The venting page

I realized after my campus visit that the SC never asked for a writing sample.  Might they have acquired pieces of my pubs (several books) independently?  Maybe.  But when I think back to the questions they asked -- or rather failed to ask -- during the visit, I get the sinking feeling that they never bothered to look at anything I've written, aside from my cover letter and syllabi.  Crazy me!  I thought that the quality of my scholarship might matter, for better or for worse.

I know the counter argument here: "They cared more about teaching than research."  But they also didn't ask for any teaching evals.  I did a teaching demo, but, in my mind, observing someone for 45 in a contrived/artificial environment provides only a limited amount of information.  Do I provide meaningful written feedback to students on their papers?  Are my exams fair?  Do I ramble on incessantly about irrelevant topics?  The SC never found out.

I guess I'm venting because I don't think the SC took a serious look at either my scholarship or my teaching.  (Could those things have been lacking?  Sure.  I might not have been good enough.  But I just don't think I got much of a hearing on some basic elements of my candidacy.)

• I am sorry to hear this-- it can't be a very good feeling. However, I imagine that they must have looked into some of these things, considering that you were invited to campus? Is it too late? Can you send along your student evaluation summary as a follow-up??? In any case, best of luck to you.
• I've had that happen.  Twice.  Look for an inside hire.  The first time the girlfriend of one of the members of the search committee got hired. 
• They might have gotten my work independently; I don't want to rule that out entirely as a possibility.  But my experience is that SC members aren't going to sink extra time and money into sleuthing when they can just ask for the material directly from the candidate.  (This has been my experience with other jobs: they ask for the book[s] so that they don't have to spend the money for them/track them down.)  Rejection stings, but it's even worse when you don't feel that you've been given a full hearing on some fundamental aspects of your teaching/scholarship.
• I am sorry if this is the case, where you have been used as a cover for an internal candidate. I had a similar experience a few years ago. A department was doing an informal job search and contacted nearly 20 people over the span of 1-2 years, telling the candidates that it was a job search and demanded everyone to give a fabulous talk--with powerpoint, formal dressing, interviews, dinners, campus visit etc. By the end of that year the head of SC took a big job at another university and no one was selected. I heard that the department actually wanted to hire their own student when she graduates and the head SC simply wanted to "look busy" before she left for another school. The position is still empty, but reserved. I remember putting a month of effort for that show.

• • • wow. the more I read this year's wiki (didn't happen as much with last year's), I think less and less of people in our profession. Over on the jobs listing pages, there are a few (? or just one?) people giving unsolicited, condescending "advice" that only makes more clear how highly they think of themselves and how lowly they think of (most) others. The SC in your situation just used you, was only thinking of the promotion that she was trying to get. That is cruel and frightening and does nothing to make me feel like I will ever be so lucky as to be judged on my merits. So like the poor OP.
• They may actually have gotten your work independently - and don't worry, the SC doesn't do it: they underpay a student to to do the search.
• Sure, it's possible.  But this was a small department with no student hourly support or grad assistants.
• I'm in my second tenure-track job. In neither of the searches in which I was hired did the SC ask for my writing samples or teaching evals. I did provide sample syllabi, I think, and gave teaching demos/research talks, but that was it. Both of those interviews resulted in tenure-track positions, so it's not necessarily a sham. Chin up!

If a SC isn't even going to send out affirmative action cards (much less first round notifications) before the new year, why have application deadlines in October and early November? This goes double for those that announce that they will be moving quickly and have the hire finished before the term.

• I once sent an application to a British academe and their affirmative action page was quite interesting. They asked if I was generally white, British white, or Irish. Or Caribbean black +white mixed or African black +white mixed or multiracial black heritage? Indian Asian +white or Pakistani Asian +white? Was I gay, lesbian, bi, straight, or transgendered? etc. etc. Their categorizations were so detailed, I left everything blank, knowing that the department I was applying was entirely homogeneous and almost homo-social that it wouldn't make much difference anyway. If I had all the colors in a rainbow, would they give me a second look? :)   ...Anyway, this job search is heartbreaking. Every morning I wake up, feeling weak and empty. Hope your search goes well.
• I think the AA cards are sent out by a different agency--usually a university's HR department--in order to create a profile of what the applicant pool for any one particular job is, and how that compares to the eventual hire. I'm pretty sure it has almost zero bearing on the search committee's final decision, but as a nonwhite female, I make sure to fill them out and return them at once, even if they are sent out after the job or interviews have been determined.  I want to make sure that *someone* knows that if there is a shortage of women of color on their faculty, it's not due to a lack of qualified applicants that fit that profile.
• On multiple occasions I received the AA forms after I knew, from the job wiki, that I was no longer in the running, including the time that the forms were sent out after the department had posted the names of the people who were supposed to be interviewing (and I wasn't one of them).  Even better are those places that send you AA forms that have to be sent back by mail, at your expense.  The one that took the cake was the place that sent the form as a scanned PDF form that they expected me to print out and mail back - the printout, the envelope, and the stamp paid by yours truly, and all this four months AFTER the deadline, and three months after the shortlist was made (thank you, wiki).  I wasn't on said short list, of course.  The clincher - the form stated that filling the form would have no effect on my application.  Duh!  Of course - there was no way I could get MORE rejected.  All hail to the half-wits who run the HR departments!!!
  • OP here. I really don't care about the AA card itself. I know it doesn't impact the hire and I don't care if it does even though I am in every privileged category imaginable. It's nice to know that the application has gotten in since most SCs don't bother acknowledging. What frustrates me is the schools that have super early application deadlines (e.g. early October) then don't contact anybody until the next calendar year. Even a quick e-mail saying "the search is taking longer than foreseen, expect to be updated on your status in mid January" would be much better than the silence.
  • Just remember a few things - first, that the SC's have other obligations which, for them, have higher priority, such as grant proposals, grading, and other committees.  Second, that they're academics, and thus not so good with social stuff, like remembering that there are a couple hundred applicants waiting for a response.  Third, that for many SC's, once they have their short list, the rest of the applicants fade into the background - it's too much trouble to deal with people who, for the SC. are no longer relevant.  While it's probably rare, there are also a number that revel in the fact that there is a buyer's market and that they can call the shots.  finally - sometimes the notification is put into the hands of an underpaid, overworked, and often inefficient office worker who forgets to send out the notifications, either entirely, or until much later.

2009-12-21

Several belated rejection letters rolled in yesterday. I already figured out that I hadn't made any short lists, based on the info here. A guy in my apartment building received one interview out of sixteen applications: this is with an ivy league PhD and a book i/p from a major academic publisher. Apparently, one criteria for these positions is merit. (But the pinnacle of the week seems to be constantly changing.) But surely there must be a whack of intangibles that are enabling these SCs to make rapid right/left sorting piles? Regardless, can't help it, I feel like one of the wannabes loitering in the lobby of an 'American Idol' tryout. Ever massed in the foyer, never so mNeuch as getting an audition. Obviously, some are getting the golden ticket. I'm not one of them. At sometime I have to accept that I'm not ever going to get signed. That I've fooled myself for too long with the competence of my shower singing. Not a single interview, two years running now. 겨울 문의에 가서 보았다. Anyway, good luck to everyone. Winter saw me at first notice. I drop out: I've lost. I curse the Charlie Buckets of this world.

• Thanks for this note.  I don't want to complain but the process is extremely demoralizing, and I keep thinking that I must be a moron not to get an interview again this year (2 straight).  Good to know I'm not alone.  I've got the Ivy Ph.D., book published this year at a major academic press, multiple peer-reviewed articles.  A colleague said that I wasn't "fresh."  Why is fresh better than experienced?  I don't get it.  So, how does one get into administration? (12/22)
• In some cases, it is because the faculty that make up the SC's are living in the delusion that in this day and age, they can get a faculty member who will stay their entire career at their school, so the younger the hire, the longer they keep the faculty member.  In other cases, it's because many senior faculty want newbies that are malleable, and can be formed into either disciplined little peons, or younger copies of themselves.  The more experienced you are, the more difficult it is for them to overawe you.  So the sort of place that prefers freshly-minter PhD's or ABD's is likely either out of touch, is oppressive, or suffers from a cult mentality.  Would you have been happy there in any case?

Anyone else amused by the email from the Interfolio guy? I guess I'm just looking for reasons to be amused right now...haha...ha...

A: I thought it was funny too. Thinking of wearing an ugly Xmas sweater for my free Interfolio holiday portrait, perhaps replicating one of the scenes from awkwardfamilyphotos.com. Good stuff.

• • Most people like to think that "others" have it easy. I have seen a number of senior white male faculties emphasizing the age or gender or ethnicity of a new hire--to the effect of discrediting the latter's academic competence. Competition makes it rather ugly.

• • Just because *you* as a younger scholar haven't been 'showered' with job offers (and who is, in this climate?) doesn't mean that there isn't ageism going on. It's well known in many circles that several of the top-tier universities have a definite (and inexplicable) preference for the 'new' and the 'fresh'. Seeing tenure track jobs given to people who have not even finished their doctorate, when one knows for a fact that amongst the hundreds of applicants were dozens of people with one (or more!) books - prize winning, excellent books - out on the shelves already, and years of experience teaching, sure can make people bitter, and understandably so! Publications and experience certainly don't seem to count as much in North America as they do in other academic systems...

• • Re the age at which one can have a PhD: in systems outside the USA it's quite common to have a PhD in your early 20's. You start an undergrad degree at age 18, and it typically lasts 3, or in some cases 4, years; that takes you up to 21 or 22. Then you do a PhD that can (if you're quick) be over in less than 4 years, so you could in theory be 25 or, say, 26 and have a PhD.
    • Although I know first hand from being on search committees that any kind of discrimination can occur, I would really like to know what school in the USA the poster immediately above my post is talking about. ~~new poster: [Uh - I'm not the poster above, but if you actually read their comment you'll see they've said "outside the USA", so your lecture about how long PhDs take in the states is irrelevant. We know! However, shockingly, in other countries they do things differently!]~~ The average US BS degree is designed to take 4 years, although I doubt that the average student graduates in 4, more like 4.5-5 years. In fact, in over 20 years in higher ed (student + prof), I recall only 1-2 students that finished their BS in fewer than 4 years, and virtually none in three. Furthermore, unless you go to a crackerjack diploma mill, PhD's typically take 5-6 years in the sciences and even longer. A very few students finish in 4 and virtually none graduate in 3. Those who graduate in 3 are typically lucky or extraordinarily gifted, the same might be said for the sciences. IN fact, most PhD students in the sciences previously spent at least 2 years in a MS. So, the average student will do a BS in no less than 4 years, an MS+PHD of 6-8 years. So, the average PHD graduate should be NO LESS than 28 years. I suspect that most are between 28-33 if they didn't work between BS/MS and PHD.

• • Doogie Howser got his MD at 16.
  • To the person who responded re: age of recent phds, I think that it is a pretty big leap to assume the Perspectives article was describing foreign degree-holders. It's the magazine of the American Historical Association, which by its very definition is an organization of history practitioners in the US, so people working under the US graduate school model, where the documented average is 7-8 years from a BA. So again, Doogie is the only person who in his television-show-reality could have earned a phd at 25 if he had only stayed in school.

I have received and thoroughly reviewed the rejection letter that you sent regarding my application for your advertised position of Assistant Professor of Awesome Studies.

I have been impressed with the number and quality of rejection letters that I have received this year and the task of sifting through them has been quite humbling. Your letter was quite strong and I would like to accept all of the rejections that I receive. Unfortunately that is not possible and I have already filled my quota of rejection letters for this application cycle. Therefore it is with deep regret that I must accept the job of Assistant Professor of Awesome Studies that you have advertised.

Please have your department administrator contact me as soon as possible so that we can negotiate compensation, starting date, and course load for my first term.

This should not be taken as a reflection on the quality of your rejection letter or of your department in general. All of the rejections that I received were quite strong and I wish you the best of luck in rejecting future candidates and in all of your future endeavors.

If you submitted any publications or additional materials with your rejection letter that you would like returned, please contact me and I will get those back to you as soon as possible.

Thank you sincerely,

Me

Assistant Professor

Your University

Department of Awesome Studies

• This is hilarious! Thanks for making me laugh. I don't know what I hate more: rejection letters that manage to sound so insincere and bullshitty, or not even receiving the courtesy of a rejection. I hate the waiting, the total randomness of the entire application process, ok yeah, I actually hate it all. But mockery soothes the pain!

• If only it were so easy.  What a strange profession, that we have no real power to live in the part of the country where we want to live or to choose the type of school we end up at or to determine whether we end up at a school at all.  It seems to make for a less than perfect fit.   In how many departments are there faculty members clawing to get out--to get to where?  And it doesn't have anything to do with the school or department--just with where they are at.  There has to be some better way to find a better fit for departments than this ridiculous process of accepting 10,000 applications and winnowing them based on--well, really, what are these decisions based on?  Who can really get a good feel for who I am by reading three recommendations, a cover letter, and a resume?  In my field we are taught to consider many sources and to dig deeper. And yet when it comes to selecting someone who very well might shape the department for decades to come, we are willing to risk it all on 10 or 11 typed pages.  All it is is a crapshoot, a raffle.  Nothing more.  They should teach that in graduate school--you'll have no free choice for the rest of your life. You'll live where the market dictates and your specialty will be whatever your department needs.  You might get a job, but that doesn't depend as much upon your hard work or anything as on luck.  Roll the dice, graduate student, roll the dice.  

• If it’s any consolation – my crowning rejection was worse, as it came from my very own advisor and mentor, whose scholarship grounds my dissertation and subsequent research. In one fell swoop, my intellectual pursuits were judged insufficient by the one person who gave them their bearings and meaning. How does one recover from that?     
• I know it doesn't help - but your rejection may have nothing to do with your research or intellectual pursuits.  Job search decisions often have less to do with the quality of your research and more to do with your ability to teach (and teach well) the precise classes they that need.  Another candidate may have been able to offer a set of classes that filled a variety of gaps in the department.  I think it is far harder to be hired when the classes you can teach fit too closely with the classes someone else may already teach.
• What the previous poster wrote - Most departments don't want more than a few, sometimes a single, individual/s in a subfield.  The fact that your adviser is in the department is often a reason against hiring you.  Remember, as well, that, other than the Ivies, most Universities do like hiring their own graduates, including undergraduates - academic inbreeding has the similar effects in a university as inbreeding does in animal husbandry.  It sucks, I know, but it is not an indication that they don't think that you're good enough.

• On my first MLA interview, four of us (the search committee and I) sat on a queen-sized hotel bed together (in suits, of course) during the course of a very long hour. I tried my best to act cooly professional, but I kept thinking that an onlooker might have read the scene as the beginning of a bad porn flick.
• Dear Penthouse, I never believed it would happen to me.  I was at an MLA conference interview, in a hotel room, when I noticed that I was alone with three hot (insert your preferred gender here) on a king sized bed.  The way that they asked their questions was, for some reason, making me feel aroused...

• I find it odd that you don't know what "ironic" is.
• Did I touch a nerve? In any case (according to Princeton's "Wordnet"), irony: incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs.  We might expect that somebody who complains about computer glitches would be computer literate enough to be able to post on a wiki site without messing it up.  What actually occurs is that they do mess it up.  We also see a case of defensiveness:  when called on this, rather than accept the criticism and go on with their life, they try and find some minor grammar mistake in the criticism, falsely believing that this would invalidate the argument.  Along the lines of:  "you accuse me of murdering your wife?  Ha!  It's a lie, because you misspelled murder!!!"
• Did I touch a nerve?  Are you okay?  Do you realize your criticism applies equally well to yourself?  Does this game of "gotcha" make you a happy, more well fulfilled person.  Well, this is the venting page.  Enjoy!
  • What is this, a game of "I know you are, but what am I?". I'm wondering: are you that bitter, bored faculty member that seems to get some sick enjoyment from trolling this page, attacking frustrated job searchers, or are you simply somebody who is very sensitive about their lack of computer skills?
• Can't you two just admit it?  You are madly in love with each other, but it is tearing you apart!  Let your love set your free.
  • Am I that transparent?  Here I thought that I hid it so well... Oh, sensitive poster, I'll meet you on the corner of Main and 5th.  I'll be the one with a bow tie, holding a red rose.  Please come, I've reserved a booth for two.

Dr. Dr. Dr.

Dr.

Dr.

Dr.

Dr.

Dr.

Dear Dr. Dr.:

I hope they spent more care and interest on the applications then they did on the replies.  This makes it seem like they're mocking me.

• I got the same letter...twice.  The second version actually put my name in, but that hardly matters.
• What school? A: U of Michigan
• You aren't tempted to reply with a "Thank you for your notification. Signed ____, Phd, Phd, Phd, etc...?"
• I got "Ms. Ms. Ms." Very thoughtful.
• I got "Ms. Ms. Ms." also. Apparently the Rejectomatic 3000 was having problems. And do you think they REALLY read all of the crap they had us send to them? I sent them 50 pages of stuff. *gripe* *wail* *gnash teeth*
• I got my "Dear Mr. Mr." email in conjunction with that Digital Environments job, which seems ironic, given that their computer program can't even reject me properly.
• Ooo, I am so glad I was a temp for all those years and learned MailMerge before getting an academic job! Saves loads of humiliation.
• Awesome! This just made my night. Thank you.
• Dr. Dr.! Gimme the news....

• I don't want to burst your venting bubble, but selling yourself is the whole process in every industry--if you want a job. Academics are short-changed on professionalization during their training. They aren't taught that they have to market and promote themselves. They're been sold this fairy tale that their ideas and originality will sell themselves. Nonsense. You gotta work to get a job no matter what industry you're in, and you have to sell yourself with a sharp CV & cover letter, and good interview skills. (Admission: I love persuading an employer to take a look at me. It's a creative challenge. I definitely am a saleswoman, always have been.)
• I know that we have to market ourselves. My venting is about the fact that it simply does not come naturally to me. Some parts of it can be learned, but it is very, very difficult to act against one's basic personality type. Some people are energized by the challenge. I work to rise to it because I know I have to, but the process leaves me drained and demoralized.
• Thanks for adding this. I appreciate what you're saying about personality type. Since marketing oneself is such an integral part of finding a job and being successful in one's career (I think it never stops!), is there any way that you could draw on your sense of humour and playfulness to turn it into something more appealing and fun? Like making into a creative writing challenge? Or thinking about it in terms of "wooing" a blind date who might be hideous and totally unsuitable? Try to bring your humour into it. When I'm writing a cover letter, I imagine a range of personalities on the receiving end and play with ways that I could pique their curiosity. I love playing with hyperbole (I laugh out loud at some of the ridiculous & atrocious things I write, which I eventually delete). I teach students how to design their cover letters and CVs to make the most of their skills, and I enjoy coaching, so that's where a big part of my pleasure with the marketing comes from. It's great fun to be on the other side of the process.
• You're trying to tell an introvert to teach herself to be an extrovert. That's not possible. An introvert can learn to be a good interviewee or write a strong cover letter or even be a good salesperson, but they will likely never enjoy the process. For me, self-marketing is a necessary chore, like cleaning the bathroom - I like having a clean bathroom and I know that in order to have that, I have to do the cleaning, but if someone tried to convince me to make the process of scrubbing my toilet enjoyable, that would be silly. That said, I know there are people who enjoy interviewing and applying for jobs just like there are people who enjoy cleaning their homes. More power to you. It's just not me and I know myself well enough to know that it never will be.

• I think it comes down to the schools wanting to hold all the cards and keep options open. If they make an offer and their first choice turns them down, etc. Also, they forget how anxious the candidates are while they are making decisions. We're concerned about making major changes in our lives, while they are just filling a position.

