I'm reading applications for a position that's not Composition and/or Rhetoric, but about 15 percent of the applications are from folks in Comp/Rhet.
Since I don't teach at super famous R1 in a fabulous place to live, that leads me to believe that the shine is really off the Comp/Rhet marketability.
It seems like there are a lot more Comp/Rhet PhD programs out there, graduating a lot more Comp/Rhet PhDs, but there's not a great tenure track market, certainly not what there was? (Maybe it's the ratio: it seems like there used to be fewer candidates for each job, so a greater likelihood of graduates finding something, as opposed to say, 20th century American Lit.)
It used to be that when I had a promising undergrad who wanted to get a PhD in an English Studies field, I'd recommend they think about Comp/Rhet. But I'm thinking that's outdated thinking now.
On the other hand, my suspicions are 100% based on an anecdote, and data isn't the plural of anecdote...
Showing posts with label academic job searching. Show all posts
Showing posts with label academic job searching. Show all posts
Saturday, January 18, 2020
Friday, January 10, 2020
Reading Applications
I've been reading applications, and I've noticed a couple things.
First, a number of the letters of recommendation are targeted, at least by an address and salutation, specifically at our search. I've never noticed that before. It means letter writers are reworking letters (at least minimally) specifically for each institution the applicant is applying to. Maybe that's not many, but holy cow, it's a whole lot of work. And it really doesn't seem necessary or even really helpful. It's not like the faculty at Prestigious R1 are actually likely to know enough about a regional comprehensive such as NorthWoods U to really make the strategy effective. And it's got to make things MUCH more complicated for submitting letters on time. (Whose letter writers weren't always pushing the deadline? Anyone not have that issue? So it's got to add stress.)
The second thing is how few of the application letters clearly address some of the stuff in our ad. If we put in our ad that, say, speaking a foreign language is vital, then the letter should tell us about the foreign language the applicant speaks and how well.
In my role as future chair, I've talked to some folks who are on the market in different fields, and at least one has told me that doing an invited talk is a real CV booster. From my point of view, it's so not. A conference or three is great, but an invited talk doesn't really catch my eye. And given that a lot of candidates have multiple conference presentations, an invited talk basically disappears into the background. It's certainly not the make or break thing that my colleague seemed to think. For others?
What do folks see as make or break?
For me, a well written letter that addresses our job ad requirements. Research that sounds interesting.
A clear CV that shows growth and ... exploration, experience, interesting work.
First, a number of the letters of recommendation are targeted, at least by an address and salutation, specifically at our search. I've never noticed that before. It means letter writers are reworking letters (at least minimally) specifically for each institution the applicant is applying to. Maybe that's not many, but holy cow, it's a whole lot of work. And it really doesn't seem necessary or even really helpful. It's not like the faculty at Prestigious R1 are actually likely to know enough about a regional comprehensive such as NorthWoods U to really make the strategy effective. And it's got to make things MUCH more complicated for submitting letters on time. (Whose letter writers weren't always pushing the deadline? Anyone not have that issue? So it's got to add stress.)
The second thing is how few of the application letters clearly address some of the stuff in our ad. If we put in our ad that, say, speaking a foreign language is vital, then the letter should tell us about the foreign language the applicant speaks and how well.
In my role as future chair, I've talked to some folks who are on the market in different fields, and at least one has told me that doing an invited talk is a real CV booster. From my point of view, it's so not. A conference or three is great, but an invited talk doesn't really catch my eye. And given that a lot of candidates have multiple conference presentations, an invited talk basically disappears into the background. It's certainly not the make or break thing that my colleague seemed to think. For others?
What do folks see as make or break?
For me, a well written letter that addresses our job ad requirements. Research that sounds interesting.
A clear CV that shows growth and ... exploration, experience, interesting work.
Tuesday, May 16, 2017
Requesting a Search
The Powers That Be around here let our department chair and personnel chair know last week that they'd be letting every unit put in a request to search for a new TT position in the fall. These decisions need to be made earlier rather than later for a number of reasons. The big one is that if we decide in summer, then the committee can be basically set up and write up a job description early. That way the ad goes out, and we can request materials early. And we can do phone interviews early. And then we can invite candidates to campus at the end of spring semester. Otherwise, since we don't start back until the end of January, it's February before we have campus visits, and then we're late trying to make offers and such (and paperwork here takes forever). Then, as sometimes happens, our first choice candidates already have offers we can't compete with, and on down the line.
So we met to discuss the issue. (And here, let me explain that all meetings of State agencies are completely open to the public unless we invoke a specific state law, and we didn't invoke that at this meeting because it wouldn't have been appropriate. So you all could have come and sat in this meeting, and even asked to speak. Which is all to say, I'm not violating any confidentiality stuff here.)
Our chair prepared some numbers about enrollments, and so forth, which pretty seriously demonstrated that in three of our core areas for student majors, and for our first year writing courses, we're having serious difficulty covering our courses. (In a given semester, most TT faculty teach one first year writing course with 5 meeting hours per week, and two other courses.)
One of the suggestions is that we hire someone in comp/rhet in hopes this person would solve some of the difficulty of first year writing courses. Basically, they're thinking this person would come in and have a steady, long term diet of first year writing courses, all year, all the time. And upper level comp/rhet type courses are already well covered; it's one of only two areas that could add a number of students to each section at the upper level. So we really don't need someone more to teach upper level courses.
That seems to me like a recipe for a really unhappy colleague. I just haven't met anyone who's done a PhD in comp/rhet who really wants a full time first year comp load. Maybe they're out there... And it seems like that load would also really be hard on a research agenda (unless they were totally doing SOTL work on first year writing class stuffs). (The response to my concern about this was that the person could also teach some lit, and yes, but then it doesn't solve the first year writing coverage, and it adds people in a likely area where we already have plenty of coverage, pop culture.)
We also discussed areas A and B, including the possibility that we try to find someone who does both A and B. The A folks rejected that, since anyone who does both probably likes B better and isn't wholeheartedly A. (And we have some folks who could do some A along with their B, but the A folks always, always refuse to let them.)
The A folks made an impassioned argument for a specialized position within A because they want someone who looks different, but not someone who looks TOO different (as in, too B).
The B folks made an equally impassioned argument for a specialized position within B in case our current person there goes off to be a deanling, which they really want to do and which seems likely.
I suggested a different specialization within B that could also reasonably offer serious help to area C. That didn't go far. But I conceded that the other area was probably more important to us.
And so, with much discussion, we came to a consensus which makes me very glad to be part of a department where folks can make an impassioned argument for something and yet be convinced that at this point, something else should probably have priority.
And so we'll put forward our recommendation.
And in all likelihood, since we searched this past year, the few searches there are will go to other departments and programs.
We have some 15 people there for an hour and a half. That's half a week of work, and probably for nothing, really. (And more work in the prep the chair and chair of the meeting did.)
So we met to discuss the issue. (And here, let me explain that all meetings of State agencies are completely open to the public unless we invoke a specific state law, and we didn't invoke that at this meeting because it wouldn't have been appropriate. So you all could have come and sat in this meeting, and even asked to speak. Which is all to say, I'm not violating any confidentiality stuff here.)
Our chair prepared some numbers about enrollments, and so forth, which pretty seriously demonstrated that in three of our core areas for student majors, and for our first year writing courses, we're having serious difficulty covering our courses. (In a given semester, most TT faculty teach one first year writing course with 5 meeting hours per week, and two other courses.)
One of the suggestions is that we hire someone in comp/rhet in hopes this person would solve some of the difficulty of first year writing courses. Basically, they're thinking this person would come in and have a steady, long term diet of first year writing courses, all year, all the time. And upper level comp/rhet type courses are already well covered; it's one of only two areas that could add a number of students to each section at the upper level. So we really don't need someone more to teach upper level courses.
That seems to me like a recipe for a really unhappy colleague. I just haven't met anyone who's done a PhD in comp/rhet who really wants a full time first year comp load. Maybe they're out there... And it seems like that load would also really be hard on a research agenda (unless they were totally doing SOTL work on first year writing class stuffs). (The response to my concern about this was that the person could also teach some lit, and yes, but then it doesn't solve the first year writing coverage, and it adds people in a likely area where we already have plenty of coverage, pop culture.)
We also discussed areas A and B, including the possibility that we try to find someone who does both A and B. The A folks rejected that, since anyone who does both probably likes B better and isn't wholeheartedly A. (And we have some folks who could do some A along with their B, but the A folks always, always refuse to let them.)
