Universities to fear

• Fortunately, I didn't experience hostility from them, but I do see how it might have gone that way...I definitely got the sense that the approach to interviewing candidates was to challenge them...I suppose I can see the purpose of doing this a little bit, but a little bit goes a long way. For me, it went a bit too far--I found it to be a turn off.

• They weren't hostile to me, but it was a bit irritating to be grilled based on the research paragraph in my job letter rather than have them at least skim a writing sample in advance of the meeting. For a 2/2 school they ought to have looked at candidates' writing. Glad they found what they wanted, though.

• They were late for my conf interview (2007 search). I didn't need a major obeisance, but candidates have enough to stress over--a simple apology would have been nice. Instead, they somehow managed to make me feel like it was my fault we started late.

• One of the interviewers insulted my entire field in a completely outrageous manner.

• This statement is obviously written by someone who was disgruntled with Arkansas Tech because he/she could not work well with colleagues and wants to blame others for his/her faults and lack of social skills.

• No, the statement was not "obviously written by someone [. . .] who could not work well with colleagues [etc]." From an objective standpoint, from someone who has never even heard of Arkansas Tech before I saw this Wiki page, the snarky response seems as telling as the original post, and not necessarily in a good way.

• After working in Arkansas for the last 10 years I can attest to the statements in the OP. It seems as the description for Tech also applies to all of Arkansas' state school/ccs. This is the nature of the state. They do not like new ideas and if you weren't born and raised in the back woods of Arkansas, then they just don't get you.

• Can say from experience this is not true of all state schools in Arkansas. Try to avoid speaking in terms of "all", or "natures", and the sinister "they", sounds like old-fashioned stereotyping.

• (I don't see a rebuttal anywhere--perhaps it didn't make in the transfer to scratchpad, but I am going to add my own cautionary tale about Bard in the discussion.)

• For the record, pay is not so terribly bad. CCSF pay ranks around 6th of the top ten cc's in the Bay Area (around 60K/yr for starting). Bureaucratic nonsense? Well, welcome to public education. In ANTHROPOLOGY they were lookomh top hire a full time high course load phd for $35,000. NOOOOOOOOO! Strange. Legally, they can't do it--there's a contract in place for full time faculty, and the starting pay for Ph.D. in hand is well above $35K.

• What department? (asked 12/29/08)

• I had a campus visit and was well treated while there. I thought the interview went well--although I did think that I might not be exactly what the department was looking for. The Dean said I would be contacted in two or three weeks either way. It is now three months later and I still haven't had the courtesy of a rejection phone call or even a rejection letter or email. Now, I'm not saying I'd necessarily turn down the position if by some miracle it was offered--the students were decent and the campus itself was nice and this year the job market is pretty grim--but I'd have to really think about it given the administration and department's seeming lack of professionalism in handling this part of the search.

• These complaints are useless to other job searchers, and to the misbehaving people, unless a department is named.

Sorry, but the poster only said something very brief about the scholarship thing. 95% of his or her post had nothing to do with scholarship.

• The faculty don't really like to do research and yet the school expects you to produce it. At the same time they bombard you with the right methods of teaching, but they won't let you teach a Tues-Thurs schedule because they think the only way to teach is three days a week. This place is like a cult and if you speak out against the school, you will be blacklisted and eventually not make it through 3rd year review and tenure. Even though you'll be close to a major city they'll be mad if you want to live there and make your life hell so you'll really need to live in Granville. There is also a terrible atrition rate among faculty. Those who are still there, are there because they couldn't get out. They'll never admit it but they're all on the market. I could see it is a good place if you want an academic day job, but that's all you'll get out of it in the long term. Faculty of color will especially have a tough time there.

I came in with a group of 15 new faculty and a little less than half are there now. The rest all left or were not renewed at their 3rd year review. This is one of the few schools that will terminate your contract after 2.5 years on the job. This is true in whatever department--communication, religion, English. No one, especially faculty of color, are immune.

• Feel free to ask. We talk about this all the time. After a significant rise in the academic level of our students this past decade, we're working to adjust our grading strategies. We're not alone in this, of course.

School is in massive transition (since 2006 or so), mostly in good ways, but has deeply pervasive ideology that weighs everything and everyone down. It feels like a religion or cult, and several newer folks feel this. I am TT jr faculty here; most people I know, old & new, are miserable and either eager for retirement, or on the market trying to leave, or successfully have left, or just resignedly doing time. Nontrad school with many pluses, such as motivated nontrad students, but minuses far outweigh the pluses. Depending which branch you're in, you might never or very rarely see any students in person; no regular classroom classes--teaching is done online or indep. study or in groups that meet infrequently. You are expected to give A's to everyone; this is part of old ideology that is changing, but that gives you an idea. Anything resembling an academic standard, outcome, or deadline is considered reprehensible. Ideology also claims that traditional schools are fascistic and useless. School seems to have a lot of integrity in more professional or vocational fields (business, social work, etc.), but in lib arts, not so much. Also, it's a 12-mo contract with 5 overlapping semesters: no summers, no holiday breaks. You get vacation days like in corporate jobs, but there is never any time to take them with the 5 overlapping terms: you're always running 2 or 3 at once.

I see the note above about Elon Univ's grade inflation, meaning 35-40% get A's or A minuses. At Empire SC, over 80% of graduates have a 4.0. That is not an exaggeration--I've got it in hard data. A committee is trying now to come up with a system of student honors, since the students keep begging for one; they're stymied b/c anything they invent will necessarily include 80+% of the students, which is obviously preposterous.