For all of you folks out there thinking that there is something wrong with YOU - let me tell you about the dysfunction of search committees . . . then you will realize why you are treated so poorly and why what happens behind the scenes has very little in fact to do with you, your file, your publications, etc.I'm a mid-level faculty member and am serving on my umpteenth search. It's amazing to see how threatened faculty are by strong candidates - I've seen candidates who met the search ad perfectly dismissed for trivial, unmeasureable reasons. Background story: too strong - would make the Chair, area coordinator, mid-level faculty members look like slackers. I've seen candidates who themselves have admitted mid-interview that they would like to come to our school to "learn" (hello?!!!!) more about the subject matter we want them to teach get offered jobs because they present as malleable (ick). I've seen searches get ugly because faculty in the department HATE one another and so candidates that one or the other click likes get decimated simply because one group thinks you're tops. If you don't receive a prompt, polite, respectful reply in response to your application, chances are there is a lot of *&^% going on behind the scenes that prevents the committee from functioning in this way - STEER CLEAR! You are truly better off waiting for a good fit because once you get mired down in a dysfunctional department, it's difficult to leave (for a variety of reasons). Stay true to yourself and to your passion. Keep applying and keep participating in your field - build relationships and bridges. Best of luck to you all!!!

--Thank you for posting this (x4)

--This doesn't surprise me, but it's nice to see someone write it. And it really reinforces that the process should be less about candidates "auditioning" for schools and being interrogated and more about trying to find a good fit. I think I'd rather piece together adjunct jobs for a year and do another go-around on the job hunt than go to work for some of the horror stories I've heard.

--I am currently on the market this year for the first time, and it is rough out there, but I take comfort in the hard truths I learned during my time as a graduate liason on a search committee in my department last year.  The professors were all so bitter--yes, I'm in one of those divided departments--and they were ripping away at candidates left and right.  I actually heard them say things like, "Whoa, my research is waaay better than this shit."  They would read candidates' letters aloud and mock the things that they wrote.  I heard those conversations about how a candidate might overshadow a current professor, and they also discussed ways to not hire people that other members of the department--their nemesis--might like.  It was horrible, and I sincerely thought about leaving my program after that experience.  It may seem naive, but I had no idea that professors (adults?) could be that cruel, catty, and lawless behind the scenes.  I don't want to become those people five or ten years down the road.  This posting reminded me that although rejection is never fun, and I am quite scared about the  fact that I will likely have to go back out next year, I would rather not end up in a department like mine with cruel and bitter professors like those with which I served.  To the original poster: thanks for sharing these selfless words of encouragement. (12/6)

--while I don't doubt many of these stories are true, and while I too am a struggling recent grad and job candidate, I frankly have a hard time flattering myself by believing that I--with several major publications and a prestigious doctorate--am over-qualified and thus intimidate senior faculty members, and hence don't get a bite. . . . but its pretty to think so. to clarify my point: I'm not gloating about my background, obviously (what's there to proud of when I'm still unemployed?)--but simply stating that I felt I had done everything that was expected of me to be a viable job candidate. So, back to the original comment, I have a hard time believing that my sustained lack of success is due simply to threatened and/or disorganized search committees. Moreover, it would be counterproductive, even dangerous, to delude myself bitterly into thinking so (ie, "every SC has a chip on her/his shoulder and that why I'm not getting anywhere!"). In other words, yes, it is about ME, and my lack of meeting any dept's needs). As to the below commenter, it is the height of hypocrisy to badmouth your "cruel, catty" department above, and then immediately insult someone else harshly without provocation. Looks like it didn't take "five or ten years" to become one of "those people." Sorry, but your hypocrisy really infuriates me, even more than your mean-spiritedness. And, by the way, maybe if you spent less time trolling the wiki, and a little more time reading Hemingway, you would have appreciated my "pretty" writing.

--Your writing isn't very "pretty," Dr. Prestigious. <--nor is your tact (or ad hominem attacks); the person obviously doesn't feel good about their profile. But go ahead, make unsuccessful candidates feel even worse about themselves.//Yes, really! Comments like these are quite indicative of the petty, antagonistic behavior that plagues the departments described in the original post.

--I would say that perhaps we could take the spirit in which the original comment was posted to heart and try our best to disengage our egos from this. It is just too hard when you put your ego on the line here to deal with the rejection. And, it is easy to start snarky anonymous battles. I am finding this process so emotionally difficult in every way, and I sincerely wish you all the best in dealing with this.

--I find it emotionally difficult, too. I try to think it doesnt matter, I can wait another year and keep writing, but negative feelings still creep into my mind. I feel resentful, tired, and hopeless.

--The irony of all of this (for me) is that I have just finished climbing a huge mountain--I defended a few months ago. Rather than basking in that accomplishment for a while, I moved right to feeling unworthy (thank you, job market). I try to remind myself that completing a doctorate is itself something to be proud of. That is a tiny source of sanity for me. Sometimes.

--To the above poster, completing your doctorate IS DEFINITELY something to be proud of. Congrats! Take time to celebrate that each week. Seriously! :)

• The main reason we have this thread is for job hunters to vent their frustrations.  I think that anybody with the gall to attack people here is has something deeply messed up inside them.  While they may be professionally successful (or at least already have a job), the fact that they have the time, and the will, to troll this website speaks volumes about their lives and personalities.  Overall, if you have the need to attack job-seekers (especially if you have a job), it indicates that A, you have deep self-esteem issues (you're scared that other job seekers are better than you, and want to discourage them), B, you have sociopathic tendencies (why else take joy in attacking people who are already feeling bad), C, you have no friends (otherwise where do you find the time, what with a job and all), and finally, D, you are an unhappy person (of course you are, if you're scared, angry, and have no friends).  Honestly, I'd rather be where I am now then to be you.
• Has anyone else found an uncanny resemblance between this process and dating? The conference interviews are like speed-dating or online dating, depending on how it is set up. Then there's the "I wonder if they'll call" suspense, along with trying to figure out when it is appropriate to contact them and when you should just wait. I've found that the jobs I really, really want, I assume aren't going to be interested in me while the ones I'm just lukewarm about or mark as a last resort job are the ones that call readily. I have a friend who had to turn down a good offer because of personal reasons and now he's left wondering if anything else will come along, not unlike breaking up with someone and wondering if you missed out on "the one." It's emotional and stomach-churning.
• I know what you mean! I keep thinking this must be what it's like to sit and wait by the phone for a date to the high school prom (never had an actual prom). My husband promises he'll take me to a thrift shop for something in pale pink chiffon if I get the MLA interview.
• My dissertation director said to me that he feels "the normally screwed-up job search for academics is screwed up more than usual this year."  Hey, I have a great PhD from a top 12 university, a handful of small publications (nothing super prestigious, but nothing to be ashamed of) and tons of teaching experience at a wide variety of institutions.  Yet I get nothing from search committees.  Just keep plugging away, that's my motto.  Heck, I'm enjoying substitute teaching and coaching jr. high sports right now, I may apply for private secondary schools if this higher academic stuff doesn't work out.  I finished my PhD, and while I'm making poverty wages, I'm working.  Can't complain too much in this economy.  Of course, my wife is divorcing me because I didn't get a job when I graduated, but there's little I can do to change that either.

• Yes, just in time for the holidays--how nice!  Though at least you received your rejection notification at long last...I have yet to hear back about an interview from last December.   
• Oh, I really want to know what department made that classy move. I hope that you (at some point) take it to the Schools to Fear page. 
• I just got a rejection email from last year too, from Florida Atlantic University. One of those classy generic "Dear Applicant" letters. Actually, given that I had applied more than a year ago and that the position started this past August, I had already kinda figured out that I didn't get the job! Nothing like a cold dose of rejection to get December started off right...

• HA! I'm with you 100%. I had an interview last year at one of these places after 3 years of postdoc. When I met with the Dean he actually had the gall to look up from my CV and ask me why I had spent the past 3 years doing so much research if I wanted to end up at a school like his. I wanted to leap over his desk and tear his throat out.

• Sorry, minor brain-fart while trying to iron out screwed up formatting. I've brought the discussion back. But why did you start an entire new table for this? In any case I have mostly fixed the god-awful mess that recent posters have made of this table.

• Agreed. Working as adjunct, I've seen "insiders" get much harder treatment from HC in attempt to not seem biased. In one case a very qualified candidate was not even offered the formality of an interview because of fears about unfair hiring. In other case, insider was only one in pool that was really qualified, but only hired after much navel-gazing. It's always good to know who the competition is, but don't ever let VAP slow you down.
• Gotta agree with the above.  I cannot see any reason that a SC with a budget for a search would not want to get the best that they can afford.  Furthermore, a lot of the success in the job search has to do with "wowing" the SC, both on paper and at the interview.  This sort of BS'ing is not easy for somebody that the faculty are already familiar with, and would work against an internal hire.  Finally, in those cases where a department really wants an internal candidate, such as a spousal hire, they can usually be hired through other programs (most universities have programs for "hires opportunity" etc..), and departments would not want to waste the regular line on these types of hire.  Of course, in highly dysfunctional places, buddies of faculty or of highly placed administrators my be hired instead of more qualified candidates, but who would want to be work in those hell holes anyways?  You'd be better off finding a job as an adjunct.
• I have to totally agree with the post just above. Two years ago I was an internal candidate at a school I had worked for nearly 6 years while finishing my Ph.D. My teaching evaluations were among the highest in the department, by the time I finished my dissertation it was already under contract with a very good university press, and I had several articles already published in my field. The Search Committee actually chose me for the position after a long and terrible search process--I was actually called and congratulated by the search committee on getting the tenure track job. But, in the end, I did not get the job. A week after I was "hired" the chair of the department gave the contract to a friend of a former provost who had not even been chosen for an interview by the search committee--the decision not to interview said person, I am told, was based on this person's poor evaluations, lack of publications (other than one encyclopedia article), and the stated unwillingness to consider relocating to the area. So, that person got the job and is "commuting" six hours each way. This particular job required that someone teach a 4-4 load and be on campus 5 days a week. Instead, the new hire drives into town on Tuesday, teaches, stays in a motel until Thursday morning and then drives home. He/She does not hold the required 10 office hours a week. But, no one in the department will go against the chair for fear of retaliation. Maybe it sounds like sour grapes--and maybe it is--but I would NEVER work for this place again. I quit my adjuncting gig and found another. These departments are out there and you don't want to be a part of them.

• • Doesn't sound like sour grapes at all - it actually sounds more like you dodged a bullet there.

2009-10-27

• What an awful experience. I've done some online applications this year, but nothing matches your tale. You made me laugh with your comment about typos and an unprofessional appearance. Something along those lines: a position posted by the Dept. of Veterans Affairs on bioethics.net, http://www.bioethics.net/bioethics_jobs.php?view=5278 that devotes an entire paragraph admonishing would-be applicants to be letter-perfect ("If you do not make it through this initial screening process, the Ethics Center staff will never even see your application!!") Makes you wonder what shrill admin person got their jollies screaming that out. (And who would still want to apply after reading that.)
  • I prefer the online applications, but every third position seems to require me to manually enter all the information on my CV or irrelevant information. In some cases I wind up spending 45 minutes entering every job I've ever worked (please enter your complete job history, if you do not, this application will not be considered). Not as bad as above, but still bleh!

• (11/9/2009) I hate the online application thing, but I hate even more the schools that require everything but your bloodtype for the application. Do they really need a faculty application, a cover letter, a c.v., a writing sample, official transcripts, a sample syllabus, a form allowing them to check your credit, and the letters of recommendation for the first round? I have spent all day working on my sample syllabus--sure, if I get the job I would be teaching this class, but right now I am teaching 7 classes as an adjunct trying to keep my family from starving, finishing up revisions for a book that I have under contract, and trying to get applications done so I don't have to repeat this semester next fall! It would be nice to not have to put in quite so much effort on one application in a market as dismal as this.
  

• • • I too prefer the online application and I haven't had any trouble with them (knock on wood). The ones I've done have been pretty easy and hassle-free. I get annoyed with those who want things by snail mail because it involves printing things on nice resume paper, forcing the printer to print labels or envelopes so it looks professional, trusting the USPS to get it there or paying extra for FedEx to be certain it gets there on time, a trip to the post office, etc, etc. etc... But the bigger hassles are the ones who want both electronic and hard copy or different elements by mail and others electronically. And I"m with you on the 'everything but the blood type' thing. I see no reason to request all transcripts. If I got into a PhD program at a good university, I think they can be assured that I did ok in undergrad and my master's. These schools would save themselves and their applicants a lot of hassle if they just requested cover letter and CV and then noted in the ad that those considered for phone interviews will be asked to send additional information.

• The silence is indeed deafening. Aside from a few random blogs, the only thing that I have seen written about the state of the market was in the AHA's Perspectives.  And that piece merely compared this market to that of the early 1980s (which was a completely unsatisfying comparison given the tremendous growth of the number PhDs in the past two decades).  This does certainly seem to be a labor issue.  Do take note, the professional academic associations are invested in the current state of the system.  Tenured faculty as a group have, thus far, done little to advocate on behalf of adjucts and contingent faculty. 
• 12/13: In may opinion, tenured faculty rely on this system of "slave labor" (adjuncts and VAPs) because it doesn't change anything regarding their own scheduled pay/merit raises. As long as the necessary "budget cuts" are met and they don't affect tenured faculty, everything seems just peachy for them. They a;ready have jobs, why would they care?
• 10/30. I agree completely. Why are so many students accepted into PhD programs when the market clearly doesn't warrant it? Call me totally cynical, but could it be that the universities WANT a bunch of unemployed PhDs out there to rely on for adjuncts? Seriously, where would your department be without adjuncts? If they unionized, would the school survive? I'm putting up with it this year, in hopes of landing a real job, but if nothing comes my way for next year I am leaving academia on principle.
• Related to the above comment, look at the following "opportunity" from the Cal State University system.  This should be criminal : http://www.calstate.edu/hr/cdip/

• I haven't seen anything addressing that specifically. But when I look at the listings for my field and areas of speciality, it doesn't look good right now.
• I posted something similar in the American Studies section of the Wiki; I'm amazed at how bad the job market is this year. I can't recall a September with fewer job postings. I have an appointment, but there's no guarantee how long that will last (I'm on a year-to-year contract). My wife teaches at an independent high school, and I have to tell you that is looking better and better all the time (9/11).
• Okay, it is now Sept. 30 and the job market shows no sign of improving. There is exactly one job announcement in my field that I am interested in, and I've learned that there is a VAP in that position now. So, why bother. I know this is the wrong attitude, but do I really want to chase down my recommenders, rewrite some BS about my teaching "philosophy", compose an enthusiastic cover letter, etc., etc., for the _ONE_ job of this type in America right now? This is especially demoralizing considering that I just received my PhD in May, and am adjuncting this year at great college with no hope of a permanent position there, no health insurance, and no living wage. Okay, I am whining, but this _IS_ the venting page!
• Fair enough. I am still betting that a lot of VAP positions, if not tenure track, will shake out over the next 3-4 months as institutions do their usual work of "finding" the money that they need. After all, no one is cutting enrollment. For my part, the scarcity of tenure-track positions means more effort put into fellowships, etc... Do they REALLY need to see another (or multiple!) custom-tailored course proposal before they hire you? I came into this with a folder full of courses I've designed and taught, but have spent the last two weeks creating enough content-filled, first-year writing and isn't-Western-Civilization-magnificent type courses to keep me busy for the next 10 years. Let's just assume that someone with an advanced degree could figure out how to design a one-semester course if that's what you're paying him/her for! (10/4)
• No kidding. One wonders why the PhD is even necessary, since it doesn't seem to be worth @#$%@% without piles of "evidence" of "superior" this and that. . . .

• Okay. I hate that I cannot figure out how to post my reply without centering it and using bold font as you have done. I totally feel your pain. As I mentioned way, way, way down below, I was a VAP who was actually called by the search committee and congratulated on getting the job only to be unhired by the department chair a week later (after I had already turned down a tenure track position at another school because I did not wish to uproot my entire family and make them follow me around the country) when he decided that race and degree mattered more--in this case the degree was actually a degree from the school where the job was, not a better one. So, despite having a book contract with a good university press, some of the best teaching evaluations in the department (I had worked at this school for 6 years), several other peer-reviewed publications, and a degree from a far better school than the one that the person ultimately hired had, I did not get the job. Boy was I bitter. Really bitter. If I think about it too much, I still get mad. Actually my case was taken up by the AAUP which advised me I had a civil case if I wanted to go that route (I did not). So, I went on the job market again. And had other interviews. And didn't get anything. And wondered why. And, this is what I think might help you, what I realized was that that sting and bitterness had crept into who I was when I was interviewing (well, and into who I was as a person). I was too busy still being pissed off and jaded to be the person that I really am. And, I think that really came through in the early interviews. And, I did not particularly like that person--there was something fakey and off about that person--so, no matter how much interest I might have showed in a school or whatever or how perfectly it looked like I would fit, maybe no one wanted to work with that person. You are angry. (Angry enough to make yourself believe that a person with three kids and less of whatever might not be a better fit for a place than you). Until you get rid of some of that and come to the understanding that fitting at a place is more than a degree or life circumstance or book publication, that it is at heart being the right person (as opposed to scholar) for the job and let loose of some of that anger, you'll continue to be disappointed. Also, it's a crap shoot for everyone. Some searches are rigged, some aren't, but even those that aren't come down to really weird things. I mean, honestly, most of us are pretty much alike--we do this or that in the classroom, we publish this or that, we have a degree in this or that. At the end of the day what it really comes down to in a lot of departments is who people want to work with. Are you the person someone else wants to work with? In some places maybe they want a snooty academic (like themselves). Other places maybe they want a good family man/woman (like themselves). Maybe it's something else altogether. The trick is not in getting a position that you think you want but in finding a place where you really will fit in. Most of the time when I have gotten rejections and really thought about it, they weren't really places I wanted to be anyway. Just on a last note here, when I finished my Ph.D., I had two small boys--I wrote much of it during naptime or late at night. Less than a month after I graduated, my dissertation (with only minor revisions) was accepted for publication--the first dissertation ever accepted for publication by this particular press in the last 10 years. Having kids does slow one down a bit, but it does not affect one's ability to produce top quality work. The guy with three kids probably can't devote as much time to work as someone without those kids, but maybe he does a hell of a job when he's there. So, don't knock him or yourself too much on that one.

• I sympathize, but dude, learn how to press on the <Preview> button BEFORE you Save the page. One would think that a PhD would learn basics like that at one point in their career. And yes, you're welcome for fixing your mess. Sheesh!
• Dear Original Poster - I've been thinking a lot about the upcoming job cycle too as I'm putting the finishing touches on my dissertation. I've only just recovered from a last year's cycle and I can't believe I need to start drafting letters again. A bit of advice, which I am going to take this year...this page is toxic. Not the whole Academic job wiki, just the Venting page. Don't believe me? Just look to the above "helpful" poster. This venting page attracts the worst of academia and makes you think that everyone is cut throat, that everyone is out to screw someone else, that everyone is a jerk. We're not and I, for one, won't let it screw with my outlook on the process once again this year. Good luck to you too!

