Talk:Ecology (includes organismal and environmental science) 2007 2008 Archive

• Yes: 4
• No: 0
  • Alright, I added it above. Goodness, it's huge! Maybe as names are entered in the "hired" table we can delete the entries in the other categories, in the interest of tidiness.
• Good idea. However, this belongs in the offers section and has now been added there and the already posted info was moved to that section.. Let's keep the wiki length to a minimum if possible.
  • Gee, thanks for making that executive decision. The "offers" section has been there for MONTHS, but no one added names until the new section appeared.
  • The wiki is giving us messages that it is already too long, why do we need multiple sections for this information?
  • Because it's easier to find new information and the new section got people's attention and, hence, participation. The wiki has been giving those too-long messages for six months, with nary a problem.

• http://academicjobs.wikia.com/wiki/Biology_Negotiations

• I recently heard that a search (that is on the brink of failing a second time) at my R1 cost about $20K each time. I can't imagine where all that money goes, but if UALR has just failed on the fourth go-round, it really makes you wonder what better purpose to which they could have put that money.

• I THINK I GOT A REJECTION EMAIL AND FORGOT TO POST THAT SAID IT HAS BEEN FILLED. BUT I AM NOT SURE.

• It shouldn't hurt, and it might help in ways you don't expect. For instance, submitting an updated CV with a couple more pubs that had gotten to the in-press stage, got me a starting pay bump from the U. that's hiring me. It also might draw some eyes to your CV for a second look.
• I did this when I had applications out and I think it was worth while. It does force them to pick up your folder again as well as check for what the change was. Plus, it shows that you have papers being accepted, which never hurts. I also added a clause like "if my application is still relevant, here is an update", which prompted two places to let me know that I was still being considered and one to let me know that they were about to call me about a campus visit.

• You might want to call and ask the chair the reason that the position is going to be readvertised, as in what it was about the current crop of folks (including you) that interviewed that they didn't like enough to offer the position to them (and I would guess you should ask specifically what it was about you that they didn't like, because, hey, they know you're available). Was it an administrative decision due to funding or something like that? Might save some heartache down the line if you ask the hard quesitons, but if you take the temp job, it might also give you a chance to impress upon them how great you are so they can't avoid hiring you next year.

• I dunno about that. I have accepted an offer but still check to see what's happened with my outstanding applications. Maybe it's because my motivation for my current position is shot.
• Since everything is self-reported, all the questions are somewhat biased, often by the order they were put in (f'rinstance, see the spousal question- it came on late and appears rather undersubscribed). However, I will keep updating, despite being more-or-less 'done' with the process myself, because I benefited quite a bit from others' postings, and something I find out might help somebody else. Seems to me any data, even biased data, can be helpful in the face of a daunting market for sellers like us.
• the whole point of this page is to offer information that benefits the whole community, not just ones own cause, so that fewer people are in the dark about a really (inexcusably? unavoidably?) murky process. The page doesn't completely clear up the murk, but it gives an idea of the morphospace of the market and people within it and is a heck of a lot better than knowing nothing. Its an imperfect, but valuable, tool.

• For sustainability science? Two weeks ago, I heard they've decided and were about to make offers, but I haven't heard anything since
• There was an article this week in Nature (4/9) that Billie Turner, who was a senior prof at Clark U in geography, has joined ASU for sustainability. Don't know if that was a result of that job search specifically or head-hunting.
• Is that the son of the botanist of the same name?
• Not sure, but likely. I recall hearing him say once that his father was in the national academy. He does land use/land cover from more of a social science perspective.

• It's not your imagination, rather, it's the normal seasonality of the t-t job market. From now until next August or so you'll see mostly shortterm teaching jobs with the rare off-cycle tenure-track job listing, when you see anything.
• Yeah, I'm aware of the cycle, but this seems unusually stagnant. Usually, you see a lot of small poor schools advertising now to replace faculty who moved to better slots. Not really seing the wave pattern like in the last few years. Usually, it dies in April, it seemed to die in Feb, maybe even late jan.

• Sorry mate, you're a finalist on "The Bachelor" at this point. You know they are going on other dates and you just have to hope that the other contestants have "crazy eyes" or extremist parents. You just have to hope that they like you the best and hand you the rose in the end.
• You sit on your hands, but by all means send a note to everyone you met thanking them for their time and consideration. Tailor the notes for each person. They may not be allowed to write back, so don't take it personally if they don't.

• They interviewed seven people, and I believe they made offers to two people in late March. The department should be advertising/hiring for more positions in the next few years to compensate for recent retirements and losses.

• Interviews for the Molecular Evolution position are underway.

• Listed here [1]. They are 10 month positions..
• I did not apply for them but saw recent ads for at least 3 different positions at Stony Brook.
• It is hard to mix up years when deadline is February 29.

• The top two people who interviewed were offered but turned them down, and now it looks as though they are bringing more people to campus for interviews. This may be why no one received a rejection letter so they had back up options.
• They interviewed at least two more recently, and at least one of them rejected.

• According to the edits, I think it was deleted on Revision as of 15:03, 24 February 2008 by 68.41.165.230. Weird thing is that a few other universities were removed Texas Christian University (Animal Physiologist) and LSU (Systems physiology) and I don't think these have reappeared on this page either.
• Sorry, the page timed out when being updated. Have posted the info now.
• Was this an animal physiologist position or entomologist? The earlier post was for an entomologist.

• After interviews are over, it could be one day to 3 weeks depending on how much the upper administration has to do with the decision.
• 2-3 weeks
• incense and goat sacrifices
• It depends on where you were in the interview schedule (obviously, if you were first you will have to wait longer), but 2 or 3 weeks after the final interview is probably a decent amount of time for a committee decision to get approved. Any more than a month and it might be worth contacting the chair to inquire about the status.
• One of things I always do when I'm on the interview is ask for a rough time-line of when they plan to make a decision. This has the added bonus that committee members will often divulge info related to how many interviewees there are and where you are in that line.
• This is brilliant! I tried this on my last interview and, among 2-3 faculty, got the whole story ... # candidates, rough schedule, when decision was expected. Still waiting to hear, but at least I know when to expect the call. Thanks!
• One note of caution, however, that I've learned from people who have used this 'technique': always add a week or two to the date they tell you to expect to hear something, as it almost always takes them longer to make a decision and get it cleared by the higher-ups.
• Is it ever appropriate at this stage to contact them and ask what the status is? Or should I just tough it out and wait in silence?
• Of course it's o.k. for you to contact them. In fact, if the search committee is having a difficult time making a decision, sending them an e-mail asking about the status of the search and reminding them how much you would love to work with them may be enough to get you the job over someone else. Good Luck!
• Well, while I was wavering over whether to call, they called me to offer me the position!

