Monday, November 24, 2014

Worst year ever?

According to PhilJobs, there are, as of today, 228 active job listings, of which 115 are for TT positions. I count 80 expired ads that are already past deadline, giving us a total of 195 jobs.* Compare that to last year's hiring numbers (again, PhilJobs, so those are self-reported hires, and not likely to represent the actual number) where there were 216 TT hires. Which adds up to fewer jobs this year compared to last year. Possibly a lot fewer. And we are really, really past the point where a significant number of new jobs are going to appear, I should think. The torturously slow trickle is going to get slower. And then stop. First round interviews are already being scheduled. And PFOs are already going out. (This is actually a PFO thread, since a Smoker requested one. But first I'm gonna do some complainin'.)

I still have a couple of applications to get done, but my numbers are very low this year. 17 applications total (although I'm being geographically very, very picky this year). Still, I applied for about 60 jobs last year, and I was being pretty selective then, and this year there are only about 70 jobs total in my AOS (broadly construed).

I don't remember the numbers for my first year -- the year everything went to hell in a handbasket -- 2008/2009. And we were still in the JFP days then, so getting an accurate count was near impossible, but I don't think it was this bad.

On the plus side, my impression is that there are a lot more postdocs and fellowships than in past years.

PFOs. I got one last week.**

~zombie

*I don't see a way to search PhilJobs for expired ads from the current job season without getting ALL 3,000+ expired ads, so it's possible there are more jobs that are already past deadline and expired. I count 80 such jobs going back to Aug 1, but make no warranties as to the accuracy of my eyesight and counting. Chalmers and Bourget: any chance of getting a search field added to limit searches by date or some such? Please?

** If your PFO indicates how many applications were received, please share that info.

239 comments:

1 – 200 of 239   Newer›   Newest»
Anonymous said...

I have received a PFO from Stanford, political.

Your loss Stanford!

Anonymous said...

Is this year really so bad? I haven't done any analyses myself, but according to the comments thread here (esp. the exchange between cian dorr and marcus arvan), this year is roughly the same as last: http://philosopherscocoon.typepad.com/blog/2014/11/where-the-jobs-areor-arent.html#comment

Could it be that some of those 216 tenure track hires are for jobs that popped up in the early spring (I don't know if that ever happens, first-time marketer).

Also, just this week several TT jobs posted, so though the trickle is no doubt slowing to a complete halt, it's not actually stopped *yet.* Seems maybe it's premature to declare it 'worst year ever.' Let's see how many people get jobs.

Anonymous said...

My PFOs so far:

Lyman Briggs
Georgetown
Utica

Anonymous said...

Got a PFO from NIU on Saturday. 164 applicants.

Anonymous said...

Don't you have a TT job?

Anonymous said...

I got a PFO (a well written one at that) from Northern Illinois University on Saturday.

zombie said...

As noted, this year looks worse to me than last year. The latest numbers include expired ads going back to August. I'm obviously not claiming these are the final numbers, but by this time last year, there were a lot more job ads. Or so it seems to me.

Anonymous said...

PFO from FIT.

Anonymous said...

Also PFO'd from NIU.

Anonymous said...

Any word on the St. Lawrence job? How many applicants, etc.?

Anonymous said...

I just tried to view the Wiki and it said that "the requested page could not be found." Are others having this problem as well, or have they started blocking frequent viewers involuntarily?

Anonymous said...

LSE and Reading in addition to some of those already mentioned.

I particularly enjoyed Stanford's:

"Please be assured that we received a large number of applications from very strong candidates. We learned something from each of them."

Awwww, I wonder what they learned!

Anonymous said...

Fashion Institute of Technology of New York

zombie said...

Please be assured that we received a small number of applications from very weak candidates. They made our job much easier.

zombie said...

You know what's a pain in the ass? The way the ads over at Vitae list multiple positions in a single ad. Is this some kind of cheapo cost-saving thing?

David Bourget said...

Smokers, we've added posting date search criteria to PJ:JFP. Thanks for the suggestion!

Anonymous said...

"Please be assured that we received a large number of applications from very strong candidates. We learned something from each of them."

"Which we, as privileged tenured faculty of an elite institution, will now plagiarize with impunity. Oooh, that's a good idea ... it would make more sense coming from someone from the upper caste."

Anonymous said...

A question about questions:

Suppose you land an interview at a department that's been in the philosophy news a lot lately: e.g., Northwestern, Colorado, UIUC. Would it be inappropriate to raise questions (e.g., in the case of Northwestern and Colorado) about the climate issues at these places? In the case of UIUC, would it be inappropriate to ask about how the philosophers' strike of UIUC because of the Salaita affair has affected the research climate or faculty retention? I get that asking such questions would likely strike a nerve. But since the blow-ups/issues at these places have been so widely publicized, it might also seem weird *not* to mention them or ask questions about them. And honest answers are definitely important to the candidate.

Anonymous said...

Are PFOs e-mailed together? I haven't yet received a PFO from a school that seems to have sent a PFO to at least some people.

zombie said...

David Bourget -- Thanks!

Anonymous said...

NIU sent off rejections. They also sent off notifications to at least some of those on the short list (apparently they're down to 13). I haven't received either, and I'm positive they have my application. And since they're planning to go straight to fly-outs, I don't understand why they'd keep a list of alternatives beyond those on the short list.

Search committees are bizarre.

Anonymous said...

@3:47 I would definitely not mention these issues. I've been at a school with minor issues, and felt that they were talked to death, and was SO SICK of hearing about it and talking about it that a conversation without mention of these things was a breath of fresh air. Honestly, when people bring crap like that up I get a knot in my stomach and a bad feeling in my heart. Why would you want to make people feel that way or associate those bad feeling with you when what you have going for you is that you are totally unrelated to their current problems? But if they bring it up, just think of something positive to say. "That's good to know! What I'm hoping for is a good place to do philosophy, and it sounds like that's what your department is. Speaking of, I hear you have a biannual conference in my area ... ", eg.

zombie said...

3:47 -- My inclination there would be to save such questions for the on-campus. The first-round is your chance to sell yourself. The fly-out is, to a large extent, a chance for the department to sell itself, so that strikes me as the more appropriate place for such conversations.

They know you know. Everybody knows. So I don't think you have to prove you know by asking an uncomfortable question during the first interview.

Anonymous said...