• No doubt, I'm with you 100%. (I'm the first poster for 2009-03-27). I STILL haven't heard back from those knuckle-draggers at Steel Mill F*cktown U either. The lack of common civility in SCs has reached epidemic proportions, due in great part, I think, to the recession. Because SC are now getting reams of applications from Ivy Leaguers who probably would have snubbed some of them in the past, many of them now think they can ride roughshod over the lot of us. But the world doth turn, and with patience we may yet ensure that their commeupance be forthcoming! Well put.
• I relate completely to the anger over the treatment of applicants by a SC. What's scarier is when the basic lack of human decency continues once a person has a job. A friend has coined the term gotcha-ism as a behavior employed by many academics against other academics for a variety of reasons (displaced anger over low pay? demeaning treatment in graduate school? inhumanity of the SC? rejections by publishers?). As HARD as it is, I believe the best approach is to take the high road, dismiss the losers from your mind because it is _their loss_ not to have chosen you, and move on. It is not worth it to allow them to infiltrate your private or professional time. Or worse, to stoop to their level. I speak as one who spent almost three years ruminating over mis-treatment by a SC for a tenure track job when I was the inside VAP candidate. The only one who suffered as I imagined various gotchas was me. I allowed bitterness to impact my relationships and overall quality of life. And them? They are still there doing what they do. There are the types who will always succeed in a fashion because they bulldoze so easily over others. Hang on to your principles and you will be the Chosen ONE for the right reasons by the right people inside or outside of academe.
• I was on a recent SC. It was nowhere near what you describe - in fact, it was thorough, fair and professional. If indeed you plan to exact revenge in the manner you mention, you will come off as very "unprofessional," and the teeth on that beast are truly sharp.
• It is interesting to read these posts--it is interesting to see how someone who feels mistreated and is "venting" about that mistreatment vows to mistreat others when they get the chance. I suspect really what they are saying is that they are hurt and saddened and scared and bitter. Boy, in this hard year, who hasn't been there? Sometimes the search committees or school administrators really are evil and unethical. I posted way down below somewhere about my treatment in a search last spring--where the chair of the department ignored the Search Committee's recommendation to hire someone who was not even interviewed (after a member of the search committee called to congratulate me on getting the job). That was painful. I still feel bitter. But, I was a runner up in a search late this spring with a search committee that seemed not only affable, but fair to me. That experience did not necessarily lessen my bitterness over the other affair (especially since I was not offered the TT job, only a VAP position which my family circumstances made it impossible to take), but it did make feel like eventually there will be a fresh start for me somewhere and I would much rather wait a little while and end up at a place like this one than have gotten the job at the other hell hole last spring. Maybe it is just trying to make myself feel better, but I always sort of think when I don't get something that if the search committee or dean or whoever didn't like me enough to hire me, then it probably isn't a place I'd really want to be or where I would feel comfortable much less valued. It is much better to wait and end up somewhere where you'll be happy than to get something that never feels right. If the search committee really was so terrible, imagine working with them before you had tenure.
• OP here. What the previous poster writes is true, but the job search is, literally, soul-searing, and all I want, as a job applicant, is a modicum of respect. If time is an issue, the SC's can post on the Wiki (and some do, at least SC members). When I read that there were 800 applicants for a position, I wouldn't expect the SCC to have time to answer any e-mail. But when there are many fewer, a simple response, even two words, literally, something like "no time", is fine. Overall, the feeling that you get from most SC's is: "you are still an applicant and not worthy of respect from my tenured/tenure-track self". And what I wanted to say in my post above is that this lack of respect cuts both ways, and furthermore, I can do it anonymously. As for the poster who wrote earlier that he/she was on a SC, and that it was "thorough, fair and professional" he/she is so clueless as to be ludicrous. Thorough? How can any search be "thorough"? You have to choose a colleague based on a two days interview at best, a few pages of text at worst. No search is "fair" - that would be the epitome of stupidity. You want to pick and choose the best person for your department, not give everybody a fair shot. As for "professional"? What do you mean? What does that mean anyways? Besides, if you feel the need to haunt the venting page and rebut the vents, than either: a, you feel uncomfortable about your last search, b, you have too much time on your hands, or c, both a and b.
• I am the SC member of which you speak. Maybe in your field things are more feral. Sorry to hear about it. Good luck with the search. Our search was as I stated - fair, thorough and professional. I do not feel uncomfortable about our search - we found the best folks we could. I do not have too much time on my hands. And I have a TT job. Perhaps you can do more to be a better candidate and be less of a freaking whiner. It isn't about me. It's about you. If you think a job search is "soul searing" then you are indeed a special snowflake. It's a job interview. It's not an exorcism. You don't like it? Go get a job doing something else. Inexorable whining won't help you. If you think it will - good luck to ya! You can vent all you want, but will editing this page get you your TT job? You already know the answer to that. Bye bye, now!
  • This post tells me all I need to know about his search. He claims to have been "fair, thorough, and professional", and yet, here he is being condescending, abusive, and arrogant. Why should I believe that he behaved any different to the applicants of that search? A former SC who spends time justifying his behavior as a member of a SC and abusing anonymous job searchers has some deep hostility issues aimed at job applicants, further supporting my opinion that he was "that SC member". You know, the one that asks irrelevant, but combative questions, answers the applicants question disdainfully and condescendingly, and then picks a fight with the candidate during the job talk about some obscure detail. Usually a little person who got his job through luck, contacts, or a desperate SC, and now he thinks that it was because he is so great.
    • As I stated previously, good luck. All I wished to do was to try and convince the OP that a lack of professionalism will hurt him/her more than it will those whose work he/she reviews. The response told me all I wanted to know about the nature of the OP. Again, if the OP thinks the interview process is "soul searing," wait until a TT position is actually landed and the tenure review comes up. The OP might just burst into flames. As for my depiction of our search, I stand by it. Remember, sometimes it's not the world - it IS you.
      • I agree that referring to the job search as "soul searching" is blowing it out of perspective and indicative of the way that we academics seem to think that what we do is so much more important and profound than what others do. Yes, the search sucks. I've been there. In two years I applied to 250+ positions in English and recieved a grand total of 50 rejection letters and emails, 10 interviews at MLA, 3 campus visits, and two job offers. I don't deny that the process is demoralizing and can feel dehumanizing but we're not alone. People all over this country in vastly different fields are going through this same process. It's a job search. It's a job hunt. It's not a spiritual crisis unless you let it become one. And certainly swamped SC who can't get back to you shouldn't spur you on to perpetuate the perceived hostility on those coming up behind you. You don't like the system? Change it from the inside. When you get the chance to be on a SC, you be the one to take the time and show a modicum of respect to the candidates.
• This thread is a perfect example of the incivility fostered by this heartless process. To the OP: to suggest that you might violate basic tenets of professional conduct in order to exact revenge for a perceived slight by a SC chair (even if that revenge is warranted) is completely unacceptable. If you can't keep personal animus in check when reviewing manuscripts and grant proposals, then I can only hope that editors and funding agencies have the wisdom to keep you FAR away from any positions of authority. And to the SC member: your own search may have been the very picture of propriety. But unless you were very lucky in your own job search and haven't been paying much attention to the posts here and elsewhere, you're fooling yourself if you think that yours serves as the model for searches everywhere. The abject failures of communication typical of searches is borderline criminal, and breeds the kind of resentment and anger exhibited by the OP. Why is it that a search receiving 200 applicants can't tell 180 or more of those applicants that they're out of the running as soon as the short list is made? Instead, SC chairs often fail to contact those 180 or simply refuse to provide any information regarding the search, even when politely asked. Whether this is due to laziness or administrative bullshit, it's unforgivable. The entire process has become so unfriendly that I've begun to wonder whether the academic community I've been hoping to join is just some fairy tale told to grad students to keep them plugging away at the research until they graduate. I truly hope that the nastiness you've both exhibited here is limited to anonymous crap spouted on the internet, and would never enter into real life relationships with colleagues. Otherwise, we're all well and truly fucked.
  • See my response above. I don't purport that every search was like ours, no more than you can purport that every search is sloppy and as doomed to fail as you might think. My initial response was to convince the OP to remain professional. As you can see this was most unappreciated. I'm not arrogant - far from it - nor did my own landing of a TT job come easily. But I have not crapped on the work of those who have rejected me, and I advised the OP to refrain from doing that. In the end, professionalism is what it's about. There are numerous decisions concerning who gets and offer and who doesn't, and nothing is personal. I will admit a letter that simply says "the search is concluded" and nothing else is unacceptable if you are asking for feedback, but no university in their right (legal) mind will tell you why you were rejected. No, I'm not naive enough to believe that our search was the model that is followed. But perhaps it should be, no? In any event, good luck.
  • I am a new poster. I would say that the SC member's line, ""sometimes it's not the world, it is you" misses the point--and is, yes, arrogant. Since you were on a SC, I am assuming that you had a job before the bottom fell out of the job market and were not applying and interviewing at a time in which institutions--even what most people might consider undesirable institutions to work for--had hundreds of candidates to consider. Maybe your job search was fair--I actually had an interview with a SC that seemed very fair and impartial this year--but that is definitely the exception in this climate. And, while you might not think it is soul searing or whatever to be going through this process, you might (given that you evidently have a TT job and do not have to sit on the rails worrying about how you will repay your student loans and perhaps support your family) show a bit more empathy rather than self-righteousness. In addition to the numerous financial worries that those job candidates who did not land anything to carry them through next year have to bear, there is also the anxiety that comes from the repeated rejection letters and/or crappy treatment by an SC. Who wouldn't doubt themselves after a SC acted snobby or did not even bother to send a proper rejection? It is only human nature that one might doubt him/herself in such a situation. Actually, SC person, you are the one missing the point here. Sometimes it is about YOU, but often it is about other things--such as the economy or the huge numbers of people applying or the simple lack of courtesy on the part of those who no longer have to worry about whether or not they need to "land" something just to stay afloat. And the fact that you try to guise your implication that somehow those who have suffered this year deserved it by saying that searches should run fairly does not make you any less insensitive. So, unless you have something useful to offer--perhaps tips on how to get a more positive response from a SC, for example--then why post here at all?

Hang in there new poster. The job market sucks. But it always has. When I was on the market in the 1990s, it was just as bad. I'm currently chairing an SC. And the numbers of apps for the position we are searching for now is pretty much identical to the number then. The job search is a soul-sucking experience, and most SC members know that because they went through that. I think it is really crappy the way many candidates are treated. Having said that, you can't expect super-efficient response times (though you deserve a response). Many of us are teaching 4-4 loads, serving on assorted committees, trying to get an article submitted, and managing a search which involves sometimes hundreds of applications with minimal secretarial support. I'm not complaining. I love my job and know many highly qualified candidates would love it, too. But the reality in non-elite schools is that professors do more than teach. And managing a search is a huge job.

• • • I have not been on a SC. I do have a job, it's not TT, it's contract based. To 90% of us in academia, a non-TT job is the equivalency of being an adjunct. Even though it's not. I'm not paying on student loans because my husband has been unemployed for about a year. The economy sucks. I think most of us have been trying to give perspective on the job search to some of the more distressed and upset. After all, we've all done it. There's never been a halcyon day when everyone automatically got a job, let alone their dream job. It's always a grind. People are always going to be rude. It's stressful and causes you to question what it is you're doing with your life. But where some have seemed to go so far off base is with their comments that they're going to behave as horrid as possible should they ever be on a SC or that they're going to hack into emails to figure out what's going on. What good can come of that behavior? I had a campus visit in 2007 and I NEVER heard back from them, even after several follow-up inquiries. Was I mad? Sure. But my plan going forward is to not perpetuate that behavior, but to make sure that when I am on a SC our candidates are treated better. That being said this year my department contacted their number one to offer the job to her and she never responded back to us. So the number two got the job. I guess what I'm saying is that it can go both ways. But I'll take my self-satisfied rich ass back to my ivory tower since that's where so many of you assume those of us with jobs live.
      • What part of "venting" don't you understand? This page is for people to vent their feeling when the job search gets to them. It is not a job planner or somewhere that we post next years nefarious plans. If you are a job searcher you likely understand our state of mind, and our need to post empty threats and fantasies. If you're not a job searcher, that what the h3ll are you doing posting here? We have take your sh!t when we apply for these jobs, I don't want to see you here, as well.
        • You don't get it, do you? We are always on the job market. You have to always keep an eye on trends and what positions are open. To be static is to be stagnant. Budgets get cut, departments fire people, and sometimes the environment changes. You always have to watch what's going on in academia. Venting is not equal to vitriol.

• Contact the search committee chair via email and politely inquire as to whether or not a decision has been made and if not when you might know something. It's hard to say what is up with the SC. I had an on campus interview with a school last November and did not get a letter of rejection until March (after I noted my experience with them on the Schools to Fear page). Then I had an interview about three weeks ago and had an answer within a week (got the VAP offer but not the TT unfortunately). And then I interviewed in February for a job that was offered to me last week--their search process was really long and had to make its way up the administrative ladder. I think in some cases search committees are reluctant to send out any rejections until the whole thing is concluded, which, of course, leaves many people dangling and uncertain, but which makes the search committee feel (mistakenly) safe that they have options. Other times it just takes some time. But, you have the right to inquire.
  • Did it. Oh, well. Guess it's better to know I wasn't being considered than to wait any longer in suspense. Altough, they did say the job had been offered but not yet accepted. I suppose there's still a chance if the top candidate doesn't accept. Unless they decide that now they've told me they've made the offer to someone else, they won't return to me if the offer isn't accepted. Oh, well.
• Second Poster again. A SC would not decide not to offer a job to you just because they already told you it was offered to someone else. Search committees will go in order of preference until they get an acceptance. Cut yourself some slack and accept the closure for now. You have nothing to lose by letting it go. If they return to you, then you deal with that then. I'm not sure of your field, but there are some options out there--even in the Humanities. If you are history or political science or something USA.jobs is a good place to start. They also have jobs for English people--editing and such. Anyway, you are new out. It takes time. Especially in this market. Don't get discouraged so soon. If you let it get to you, that unhappiness and bitterness will eat away at you and make you less likely to present yourself well. And, every interview is an opportunity to get better. You might even write the SC chair again and tell him/her that you are new on the market and could they make any suggestions which might help you in future interviews. In other words, could they point out some strengths and weaknesses? Sometimes SC chairs are not receptive, but sometimes they are very helpful. Good luck. :)
  • Oh, don't worry about me becoming cynical or bitter; I'm more confused than anything. I'm sure I'll find some sort of job at some point. It's just annoying that the jobs my highly ranked department assured me would be there when I graduated aren't. Such is life, I guess.

• The SC may have looked at your papers a long time ago and not reviewed them before your call. In a campus interview I had this year I was surprised at how much surprise people expressed at the same thing you're talking about. May we all understand why from the other side some day.

• Friend, I know exactly how you feel, because I am in the same place (though I want to cook something other than ramen noodles and only wish I could afford macaroni). I have an interview coming up in May (god, I hope we're not going the same place....) and I can't get excited about it. It's not my dream job, all of those came with rejections, but all I've been begging for the last few months is a chance for an interview. I've been losing my sanity and losing any sense of confidence, and I feel like my application letters are sarcastic when I write them now. I hope both of our situations get better, I know that I feel I won't be able to hold on much longer, but I've surprised myself in that regard about 1,000 times this year already. Every time I think I won't survive the next rejection, I do.

• Wow, hope you registered Awesome University under its real name on the "Universities to fear" page. Sounds like amateur hour at this place. No SC that conducts itself professionally tells a candidate they have the job before the search is concluded. You should be thanking the gods that you're not working there right now. Them reposting the job listing so many times seems like just one sign among many of how they couldn't find their ass with both hands.

• I'm not sure you can draw that inference based on what you read here. There's a huge selection bias at work. We just don't hear about the positive stories. For each negative story, I can think of great stories of colleagues who got a great job that pays well. But you won't see that reported on here. I'm not saying that the process doesn't need to be improved, but rather that this page is not evidence of anything other than people venting.

• It can take quite a while, sorry to say. Depending on how your would-be university operates, the SC may need to meet, then report to the department for approval (and arranging impromptu dept meetings can be hard), then get Dean approval. So assume nothing within a timeframe of 2-3 weeks. After that, there's always the possibility that they offered it to someone else, who dithers around before finally saying no, and if they regard you as a fine second choice, you could be kept in the dark during that timespan.

• I would love to earn as much as you do. I'm teaching at a community college now out of sheer desperation, my P/T gig at an R1 having dried up. I knew I was in for a treat straight out of Blackboard Jungle when I walked in the first evening and a few troglodytes in the back row never bothered to turn their desks around as they slobbered over their BK burgers. It's been that way since. See no evil, hear no evil. I look straight into the light of the overhead projector, go into a trance, and read my PowerPoint slides verbatim. Thank Jeebus for Jim Beam.
• I am very sorry for you. Two years ago I had a similar situation and had to accept work at a junior college--well, where I live they are technical colleges (so you have a mixture of college transfer kids and welders, electricians, etc. in your classes). It was a difficult adjustment. You are right--they are not the same students as you get at an R1. But, I was very lucky. When I looked a little closer at my students I began to see them (at least enough of them to make my time worthwhile) as very hard working (if disadvantaged and a little undereducated) people trying to carve out a better life for themselves after the textile mill closed or after their kids got old enough that the parents could get time for classes--and I liked them and in return they liked me back and we got along fine. I still have a high attrition rate in my classes (mostly the very young, immature students--I imagine your BK burger eaters--who can't hack my class--I'm pretty demanding by junior college standards), but I have also found a core of students who really want to better themselves and learn. And, this experience has made me a much, much better teacher--a skill that is perhaps not as valued at R1 institutions as it should be, but one pretty desirable one step down where many of us are going to end up in this market. I really think that as long as you look into the overhead projector light you are going to be miserable and you aren't going to get anything out of it at all--so it will continue to be a waste of your time. If it were me, I'd look a little closer, find a core in the class I could connect with and teach, find methods of getting the material across in a way they could understand (maybe reading your power point notes is not so effective--I'd be bored in such a class), and I'd take something away from the experience. If you don't find a way to get through it without disgust and bitterness, that will come through in every interview you have after. And, it doesn't do you any good to live that way, either. Look at the junior college as one more challenge--like jumping through the hoops in graduate school. This job, like any other, will only be what you make of it.
• The above conversation is fascinating, and I have nothing substantive to add to it. Let me affirm that we academics are dumbshits, though. I am profoundly thankful that I kept my skills for my backup plan semi-active, and was able to get a non academic job earning 227% what I was making as a lecturer. I still dream of a decent tenure-track job, but at least I have a decent salary as a palliative until then. The first thing I tell people thinking about grad school: DON'T. The second thing: IF YOU DO, DON'T TAKE OUT LOANS. The third: KEEP AN ACTIVE BACKUP PLAN. My other consolation, at not getting that R1 job this year? At least I don't need to exploit any grad students. The saddest thing about me personally? I do really believe that academia is basically a pyramid scheme - and I still want to be in on it. Am I just a little Madoff?

• Joplin?
• Well done. I hope you submitted this to Rate Your Students (http://rateyourstudents.blogspot.com/)
• Dear Poster: Ok, the lying to you sucks.  I'm sorry; no one deserves that.  However, you attitude towards the Midwest, the students, and small towns, and your apparent unconcern to distinguish the Midwest, dialectally, from the South (yourn is Southern, not Midwestern) makes it pretty clear to me why you didn't get offered the position.If you show up to sneer, you're going to be sent back to whichever coast you came from.  Love, Raised in the Midwest, Teaching in Appalachia, Love 'Em Both.

