Don't apply to places you would never work at

[Miss Ann Thrope]

My assertion is not that "failed searches are entirely the fault of departments" but rather that was one hypothesis if there was a pattern of candidates bailing out.

[PSA]

My point is precisely that we, as a search committee, can't know who is serious and who isn't. And so it is a plea (probably futile, I know) that people who know they won't come and are applying as practice, as desperation, etc. think carefully about the impact it has on the departments. Not only is there someone out there without a job that could have one with us, but this sort of thing affects our ability to keep having searches.

And let me go one step beyond my initial post: people have to have realistic expectations about what institutions like mine (small, state funded, teaching oriented) can offer you. A candidate may have the most accomplished research profile we've ever seen, but no matter how motivated we are to hire that person, we can't offer things like research sabbaticals, load reductions, huge start up funds, etc. Not because we don't want to, but because we cant. We can generally spot individuals who want that at the phone interview stage, but every once in a while one will make it through the finalist stage. In other words, don't go in thinking that you are so accomplished that you will be able to turn a teaching oriented job into a research one.

[Assumptions]

Don't assume everyone knows what the job entails if you don't tell them (eg 'salaries and course schedules are public'). Many times it's hard to decipher. Put the salary range and teaching load up front if it'll be a deterrent. There were a bunch of jobs I applied to where I had no idea of either and -even more- it was unclear what would be possible to negotiate.

[styles]

RE: PSA

Given that applicants (in this market and most others in this economic climate) are generally at a disadvantage in almost every way, I find it hard to sympathize or even empathize with your plea from a humanistic standpoint. From a practical and logistical standpoint, I do understand your plea. That said, although you may never be able to completely identify those truly interested in your dept/college vs. those using you as practice/backup/etc., there are ways to minimize this problem. For example, you probably shouldn’t be bringing in people coming from top research institutions with a good deal of publications, grants etc. Maybe you are already doing this but I would think that a dept. in your position might look past what applicant’s state in their letters and look at the objective outcomes in their CV and teaching portfolios. Are they publishing heavy, teaching heavy, or both. You might want to focus on the middle category. Again, maybe you are doing this so my response may not be helpful…just my two cents.

Best wishes to you all

[styles]

I would also second Assumption’s point: don’t assume that applicants “get” the job market and/or even realize what information is out there. In fact, I suspect that the majority of those you would be hiring and that would accept a low paying, teaching-oriented job are more likely to “not know” how the system works and/or how to navigate it.

[second opinion]

Aug 31, 2015 16:59:57 GMT -5 styles said:

RE: PSA

Given that applicants (in this market and most others in this economic climate) are generally at a disadvantage in almost every way, I find it hard to sympathize or even empathize with your plea from a humanistic standpoint. From a practical and logistical standpoint, I do understand your plea. That said, although you may never be able to completely identify those truly interested in your dept/college vs. those using you as practice/backup/etc., there are ways to minimize this problem. For example, you probably shouldn’t be bringing in people coming from top research institutions with a good deal of publications, grants etc. Maybe you are already doing this but I would think that a dept. in your position might look past what applicant’s state in their letters and look at the objective outcomes in their CV and teaching portfolios. Are they publishing heavy, teaching heavy, or both. You might want to focus on the middle category. Again, maybe you are doing this so my response may not be helpful…just my two cents.

Best wishes to you all

As someone who has a lot of publications and is looked past by a lot of smaller / regional universities, I ask you to PLEASE consider applications like mine and not automatically throw mine out. For a variety of reasons, I've actively been seeking jobs at regional universities for the past couple years and it's frustrating that most won't give my application a second thought. I know a lot of people with teaching-heavy portfolios who actually scoff at regional universities, so things are not always as they seem. I know that's frustrating for you, but interviews should help sort those things out.

[Miss Ann Thrope]

Right. I don't think the OP and their department are asking the right questions during the interview to help sort out some of these things re: why a place like their institution. That's where skype or phone interviews can come in handy from the long short list to the short list

[PSA]

Aug 31, 2015 16:59:57 GMT -5 styles said:

RE: PSA

Given that applicants (in this market and most others in this economic climate) are generally at a disadvantage in almost every way, I find it hard to sympathize or even empathize with your plea from a humanistic standpoint. From a practical and logistical standpoint, I do understand your plea. That said, although you may never be able to completely identify those truly interested in your dept/college vs. those using you as practice/backup/etc., there are ways to minimize this problem. For example, you probably shouldn’t be bringing in people coming from top research institutions with a good deal of publications, grants etc. Maybe you are already doing this but I would think that a dept. in your position might look past what applicant’s state in their letters and look at the objective outcomes in their CV and teaching portfolios. Are they publishing heavy, teaching heavy, or both. You might want to focus on the middle category. Again, maybe you are doing this so my response may not be helpful…just my two cents.

Best wishes to you all

My point wasn't so much about empathy, but about pointing out that everyone loses in this scenario. Yes, we have a heavier load. But we are not the only ones losing out. Somewhere in that pile of applications is someone who didn't get a job and would be happy here.

As someone who has a lot of publications and is looked past by a lot of smaller / regional universities, I ask you to PLEASE consider applications like mine and not automatically throw mine out. For a variety of reasons, I've actively been seeking jobs at regional universities for the past couple years and it's frustrating that most won't give my application a second thought. I know a lot of people with teaching-heavy portfolios who actually scoff at regional universities, so things are not always as they seem. I know that's frustrating for you, but interviews should help sort those things out.

We do consider, but it is a balancing act, especially when you consider some of the reasons someone might want to work here (family, etc). A sister department hired someone who had a page and a half of publications on their CV.