@5:50 PM:

Sometimes a search committee will not be able to hire from their first-tier list of candidates, and they will move to their second-tier, namely the list of 20-40 candidates from which the first-tier list was drawn.

I have been informed that I was on the initial shortened list of 20-40 candidates on a couple of occasions, and on such occasions, I did not receive a PFO.

So one possible explanation for why you did not receive a PFO is that you are on the second-tier list. Another possibility is that the SC has an incorrect email address for you on file. (This happened to me on one occasion.)

Anonymous said...

Are PFOs usually send off after or before invitations for interviews?

Anonymous said...

Can you please tell us where postdocs and fellowships are announced?

zombie said...

3:33: postdocs and fellowships are advertised on philjobs.org, along with other jobs in philosophy.

zombie said...

8:44 -- the timing of PFOs varies tremendously. Some SCs never send them. By which I literally mean never.
Some will send them only at the very end of the search, so next spring some time. At which point, you'll already have figured out you didn't make the cut.
Increasingly, it seems, people who get cut early in the screening process are getting PFOs early in the process, possibly before, or after, first-round interviews have been scheduled.
And anything between any of those options is possible. There is no uniform procedure.

Anonymous said...

I assume everyone has been getting their PFOs via email, right? If not, where have the snail mail PFOs been from?

Anonymous said...

I got a very strange message from Univ. of Chicago for their early modern position. I couldn't understand whether the message is meant to imply that the position has been cancelled or whether I should reapply for it at a later point. Anyone here who can clarify this?

Anonymous said...

got a PFO from Sheffield. had a phrase about the 'horrendous job market conditions' in it, which i appreciated.

Anonymous said...

Has Christopher Newport scheduled on-campus interviews yet?

Anonymous said...

I can't believe the JFP once existed. And existed until 2008/09. What a terrible profession.

Anonymous said...

9:47,

Umm, yeeaah, if you could go ahead and post the message, that'd be great.

Anonymous said...

9:47am,

"To be considered for this position you must reapply to posting #02420 at https://academiccareers.uchicago.edu per the instructions given."

The position isn't cancelled, but you need to reapply.

Anonymous said...

@9:47 AM

I received the same e-mail. The position has been cancelled and relaunched. Applicants need to reapply by December 31st. The active posting can be found here: https://academiccareers.uchicago.edu/applicants/jsp/shared/position/JobDetails_css.jsp?postingId=172846

Best of luck!

Anonymous said...

got the same message from chicago. it looks like they are rerunning the early modern search with a new application deadline. i have no idea what could be behind this. not happy with the original pool of applicants? something to do with HR?

anyone know what is going on?

Anonymous said...

I also got the same message from Chicago. From everyone I asked, the suggestion has been that it's a legal issue of the following sort. One or more job candidates that they'd like to consider didn't apply by the original deadline, but they can't actually consider them legally because they missed the deadline. So, they have to create a new job advertisement so that those candidates can apply.

In any case: really shitty for everyone else that has to apply twice and pay Interfolio twice.

Anonymous said...

Any guess at roughly how many people are invited to interview at the first-round stage? Or an upper limit??

zombie said...

9:44: A typical number is in the 10-12 range.

Anonymous said...

Unrelated question, homies:

What is the etiquette about submitting papers to journals and conferences at the same time?

I know I cannot submit a paper to two journals simultaneously. But can I submit it to a journal and to a conference simultaneously? Even if that conference wants to publish proceedings, or whatever? Any advice on this general issue?

Thanks!

Anonymous said...

I received an email from the Chair of a SC committee asking if I'd like to do a "practice Skype interview" prior to the actual Skype interview. I'm not even sure what that means. Does anyone have experience with that? My intuition is that I should NOT decline the offer to practice.

Anonymous said...

Anon 10:48:
Unless you're Allen Iverson, you should know exactly what it means to have a practice interview.
Seriously: when someone is trying to help you, the thing to do is accept the help unless you are sure you don't need it.

Anonymous said...

That's a head-scratcher, 10:48 . . . but it sounds like they're interested in you!

zombie said...

10:48 -- WTH?

I have never heard of that, and why would you want to "practice" with people who could be judging your practice efforts? The right people to practice with would be people you trust to provide you with honest and constructive feedback about your performance. There are MANY reasons (also many LEGAL reasons) why a SC cannot do that with job applicants. I cannot believe their HR department would allow this.

Are they basically asking you to interview twice?

I would politely decline, perhaps saying that you have practice sessions set up with your colleagues or someone at your grad school or some such.

zombie said...

9:35 -- if the conference would definitely publish the paper in proceedings, you'd have a problem.

Generally, there's not an issue with presenting the same paper at a conference that is under review at a journal (or soon to be). That is, the journal shouldn't object to you presenting, and the conference shouldn't object to the paper being under review. But, it would be prudent to check the submission requirements for both, because some could prohibit the practice.

Anonymous said...

anon 10:48 -- that's odd, and I've never heard of it, but he may just want to make sure the technology on both ends is up and running (and presumably this is something he's offering to all candidates).

so yeah, i would take the opportunity, though i admit it sounds a bit strange.

Anonymous said...

ah, i just saw zombie's 11:39 comments... (i left the suggestion that maybe you should take the skype practice interview).

Zombie makes some good points, so... actually maybe you *should* decline (I had assumed that this 'practice interview' was really just a technology check, and one that's being offered to everyone. if it's obviously more than that... that's bizarre, and I have no idea what to think).

Anonymous said...

i'm hoping that i haven't gotten any pfos yet is a good sign (also no interview offers, though).. I did get wiki-rejected from a few jobs though (i saw on the wiki that interviews were scheduled).

i know this question has been asked before on smoker, so my apologies for re-asking it (i'm hoping to get more responses and also can't quite find the original place I saw it): when do first-round interviews typically get scheduled? and in your experience, were they scheduled by phone or email?

Anonymous said...

@ 10:48

Are you certain that they are not rather saying, "would you like to do a ptractice run of the SKYPE software part of the interview beforehand, in order to make sure that the system works...to avoid surprises on the day of...i.e. a dry run at tech shit.

Because that is the ONLY sensible thing that they could mean. if the SC chair is actually offering to rehearse a full interview with you, then they doing something unbelievably unethical, perhaps without the consent of their SC peers (but unethical even with their SC peers consent).

I find the latter impossible to fathom.