• I heard that they actually wanted a cell/molecular/biochemist rather than the genomics/evolution position that they advertised for (some of the molecular faculty were on sabbatical when the ad was written). Those who came to interview turned out to be not what they wanted (Rather, they were what they advertised for. Funny, that.) So when their offer to the most molecular of the four candidates was declined, they cancelled the search outright. As one of those four candidates, I would like to have heard that news directly from the search committee (still no word from them after an early November interview!) rather than through the grapevine.
• Wow. What a mess. I'm sorry that you got caught up in it. Yeah, it would have been nice if the search committee had had the consideration to tell you themselves. Thanks for sharing what you heard.

• They said they were trying to narrow a short list by the end of last week (2/15), but I haven't heard anything else. No reason to believe they have an inside candidate, just a late search...
• I received a rejection letter ~mid April indicating that they filled the position.

-- I got a letter saying the field had been narrowed to 3...

• I applied too; haven't heard anything back yet.
• Just received a letter (2/22) saying the 'search is closed' - not sure if that means canceled or someone actually got hired.
• I got the same letter - pretty terse it is.

• Amazed, yes - and appalled... but maybe the original posters of these jobs burned out and have not come back here to update? And those of us still hanging out happen to not have been the applicants for those particular jobs? Does seem like an awful lot, though. Weird.
• After reading your post I checked to see how many of the jobs I'd applied for were still in the no news category: Six with the earliest deadline being 12/15. I'm sure its a mix of things... posters have not kept track, those who made cuts or got offers are not using this wiki, etc. After not getting an offer following an interview, I emailed all those who had deadlines at least two months earlier to see where my applications stood. Some were done and had yet to send out rejections, others were in the interview stage while only one did not respond. One resulted in a query as to whether I was still interested as they wanted to contact my refereneces (pure coincidence but good for the ego). In the end, it allowed me to do some wiki housekeeping and to stop wondering what was going on with mostly long dead applications. If they've had plenty of time, a polite email asking for the status of a search is perfectly acceptable.

• I haven't seen any numbers, and I'd actually be surprised if there are any out there, but I have yet to meet someone that wanted a faculty position that didn't eventually get one.
• I don't know of any stats on this. Once you're out of academia, you're difficult to track for these purposes. Based on the numbers available here, the average position gets 120 applicants (not including the Burke position, which is anomalously large), while the average applicant applies for about 13 jobs (rough estimate from SurveyMonkey). That would suggest to me that there are a lot of people who are not getting faculty jobs. Whether they move on to something better, of course, is an open question.
• Hi, it's the original poster again. It's interesting that we have two opposite views. My own leanings are towards the former, simply because we all send in many applications for a few years, but of course, using the second person's numbers, we'd all need to apply for 12 jobs a year for a decade to make it likely that we'd all succeed. Anyone else have any thoughts?
• Most of the folks I know that left the field did so soon after graduating. This was generally due to the person not securing a postdoc. If a person manages to find a halfway decent postdoc position, they will more than likely land a faculty position in my experience.
• My personal opinion? Your CV gets you and interview and random luck gets you a job. Once you are to the interview stage the idea of objectivity goes out the window and everything becomes a subjective free-for-all with many people looking at how you might work with or compete with them for resources and students. As long as you are getting interviews, the odds are you will eventually get hired. Unless you have a tatoo of swatstika (sp?) or something platered across your face!
• Always look at the variance along with the average. I've known people who spent 5 or more years looking for a t-t position, with dozens of applications every year, and other people who were hired for t-t positions immediately after finishing their programs (i.e. no postdoc). Personally, I spent ~3 years primarily as an adjunct lecturer (along with an unpaid postdoc at a second university), applied for ~25 jobs this year, interviewed at a few and luckily was offered a position at one. Keep trying- it will happen.

• I'm guessing you made the short list. I had a missing part of the application and they told me I had until the end of Friday to get it in, so they are still deciding who to invite. Good luck.
• I also applied to for the Case Western position. Rejection letters/emails have been sent out, I did not get one, and they are apparently doing phone interviews now. I have not heard anything from them. Anyone know what is going on?
• I too have not received a rejection letter, nor an invitation for a phone interview or anything else. I don't know if they missed people or are holding people in reserve.
• Ditto above. Its pretty late in the game for scheduling interviews, let alone doing phone interviews. I'm hanging in there realizing that many folks are either receiving offers or will by the end of the month, so I'd guess "reserve" is likely where we are. But I know of at least one search where after not inviting someone to campus after giving them a phone interview (and telling the candidate such), they went back and did invite them because the people they had invited had offers in hand and therefore declined the on campus interview. That's embarrassing and doesn't reflect well on the department, let alone encourage the candidate that the department is excited about them.

• Received a rejection email on Friday 02/22/08.

• They interviewed 4 candidates back in December. I haven't heard if anyone has accepted yet (no announcement so far). They had >160 candidates.

• They invited candidates for interviews on 02/08

• I have a friend that delayed originally for a year, and then another quarter, and the school waited without issues... We also had a young faculty member delay here for a year to finish up a prestigious postdoc, and that seemed to be okay, so it never hurts to ask.. These delays were both at larger universities though.
• Two of my friends had other post docs lined up and then received an offer. They both delayed their appointment with no problems at all. My sense is that larger research schools have no issue at all with this, smaller schools are a bit more concerned with covering your teaching load.
• I was working at a non-TT last year at a institution where two of the newest hires asked for 1 to 2 semesters delay until they finished a postdoc/other research. While both requests were granted, it did create a reasonable amount of disgruntlement. The department needed the teaching loads covered, and were frustrated to have to wait another year to have that covered. So tread carefully - I do think delaying appointments can put you two steps back when you start and are trying to build relationships in the dept. Let alone pave the way for tenure... people have long memories, unfortunately.
• I am trying to delay appointment for a semester to start a postdoc and accept funding, start a project, and dataset that will allow me to "hit the ground running" (and bring some money with me for a student/research) once I arrive. If I have to start in July, the funding and postdoc will have to be declined as it will make it impossible for me to get the necessary field work started. Unfortunately, the school I'm negotiating with is reluctant as they've been burned by candidates delaying, then not coming at all. Still negotiating, I hope something can be worked out. Any thoughts?