Right. I don't think the OP and their department are asking the right questions during the interview to help sort out some of these things re: why a place like their institution. That's where skype or phone interviews can come in handy from the long short list to the short list

I don't know why you still seem to be under the impression that the problem is restricted to my department. And no offense, but it seems clear to me that you have never served on a search committee, at least in a similar situation. There is a limited number of people we can invite for phone interviews (which we do conduct). There is a limited time for questions with those people that we do talk to. And we are restricted in what we can ask of candidates. And for good reason. Having family or a spouse working in the area is probably the single best indicator of whether someone wants to come here, but I think we all can see how discriminatory and unfair it would be if we decided to make that a central part of recruiting.

Finally, after all that, there is the simple fact that people may lie, or feign interest, or simply not be socialized enough into the profession in order to know how to properly demonstrate interest.

Not that this excuses our failures. We clearly need to do a better job of selecting candidates. But it clearly is not as simple as "ask the right questions," especially when what we are trying to assess here is not necessarily productivity or research potential (which are much easier to verify), but interest.

[idk]

"A candidate may have the most accomplished research profile we've ever seen"

You should not be offering interviews to this person. That seems pretty clear. Be realistic about who you interview, aim for devoted teachers from similar sorts of institutions with very little in the way of publications, etc., who you can be more certain will be happy with what you're offering. But don't chase after candidates with great research profiles, from big-name institutions, as that's really not who is going to take the job, right?

[PSA]

We actually have people who work here who come from top 5 departments, or with top publications. But all those cases are here because of family reasons, and we obviously shouldn't be using family reasons as a reason to hire someone.

[rational choice dilemma]

This is kind of like a rational choice dilemma, wherein the department and prospective applicants are all unsatisfied with the outcome but don't want to change anything and are locked in a perpetual state of disequilibrium. Both sides would be perfectly happy to change their behavior if they knew what the other side's intentions and goals are, but a lack of information hinders them from doing so. Clearly, in this exchange the department doesn't know enough about the candidates and I would place a pretty strong bet the candidates don't know enough about the department.

However, as the side that is both supplying half the information AND directing the search (and so is in the driver's seat), it doesn't seem like a plea on a message board is going to work. As someone pointed out, candidates basically don't have any power in this process at all until they get an offer. PSA, as much as your situation sucks, it's clear that something is going to have to change on your end. For better or worse, you're running this show.

[Miss Ann Thrope]

Sept 1, 2015 11:27:27 GMT -5 PSA said:

Aug 31, 2015 16:59:57 GMT -5 styles said:

RE: PSA

Given that applicants (in this market and most others in this economic climate) are generally at a disadvantage in almost every way, I find it hard to sympathize or even empathize with your plea from a humanistic standpoint. From a practical and logistical standpoint, I do understand your plea. That said, although you may never be able to completely identify those truly interested in your dept/college vs. those using you as practice/backup/etc., there are ways to minimize this problem. For example, you probably shouldn’t be bringing in people coming from top research institutions with a good deal of publications, grants etc. Maybe you are already doing this but I would think that a dept. in your position might look past what applicant’s state in their letters and look at the objective outcomes in their CV and teaching portfolios. Are they publishing heavy, teaching heavy, or both. You might want to focus on the middle category. Again, maybe you are doing this so my response may not be helpful…just my two cents.

Best wishes to you all

My point wasn't so much about empathy, but about pointing out that everyone loses in this scenario. Yes, we have a heavier load. But we are not the only ones losing out. Somewhere in that pile of applications is someone who didn't get a job and would be happy here.

As someone who has a lot of publications and is looked past by a lot of smaller / regional universities, I ask you to PLEASE consider applications like mine and not automatically throw mine out. For a variety of reasons, I've actively been seeking jobs at regional universities for the past couple years and it's frustrating that most won't give my application a second thought. I know a lot of people with teaching-heavy portfolios who actually scoff at regional universities, so things are not always as they seem. I know that's frustrating for you, but interviews should help sort those things out.

We do consider, but it is a balancing act, especially when you consider some of the reasons someone might want to work here (family, etc). A sister department hired someone who had a page and a half of publications on their CV.

Right. I don't think the OP and their department are asking the right questions during the interview to help sort out some of these things re: why a place like their institution. That's where skype or phone interviews can come in handy from the long short list to the short list

I don't know why you still seem to be under the impression that the problem is restricted to my department. And no offense, but it seems clear to me that you have never served on a search committee, at least in a similar situation. There is a limited number of people we can invite for phone interviews (which we do conduct). There is a limited time for questions with those people that we do talk to. And we are restricted in what we can ask of candidates. And for good reason. Having family or a spouse working in the area is probably the single best indicator of whether someone wants to come here, but I think we all can see how discriminatory and unfair it would be if we decided to make that a central part of recruiting.

Finally, after all that, there is the simple fact that people may lie, or feign interest, or simply not be socialized enough into the profession in order to know how to properly demonstrate interest.

Not that this excuses our failures. We clearly need to do a better job of selecting candidates. But it clearly is not as simple as "ask the right questions," especially when what we are trying to assess here is not necessarily productivity or research potential (which are much easier to verify), but interest.

And I don't know why you continue to point the blame at individual applicants who apply to your school, instead of thinking about structural conditions that contribute and structural solutions. You can ask questions that are not about productivity or research potential. It can be as simple as being upfront about the teaching requirements, and how do they see themselves fitting in. Questions are not limited to research.

And yes, I have sat on a search committee, thanks for the assumption that I haven't.