• My sympathies, but you should consider yourself VERY lucky to have landed 3 interviews as an ABD. Most folks I know, who have been out with a PhD for years (with publications, teaching, etc.) got NO interviews. I know it's a bummer now, but you'll have much more experience for next year.
• The previous poster is dead-on. I don't mean to be (as Jon Stewart might say) dickish, but if an ABD is getting hired over a candidate with publications (particularly a book) and post-Ph.D. teaching, this strikes me as a far bigger problem with the market. Yes, I have a horse in this race, but as a general issue I find the fetishization of "promise" and "freshness" by search committees to be silly at best, and reflective of some serious insecurity and/or lack of imagination at worst.
• ^^^I understand the concern, if this is in fact a general problem, but it sounds like this poster just gave you three fairly clear examples in which freshness wasn't fetishized. And isn't it possible that, in individual cases, the ABD might actually be a better candidate than someone who happens to have a book? (Maybe I'm just reacting to the fetishization of monographs here, but I hope my point seems fair.)
• Well, it really depends upon the position. I mean, I think the "fetishization of monographs" doesn't come from job seekers, it comes from most tenure committees. If these are teaching universities that are rejecting the original poster, that's one story. If they're research based jobs (at all), then that's another story. I personally think that publications shouldn't be such a huge factor, but I'm not on a tenure committee, and schools want to hire somebody they think can succeed. Also, I think three interviews as an ABD is amazing. Work on getting publications out the door. As many as you can. Then you'll be an even stronger candidate.
• Three campus interviews! For my part, I had as many interviews this year as I had books published this year. Hint: the number was not zero in either case. Don't believe that publications will help you - search committees want what they want when they want it, and nothing else.
• I totally agree with the poster directly above. But, I'll add to it that this year there is a frenzy of let's get the best degreed candidate we can because the market allows us to interview people who in a normal year wouldn't even look at us. At one campus interview one of the SC members actually pulled me aside to tell me that while the SC was very impressed with me, their other candidates were from more impressive institutions and would look better on the books(my degree is from a state school--flagship, but nonetheless a state school) (I will mention that while I am a new graduate, I do have a book contract already with a good academic press). I have always found the "best degree" mentality very interesting. The best degree does not mean someone is a good fit for a department or school. The last couple of years I have been adjuncting at a teaching school (not a research institution) and have seen "the best degrees" pass through, canceling a third of their class meetings (or more) in a year so that they can travel around interviewing at other places in an effort to "get the hell out." That's not always the case, but often those of us with the best degrees feel entitled to a 2-2 load and a research budget at a school with students scoring above 22 or 23 on the ACT and located on one of the coasts. And that's just not the real world for most of the schools out there. I must admit that there is some bitterness this year in having my stellar teaching evaluations, book contract, six years of university teaching experience, and hard work overlooked simply because the economy makes it easier for departments to get a "better degree" than mine. But, I'll be really interested to see how many of those better degrees stay put at the University of "State" at "small, insignificant branch town/not main campus" once a few more jobs open up!
• Well, I have one of those "best degrees", I've published (with more in the pipeline), and I've taught at good places. All of this has produced, out of 60 applications over the last few years, one AHA interview, and it wasn't even in my subfield. So apparently publications don't help, teaching doesn't help, and having a "best degree" doesn't help. Of course, it's quite possible that my degree is only semi-best--hires in my subfield this year are going exclusively to the Ivy-covered, it seems...
• That's exactly what I was talking about. One of the jobs I interviewed for was first offered to an ABD from an Ivy school (who turned it down) and was ultimately accepted by another Ivy Leaguer (who, to his credit does have a book out and has a year of teaching experience at a rather elite little college on the East Coast). Maybe I'm wrong--I have never met the person who took the job, but I really have to wonder how he will like teaching four classes a semester and holding 6 office hours a week with no research budget in the middle of nowhere. But, maybe that is good because maybe he'll leave and the job will be open again and the search committee will be more interested in credentials other than Ivy League degree.
• If they're telling you that you're their second pick, then you don't need to worry that it's a personality issue. SCs are far more notorious for ignoring and casting aside those who they don't pick, so when they actually make an effort to keep your spirits up, you should feel good about how well you interview. It sucks to come #2, but don't let it get you down

• (first poster) Thanks, new poster, for the sage advice and kind words. I wish you all the best as well. I can imagine how hard it must be for you and your spouse to be in the run-up to several TT positions only to see the dream fade. I've been having so-so days and bad days, but now I'm trying to just focus on publishing. My level of resentment for the job search process remains unabated though. Is this what we're all doomed to become eventually when we finally get to be in a position to crush underlings?

• Hang in there. Certainly some of the senior faculty have become jaded and evil and seek to crush underlings, but the majority of them are just academics (Let me define academics for you--People with poor manners and deep, riveting insecurities who have learned through dealing with corrupt university administrators to practice the CYA way of doing business and thus sit silently while injustices occur rather than risking themselves or their positions.). I think that too many academics simply get caught up in the profession--they put off getting married and having kids and enjoying the real pleasures of life (which are usually found outside of the university)and thus find joy only in besting a colleague or winning some award that no one will remember in a month's time. And, when you think about it, what real compensation does the profession offer? The pay is low, regular people think of professors as snooty and overeducated, and to get anywhere you really do often have to fight for it with your claws. So, if you don't want to be like that, don't. Have a life outside, something that makes you happy--the kind of happy that doesn't fade when your book is no longer used in someone's classroom or when you retire (which ultimately everyone has to). Grow something more important in your life that will serve to give you perspective when dealing with all the ninnies at work.

• I don't think my case is illegal, but I'm considering dropping two of the three members of my committee out of sheer hatred. I had a campus visit for a job at a rural school that I really really liked. I liked the faculty, I liked everything about it, and I felt I would be able to carve out a place for myself there. Then, right after their visits ended, at the time this school would be calling references in anticipation of deciding on an offer, my committee members started sending me these freakout e-mails, saying "there's no way I'd sign off on your dissertation this year, you only have chapters 1, 3, 4, and 5" and (I paraphrase) "you idiot, no one ever thought you were supposed to finish this year; you can't take a job." Yes, and why exactly were you congratulating me three weeks ago when I got the campus visit? Why did you write the f'ing rec letters in the first place? Would you be singing a different song if this was a 2/2 R1 school? It's basically a stonewall of "even if you get this job, we'll be assholes because we think it's beneath this department to place you there." And I can't stop wondering if they sold me out to the SC when they were checking references, saying "oh, this person won't finish the diss! probably just lying to you." thereby trashing my reputation. I hate this so much. Yeah, I know some people will call me lucky for getting a visit at all, but believe me, it sucks, having to continue to work with these people who think being stepped on by them as a grad student is preferable to being in a TT position in my field, with colleagues I like.

(new poster). I had to respond after reading this first poster's comment. I agree with the second poster that you can't be doing things like trying to hack into the search committee's e-mail accounts. This is illegal and could result in serious repercussions for you. Even worse, you shouldn't be admitting to it on this public wiki. It's not that hard to trace these Wiki postings, and your actions could be discovered. It's bad enough not to get one job that you wanted, but you wouldn't want to get the kind of reputation that would prevent you from getting any future jobs as well (believe me, I have been on both sides of the process, and there are a few of those kinds of candidates). A word to the wise.

• I'm the first poster. I should clarify that my irrational outburst was a short-lived and quite harmless affair. I'm no hacker, and as I said, I was very ashamed to have entertained this fantasy. The poster directly above me is quite right in pointing out the folly of the action and my naivety in admitting to it here. I supppose "venting" has its limits in a public wiki. To set the record straight, I strongly condemn any illegal activity of that sort. The sense of powerlessness and futility that the job search process brings on demands stamina and maturity, both of which I'm obviously still working on.

• That sucks! I've heard many apocryphal stories of internal candidates having the handicap of "familiarity" to overcome. SC often act like junkies for novelty, at the expense of the loyal local helot slaving away in the gallows of the Department. I feel your pain, having been at the receiving end of stinging betrayal when a position that was OFFERED to me failed to materialize when I made the mistake of inquiring about job prospects for my spouse in the two-bit town (not even the university itself). I never knew until recently that academia is populated largely by foam-at-the-mouth troglodytes.
• I have more respect for a pig than I do for most SC. At least a pig will let you know whether or not it likes you.
• 4/3/09 My husband took a job (TT) in a small, Southern city 8 years ago. I was working on my Ph.D. then and the chair promised that as soon as I finished there would be a job for me. For six years I adjuncted (sometimes full time, sometimes part time), teaching some of the worst classes and at the worst places (this school has a campus at a military base some miles away where I taught weekend and evening classes as part of my load,which in itself was not so bad as soldiers are great students but which required me to go through checkpoints and have my car searched every time I went to class). My teaching evaluations were among the best in the department and my peer evaluations were also excellent. The year I finished my Ph.D., two tenure track positions opened up in my field in the department. Despite the new chair's obvious attempts to sabotage my candidacy (he would not allow me to use any of my teaching or faculty evaluations, two of my letters of recommendation came up missing after having been logged in--one of them was my advisor's letter and he was out of the country on a Fulbright, I was advised I had 24 hours to get the letters in the file, my "class lecture" was scheduled for the last day of regular classes before finals when many SC members could not attend, the Dean blew off my scheduled interview and the secretary called around to find "anyone" who could meet with me, the chair advised the SC that since my husband works at the school it would be nepotism if I were to be hired, etc.), the SC sent my name up for both positions. One of the SC members called to congratulate me on getting the job! But, I did not get the job. The chair gave one position to a person who had gotten their BA and MA at the school (and got the Ph.D. at the lowest ranked history department in the country) and the other to an outside person whom the committee had not named. I went through the channels as directed by HR and for my troubles got blacklisted by the chair who has not given me a single class since. Last year there were 2 one year fixed term positions--he gave one to a person with only an MA (who by his own admission can not get to class on time because it conflicts with his kids' school schedule) and the other to another adjunct in the department whose teaching evaluations are so low that the undergraduate coordinator told her she would never get hired anywhere until she brought them up. Academia is a bad, bad place.
• @last poster: whenever I think I've heard the worst story in academia someone manages to "best" it. Your story should be added to the annals of academic nightmares. I am truly sorry to hear about the underhanded way in which you've been treated. I can't think of any other upper-tier profession where collusion, duplicity, secrecy, betrayal and rabid competition are given so much free rein.
• Thank you for the kindness. I'm embarrassed because it was a year ago and I'm still struggling to get over it. But, it really is hard--especially when the job market has trapped us here.

• This indeed sounds a bit odd, since I applied to one of the largest recruiting firms (I'll just say the one I applied to is in Boston - Carney Sandoe) and they accepted my candidacy right away. I had recently earned my Phd and only had adjunct and graduate school teaching experience, although I did a bit of substitute teaching (but just a few days). So, I would question why your candidacy was declined. They have been great to me, in the sense of sending me a lot of openings... But it is a tough market even there!
• As a former administrator at an independent middle school, I would suggest applying directly to the schools. Also, it's very easy to get a provisional state teaching license once you land a job. If you like teaching kids, you take the requisite education courses. If you don't, you have three years to decide.

• Yep, it sucks for lots of us. I have a top-notch Ph.D., have taught at some great places, and have two books to my credit. I've applied now for over sixty jobs in field, and probably a dozen in academic advising, admin, and the like, over the past three years. I've never had a campus interview, not once. My mentors profess bafflement at this state of affairs, which leaves me wondering whether they're clueless, I'm a loser, or the universe is cruel. Likely a combination of all three. The difference, however, is that you'll almost certainly be hired next time around (if not this one), given your field (amply supported by private and public dollars) and your youth. Besides, if you can't find an academic job, you have a good chance to land something in the non-profit or for-profit sector. I'm over forty, with a wife and kids, in a less-than-hot subdiscipline of history--not a recipe for success, even when the recession o'death isn't upon us.
• Addendum: At 3:04 pm I got a job offer from U of "Upper South" with all the financial details, teaching details, perks, etc. So, three hours of crying ended with a celebration dinner at our local favorite restaurant. By the way, I'm not so young- 45- and wonder if that has hurt me. But, I got lucky. Very very lucky.

• I'm in the same position. I really loved the school and all the folks there, but I doubt if I'll be able to do many dinners and social things with them for my first year. The budget crisis strikes even after you get the offer! They tell me that things might get better next year. Good luck!

• Sorry that it was such a bad experience. Could you email another professor from the school, maybe someone you made a connection with? At the very least, they can offer some feedback on your job talk/teaching presentation.
• I'm sorry you had such a cold reception during your campus visit -- that really stinks. Unfortunately, a lot of schools have policies that prevent them from giving you any more information about your candidacy, even after everything is done. University HR departments really fear being sued by an applicant who didn't get the job, and so they go overboard enforcing the Wall Of Silence. It seems as though that's the most likely situation you're in right now. If you're really worrying about your interviewing skills, you might consider setting up mock-interviews/job talks/etc. with faculty at your home institution, if you haven't already.
• If you could tell they already 'had their pick,' as you put it, when you got there, then it sounds like you can't really make any assumptions about your performance. And they can't really (legally) or otherwise give you any helpful feedback. I'd follow Poster #2's suggestions and do a mock interview, job talk, and teaching demo at your home institution (with faculty or your peers) if at all possible.

Update from orig. poster (2009-4-3): Snagged an offer from my first choice of the 5 I applied to ...great program, and I may actually have time to publish. Soooo glad now that I did NOT get an offer from that first place. I am SO very, very thankful, esp given all I've read here.

• Big Big Congrats on getting your first choice! (4/4)

• You're right. Every email scammer can find you, but this very important piece of correspondence can't. Best of luck with your campus visit!

• I wonder why schools do this. I had a flyback in mid-February and have not heard anything since then even though I've emailed the department and the search committee chair. This process has been such a pain in the butt.

• Sorry to hear that you didn't get the news you wanted, and I love the way you broke down the rejection letter! I hope you've gotten a new offer.

• I don't think you're nuts at all. The job market is TERRIBLE, but what's the point in taking a job that makes you feel worse than being unemployed? We have it beaten into us that we are no good without an academic job, but we have a ton of marketable skills that we can transfer to all kinds of jobs. At any rate, you can always adjunct and try again. I had two friends who both landed job offers this year. One of these friends has been on the market for about five years and landed two offers from two of the top liberal arts colleges in the U.S. This person is brilliant but has also been incredibly patient and persistent. Ask yourself what you don't like about the school that you visited. Are there things about that situation you could possibly change if you were offered the job? What are you willing to live with to be a prof? I am teaching at this amazing school for non-traditional students; my colleagues are wonderful (to a person) and the students are often as good as any I have ever had. I never dreamed I would end up teaching at a school like this (we're in an office building, for god's sake) but I love it.
• You can't take a job that will make you miserable. I passed on a TT job last year in favor of a contract system job because the TT job would have made me absolutely miserable. Many of my former colleagues thought I was crazy to not go TT but I had to think about whether or not I could have spent 7 years at the job. And I couldn't. I just couldn't.
• I wonder if we just came back from the same interview, it was totally depressing and horrifying at the same time (and I REALLY want out of my current situtation). Despite this, I wouldn't take the job at Scary U even if they had offered it. I noticed on the wiki someone accepted an offer and all I could think was 'poor sucker, how desparate must they have been?" I don't care how 'crazy' it may seem to turn an offer down, I'm not moving from one bad situtation to a worse one.

• a job is a job. Almost all of my advisors were 4th on an invite list of 3. And they got the job because the other 3 didnt work out. If you get it--be happy!
• Also remember, you are third out of probably 150 applicants! Not a bad place to be!
• One upside to being "low on the list" is that you may be in a better position to exceed expectations during the tenure track. In any case, I would wonder what it all means, like you are doing, but I think once you have tenure, you'll just think of it as a quirky part of your road to career success.
• My wife was called to campus after four previous candidates didn't pan out, or took other jobs. She's now a few months from receiving tenure. In the end, nobody remembers whether you were the "number one" candidate--if they offer you the job, they think you'll do just fine.
• It doesn't matter where you are on the list. Having witnessed several failed searches, I can tell you if they didn't want you, they would not have made an offer; rather, the search would have failed, and they would have started over.

• It's not just you. Or maybe it is, but in that case, it's just us because it's me too.
• I hear ya both. I'm at the point where I feel folks should just reject me faster after a campus visit so that I can get back to my writing.
• I barely read a line and I did not write a full sentence since my last campus visit, three weeks ago. Seriously.
• I really believed that I was a patient person, but I can't take much more of this. I'm waiting on a postdoc and a job decision this week, and I can't function. Yesterday, I went to see Confessions of a Shopaholic, and today I'm playing Lego Star Wars. ugh!
• Me too. I find it so hard to write right now! And the worst thing is that I am not even sure I would REALLY want the job! Ugh. This whole process has left me pretty confused.
• Another day checked off the calendar. Today I goofed off on Faceboook and played more Lego Star Wars. At least I didn't go to the movies. The search committees said that I would hear this week, so tomorrow should be decision day, right? This whole process should be outlawed.

• Maybe after the first week of intense dreams, generally restless sleep, and feeling tired because of the first two

• Thank you! A) It's such a relief to read it's not just me and B) you made me laugh out so loudly that the dog woke up!
• You're welcome. At least -something- that I am writing is working for someone! (Seriously, I rec'd a (surprisingly generous) job offer a couple of days ago, and now I'm onto waiting for the official contract, negotiations, and their confidence that I can finish the diss by August (which I am now working on at a better clip)...it NEVER seems to end!)

• You are so right in principle. Of course, you're assuming that the criteria used are both rational and explicable - which, doubtless, they sometimes are, but not always. Besides, there are lots of reasons which they can't tell you. Like, "we're pale, stale, and male and looking for likewise," or, "we're pale, stale, and male, and looking to diversify," or "you remind the Chair of his/her ex," or "you're intimidatingly smart, and we need someone a little dimmer to feel good about ourselves," or "neither faction got the candidate it wanted - instead, we settled on a compromise candidate." My point is that even if you were offered an explanation for your rejection, it would probably be a rationalization or even an outright deception more often than not. That does nothing to alleviate your frustration, but you're also treating the process with more respect than it deserves. You probably did a great job at your interview - sometimes, when someone says "it's not you, it's me," it's true.
• I am coming to think the biggest problem here is that there are so many candidates and academic jobs aren't exactly rocket science. Probably almost every one of a search committee's AHA interviewees could walk in to their school, do a good job teaching, publish their D down the road, and serve on a committee, and as a result by the time it gets to on-campus every one of the candidiates they invite could do the work well. Unless you wear Bermuda shorts or grope the chair or completely blow your job talk, how are they going to choose between two or three people who could all do the job just fine? "Fit" = "crapshoot," for that simple reason, and sometimes it's for reasons such as diversity etc., but I think it also can just be a fancy term for coin-flipping. If you are getting to the on-campus point there may not BE anything incredibly weak about your presentation that can be critiqued... in fact, if you're making on-campus out of 300 applicants, there may not be ANYTHING wrong with you that could be expressed in any kind of professional language. Maybe it's just that there's too many of us who can knock the ball out of the park in a TT job.

• To support the previous poster's point: a friend who served as an external SC member for a history search this year tried to comfort me (I didn't get an interview) with the observation that ALL of the 160+ appplications were really strong (unlike other years, where there were always some number of clearly substandard applicants). In his opinion, any one of the files he read would have justified an AHA interview. As a result, the SC had the luxury of selecting the crème de la crème long before the campus interview stage. That this might be true, of course, is beyond depressing. What's a person gotta do these days??
• OP, here. I totally agree with y'all, and thanks so much for posting. Even though I've witnessed the arbitrariness of these decisions by committees in my Dept (I'm junior faculty), it's easy to lose that perspective when you're the one in the hot seat. This is me taking a deep breath and not taking it personally...(even though I *do* want to hear about it if I screwed something up and the "fit" is just used as an euphemism...)