• I would say business casual all-the-way for ecology jobs, and be comfortable (it's what I've done). I think as long as you're well put together with a new collared shirt and pants and nobody on the search committee would think twice. What I've heard is to aim just higher than what most of the faculty would normally wear on a regular day.
• Personally, I have never seen a candidate wear anything less than a suit, nor have I on an interview. I guess its personal preference, but would you rather come across as not taking the interview seriously? There are plenty of older faculty on the SCs that might be offended by wrinkled pants and a collared shirt.
• The last comment sounds a bit pretentious. Be comfortable and look your best, but go with your gut. If you think a suit will help you get the job, wear the suit. I don't think you need a suit to look good and no committee will base their final decision on your clothes (unless you're a complete slob). Isn't the dress code for most ecologists a plaid shirt and jeans? Perhaps biochemists dress up a bit more.
• I think it depends on the type of institution. A small liberal arts college - definitely a suit... it may be the only time you dress up but they will not appreciate "field specific dress codes". A position that will make you part of an ecology and evolution program at an RO1, that's different.
• Although comment #2 may sound "pretentious" he/she is completely right. I've served on 2 search committees at my grad institution and both times there were older faculty members who were insulted when a candidate didn't wear a suit to the interview. Although that was obviously not what made the final decision, it did come up again and again. For one candidate it ended up not mattering because he was over-qualified and was a lot better than any of the other candidates. For the other search, however, it seemed to really matter to a few faculty members that the candidate had not dressed-up and the candidate's name sort of dropped from conversation from then on - the other candidates were more than qualified for the position and had all worn suits. And this wasn't a small liberal arts college, but a big name R1. When I get an interview, I'm wearing a suit (at least on the day I give my talk - all the faculty members seemed to agree that not wearing a suit the second day was fine, but they wanted to see someone present a polished front on the day of the talk). Why risk it?
• I did not mean to pretentious above, but I would argue that NOT dressing up is far more pretentious. It suggests an air of "I'm good enough not to care what you think", which I'm pretty sure is close to defining pretentious. I am just stating what I have seen in several searches. In the end, no one will be offended by someone dressing up, but you take a risk dressing down. If you are comfortable taking a (even slight) risk when jobs are so competitive, that's your call.
• The "Job Quest in Ecology and Evolution" packet put together by a slew of big names in ecology states "Formal suits are overkill and may be perceived as weird" (this may be the source to which the original poster is referring), but I think the key word in this statement is "formal". The authors go on to state that a tie is recommended, with a blue and white shirt, and a simple navy jacket. Personally, I think that the navy blazer with khaki pants, white or blue shirt, and tie is perfect interview attire. Most importantly, if you feel overdressed you can take off the jacket or tie. I think the more difficult question is what should the ladies wear: dress, pant suit, slacks and blouse, other?
• I agree with the above post: my sense is that modal outfit for an ecology position at an R1 institution is a nice sport jacket and a tie for seminar day. The second day, you can do the same or dress down a bit. Institutions differ in their norms, so you may want to find out from someone you know in the dept. in advance.
• What would you advise a female candidate to wear for an interview?
• Wow, a lot of the below discussion could have been clarified by the advice offered in the job packet referred to above! Thanks a lot for posting that. Here is a link. :)

http://www.indiana.edu/~halllab/GradRes/Anurags_Job_Advice.pdf

• That link is exactly what made me ask. I think it is helpful for men but not so much for women. To me, a jacket and a tie is essentially a suit. But, what should a woman wear if not a suit?
• A sports jacket and tie (or no tie given that we're ecologist) is very different than a suit. Lawyers wear suits; not ecologists. I have never seen an ecologist interview in a suit, but my experience is at R1 institutions.
• For women. You need to look put together. Black dress pants or skirt always looks nice and you can wear a turtle neck sweater or a collared shirt--one on each day while keeping the same pants/skirt. A suit jacket, I admit feels weird, but for the seminar day it is what works.
• Yeesh, as long as you don't show up in top hat, tails, with a cane and spats on your shoes... does it really matter whether its a suit or a sport coat?? Who knew ecologists were such fashionistas... "I can't believe she wore THOSE shorts with THOSE boots in the field!" ;)
• I didn't wear a suit and still got a job offer! Glad some of these "pretentious" "fashionistas" weren't on the search committee or I would have been screwed! ;)
• I hope there weren't many "fashionistas" at my last search, as the second leg of my flight there was cancelled and I ended up arriving on campus less than an hour before my seminar! Gave my talk in clothes I'd been wearing for 36 hours and with serious bed-head! My advice: don't ever fly through O'Hare airport in the winter.

• A job offer was made in late December and is still pending as far as I know.

• I did not apply but am local and know the seminar schedule: they invited 3 applicants but 1 had already accepted a job elsewhere. They interviewed 2. You may be on the short list and that is why you haven't heard anything yet. Can't tell you if they have made an offer, sorry..

• Many search committees no longer have the common decency to tell you that they rejected you. The best source of info is this site. Failing that, I would say that you've waited long enough and it would be ok to contact the search committee now.
• I agree that its fine to ask politely after a few weeks. Who knows, it might get someone to take another glance at your c.v. I also have no problem indirectly letting places know that letting candidates know when the search is ended is routine and expected. Yes, they get hundreds of apps, but it takes us hours to put together each package and we can't dump the task on a secretary/work study student. I'm politely passive aggressive 'Oh, I would have thought that since your search ended weeks ago I would have gotten a letter by now...." I'm sure it goes in the delete bin, but it makes me feel slightly better.

• Interviews are currently being conducted for the Quantitative Ecologist position. The candidate whose seminar I attended was an assistant professor with 24+ publications.

• I applied, have heard nothing
• I did not apply, but am local to the area and actually attended some of the seminars, so I know that short-lists have been made and candidates have already been interviewed.
• Thanks, bad news is better than no news.

• I applied, have heard nothing
• I just got a rejection letter this morning (2008/02/08). Hope you had better luck!

• There was a short list made, but as of last week, they still had not decided who was getting interviews.
• Was the short list notified?
• Yes, I was notified, and had to get letters from my references.
• They are interviewing 3 candidates in Feb/March.