Anonymous said...

10:48 AM and zombie,

I think you both might be misreading what this 'practice Skype interview' consists in. It seems like it's the search committee's (poorly expressed) way of asking whether you'd like them call before the actual interview in order to briefly test the Internet connection. In which case, you should definitely accept the offer!

Anonymous said...

10:48 -- It may be that the SC only wants to make sure that the technology works (video, sound, etc.) Could that be it? If so, then I see no problem with that.

Anonymous said...

Isn't every year going to be the worst year ever? We're in a slide toward irregular faculty and adjuncts, and that's not going to change.

Anonymous said...

10:48 - do they mean a practice Skype connection, just so they can be sure everything's working properly? I once had an IT guy on the hiring institution end do that with me a day or two before the scheduled Skype interview… but it wasn't with anyone on the search committee. (Or do you mean that they asked you to do a practice Skype interview before even offering you (and as a condition of so offering) an actual Skype interview?)

Anonymous said...

10:48 -- I would assume they just want to do a trial run to make sure all of the technology is working properly, not an actual interview. (But you should obviously ask for clarification.)

Derek Bowman said...

@11:57

Not getting any PFOs yet just means you haven't applied to any of the very small number of schools who are ahead of the game in both scheduling/conducting first round interviews AND in sending out rejection letters. So it's not really a sign one way or another. Good luck.

Anonymous said...

@10:48 -- Yes, they just want to see whether the hardware/software works.

zombie said...

Aaahhhh -- I have had SCs have me test the software/connection a few days ahead of the interview (when they were using non-Skype, PITA Adobe software).

But it wasn't the SC that did it. It was the department admin. And it wasn't exactly an offer, it was more of a command.

Is this CUNY?

zombie said...

11:57 -- first rounds are being scheduled now, and now is typical (for any schools that have passed the deadlines and are sticking more or less to the past typical schedule).

Not getting PFOs means nothing. A lot of SCs still don't bother with them, or don't send them until the search is concluded.

Anonymous said...

I'm a job market semi-vet, and this is a first for me: Bowling Green is in the wiki as "applications acknowledged." I sent in an app (email) 3 weeks before apps were due. I received no acknowledgment. Have other people received their acknowledgments? Are they only acknowledging some apps?

Anonymous said...

Okay, seriously, WTF? For the second time this year, phylo suddenly has no record of my username. When I disappeared, all the schools I had added disappeared. I had entered them in twice. I'm obviously not going to add them in a third time.

Anonymous said...

"I'm a job market semi-vet, and this is a first for me: Bowling Green is in the wiki as "applications acknowledged." I sent in an app (email) 3 weeks before apps were due. I received no acknowledgment. Have other people received their acknowledgments? Are they only acknowledging some apps?"

Bowling Green sent acknowledges by snail mail to some applicants shortly after they submitted applications.

Anonymous said...

10:30,

Over the past two years, I've added maybe 45 entries without ever registering with the site. None of them has disappeared. There might be a connection. So I'd encourage people who want to add entries to do without logging in.

Anonymous said...

at 10:30 PM,

Post your list of now-deleted jobs here so that we can add them for you.

Anonymous said...

Phylowiki seems to be flip-flopping on who's scheduled first rounds. One day dept. x is listed as having scheduled first rounds, the next, not listed as such. What does it all mean?!?!

Anonymous said...

Does anyone know if Christopher Newport has scheduled on-campus interviews yet?

Anonymous said...

8:29 I didn't receive an acknowledgement from bowling Green either.

Anonymous said...

which wiki are you all looking at? I don't see Bowling Green on the phylo wiki. ?

zombie said...

It's a wiki. Anyone can post anything there. This has been an issue in the past, and will probably continue to be an issue. Because it's a wiki.

So, look if you must, but don't make yourself crazy.

Anonymous said...

@11:50

People mess with the wiki. I don't know why (some perceived competitive advantage of spreading misinformation? General enjoyment of chaos?), but it happens. Last year, for example, I twice saw things posted that I knew not to be true, corrected them, and saw that they were back to their original places within hours. Take whatever is posted there with a giant grain of salt.

Anonymous said...

I'm 10:30. I contacted Phylo about the problem. If anyone wants to re-enter some of the schools that would be great.

Rice TT position
Davidson
USC
University of San Diego (as opposed to both San Diego State and UC San Diego)
University of San Francisco
UC Santa Barbara
University of Dayton
University of Missouri, Kansas City

Thanks to anyone who takes the time!

Anonymous said...

Are search committees really scheduling interviews on Sundays?

Anonymous said...

Wooster's Interfolio status changed to "interviewing finalists." The wiki is silent. Has anyone gotten an interview request?

Anon ca said...

Where did Davis go... Glad to see it off the First Round list but now it's completely gone.

Anonymous said...

Regarding Wooster. The wiki claims that they contacted first round people today. (I do not know for sure if this is true because I was not contacted.)

Also, let me point out that there is at least one VAP who has been in the department for awhile that seem to be suspiciously perfect for the job. I don't know, of course, but there could be a well-placed inside candidate here.

Anon ca said...

Phylo claims to be under maintenance. I can't help but think they are being kind and forcing a break upon me.

Anonymous said...

12:21, "Are search committees really scheduling interviews on Sundays?"

Apparently. I just replied to an email from a SC Chair earlier this evening.

Anonymous said...

"Also, let me point out that there is at least one VAP who has been in the department for awhile that seem to be suspiciously perfect for the job."

Suspiciously perfect? How dastardly! It's just awful that a department might consider hiring to the tenure track a non-tenure track employee. Someone should stop this nonsense!

David Morrow (Phylo) said...

Hi Smokers,

Anon 10:30 contacted us about their disappearing wiki listings, as they said. So far, I'm stumped as to the cause of the disappearance, but we're continuing to look into it.

In the meantime, we've upgraded the software and tightened some permissions to close some potential security holes and improve monitoring of behind-the-scenes activity on the site. That should help us figure out what's going on.

If your user account has also disappeared or if you've submitted wiki listings that disappeared or didn't show up, please email me at david [at] phylo [dot] info, so that I can gather more information.

Anonymous said...

I just wanted to thank everyone here at Philosophy Smoker for their efforts in bringing us such helpful information. I truly appreciate it!

anonamoose said...