• I never got a rejection from them; I had to e-mail the chair to find the results of the search.

• The exact same scenario happened to a colleague of mine who applied for the position five years before me...

Its obvious the department settles upon a candidate before interviews and brings in other people to fulfill some college rule. As a final note, the position I applied for is now open again for the third time in as many years. With the amount of qualified theatre historians/generalists out there, I wonder what on earth they are looking for.

• Wow; I had a totally different experience interviewing with F&M, but it was with a different department, so this may be why. I listed them under "universities to love."

• Courses envisioned to be team-taught. Instead, there is little collaboration.

• I had three different co-instructors assigned for the same upper-division course in four semesters. One rocked, and the other two rarely showed up (one figuratively, one literally.) No action taken to support teaching, learning, instruction, etc.

• Promises for courses to be taught, duties, assignments frequently broken.

• Although all faculty have PhDs and most had postdoctoral experience, there was unspoken and very clear discrimination between TT and non-TT faculty.

• Non-TT faculty not allowed to supervise undergrad research, against BoR policy.

• No allowances to teaching load for curriculum development.

• Some TT faculty have not taught in several semesters, leaving non-TT faculty to pick up the load.

• Accrued vacation pay delayed for a month when the head admin did not submit it to payroll after my departure.

The department is growing, but teaching personnel and support are not. Person currently responsible for teaching assignments does a terrible job managing this responsibility. Look for chronic mismanagement to continue.}

• Maybe 50 years ago, but as of now this statement is completely false.

• You're right. In the past five years they've only hired three of their own PhDs as Assistant Professors, plus one who was a Harvard undergrad and whose parents both teach at Harvard. That's progress!!

• Nothing wrong with some lit. in the curriculum!!

• Ridiculous statement above. Of course there's nothing wrong with "some lit," but there is something very wrong about having an entire department taught by folks who not only do not have terminal degrees in the subject field, but in fact have terminal degrees (or not!) in something else entirely. If comp were being taught by history folk, would you shrug and say, "Nothing wrong with some history in the curriculum"?! And Heartland is notorious for never hiring the most qualified candidate--people on the search committees hire their buddies and/or partners. Explain how else a candidate who hasn't even completed an M.A. (in lit) is hired for a t-t rhet/comp position over a rhet/comp ABD.

• Nothing wrong with some history in the curriculum. [shrugs shoulders] I do, however, understand the comment about qualificationns and some cc hiring..

Told me how tired they were at interview, asked very specific questions about vrey specific classes that were apparently part and parcel of the position in question, but were not even obliquely alluded to in the ad. Never contacted again after conference interview (2006 search; they ran the search again this year).

Quite possibly the strangest MLA interview experience (2007 search). At the beginning of the interview, the committee had a bottle of scotch, bottle of wine, and bottle of water on the table and asked which I would like to drink. This set the tone for the rest of a very awkward interview. Never contacted again after the conference -- quite a blessing, really.

Loyola Marymount U

(L.A.)

Interviewed here in the recent past. The S.C. Chair was unprofessional--e.g. wanted to know the ethnic/racial background of my recommenders.  He seemed conflicted about inviting me for a campus visit and told me so, and looking back I wish he hadn't. I should have turned them down.

I had an extremely unpleasant AHA interview with them, where they clearly planned out a good-cop/bad-cop strategy while the chair sat back and seemed to doze off.  I cannot speak to the rest of the department, but if the search committee was any indication this is a petty and poisonous department.

• McMaster's EC department follows a repeated pattern of hiring: they take on a Canadian citizen, who recently completed a PhD at an ivy league school. Generally, this person flees as soon as a book contract is signed, and relocates in less polluted pastures. McMaster then repeats the process again, hiring a similar individual, and on the cycle goes. Hundreds, of course, will apply.

• I had a vastly different experience, which I have noted on the Universities to love page.

• Agree with above poster--MSU isn't necessarily behaving badly; hiring committees often have a list of 5 potential campus visitees (at least, we did); since it's impossible to know whether the first or second candidate will accept the job, it is similarly impossible to reject the cohort of conference interviewees. A friend of mine, last year, was 4th in line at a great school (i.e. he wasn't even among the first 3 invited to campus); he ended up getting the job and is really happy there. Imagine if they had sent him a rejection, first! It's really important to remember that often, delayed responses aren't personal, and that, when you've made it to the conference-interview stage, until that rejection arrives, you're still a contender for the job. In another scenario I know of, a school (this year) had offered to two candidates, both of whom had to turn the offer down. The initial offer was posted on the Wiki, but not the second, so that it's been over a month since that first offer--and it's still perfectly possible that the school (a very, very good one) will have to invite another candidate to campus. And finally (for better or worse), I'm not sure many schools let candidates know their individual rankings. Again, thinking of that friend of mine...he eventually found out he was 4th, and although the committee assured him that he was as desirable as the others (a fact which I, now on a search committee, feel comfortable saying is likely true), he felt pretty miserable about it for a few weeks. So the decision not to let candidates know is sometimes, I think, governed by wanting to ensure high morale should someone later in line be offered--and accept--the job.

• I interviewed at Morehead State University in 2006. The first sign of real trouble was when faculty members began reading magazines during my job talk. The chair left my teaching demonstration and research demonstration without explanation and some members of the faculty were very confrontational, even hostile, during my interview. There are some good people there, but the entire campus seems to be covered with a pall. After the interview, I received very confusing correspondence from the search committee ("We are undecided...we wish you all the best..."). Maybe they are still trying to make their decision? To make matters worse, it took three or four months to receive my reimbursement check for travel expenses. Fortunately, I received another job offer that spring. I dodged a bullet!