• If you and your spouse can afford to do this, it could be really great, especially if you have or plan to have kids. I'd (1) make sure that the tenure expectations are scaled relative to your FTE value (so you're not both expected to produce the same amount of work for 75% of the salary), and (2) ask for some time frame in which you will be converted to two full-time positions (assuming this is what you want). I've met two people in shared positions with their spouses, and both were extremely happy with the arrangement.
• If it's an improvement from your current situation and won't lead to a dead-end for either partner, it sounds pretty good. However, if this isn't an acceptable long-term solution, you need to make that known. Find out details on how you'll get converted to 2 positions: what's it contingent on? who decides? when will the decision be made? Come to a mutually agreed upon timeframe and let it be know that you'll have to go back on the market if things aren't working out. Tell the chair that you believe they are operating in good faith and this it the best they can do, but still, you need a concrete plan on how matters will get finalized. You might mention that it'd be easier to save all that hassle later by just providing 2 positions NOW :) Then, enjoy your 1.5 positions for the predetermined time, but be prepared to start applying for jobs again after that point if things don't work out as you hope.

• Did you get one rejection for the "Ecologist" position and one for the "Conservation Biologist" position (assuming you applied to both)? I haven't gotten mine yet...
• I received one rejection email, but I only applied for the "Ecologist" position. I was quite impressed by the impersonal computer generated rejection email.
• I got both rejections today, although the Conservation Biology one arrived much later.
• Old wiki said the funding for the ecology position was cut.
• I didn't get a rejection email. After filing the electronic application I could never get back into the system to see the status of the application. I called them and they looked it up and said my application was received, but apparently it wasn't. The multiple overlapping searches seemed screwy from the start.

• (1/31/08) Interesting. I know from an insider that I am heading into a campus interview where one of the 3 (not me) is the spouse of a current department member. My insider tells me that there has been some serious discussions, some of it heated, about how fair and impartial the search is. I've gathered that the majority involved have recused themseleves. However, I also have found out that my entire application package has been forwarded to all faculty and therefore, to the spouse! I don't know how I feel about it. I am still going to go to the interview, give it my best shot, and hope that those involved treat me fairly. But I'm not going to pretend that my chances are the same as the spouse's. It's a rigged game, but you have to play it anyway. My MS advisor pulled the rug out from underneath a shoe-in internal candidate. My advisor did good job on the interview; meanwhile the internal candidate refused to teach intro bio courses! Lesson learned: no matter what they ask you the answer is almost always 'yes' if you don't plan on following through.
• The situation is not necessarily rosy for the inside candidate. I've applied for a position in the same dept as my spouse, but I feel just as apprehensive and unsure as when I applied to other universities. I am not certain to even get an interview even though I'm qualified for the position. There are some faculty opposed in principle to a spousal hire and who are offended by the lack of 'free will' in the decision. Thus, my application may not be given the same fair evaluation from them as from an outside candidate. I would think that this may be true in other depts. So, even with a so-called inside candidate, you should go in and show just how good you are because you never know the dynamics within a dept. Also, no matter how it ends (with or without a job offer), there likely will be bad feelings within the dept.
• not fair, to be sure. But not unlike many other professions or "life" for that matter (my family has a saying "fair is where you take the pig"). And I'm sure that the faculty member whose spouse was hired did believe that the spouse was best for the position (or they surely wouldn't be married soon after - could you imagine that discussion? "Honey, I'm sorry I couldn't vote for you - I just thought that your publication record wasn't what it could be, maybe you should have spent less time taking care of our kids" - I realize they likely recused themselves...). Hang in there, it'll happen.
• This isn't a waste of your time! If you got an interview, you can be assured that you deserved to be interviewed and you definitely out-ranked other folks. Unfortunately, they had to go through a clearly pointless process of interviewing people. Imagine the amount of work that the committee chair had to do! This is one of those idiotic but necessary procedures that all schools must endure. Rejoice that you out-ranked many others and hopefully another school (or that one) will later have an opening that is 100% vacant! :)
• How is this not a waste of the interviewer's time??? I don't know about you, but I've got a lot better things to do than pore over a dept's web site, fly cross country, and spend two exhausting days answering the same questions over and over with different sets of people if there's no chance in hell I'll get the job. I've got two kids, a working spouse, classes to teach, and research to do ... it's a BIG DEAL to carve time out of my schedule for an interview, and if it's a just a bullshit show, well, I damned well want to know beforehand, because I sure as hell won't bother.
• If you were asked to give an invited presentation for a departmental seminar at another university, wouldn't you do it? Interviews where you stand no chance of getting a job are not a whole lot different.....
• I've done both ... they're different. And it's not like you know going into an insider-search what the score is, so you'll always be in "interview mode" rather than "seminar mode". Are you an advocate of insider searches?
• I don't have a problem with insider searches as long as the other candidates are given fair consideration. If the insider candidate is the best or best fit, then so be it. Unfortunately, there is no external review so search committees can do whatever they want. Some schools have a policy against hiring internal candidates, others are 'notorious' for inbreeding!
• I agree that it is potentially a waste of time. I have had many interviews and they are a huge time sink. In addition it can be extremely demoralizing when you don't get the offer. If you know that your chances of getting the job are unfairly low then you should definitely think twice about accepting the invitation to interview. I think that universities should have an obligation to state upfront that there is a strong internal candidate or at least let the candidates know what the situation is when extending the invitation to interview, or at the very very least they should tell the candidate the various reasons why they did not get the offer (the total lack of feedback is another huge problem in the academic hiring system...). If the university is upfront about it, then I am not 100% opposed to inside hires. In the example above, I think that it is great that the schools hired spouses (assuming that they were strong candidates on their own) but it is terrible that the other candidates were left in the dark.
• True, it is a waste of time, but it is helpful to get interview practice. Interviews are filled with potential landmines, and the more of them you do, the better a candidate you become. But I agree it is a huge time sink. Personally though I enjoy the on campus interview part of the process, although I resent crafting application packages - it's less of a time sink but much less fun than a free trip. I was at one interview (in europe where the candidates are all there at the same time - more fun than you'd think). One candidate was the chairman's post-doc. During his seminar he said "When I get the job I willl..." Guess who got the offer. I do sort of wish that departments didn't feel compelled to make the pretense of a national search when they know perfectly well who they'll hire. I guess there are legal reasons why they do so, but if so they're just following the letter, not the spirit of the laws.
• I'll add that, despite the first commenter unfortunate experience, most positions are not "inside" hires. I'd also add that if someone came from the outside on a "inside" hire interview and totally and convincingly blew everyone away, you'd get the job. I know for a fact that a position created for a certain person a few years ago didn't go to that person because one of the interviewees came out of left field and blew the department away. They couldn't not hire them. I for one wouldn't refuse an interview even if there was a chance it would go to someone internally because you never know and I REALLY need a job.
• My current institution is at the end of a sloppy search. The top three candidates included the spouse of a faculty member in another dept. This person has taught here as an adjunct for a number of years (in another dept). A junior member of the search committee felt forced to include this person in the top 10 despite her strong feelings that the person was not qualified. When the top candidates were brought to the department for review to choose who to bring in, it was apparent to some that a coup mentality had taken control and this person was included in the top three. Upon interviewing, it became abundantly clear that this person, while very skilled in what they do, was not appropriate for the advertised position. The ramification of this ridiculous scenario is that other top candidates were picked up by other places while wasting time with this interview and now the search is "praying" that the most recent candidate brought in will take the job. What a fiasco...
• A search I am familiar with wound up hiring a spouse as an internal hire, but they were "forced" to hire a second very strong candidate as well.
• A colleague of mine that has been involved in many searches over many years (at several sm liberal arts colleges, all NE US) told me that she believes there are very few truly "open" positions. She advocates calling the contact person before sending an application to ask whether an internal candidate exists. I haven't followed this advice, but if you're really not interested in applying for jobs with internal candidates, it's a way to screen them out.