Anonymous on November 28, 2014 at 10:48 AM said: "I received an email from the Chair of a SC committee asking if I'd like to do a "practice Skype interview" prior to the actual Skype interview. I'm not even sure what that means. Does anyone have experience with that? My intuition is that I should NOT decline the offer to practice."

Here are my thoughts. In the past 2 years, I was asked by the chair of a search committee if I'd like to talk before the Skype interview over the phone regarding the position, school, etc. I thought this was suspicious, but I did it anyway. The call lasted about 45 minutes to 1 hour and consisted of the chair telling me positive things about the school and then asking me questions about my views about teaching. The position was for a teaching-heavy job...VERY heavy teaching load. I suspect the phone call was not only to do a pre-interview but also to gauge my interest in the job. I was interested and conveyed this.

I then had a skype interview with the full committee and then a campus visit. I was made an offer. I didn't end up taking that job and took another offer for various reasons, some of which were geographic.

I don't know how I feel about agreeing to that phone call, but it was definitely a pre-interview interview. Would I do it again? Yes. I needed a job.

Anonymous said...

macquarie pfo (it was for a 3 year lectureship). they didnt mention number of applicants.

Anonymous said...

Pfo from Valparaiso, no mention of number of applicants.

Anonymous said...

Valparaiso actually sent me the dreaded double PFO. I got one PFO and 2 min later I got a second one. I guess they want to make it twice as clear that I and others like me should FO.

Anonymous said...

I got the double PFO from Valparaiso, too. I guess we're not Lutheran enough. I didn't mention that I'm Garrison Keillor fan in my letter. Do you think that's was did it?

Anonymous said...

Are PFOs coming in earlier this year than in previous years?

Anonymous said...

I applied for about 50 jobs, and have heard nothing to this point.

Anonymous said...

7:02 PM

Did you primarily apply to jobs in ethics?

Anonymous said...

I did. No word, positive or negative.

Anonymous said...

"Are PFOs coming in earlier this year than in previous years?"

"I applied for about 50 jobs, and have heard nothing to this point."

Doesn't look like many places have sent PFOs. Most of the places that have done so look to be religious schools that probably have a clear idea of what they don't want (Benedictine, Valparaiso) or non-philosophy departments (Georgetown Business, Lyman Briggs). At this point, not getting a PFO from these or other places indicates very little.

Anonymous said...

Can someone explain to me why so many places don't send PFOs (if they do at all) until the Spring?

Anonymous said...

Has anyone actually been contact for an interview at Valpariso? I didn't get a PFO (nor did I get two), but also have not been contacted for an interview either.

Anonymous said...

@843. It's a silly artifact of HR departments. Basically, once you get a PFO, you're eliminated from consideration, even if everyone else on the list dies. So search committees have little to gain from sending PFOs and, potentially, something to lose. Many searches just keep all the candidacies open until the search is filled, which is why you don't get your PFO. At my school, they aren't even generated until we actually hire (i.e., put one name into the hired role in the system, which auto-generates PFOs to everyone else).

Anonymous said...

@Anon 8:43

Just a guess, but I'd say they take their sweet time sending PFOs (a) because they can, and (b) because in many cases the PFOs have to go through HR/Legal etc... Never forget that colleges and universities are, at their core, bureaucracies, and bureaucrats never do anything without a deadline forcing their hand.

Anonymous said...

"Can someone explain to me why so many places don't send PFOs (if they do at all) until the Spring?"

Insurance in case SC's wish to reopen some candidates' files at a late stage, or notification of rejections are handled by the school's HR department, which operates with its own timetable.

In some cases, you never hear back.

Anonymous said...

PFO from Biola: "You are not on our shortlist". No mention of the number of applicants.

Anonymous said...

anon 8:43 -- I have no idea why SCs don't bother to send out PFOs. I really think they should. Common courtesy.

actually, I shouldn't say I have *no* idea -- it's an annoying and time-consuming task for whatever administrator or whoever ends up having to do it (if they don't have software for it). but they should still do it as early as they reasonably can.

Anonymous said...

I have some sympathy for why PFO's do not need to be sent to everyone who applied. We can pretty much figure out we didn't get the job. What I don't understand is those departments that can't even send you an email of rejection after you have interviewed with them. That is hardly a burden. Yet, it happens all the time. For shit's sake, how hard is that? One faculty member told them they send out nothing for legal reasons coming from HR. I also suspect some of them are just plain lazy and their hearts are cold and hardened against the plight of the unemployed.

Anonymous said...

8:43 a.m.: Yes. Every time you do anything related to a search, it's extra work for everyone involved. Contacting applicants about anything is especially extra work for administrative assistants. If departments were to send PFO's earlier, that would also necessitate sending PFO's later, because some candidates that would be eliminated later (e.g., after interviews) will not have been eliminated earlier. Thus, sending PFO's earlier would necessitate more work for administrative assistants. Departments usually like their admins, or, in any case, want to cultivate a good relationship with them. So, they typically send PFO's to all unsuccessful candidates at the end of the search.

Anonymous said...

8:43,

At my (regional state) university, we are not allowed to send rejections until the position has been filled. It's an HR policy that is tied to a state law.

It's not ideal, but for schools that must abide by such laws, HR doesn't care that the academic job search takes several months (much longer than most other application processes for jobs at the university). This rule holds for all jobs at the university.

Anonymous said...

10:05 AM,

Yes, I have been contacted with an interview request by Valparaiso.

Anonymous said...

8:43 here.

I realize that it might be extra work for admins. But, it's not a lot of extra work. There is this wonderful function called "mail merge". I don't know if any of you have experience with admin, but, e.g., you can merge email addresses and names from an Excel file to Outlook, thereby generating the PFO emails.

If you did it using snail mail, then you can mail merge an excel spreadsheet to an address sheet and individual letters, print these out, and then stuff and send. That's a bit more work. But, maybe the SC can help out. I dunno.

The thing is that people put money and expense into applying. Also, these are actual people hoping for a job, some of whom are in a pretty vulnerable position.

It's pretty lame, then, to say, "Hey we couldn't be bothered to be nice enough to email you to let you know you did not make the short list."

Re: this HR requirement. That applies only for a genuine PFO. The SC could tell us, "You did not make the short list, but we would like you to know that we might move off the short list. If you decide to withdraw from the search, please let us know."

Anyway, I find the behavior of departments during hiring season to be unpleasant more often than not.