• I got a job offer this year and I learned who my on-campus interviewee competitors were, and based on the fairly hefty amount of info I got about them online, the only things that can explain why I was chosen instead of them are 1) they all have horrible interpersonal skills or bombed their talks, or 2) I was a better fit. (I'm pretty sure I was the first choice, too.) Based on credentials and achievement, etc., I could argue that most of them were more accomplished than me. I don't see how any of them would have the jobs they have now if they were jerks, so that possibility seems unlikely. And during my interview I started getting an idea that my study area (which is different from my competitors) was really interesting to the department because they had nobody doing what I do. So as unhelpful as it is to hear it, I really think that fit is a big deal. My current advisor says it is when they search where I am now.
• As someone above points out, it's dangerous to assume search committee rationality, but it's also dangerous to think that a department all agree with each other. One person in the dept might tell you why he didn't like you, but that might just be him, and if you think it's something you could change or address, maybe nobody else cares. Maybe you weren't "a good fit" since somebody who everyone else hates in the department liked you? Or because another candidate went to the same grad school as one of your would-be colleagues? If you really want a reason, study fraternities on one hand, and three year-olds playing on the other, and the average search committee resembles a mix of those two

• I'm in agreement on this one. It would only take ten minutes to send out a general "loved meeting you, we've decided to invite others to campus" e-mail to the non-finalists. If keeping options open is a concern, then the language could reflect this, i.e. "Loved meeting you, we are currently interviewing other individuals, but your candidacy remains active" (or some such). While campus interviewees do all wash out (or take other jobs) on occasion, it's a rare enough occurrence not to warrant a consistent policy of coy silence on the part of search committees.

• Here too. The lack of communication is infuriating. I can't believe the lack of basic civility in this process. We have all put great care into crafting letters for specific institutions, studied up on specific departments, sent out hundreds of pages of material, and traveled (at great financial expense) to the AHAs to meet with committees. The very least, and I do mean the absolute minimally decent thing, search chairs should communicate openly and honestly about the status of positions. I have spent hours (literally hours) talking on the phone and in person with search chairs who called to discuss positions. To not hear from these people is maddening. I am not bitter about campus invites (though it probably sounds like I am), I am disgusted with the lack of civility.

• I feel your pain! What is driving me absolutely loony is the uncertainty of it all. There is that little part of me that wants to believe that since I have not received word about not being chosen for campus visits, perhaps I will be...even though it is incredibly late in the game. I know for sure that one school with which I interviewed has already invited candidates thanks to the Wiki tracking system, but as for the others I prefer to have some hope coupled with uncertainty that is knawing my insides. Arghh... Best of luck to all of you! I would tell you that I hope you all get jobs, but since that's unrealistic, I simply wish that you will all be evaluated fairly throughout the process, which is also unrealistic for some of our candidacies but not for all of them, hopefully.

• OP here. 2/7 and still have heard nothing from any of the conference interviewers. I really can't believe it.

• This isn't confined to faculty searches, either. I was phone-interviewed for a mid-level administrative position at an R-1 in mid-January, and told that the committee would make decisions the next week. My references were contacted the following Monday. Since then, absolutely no contact of any kind. Since the job is supposed to start at the beginning of March, I'm assuming that they've hired someone. Nice of them to let me know.

• They were pushy, you were honest and tried to accommodate them, they didn't treat you like the human being that you are. Sounds like their lack of respect for human dignity, time, and willingness to work with their inflexibility should land them on the "Fear Page" to me...
• I say tell your story. Not the biggest offense, but it sounds lame. Given that most searches are the ultimate responsibility of one and rarely two people, what I dislike about the "Fear Page" is that these kinds of search-related offenses are almost always one person's fault, but a whole department is usually indicted.
• Annoying, but you landed a job--why bother? Did you really want to work in that atmosphere anyway? Don't let it hang you up.
• While I agree with the "you landed a job--why bother" comment above, you seem to have deliberately laid yourself out there as a negative factor in this equation. Each time they asked something of you, however honest, you made it clear that they posed an inconvenience. In this job climate, they probably felt safer going for someone more enthusiastic/desperate/happy to hear from them and gave them a more you-are-my-number-one-school-choice performance. Would you have given the same responses if the call had come from your top tier school?
• I am very curious what school this was and if it was a social studies/history position. I had a campus interview--about 2 weeks before winter break, was told that I would know something in a matter of weeks, and never heard from them again. I sort of figure that the verbal offer has gone to one of the other two candidates, but the contract hasn't been signed and so they aren't officially notifying the other two. Or, maybe they are just jerks who will never bother to send out a rejection letter--or even a rejection email!

• I know I did--and not so long ago. I feel broken inside.
• Thank you for the humor! I was like him, even after I started applying. Boy did that naiveté disappear quickly. I'm surprised I can laugh at it so soon after the fact, especially since most of my interviews have not panned out. But it's like looking back at myself when I was young and realizing just how green and innocent I really was.
• Sounds right! Once doctoral program begins, the psychology goes like this: First year students dream of where they want to work, second year students dream about the better schools advertising openings, third-years dream of getting hired -- and ABD's are just thankful to get an interview -- anywhere. Call it the hierarchy of academic job expectations.

• I hear you. I tired of the "hang in there" pep talks, too. It is exhausting. I can't even muster the little smile and weak thanks anymore. The pep talk literally brings me to tears every single time.

I love teaching and research, but there are days - more of them all the time - when I just *hate* this system.

• So, did you take the corporate job? :-)
• I sure did. See you folks in the funny pages. Fuck academia.
• You're so lucky! Congrats. I wish my fortune were to go this way. Well, back to the grind tomorrow.

• I feel your pain, I'm in the same boat. I too have lost three positions to the dreaded economy... Unfortunately, this is the type of thing that is completely out of our control; though frustrating as hell, nonetheless. All we can do is hang in and continue applying. Unfortunately I have no suggestions to ease your mind. Try to stay positive.

• Well, aren't you smug. I'm about to go up for Full at an R1, and have chaired 3 searches. True, nobody ever promised anyone a job. But I can say with absolute certainty that a) some wonderful people don't place for a variety of reasons, and b) it's about stamina, not brilliance. I can also say that most of us who got Ph.D.s after about 1994 get it and try to be as humane as we can during the process. I was on the market for 5 years; I know someone else who was on for 6 years before ending up at an Ivy. Both of us are at least "respected in our field," as they say -- well published, tenured and on the way to tenure, and doing just fine. But each of us could easily not have gotten our jobs (in my case, the 1st choice didn't want it). If you assume that your success proves that the "meritocracy" works, you are part of the problem. It doesn't, much of the time. So-so people get jobs, even great jobs, then don't get tenure (or do). Great people get bad jobs and can't claw their way out, or get no jobs or quit the market early for personal reasons. The best thing you can do is figure out what your own limits are for time on the market, money spent, kind of job, location, etc., and stick to them -- remembering that there are all kinds of excellent smart people outside of academe and that it is *not* a meritocracy in anyone's view except for the smug, lucky, and oblivious few who do well right off the bat.

• Before venting against your anti-venting vent, let me first say that I have no doubt that you are every bit as qualified as you say. In response, I can only say this: literally everything you say about your qualifications is true about me, plus some, and I'm not having your success. My vita compares favorably with that of many *senior* candidates at a research search I sat in in; if "objective" research or teaching was the main criteria, I'd certainly make the top ten of most job searches. But you know what? Anything like "objective" evaluation of research did not take place in that senior-level search; several of the "best" researchers made the cut, and quite a few didn't. Some really smart people made the final cut and, bluntly, so did a couple nimrods with a great pedigrees but mediocre work. I don't doubt that you're very good, but you're also lucky (or charming, or have particularly great connections, or whatever). Good for you! But don't be under any illusions about "the fruits of your labor." You're not the only one who has performed those labors, and it's not working out so well for all of us. Enjoy your success, but you might show a little humility while you're at it. I enjoyed your condescending lecture about how the rest of us need to show less condescension, by the way. Seriously - reread that and think it over a little. FWIW, I'd probably be just as cocky as you if I was having a great year - but you ought to reflect a little on your good fortune as well your accomplishments.

• We all know that searches -- any kind of evaluations, really -- are never entirely free of bias. Different teachers give different grades for the same work, etc. I've been on both sides of searches, and it goes without saying that we passed up many, many good people. But this claim that your dossier is "objectively" just as good as those who got interviews and offers just doesn't wash. It reminds me of the B student who comes in to your office, claiming that he or she "knows" their work is just as good as those who received As, but you just didn't "like" them (not as charming, not as well-connected). In other words, the student blames the teacher or the system, rather than herself. We've all seen this, and we all know why it's not right -- at least not nearly as right as the jilted student likes to think it is. We've all been passed over during the application process, and we all empathize when this happens. But if it happens on a consistent basis, where you are sending out 20 applications and getting no bites, then there is something "objectively" wrong with your dossier or demeanor. After all, what is objectivity? It's basically a situation when the majority of people in a group achieve consensus about something. But if you are doing "good" research that nobody in your discipline seems to thinks is good enough, then is it really that all that good? I just can't help feeling that the claim "my research and teaching is good enough to make the top ten in most searches" even though you've never made the top ten in most searches is, quite frankly, wrong. Objectively wrong. It reminds me of the Steely Dan lyrics: "You've been telling me you're a genius since you were seventeen. And all the time I've known you, I still don't know what you mean." I'll add one more comment. I looked for jobs last year and got a couple conference/phone interviews, one campus interview, but no offers. Basically, it was a bust. This year, I'm batting around 90% for applications/interviews. Why the difference in outcomes? It's not that my research or teaching is any different. I realize now that my problem last year was that I wasn't framing my research properly, in a way that others in the discipline could understand and appreciate. Since I've fixed this problem, all has been well. But this was entirely my fault, not somebody else's. And I guess that's my point.

• Steely Dan? Are you kidding? Not only are you sanctimonious, but you have horrible, horrible taste. Go tell it to your adoring students, blow hard.

• What you're doing, though, is disproving your ostensible point (assuming that you're the original poster). It's not about research or teaching; it's about a couple paragraphs in your letter. That strikes me, in fact, as something worth venting about. Maybe I'm not "objectively" in the top ten anywhere - and really, there is no such beast; every department has unique needs, which I can't fully understand from the outside. But I am tenurable (anywhere except maybe the top 10-20; I might have issues at some of them, depending) 2 years after getting my PhD; that much is objective fact. I also wish that good teachers (all of you suffering adjuncts out there) were rewarded instead of endlessly exploited. Very likely my problem is the same as yours, and if/when I frame my work correctly the interviews will flood in. But I don't need to pretend that I like that those few paragraphs (which everyone seems to think are good - it's not like I haven't tried!) count for more than my publications, to say nothing of my teaching evaluations (which none of my 3 interviews or 5 dossier requests wanted this year!).

• (new poster) Isn't the whole reason we vent--about anything--is because we have no control over the situation? Otherwise, why vent? Thus, if venting is to express frustration over that which we have no control, then venting about SOME job search related items is valid (e.g., internal candidates; stupid search committees; rude faculty). On the other hand, venting about things we do have control over (e.g., statements of teaching philosophy; future direction of research; student evaluations [to a degree]) does appear to be whining. Admittedly there is a gray zone (e.g., are faculty stupid and therefore blind to your brilliance or did you not communicate your brilliance as effectively as you should have?), but venting has a place. So, to the original poster I say, there is a place for venting, but to the second poster I say, there are limits to venting as well. As with any human endeavor, hiring faculty is inherently error-prone, and that error falls on both sides of the equation--with applicants and search committees alike. Vent on against the uncontrollable errors and be vigilant against the controllable ones!

• Dearest anti-venter: you might not enjoy the acumen you claim. A solid graduate education and the texts we study and teach involve serious engagement with the unfairness of our social system. In case you haven't noticed, the economy has tanked. Search committees have noticed, and have canceled searches left and right. Who gets the jobs that are left? Does the status quo somehow not dominate our market, alone of all markets in the US? Maybe. Probably not.

• Okay. So if someone is really really good, they'll rise to the top eventually. I believe that's true (at least I hope it's true)! But here's my current problem: I've been told I'm a top student in my department, I've got well-received publications, I've won some fairly prestigious awards, I'm doing all the right things and so forth. But I'm not submitting till this spring, which means that right now, I'm on the job market competing with folks who not only have their Ph.Ds already, but who, in many cases, have spent the last few years doing prestigious postdocs, working as assistant professors, publishing their finished dissertations as books, etc. So it's one thing to say that if you just do everything "right," you'll be fine... But what can a current Ph.D. student, however "good," possibly do to compete with someone equally "good" who has already been out of graduate school for several years? How do you get your foot in the door for that first position? That's the question that's stressing me out right now...

• To the ABD above: actually , it really depends on what kind of job/institution you apply to. Based on anecdotal evidence, I have noticed many ABDs getting many interviews and even offers, based on that vague notion- "potential." Phds who have been out for 5 years may(and it is "may") get overlooked because their output does not correlate to the years they have been post-Phd. I am telling you - of all the jobs advertised last year in my field, I have checked the hire and they are people who received the phd in spring 2008, meaning they were ABD when interviewing. Of course, some of them do have good articles to support the idea of "potential." To not generalize, I will say that I have also noticed some institituions (mostly ones that have a 4/4 teaching load, are non-traditional in some way etc.) hire someone who has been out a long while (sometimes longer than 5 years. In that way, you are correct, the market is saturated and forcing people to wait longer and longer for the "permanent" position.

Dear all:

the anti-venter's vent against venters is so wrongheaded, ignorant, and potentially misleading, I feel it's important that we all weigh in against this post. Let me start. And first, for the benefit of the original anti-venter, who seems to think that anyone on the venting page is an academic loser, and thus whiner, let me offer a brief preface: I already have a job - previously I taught at one of the most highly ranked liberal arts colleges, and just jumped to a top R1 university - and so my thoughts cannot be dismissed as some embittered academic failure. I use wikia to post any inside info I know about ongoing searches in my field, and also, just to see how people are doing on the market. Let me say I think the venting page is a great place to cultivate community and work against the dehumanization of the search process. And I think the anti-venter's comments are toxic to this. His/her comments are not actually constructive - they merely say, if you can't get any interviews, your work is "objectively" bad, and you should call it a day. His or her comments are more in the "bragging" category, but the reason we don't have a bragging page, and only a venting page is that ours is a quite tough profession, and success is "objectively" very rare.

Let me assume that the anti-venter works in the humanities. If this is so, anti-venter, you are truly out of your mind. It's well-known in the humanities that job searches are incredibly random, arbitrary, and not necessarily correlated to quality of work. Given the overwhelming number of applicants for jobs, it often comes down to (as one poster above calls it) 2 paragraphs on a JL that I find hard to believe can represent one's real quality of work. anti-venter, you seem to like a kind of pseudo-empiricism, so let me offer some examples that everyone in the academy can relate to. I graduated from a top Ivy R1 school: of our last five hires, four of them had been on the market for 5 years. for those five years, most of them received 2-3 and often 0 interviews or job talks. then, suddenly, a job offer from this school. how do you explain this? they "learned" how to better present their work in the JL and writing sample? no actually not. they used, more or less, the SAME materials for each job search year. anyone who has been in grad school has these kinds of stories. they indicate, sad to say, the market in the humanities is indeed often quite random and imprecise, and hardly representative of some "objective" ideal.

the anti-venter, in my view, seems to have some kind of deep, uncritical faith in our profession based on one good year on the market, which to me portrays a deep naivete. again, anyone who follows his or her field knows the various random and often silly tides of trends and intellectual fashions that shape our field and job markets. often these work directly against quality work as they are most based on JL soundbites and not substantive work. take a look at the best people in your field. in my case, often these best people started out at crappy jobs or couldn't get a job at all. it's precisely because they were doing actually pioneering work they suffered on the market, which rewards more often than not, conforming to academic trends rather than pushing a new program. my point is that scholarship and job market success do not always line up, and is a reason for those who struggle on the market to persevere even if you can't get a good job initially. this point to me is so obvious that again I am totally shocked and bewildered by the anti-venter's comments which strike me as profoundly foolish.

the anti-venter's favored analogy - the student getting a B and complaining about it - seems to give him or her away. good lord, we all know grades are stupid and arbitrary and no measurement of real intellectual ability, so why use this as a kind of metaphor to describe the market? my dear anti-venter, I am sorry, but I failed lit and history in high school and got C's in college in my current discipline, and am now teaching at one of the best universities in the country. indeed, I was not an "objectively" good student in my field in college, and yet somehow here I am. perhaps sometimes the various systems we work within and its so-called objective standards are not always the true measure of ability and quality of work. Is this really how you see academe and intellectual work? like trying to get an A in college and then congratulating yourself if you do (and then scolding those who don't and question whether grades are the best way to evaluate a student's work?)

my dear anti-venter, I actually worry for you. your above comments reek of a blind arrogance, condescension, and lack of humility, they show a real profound contempt for your colleagues, and all based on one lucky year on the market (and believe me, anyone who has studied the market or lived through it for more than 1 year knows there are lucky and unlucky years based on the field, your subfield, and so forth. I consider myself as one who has won the lottery). Truly, I worry about your performances during your interviews and job talks. I would strongly urge you to suppress all of your feelings of superiority and condescension because, while you seem to think there are "winners" and "losers" in the job market, (and you of course are a 'winner') the truth is there are no easy distinctions and the market is utterly random. You seem to think that those who will interview you will share your belief in how the market works, but the reality is that most, even those who have the best jobs, will identify with the genuine frustration and feelings of defeat most of us feel or have felt on the venting page. And so your current attitude will not fare you well on the interview side of things. To borrow your definition of "objectivity," I'd say I speak for everyone on this page by saying I think you are "objectively" a bit of jerk based on your above posts. And we are your colleagues, and so for your sake, I hope the hiring committees do not share our "objective" sense of disapproval and annoyance with your thoughts.

• Thank you for this. I'd like you for a colleague!
• The Anti-venter’s tone is condescending and my first reaction to his/her post was to think about how wrong it was, but after re-reading it, I think it is partly true but really unhelpful to anyone currently trying to get a TT job. S/he speaks to the things we have varying degrees of control over (dissertation topic, teaching effort), and gives some pretty lame advice about them (or explanations for failure) that basically translates into “play the game better than everybody else, and...you’ll win the game.” But the post is totally dishonest for ignoring all of what we have little or no control over: things we don’t/can’t know about our grad program, advisors, or peers before we matriculate; being scooped; weather (for people who do outdoor research); personal tragedies (deaths, divorces) that make it impossible to perform at our best at the most important times; the types of schools that have openings when we need one; the types of openings that those schools have; the research interests of the faculty at those places; the personalities of those faculty; inside applicants...the economy...Bernie Madoff (I’ve heard some universities were vested with him). And there are many more, of course. These are the kinds of things I think people mostly want to vent about here, and it helps a lot of people to read those vents because its relieving to know that the process of continually failing to win a tenure-track job is not entirely a personal one, because it often seems that way, and that becomes tiresome, if not maddening and dehumanizing. I made it through the gauntlet this year (my second year trying) and I have been offered a TT job at a place I really want to be. I didn’t do my best with the parts of my career I've had control over (pubs, grants), but I still looked OK on paper and I am qualified, but so were 30 or 40 of the other applicants, I’m sure. I looked up the other people that were interviewed—they were hot stuff and some of their CVs were better than mine. So I'm surprised I got the job and they didn't. But what is much, much more difficult for me to fathom is how many things that were out of my control that went my way at just the right time. This must be what it feels like to win the lottery. My experience has led me to think that much crueler than being judged as not good enough by a search committee (which I was many times before I got an offer) is the cruelty of having so little control over the outcome of the process. So to me, the Anti-venter is deluded for his/her focus on that which we control.
• Original poster: "First, write an interesting and important dissertation, one that is polished enough that it can be sent directly to the publishers when you're done. If you do this, your dissertation will garner some awards, and you'll get a contract within the first couple of years." Come ON. Whose dissertation is so polished that you can send it directly to the publishers? Very, very few people in the humanities, I would think. I'm not sure what field you're in, but while many of my friends/colleagues have great diss. topics, and are now in T-T jobs, they are still going through the agonizing process of editing and revising their dissertations. I have just been offered a t-t job, much to my extreme surprise. And while I think my diss, which I finished in summer 2008, is interesting, there's no way in hell that I would want to send it to a publisher as is. Perhaps I'm in the minority. But let's not pile even more unrealistic expectations upon grad students struggling to finish their dissertations, ok? Sometimes the most important thing about a dissertation is that it's DONE!
• 1/14/09--I wanted to respond to the above post--yes, getting it done is the most important thing. But, people shouldn't sell their dissertations short either. Sending a dissertation to a publisher can result in valuable (and free) feedback on what needs to be fixed--it's a totally different world from academia. And, you might get a contract. Five weeks after I defended my dissertation I had a signed contract with a really good, solid academic press. And I want to mention I did NOT come out of a great school or program, I had no "ins" with a publisher, nothing. I sent my proposal and then dissertation "cold."