• I interviewed at MSU in 2007, was told they would give me an answer one way or another in two weeks. After a month I called them back to be told they had interviewed a last minute candidate, and it would be two more weeks. A month later, I called to let them know I had other offers and wanted to know what the status of the Morehead job was. I was told they still didn't know and would get back to me. I took another job, and six months into that job I got a rejection letter forwarded from my old address saying the job was filled. All in all, it took them 8 months to turn me down! And I really wasn't that impressed to begin with....

• Stay away from Murray History Department -- very, very troubled and unprofessional history -- will take years to sort out (and won't happen under current dean)

• Murray is a very strange place, and drinking -- including drinking with students -- is a major part of the faculty culture. There are many good people on campus, but also many highly dysfunctional ones.

• Also, travel is apparently not reimbursed if they offer the position and you do not accept the offer.

• • That is the norm for many colleges which have relatively small budgets for job searches. It saves money and helps discourage people that interview without any intention to accept the position (for example people who want leverage for tenure/promotion).

• Yes, I heard it was a place "going downhill." I applied to a job and heard that the search folded for lack of funds; next year, the same job was advertised. Stop jerking us around!

• Northeastern (Boston) has been a joke for decades for its low academic qualities and fixation on the buck.

• May I ask which Northeastern this is? Illinois or Boston?

• Agreed - Northeastern (Boston) was about the strangest place I have ever been to. The Dean was even rude and self-serving (Engineering). Seems like the University has an inferiority complex since MIT and Harvard are the big kids on the block. Many faculty seem to have a chip on their shoulder.

• I couldn't agree more. This committee specialized in asking questions that weren't at all related to the job ad. And there was little attempt at collegiality - It felt more like an oral exam than an interview.

• Whew! I thought it was just me. These questions were completely unlike those I was taught to expect, and which I did receive in other interviews. They also began the interview EARLY--I arrived 10 mins early in the AHA job register hall, and a member of the search committee grabbed me before I had a chance to sit down. (2007-08 search)

• Wow, I was surprised to read this. I also interviewed with them at the AHA in January 08, and found them to be very pleasant and encouraging. They explained that they had a set list of interview questions, and they seemed pretty standard to me (How would you teach X? How do you deal with diversity? Where do you see your research going? etc etc). Sorry to hear others had a bad experience.

• Similar experience with the Biology department. I had to contact them about 4 months later to find out the position had been filled. At the very least, even receiving a one-sentence F.O.A.D. letter is satisfactory interview follow-up.

• Dream on; I dropped it off in person. A measly email or formal rejection letter might have been nice.

• I've been blatantly ignored by NYU two times, so I doubt it's the fault of a dossier service or applicant.

• Ditto. No response whatsoever regarding American Studies application. Some mightly unprofessional folks there, one would presume. How long can their dubious uber-hipness insulate them from ordinary professionalism or common courtesy? Get with it, people, cause everybody knows.

• They only contact you if they decide to interview you. Otherwise, .... Had a campus interview (2008). Faculty was pleasant enough, but came out that many of them viewed their students as stupid. One faculty member actually said it, and no one disagreed. The acting dean was passive-aggressive during the interview. He didn't ask a question the whole time. The program is basically a community college in NYU, except all positions are contract ones. Tenure is never a possibility, and they just take advantage of the fact that they're in NYC so that they can get away with it.
• Are these references to the NYU-Gallatin School of Individualized study or some other program within NYU?
• NYU has a TERRIBLE record of exploiting non-tenure faculty!!  Beware "Master Teachers," "Assistant Professor/Faculty Fellow" and "Adjunct" positions in which you will teach a full (or more) course load and be treated like you were a drop-out from a community college by your tenured and tenure-track colleagues. Master Teachers (General Studies) teach 3/3 load.
• If you expect to get any research/writing done, don't! In terms of tenure and pay, they  disproportionately undervalue and pass over women and women of color. This is common knowledge about NYU but thought I'd share anyway.

Took a position here and regretted it immediately. No infrastructure, no support, no funding for faculty. Programs rely heavily on adjuncts who are paid the lowest rate I've heard of. Lots of talk about myth, spirit, psyche and "tending the soul of the world," but this is a deeply profit-driven institution with no integrity. 90% of hires are internal.

• I had a similar experience, particularly with the lead interviewer (not the Chair).

• I had the same experience, but was at least warned that that would be the case. Toughest on-campus interview segment I've ever had.

• Also had this experience, and also was warned. Sounds to me like individual departments are taking steps about that problem.

• The interview is typically half day. You will see director, VP, HR, SC, giving a lecture and having lunch. Job description is not reflecting the real job. You and even the director will not know exact schedule until you start the job. The program is disorganized and disastrous. You will be involved in heavy teaching (similar to 4/4 but irregular), but they do not care you are comfortable with the subject. You will need a big nerve. The situation leaves almost no time for career advancement and scholar activity. Most instructors are local, part-time or guest lecturers. If you are to accept full time and moving from out of state, it may be difficult to find a colleague like you. Evaluation is more like a customer satisfaction from students but not quality of teaching. The program is narrowly focused on physician assistant and not ready to accept a new faculty.

• Arts and science has reputation for its quality teaching. Professional program is weak. Overall procedure is vaguely defined by by-laws and is unacceptable. Student selection is discriminative. It seems to get more students, as fewer students will hit the budget. Tenure process lacks accuracy and fairness. It is deeply flawed.