The A folks made an impassioned argument for a specialized position within A because they want someone who looks different, but not someone who looks TOO different (as in, too B).
The B folks made an equally impassioned argument for a specialized position within B in case our current person there goes off to be a deanling, which they really want to do and which seems likely.
I suggested a different specialization within B that could also reasonably offer serious help to area C. That didn't go far. But I conceded that the other area was probably more important to us.
And so, with much discussion, we came to a consensus which makes me very glad to be part of a department where folks can make an impassioned argument for something and yet be convinced that at this point, something else should probably have priority.
And so we'll put forward our recommendation.
And in all likelihood, since we searched this past year, the few searches there are will go to other departments and programs.
We have some 15 people there for an hour and a half. That's half a week of work, and probably for nothing, really. (And more work in the prep the chair and chair of the meeting did.)
Sunday, May 07, 2017
Thoughts on Not Hiring Local Adjuncts
I've been involved in a couple searches recently, from a variety of angles. For each of them, some NWU adjuncts* applied. And none of them were hired. And now a couple are really angry.
I know some adjuncts ask how it is that we're willing to keep them as adjuncts, but not hire them as tenure track faculty. The answer is that there's much more competition for tenure track jobs. Someone who applies for one of our newer adjunct positions is usually fresh out of a grad program, has some conference presentations, is abd or just finished, and has a good record of grad school teaching. They write an application letter, do a phone interview, and are hired by the chair. The job description says nothing about scholarly activity, so that's not something the chair can ask about.
In contrast, the folks who stood out in our tenure track searches generally had a publication or two, conference presentations, a good record of grad school teaching, good references, and what made them stand out to get the interview were stellar letters of application. What makes the letters stellar always includes addressing the things we put in our job description, and says meaningful things about those.
From the stellar letters, we looked at CVs, and letters of recommendation, and then writing samples to narrow down the pool further. We care about scholarly activity and teaching. But no one got an interview that I know of unless they had a stellar letter.
What makes a stellar letter?
One of the candidates who isn't mad and I talked for a good while about their letter. They sent me a letter of application for a different job, and a job description for that job. So I used different colored highlighters to highlight the things the job description said were important, and prioritized those. And then I used the same colors to highlight in the candidate's letter where they addressed those things. That made the lack of addressing the job description really visible.
For example, this job description said it valued candidates who could contribute to diversity. On first glance, a white candidate might think that means only a candidate who's a person of color. But what it means is that everyone needs to learn about diversity, and especially about working well with diverse students and colleagues, and about contributing to diversity efforts on campus. So, for example, this adjunct mentioned in their letter that they worked with a diverse student body. And that was it. But in reality, when I asked the candidate, they'd made at least some effort to learn about effective teaching for a diverse student body. But they hadn't talked about it in their letter and it didn't show on the CV, so how was the search committee to know?
I did suggest to the candidate that they could do more, start a reading group for the adjuncts across campus, maybe, to take on some leadership in contributing to diversity.
The thing is, unless a letter tells the search committee that you actually can contribute in the required and valued areas of the description, the search committee won't know. And they don't have time to go look you up on the web to learn more because someone else's letter did tell them that information, and made it sound meaningful and committed.
So, let's hear: why do your schools hire or not hire adjuncts?
*When I use "adjuncts" in this post, I mean any teaching staff who aren't on a tenure-track contract. These may be full time or part time, and may have a variety of different names, even on one campus.
I know some adjuncts ask how it is that we're willing to keep them as adjuncts, but not hire them as tenure track faculty. The answer is that there's much more competition for tenure track jobs. Someone who applies for one of our newer adjunct positions is usually fresh out of a grad program, has some conference presentations, is abd or just finished, and has a good record of grad school teaching. They write an application letter, do a phone interview, and are hired by the chair. The job description says nothing about scholarly activity, so that's not something the chair can ask about.
In contrast, the folks who stood out in our tenure track searches generally had a publication or two, conference presentations, a good record of grad school teaching, good references, and what made them stand out to get the interview were stellar letters of application. What makes the letters stellar always includes addressing the things we put in our job description, and says meaningful things about those.
From the stellar letters, we looked at CVs, and letters of recommendation, and then writing samples to narrow down the pool further. We care about scholarly activity and teaching. But no one got an interview that I know of unless they had a stellar letter.
What makes a stellar letter?
One of the candidates who isn't mad and I talked for a good while about their letter. They sent me a letter of application for a different job, and a job description for that job. So I used different colored highlighters to highlight the things the job description said were important, and prioritized those. And then I used the same colors to highlight in the candidate's letter where they addressed those things. That made the lack of addressing the job description really visible.
For example, this job description said it valued candidates who could contribute to diversity. On first glance, a white candidate might think that means only a candidate who's a person of color. But what it means is that everyone needs to learn about diversity, and especially about working well with diverse students and colleagues, and about contributing to diversity efforts on campus. So, for example, this adjunct mentioned in their letter that they worked with a diverse student body. And that was it. But in reality, when I asked the candidate, they'd made at least some effort to learn about effective teaching for a diverse student body. But they hadn't talked about it in their letter and it didn't show on the CV, so how was the search committee to know?
I did suggest to the candidate that they could do more, start a reading group for the adjuncts across campus, maybe, to take on some leadership in contributing to diversity.
The thing is, unless a letter tells the search committee that you actually can contribute in the required and valued areas of the description, the search committee won't know. And they don't have time to go look you up on the web to learn more because someone else's letter did tell them that information, and made it sound meaningful and committed.
So, let's hear: why do your schools hire or not hire adjuncts?
*When I use "adjuncts" in this post, I mean any teaching staff who aren't on a tenure-track contract. These may be full time or part time, and may have a variety of different names, even on one campus.
Saturday, March 04, 2017
Coughing and News
I've had a cold for about two weeks now, it's all stuffy nose and coughing. Ugh. It's not as bad as the one earlier this academic year, that lasted until I took antibiotics (prescribed by a PA) after a couple of months of hacking.
But coughing gets very old, very fast.
I haven't practiced my violin for about three days. It feels like months. I keep coughing and sneezing, and it's really hard to play anything when I'm coughing and sneezing. I've also spent a whole lot of time trying to sleep, wishing I were asleep, and on the verge of sleep. It's hard to sleep when I'm coughing, and that makes me more tired, which makes me go to be earlier, and get more frustrated when I cough instead of sleeping. And it probably doesn't help much with getting better.
I had two pieces of good news this past week. One was the official notice about my sabbatical. The other was that the search I chaired has finalized a very good hire. I blogged a little about diversity issues in hiring here (Hiring Faculty of Color) and here (Diversity Statements) this fall. I'm very pleased with our hire, and so is pretty much everyone else who's talked to me about it. (I've been stopped in the halls, gotten emails, and such.)
But can I say, as someone who's in a department that teaches writing, and so, one would hope, is likely to attract people who've been trained in writing and stuffs: holy cow, some people in our field can't write their way out of a paper bag. It's not the majority, but there are definitely some.
Here's a hint: if the ad says that the ideal candidate will show evidence of X, then by golly, show us some evidence of X. If X is teaching excellence, talk convincingly about your teaching excellence, about the work you do to teach well, and so forth. If X is doing handstands, talk about doing handstands.
Can I also say, our HR department is a real mess right now with all the retirements and people leaving for better jobs. Their messiness added a lot of stress to certain people's lives in regards to the search.
I've had it up to here (hand at forehead) with colleagues who don't do some basic aspect of the job, but who expect the rest of us to fill them in. And when these same colleagues make snotty comments about the job we did in their absence, I don't want to hear them.
On the other hand, I'm going to Kalamazoo! When I started back to school to study English, one of my first teachers was a medievalist who talked about what a great conference Kalamazoo is, and for the first time, I'm going! And that teacher and I are going to be able to get together and catch up a bit, which will be splendid. She's one of the best teachers I had, and was always super encouraging to me.
But coughing gets very old, very fast.
I haven't practiced my violin for about three days. It feels like months. I keep coughing and sneezing, and it's really hard to play anything when I'm coughing and sneezing. I've also spent a whole lot of time trying to sleep, wishing I were asleep, and on the verge of sleep. It's hard to sleep when I'm coughing, and that makes me more tired, which makes me go to be earlier, and get more frustrated when I cough instead of sleeping. And it probably doesn't help much with getting better.