• While I agree that the original poster's views on this are absurdly simplistic, let me just point out a couple of things that ultimately lead me to agree with the anti-venter's basic approach to the market. I've been on both sides of the academic job search. I had one very successful year as a candidate with multiple campus interviews. And now I'm serving on a search committee to hire a new TT colleague. I guarantee you that the search process is not entirely random. Some things make a huge difference. You may think it’s silly, but a well crafted cover letter really makes a difference to a committee that has dozens, if not hundreds, of applications to look at. The poorly crafted ones stick out. And I’ve seen people who have been on the market unsuccessfully for years turning in cover letters that aren’t clear and succinct. Some people just don’t seem to get it. Furthermore, your ability to verbalize all of your ideas in a sharp, convincing way in the initial interviews is huge. And that takes LOTS of practice. Your letters of recommendation also make a huge difference. How can you be certain that the process is basically “random” if you can’t see what kind of letters your writers are turning in on your behalf? After this, your personality and demeanor are huge factors. These departments are potentially hiring you for 30 years. They don’t want to work with someone who is difficult or a jerk. I’ve seen candidates basically disqualified simply for being rude. You may think that’s unfair, but you’re not the person who has to work with the jerks. Jerks are really bad for departments in the long run. Now, that said, it is undeniable that the academic job market, particularly for the youngest TT candidates, is extremely inefficient. Candidates fresh from grad school simply cannot have enough of a track record for this to be an efficient, purely merit-based system (as if such a system could ever exist). I think it gets better for senior candidates, but the fact is that there are lots of things you can’t control because it’s expected that freshly minted PhDs can’t necessarily be expected to have a lot (or any, depending on the field) publications when they hit the market. This means that just because you have a lot of publications, doesn’t mean you’re automatically a better candidate in the minds of committee members, especially if there is another candidate (with fewer or no publications) whose work seems to be a better fit for the position. It’s EXPECTED (at least in my field) that some candidates will have few or no publications. So having them is a bonus, but it won’t make you a better “fit” necessarily for that job, especially when committee members know that a lack of publications at the beginning does not necessarily mean much in the long run. And that brings me to the last point—it’s almost impossible to predict what EXACTLY a search committee is looking for. Their criteria will be based on a host of factors related to the inner workings of their department that you most likely cannot be privy to. So while these factors aren’t completely “random” when they play out they appear to be “random” to candidates who believe they have the best CV or whatever it might be. So while I think the first poster has a naïve view of how this works, you might as well think about it the way s/he does because this will lead you to reconsider how you’ve written your cover letters, and reconsider how your present your work, and reconsider everything else about how you present yourself on the market. And by constantly working on those things, you’re in a much better position to come out on top in those areas that you can control. If you just assume it’s random and continue to present yourself in the same way, you might “win the lottery” at some point, but you might also be overlooking the fact that you aren’t presenting yourself in the best possible way.

• I share your frustration, but athletic funds come from the revenues generated by sporting events and money contributed by donors. In other words, academic funding and athlectic funding come from separate pots. Unfortunately, football fans are willing to pay thousands to watch Chase Daniel throw touchdown passes, but they don't really care to watch you teach. That's life, as much as it seems unfair and irrational.

• It's totally a country club, in the humanities at least. The degree to which so much scholarship is based on Marxian expositions of unfairness is a joke. The children of the upper 1% educate the children of the upper 33%. Just look at the affirmative action cards schools request you to fill out. That there's no box to check for the degree of financial comfort or discomfort in which the candidate grew up couldn't be more ironic.
• Of course there are exceptions. There always are. Power and its perpetuation wouldn't seem as plausible if there weren't exceptions.

• It's incredibly discouraging, too, to put so much effort into prepping materials in addition to teaching and writing, only to have multiple jobs, especially ones you feel you have a shot at getting your foot in the door, be canceled. It's like, how am I supposed to maintain focus on my work when even the job opportunities that are long shots are nixed and when, in short, I'm facing joblessness and student loan payments in the midst of a global economic crisis? Ugh.
• can I add: cost of postage + cost of mailing dossiers + cost of transcripts = not an unsubstantial sum of money
• I agree with these statements. I entered grad school in the time of a recession and now I'm entering the job market in even worse of a recession. I feel the 'Ugh' along with many expletives. I hate the anxiety that comes along with these job apps and not knowing where you stand in the application process when no feedback is given...bleepin' arrrgh!
• What I hate are the ones that insist you send a writing sample and then send you a rejection letter before they could even have received it!

• Add them to the "schools to fear" wiki. Giving them a bad reputation the only weapon we have.

http://academicjobs.wikia.com/wiki/Universities_to_fear

• While it pisses me off that they took forever to get back to me, I don't think that the actions of this particular search committee should be used to represent the university, or even the department. Plus, if everyone put a department on that page just because they took a ridiculously long time to inform them about the results of a search, the page would be full within a couple of weeks. Just something to remember when I am in the position to be sending out the letters.
• I meant to add them to the "fear" list because it sounds like they were rude, not because they took so long. Most schools take forever to get back to you, but they don't need to be nasty about it.
• Even after accepting, these frustrations can happen: e.g. with getting a contract, to be sent after a background check I wasn't informed of, for which there was paperwork needed to be filled out that I wasn't aware of (never had one done before--how should I know what the place needs?) until I had to ask where the contract was. Maybe it's institutional inefficiency, but it's also not very welcoming.

I'm with ya! During my campus visit the SC went on about how great the competition was within the first 20 mins of meeting me. OK, thanks for wasting my time and making me feel LAME. They seemed to warm up to me during my visit, then silence. 2 months and counting. I'm cool with it because I landed my dream job! However, I think it is disrespectful not to inform the candidates about the search periodically. I suspect they are just protecting themselves if a candidate backs out. My take is that SILENCE=NO OFFER. My opinion of them is very low right now. And, you know, OUR opinion of THEM counts for something. Oh yeah, I bought my flight 3 months ago and not a penny.

• I assume that they still don't have a contract signed for their new hire, so they're covering their butts. What I don't understand is why they think ignoring us and stringing us along like this is going to somehow keep us in reserve and not piss us off. The only reason not to tell candidates before the contract is signed is that they might need to go to their second choice should the deal fall through with first choice. But after three months of string-along, if a school came to me with an offer, I'd tell them to bite me.
• I sent out 25 applications this year. To date, I've received five rejection letters or e-mails. Considering that I wasn't even interviewed for any of these jobs, and that almost all of the positions have been filled (according to the wiki), the 20% response rate goes beyond pathetic.
• Howdy, venters. It's me again - the same person who started this thread. I'm just checking back in to report TWO MORE MONTHS OF SILENCE from the unnamed school. That's more than four months after my on-campus interview.

Dear Search Committee:

for Christ's sake, call me already, would ya?

We had a wonderful time together: a terrific interview; I loved you and you loved me. But things have changed. Where my mind was once full with a calm and mildly smug certainty that you would hire me, it is now full of doubt and the products of a wild imagination. Indeed, while waiting for your call over the past five weeks, some unhealthy things have happened to our relationship. The fact of the matter is that I cannot stop imagining you all (as in the search committee)-- I can't stop imagining you all in loincloths, grunting and jumping around a fluorescent-lit undergraduate classroom with large cucumbers lodged in your rear ends. I imagine you like this constantly now, as if you were engaged in some sort of primal process to decide upon a candidate.

So, could give me a call? I believe it would do wonders for the unhealthy landscape of my imagination, and possibly even more for your long-term kharma.

Sincerely,

your loving candidate

P.S. if you do call tomorrow with an offer, please disregard the above.

• Dear Candidate,

We did have a wonderful time and we have been thinking about you recently. However, we have been seeing a few people and are not ready just yet to settle down. I know its hard to know that we are not being faithful, but unfortunately, there is not much you can do about it. Even on a weekend night when you haven't made any plans hoping we'll call, we're going to leave you sitting by the phone, staring into the greying twilight. But you'll wait... we know. Its just that we have a lot of options and can't decide, so we draw the process out, disregarding your desire for closure. Even if we exclusively start dating one of the others, we still won't let you know until after they sign the marriage certificate - and that could take some time as we negotiate a prenuptial agreement. We're sorry for your degrading mental state, but its not you, its us. Sincerely, your indifferent committee

• Good question, and a fair one. I was 27 when I finished my PhD and started my first job. I have found that age is often an issue for other people, but the best thing I* can do is ignore it, not get defensive, and trust that my "authority" will come through my capability in my field. I find when I just act natural and don't make age an issue, then others don't either. So, although I know it's difficult, I suggest just rising above it, recognizing that other people's issues are just their issues, and just be yourself. THey're just working out/testing/wrestling with their own insecurities. Just be yourself. Don't be condescending, but don't give in to others' issues and needs to make your age (and really, their age) an issue.Does that make any sense?
• While I don't doubt they were snarky, you sound pretty defensive/threatened yourself. If you weren't you wouldn't need to justify why you really are better than they are (down to having better ideas, which is just...ouch. I believe you have more publications, grants etc, but you really have no way of knowing whether your ideas are categorically more unique than theirs). So I agree with the previous commenter that you have to let everyone else's issues be what they are and it's probably best not to react to them. And I absolutely believe these grad students have issues--but it might also be good to get to the bottom of your own insecurities as well. There's no reason you can't concentrate on putting them at ease by taking an interest in their work and their ideas.
• I think the prior comment/recommendation is solid.

Thanks. I agree with you guys... haha, even about ME being insecure to some degree. While I was with the grad students I acted naturally and talked to them like I would talk to other interviewers/colleagues. Later, I realized how awkward the situation really felt and stewed/fumed a little over some of their comments. I think I took the right approach with them, but I need to learn not to let this stuff bother me so much.

• Refreshing for me to hear this (though no help for you). I'd completely forgotten about the problem of being a threat to the PhD cohort! I'm finishing my PhD in my mid-40s, and have been worried about the other kind of age problems: namely, considered "too old" for a tt position, for the salary & expected lifestyle sacrifices of a junior position. Etc. For all of these reasons, I'm also on the non-academic job market, where I have a work history, but would be open to an academic position. (Added 29 Dec 08. I couldn't tell from the editing comments if I was supposed to change the date of the original entry, which I suspect not. And it looks like you're mostly using an American date format, but I'm occasionally seeing Canadian. So please feel free to edit my entry if I've done it wrong).

• Gosh, thanks for asking. That's very kind of you. No, I haven't heard anything. As you can imagine, I am pretty unhappy about it and not feeling especially hopeful.
• Yes, it is disheartening. I remembered b/c I am in same position. Have not yet heard and it's been 2 weeks; will start 3rd week this week. I assume I'll hear soon, but who knows. Fortunately, I have a new visit coming up so something to focus on. But I can commiserate.
• Well, it's nice to commiserate, at the very least. There is something oddly comforting about coming to this page and seeing so many other similarly frustrated people. It does help to have other positions to focus energy on, so that's good news for you. Glad to hear it! I don't yet have anything else to distract me, but I already do have a tenure-track job, so it's not like I'll be unemployed after this year. I just want a new one. Good luck to you!!! Maybe we'll both hear good news this week. (One can hope...)

• Yep, and I find it a bit of a tempest in a teapot. The prevailing argument seems to be that only those who have received offers, and formally accepted them, are entitled to announce their identities to the world at large. In my field, however (history), departments commonly make this information known to the non-selected masses who applied for the job. So, wouldn't this be public record, and thus eminently postable on the wiki, even though it's not being disseminated by the concerned party? More generally, I'm not sure why there's so much fuss about post-search "disclosure" (although I certainly understand how revealing the identities of finalists, or interviewees, before they've accepted a position could jeopardize their employment, either current or prospective...)
• Would you mind posting your comment on the discussion page on the art history page where this discussion unfolded, for the benefit of my art history colleagues?
• Sounds like a good idea.

• This seems to depend on the field. I have never seen this happen in Biology and I have been on three interviews and witnessed over a dozen other searches. What sometimes happens is that faculty will ask probing or leading questions (but not confrontational) to get a feel for comfort level with certain subjects, but this seems to be isolated to the seminar and the committee "exit interview", and is far from universal. The interviews I have been on have all been very friendly. Keep in mind that these people are interviewing a potential colleague. If they are rude during the interview, why would you respect them when you come into the department? Of course, other fields seem to do this differently and it seems, especially from lengthy posts such as some of the ones below, that historians like to piss on each other more than most. Maybe hostile interviews are just another hurdle for historians, I don't know. It would be unusual in most of the sciences, from my experience.
• response: funny you should mention the discipline of "history"..[hint] :)
• I've had 5 campus interviews and served on 2 search committees and never seen the kind of hostility you describe. I did once have a kind of intense group inquisition, but it was more just intense than hostile. And I have had someone confront me privately in a way that indicated s/he was threatened by me and wanted to break me down a bit, but even that was relatively mild (s/he asked aggressively something like, why would someone with your strong qualifications come to this unimpressive school?---as if doubting my intentions, which were absolutely sincere). Other than that, I don't think it is typical, though I agree with the other comment that they will ask probing comments to really test you on your claims, and this can FEEL hostile when you are the one in the hot-seat. Finally, I have one general comment about this topic, which is that I think it is inevitable that there will be at least one unpleasant/hostile person in your department wherever you get hired, so it's actually good (in my opinion) to find out who that person is BEFORE you get the job so that you can be careful once you are there. I didn't know and then found out two years into my job that someone was plotting against me; if I'd known sooner, I might have done a few things differently. For whatever that is worth...
• The more I think about the exit interview, the angrier I get... I think it could have been done in a more collegial manner. Also wondering if i'll ever hear from them again and if I even want to.
• Month later. Email to 'dear applicant' whereas all the courting emails were to me by name. Obviously a distancing strategy. Plus, what committee in their right mind invite a candidate and THEN request writing sample? Isn't that a*& backward? I'm lucky...

• some of those are off-limits - specifically, they are not supposed to ask about marital status and the job offers question is inappropriate. As for where you are from, I think that is innocent enough (i guess unless you are from outside the USA and/or you feel the question is aimed toward unearthing some "identity" issue that you feel is discriminatory).
• I certainly agree that there are some contexts in which any of the above questions are inappropriate. That being said, I have been on a few SCs where the question of martial status arose simply because we wanted to know if we ought to include a tour of local schools, etc in our neighborhood tour (since real estate is rather over-priced, we tried to help people acquaint themselves with the possibilities). Generally, we let the candidate bring up such issues themselves, or asked indirectly. As for the question of other potential job offers, this seems to be further over the pale. Again, however, I can see a well-meaning dept. member attempting to make small talk with such a question. As hard as it is to believe from the job-seekers side, not everything that happens at a campus visit is a well-orchestrated attempt to advance / sabotage / explore your candidacy. This brings me to my final point--something that I have been thinking about writing here for a while. As someone who is on the market again this year, I know it is tough. I know that some SCs can be genuinely rude and careless. Many of the comments here--and on the Universities to Fear page-- seem to me to be results of candidates who have unrealistic expectations of what the search should / will look like. Searches are conducted by professors who have other full-time jobs. Professors are often not the most organized, thoughtful, or, dare I say, socially adept of folks. Mistakes will be made, feet will be stepped on, and hearts will be broken. This does not mean, however, that the university in question is plotting against you.

My apology to the poster whose question I just hi-jacked to go on my own little rant.

• Excuse me, but I don't think it is too much to ask that SCs avoid asking about marital status! They can escort the candidate around the environs of campus and talk about potential places to live and important landmarks without querying the person about their specific details (unless the candidate brings it up, which I'm sure some do and I'm sure sometimes it is to their benefit). I was happy with the way it was done when I visited a campus. They hadn't even scheduled a ride around town, but I asked about it, and then they fit it in. The person who drove me around merely pointed out some of the important landmarks; showed me [her/his] house and then did point out a school and mentioned [her/his] kids went there, but I did not feel obligated to talk about my own status, which I think is fair. AND - note that "marital status" is NOT synonomous with having children! One can be a single mother / father or one can be partnered (gay) and have children.
• You know, I was really uncertain about how to handle the issue of my partner, who is also an academic looking for a job. One of my recommenders told me to take my wedding band off before going to interview. I did it for the conference interviews, but it just did not feel right to me. On my last campus visit - the one I really want - I told everyone at the beginning of the interview that they could dispense with all the federal regulations about asking personal questions, because I have no problem talking about my personal life, and that in order to make sure the "fit" is right, they needed to know where I stood. My partner and I have always agreed that whomever received the tt job first, the other would come along and look for something. Since I was open and frank about this, I received extremely good advice from the committee about helping my partner find work if I were to be offered the job. Now maybe I shot myself in the foot doing this, but I believe in the value of candor in these matters. Time will tell. :-)

• I recently received an offer and it took a week for the SC to send their candidate to the deans, then over a week for them to make the phone call. I know I was the first person they called, so two weeks or a little more is not unusual. Good luck and try not to think about it.
• I agree. Give it another week. I also recently received an offer, and in my case it took about a week from their last candidate visiting before I got the call (and about a month after my campus interview). The waiting sucks, but don't pull your hair out yet. Good luck!
• So, you all didn't hear a word from SC until the offer- and did you send an email or anything to thank them for visit? And did they respond. It seems some SC do not...
• I did send e-mails to every faculty and staff member that I met during my visit. Some wrote back, some didn't. None of the replies (either for jobs I didn't get or for the one I did) gave any indication of the eventual outcome ... as it should be.
• I am still struggling over this - I decided to send a thank you to the Chair only and tell her to thank Committee. But I did not email Dean, or Assoc Dean or others I met, and maybe I should have (it may be soon enough that I still could..). I just feel strange emailing everyone - it feels too coercive.
• I always send hand-written thank-you cards (I know there is a school of thought that frowns on this, but my traditional upbringing and gender socialization require me to do this!) via snail mail and, of course, don't hear back from them. In the few cases where an email was sent after the interview (like a quick follow-up about something that came up during the campus visit), I found the email correspondence was short and sweet. And I agree with the above comment that neutrality is as it should be in these things. I actually prefer chairs who are really neutral, almost to the point of being cold, because I have had chairs be really warm and friendly and personable via email and then been surprised to not get the job.

• E-mail the chair today and ask to whom you should send the receipt for reimbursement and what additional information they need to process it (e.g., mailing address, SS#). They should pay for the shuttle, but sometimes they forget to get receipts while you're there. Sometimes, they prefer you to mail them in afterwards. They should also cover any meals you had in the airport. It's not at all rude of you to ask this, just make sure your e-mail is polite. Oh, and make a photocopy before you send it, just in case it gets lost in the mail.
• Thank you for your responses. It's so funny that you mention the meal at airport, b/c they rushed me to a plane at 5pm and I wasn't going to get home until after 1:30am, so, yes, I ended up eating at the airport on the way back and wondered if I should try to get that back as well. Of course, I'm not sure I saved the receipt b/c I was feeling futile as to whether I would get it back. But I'll check. Anyway, thanks for feedback. I think I'll know better what to do next time...[found my airport dinner receipt! :)]
• So, did they end up reimbursing you?
• You know what, I haven't sent the receipts (yet?), partly b/c I have not heard a peep from them and I feel uncomfortable. I emailed Chair to say thank you (did not mention receipts) - did not get a peep back and still have not. In addition, I had another campus visit to worry about so decided, in a way, to let it go - although now that I have more time, I may indeed mail the receipts with a diplomatic letter. If I get an offer from this new school, then I would love to put in for the reimbursement from the other one...