• Billings, MT, is a nice city. It is the largest in Montana but still small. It is very windy and sunny. Like other cities in Montana, the city is physically isolated and in the middle of nowhere. Additional information is available ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billings,_Montana). I noticed the city does not recycle. Facilities for children is poor. Less choice for food, goods, etc. If you have family with kids, you may have hard time finding a good day care and other facilities for children. People are nice. If you become sick and need a special treatment, you need to fly to another state. There is no medical school in Montana. It really needs medical education. The physician assistant (PA) program has been troubled for a very long time. A new director is also struggled; I could not find any evidence for the excellence in the director's performance. I was also suffered from his rude and misbehavior. The place needs a better person and a solid medical program. A slight improvement is noted, but it is probably because of the national trend in which quality of PA students becomes better(due to the need of health professions). I am not sure if I want to send kids to this school.

• Rocky is not a place to advance an academic career. It is a small school focusing on undergraduate studies; while there have been pushes for research programs, they are generally met with uncaring from both faculty and students. The PA program has been pushing seriously for re-accreditation, but the school as a whole has never lost accreditation. Billings, MT is a small city, compared to any other metropolitan area. The health services (St. Vincent Healthcare and Deaconess Billings Clinic) continue to grow. Recycling is a continual issue in the community, but the fact is, any recyclables except newsprint must be shipped (at relative cost) to Denver or Minneapolis to be processed. In short, if you take a job at Rocky, it is to teach undergraduate students. not to pursue a career in research.

• Applied for Biology job (2007). Didn't hear anything back, however, I saw one (!) interview scheduled, so I sent an e-mail to the chair of the SC. Got a response back, asking if I was still interested (seems that the one person that they interviewed turned them down), and scheduled a phone interview. Evidently, the main criterion for my phone interview was the e-mail inquiry about my application. Had the phone interview, and never heard from them again. Discovered later that the position had been filled. Seems very disorganized.

• The National Education Association warned people last year that the tenure process is so repeatedly and flagrantly violated here that almost every prof trying to move up has had to sue (7! 4 granted tenure after mediation, 3 after court cases) with clear findings of violation of procedure, Dean overruling dept heads, etc. Who wants a tenure-track job where you'll have to hire a lawyer when it comes time for your tenure review? Beware, beware...

• New faculty contract this year - salary and benefits for new hires have been substantially reduced, with all the money going to senior professors. Ditto the above mentioned problems with tenuring. The students are children of wealthy parents (tuition is $23,000 a year) who are too lazy or too stupid to get into a better school. Prepare to spend the entire last week of classes each semester documenting plagiarism cases. Severe alcohol culture among students, as campus is isolated from the nearby city, and there is nothing to do in the evening (God forbid that they would do their homework).

The History Department has searched for a Latin American Historian for the past three years. The interview is absurd. It was a telephone interview with seven faculty. Much of the interview (again, for a Latin America position) was dedicated to a discussion of "Core" readings on democracy that only included works from West Europe and the United States (such as Hobbes, Locke, and George W. Bush).

It sounds like you need to take a break from teaching. Teaching is certainly not for everybody--one needs to see the potential in their students despite their weaknesses.

• Well, if that's the case, 70% of the faculty at RWU needs a break. Actually, the real issue is the Core Curriculum, which is organized in a way that it encourages students to perform at their lowest possible capability (there is a fixation on retention at RWU). Were the administration to eliminate it, many of the problems at RWU could be resolved, and many of the lowest performing students, who have no business studying in a liberal arts institution, would leave to find a more appropriate venue for their education, giving the faculty the opportunity to develop more competitive programs.
  

• I have been on hiring committees in English for the past four years, and we have *never* treated a candidate like this! In fact, our candidates often remark upon the warm and collegial environment of our department. Each department is different. I don't doubt that you received this treatment from History, but each department prides itself on its divergent approach to the field and to its handling of interviewees.

• I also found the chairman of their Chemistry Department to be rather ill-mannered.

• All the above was true when I was there as part of a reading series, but the students (at least the ones who attended the events) were sharp, protesting political bs, and into literature.

• The OP is easily the best entry on this wiki. 100 internet points to you, good sir / madame.

• I removed the comments in this posting that are incredibly inappropriate -- commenting on the chair's appearance is just mean. I've left the comments that are less colorful but perhaps ring true. BTW, to the person who posted this, it was easy to track back to your location. CYA

• On-campus interview, but no further communication after that. Posted 12/07*
• After interview in this one-horse, one-light town, I couldn't run far enough, fas enough! sure Pittsburgh may be a few hours away, but I knew I couldn't bring my family to this ugly, bleak rural village. I thought I could "tough out" a few years on my way to bigger and better things, but now I know it is not workable at all. The interview went well but too many undercurrents of strife among those on the committee. I realize academe is the most dysfunctional milieu in which to work but really! These clods were barely civil to one another! what a distraction for me!Nice post. Mostly irrelevant, and completely insulting. I take it you weren't offered the job? I especially like this comment: "I thought I could 'tough out' a few years on my way to bigger and better things...." What a wonderfully pompous statement. Holding out for Harvard, were we? It's sentiments like that which underscore the "dysfunctional milieu" of the academy.

• Here, here! I received the rejection letter six months after the MLA interview. You figure they could have sent something out when they had campus interviews, huh!

• I would like to second this rating for CSI. I did not go through what the writer above went through, but the entire process was a mess. After the campus interview, I never received a word from them until I wrote the chair to ask about the progress of the search. Even though the job was in my field, I'm glad I'm not at CSI.