I had two pieces of good news this past week. One was the official notice about my sabbatical. The other was that the search I chaired has finalized a very good hire. I blogged a little about diversity issues in hiring here (Hiring Faculty of Color) and here (Diversity Statements) this fall. I'm very pleased with our hire, and so is pretty much everyone else who's talked to me about it. (I've been stopped in the halls, gotten emails, and such.)
But can I say, as someone who's in a department that teaches writing, and so, one would hope, is likely to attract people who've been trained in writing and stuffs: holy cow, some people in our field can't write their way out of a paper bag. It's not the majority, but there are definitely some.
Here's a hint: if the ad says that the ideal candidate will show evidence of X, then by golly, show us some evidence of X. If X is teaching excellence, talk convincingly about your teaching excellence, about the work you do to teach well, and so forth. If X is doing handstands, talk about doing handstands.
Can I also say, our HR department is a real mess right now with all the retirements and people leaving for better jobs. Their messiness added a lot of stress to certain people's lives in regards to the search.
I've had it up to here (hand at forehead) with colleagues who don't do some basic aspect of the job, but who expect the rest of us to fill them in. And when these same colleagues make snotty comments about the job we did in their absence, I don't want to hear them.
On the other hand, I'm going to Kalamazoo! When I started back to school to study English, one of my first teachers was a medievalist who talked about what a great conference Kalamazoo is, and for the first time, I'm going! And that teacher and I are going to be able to get together and catch up a bit, which will be splendid. She's one of the best teachers I had, and was always super encouraging to me.
Sunday, October 09, 2016
Sickened
I'm reading job applications, and got one from someone who did their degree at a for-profit, on-line outfit. Everything about the application makes me feel like this person got ripped off and doesn't really realize it.
I feel sort of sickened. We're searching for a, let's say, Mathematical Forester, and this person is getting a degree in Underwater Basketweaving. But somehow they think they're a good applicant for our job.
It's not like I can sit down with them and tell them they got ripped off. And if I could, what good would it do them at this point? None that I can think of.
Yeah, so I'm feeling a bit sick at this point.
I feel sort of sickened. We're searching for a, let's say, Mathematical Forester, and this person is getting a degree in Underwater Basketweaving. But somehow they think they're a good applicant for our job.
It's not like I can sit down with them and tell them they got ripped off. And if I could, what good would it do them at this point? None that I can think of.
Yeah, so I'm feeling a bit sick at this point.
Friday, September 23, 2016
Hiring Faculty of Color and the "Five Things" Article
Today, this article came across my facebook page: :The five things no one will tell you about why colleges don’t hire more faculty of color" by Marybeth Gasman, an education professor at the University of Pennsylvania.
In short, the article argues that institutions of higher education don't hire more faculty of color because "we don't want them. We simply don't want them."
She then talks about the ways hiring works against faculty of color, starting with "quality," which she says is code for having gone to the right elite institution and worked with a prominent person in the field.
The second excuse she says hiring folks use is that there aren't enough people of color in the pipeline; she argues that schools using this excuse need to create their own pipelines, mentor people of color in their fields, and then, even if they don't hire their own graduates, cooperate with other elite institutions to hire from their pipelines.
Third, she says, is that faculty will bend rules to hire their preferred white candidates, and hold to rules to avoid hiring people of color.
Fourth, according to Gasman, is that faculty on search committees aren't trained in human resources areas, and too often look for "fit," which tends to mean that they hire candidates who feel comfortable, often because those candidates look like the members of the search committee, do similar work, and so forth. Thus, a committee of white women would be more likely to hire another white woman than not.
And finally, Gasman says,
So, I want to ask, what about institutions such as my own?
I've been on a lot of search committees, and I can't think of any time we've taken a candidate off a list because of where they got their degree or who they worked with. I can, though, think of a time when one of the search committee members argued for a candidate based on a strong letter from a prominent scholar in the field.
I don't know what to make of the pipeline argument. I've been on searches where we had a limited number of candidates apply (think of where I am), offered the job to the strongest candidate (on paper and in the interview process), who happened to be a person of color, but then had the candidate turn us down because they'd gotten a better offer. To be honest, we often get turned down by our first two or even three top choices.
So I know we've made the pipeline complaint.
We don't have a graduate program turning out PhDs, so our only way of contributing to the pipeline is to work harder to attract and mentor students of color, and to send them up the pipeline, hoping they get into a strong PhD program. We don't do nearly as much attracting and mentoring students of color as we should. (I'm more ambivalent about anyone going on to a PhD in English these days, but I'd like to see real equity there.) But the most elite PhD programs seem to mostly take students from their elite pals, leaving our students to get PhDs from strong state schools, which leaves them out of the elite candidate pools (but should make them great candidates for our own hiring, eventually).
I think the third and fourth reasons are closely related, and I think they're where our problems here come in. From things I overhear, I know we hire for "fit" and that when we do, "fit" often means good old boys, or white folks, or people from the upper Midwest, especially more local, straight folks, and so on.
I'm intrigued by Gasman's fifth point, which seems more a suggestion than a reason why we fail to hire faculty of color: we should go visit institutions that do successfully hire faculty of color, institutions which are historically Minority Serving Institutions. But even there, I'm a bit at a loss.
Say, I'm on a search committee right now. And there are maybe 6 other search committees on campus right now, all separate, all in different fields. Do we all independently send folks out to visit Minority Serving Institutions?
And in this budget crunch, how do we do that? And would a visit work? There's got to be something here, but I think it might be sort of backwards.
What if we, as a campus, hired one or two deans from Minority Serving Institutions to come here and hold some workshops (say over two days, four workshops, afternoon, evening, morning, afternoon)? And what if our administrators said that only departments whose chair and personnel committee chair both attended a workshop would be allowed to put in for a new hire in the following year? And what if our administrators said that they'd look at requests for new hires more favorably from departments or programs who had a greater percentage of faculty attend workshops?
All our departments are pretty desperate for faculty (budget hell), and many faculty really do want to find ways to hire more colleagues of color.
We'd have a chance of making us more aware of our implicit biases, get ideas for increasing the diversity of our candidate pools, and have the potential to give a broad range of faculty some knowledge and tools to use in searches directly (as committee members) and indirectly (asking the right questions of search committees and such).
Could it work? Would it work?
(Of course, the next problem would be to retain our faculty of color, to help them feel welcome and comfortable here, to mentor them, and to not be jerks to them.)
In short, the article argues that institutions of higher education don't hire more faculty of color because "we don't want them. We simply don't want them."
She then talks about the ways hiring works against faculty of color, starting with "quality," which she says is code for having gone to the right elite institution and worked with a prominent person in the field.
The second excuse she says hiring folks use is that there aren't enough people of color in the pipeline; she argues that schools using this excuse need to create their own pipelines, mentor people of color in their fields, and then, even if they don't hire their own graduates, cooperate with other elite institutions to hire from their pipelines.
Third, she says, is that faculty will bend rules to hire their preferred white candidates, and hold to rules to avoid hiring people of color.
Fourth, according to Gasman, is that faculty on search committees aren't trained in human resources areas, and too often look for "fit," which tends to mean that they hire candidates who feel comfortable, often because those candidates look like the members of the search committee, do similar work, and so forth. Thus, a committee of white women would be more likely to hire another white woman than not.
And finally, Gasman says,
if majority colleges and universities are truly serious about increasing faculty diversity, why don’t they visit Minority Serving Institutions – institutions with great student and faculty diversity – and ask them how they recruit a diverse faculty. This isn’t hard. The answers are right in front of us. We need the will.As I read this, I found myself nodding at times, and feeling irritated at times because she seems to be only thinking of elite institutions.
So, I want to ask, what about institutions such as my own?
I've been on a lot of search committees, and I can't think of any time we've taken a candidate off a list because of where they got their degree or who they worked with. I can, though, think of a time when one of the search committee members argued for a candidate based on a strong letter from a prominent scholar in the field.
I don't know what to make of the pipeline argument. I've been on searches where we had a limited number of candidates apply (think of where I am), offered the job to the strongest candidate (on paper and in the interview process), who happened to be a person of color, but then had the candidate turn us down because they'd gotten a better offer. To be honest, we often get turned down by our first two or even three top choices.
So I know we've made the pipeline complaint.
