Let me preface this by saying that I'm having a little debate with myself about coffee--whether I should have more of the stuff or avoid it altogether. You see, when I have more of it, I get agitated, but when I get agitated, I write stuff--sometimes even the stuff I'm supposed to be writing. When I have less coffee, I am calmer but less productive. Incidently, the best coffee in the world is made by monks.
So I received an email today about a job candidate to whom we've offered a position. This person is being hired in a marginal subfield related (somewhat) to my marginal subfield, but also intersects with many hot-topic subfields (some related to marginal groups)--hear: really attractive to a field trying to redefine itself as interdisciplinary, non-Western, and socially and politically "relevant." This person would also help the minority profile of the department, and comes from a somewhat more high-profile state school than the one that has offered him a position--also a state-school better known for liberal arts than the one that has offered him a position. He is a self-described "activist"--attractive to some segments of the faculty and grad student body, though the university is not located in a place that one would necessarily consider an ideal locale for activism (unless he painted tiger-stripes on himself and posed naked with the PETA chicks who protested the Barnum & Bailey circus a few years back. . .). He also has extensive creative publications, which would add a possible creative writing instructor to the faculty. His publication record is impressive, albeit limited to journals and book chapters in his particular, very specific, not very prominent ethnic literature specialization--the equivalent to me publishing in the fictitious Journal of Literacy in British Literature of the Early Twentieth Century. No wait--that's less specific. Oh well! He is in the process of being wined & dined by numerous other departments who want him for the exact same reasons I have outlined: well-qualified & looks good politically. So what's the problem?
Well, as I see it, and as the faculty has presented it, he is one of the best qualified new scholars currently on the market, and has other benefits besides. Every department hiring for anything related to his specialties wants him. He's got lots of people fighting for him, and unless we're making him a really sweet deal, he might not be willing to settle for "flagship" school in Texas miles outside of civilization. I mean, another department in liberal arts had a candidate turn them down because the local high school didn't have a good enough tennis team. Yeah. Neither the climate of the school nor the faculty in general nor the majority of the student body are really activism-friendly. (Okay, you all know where I live now. C'est la vie!) So why make him an offer he's likely to refuse? Naivete? Ambition? Have the faculty who are here convinced themselves that it's a really great place? After all, we've got the minimum number of Starbucks to be considered civilized now, a definite improvement on 10 years ago--oh wait, do activists like Starbucks? Hmmmm. . . But what do I have against making him an offer? If he refuses, we just move on an no one has lost anything, and there is the snowball's chance in hell that he will accept.
Well you see, I'm thinking about this as a grad student approaching a firing committee--oh wait, that's "hiring committee," "firing squad". . . Sorry! In the "professionalization and publication" class I took, we talked a bit about the "culture" of a department/university, and how we should make sure we would be a good fit, and how we should learn about the university's/department's "culture" in order to make a convincing application to that department. Anyway, this "culture" thing is supposed to be a deciding factor for search committees. At least in theory. A candidate can be bumped for not fitting in with the "culture"--it's permissible. Clearly, I don't think he quite fits, but this is not about me. Well at least I wasn't the one giving input (for many very good reasons). In theory, someone who is well-qualified but not as high-profile--say, someone from a lesser state-school or one not particularly well-known for liberal arts--can win out over someone who looks more attractive initially based on a well-crafted argument concerning fitting in with the school's "culture." There are other strategies, too, and admittedly it's probably not best to play up a connection with the "culture" of a school with decidedly non-intellectual "culture," but presumably being much more suited for a more cosmopolitan area could influence the decision of a hiring committee in a less cosmopolitan area.
Because, you see, if the top, kind of wacky candidate is not offered all of the 10 positions open in the field (or 6, or whatever), but the positions s/he is most likely to accept (or where s/he is most likely to feel comfortable, not leave within 5 years, etc.), then the second-best, still excellent 2 or 3 candidates might be offered 2-3 positions in the first cycle of offers, which basically means that the hiring process will be completed sooner and the second- and third choice candidates get offers sooner. After all, there are so many people in this discipline who are really well-qualified but lack the academic pedigree of a certain university, I'm not sure the top candidate really is the best candidate--at least, I hope not.