Anonymous said...

8:43,

Think of the job market like online dating. You join OKCupid because you want to find someone. You do find someone, and send that lucky person a message. But that someone may not be interested, and so you get no reply. Does it hurt? Sure. Is it the best form? Probably not. But it still happens.

Now remember that this person is receiving hundreds of messages, and is only going to date one person. This person isn't likely to reply to all of them, even with a form message. Sure, all it takes is a minute, but then you remember that you likely do not reply to every person who sent you a message on OKCupid, either. You really only put in some effort for those you thought might be promising.

But what about your future happiness?, you might ask. Well, that's on you. You need to send out more messages to more potential partners. And you probably did, because chances are you did not join OKCupid to send one message. Chances are, you sent out lots. As with the job market, some of them might get replies; others won't.

But, I can hear someone thinking, this isn't dating, this is our professional careers! That's true. And your professional careers are very, very important to you. But they not all that important to the hiring departments that have rejected you, just as your love life is not all that important to the potential partners who have rejected you.

Hiring departments, like potential suitors, are looking to find the right one, the perfect fit. They might not find it the first time, but that's life. And maybe you would have been perfect, and they didn't see it. That's also life.

But before I allow myself to run away with my analogy (dating profiles as CVs, etc.), I'll bring it back to my central point: once you have been rejected, you cease to really matter. And that's pretty much the way rejection works, whether it's the job market or dating.

Also, I've been rejected from, literally, well over 100 jobs. I can promise you, getting a letter or an email or any kind of notification doesn't make it any better. I'm still on the market, and I can't even begin to name all the schools that rejected me, let alone which ones notified me.

zombie said...

I actually know real life non-academic people looking for jobs, and they tell me that it is pretty uncommon to get either an acknowledgment of an application or a PFO for jobs they've applied for. Some of this has to do with the increasing use of online applications, where literally hundreds of people apply for every position.

Anyway, it's not just SCs, it's everyone.

Anonymous said...

Those serving on search committees this year - what's it looking like? Are the applicants exceptionally strong? Are there lots and lots of applications? When the applicant pool looks the way it does, how does it affect the decision-making process?

Anonymous said...

While I don't think the academic job market and the non-academic job market are exactly the same, the norm outside of academia for PFOs is not much different. In most cases job candidates who are rejected do not get notified. Employers will typically tell you "We're going to make a decision by such and such date." If you don't hear by then...that's your PFO. The situation is a bit different if you've had an interview. In that case you might get a call or email PFO, but still I think more often than not if you don't hear by such and such date, you know you've been eliminated.

Anonymous said...

New Mexico is gone. I guess my dream of living like Walter White is over as well.

Anonymous said...

What we want are interviews leading to jobs. Getting a PFO vs not getting a PFO makes no difference. I do find it somewhat amusing, in a dark sort of way, when I get a PFO long after the position has been filled. But I've applied to so many jobs I can't keep track of who did or who did not send a PFO and I can't see why I'd want to keep track. It's completely irrelevant to what I'm doing on the job market. Rejection etiquette is an insignificant issue given the serious problems confronting unemployed/underemployed philosophers.

Anonymous said...

New Mexico is gone. I guess my dream of living like Walter White is over as well.

Don't you mean your dream of living like Jesse Pinkman?

Going on the tenure clock, while still trying to teach and being consigned to committee work, student advising, etc... seems more like Jesse's situation in the last season or so of BB.

metaphysicist said...

Any metaphysician get a NM interview?

Anonymous said...

I have some questions that a member of a search committee might be able to answer. What do search committees think of candidates whose departments make phone calls on their behalf? Does this help or hurt the candidate? What do search committees think of those departments?

I think the practice invites opportunities for the expression of implicit and explicit biases on both sides. For example, suppose that there is a pool of 10 candidates from school A this year. Of the candidates from A, 9 are white males, and one is not. Suppose that the faculty from school A has had problems in the past with insensitivity to biases in favor of white males, but are working toward becoming more aware of these biases. Am I wrong in thinking that this practice invites trouble?

zombie said...

I have occasionally had a reference make phone calls on my behalf, when they knew someone personally at the hiring department. Neither I nor that person is a white male. (And so far as I know, it never made a positive difference, since none of those places ever gave me an interview.)

But I'm not sure what the implication is here about the biases that might be introduced by the phone call.

zombie said...

What's going on with philjobs? This already insane job ad from U of AZ has been changed and now says "university of north carolina" (all lower case).

http://philjobs.org/job/show/3506

This does not bode well.

Anonymous said...

December 3rd. I'm officially calling this job season dead in the water for me. Nothing ahead but the consideration of whether I should quit now or spend one more year in this soul sucking, demoralizing job hoping it leads to something better. Good luck to the rest of you.

Anonymous said...

Is there anyone out there who applied for the Oklahoma State University job, but who did NOT just get an email asking them to fill out the EEO form. Or did they send that request to every applicant>

Anonymous said...

I have a simple, but important question. Say you're on the job market fresh out of a top ten Leiterific school (ignore issues about rankings for now). Suppose you have some quality publications in top ten or fifteen general philosophy journals (e.g., Phil. Studies; Erkenntnis; and the Australasian Journal of Philosophy (chosen randomly)). Suppose further that you also have recommendations from top people in their respective fields. Can you (on the aforementioned basis) be over qualified for a job? Do some programs look at your materials and say to themselves "she's not a good fit" in light of the above facts?

Thanks for your help everyone.

Anonymous said...

@12:26 PM, isn't it a bit early to throw in the towel?

Also, wtf is "process philosophy"?

Anonymous said...

My advice: NEVER get excited about a request to fill out an EEO form.

Anonymous said...

"Can you (on the aforementioned basis) be over qualified for a job? Do some programs look at your materials and say to themselves "she's not a good fit" in light of the above facts?"

I doubt there are many four year college/university jobs that one would be "overqualified" for given the credentials you list. But I'm sure that doesn't stop some job candidates from thinking of themselves as such.

As to your second question, yes, it has been said that some SC's at, say, teaching-oriented schools won't bother with a candidate like the one you describe if he/she doesn't appear to be a well-trained teacher, looks like he/she is too research oriented, he/she writes a very poor cover letter, etc. It's not that the candidate appears "overqualified," but that he/she appears perhaps either not a good/realistic fit or even "underqualified" if he/she hasn't taught or has poor teaching reviews.