We don't have a graduate program turning out PhDs, so our only way of contributing to the pipeline is to work harder to attract and mentor students of color, and to send them up the pipeline, hoping they get into a strong PhD program. We don't do nearly as much attracting and mentoring students of color as we should. (I'm more ambivalent about anyone going on to a PhD in English these days, but I'd like to see real equity there.) But the most elite PhD programs seem to mostly take students from their elite pals, leaving our students to get PhDs from strong state schools, which leaves them out of the elite candidate pools (but should make them great candidates for our own hiring, eventually).
I think the third and fourth reasons are closely related, and I think they're where our problems here come in. From things I overhear, I know we hire for "fit" and that when we do, "fit" often means good old boys, or white folks, or people from the upper Midwest, especially more local, straight folks, and so on.
I'm intrigued by Gasman's fifth point, which seems more a suggestion than a reason why we fail to hire faculty of color: we should go visit institutions that do successfully hire faculty of color, institutions which are historically Minority Serving Institutions. But even there, I'm a bit at a loss.
Say, I'm on a search committee right now. And there are maybe 6 other search committees on campus right now, all separate, all in different fields. Do we all independently send folks out to visit Minority Serving Institutions?
And in this budget crunch, how do we do that? And would a visit work? There's got to be something here, but I think it might be sort of backwards.
What if we, as a campus, hired one or two deans from Minority Serving Institutions to come here and hold some workshops (say over two days, four workshops, afternoon, evening, morning, afternoon)? And what if our administrators said that only departments whose chair and personnel committee chair both attended a workshop would be allowed to put in for a new hire in the following year? And what if our administrators said that they'd look at requests for new hires more favorably from departments or programs who had a greater percentage of faculty attend workshops?
All our departments are pretty desperate for faculty (budget hell), and many faculty really do want to find ways to hire more colleagues of color.
We'd have a chance of making us more aware of our implicit biases, get ideas for increasing the diversity of our candidate pools, and have the potential to give a broad range of faculty some knowledge and tools to use in searches directly (as committee members) and indirectly (asking the right questions of search committees and such).
Could it work? Would it work?
(Of course, the next problem would be to retain our faculty of color, to help them feel welcome and comfortable here, to mentor them, and to not be jerks to them.)
Friday, September 02, 2016
Diversity Statements
Around the interwebs, I've been reading about colleges/universities requiring "diversity statements" along with teaching philosophies (and perhaps other statements). My school, to my knowledge, doesn't require separate statements. But my department always puts something about diversity, social justice as a qualification in our ads. I can't speak across the campus as a whole, but in my department, we think it's important. And we want new colleagues who think it's important.
I've seen some complaints about such ads or statement requirements as BS. So I thought I'd say a few words about why I don't think it's BS, and why I think it's important.
Some years back, I was in some diversity training on campus and we were discussing putting diversity into the qualifications for academic ads, and one of our deanlings, who taught in Social Work, complained that if contributing to diversity were a requirement, he wouldn't get a job now. And all I could say was, then you wouldn't get a job, and how could anyone even think they could qualify for ANY job in Social Work if they couldn't contribute in some way to diversity efforts on our campus? HOW?
The implication of his complaint was that as a white man, he couldn't contribute to diversity on campus, and that such ads would discriminate against white men. I think that's exactly wrong.
I know grad students and adjuncts are incredibly busy, and if you're a chemistry student, thinking about diversity may seem alien. It shouldn't. (I'm using chemistry as a field where it may seem diversity is unimportant.)
White folks can contribute to diversity efforts. We can take advantage of diversity training on our campuses, especially training for TAs and newer faculty (since those folks are mostly on the market). We can contact offices on campus that support students with disabilities, students of color, first generation college students, students who are vets or non-trads, and we can make sure that our syllabi include information about these offices for students, make sure that our materials are accessible, make sure that we think about these students and teach for them, and not just white students who are well-prepared 18 year olds. (I don't remember ever having a conversation with a person of color that revealed that that person had never thought about diversity. We may not have gotten to diversity, if, say, we were standing in line at the grocery chatting about the cold weather, of course.)
The thing is, we should be making these efforts as a standard thing, and should be able to talk about why they're important to us.
For those with a bit more time, think about student groups on campus you can support with a small investment of time. Maybe you can offer students in a discussion a small bit of extra credit for attending a Pow-Wow or talk on campus, or just take 5 minutes every week or two to tell your discussion students about some of the things happening on campus that they aren't already hearing about. (No need to tell students that there's a football game, but do they know there's a drum group? a chemistry speaker?)
If you have more time, then you can do some other activities, perhaps volunteer, whatever.
For those of us who care about diversity, we're looking for colleagues who demonstrate that they've worked to gain some awareness, made some basic efforts. In an English department, we're likely to hear about teaching authors of color, teaching race issues in earlier lit, and so on. But if you're applying in a chemistry department, you might really stand out if you've thought about how to mentor students of color or women in your courses, folks traditionally underrepresented in your area. I can tell you that I have colleagues in chemistry here who think diversity is important, and who'd give that application additional attention because that's a qualification for teaching chemistry for our students, and for the students we want to come study here. Take diversity and social justice seriously; it's not a throw away for many people reading your applications.
If you're a person of color, or a person with a disability, then you've probably already got ways to talk about your experiences and your commitment to diversity. You've probably already put in the time to work towards social justice in a variety of ways. But doesn't mean that someone reading your application will know about your experiences and work unless you tell them. So tell us, please!
I've seen some complaints about such ads or statement requirements as BS. So I thought I'd say a few words about why I don't think it's BS, and why I think it's important.
Some years back, I was in some diversity training on campus and we were discussing putting diversity into the qualifications for academic ads, and one of our deanlings, who taught in Social Work, complained that if contributing to diversity were a requirement, he wouldn't get a job now. And all I could say was, then you wouldn't get a job, and how could anyone even think they could qualify for ANY job in Social Work if they couldn't contribute in some way to diversity efforts on our campus? HOW?
The implication of his complaint was that as a white man, he couldn't contribute to diversity on campus, and that such ads would discriminate against white men. I think that's exactly wrong.
I know grad students and adjuncts are incredibly busy, and if you're a chemistry student, thinking about diversity may seem alien. It shouldn't. (I'm using chemistry as a field where it may seem diversity is unimportant.)
White folks can contribute to diversity efforts. We can take advantage of diversity training on our campuses, especially training for TAs and newer faculty (since those folks are mostly on the market). We can contact offices on campus that support students with disabilities, students of color, first generation college students, students who are vets or non-trads, and we can make sure that our syllabi include information about these offices for students, make sure that our materials are accessible, make sure that we think about these students and teach for them, and not just white students who are well-prepared 18 year olds. (I don't remember ever having a conversation with a person of color that revealed that that person had never thought about diversity. We may not have gotten to diversity, if, say, we were standing in line at the grocery chatting about the cold weather, of course.)
The thing is, we should be making these efforts as a standard thing, and should be able to talk about why they're important to us.
For those with a bit more time, think about student groups on campus you can support with a small investment of time. Maybe you can offer students in a discussion a small bit of extra credit for attending a Pow-Wow or talk on campus, or just take 5 minutes every week or two to tell your discussion students about some of the things happening on campus that they aren't already hearing about. (No need to tell students that there's a football game, but do they know there's a drum group? a chemistry speaker?)
If you have more time, then you can do some other activities, perhaps volunteer, whatever.
For those of us who care about diversity, we're looking for colleagues who demonstrate that they've worked to gain some awareness, made some basic efforts. In an English department, we're likely to hear about teaching authors of color, teaching race issues in earlier lit, and so on. But if you're applying in a chemistry department, you might really stand out if you've thought about how to mentor students of color or women in your courses, folks traditionally underrepresented in your area. I can tell you that I have colleagues in chemistry here who think diversity is important, and who'd give that application additional attention because that's a qualification for teaching chemistry for our students, and for the students we want to come study here. Take diversity and social justice seriously; it's not a throw away for many people reading your applications.
If you're a person of color, or a person with a disability, then you've probably already got ways to talk about your experiences and your commitment to diversity. You've probably already put in the time to work towards social justice in a variety of ways. But doesn't mean that someone reading your application will know about your experiences and work unless you tell them. So tell us, please!
Saturday, June 25, 2016
Sausages Being Made - What Job Candidates Should Know about Notification
You know there's that old saying about not wanting to know how sausages or laws are made?
So I want to say there's something of that to the hiring process. To remind you, I chaired a search committee for a one year position in interdisciplinary basketweaving.