By all accounts, the job search is expensive, grueling, anxious, miserable, and often unfair. And did I mention a load of laughs? If you're from a lesser school, you really need to start padding the vita against guys like the one described above from day one. But if you don't quite have the same list of pubs, does it really mean that you're less worthy? (Working on politically correct subject matter often helps, too. This guy has it all!) A lot of the misery of the job search could be lessened--at least for some candidates--if the hiring committees would be a little more realistic & rational about the whole process. I mean, what if their own students were competing against Mr. Star Candidate? Would they feel like their own students had the chance that they deserved, or that the decks were stacked against them? Would they (and their students) appreciate being left on the back burners while the top few were treated to the grand tour, even by schools whose offers they were least likely to accept? And what about the committees themselves? Are their resources best spent making offers to 4-5 candidates before one accepts? And isn't it just a little nicer for everyone involved to know that the first candidate to receive an offer accepted it?
5 comments:
i think ambition is part of the culture of the place. The place I just interviewed is in transition but they're looking at how best to serve their student population--which is a very particular group--and not so much at rankings. I'm not sure interdisciplinary or politically correct or any of that is at all on the table. my point being, although he may not fit with how you see the place, he may fit in terms of the prevailing culture, which is one heavily engaged with academic hierarchy.
I would add to what Anastasia says about ambition, though I'd put it in different terms. That is, it is quite the norm for departments to make hiring decisions based on where they want their department to "go," rather than where their department currently is. The "destination," so to speak, is about more than minority profile or diversity and includes things such as university goals, ideas about what might draw future graduate students, considerations of emerging focus areas within the field, and future hiring trends for example.
Also, there are a number of employers - academic and otherwise - who operate on the philosophy of "Get the best person for the job, regardless of how long the person is there." I actually got a great job this way, as my boss knew I planned on going to graduate school but genuinely thought I was the best candidate for the open position.
Finally, there are always trade-offs in hiring (for both committee and faculty). Speaking in terms of the candidate, s/he may not like anything at all about the idea of living in Conservative Fairly Smal Town in Conservative Southern State. However, such a dislike might be overcome easily with the prospect of working at a school that provides above-average research $$ (which is something said school actually advertises in the job position). This is not the norm, and a smart job seeker will know this and likely be attracted to it (I certainly would). My general point is simply to say that I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that candidates like the one you mention are absolutely going to turn down positions at schools like that you mention.
although he may not fit with how you see the place, he may fit in terms of the prevailing culture, which is one heavily engaged with academic hierarchy.
I'm not sure about this. I guess it depends on how we define "culture." It is possible that more grad students with interests in minority literatures have been accepted/recruited, and now the hires are being made to suit the need that has been created. I guess that's one way to look at it. A few years ago there was so little interest that such grad classes regularly did not make. The distribution requirement helps with this too.
So it was as I suspected--he is being offered a sweet deal. But this is why I fear for my own placement. If he's being offered even the job he is least likely (to my mind) to take, that means a lot of very well-qualified people are waiting indefinitely for him to choose. Ugh! Perhaps my suggestion is impractical, but the alternative isn't pretty. It means that all the cr*p they've been telling us about placement is just that.
On the issue of "culture" again... It's fine to say that the university is trying to head in a different direction (even though it's in Texas for Pete's sake!!), but what in the meantime? It doesn't do to have a faculty member who so resents being here that he's a virtual porcupine, or one that offends unlike individuals by irate statements based on the idea that everyone's perspectives are the same (I'm thinking of a recent email mistakenly posted to the broader list serve accusing others of being attached to dying Western culture). At such a school, also, undergraduate students are often turned off if a teacher's "agenda" is pushed too hard, which only serves to close their minds more and so serves no good. We could answer this, I suppose, if we recognize his job as primarily focused on research and on graduate studies, which is possible (especially given the extra research $$ incentive, which I'm sure isn't going to be used for undergraduate course development!), but then it will only be the research & grad culture that is affected. I don't buy the argument. Of course, the more I do this, the more I'm convinced that undergraduate education is really the only good purpose for what we do, since otherwise we're just spinning our wheels, not really contributing to anyone's knowledge of anything, and usually pushing private agendas.
Also, there are a number of employers - academic and otherwise - who operate on the philosophy of "Get the best person for the job, regardless of how long the person is there."
Although I am not advocating it by any means, I do know that there are plenty of places that hire the least common denominator simply because they don't want to have to pay the best candidate what s/he's worth. My husband has experienced that one.
the thing, those good people who are waiting for him to choose may be hearing something once he makes a decision. he might be offered every job but he cant take all of them.
I still think, though, that hiring the hotshot with trendy interests is not something every school would do. but an ambitious program with grad students, looking to maintain their position or rise? I get it. and I would guess it's not really about students. i don't know. I'm really thinking of my current grad institution.
That is comforting. Thanks for chiming in, Anastasia!
Post a Comment