Sociology- Provost was rude and superior during interview (mid-90s)

Awful, terrible place, from former employee .......................11-2007.... English dept. is troubled.... other depts. are excellent and very collegial (history, sociology, poli sci).

• This may have changed. A colleague who started a job there in 2008 says that the hostile former chair had been ousted and the new chair in place is loads better. Reported a happy, relieved faculty situation.

• In response to the above, my own first hand experience at Tulane contradicts nearly all of those assertions. The workload for full-time post-docs is quite reasonable, by almost any standard (3/3). I've had strong support with research and professional development from a number of different members in the department, and have been asked repeatedly for suggestions on how to improve the post-doc position. I can't speak to the Research I rumor, but I've been an adjunct, and this is definitely not an adjunct position....1/08.

• Here, here on the positive experience at Tulane. Tenure-track faculty have both made efforts to include me socially and have given considerable amounts of feedback and encouragement on job letters, mock interviews, book proposals, and mock job talks. As far as the lack of distinction between adjunct and VAP/Postdoc status, that seems to be a much more widespread problem related to contractions in the higher ed market, labor surplus, and the erosion of the tenure system. Haven't heard anything about the RI classification, but considering that New Orleans is recovering from a major natural disaster, the University seems to have kept its footing surprisingly well.

• On Tulane's PhD program: It was "suspended," not "lost." They are in the process of deciding whether to reinstate it or not. 1/06.

• How can a poster have such an about face? First the dept. is mistreating VAPs and Adjuncts and losing its status, but now it's not worth mentioning?

• Maybe the poster didn't have an about face. Perhaps someone got to him/her?

They contacted me by email about a VAP position, wanting to set up a phone interview. I provided a phone number where I could be reached at one of only three hours they had available. Three days before the interview, they wrote to confirm date and time--they had the wrong phone number, so I again provided the one to use. I sit by the phone--no one calls. I go home, and they had left messages on my home number--never checked the two emails I sent, apparently, and just called any old number they found on my cv (including trying me at my departmental office--who's taking calls there?). I check my rage, and email them (this is now a weekend), politely reminding that I had waited patiently for their call, and asking if we could reschedule a time (while knowing perfectly well that some or all of the members would be pissed off at me, or the search chair for screwing up the number). On Monday, I receive an email telling me that they only had that time set aside, and have had to make their decision. THEN TRY TO PASS THE BLAME ON TO ME!! The chair never once acknowledged any fault or mistake and showed not one bit of common human decency in her reply. I sent a message to all of the committee members describing this and noting that their (her) behavior told me all I needed to know about working in that department. 2/08

Please pardon this group e-mail, but writing in this manner will get the word out to you all sooner than if we took the time to write individual letters.

I want to let you know that the position is now filled. The pool this year was extraordinarily strong, and our faculty felt that a very large number of applicants would have been able to make a contribution to UCI. We are grateful to you all for the time you devoted to preparing your materials for our consideration.

I wish you all the best in your future professional endeavors,

Sincerely,

Jim Herbert"

"Took the time to write individual letters?" Wouldn't want you to have to do that... [Hey, it's better than NOTHING, which is what I've gotten from a lot of schools.

For what its worth, I actually wrote to Jim Herbert after receiving my mass e-mail, explaining (gently) that such procedures were unprofessional and reflected badly on his department. (I also mentioned that I had spent time in the professional sector before going into academe). He sent me a very sincere apology, explaining that he thought he was doing us a favor by getting the information out quickly. He also said that if he had it to do again, he would never send out another mass e-mail.

I find the above post on UCI to be stupid and trite. Why is it so important to some people to get an individualized letter on bond paper with university letterhead delivered by postal mail with a message from the department saying that they are not interested? In an age of e-mail and California's terrible budget crisis, I would see no problem in saving time and money by sending out rejection messages via a group e-mail. I would rather know the results as soon as possible, regardless of the medium. This poster shows very little tact in mentioning the search committee member's name online. I would ask that this be removed.

I've seen this often enough I feel someone should comment. Beware of Chicago's annual pancosmic/panchronic, fake tenure-track searches that inevitably 'fail'. They have become a laughing stock or pariah for this (depending on if you have a job or not). Every to every other year they put out an absurdly wide call in three or more fields simultaneously. Some of these are lines still open from a faculty member expiring or retiring years past which they don't want to lose, but can't agree among themselves to fill. Approach it like buying a lottery ticket, but unless they contact you under the table, don't take it too seriously nor waste energy on it; (dates 2003-2009).

• Yes, could not agree more--I have heard that this is a university-wide thing, actually.

• Hostile faculty at interviews. 2007.

• • I think this is a little misleading in one respect: this department has never had 10 art historians, unless you count part-timers and temps, and maybe not then. I think the most they've ever had as full-time permanent faculty was four. The other craziness doesn't surprise me; I had a friend who worked there (and did the MFA program) and the former dept. chair was an alcoholic. The replacement was some sort of crony who didn't last long. The department was a mess in general. It's no wonder the administration hates them. Completely disfunctional. Such a shame.**

• • I'm sorry to hear about your experience, but I have to say it's not very surprising. I've been a graduate student here for several years (and have thankfully just finished), and I have to imagine that many of the departments would be run similarly. It's a shame, because while the school and southern Florida in general have a lot to offer, the University is run about as inefficiently and abusively as everything else in Miami. This is not generally a place you want to be.