• 03-20 I think academics is just a hierarchy of rejections... you get them for grants, manuscripts, jobs... everything. I have such a hard time dealing with the rejections too, but just remember your love for what you do and keep going. Eventually, something will work out.

• A lot of that has to do with the administration - at the school where I am VAP now, the provost did not approve the list of searches until the end of September, the job posting came out after CAA, and I never heard from them again, til on APRIL 30th I received a call for a campus visit. Sometimes the search committee members hands are tied - it's just as frustrating for them as for you!
• Re: 3rd post......"Super-qualified" in your eyes does not mean "super-suited" to the institution; this is a unique finishing school with only juniors, seniors, and grads. I am amazed at the tone of this post - couldn't it be that the notification letter was misdirected in the mail? There is no need to aggressively judge the school's behavior. As someone who had a campus visit for this position and was offered the position, I can say the teaching style at UHCL is very collaborative, eclectic, and they are/were looking for someone who can establish connections with colleagues in other academic areas. Perhaps your friend was not suited to THIS dynamic. They are a WONDERFUL group of colleagues; I turned down the offer because it would have meant a serious pay cut for me to come there.... If the salary were higher and I wouldn't have to take a cut in pay to live in a city with a higher cost of living than where I am now, I would have accepted in a HEARTBEAT! Whoever does accept this position in the end will have AMAZING colleagues and a wonderful working environment...
• the third poster again. i think you misunderstood the 'tone' of my email. It wasn't nearly as nasty as you seem to have though it to be. I was simply expressing frustration at the sometimes poor communication during the job process (that this wiki exists seems to serve as evidence that this is a common sentiment.) I was also pointing out that it seems strange that many highly qualified candidates are often not even long-listed for positions at places where, frankly, they would be overqualified. Yes, indeed, the academic job market is about 'fit.' But (and I dont mean Houston here, per se), often 'fit' seems to be a way of hiding the fact that some committees dont want the PhDs from top programs, with curatorial experience, the right teaching exp. etc. In some places a Stanford, Northwestern, or Harvard degree seems to function like a scarlet letter. . . the earlier posters comments with regard to administrative complexities is very interesting and informative, explaining a great deal why this process seems so irregular at times. Thanks for that.
• (separate poster here) It's true that, at some places, having a degree from a top-tier school can count against you -- but only because a lot of schools have a kind of institutional inferiority complex, and don't think that someone from Northwestern or Stanford or Harvard will stay for the long haul. No department wants to hire someone they think is just regarding them as a stepping stone (because doing new searches is a giant hassle), and few departments are willing to take the risk of hiring someone who seems overqualified because the faculty members don't you to come in and outshine them. If you're from a big-name school and genuinely want a job at a smaller institution? You've got to make clear from the outset that you're ready to make that change.
• The 2nd poster (admin comments) I would agree about the "Scarlet letter" syndrome - with an ivy PhD, I am constantly running into this with the smaller institutions. I will get as far as the preliminary interview, and then poof. I have started stressing the fact that I am tired of my peripatetic lifestyle, and that if I accept a job, I intend to integrate into both the academic community and the greater community outside the university, and that it will be for the long haul. You have to make people realize that you are looking for an academic home - not a job.
• I was on a search committee last year, and I am on the market this year. I come from a university on a "lower tier" and we needed to be convinced that the potential hire would really relocate and want to stay at our uni. In addition, "lower tier" universities tend to have less money to bring people on campus. We had to beg from our administrator to bring 2 applicants. If we didn't think you would take the job if it was offered, we didn't invite you because we only had 2 shots to make sure we found the best fit. For those of you from out of the region or from ivy league schools, this is really important to address in your cover letters. We did have concerns if a New Yorker would be happy at our more rural area. Or if someone from Wisconsin could withstand our summers. If we ask directly we will likely get the interview-fabricated answer. It's really hard to know for sure.
• Just a question to the previous poster-- how do you know if people are from, say, NYC or Wisconsin? Based on my cv, you might think I'm from NYC or the Northeast, but I'm actually from a really small, midwestern town (and there's no indication of Smalltown, USA, obviously anywhere on my college/graduate school record). And, as a job seeker, I've received so much conflicting advice on whether to state flat out that I'm looking to return to a place like my hometown!
• Reading c.v.s (b/c in essence they are all the same) is about reading between the lines. We made judgments on regional areas based on c.v.s. If you really want a SLAC or to be in a small city, in my opinion, it seems worthwhile to include your background. Obviously, you have to be selective on which applications you choose to include this point. For example, 2 of the interviews that I had were located in very isolated parts of their state. The schools readily acknowledged this in the interview. Naturally, if I was in your position (where my roots weren't evident) I would have mentioned it in cover letters to those schools. Some schools, however, will take offense at a disclaimer. Though cities like Houston and Dallas might seem provincial or uncultured to those on the east coast, residents have a different view and are very proud of the cultural opportunities.
• So, you have to prove that you "belong" as part of your credentials, by describing, basically, some key parts of your identity. Does this not strike you as, oh, just a bit ethically unsound? This notion that I (or any candidate) should advertise some aspect of my identity to advantage )or dis-advantage) myself with particular jobs strikes me as offensive. Really, I thought we knew better than this, by now. On what grounds should regional identity be treated as any different from ethicity, gender, class origins, etc? I know just as many urbanites who wish to "escape the city" and start a quieter life, as I do former rural folk come to the big city to "start over;" and I am quite sure this bi-directional exchange is a very common American state-of-affairs.
• Besides that, if thinking more broadly, "lower-tier" schools should be thrilled to have highly qualified "top-tier" recent Ph.D.s on their faculty list, even if they only stay a few years. With the high turnover rate, would come a tremdous influx of fresh ideas and influences. Just think of what that would mean for undergraduates - exposed to some of the best-trained (if young) minds in the field. carpe diem!
• The snobby tone of those discussing "top-tier" schools, aside.... Umm, how much studio art interaction do "Ivy," "top-tier" schools require of their grads? Very little. Many contemporary art history programs are in areas where there is an expectation of interaction with studio faculty and students. Many Ivy PhD's I have seen come off as a little arrogant, as well as unwilling to get in the trenches with studio practitioners. That, too, might be a reason why some search committees have no interest in that "breed" of PhD. It may be good for some programs, but the exclusively academic tone might not sit well with programs where the contemporary art historian needs to do crits and sit on MFA thesis committees.
• By the way, the "thanks for that" comment was totally unnecessary.
• That "snobby" comment was completely uncalled for, and shows exactly what we Ivies are talking about. I spent 15 years as a practicing artist before getting my ivy PhD in art history. And at least half of my cohorts in grad school at our prestigious, snobby Ivy institution were artists on the side as well. What do you say to that?
• As a graduate student on a search committee, my loyalty was to the grad students. We want an advisor who will be there through our dissertation, not someone who will abandon ship when something better comes along.
• "Regional-ism" if that is what you want to call it is no different than SLACS preferring applicants who taught at other SLACS or large state schools preferring applicants who already understand the rigors of the large survey classes.
• At the same time, because I came from a "lower tiered" university why would that make me less competitive for an ivy? My advisor and committee members came from ivies. I have had rigorous training and I have an impressive c.v. My reading list is probably quite comparable to an ivy student. Yes, I am equally capable of providing fresh ideas. (So, I do take insult that a "lower tiered" should be grateful for 2 years with an ivy grad.) A "better" education does not guarantee that one has a stronger work ethic, more creativity, higher intelligence or will be a more successful teacher. However, I understand that my application will be quickly shuffled into the "no" pile at an ivy - such is the job application process. Understanding this, I choose not to waste my time applying to those schools that are considered by others as "out of my league." It's a very subjective and, at times, arcane process.
• Was the snobby comment uncalled for? You speak of "you Ivies" like it's the chalice from which the rest of us should sip. Others speak about how "fortunate" institutions should feel to have them on their faculty. Lame. Could THAT be the reason that "poof" - no interview - happens? Many people I have met from Ivy institutions are solipsistic, egomaniacal know-it-alls; not everyone wants that kind of hyper-competitive presence on their faculty. I agree with the previous poster in many ways; it is the PERSON that constitutes the colleague, not the name on their diploma. Besides, I hear that "supervision" from Ivy League professors often consists of only the loosest affiliations (i.e. write the dissertation, don't bug me again for 5 years, and come back when you're ready). That is hardly an education.
• And that is exactly what I, as an Ivy, am trying to say. We aren't all rich, and we don't all want to wind up in first tier schools after dumping the people who gave us our first real job. I stress once again that most of us want an academic home, not a prestigious job. I spent my first year convinced that the school had made some administrative mistake, and that I was going to be told any minute that I was to clear out my carrel and go home. And as a grad from a no-name, service department of a Southern state university, I am not going to tell you how much I had to put up with, not from my cohorts, but from the faculty who felt I didn't belong there. It was a miserable experience, but I DID get a great education, and I am NOT an egomaniacle snob. I am a PERSON, just like you, with feelings and ideas and desires to share them with others. Get rid of your bitterness towards us - we don't have it any better than you, believe me.
• Why identify as an "Ivy?" WHAT exactly is that? THAT'S what I don't get. You also do an excellent job of illustrating how isolationist the thinking of programs there must be...Your last post is littered with the words "us" and "we," almost as if those with PhD's from "other" institutions are in the batallion across the way. WE are art historians--or at least strive to be given the myriad manifestations of the title and the discipline. If you get to the end of your doctorate and you're tired, that's one thing. But if you get to the end and reflect on it as miserable--a time spent in school that you felt like you needed to apologize for--I feel sorry for you. I am not bitter toward you, at all--just amazed at how many "Ivies" I have run into that seem to think that because they got an Ivy League "education" that (1) they are entitled to a job and (2) every institution in the nation/world would be blessed to have an Ivy graduate (i.e. them) on its faculty.
• I suppose I said "I" and "we" so much because "I" and "we" are tired of being stereotyped by people who, given their liberal education, should know better. And that is the last comment "I" intend to make on this wiki.
• whoh! someone threw a whole lot of fuel on the culture war fire, here. red art history v blue art history, it seems. What would Barrack Obama say?
• It has nothing to do with Red or Blue. It has to do with someone who is angry and bitter about the fact that they couldn't get into a first tier institution and now they can't get a job. The intimation that you can only become a "real" art historian if you avoid the stigma of "Ivy" is preposterous. Get a life, please.
• Think you had better get the life. I HAVE a job, I CHOSE not to go to an Ivy, and I am glad I didn't. Your idea about "first-tier" is completely uninformed, and there is a stigma about Ivies--precisely because of the sort of bravado you just injected into this thread.
• Goodness gracious - do you have to customize shoulder pads to cover the chip on your shoulder? I HAVE a job, too. And I am more interested in education than research. And I don't feel that anyone is "due" a job just because of the coat of arms at the top of their diploma. It's what I've been saying all along - don't stereotype people - Ivies or others. I just came back froma campus vist at a small, state university with minimal funding and miserable facilities, and nearly everyone had degrees from Columbia or Harvard. And they are happy there, because they feel they are contributing to the betterment of society. This does not fit into your narrow-minded view of what "Ivies" are supposed to be. I feel sorry for you, not as a colleague or a fellow scholar, but as a person - you seem so miserable and angry.

• I understand that committees don't always let everyone who applied know when the search is over. There can be 50-100 people that applied. However, I agree that if there were 3 people brought to campus for interviews, the committee chair could call the few people that actually traveled to campus.

• Because it's a buyer's market, unfortunately. When crappy schools in bodunk nowhere get 50 or more applicants, they get to set the rules. It's easier and faster for them to have everything up front. Otherwise, they have to take the extra step and extra time to request and wait for letters. I know this isn't what you wanted to hear, but that's what I've been told by search committee members.

• yes, please do convert it to a table! thanks!
• Absolutely! It seems like some people add to the top, others to the bottom and there are comments on discussions in the middle of the page. Makes it all hard to follow - assuming people want to follow articulated frustration. A table like the discussion on the Ecology/Evolution wiki would be a lot easier.
• I think it definately would be easier to follow the threads.
• Thank you to whoever took the time to start the table formating!
• I've got to say--this table is cumbersome and appears to have killed contributions to the page. I'm not a fan.
• You're welcome to change it back if you like, although no one has updated the discussion on the Biology wiki since 3/6, and that's had table formatting for ages, so I'm not sure that's the reason. Perhaps a vote is in order?

• Hear, hear. I sent additional (solicited) materials, and was told by the SC chair that these would be "very helpful" as the SC came up with its interview list. I then discovered through back channels that the list had been determined the week before. Come on, folks--just say "sorry, Charlie" (or some semi-hedged, cover-your-ass equivalent), and let us get on with other things!

• It's easier the second time around. I promise. Now, you have an application packet to build on; you won't be working from scratch. Hang in there.
• reply from previous disheartened poster: thanks so much for the reassurance that it's easier the second time around. I appreciate the encouragement!

• hey, maybe it is your attitude not your CV?
• Not sure why you are so upset. Obviously you wouldn't have been a good fit in that department. Move on.
• I’m allowed to be frustated, disappointed, and pissed off. The search chair has a dog in the race, so it makes sense to rig it such that his special buddy dog wins against slower dogs. I know it’s not a good fit for me, obviously, I’m not a slow dog. And my attitude is just fine – this is the VENTING page. I’m confident that with the patterns shown in this site (high application numbers, low success) that other people feel EXACTLY like I do. It sucks, it hurts, and I definitely learned a thing or two from this site, especially that I am not alone.
• yes, you're entitled to be frustrated, but there's no need to SCREAM at your fellow wiki colleagues!
• 3/10/08 regarding he CV padding. I think everyone does it, but I recently discovered that a peer listed 7 papers "in prep". Give me a break...it is highly unlikely that a grad student is going to have that many in prep. Oddly, this person got numerous interviews. So, I conclude that the previous poster is correct...pad away!!
• "Padding" your CV is lying, and it is unethical. Seriously.

• I don't disagree that it's tough for academic couples (indeed, I am one half of an academic couple, so I know of what I write). But the truth is that it really IS the right of the department to choose the candidate they think is best for the position and the department in terms of teaching, research, and fit. So, is the outside candidate really merely "flashier," or might he/she actually be stronger, I wonder?
• I will respond to the dubiously sympathetic response directly above. The point is not whether the flashier candidate is stronger, but whether if three candidates are roughly equally qualified for the job (as made evident by the fact that all three made the cut and are finalists), it is morally right for a search committee to throw away a host of considerations and go with the flashier candidate.
• Reply from the "dubiously sympathetic" previous poster: I can certainly understand why you're upset, and the situation must be very disappointing (and truly suck) for the faculty spouse who was a finalist. But you're still referring to the outside candidate as "flashier" which seems quite derisive of his/her qualifications and of the search committee's assessment of them -- it suggests you don't think their chosen candidate is good or serious. Are you perhaps kicking the cat? THe situation is not the fault of the outside candidate you've dismissed as flashy.
• The point of using the word flashier in my original post was to emphasize that the strength of the different candidates ought not to have been incredibly disparate, not to dismiss the person who, through no fault of his or her own, earned the top spot: I'm not even in the same department as my spouse and so I have no way of knowing--at this point--what the other candidates are like, let alone who earned the offer. Besides, I was the flashier (i.e. the one that showed, in the artifical environment of a campus visit, the more attractive attributes) candidate several times when on the job market and I don't subscribe to a silly theory of conservation of virtues according to which "if someone is flashier, then that someone must not be as substantively good," or "Obama gives better speeches, hence he lacks substance." Re: the merits of the search, certain annoying particularities set aside, I don't think I'm qualified to dismiss the search committee's assessment of relative strengths of the candidates, but that is not the point of my venting. I do believe I have a very legitimate grievance with the culture of academics, as I have laid out on this venting page. If I am skeptical of the ability of a search committee to assess the relative strength of candidates, this skepticism is quite generic, and nowhere have I said that it is directed particularly to this search committee. I do know that if I am ever in a search committee, however, I will bring with me a profoundly different moral outlook to the one that seems to have triumphed in our situation. (It is simply not the case that my spouse is an inviable candidate.) And good luck to other couples (especially those in different departments).
• Some of the considerations that institutions should take into account: it is often the case that academic couples (including those of us unlucky enough to work in different departments) who wish to stay together (like us) end up turning down good offers in order to move to a place where they hope to maximize the probability of solving the two-body problem: my wife abandoned a tenure-track at an institution that had no opening for me and turned down an offer at a much more competitive school than the one I'm working for, and I turned down four offers from institutions one or two orders of magnitude more competitive than the one I'm working for. I turned down an unsolicited offer from a wonderful school just last year, out of loyalty to the institution I'm working for (and this is a known fact to the Dean). Also, when a couple works for an institution, it becomes a link to the local community, as it takes roots in the area. So there are some benefits from having a couple work at an institution, especially an institution that is searching to be better linked to the community surrounding it. Finally, unless an institution is an R1 institution, there really should be many ways in which a vast majority of the top twenty or so candidates for a position could all be beneficial to the institution. Are search committees so delusional to think that their grand-task is to find the one person who can get the job done? I suspect not. The thing is, most people in Academia have internalized this culture of free-market competition to a degree so surprising, given the supposed ideological biases of the community, that they react with instinctive suspicion whenever someone--in the venting page of the job search wiki, of all places--vents about a two-body problem and about the lack of conscientiousness of search committees. I could also vent about the way some departments treat adjuncts, but let's not go there.
• On the other hand, there are lots of searches out there that are predetermined ... the school has to conduct an outside search, but there is an inside candidate who is a spouse or other departmental associate. My school is currently in the midst of such a search now. I feel terrible for the hopefuls coming through.
• The fact that, in such a situation, the school has to conduct an outside search only highlights how institutionalized and inflexible the culture of conducting national searches is.
• As sympathetic as I am to academic couples, there are very few other professions where married couples can even entertain the notion that both spouses will be hired by the same employer. And if you're a non-academic married to an academic, you too have to make big sacrifices. This is just a way of saying that having any kind of committed relationship in academia is very tough--a reality that some academic couples easily forget.

• reply to the above post: the "winter seminar series" on the website is for the molecular/cell asst prof search. There's also an ecology & an evolution search, and none of those seminars are posted.

• Why only "nearly"?!? I'd have throttled him on the spot! Evil friend, indeed.

• Reply: I had the same experience last year as the above poster when applying as an ABD to selective positions. But this year went on job market with a finished dissertation, which made all the difference. So don't be too discouraged!
• Reply: Me too. I'm west coast ivy, multiple pubs (incl single author), but ABD. Don't know if I'm just not an attractive hire, if my advisor isn't writting strong letters, or if the ABD things just kills you. V. much appreciate the above reply. Trying to believe it's the ABD status (too many claiming they'll be finished and not actually finishing I guess), because that way I can believe it's not me. Hate that I have to wait a whole year to find out if it really is just me.
• from ABD applicant: thanks. i find this comforting.
• Hmm. I had at least a few interviews when I was a callow ABD with a book about to come out. Now I'm a grizzled Ph.D. with two books, and zippo. Sorry, but that's discouraging.
• Exactly. my experience. ABD is all about potential. When you have actually finished and published you are old and grizzled and uninteresting. They want fresh meat.
• Last year's AHA advice to a room of hundreds was that it was better to go on the market with a finished PhD. I had more interviews ABD than PhD (i.e since then none - except with my local community college and they said I was overqualified!)
• The concerns over being ABD or PhD in hand are being lost in the fact that some fields are drastically changing the rules of the tt hiring game. Some fields are putting an emphasis on teaching skills rather than publications this year. I am ABD and I have been contacted by a bunch of schools for letters and/or more information. I have a few minor publications (i.e.: book reviews) but I think it is my teaching portfolio that gets the attention of potential employers. I have a lot of teaching experience through adjuncting, not just TA'ing. The reviews of my teaching skills from faculty and students have been quite favorable. In my field (anthropology) most tt job ads specifically state that they want to see evidence of effective teaching skills BEYOND TA'ing. The ads also rarely mention a publishing record unless the position is with a prominent school. In my field, the emphasis seems to have shifted to teaching skills and the assumption is that publications will come later. If other fields are doing the same thing, then ABDs with publications who have virtually no teaching experience are at a disadvantage and their departments and universities need to address these issues. With this shift in mind, somebody who has published two books and a bevy of articles might be viewed as over-qualified for a tt asst prof in terms of publishing yet under-qualified in terms of teaching, which might reduce overall interest in the candidate particularly is the school wants to hire a good teacher.
• This is a good point. Of course, if you have a decade of teaching experience (and *not* TA'ing) AND publications, then it's pretty hard to figure out where you've gone wrong. Buyer's market = misery for the sellers.