• There is one at http://academicjobs.wikia.com/wiki/GeographyPositions, but with little input

• Good questions. I'd be interested in everyones' thoughts on when it is appropriate to mention a spouse: in the application, at the interview, or during negotiations?
• My partner and I have told the chair pretty soon after we got to the interview. Each time the chairs have been incredibly nice and said things like: all of our candidates have a spouse in academia and our deans are aware that this is an issue and we are willing to explore possibilities. We have also gone so far as to call the chair before the interview to see what their policy/approach is on dealing with spouses so that we know whether to go on the interview at all. We have had great responses so far. I was expecting it to be more difficult, but so far the search committee chairs have been understanding...many of them have faced similar issues in their own careers.
• But did you or your spouse get an offer from this institution? I'd be most interested in hearing from those who have pulled it off. I've faced the same issue (spouse in different field) and it is very complicated. My recommendation: don't hide who your spouse is, but don't volunteer that your spouse is seeking a dual appointment. Making such a request is best done during negotiations, when they have already committed to hiring you. The problem is that knowing the climate toward spousal hires is often best sensed during the interview, with those at the institution who are not on the search committee (or have a vote). I've heard that spousal hires are hardest to negotiate at small schools or when both spouses are in the same department. The (petty) reason? You and spouse can form a voting bloc during departmental votes. Scary, but academic alliances are tribal. I've also heard that spousal hires in many institutions, notably public universities, is impossible because of anti-nepotism rules. I've also heard of department chairs who should be sympathetic (she and he were never able to work in same state), and their grudge has made them closed to considering it (if no one helped me, I'll never help any one else.) In my case, I was told that something would work out, but it never did. If seeking a dual hire, make sure it is explicitly spelled out in your contract (same goes for start-up funds and teaching clauses). Handshakes and kind words don't mean much. Tread carefully.
• Here are some thoughts from someone who has successfully solved one case of the two-body problem. What does it take? Patience, two decent CVs, and luck. Patience: between us, we went through 2 Ph.D.'s, 5 postdocs, 1 tenure-track and 1 soft money position before getting 2 tenure-track positions. It ain't gonna happen overnight. Decent CVs: the stronger, the better. No one will (or should) hire a spouse just because they're a spouse. You've got to make it compelling. Luck: eventually you'll find a department that's two-body aware and with that elusive quality, "good fit". Our current department fits like a well worn pair of tennis shoes (in a good way). In the meanwhile, you'll need help from friendly postdoc advisors to make sure you're both gainfully employed while searching. One of our guiding principles in making decisions was to make sure the trailing spouse (we alternated over the years) was not put in a career-limiting position, such as teaching seven sections of intro bio or not having an appropriate lab. When should you bring up the issue? Every place we interviewed someone asked (as we all know, illegally) and someone already knew. I wouldn't bring the topic up as an ice breaker, but realizing that the knowledge is already out there, if it came up I wouldn't avoid it. I would NEVER include this info in the job application, because at that stage they're just looking for ways to drain down the candidate pool. Once you're at the interview, at least they've invested one of their few interview slots and a plane ticket in you. If you wait too long, the university might not be able to arrange something fast enough. So I let the right people know at the interview. The search committee chair isn't the right person to single out for this info because they have NO POWER to help you, only the power to deny you an offer. The only person who can help you is the department chair, so that's who needs to know the situation. All anyone else in the department can do is bullshit, which may be fun and enlightening or may just be bullshit. It all comes down to how bad do they want you (both), so make it a good deal for them by buffing up those CVs. Other factors that people kick around that I think are neutral: same/different department, similar/different research. We are in the same department and have a joint lab. Same department means fewer bureaucratic negotiations are needed to create a second position. Similar research means we're more productive than if we were toiling on our own. Of course, we do have different foci within the lab, so we're not total clones. On the other hand, there's the "voting bloc" fear mentioned above and some people might want two research areas instead of one. So, overall, on these issues I think it's a wash, but there's not much you can do about them anyway huh? Good luck, it CAN be done.
• I just want to thank the above writer. Its really reassuring to know that it CAN be done and has been done. My wife and I are both beginning postdocs and know that the hard times are coming. I appreciate the advice very much.
• Agreed, thanks for the encouraging comments. I am at the negotiations stage trying to get something decent for both my wife and I. The chair was open to asking the Dean to see what can be done, she even asked if we'd be open to a shared position (1.5 salary). What are your opinions on shared positions if two full positions aren't available immediately? Continued in new thread ... this one is getting a bit long.

• Interviews scheduled for February, not sure on other details.

• In late October or early November I had heard that U of Ark-Little Rock would be soon putting together their short-list. But nothing since then.
• Central Ark did phone interviews last week.

• They have set a schedule. Interviews in Feb-March. I'll update above.