• That's ridiculous. If the SC does not respond in a timely fashion, you have every right to make an inquiry. The practice of keeping all applicants hanging until a candidate has accepted an offer in writing is unfortunately widespread, but is nevertheless rude and unprofessional. But remember, many in academia have poor social skills in general, and many departments have inflated views of their own worth. I've been on both sides of the table many times, and it is important to remember that candidates are colleagues, not supplicants. (I have no experience with U.Mich specifically).

• Two questions -- more from a mixture of curiosity and indignation than anything. First, was the post so bad as to require boldface and caps? Second, unless the applicant did something insane -- or, at any rate, suggestive of disturbance -- what would give anyone the right not to make eye contact or say hello? A Ph.D. does not absolve someone of the common decency one can rightfully expect from five- and six-year-olds at the local elementary school. I find this passive-aggression tiresome.

• (REBUTTAL APPEARS IN DISCUSSION, ACCESS ABOVE BY PRESSING THE DISCUSSION BUTTON NEAR THE EDIT PAGE BUTTON)Who ever moved the follow-up comments, it would help if the rebuttal on the discussion page were identified with the particular school with which it was original aligned. This rebuttal is currently third on the discussion list. Not because I'm looking for a job; rather, because someone I care about is on the market.

• Don't worry about The English Department at UNC, the worst faculty have left in the last 6 months and the worst of the worst just left mid-year. Also the department was targeted by the administration for big raises this year ( avg $10K+). Some people need to feel like they are VIPs all the time.

• Very poor at communicating with candidates; almost disinterested.

• I had a very positive experience with this school, which I've posted on the "love" page.

• Q: Was this for a lit position?

• Are you serious or joking?

• My interviewers were bored-to-tears, rude, and condescending. The worst of the bunch was literally slumped in the chair like a child forced to go to dinner with the parents. My sense was that they a.) are unhappy as a team or b.) already knew their pick. Waste of everyone's time. And you?

• Wonderful colleagues?? Oh my - that is a serious stretch...I interviewed with them last year (when they had a failed search for this position) and they were all over the map; and I second the rude and condescending bit...One of their studio faculty on the committee had behavior that bordered on actionable.

• I feel a bit better that it wasn't just me! When the attitude began (about 2 minutes into the interview), I had the thought of ending the interview right there because it was so awful and such a waste of time and money.

• We won't even talk about not getting picked up at the airport, being told to keep receipts, and refusing to reimburse once they were supplied....They ARE unhappy and I would have refused the position if it were offered in favor of a fast-food gig instead.

• I didn't get the job either, but at least I'm not being a baby about it. There was nothing wrong with the committee or the interview. This is an outrageous misuse of the wiki -- and if you're wondering why you're not getting jobs maybe it has something to do with your attitude displayed on these pages, and/or the fact that you apparently spend way too much time on these pages and not enough time getting your own work done. You guys need to grow up and get over it.

• (new poster -- who also didn't get the job) while I don't agree with the tone of the previous poster s/he has a point -- there is a wiki set up for interview concerns and problems -- such venting should probably be posted on the Universities to Fear page.

• Being told to keep receipts is outrageous?

• The critiques above are funny; echoes of my experience with these people last year in a phone interview for a VAP replacement position. Rude, blasé, burnt-out cases. Big chip on their collective shoulder. Their group identity seemed to be presaged on their negativity about the job. They clearly thought my optimism regarding the profession was ridiculous and naive. My statement that I intended to assign a course reader met with group hilarity: Ha! She thinks our students would actually, like, bother to read it! Asked to describe the student body: "white, well-to-do, and extremely *recreationally* oriented." Uproarious laughter again. If they hate the job so much, I wondered, why don;t they do everyone else a favor and quit?

• Edited to add: I disagree that posting criticisms here is inappropriate. In light of the way the deck is stacked against candidates, I think it is important to publicize institutions' treatment of candidates in places that people will notice. This has nothing to do with individuals' success in getting jobs, or lack thereof.

• HaHaHa. I went to grad school with one of the committee members. Conduct described here is a most logical continuation of the temper tantrums (worthy of a 3-year-old) this person regularly threw in order to get its way.

University of Vermont

English

French

Asked me to wait outside for 15 minutes before MLA interview so that they could finish reading my materials, almost making me late for my next interview. First question was about how anyone "could possibly care" about the field in which they were hiring. Then launched abruptly into a disquisition proving the inferiority of my university town to Burlington. Got competitive about a prominent theorist who had lectured at UVM, claiming I couldn't possibly be right about this theorist because he had met him personally. Didn't end up hiring anyone for the position. Never received a rejection letter.

Lousy interview (on their part). They changed interview time on me twice before the date of interview, and then began my interview eleven minutes late. Two junior faculty and the dept. chair were the committee--basically one junior faculty was trying to show up the other and show off for the dept. chair. It was all totally childish. The questions were absurd--I was asked to provide two sample syllabuses of courses I'd like to teach in their department to upper-division majors and minors; in the interview, they asked noted that they didn't know most of the texts on the syllabus, and therefore students wouldn't either, and asked me to explain how I would make these courses accessible to freshman and sophomores--what a joke. They were also very rude and presumptious. They think everyone envies their jobs. UVM is falling apart (has been for years) and foreign languages is becoming laughable.

• I was told by a member of the department that the hiring for this position was a very political hire in that human resources demanded they make Quebec Studies, shall we say, less traditionally French Canadian.  They were after something very specific and likely didn't feel the need to truly engage with candidates who didn't fit their narrow search parameters.

• (REBUTTAL UNDER DISCUSSION; SEE ALSO ENTRY ON "UNIVERSITIES TO LOVE").