• I wish you well with that, and though I don't want to come at you with (more) bad news: I'm already in "intensive therapy," and I'm only holding on to my sanity by my fingertips this job season. I suppose the upside is that if I had a shit-ton of money and didn't have to face the academic job market, I'd be able to kiss (most of) my problems goodbye. Enjoy the break, if you're able.

• you're not the only one who feels that way. I don't know what else to say. I haven't submitted anything for publication recently because the last rejection was so mean-spirited I decided I couldn't take it anymore. Academics are assholes. Remind me why we want into their club so badly...?
• Rejections from publishers can be a horrible experience, especially when they are nasty about it. I have recently been accepted for publication with revisions. However, the journal wants me to revise my paper to fall in line with the established conventions of the topic and I was criticized for raising more questions than I actually answer-- despite the fact that my abstract clearly states that I am seeking to challenge old ideas, point out the questions we should be asking, and propose ways to answer them. Additionally, one reviewer's feedback indicated that he read my paper incorrectly and he thinks I was arguing in favor of a point I was actually rejecting. This pointed out a lack of clarity in that section of the paper that I have rectified. But it also leads me to wonder how carefully reviewers read article submissions. When established scholars can publish 5 page blurbs that say nothing or they can publish articles that rehash their old ideas ad nauseum, why can't a new scholar try to pose new questions or alternative ways of approaching old problems? Isn't advancing knowledge supposed to be what academia is about? I think new ideas from fresh young minds make established scholars feel threatened and obsolete and their penchant for cruel criticism and refusing to publish new ideas is based on their own disdain for being challenged.
• Reply to "rejections" (above post): I recently got reviews back from a journal where one reviewer, in the same paragraph, said "The data are poorly presented" then applauded the excellent writing and organization. So... were the data poorly presented or not? Make up your mind. I also got comments saying that I was challenging paradigms with too few data... the reviewer actually said that the paper, and probably the author, was "audacious". You can ALWAYS have more data, but you gotta get the ideas out there to stir the pot! In my view, if they are reacting badly to the ideas you are definitely on to something. Hell, if the letter has "accept" anywhere in there... it's a good thing.
• Hey, maybe we should make a new page for rants about reviewers!
• I've generally found reviewers to be fair, and most often much kinder, gentler, and more forgiving than I can be about my own work, even if it's ultimately rejected. Can't you be happy that someone took the time to write you a page of comments that often, if not always, can improve your work? I haven't done it, but reviewing seems to me to be a thankless, brutal task most of the time. If someone takes the time seriously and conscientiously to assess your work, dude, it's probably more than you do for your students. And these folks don't know you, and don't get paid to do it for you. Once you're away from your dissertation director, you have very little close mentorship after finishing. This is a rare chance to get some, even if it's unpalatable sometimes. Possibly my discipline/field is particularly collegial, though.

• you know what, though? dealing with one really great school can change your mind about all of it. I'm interviewing with a place that is completely unlike my graduate institution. It's a beautiful thing and it gives me hope.

• Welcome to my world. My department couldn't even get it together to post the ad before MLA. And yesterday the chair of the search committee circulated an e-mail pleading for us to contact people we might know who could apply. Response of a senior colleague to my fuming: "Don't worry, we'll get someone." Like a chicken!

• Reply to the last post. What? Someone deleted the entire Linguistics Wiki? What a colossal jerk.
• religion is gone, too. except for biblical studies.
• religion is gone, too. except for biblical studies That actually sounds somehow profound.

• Response to above post: I was adjuncting last year and the department wanted to fill a three year temp position. O the day they began reviewing applications, I watched 3 old white males rifle through the file of about 150 applicants and I heard them say they were specifically looking for minority women. One of them took an application for further review that was from a person whose name was neutral in terms of gender and ethnicity (think a name like Jordan Lee, which I just made up). 5 mins later, he came back into the office and told the other two "Nope. White male." The job eventually went to a woman of SE Asian background.
• Aw, stop complaining. At least people don't assume because you're of SE Asian background you are some sort of obvious immigrant and "speak English REALLY well!!" despite the possibility you may have been BORN in the US and received a 99th percentile in the GRE verbal section. Furthermore, in my place of work, I'd like to see more Asian Americans. There is not one in the whole huge department. Then again, the Chronicle had an article today stating that Asian Americans lose out because of Affirmative Action. So go figure. The people who get tenure more than anyone else are white males. Why are you so scared that your "supremacy" is in trouble? HypocRISY.

• Your above points are well taken. However, I do know this, our department is currently advertising both nationally and locally for a tenure-track position in ... Reading the ads one would think there is truely an opening. But what is really taking place is that the funding source (e.g., soft vs. hard) for the person currently here is changing, which requires a new "search." It is very sad to see the mail come in each day with applications from persons who stand no chance of even the slightest consideration, as the position is filled. But you would never know this from reading the solicitation. Perhaps universities need to change the way they do business on these matters because it's wasting a lot peoples time.
• Wow, that's certainly an edifying and rather depressing tale! As if it isn't already hard enough for candidates to compete for jobs that really exist... to go through all that for a mirage is really a shame.
• I was at a CSU for a 1yr temp teaching position. The students loved me, I filled a major need in coursework, and when the dept. advertised for a position that I could have easily filled they completely passed me up and didn't even give me an interview. Talk about uncomfortable and hurting, try going to a welcome social for an interview candidate that is there for a job that you applied for as an "in house";. It all depends on what the search committee wants. Me, I was too much of an integrated biologist and not a "true" discipline.
• I know how that goes. I was an "inside" candidate for a job (there as a visiting lecturer), and didn't make it to on-campus stage. The search committee then asked me if I'd attend the job talks, so that they could get my "input" on the quality of the candidates' research and presentations (none of the SC members, of course, had any expertise in the field). I conveniently managed to have other commitments (at three different times, no less!)

• my diss director forgot at least one of mine--I know because the school contacted me about it. Who knows what became of the others....? I'm sure I've been rejected from those places by now. you would hope they would take their responsibility seriously.

• I don't feel sorry for you. That said, I think you're right. Everyone faces their own set of issues.

• Reply: very well put; you've captured my feelings perfectly.

• "your research interests don't appeal to the department" is not a negative evaluation of your qualifications. I think that's the point. They're telling you it was something benign, something beyond your control--something you couldn't or shouldn't change. Something some other department might want. Some of the rest of it...they may not even be conscious of worry about how many times you've been around the block. rejection sucks but I think it would be difficult and unnecessary for them to tell you why you were rejected in blunt terms. Oh, also...I have friends who have gotten letters than told them "you were strong in x and y but we needed someone stronger in z." So if they're telling you it's not about your qualifications, maybe it isn't.
• [different respondent] It might be asking too much for search committees to give specific reasons for every applicant. BUT the original point, I think, is right: I much prefer a simple rejection without any attempt to make me feel better. All I ask for is professionalism! Say you went another way, the end. I don't need consolation, especially since it tends to seem self-aggrandizing. I still remember one rejection I received, many years ago, that empathized about how disappointed I must be, and encouraged me to keep at it. (I wasn't that disappointed! Actually I got a better job than that one!) The rejections I *don't* remember are the simple ones. So I second the request -- Search Committees: Dispense with the patronizing!
• I don't see why search committees are so busy that they can't write two sentences to candidates who have first-round interviews (so the 8-15 on the short list) why they didn't get to the next stage. We invest our time and money and put our egos on the line to go through this process. If there's not going to be a job at the end of it, I'd like, at least, to be ABLE TO LEARN SOMETHING FROM IT. Instead, one is left wondering what went wrong and then having to consider everything as a possibility, which just amounts to trying to see why some mystery people could find fault with ANY and EVERYTHING about one's research, personality, self-presentation, etc. And that's just a crappy position to be left in for a year.* Okay, okay...this is the same respondent from 4 responses ago. i think first round candidates deserve two sentences describing why they weren't pursued. meanwhile, I got a rejection today that addressed me as "Miss" and I'm inexplicably annoyed by this. I mean....wtf? Miss? That's Ms. Jackson if you're nasty.
• I got one that actually called me "Dr." (thanks for noticing), and then proceeded to get my LAST NAME WRONG. Not just misspelled, wrong. Oddly enough, the name on the envelope was correct.
• Thing is, sometimes it really is hard for search committees to give any productive feedback. How does it really help to know that one of the other candidates happens to be able to offer a course that the SC chair has been wishing someone would offer for ten years even though it's not listed anywhere in the ad/description? Or even that you mentioned a theory/author/whatever that happens to be the pet hate of one of the committee's most cantankerous members and hence that person got a bee in their bonnet about you and it was easier for the rest of the SC to give in and agree on another candidate? Those aren't things that are going to help you improve your application for another job - they're just circumstances beyond your control. You don't learn anything from them except that this whole thing is a crapshoot. That being said, I know people who write back to a SC after first-round interviews and (politely) ask for feedback on how they could improve their application. They've got answers, too. So it's always an option, if it's so infuriating.

• totally normal.
• Yep, totally normal. Over and above that, the fact that you've had one paper published and one accepted while still a graduate student is a GOOD sign -- most definitely NOT an indication of "deficiencies," and NOT a reason to "steer clear" of an academic career. On the contrary: congratulations on such a good batting average!
• I got a job, turned it down, and now I'm thinking of dropping out. You do not have any deficiencies to speak of, my friend.

• I get job rejections addressed "Dear Dr." and I'm ABD. Either they can't read the part of my cover letter where I tell them I'm ABD or they assume somebody with my hefty teaching portfolio and my hefty CV must be a PhD. Either way, you can tell when a rejection letter is a form letter and when it's personalized. I agree that search committees could tell 8-10 candidates why they lost out on the job. It would take two lines at most. It's not a lot to ask since we have to sell out money to send the initial application, then the supporting materials, then go to the conference on our own dime for first round interviews. We spend about $1000 a year looking for jobs and all we get are patronizing rejection letters that address us improperly.
• Don't you love it when you get a rejection letter that says "We decided to go with a candidate that more closely meets the needs of the department."-- when the job ad was so general you had no idea what their immediate needs were? Departments that can't bother to post specific job descriptions should be required to return application materials to the 900 applicants who applied who didn't "meet the specific needs of the department." If they had to return application materials, maybe they wouldn't post wide-open job descriptions.
• Previous poster: my boss (at an R1) told me that often their dept has a very specific research area in mind, but they need to advertise a more broad job description to increase the number of applicants. According to him, they do this to convince the dean that they did an exhaustive search and indeed got the best candidate possible.

• many thanks to the previous SC poster for adding your perspective on the job-search saga. It helps to know that there is a rational and concerned agenda behind the travails of us lowly job-searchers! I would like to say, though, that despite the undoubtedly awful task of informing 89 people that they did not get the job, it really IS possible to do so in a dignified and respectful manner. I just had a rejection letter from an institution I interviewed with at the AHA; the SC chair personalized the letter and referred explicitly to my research topic and to the teaching agenda I discussed with the committee at the AHA. The SC chair then explained explicitly why I was not selected for a campus interview. It's true that this level of (very thoughtful) communication is surely time-consuming, yet clearly it really is "do-able" -- and certainly, there is no reason why SCs should simply ignore us when rejecting us -- which feels unnecessarily demeaning. So I do sympathize with your perspective and am truly appreciative that you took the time to share it, but at the same time, we job searchers really do deserve to have the benefit of clear and direct communication. There is no reason a SC chair cannot: ONE: send out emails to rejected applicant who did not get AHA interviews. I don't care if it is a list of 89 people. Write a f---ing batch email, for goodness sake. I'm not "yelling" at the above poster - it sounds as if you did indeed write an email. But I am yelling at all the many SC chairs who don't bother to do this. How disrespectful! TWO: Write individualized emails to AHA interviewees to whom the SC is not giving campus interviews, such that they know the search outcome and can plan their own futures/time/energy accordingly. Even (yet another) batch email to the 10-12 AHA interviewees who did not make the campus short list would be better than the disheartening - and again, disrespectful - silence. I am sure that the process is arduous for the SC members, too. The difference is that you - the SC - are in the happy position of professional "power" while we - the job seekers - are powerless. As the above poster correctly stated, "our [the SC's] future is not at stake." All the more reason, therefore, to make the effort to treat your potential future colleagues with respect.

• Thank you so much previous poster for your uplifting story, and best wishes for a productive job search this time around!
• Could you say more about how you adressed the age issue? (Did you let them know how old you are?)
• You know, its been funny this year. I have eliminated absolutely everything from my CV that points to a "mature" candidate - the Scholarship for Non-Traditional Women, my first degree in the 70's, etc. But at my age, you can't hide it for long. What I have discovered is that many departments actually appreciate the life experience. Since I was an artist of sorts in my previous life, I am able to relate to the studio element in the department, so I went ahead and mentioned it in my phone interviews. By the time we met face to face, they already knew that I was at least in my 40's. I am up to four campus interviews at this point, and I notice that the search committee members are all roughly my age or older - that might have something to do with it. One of my undergrad professors mentioned that sometimes there is an advantage to being older, because the university will not have to pay into your retirement plan as much and for as long - so there's that to consider as well.
• I am also a "mature" candidate, and want to second the sentiment expressed above. I thought carefully about how to present my life experience on paper. My first career was in theater and I've now gone into history, but use theatrical sources in my work. For that reason, I decided to retain a section on my CV where I discussed, briefly, "other professional experience," replete with some dates that made my "maturity" evident. I not only did not find my age a disadvantage, but if anything I sensed in at least a few of my interviews that it was a decided advantage. And, in one of my interviews, the search committee members actually said as much. For the record: I had 8 AHA (i.e. first round) interviews, 2 campus interviews, was offered both jobs, and accepted one of them. I will be almost 48 when I start the job. In short, I didn't find age was something I had to deal with at all.
• Yes, and if I have to go through this again next year, I am going to put my previous experience (which was also in theater) back into the CV. Invariably SC members have asked me why I did not in the first place, since it intersected so well with my current interests. Interdiscipinality rules these day - in history and in art history!
• Hmmm. I want to believe that age is not a key factor, but this runs counter to much I've heard elsewhere. I wonder if it's less important in some fields than others? or does it vary with instituional culture? Perhaps people who have served on search committees would weigh in here with their experience? I don't expect that age comes up per se, but probably appears disguised as another concern (?).
• I think that, in my case, the CV outweighed the age factor. I have been visiting for four years (I am the person who started this thread), but in those years I have put in a considerable amount of university service in addition to teaching and managing to squeak one article out (4/4 teaching load - eeek!). Every campus visit I had, they mentioned the fact that they felt I would be able to step into committee work (after my first year) without missing a beat. I have a sneaking suspicion that my interviewers were equating my "maturity" with my ability to serve the university well. I don't think our recommenders stress this part of our job description enough, and it really counts for something in the end.
• Wow, I just read this thread for the first time and it is inspirational. I've been feeling so old in the face of these committees... and I am younger than thread author above... Well, I have an on-campus int. coming up with people who actually sounded like they valued my experience etc. so that's good.
• to the person above who has the on-campus interview coming up. I'm the "mature" poster who will start my first tt job at age 48, and I just wanted to wish you good luck. I don't wish to be so Polyanna as to suggest that age never makes a difference -- but I do know that there really are committees out there for whom it's not a key factor. Also, i agree with the other "mature" poster (who began this thread) that service and life/community experience more generally can also count. So, break a leg!!
• Thanks from the first poster. Today the search committee meets to make the decision at my first choice institution. The chair told me during my visit that an offer would be made immediately thereafter. I feel like I am about to throw up. I don't know which is worse - having no idea about the time frame (as in the case of my other two campus visits) or knowing exactly when they will call. This is when I truly feel that I am too old for this business. Sitting at home knitting sweaters for my grandchildren (hypothetical, I hope!) sounds really good right now.
• To the above "campus interviewee": so, what happened? how did it go?
• I am the "Wow" poster and campus interviewee (late 30s). It went pretty well, but don't know yet (it is still soon after my visit, and they had one more). In general, I think my life exp helped, altho who knows (I do also look young, which can help or hurt). Maybe I'll find out soon...
• The last search committee I was on, our top three finalists were all mid 40s to mid 50s, frankly we welcomed maturity in our young department. The last thing we wanted was more youthful enthusiasm and grand plans not grounded in the reality of university life. Older applicants often seem more likely to settle down and stay, if they do stay and become deadwood then retirement is not thirty years away. Win, win, win.
• Agreed. Older age can work for or against. Just depends on the department/school. Scout the website. Check the ages. Don't expect a faculty with a higher mean -- as in average, not temperament -- age to opt for another older colleague. My first job as assistant prof came a few years ago at age 54. Anything is possible (if you're lucky).
• If you're older, the need to show energy and vitality is even more important. What SCs fear, for obvious reasons, is the older hire who immediately starts laying groundwork to defend why being old is a defense against criticism or,for that matter, lots of work. Wise old candidates need to exude energy. The biggest hurdle that older doctoral students (or assistant profs) confront is the comfortable preferences of longtime professors to mentor eager young, deferential types who will, ahem, study at their feet. It's not that new-older grad students/profs can't get along or accept hierarchical relationships with them, but they can feel uncomfortable mentoring someone nearly (or equal to) their ages. So watch for that dynamic when you seek interviews. Look for a spot where faculty aim for change, a place with a power structure more horizontal than vertical. Don't expect longtime full profs to be on your side. (Some may go against the current, of course, and do your best to sense that. But we're dealing with probability here.) Look for places where there aren't many traditionalists. Go where the young and the bright seek the experienced and -- let's dream for a minute -- the wise.
• Well, here I am, the over 50 academic who started this thread. It is now July, 2009. I am unemployed. I have had multiple interviews, campus and otherwise, with no results. I am leaving America to go to Turkey, where an Ivy PhD is not regarded with fear and envy, and I can make just as much money (if not more) than I can as a humble Asst. prof. here. Three juried articles promote me to associate. The thread below me says that he/she is tired of being told to please fuck off. Well, I say to American academe the same thing. If you cannot recognize a passionate teacher whose students follow her from course to course (I had to tell one that she could not major in Dr. XYZ) , whose research may not be "trendy" but covers a period of art history completely ignored by American scholars, who is producing juried articles, and is on the way to a book, then fuck all of you search committee members. Sorry I can't hide the sagging skin or the inevitable bags under my eyes - I am what I am, an over-50, energetic, vibrant teacher/scholar, and you are missing out. I am sailing to Byzantium, and the gods help all the rest of you poor souls.

• It's a crap shoot. Don't take it personally. It will get a lot worse when you finally do get a job, and discover that all your colleagues are freaking backbiting maniacs who keep a set of sharpened knives behind their office doors to use on the first person to cross them.