Anonymous said...

I have a question that may be a slight moral dilemma. I'm married and wear a wedding band. In past interviews and/or especially during on-campus visits, I noticed that some faculty members looked and saw that object (and thus recognized that social status) clearly, but -- rightly -- asked me no questions about it. But I did notice that they have taken note of it in their body language and facial expression. Is it lying if I choose not to wear my wedding band at interviews or for on-campus visits, so that I don't have to wonder whether my marital status is figuring, for better or worse (probably worse?), inside the minds of members of search committees as they evaluate me as a job candidate. What do people think about this?

Anonymous said...

@1:26

"Also, wtf is 'process philosophy'?"

Philosophy's ignorance of its own history continually amazes me. Process philosophy is a term used for contemporary versions of Heraclitus' thought: change is the basis of reality.

Exemplary philosophers are Peirce, Bergson, and (most centrally) Whitehead.

Anonymous said...

12:26 here

@1:10 - overqualified, no? Flight risk/unlikely to be happy in the position/not a good fit, yes. Trust me, no one other than you thinks you're overqualified fresh out of graduate school.

@1:26 - Process Philosophy is the general name given for the philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead. "Process" because of the role event plays in his metaphysics.

If by "early" you mean I don't yet have all relevant facts at my disposal to make that call, then yes. If by "early" you mean haven't yet achieved the appropriate level of psychological defeat, then no.

@1:51 - I would consider taking off your wedding band fair game. It's not lying, it's withholding irrelevant information.

metaphysicist said...

1:51, from everything I've been told: if you're a man, it's helping, and if you're a woman, it's hurting. If you're a man, SCs will see you as stable, dedicated, organized, and less of a sexual harrassment risk. If you're a woman, SCs will worry that you're going to take a bunch of maternity leave, that you're heart's not in philosophy but rather in children, and things like that.

I do not think it's morally wrong to fail to disclose your relationship status. And that's what a ring does. If they made a ring for gay people, or for poor people, I don't think they'd be obligated to wear it.

So, my advice is to wear it if you're a man, and leave it off if you're a woman. (Consider whether it will leave an indentation that might be noticeable.)

Anonymous said...

@1:51 PM, I'm assuming you're a woman? Being married is supposedly a potential penalty only if you're a woman (and potentially a bonus if you're a man).

That said, I would not take it off, on the grounds that I would not want to be hired by a place that would see a major part of my life (my marriage!) as a disqualification for a job. Such attitudes (even if implicit) are defeasible evidence of a sexist working environment that I would not want to be a part of, no matter how desperate I am for a job.

Anonymous said...

Take it off, 1:51! Some married folks don't even wear them. That seems perfectly fine to me.

What an awful field, though.

Anonymous said...

anon 1:51, No, it is not lying!!! Your marital status is not something that ought to be taken into account in your evaluation.

I strongly think you have a full right to abstain from wearing your band (and relatedly, have you ever noticed how many married philosophers don't wear wedding bands ever? not that I think they're dong this for hiring reasons, but I hardly think it will be noticed/surprising if you show up sans band but wind up having been married all along).

Likewise, if a pregnant candidate were to conceal her pregnancy status by wearing loose clothing, that would be fine. If an LGBT person were to 'conceal' her LGBT status by abstaining from referring to her partner's gender, that would be fine. If a blue collar philosopher were to abstain from mentioning that she was raised by a single-mother janitor, that would be fine. If a candidate who suffered from severe mental depression were to abstain from mentioning her battle with depression, that would be fine. You don't have to disclose these sorts of things during an interview unless you want to.

Derek Bowman said...

@1:51

If not wearing the wedding band will make you feel more comfortable about the interview, take it off. I don't think it's really a dilemma - it's not lying, and the only thing you're concealing is something you have a right to keep private in the interview context.

Anonymous said...

12:26 -- please don't give up just yet. Many applications have a later deadline this year, and a look at the wiki shows this -- most schools haven't scheduled first-rounds yet.

I have not gotten a single interview request yet, and I am certainly not ready to throw in the towel.

Anonymous said...

I've not received any interview requests, and I'm not really nervous either; it still seems early. Still, when would it be reasonable to begin getting antsy? If there's still no word two weeks from now (the 17th), would it be fair to construe that as a bad sign?

zombie said...

Got my first request for an interview today.

And the SC I'm on only just sent out invites today, so... it's not too late yet.

In olden days (like my first years on the market), you could get "the call" in late December. I once got one on December 22, at which point I had to quickly arrange a last minute trip to APA.

Anonymous said...

3:32, Can you tell us where the interview request was from?

Anonymous said...

What an awful field, though.

I know.
I really wish we were like those other fields, where nobody ever discriminates on the basis of marital status.

Anonymous said...

It is definitely too early to feel defeated! When I was on the market 2 years ago, I received most of my interview requests in the second week of December.

if you haven't hard anything by end of next week, it's likely (not certain) that you won't have an interview.

Anonymous said...

Dartmouth Society of Fellows email update: not a PFO, but they won't have a short list until early January. They received over 1700 applications for 4 positions.

Anonymous said...

Yeah this week strikes me as way too early. I haven't heard anything yet which doesn't so much make me nervous as let me continue to be nervous that I won't get anything. When I last did the job search seriously two years ago I didn't get anything until around the 8th and got two interviews that week. I picked up another on the 22nd. My own feeling is that maybe 20 or 30% will make the call for interviews before next week and a similar number after, but that next week is really go time. In all my times on the market I don't think I've ever gotten an interview request before maybe the 5th or 6th. Anyway good luck to everyone, well at least everyone who's not applying for the same jobs I am. Let's be honest here.

Anonymous said...

@5:33 and 9:46 -

This is 12:26.

Thanks for letting me know. Last year I had half my interviews scheduled before Thanksgiving. Though only one school I applied to is up on the wiki, I was taking it as a bad sign that I had heard nothing by now. Particularly given that most of my applications were due more than a month ago. It looks like most of the places I interviewed last year were just particularly on the ball. I may not throw in the towel just yet, but my current position has me so demoralized it's hard to believe that good things still happen in the world.

Anonymous said...

all my interview requests in previous years on the market ranged from dec 4 to dec 12.

but, what with philjobs freeing up departments to run job searches on their own schedule, it is possible that dates for interview requests will range as widely as the job postings themselves.

anyone hear from ryerson?