The committee did its part, the applicants did theirs. The chair offered the position to someone who accepted, put in the paperwork. And voila, that should be good, right?
This was back in mid-May.
In May, after we'd had the offer accepted, I drafted a short rejection note, using the help you folks had offered here, on May 19th. But everyone warned me that I cannot send the rejection note out until we have a signed contract back. It's been over a month. And it hasn't even gone out to the candidate yet, I bet. (I bet this because I got an email on Friday asking me for some information needed to process the candidate, so I'm guessing the processing didn't get done until after I responded to the email at 3pm, if then. And being Friday and all, even if the contract was put in outgoing mail, it's probably still sitting there, waiting for the Monday pick up.)
I'm sure the candidates have decided that I'm an irresponsible jerk.
I'd like to apologize to all the job candidates out there who've complained, and rightly so, about not getting a timely note about their status when a campus has hired someone else.
The thing is, once the call's been made and an offer accepted, a long train of paperwork starts. Here at NWU, the department chair initiates hiring paperwork, which goes on it's merry way up the ladder, first to the dean, and then the provost. The provost gets it to HR, where it sits for however long (in this case, over a month).
And the committee chair who intends to send out timely notifications can't. And then the committee chair gets really busy, and is probably out of the loop about when the contract gets back, so maybe things get pushed aside, and by the time the committee chair looks at them again, it feels silly to send out a rejection note.
I'm going out of town in early July, so if I don't get the information before then, my notes will have to wait even longer.
So I want to say there's something of that to the hiring process. To remind you, I chaired a search committee for a one year position in interdisciplinary basketweaving.
The committee did its part, the applicants did theirs. The chair offered the position to someone who accepted, put in the paperwork. And voila, that should be good, right?
This was back in mid-May.
In May, after we'd had the offer accepted, I drafted a short rejection note, using the help you folks had offered here, on May 19th. But everyone warned me that I cannot send the rejection note out until we have a signed contract back. It's been over a month. And it hasn't even gone out to the candidate yet, I bet. (I bet this because I got an email on Friday asking me for some information needed to process the candidate, so I'm guessing the processing didn't get done until after I responded to the email at 3pm, if then. And being Friday and all, even if the contract was put in outgoing mail, it's probably still sitting there, waiting for the Monday pick up.)
I'm sure the candidates have decided that I'm an irresponsible jerk.
I'd like to apologize to all the job candidates out there who've complained, and rightly so, about not getting a timely note about their status when a campus has hired someone else.
The thing is, once the call's been made and an offer accepted, a long train of paperwork starts. Here at NWU, the department chair initiates hiring paperwork, which goes on it's merry way up the ladder, first to the dean, and then the provost. The provost gets it to HR, where it sits for however long (in this case, over a month).
And the committee chair who intends to send out timely notifications can't. And then the committee chair gets really busy, and is probably out of the loop about when the contract gets back, so maybe things get pushed aside, and by the time the committee chair looks at them again, it feels silly to send out a rejection note.
I'm going out of town in early July, so if I don't get the information before then, my notes will have to wait even longer.
Thursday, May 19, 2016
Job Well Done and a Help Request
I've been blogging about a search I'm on, which I've characterized as interdisciplinary basketweaving.
Looking for Dr. Right - introduces the search
Dr. Desperate - applicants who aren't really qualified, or who don't convince us they are
Finding My Biases in the Job Search - Thinking about some biases I have when I read applications
Schedule This - The difficulty of scheduling interviews at this point in the semester, and calling references.
We've now finished our interviews.
What I wish from job candidates: imagine if we list an interdisciplinary basketweaving job, and say we're interested in people who can teach basket aesthetics and economics of basketweaving at intro and advanced levels.
Our first question was about the intro to interdisciplinary basketweaving. An ideal answer would have started by recognizing that we think aesthetics and economics issues are important, and would talk about focusing the class through one or both of those issues, or would talk about some of the important themes or areas to introduce, and include those two areas.
Then we asked a question about the basketweaving aesthetics course. A really good answer talks about what's important to introduce in basketweaving aesthetics, and how the person introduces those. A brilliant answer also ties in the economics of aesthetic issues, because the candidate knows from our job ad that we see a relationship between those things as being important and think one person should be able to do both areas.
Then we asked about the economics of basketweaving in our lower division and upper division courses, both required for some majors. A really good answer explains the differences between the two courses in some way, and then talks about each, and thinks about how the second builds on the first. A brilliant answer includes something about the economics of aesthetic issues as a theme in one of the courses.
I'm grateful for the people I worked with on the search committee. They're smart and good colleagues to work with. We reached a strong consensus at each step along the way, focused on what we'd decided was important and were able to write up a short statement about each of the candidates we ranked for the next level up in the process.
And now it's out of my hands except for one thing: I'm going to have to write letters to the folks we didn't hire (after we've hired someone).
That's where I need your help. What graceful, kind, and decent thing can I say having interviewed (or not interviewed) people who've worked hard to get where they've gotten and really need a job, and aren't getting our job?
Looking for Dr. Right - introduces the search
Dr. Desperate - applicants who aren't really qualified, or who don't convince us they are
Finding My Biases in the Job Search - Thinking about some biases I have when I read applications
Schedule This - The difficulty of scheduling interviews at this point in the semester, and calling references.
We've now finished our interviews.
What I wish from job candidates: imagine if we list an interdisciplinary basketweaving job, and say we're interested in people who can teach basket aesthetics and economics of basketweaving at intro and advanced levels.
Our first question was about the intro to interdisciplinary basketweaving. An ideal answer would have started by recognizing that we think aesthetics and economics issues are important, and would talk about focusing the class through one or both of those issues, or would talk about some of the important themes or areas to introduce, and include those two areas.
Then we asked a question about the basketweaving aesthetics course. A really good answer talks about what's important to introduce in basketweaving aesthetics, and how the person introduces those. A brilliant answer also ties in the economics of aesthetic issues, because the candidate knows from our job ad that we see a relationship between those things as being important and think one person should be able to do both areas.
Then we asked about the economics of basketweaving in our lower division and upper division courses, both required for some majors. A really good answer explains the differences between the two courses in some way, and then talks about each, and thinks about how the second builds on the first. A brilliant answer includes something about the economics of aesthetic issues as a theme in one of the courses.
I'm grateful for the people I worked with on the search committee. They're smart and good colleagues to work with. We reached a strong consensus at each step along the way, focused on what we'd decided was important and were able to write up a short statement about each of the candidates we ranked for the next level up in the process.
And now it's out of my hands except for one thing: I'm going to have to write letters to the folks we didn't hire (after we've hired someone).
That's where I need your help. What graceful, kind, and decent thing can I say having interviewed (or not interviewed) people who've worked hard to get where they've gotten and really need a job, and aren't getting our job?
Friday, May 13, 2016
Schedule This!
In addition to the usual end of the semester mix of grading jail, student panics, and tiredness, I've got the special joys of calling references and setting up long-distance interviews with candidates.
The committee laid out times for interviews, and naturally, our schedules don't overlap nicely. Then I started setting up interviews. The candidates all were very cooperative, and we managed, but some are quite busy with teaching and stuffs, and they can't drop everything for an interview.
I started calling the references on my list. I got hold of one person right away, and they were really excited to talk about the candidate, and it was great. I thought to myself, hey, this is way easier than I thought it would be! Then I tried the next person on the list, and the number took me to a veterinary school person. And I looked on line, and the number I found listed there took me somewhere else. Then I looked on line and called the department office, and they told me that the person wasn't around because classes are already over, and I should email. So I did. And that's pretty much how the rest of my calls went.
When I worked as a receptionist, I learned very quickly to answer the phone "Good [morning/afternoon], [Business Name], how may I help you?" I still do a variation. My calls to different departments and such trying to get hold of referees has reminded me that answering the phone with something more helpful than "yeah" does matter. It also helps if the on-line directory has the right phone numbers. (Fancy Pants U, I'm looking at you about both of those!)
Also, if you're going to set up one of those automatic "out of office" messages, put some words there. I got return emails that were totally empty.
Fortunately, the references are all enthusiastic about their candidates, got in touch, and I've now talked with all but one, and we have an appointment to talk on Monday.
But holy cow, it takes a lot of time.
***
We made some national news outlets this week, and not in a good way. We're in the midst of a variety of political moves, led by our tireless union folks, who can't bargain on our behalf, but are doing good organizing work. Who knows, maybe we'll make the news in a better way next week?
