarter open, and the rest were stretching my specialties. phone interviews: 4 on campus invites: 2 (one was invite with no phone interview. the other i declined) offers: 1 (accepted in primary areas)
|
|
a waste to apply too broadly
Guest
|
Post by a waste to apply too broadly on Apr 2, 2014 19:08:28 GMT -5
submitted: 47 (32 tt, 15 VAP or postdocs) + 12 in another discipline where I really didn't have a shot area: most open or a stretch, 14 TT and 5 VAP/PD were a possible fit, a few out of my league. phone/skype: 0 campus invites: 2 offers: 0
|
|
|
Post by blessed on Apr 2, 2014 21:54:46 GMT -5
submitted: 14 tt jobs area: all open searches at r1 phone/skype: n/a campus invites: 8 (two declined) offers: 4
|
|