Anonymous said...

@10:25 - Wondering the same thing. I've heard nothing, and am trying to hold out hope that the Ryerson announcement on the wiki is phony.

Anonymous said...

Question about 1-year positions that require scholarship:

Like, what the actual fuck? What exactly are they gonna do if you don't do much scholarship while teaching their courses? It's not like they have the sword of tenure dangling above your head.

As I see it (and please correct me if I'm wrong; I'm a first-time marketer): 1-year positions are created to serve a specific need -- to teach classes. Hiring them is not a long-term investment. They're not going to be around long enough to serve on thesis committees. Why, then, all this heavy breathing about "research expectations"?

I can understand that, if there was the possibility that a year-long gig would turn into a TT gig, then if you want a shot at that, you should be research active. But without that being a real possibility, I don't get the requirement.

Of course, it's good *for the candidate* to be research-active, but from the perspective of the university, why should it matter?

Anonymous said...

A note: There are some schools that have started first-round interviews, but that specifically asked not to have that information leaked to the wiki.

I know this, because I have interviews from two such (Leiter-ranked) schools, neither of which are listed on the wiki as having begun first-rounds.

Anonymous said...

"A note: There are some schools that have started first-round interviews, but that specifically asked not to have that information leaked to the wiki."

I see no reason to honor this request unless you think the school will try to hunt down Prometheus.

Anonymous said...

"Question about 1-year positions that require scholarship:

Like, what the actual fuck? What exactly are they gonna do if you don't do much scholarship while teaching their courses? It's not like they have the sword of tenure dangling above your head."

Right. Phone in the teaching, and work on scholarship. Be mediocre in the classroom. Publish a lot.

"As I see it (and please correct me if I'm wrong; I'm a first-time marketer): 1-year positions are created to serve a specific need -- to teach classes."

Yup. But being an awesome teacher compared to being a mediocre teacher takes a great deal of effort, for comparatively little return. They will be using you to teaching courses. Use them for a paycheck and a department home while you publish your way to the tenure track.

"Hiring them is not a long-term investment."

Yup.

"They're not going to be around long enough to serve on thesis committees."

Or learn your name. You will be "the new guy" to most of your colleagues.

"Why, then, all this heavy breathing about "research expectations"?"

Because they can. Because at the end of this market season, there will hundreds of philosophers with PhDs and publications who will not be on the tenure track.

"I can understand that, if there was the possibility that a year-long gig would turn into a TT gig, then if you want a shot at that, you should be research active."

No, you should be research active to get another job. That this school is basically encouraging you to do that is a good thing. Do not tell them of their mistake.

"But without that being a real possibility, I don't get the requirement."

See above.

"Of course, it's good *for the candidate* to be research-active, but from the perspective of the university, why should it matter?"

Because when you publish something, you will do so while listing yourself as a faculty member at the university.

Anonymous said...

"A note: There are some schools that have started first-round interviews, but that specifically asked not to have that information leaked to the wiki."

This strikes me as unfair, and it struck me that way when I first heard about schools doing it.

What advantage does it give them? They're not going to like any of 12 AMAZING top candidates and need a plan B? Even if that were true, I'd sure love a Leiter-ranked school to email me out of the blue and say, we goofed, can you interview? I just don't understand why they are doing this? It's obviously information people who bothered to apply to their school want to have; why not give it to them?

Second, it's a buyer's market, and they know it. This is already hard enough on all of us. Even finding out one didn't make the list is a reason to stop wondering, waiting, and worrying.

Anonymous said...

"A note: There are some schools that have started first-round interviews, but that specifically asked not to have that information leaked to the wiki."

This is an outrageous request. It's not enough that they're holding all the cards, and expecting us abused and put upon job seekers to kowtow to their every fucking whim, in addition to that, they apparently think that they should also control the free-flow of information? No, no, that's too asking too much. The Wiki exists so that we can share with each other the one thing that is under our control on this sad little snipe-hunt...the information we are given. I say, use the Wiki, don't be a party to their manipulation (however pointless and bizarre it is).

Anonymous said...

"A note: There are some schools that have started first-round interviews, but that specifically asked not to have that information leaked to the wiki."

Hellloo! Some of us are waiting to hear if we have APA interviews so that we will know whether we have to spend upward of $2000 to go to the APA or whether we can spend the holiday time with family and friends.

Do the SCs at these Leiter-ranked schools ever think of that?

The first-round interview postings on the Wiki are especially valuable to job seekers: knowing sooner rather than later whether you have APA interviews enables you to plan your time.

P.S. The Smoker recently ran a thread asking readers to define the aim of the blog. Here's your answer: providing a venue for commenting on the Wiki postings during peak job season is your raison d'etre.

Anonymous said...

Did New Mexico send out PFOs? I didn't get one, nor did I get an interview. Are folks just assuming from the wiki?

zombie said...

"Question about 1-year positions that require scholarship:
Like, what the actual fuck? What exactly are they gonna do if you don't do much scholarship while teaching their courses? It's not like they have the sword of tenure dangling above your head."

1) Since this is your first year on the market, you may not know that a "one year position" may mean a one year, but renewable, contract. Such renewable contracts can be renewed indefinitely, if the dept has teaching needs, and can't get a tenure line approved. Department chairs don't really like to do this -- most I've talked to would rather have a full time colleague who is invested in the department and students.
So, given that you might need/want that contract renewed at the end of the year, you might think it in your interests to do what you're asked to do. The job ad might not say that its renewable, b/c whether or not it is renewed may depend on budgetary issues beyond the department's control.
2) You might also benefit from having a letter of recommendation from someone in that department. A teaching reference, to be sure, but wouldn't it also be nice if they could say what a productive scholar you were while teaching x classes.
3) you might also not know that when you are on the TT, you are also on limited, renewable contracts until you get tenure -- 2 years, at my U. You're pretty much expected to be continuously productive, while also teaching. (How much teaching and scholarship are weighted depends on the institution.) So, yeah, tenure is dangling over you in the big picture, but really you have a renewable contract dangling over you more immediately.

Anonymous said...