The committee laid out times for interviews, and naturally, our schedules don't overlap nicely. Then I started setting up interviews. The candidates all were very cooperative, and we managed, but some are quite busy with teaching and stuffs, and they can't drop everything for an interview.
I started calling the references on my list. I got hold of one person right away, and they were really excited to talk about the candidate, and it was great. I thought to myself, hey, this is way easier than I thought it would be! Then I tried the next person on the list, and the number took me to a veterinary school person. And I looked on line, and the number I found listed there took me somewhere else. Then I looked on line and called the department office, and they told me that the person wasn't around because classes are already over, and I should email. So I did. And that's pretty much how the rest of my calls went.
When I worked as a receptionist, I learned very quickly to answer the phone "Good [morning/afternoon], [Business Name], how may I help you?" I still do a variation. My calls to different departments and such trying to get hold of referees has reminded me that answering the phone with something more helpful than "yeah" does matter. It also helps if the on-line directory has the right phone numbers. (Fancy Pants U, I'm looking at you about both of those!)
Also, if you're going to set up one of those automatic "out of office" messages, put some words there. I got return emails that were totally empty.
Fortunately, the references are all enthusiastic about their candidates, got in touch, and I've now talked with all but one, and we have an appointment to talk on Monday.
But holy cow, it takes a lot of time.
***
We made some national news outlets this week, and not in a good way. We're in the midst of a variety of political moves, led by our tireless union folks, who can't bargain on our behalf, but are doing good organizing work. Who knows, maybe we'll make the news in a better way next week?
Monday, May 09, 2016
Of All the Skype Accounts, in All the Towns, in All the World . . .
I have a pretty unique name. Face it, how many parents call their kid "Bardiac"? But probably on Skype, there are dozens of me.
I'm setting up skype interviews for our interdisciplinary basketweaving search, and holy cow, finding people can be hard!
I've given everyone my skype name, and several have done the contact thing ahead. Others, I have their exact skype name, and found them.
But just searching a name? Ugh.
This is one of those mornings where I've gotten a lot done, every one of them necessary and important. But I haven't gotten to some of the stuff that's less vital right this second. The thing is, the deadline for grading these papers is approaching, and I really need to get with the program!
I went to my violin teacher's recital yesterday. Holy smokes. I feel sort of bad taking up her time with my beginning skills, you know? (Except she's totally enthusiastic, so that makes me not feel bad.) The music was amazing.
And I went home and practiced my new scale. Because that's where I'm at.
Earlier in the weekend, I went to a studio recital of my teacher's studio. Some of the students were so darned good! One of the students played a song I recognize from the Suzuki Book 1 CD, so I'm guessing their a beginner, just a bit more advanced than I am. And you know what? The student sounded pretty darned good for where their at! They did a good job! That gives me hope!
I'm setting up skype interviews for our interdisciplinary basketweaving search, and holy cow, finding people can be hard!
I've given everyone my skype name, and several have done the contact thing ahead. Others, I have their exact skype name, and found them.
But just searching a name? Ugh.
This is one of those mornings where I've gotten a lot done, every one of them necessary and important. But I haven't gotten to some of the stuff that's less vital right this second. The thing is, the deadline for grading these papers is approaching, and I really need to get with the program!
I went to my violin teacher's recital yesterday. Holy smokes. I feel sort of bad taking up her time with my beginning skills, you know? (Except she's totally enthusiastic, so that makes me not feel bad.) The music was amazing.
And I went home and practiced my new scale. Because that's where I'm at.
Earlier in the weekend, I went to a studio recital of my teacher's studio. Some of the students were so darned good! One of the students played a song I recognize from the Suzuki Book 1 CD, so I'm guessing their a beginner, just a bit more advanced than I am. And you know what? The student sounded pretty darned good for where their at! They did a good job! That gives me hope!
Thursday, May 05, 2016
Finding My Biases in the Job Search
Reading applications makes me think about my own biases. The nature of bias is that you aren't usually aware, but you can work on thinking about biases, and try not to let unfair biases affect your decision making. (Fair biases might include being biased, in this search, against someone who didn't study interdisciplinary basketweaving but somehow is applying to the job.)
In reading these applications, I'm finding that I'm biased against certain institutions which sound, well, "flaky" to me. If someone did their degree at Compass Point State University, I nod. But if someone did their degree at the United Basketweavers Institute, I tend to feel a bit skeptical. I might look it up on the web to make sure it's accredited, for example. Of course, if I were a real Basketweaver, instead of an outsider, I might know that UBI is a superb place to study interdisciplinary basketweaving. Or, I might know that it's not. But as it is, I find myself feeling skeptical.
I also tend to be skeptical of people whose degrees are in basketweaving management, rather than interdisciplinary basketweaving or one of the numerous specialties within basketweaving. I guess someone has to know how to manage basketweaving, but I'm skeptical that that person is ideal for teaching interdisciplinary basketweaving, and theories of interdisciplinary basketweaving, and international interdisciplinary basketweaving.
As a Shakespeare person, I've thought a bit about what Shakespeare people are like. I think we like to think we're hip and such, but we're less hip than medievalists, for sure. (Where hip stands for doing the latest cool theoretical thing.) I think we tend to either like authority, the great chain of being sort of hierarchy, or we fantasize about knocking it down. At least that's the fantasy until we become the authority, or have a fairly high spot on the hierarchy, and then we're as strongly in favor of hierarchy and authority as any Victorianist or Dryden scholar. (I think of Victorianists and 18th century scholars as more hierarchical, with Romanticists pretending to be anti-hierarchical, but secretly being super hierarchical. Obviously, my biases are wrong in many ways. Except the part about medievalists being cool and hip.)
Shakespeare still has a lot of cultural capital, so being a Shakespeare person, you sort of get that. But you also get a negative reaction from people who hated Shakespeare in High School or people who think all Shakespeare people must be stuffy and snooty. (Those same people often think medievalists would be boring and stuffy, but they're wrong, obviously.)
I'm aware of age bias, so I don't look at dates beyond making sure that the applicants are qualified and either have their PhD or are just about there.
I've now read through all the applications, and have put them into our agreed upon groupings based on their qualifications as demonstrated through their letters and such. I really appreciate the applicants who've addressed the qualifications we advertised directly.
In reading these applications, I'm finding that I'm biased against certain institutions which sound, well, "flaky" to me. If someone did their degree at Compass Point State University, I nod. But if someone did their degree at the United Basketweavers Institute, I tend to feel a bit skeptical. I might look it up on the web to make sure it's accredited, for example. Of course, if I were a real Basketweaver, instead of an outsider, I might know that UBI is a superb place to study interdisciplinary basketweaving. Or, I might know that it's not. But as it is, I find myself feeling skeptical.
I also tend to be skeptical of people whose degrees are in basketweaving management, rather than interdisciplinary basketweaving or one of the numerous specialties within basketweaving. I guess someone has to know how to manage basketweaving, but I'm skeptical that that person is ideal for teaching interdisciplinary basketweaving, and theories of interdisciplinary basketweaving, and international interdisciplinary basketweaving.
As a Shakespeare person, I've thought a bit about what Shakespeare people are like. I think we like to think we're hip and such, but we're less hip than medievalists, for sure. (Where hip stands for doing the latest cool theoretical thing.) I think we tend to either like authority, the great chain of being sort of hierarchy, or we fantasize about knocking it down. At least that's the fantasy until we become the authority, or have a fairly high spot on the hierarchy, and then we're as strongly in favor of hierarchy and authority as any Victorianist or Dryden scholar. (I think of Victorianists and 18th century scholars as more hierarchical, with Romanticists pretending to be anti-hierarchical, but secretly being super hierarchical. Obviously, my biases are wrong in many ways. Except the part about medievalists being cool and hip.)
Shakespeare still has a lot of cultural capital, so being a Shakespeare person, you sort of get that. But you also get a negative reaction from people who hated Shakespeare in High School or people who think all Shakespeare people must be stuffy and snooty. (Those same people often think medievalists would be boring and stuffy, but they're wrong, obviously.)
I'm aware of age bias, so I don't look at dates beyond making sure that the applicants are qualified and either have their PhD or are just about there.
I've now read through all the applications, and have put them into our agreed upon groupings based on their qualifications as demonstrated through their letters and such. I really appreciate the applicants who've addressed the qualifications we advertised directly.