• I applied, have heard nothing

• I wonder how those assistant profs feel about that information being made public. At most, one will get the position, and the others will go home to eventually face tenure at schools that now know they're on the market. Not good.
• Actually, it is common for Assistant Professors to seek a job offer so that they can leverage a reasonable raise/tenure package from their current institution. A ridiculous game we are playing, yes?
• Yes, but part of the game is not showing your cards until you're ready to play them.
• As a part of searches at a good R1 school in the past, it is my experience that most institutions that interview and make offers to professors get totally screwed in the end. Quite frankly, a majority of asst profs are looking to leverage their own institutions. When the negotiations finally fall through with the profs, the postdocs have accepted jobs elsewhere, and the search is a bust. I've seen this so many times it's funny to see search committees get lured in by asst. profs that are "so excited about the opportunities at Univ. X".
• Job searches can be anything but transparent. I appreciated receiving the information about the candidates selected because it gave me more insight into why I wasn't. I wish all search committees would be this forthcoming.
• Yes, its all a part of the game, HOWEVER, if you DO take this route as an Asst. Prof.....you have to be willing to go through with whatever card you play.....
• I know of at least one department (not a science) at a top R1 university that absolutely will not grant tenure to someone who at tenure-application time does not have a firm offer in hand from a rival university. Their rationale is that they won't tenure someone who is not "big enough to be wooed or head-hunted" by others. And if the offer is from a school this department does not respect, tenure will be denied (and was in this individual's case). So the universities play the game, too.

• This is a great idea, perhaps we should start an offshoot of this site. It should be linked to a specific field of study (i.e., ecology) since starting salaries are likely to differ from other fields of biology.
• THIS ALREADY EXISTS. CHRONICLE OF HIGHER EDUCATION OFFERS A "TOOL AND RESOURCES" SECTION THAT GIVE STARTING SALARIES BASED ON RANK FOR COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES (SEE WWW.CHRONICLE.COM). START-UP PACKAGES ARE LIKELY TO BE SO SPECIFIC TO THE POSITION AS TO BE USELESS UNDER MOST CIRCUMSTANCES. IF YOU ARE IN THE DARK YOU SHOULD ASK YOUR PEERS OR YOUR ADVISOR AND COMMITTEE FOR THEIR ADVICE. THEY SHOULD KNOW WHAT THE CURRENT MARKET IS LIKE IN YOUR FIELD.
• Great idea! My impression is that there is an average package that everyone should have in mind and this is a great anonymous site to get more info.
• See: http://academicjobs.wikia.com/wiki/Biology_Negotiations

• I applied for this position as well and have heard nothing yet...

• As oppposed to just waiting to check out the department's website?
• Yeah, why wait?
• If you spend less time fretting over who beat you out you'll have more time to make your application stronger (i.e., grants, pubs, learning how to interview). This is a pointless and frankly, petty, suggestion.
• We should consider listing who accepted these positions. There are many merits to doing this. It would give a feel for what schools of different types (large or small research-based, or teaching-based schools) are looking for in candidates. Having information on the publication or teaching record of the hired person would help applicants strategize about what type of department he/she would best fit into, how to improve their CV, and to what type school he/she should or should not apply.
• The granddaddy of this site is the Theoretical Particle Physics Jobs Rumor Mill. Apparently they have more free flow of info without the universe imploding. Check out their history for more info.
• Scary! If my name ever appeared I would want it taken down. What if you don't want someone (like your current boss) to know if you are looking for a new job? What if you don't want your potential competition to know (if I knew I could talior my interview to outdooing the others, and visa versa).
• Interesting, I would be ok with posting who has accepted the position, but I agree that posting interviewees could be problematic. I vote that we can add who has accepted the position in the comments section of the already existing "offers" table.
• This is absurd. First it violates the spirit of the wiki (anonymity). Second, what purpose would this serve? None that I could see except violating the privacy of the person accepting the position. I seriously hope that this goes nowhere. If it does materialize, only folks who voluntarily provide permission to post their name should be posted. I am all for understanding the process. But having been on 2 interviews already, I can tell you--getting an offer requires a lot more than counting pubs, grants, and classes previously taught. Current faculty want to hire colleagues not children. They want someone they can work with, who is going to act as an advocate for the department, as well as someone they sincerely believe can obtain tenure under the conditions (mostly unstated) at that university/college. Your record helps sort the wheat from the chaff; however, a cv is only a snapshot of you as a person. So, again, what will posting the persons name do for anyone involved? I still have not seen a good rationale for posting names. Counting the pubs/grants/courses taught by your colleagues will *not* increase a) your own productivity or b) your chances of getting an interview. I move to end discussion on this absurd topic.
• Hear, hear! This site has started to be reduced to meaningless gossip. Someone even suggested that this site should emulate another that dabbles in hearsay and rumor. To what end? Honestly, how does it make someone feel better that Dr. X got a job at University Y? Does that mean you should copy his/her CV? Landing a coveted position is almost always about fit, not how many pubs you have (or any other tangible quantifiable factor). For any given job, someone with 5 pubs could just as easily get the position as someone with 15. What really counts is the impression that you leave the faculty with on an interview. What does posting the name (or obsessively wanting to know the name of) of the individual who gets the job tell them? That you are interested in petty, essentially meaningless gossip, about other people. Please remember that although the process of getting a tenure track position is agonizing, it’s ultimately not about you. I think some perspective is needed here. BTW, I am on the hunt this year and have several interviews. I have already been turned down at one place and I really don’t care who got the job. The only thing I know for sure is that that department lost out (Big time).
• I don't really care if names are posted or not, but accepted job offers are not anonymous and permission isn't needed to say Dr. X took a job at University Y. And the wiki culture is NOT built upon anonymity. The IP address of every editor is recorded to reduce abuse and on some sites users are encouraged to use their real names.
• While the above is true, it misses the point. As a couple people pointed out, your search is about making your cv and interview skills as good as possible. I think that to succeed, you need to let go the obsession with what others are doing, and focus on how you can do what you do better (or show it off better). In this sense, you're competing against yourself. As others have noted, hires are often about fit, not qualifications. "Fit" is stochastic, and can hinge on trivial things such as whether someone you met woke up on the wrong side of the bed that morning. If you're really curious, it's often easy enough to check department websites, newsletters etc. There's a lag, but since knowing who got the job does little to help your prospects, this doesn't matter. It's true that hires are a matter of public record at public universities, but as an applicant I expect the search committee to maintain a reasonable level of secrecy about their actual debates. I'm not sure I want to know exactly where I fell in the list, and I certainly don't want others to know!

• The job has been offered and accepted.
• Thanks. So kind of them to let me know.

• Certainly there's a "clock" factor: if you got your PhD in 2007 and have 10 first-author, high-quality pubs, you're in way better shape than if you've had 10 pubs since 1997. But they shouldn't know your chronological age (unless there are clues in your app package), at least in the pre-interview stage. I've been told a few times that "the pub clock starts ticking as soon as you get your Ph.d." It makes sense, if you're on an SC and you need to gauge relative "promise" in a talented candidate without a fully mature research program (e.g. most of us), and you need an easy metric of productivity.

• I think it means you're on the reserve list. The SC may go back to folks on this list if things fall through with the candidates it is currently interviewing, although more likely they'll just repeat the search next year instead.

