|
|
Post by wonder on Apr 13, 2015 23:15:58 GMT -5
Does anyone have any hard data on failed searches over the past few years? They seem to happen more often now, but it might just be confirmation bias on my part. On one hand I'd expect a more competitive market to mean that there would be fewer failed searches, as there would be more than enough qualified candidates. On the other, I can also imagine a situation where a more competitive market creates sorting problems where ambiguity about one's position (both for candidates and employers) in the grand scheme of things, leading to more rejected offers.
|
|
|
|
Post by I wonder too on Apr 14, 2015 10:25:28 GMT -5
I wonder about this too, and have no hard data to support it. But, just from my perspective, it seems like hiring committees used to have a pretty good sense of what a candidate "looked like" at their institution. Someone who used to publish in prestigious outlets would be "too good" for them. So if someone had a Social Forces or Demography solo-author they might be passed over because, clearly, they were going to get a job at a place that would pay more, offer a lower teaching load, or generally offer more resources and "better" grad students. Or--perhaps more importantly--if they did get a job at your institution, they'd just leave in a few years and you'd be stuck doing the search again.
But now it seems like everyone on the market has first- or solo-authored publications in well-regarded journals. ASR, AJS, Social Forces, Social Problems, Demography, Social Psych Quarterly, JMF...it's just crazy. So my theory (like wonder) is that hiring committees don't have a good sense of who is going to be there long-term anymore.
|
|
|
|
Post by Budget cuts on Apr 14, 2015 12:02:05 GMT -5
are also more common.
|
|