• (11/26) Yes, a failed search for 18th Cent last year. Apparently quite nasty and fractious departmental fracas. Dispute over inside candidate is what I heard.

• maybe, i don't know, but they did make offers that were declined to 2 people in the search last year.

• One of the department members asked me, quote unquote, during campus visit, what other schools I was interviewing with.

• I couldn't disagree more with the above. Though there are a few eccentrics in that department, in my experience they were by and large totally professional and incredibly friendly.

• The on-campus interview I had with them in January 2008 was extremely pleasant -- most everyone in the department went out of his or her way to show genuine interest. I was not their chosen candidate, but they earned my respect through thoughtful treatment of me.

• can you explain please?

• hahaha that is hilarious. They are ridiculous. They've been trying to hire in French for as long as I've been on the market. One year, they sent me a letter to reject my application because one of my recommendation letters was late, but promptly emailed me in the Spring semester to offer me a visiting position with a 4/4 load.
• The visiting gig is getting worse as time goes on.  When it was offered to me last year it was a 4/5.  Run indeed.

This department is so bitterly divided, they have no sense of who they are or how they come off to others. During my interview, I got the distinct impression that they were hiding things from me -- especially the professors in the department who are unhappy here and there seem to be LOTS of them. When I took a job at another school, one of the search committee members tried to convince me that a 4/4 load really was less stressful than a 3/3 load. I didn't buy it.

-- Run, don't walk.

• I had this EXACT same experience with the Communication Studies Department.

• I have no affiliation with VCU nor with any field in humanities, but I think it's horrid that someone deleted something from this wiki. If you disagree, post a cogent reply, but censorship has no place here. You should be ashamed of yourself.

• Agreed! I had a long campus visit there and was thanked, treated well and never contacted again...ever (for English Dept position 06)

• Yes, the person who deleted material from this Wiki needs to stay off the Wiki if they can't abide by the rules of the Wiki. If you think something is "libelous," go ahead and sue. But don't delete!

• The "libels" are still viewable if you click the "history" tab above and view a previous version of the page from, say, December 2007 or earlier. If someone feels really motivated, they could copy and re-post the original comments. p.s. Just found the date of the deletion: 16 January 2008, by . . . guess what? . . . someone at a VCU IP address.

• Wow - just went back into the history and read the "libelous comments." VCU should be ashamed of themselves - how could anyone make comments like that during a campus visit and expect to be taken seriously?

• Well, strictly speaking, we have no sure way of knowing whether the statements in question were true or not. It's really hard to imagine someone making up those kinds of details, and I'm not saying it's likely, but . . . grain of salt and all that. (And just to be clear, I in no way mean to support or defend the kind of behavior that was reported, nor do I think that the summary deletion of the wiki material by someone at VCU reflects well on that university.)

• I see them. It's under the December 15 2007 entry, is that it? A: Yes, or any other entry before the January 16 deletion date.

• For what it's worth, I interviewed with English this year (2009), and they were awesome across the board. My guess is, there was a bad apple at some point, which is what the alleged "libels" convey. I was on the lookout for anything like that, and caught NARY a whiff (to my great relief). My guess: bad apple was probably old, hence the "old school comments," and has retired (they told me they had many recent retirements).

7 faculty have left in the past 4 years. 3 were not renewed after 3rd year, one because he was a Marxist. Not a happy place.

• Had an AHA interview with them. 2 interviewers, a male and a female. The female was telegraphing...no, screaming...that she had absolutely 0 interest in me and was bored by having to sit through the interview. The male's idea of an "interview" was just to challenge in a d!ckish way. [This comment is on the history department.]
• Have friends who have taught there as VAPs and APs.  All say the dept. is out of touch with current scholarship & teaching.  I've also heard that there are 3 or 4 senior faculty deadset on denying tenure and renewal to any and all junior faculty.

Ditto. A former faculty member at the university (from another department) alsof told me ahead of time that the History department had a reputation for being (1) dysfucntional, (2) rude and ill-mannered to job candidates; and (3) being full of mediocrities. I suggested that's because the school is focused on teaching undergrads, not research. Hell, my book received glowing reviews, and I'm now recognized as one of the leaders in my field. I would wager that the person they hired doesn't have a record to match mine. Not that I would know this because Wesleyan didn't notify me, either, that they hired someone else. I've got a job, so I'm not angry about that, but I think that a simple display of respect and manners would speak well of the department. They're obviously not concerned with treating their candidates with respect. Makes me wonder, somewhat, how they treat their faculty. But I got that answer from faculty members who told me their own horror stories about being driven out of history. I expected better from Wesleyan. The place that hired me treated me (with that word that keeps repeating here) respect. .

Ditto again! My job visit there was a nightmare. Disrepsectful behavior and no notification from anyone -- the department chair or the chair of the Search Committee (who I won't name here) that they awarded the job to someone else. Repeated e-mails concerning their decision were ignored. All I got was a group e-mail sent to people who DIDN'T have an AHA interview: Talk about insulting. I had an on-campus interview! So I think, after showing up on campus and jumping through all of their hoops like a trained monkey, that I deserved much more than I got in return. And if anyone from that school reads this and gets pissed off, they only have themselves to blame, because I havent' read a thing posted here by the other candidates that doesn't ring true for my visit, including their ignoring me afterward. My advice, fix your system, otherwise don't complain or get hostile at us when people here tell the truth about you and why no one with any sense would want to work there!