• At the risk of adding too many counters, I've added one for number of years actively searching for a position, and one for where you currently are. Feel free to modify categories if I've missed one.

• Another cent: I was a first year postdoc last year at a big school coming off a PhD with a “big name”, >10 papers (1 in Science with “big name”), taught an upperlevel class, mentored students who are authors on papers, got funding……and I had 4 interviews (2 small mostly teaching but stressed research and mentoring undergrad and grad students in the ad and 2 large mostly research R1). 3 of the places didn’t hire anyone (one is redoing the search this year and it’s posted on this site) – the 4th place brought in a 4th candidate to interview which they hired. That person had far fewer papers and lower impact papers (and I think far fewer needs in terms of equipment and supplies and startup). The overall pattern I learned from last year: small schools need to stop advertising for researchers (it’s ridiculous with some of the podunk colleges requiring applicants with 2-5 years postdoc experience who are going to need facilities (which means $$$$ for startup and building a lab from the ground up!). My opinion is that PhDs who want to teach should go be a visiting prof for a year or two rather than doing a postdoc – we really can’t be good at everything (teaching and research) even in a buyer’s market! PhDs who want to do research should go do a postdoc for a few years, rack up the big papers, and then shoot for research schools. I think search committees are writing ads that suck and they don’t know their department’s abilities (and strengths) – they are doing both the applicants and their depts a huge disservice by throwing out really wide nets (like the Rutgers ad) or by being totally unrealistic (like Widener University wanted 1-2 years of postdoc experience – I had to find it on a map!). Small school search committees trying to find researchers/teachers are clueless that nickels and dimes don’t add up to Nature papers (after the year 1995) and that their “research” facilities aren’t facilitating anything but headaches and not Nature papers. “Undergraduate mentoring” for many of these small schools is important on paper, but their idea of mentoring is having the student make a crappy poster to decorate their halls for annual visits from the dean. One of my interviews was one of the worst experiences I could possibly ever have on an interview – the first two questions from the arrogant egotistical search chair (with no papers in ANY big journal) was “are you married” and “do you have kids” – not “how was your flight?, nice to meet you”…it all went seriously downhill from there. The committee couldn’t give a crap about my research interests, they live on earmarked funds (no one has an NSF or competitive fed grant), and the students “research” never sees the light of day. Total waste of my time and a big disappointment for an R1. The place that reposted the same job this year had internal issues last year – I was told minutes before my seminar that the department chair was on probation and that things were not good in the dept. Check, please! The other two were not a good fit for me even though I had an offer. So, this year, I’m still in postdoc land and I applied for 1 job (R1) which is a great match for me and my talent. The ad was specific, covered my exact focus, and is in a good location. No word yet – they are sorting through a small stack of applicants. My advice – trust your gut. If you think a place isn’t for you, don’t apply. You are selling as much as they are buying and I think us job seekers should research the dept BIG TIME before applying. This whole experience feels like buying a house and hoping I get a reasonable offer, and then praying it doesn’t fall apart. Yes, it weeds out applications to the Rutgers and the Wideners for me and many, but I think it’s best in the long run. I want a good fit too.
• I agree with a lot of what you posted (i'm the writer of the original post). I have to say the place I interviewed: the faculty were happy, the students seemed cool, but the place had an air of death about it - dilapidated building, faculty looked "tired" despite a much lower teaching load than mine. I was not sure it was the best place for me and while, as far as I know, I did not let that on at all, they came to the same conclusion. Probably for the best. As for that disaster interview... those kinds of questions are illegal and candidates have actually sued institutions because of similar events. As for small institutions, they are going to vary widely, at my current insitution... despite being in an area with a high standard of living and being consistently ranked as among the lowest paid faculty in the state, we still have been able to hire some really good people. A number of my colleagues have successfully written grants (mostly for equipment and educational programs) from NSF, Howard Hughes and Petroleum Research Fund to name a few. Its an odd place and I'm not sure how long its going to be successful given that most successful searches now end up going to candidates 6 to 10 (if someone is suitable down there) to find someone that will accept the position (the reasons typically revolve around teaching load or inability to purchase a home within an hours drive). This process has an element of "crapshoot" that its not easy to admit to. The combination of factors that gets you an interview over someone else is rarely clear cut and then, yes, you hope to (fill in deity) that the place that brings you in isn't a deadzone or a fighting ring.
• Hear, hear. I agree with the first reply above. There is such a surplus of applicants that departments can require research post-docs and top-notch pubs for essentially entirely teaching positions. I've served on several searches (I'm in a TT position), and can say that the final offer often comes down to absurdly mundane and unpredictable decisions (but that largely serve the best good for the department and applicant). I've seen where a great (and generally consensus) candidate has been ruined because her research vision/teaching interests would conflict with the tenured faculty member who she would be working with on a regular basis. In another case, one great candidate had side experience in a subject that the department chair felt was his alone, and hiring him would have stepped on his toes. At one level it's ridiculous and even juvenile; at another, it maintains departmental functioning. Academia is as prone to ridiculousness as anything else (and probably moreso) and it's important to recognize this (even when it feels like life and death to those of us on the receiving end). The truth is that a rejection in many cases is actually good for your long-term well being. (I can't believe I'm actually defending the totally absurd process. I didn't mean to imply that it's working in any useful manner.) What it comes down to is that you'll be happiest at a place that wants you as much as you want them.
• I have to tell you that tiny schools often have rotten administrators who are clueless about research and think that their college can make the jump from no-man's land to super-stop. I work at one of these and I'm desperately trying to escape! the response above was 100% on the mark. Our institution is self destructing because of this ignorance.

• For Ecology jobs, I would say most should be first author. I myself have 12, all but 2 are first (and 2 are sole author). I have 4 interviews this year so far. Last year I had less pubs and only 1 interview. I also agree that "fit" is very important. The wider the net, the more of a phenom you need to be.