Wednesday, May 04, 2016
Dr. Desperate
As I posted before, in "Looking for Dr. Right," I'm on a search committee for a one year job.
Let's imagine, for the sake of this post, that the job is in interdisciplinary basketweaving. We have a fair number of apps from folks with doctorates in interdisciplinary basketweaving. We have some apps from folks with doctorates in, say, underwater basketweaving, with a grad certificate in interdisciplinary basketweaving.
But we also have apps from a couple people in, let's say, tapestry weaving. Their letters say that they're expert tapestry weavers, and thus well-qualified for the job in interdisciplinary basketweaving, because weaving is weaving. Or something.
And it's not that these people aren't smart and good teachers. But they don't have the credential we're looking for.
The letters give me this sense of desperation, of hoping beyond hope that somehow we'll think they're the perfect person for a job in interdisciplinary basketweaving. I remember that desperation from my own job search, and it makes the pit of my stomach ache for them.
What I don't think they realize is that even if no one else applied, we wouldn't be allowed to hire them because they aren't qualified according to our search parameters.
The people with a grad certificate in interdisciplinary basketweaving have that, at least, but they're still not really competitive for the job compared to people who actually did their degree in interdisciplinary basketweaving. We could, conceivably, hire them.
Let's imagine, for the sake of this post, that the job is in interdisciplinary basketweaving. We have a fair number of apps from folks with doctorates in interdisciplinary basketweaving. We have some apps from folks with doctorates in, say, underwater basketweaving, with a grad certificate in interdisciplinary basketweaving.
But we also have apps from a couple people in, let's say, tapestry weaving. Their letters say that they're expert tapestry weavers, and thus well-qualified for the job in interdisciplinary basketweaving, because weaving is weaving. Or something.
And it's not that these people aren't smart and good teachers. But they don't have the credential we're looking for.
The letters give me this sense of desperation, of hoping beyond hope that somehow we'll think they're the perfect person for a job in interdisciplinary basketweaving. I remember that desperation from my own job search, and it makes the pit of my stomach ache for them.
What I don't think they realize is that even if no one else applied, we wouldn't be allowed to hire them because they aren't qualified according to our search parameters.
The people with a grad certificate in interdisciplinary basketweaving have that, at least, but they're still not really competitive for the job compared to people who actually did their degree in interdisciplinary basketweaving. We could, conceivably, hire them.
Saturday, April 09, 2016
Looking for Dr. Right
I offered to chair a search committee. We're searching for a one-year appointment in [not really my field] and someone needed to step up and be willing to do the work, and I am. So there goes.
I know a one-year appointment isn't great. And our location isn't great. And the state of politics isn't great. And we're going to give this person a big load of teaching, too.
But there it is.
[Not really my field] is a fairly small area of study, though, and we're hoping to get someone good for the year, in the way that one hopes for. So, as chair, I looked up some schools with PhD programs in the area and sent out some emails to grad directors, pointing out the ad, acknowledging that one year isn't ideal, but asking them to let their students know.
I did that yesterday in the late afternoon. By this morning, I've received a variety of polite to enthusiastic emails from about half the grad directors. I guess I'd expected silence, maybe, or a curt reply at best, so the general kind tone of the emails is a nice surprise. Maybe it shouldn't be, because of course the job market for their students is really hard in the way it is for small fields.
***
We're devastated around here. Last year, in response to budget cuts, we lost about 15% of our overall paid folks (that includes administrators, support staff, and instructional folks). This year, the official word last month was that 25 instructional folks are leaving (I think that only includes tenured and tenure-track people, but I'm not sure). I expect that we haven't heard the last of the departures. So far, I'm surprised I haven't heard more in Underwater Basketweaving.
I know a one-year appointment isn't great. And our location isn't great. And the state of politics isn't great. And we're going to give this person a big load of teaching, too.
But there it is.
[Not really my field] is a fairly small area of study, though, and we're hoping to get someone good for the year, in the way that one hopes for. So, as chair, I looked up some schools with PhD programs in the area and sent out some emails to grad directors, pointing out the ad, acknowledging that one year isn't ideal, but asking them to let their students know.
I did that yesterday in the late afternoon. By this morning, I've received a variety of polite to enthusiastic emails from about half the grad directors. I guess I'd expected silence, maybe, or a curt reply at best, so the general kind tone of the emails is a nice surprise. Maybe it shouldn't be, because of course the job market for their students is really hard in the way it is for small fields.
***
We're devastated around here. Last year, in response to budget cuts, we lost about 15% of our overall paid folks (that includes administrators, support staff, and instructional folks). This year, the official word last month was that 25 instructional folks are leaving (I think that only includes tenured and tenure-track people, but I'm not sure). I expect that we haven't heard the last of the departures. So far, I'm surprised I haven't heard more in Underwater Basketweaving.
Saturday, November 08, 2014
When You Just Shouldn't
My pal over in Underwater Basketweaving needs to write the basic thank you letters to the people who served on their deepwater search. It's a basic thing, partly to acknowledge the extra work these folks put in (extra work anyone on a search puts in), and partly to make sure that they get something for their file, which can be important for tenure and promotion and such. For that purpose, the UB person always CCs the chair. It just means that a copy goes into the personnel file, so that folks can see it if they look.
But this time, my UB friend says he wants to also CC the dean because he wants to make sure that the dean is aware that her decisions matter, that her putting off the decision meant that people did work for nothing, more than they would have if she'd made the decision two weeks ago, or if she'd not given hints that the search was going through.
While tempting, perhaps, this seems like a bad idea to me, and I've told him so.
What do you folks think?
But this time, my UB friend says he wants to also CC the dean because he wants to make sure that the dean is aware that her decisions matter, that her putting off the decision meant that people did work for nothing, more than they would have if she'd made the decision two weeks ago, or if she'd not given hints that the search was going through.
While tempting, perhaps, this seems like a bad idea to me, and I've told him so.
What do you folks think?
Friday, August 15, 2014
Safe?
We've already started working on job ad language. I have a feeling that there's stuff in the ads that no one applying really worries much about, but it's there.
One of the things NWU likes to have in our ads is language about how the community is "safe" and "friendly."
What do "safe" and "friendly" mean to you? To other folks you know?
For me, "safe" codes as "white," and I worry that I'm not the only one who feels that way. Are we making people of color feel less welcome as applicants? Or does everyone pretty much apply to every job anyway out of desperation?
And "friendly," for me codes as "only if you were born here," in a small town sort of way.
One of the things NWU likes to have in our ads is language about how the community is "safe" and "friendly."
What do "safe" and "friendly" mean to you? To other folks you know?
For me, "safe" codes as "white," and I worry that I'm not the only one who feels that way. Are we making people of color feel less welcome as applicants? Or does everyone pretty much apply to every job anyway out of desperation?
And "friendly," for me codes as "only if you were born here," in a small town sort of way.
Thursday, December 26, 2013
Uphill Through the Snow Both Ways
I had dinner with some folks on the job market the other day, and naturally, talk got around to the job market. In the course of our conversation, I got to wondering just how much worse the market is now than it was say in 2005, or in 2000, or in 1995. I know I think it's worse, but I wonder if there's a way of thinking about how much worse? Maybe comparisons of numbers of PhDs produced in a field vs number of jobs in the field? That wouldn't be perfect, but it might be at least something?
I wonder if the ADE Bulletin would have that information, and might be visible over a the years to give a longer perspective?
You know how when you're young, and you look at some older person and think they're completely out of touch? And maybe they are, and maybe they aren't. But some are. And some are very out of touch.
I don't want to feel like that older person and not even be aware of it.
In line with the feeling out of touch, I was thinking about how we handle our department rejections. I know I've asked, and our chair calls the people we had visit campus personally. Or she says she does, and I have reason to believe she's honest about that. But I don't know how we handle the other folks. Do we send them a note?
I know we tend to have to wait until we've successfully made a hire to notify anyone, and that takes a long time. The thing is, on occasion, we've had to do a second round of interviews to find someone willing to take the job we have to offer (at least in some fields), so we don't tell people we've rejected them if the job is still open.
Edited to Add:
Undine at Not of General Interest posted a link to the MLA statistics (2011-2012).
I found this graph particularly interesting:
I first went on the market in 1993, and got my first TT job in '96. I went on the market again in fall 1998 (and started a new job in '99). I guess my timing sucked, big time. (There may well be more PhDs in English graduating now, or not. I don't know. So maybe it's harder now.)