I've been hesitant to talk about my experience with Wesleyan because I repsected the school so much. Sorry to hear that others shared my experience w/Wesleyan, but at least it comforts me to know I wasn't the only one. Also had reservations about taking the job after the initial interview, and I wasn't even selected to be a finalist. Here's a school, and a department, that needs to serisously review its hiring process, otherwise they're going to lose out on some great people (and it sounds like they have already).

Several years ago I was a visitor at Wesleyan and a candidate for a position. Let me be a little vague about the details to protect my identity but let me say I have a ph.d. from a top 15 institution, had one book done and another under contract, and before and after taught at several peer institutions. WORST PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE OF MY LIFE. The students are great, probably the one redeeming thing about the place. The atmosphere is poisonous but even on an individual level many are jerks. One of the few decent people there Claire Potter has little power in the department. I was notified I did not get the job by a form letter in the mail. The search chair (whose office was two doors from mine) came to me a couple of days later to ask me if I got the letter and then inform me that he had been to busy to find time to tell me personally. He didn't even offer the perfunctory platitudes about how the committee liked my work or how it was a tough choice or any niceties. Just did you get the letter. After that no one talked to me (not that anyone really talked to me before). Compared the other places I've taught (none of which were perfect for sure), this was the absolute worst. Many people will be tempted to come because of the name, the light teaching load, and seemingly good location. But you will be sorely disappointed. My experience there was so bad it caused to seriously consider leaving academia altogether. I wish I could go into more detail at the incredibly unbelievable things I personally saw there but if I did it would betray my identity. Suffice to say the Blair Witch of academic jobs. I've shared war stories with other former TT and VAP in a range of humanities departments (history, AA, english seem to be the worst) and found I wasn't alone.

• Ditto for English Department.

• People in the department made some fairly racist remarks during my visit. (2008)

• I disagree. I am a Williams grad and applied for a position identical to the one I hold at another school, but I didn't even get an AHA interview. Meanwhile, a non-Williams colleague who has never taught what the position asked for had an on campus interview.

• I second the disagreement. My friend is a Williams grad who interviewed for a position there (although not in history but another department) and did not get the job. The person who did was a non-Williams grad.

• Yeah, only 3 of 20 tenure or tenure-track professors in history are Williams grads. Considering how highly the college regards itself and its graduates, I would have expected the number to be higher. To be fair to the person who started this thread, 3 alumni out of 20 faculty is a higher percentage than most schools have in their departments, and Williams did hire two alumnae of the college in a row during the years 2003-2006.

• They just don't get it and are really (really) full of themselves in a way that the only truly insecure are. Agree whole-heartedly with previous post. Had conference interview with them and they couldn't care less about talking to me (started with them complaining about how tired they were of interviewing candidates). They were unyielding in asking how my research agenda would change as a result of teaching at a Canadian school (without giving too much away, my research is pretty firmly rooted in American studies and it would be hard to imagine adding on a whole new Canadian element to my research interests). I answered the best I could but I really just wanted to ask them, "Why did you even want to interview me? Didn't you read my dissertation abstract? Or letter?"
  

• Had a similar experience with them. After interviewing with a couple of southern Ontario schools, I wonder if it's regional. I was completely shocked by the aggressive and rude attitudes of department members at 2 out of the 3 schools in Ontario, York included. I also got tired of the American bashing even though I'm a Canadian living in the U.S. Enough of the "aren't you dying to return to Canada given the nightmarish state of American politics right now." I also found they seemed almost "hostile" in questioning my credentials, my approaches to teaching etc. I, too, found myself wondering "Why the hell did you invite me here?"

• York University just went through a strike( grad instructors, TAs, contract employees) that was ended by the government legislating the strikers back to work. It has a history of poisonous work environment. Hopefully that will change.

-Yes, because everyone wants to be American. Jokers!

• On-campus early February - 2 long days during which one member of the 4-person department never showed up. At the end of the second day the committee said, "Oh, didn't you meet XYZ?" How do you fail to notice the total absence of 25% of your department? Also, at least 4 senior faculty/academic staff members trashed the college president during meetings.

• Told that there would be 3 on-campus people, then a decision.

• Learned from the wiki that two weeks later they called people they had never before contacted (ie, not phone interviewed) and told them that "they were just making their first cut."

• Since it was obvious that the first round of on-campus people were out, requested reimbursement (which was promptly and politely provided by the VPAA's office). Immediately, an email arrived claiming that they were just deliberating and would make a decision soon.

• Two days later, learned from the wiki that the job had been offered and accepted. Two weeks after that a rambling, 3-minute long message on the home answering machine cut the cord. Among other things, the message asked that I "keep them in mind" and said "maybe I shouldn't leave this on your answering machine."

• The interview was fine, and often pleasant. It seemed like a really nice place. But then...everything got really weird. No idea what to think about all this, except that you shouldn't really dump a job candidate on the answering machine.

Very Bizarre MLA Interview where the inverviewer did the following:

• deliberately shook my hand with his left hand when he answered the door;
• interviewed me in bare feet with his legs crossed so that he propped his ankle on his knee while one bare foot jutted toward me at my knee level;
• acted as though he'd never seen my CV and made fake comments like, "Let's see. Where did you go to school? What is it that you write?";
• asked a series of not very serious questions for the first half of the interview, then seemed to take me seriously in the second half of the interview;
• said, as I departed, "Well...you did very well. I'm sure SOMEONE will hire you," placing a heavy emphasis on the word "someone" to imply that Wright State had no interest in hiring me.

There was a second interviewer present--also male--who asked serious questions and didn't seem to be partaking it in what was obviously a joke to the other male interviewer. I suspected they behaved this way because I was a woman and were forced to interview me by a third party not present at the interview.