• Yes, it's that competitive. If you are looking at a SLAC (Selective Liberal Arts Colleges) or LAC you should probably still have some good quality pubs. I interviewed last year at a SLAC. I had 5 pubs at the time, and the person they hired had more. It's also becoming common for SLACs to ask for post doctoral experience. I think the pressure to publish and get grants makes people think that they can get a SLAC job and not have to compete with the big guns who want that R1 job. This is not the case, as there are a few young guns who want the "big fish small pond" feel of a SLAC. Sorry....
• I wish the big fish would stay in the lake. I just want to be a small fish in a small pond...
• Blame the higher education system for churning out too many Ph.D.s for too few jobs.
• Before people freak out with career angst please note this advice is being posted by a few people on board where 73 people claim to be looking for a job and not a single person claims to have a tt job. There's a wide range of institutions with a wide range of expectations. Not everyone has to have a Science paper and a NSF grant.
• In my experience, SLACs really want teaching (not just TA) experience. I'm one of the ones with five campus interviews this year. Last year I had four phone interviews and no campus visits. What's changed since then? Two more pubs (not in top-tier journals) and I've taught an upper-level course of my own design in my specialty. I'd previously taught intro-level courses at a CC, so the only substantial change to my CV is the upper-level course.
• I'm sure at least several of those "on the market" are already in tenure-track positions. I know I am. As we all know, jobs are limited and there is much competition. That means that sometimes you take a job just to have a salary, hoping that a better position will become available as you build your CV. Such retrenchment is common, and I know many TT (and some tenured) colleagues similarly keeping tabs of other job opportunities.

• Other helpful intangibles: Grad or postdoc work at Yale, Princeton, Duke or a UC School; You, your friend, or your advisor knows people on the search committee; you do (or have figured out how to pitch your work as) sexy research. I'm not being bitter, these things really appear to help.
• Although I agree that a good school can help, it cannot make up for other areas. Of the 8 or so other people I know who have interviews for Ecology jobs, only 2 have post doc or Ph.D.s from "Big" schools. The "friend on a seach committee" also is dubious as everyone seems to know everyone in this field (you can play six-degrees of your advisor). The sexy research angle is what we should all be doing because you cannot get funding from cash strapped agencies if you don't. The thing I have been told over and over is that you cannot be competitive without a lot of pubs. My 2 cents.
• I did an informal survey of candidates' CV's for top ecology jobs last year for which this information was available (N=12). I excluded asst. professors because postdocs can't really compete with them with their CVs. The results: on average a candidate had 1 Science/Nature paper, 1 PNAS/PRSB/PLOS paper and 12 total decent publications (i.e., not Journal of My Genera).
• Let's not forget about the nebulous concept of 'fit'. You may have all this, but might not fit a department's image of who they're looking for.
• Sole authorship? Are you kidding me!?! In my field that's totally impossible.
• I agree with 'fit' - depts usually have an unstated preference when it comes to research interest/teaching capabilities. If you don't fit that, it doesn't matter how many pubs you have or years of postdocs. Aside from that, these recommendations seem to fit expectations for R1 and masters-comprehensive job searches. What about SLAC? Do you think pubs and grants are needed?
• I *finally* got an interview and found some of these comments interesting. My personal data point: only 4 publications (3 first author), none sole author, no Nature papers but the journals are all pretty good. I did get my degree at one of the "big schools" but am not sure that this helped at all. I have received several fellowships and small grants, but no big ones. I have never taught a class although have TA'ed plenty. I have 1-2 years post-doc experience. I applied for lots of jobs (I've lost count) with pretty general ads (e.g., looking for an ecologist) but finally found an add that was more specific to my field and this is the interview I got. I'm guessing there wasn't a huge pool of applicants like some of the other jobs, and I think this also may be a case of "good fit"
• Fit and what you bring to the department in terms of teaching and research are vastly underrated. Every search is going to have 20 or so "interviewable" candidates, just look at some of the numbers of applicants in the rejection section (420 for the U. Wash. job). If you can teach a subject that the department needs (regardless of whether you have teaching experience), or your research is on something that works for where the department wants to go, is what separates out the top 5. I'm not sure if that should make people feel better or worse, but you may be perfectly qualified and still not get a call.

• I don't think you need to know my name.
• Because A. It's inappropriate to do so without their knowledge or permission, B. Not many people would have such info, C. If it's not you, what does it matter?, D. If you want to know what it takes to get the job, check back to the departmental website in about 6-8 months and see who they hired and look at their CV.
• As a non-jobseeker, I'd like to see who gets interviews and offers to know what topics are hot, etc. If the info if publicly posted on the university's seminar list, I don't see how compiling this info here would be inappropriate.

• Thanks for cleaning up, but did you remove the University of Nevada Reno Ecologist and Conservation Ecologist listings (both Biology Department) that were in the “No News” section? I can’t find any information in any of the other sections. If not, does anyone know what happened to the listings or if there is any news about these positions?
• Yes I did. Sorry. I had heard from a friend that he had a phone interview in Dec. but I guess he never posted it and as I don't know anything else I didn't update the phone interview section. I have done so now.

• I applied for it, the evo eco, and the wildlife vacancies. I got a reject email from evoeco but no news from vert phys.**

• Good idea. It would also be interesting to see how many jobs people have applied for and how long they've been on the market. Then again, maybe I don't want to know!

• Good idea, interesting to see that it is currently only job-seekers, I figured there would be at least one or two lurkers...

• I checked all the sections except for the deadlines section, the sites have the same data now...
• Someone keeps erasing the message originally posted by McCallum about why the board was moved to this new site, which is part of the problem, and just sheer stubbornness to adapt. With 43+ and counting people checking this site, it is definitely time to retire the old wiki.
• Unfortunately there is someone visiting the old site who refuses to allow the top of the page to state that the site has "moved" They keep putting the language back to "another site..." So I guess we can't retire the old location entirely, seems so inefficient, but it looks like most people know to update here now...
• Announcement of wiki relocation is available at: https://listserv.umd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0712c&L=ecolog-l&P=66
• Link to old wiki site

• I heard (not firsthand, so this may not be true) that they were interviewing for both positions more or less at the same time.

• general ecology
• community ecology

• Contact info for this position:

Mary Jane Niles

Chair, Biology Term-Faculty Search Committee

niles@usfca.edu

• I was wondering that too - I was told I was on a 'short list' about a month ago, and they asked me for references at that point - so far I haven't gotten a rejection or an invitation
• I was also put on the short list on 11/2. I emailed them on 1/24 for an update, and was told that they are currently in the interview process (4 candidates), but I'm on a backup list.

• Here is a link to the department's job listings [Faculty Recruitment - Bio Dept. U. Pitt]
• Thanks for that link, I've seen that so that's how I know it was an open search. I was wondering if the interviews were for specific fields (i.e. they've scheduled interviews for one field, ecology, and not for others so that they're only interviewing for one of the two positions).
• I'm one of the interviewees at U. Pitt. - my field is evolution.
• Thanks for the scoop on Pitt.. good luck! do we know if this is both positions or only one scheduled so far?