(I have to admit, I kept my mouth shut when the job seekers at dinner the other night talked about how people with tenure couldn't get jobs now, and so on. I was right to keep my mouth shut, but I feel a little less crappy about myself now.)
I wonder if the ADE Bulletin would have that information, and might be visible over a the years to give a longer perspective?
You know how when you're young, and you look at some older person and think they're completely out of touch? And maybe they are, and maybe they aren't. But some are. And some are very out of touch.
I don't want to feel like that older person and not even be aware of it.
In line with the feeling out of touch, I was thinking about how we handle our department rejections. I know I've asked, and our chair calls the people we had visit campus personally. Or she says she does, and I have reason to believe she's honest about that. But I don't know how we handle the other folks. Do we send them a note?
I know we tend to have to wait until we've successfully made a hire to notify anyone, and that takes a long time. The thing is, on occasion, we've had to do a second round of interviews to find someone willing to take the job we have to offer (at least in some fields), so we don't tell people we've rejected them if the job is still open.
Edited to Add:
Undine at Not of General Interest posted a link to the MLA statistics (2011-2012).
I found this graph particularly interesting:
I first went on the market in 1993, and got my first TT job in '96. I went on the market again in fall 1998 (and started a new job in '99). I guess my timing sucked, big time. (There may well be more PhDs in English graduating now, or not. I don't know. So maybe it's harder now.)
(I have to admit, I kept my mouth shut when the job seekers at dinner the other night talked about how people with tenure couldn't get jobs now, and so on. I was right to keep my mouth shut, but I feel a little less crappy about myself now.)
Monday, December 09, 2013
Making less Misery?
One of my facebook friends commented about some job market stuff, and it got me thinking about what we can do to make the job search a better experience for everyone, or perhaps a less miserable experience. And what we can't do.
Let's face it, short of all quitting our jobs, faculty folks can't make the job market suddenly and magically open up. Nor can we move our midwestern schools to places with less brutal winters, or move them closer to places with good jobs for spouses in specific industries.
What we can do? Here's what I'm thinking about the early stages of the search:
Think really carefully about asking for materials up front, and where possible, ask for electronic submissions to ease mailing costs.
On the search committee side of the market, I think it makes a lot of sense to ask for letters of reference up front, though I recognize that getting people to write letters of recommendation can be hell, and getting people to write them in time is sometimes a worse hell. (Those problems are with letter writers, and not with search committees or the market, though.) I've looked at interfolio, but I'd be interested in hearing more about it. It gives one price for a year (and other prices for 3 or 5 years), but it's not clear to me if there are also additional charges for sending out portfolios or letters of recommendation.
I'm less convinced either way about asking for writing samples up front. I don't tend to use them for the "first read through" of a set of applications, but I do by the second, and if there's not much time between, I might want them up front. Having them up front means that the committee can work from one cut to the next a bit more quickly. Whether they actually do or not, that's a different question.
I've been on several searches that have used phone interviews for the first round, and I've found it at least as good as conference interviews. For one thing, I had pretty horrible experiences at MLA, so I have no urge to ever go back. And for those who say that grad students should go to conferences, that's great, but let's be realistic about which conferences are likely to be useful, and which not. For me, MLA was useful when I was on the market because I was on the market. It was useful at other times because I was giving a paper and able to go see and hear papers. But those two never happened at the same time. Market years were simply to miserable to go see and hear papers meaningfully. More local or area-focused conferences probably make more sense in terms of budget and networking for most grad students. Talking to friends, my sense is that some smaller or poorer schools really prefer phone interviews, and have for some time.
I don't have a lot of experience with Skype, but I prefer phone, I think. That preference is based on watching students Skype when I was overseas, and on an old photography article I read once about taking baby pictures. Here's the baby picture article in short: if you're taking pictures for the parents of a baby, then you get really close to the baby's face, so that it's like a parent being right up close to the baby. If you're taking pictures for non-parents, then you take the picture a bit further off, because non-parents aren't usually as comfortable with the extreme closeness that parents are used to. People may not articulate their discomfort, but they'll choose photos that way. The connection to Skype is that most people do it sitting pretty darned close to their computer, and the social distance feels awkward to me, like we're too close. Just me? Maybe. How about you?
Timing. It takes a huge lot of time to read job applications. Even if you read fast for the first cut and spend ten minutes per, if you've got a hundred to get through, you're looking at a lot of time. And if you've got 200, a lot more time. Then there are all the discussions, rereading, preparing for the next step. All this is done, in my experience, as an add on to the rest of the job. I know it's hard to wait for an interview call, of course. My suggestion is that when the department sends an acknowledgement, it should include a realistic timeline for hearing about interviews. And at each step thereafter, candidates should get realistic information about the timeline. At the same time, we all know searches where the first two or three campus visits didn't pan out well, and the third or fourth person was asked late, but turned out to be just the right hire. So for those on the receiving end, try not to take late calls as bad news or as personal issues.
What else should we on the search committee side to to make our searches as humane as possible?
Let's face it, short of all quitting our jobs, faculty folks can't make the job market suddenly and magically open up. Nor can we move our midwestern schools to places with less brutal winters, or move them closer to places with good jobs for spouses in specific industries.
What we can do? Here's what I'm thinking about the early stages of the search:
Think really carefully about asking for materials up front, and where possible, ask for electronic submissions to ease mailing costs.
On the search committee side of the market, I think it makes a lot of sense to ask for letters of reference up front, though I recognize that getting people to write letters of recommendation can be hell, and getting people to write them in time is sometimes a worse hell. (Those problems are with letter writers, and not with search committees or the market, though.) I've looked at interfolio, but I'd be interested in hearing more about it. It gives one price for a year (and other prices for 3 or 5 years), but it's not clear to me if there are also additional charges for sending out portfolios or letters of recommendation.
I'm less convinced either way about asking for writing samples up front. I don't tend to use them for the "first read through" of a set of applications, but I do by the second, and if there's not much time between, I might want them up front. Having them up front means that the committee can work from one cut to the next a bit more quickly. Whether they actually do or not, that's a different question.
I've been on several searches that have used phone interviews for the first round, and I've found it at least as good as conference interviews. For one thing, I had pretty horrible experiences at MLA, so I have no urge to ever go back. And for those who say that grad students should go to conferences, that's great, but let's be realistic about which conferences are likely to be useful, and which not. For me, MLA was useful when I was on the market because I was on the market. It was useful at other times because I was giving a paper and able to go see and hear papers. But those two never happened at the same time. Market years were simply to miserable to go see and hear papers meaningfully. More local or area-focused conferences probably make more sense in terms of budget and networking for most grad students. Talking to friends, my sense is that some smaller or poorer schools really prefer phone interviews, and have for some time.
I don't have a lot of experience with Skype, but I prefer phone, I think. That preference is based on watching students Skype when I was overseas, and on an old photography article I read once about taking baby pictures. Here's the baby picture article in short: if you're taking pictures for the parents of a baby, then you get really close to the baby's face, so that it's like a parent being right up close to the baby. If you're taking pictures for non-parents, then you take the picture a bit further off, because non-parents aren't usually as comfortable with the extreme closeness that parents are used to. People may not articulate their discomfort, but they'll choose photos that way. The connection to Skype is that most people do it sitting pretty darned close to their computer, and the social distance feels awkward to me, like we're too close. Just me? Maybe. How about you?
Timing. It takes a huge lot of time to read job applications. Even if you read fast for the first cut and spend ten minutes per, if you've got a hundred to get through, you're looking at a lot of time. And if you've got 200, a lot more time. Then there are all the discussions, rereading, preparing for the next step. All this is done, in my experience, as an add on to the rest of the job. I know it's hard to wait for an interview call, of course. My suggestion is that when the department sends an acknowledgement, it should include a realistic timeline for hearing about interviews. And at each step thereafter, candidates should get realistic information about the timeline. At the same time, we all know searches where the first two or three campus visits didn't pan out well, and the third or fourth person was asked late, but turned out to be just the right hire. So for those on the receiving end, try not to take late calls as bad news or as personal issues.
What else should we on the search committee side to to make our searches as humane as possible?
Saturday, December 07, 2013
Free Advice
If you're interviewing for an English department type job, don't call Shakespeare "the Bard" even once, and certainly not repeatedly.
You sound like an fool. And not a good kind of fool.
You sound like an fool. And not a good kind of fool.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)