12:20PM: I'm going to call BS on the claim about super secret hush, hush interviews. I don't see what advantage it gives the departments and it's causing people a lot of needless worry. Also, given that they've just notified 12 other candidates I'm sure such an injunction wouldn't be at all effective if it were real. After all, it's not like any of them have the technical chops to track you down or would care enough to do so if they did, so someone would post. Or tell a friend who would. So yeah I don't think anyone ought to take this claim seriously unless someone can come up with further proof.

Anonymous said...

Hi all, I have a question for you. Right now I have two options: (i) stay as a Lecturer in a research university, or (ii) take up a Postdoc for a year in a very interesting city, and quit my job as a Lecturer. The lectureship is renewable, and apparently it can be renewable indefitely. What should I do? Also, does the 1 year postdoc look better in my CV than a Lectureship?

Anonymous said...

"Hi all, I have a question for you. Right now I have two options: (i) stay as a Lecturer in a research university, or (ii) take up a Postdoc for a year in a very interesting city, and quit my job as a Lecturer. The lectureship is renewable, and apparently it can be renewable indefitely. What should I do?"

If it's allowing you to publish, should you want a tenure-track job, keep the lectureship.

"Also, does the 1 year postdoc look better in my CV than a Lectureship?"

Depends on the postdoc. No, scratch that. Depends on how productive you were on the postdoc.

Given the state of the market, keep the job that provides some measure of long-term stability. Unless you are really keen on being forced to go back on the market in 2 years because you are facing unemployment.

Anonymous said...

Why are we one of the only disciplines not to use the Academic Jobs Wiki site?

To me, everyone knows which jobs they applied to and knows how to use Ctrl+F, making the rest of Phylo's search features otiose. Plus, the ability to actually type in the info. seems (from the other disciplines' wikis) to encourage more conversation and info. sharing.

And entries don't mysteriously disappear and confoundingly flip their status back and forth.

This is both an encouragement to philosophy applicants to use that wiki, and a question about why we don't, in the first place.

zombie said...

"Hi all, I have a question for you. Right now I have two options: (i) stay as a Lecturer in a research university, or (ii) take up a Postdoc for a year in a very interesting city, and quit my job as a Lecturer. The lectureship is renewable, and apparently it can be renewable indefitely. What should I do? Also, does the 1 year postdoc look better in my CV than a Lectureship?"

Lotta variables here. No one-size-fits-all answer.

How important is job security to your personal situation?
How prestigious is the postdoc? Is it more prestigious than your PhD-granting institition? (My postdoc helped me a lot in the prestige area, because my grad program is not very prestigious)
Can you do research with your lectureship? Are you producing new work continuously? Will you be very productive in the postdoc? (I've seen CVs for people who have had postdocs and produced nothing. That's a huge fail.)
How varied is your teaching? If you're teaching nothing but intro, that can be a liability when a job wants more specific teaching experience.
Does your job pay more or less than the postdoc? benefits? How much will it cost you (financially, personally) to move?
How good will the mentoring be in the postdoc? Will it benefit you?

Anonymous said...

8:26,

There is no right answer.

Some high school athletes, when deciding on what college to attend, choose to go to the school that has the best placement to the professional leagues. If you play basketball, you may want to go to Kentucky, because they have a proven track record of shepherding players into the NBA. They are also a top-ranked team that has a better show than most of making the Final Four, which would give you a chance to highlight your skills on the biggest stage. It almost seems like a no-brainer.

That said, you may not want to go to UK. You are a hell of a forward, and right now the best forward plays for UK. If he doesn't enter the draft next year (or of the NBA changes the rules), you will have to compete for playing time. Which means you get fewer minutes, you don't showcase your talents, and you might not get drafted as highly as you could be. In this scenario, you may want to Duke, where there isn't as much competition for that position, but you still have a shot at a national title and a better shot at more playing time.

Or maybe you want to declare for Michigan State. Still a highly-ranked team, even if they are slipping, but Tom Izzo is the kind of coach you want to help develop your game. So you are willing to slip in the rankings if it means become a better player in the long run.

In short, there is no "better" option here. Not only are there too many variables, but you need to consider what you want/need out of those opportunities. What will the post-doc allow you to do that the lectureship won't? (What can Tom Izzo give you that John Calipari can't?)

Anonymous said...

"Question about 1-year positions that require scholarship:
Like, what the actual fuck? What exactly are they gonna do if you don't do much scholarship while teaching their courses? It's not like they have the sword of tenure dangling above your head."

Here's a more charitable reading:

At my state university, we are legally required to choose a candidate based only on the criteria listed in the ad. And given the horrible state of the job market, we *don't* want to hire someone just to teach for us - we want to give a job to someone who seems promising as an all-round philosopher, and for whom not having a 1-year hole in the CV could be the difference between staying in the game and succeeding next year, and simply being out of the game entirely. In other words, we want to help a good researcher hang on until they can get a good permanent job doing research they care about. But we can't give extra weight to candidates doing good research unless we put it in the ad.

Philosophers are horrible sometimes - but sometimes we try hard to be good human beings. Really.

Anonymous said...

"In other words, we want to help a good researcher hang on until they can get a good permanent job doing research they care about."

At your charitable university, do 1-year faculty teach the same course load as tenure track/tenured faculty? Do they have the same access to research funding and leave time as tenure track/tenured faculty? Other than giving them a job, what does your department do to help good researchers complete their research?

Anonymous said...

Thanks, 12:46, that's really helpful (I posted the original question).

zombie said...

2:06 --

12:46 offered a "charitable reading" of the research requirements listed in a job ad. S/he did not say s/he or the department or the university were being charitable or offering charity to job candidates. You also seem to confuse what the members of one department and/or the SC desire to do with what they must do given the realities of university budgets and mandates from above. Departments have some autonomy when it comes to hiring, but they do not always have complete autonomy. If the benefits you ask about are not part of the package for non-TT faculty at said university, there is not a whole lot the department can do about that, even if they want to.

Anonymous said...

If PFOs have clearly gone out, and interviews have also clearly been lined up, and you have not gotten word either way, is it appropriate to contact the department? My thought is to sit tight. Thoughts?

Anonymous said...

anonymous 450: New Mexico did not yet sent out PFOs, but im going by the wiki.

Anonymous said...

@6:25 it seems unlikely that the department will be willing or able to tell you anything helpful. I say sit tight, there's little to be gained by asking.

Anonymous said...

"If PFOs have clearly gone out, and interviews have also clearly been lined up, and you have not gotten word either way, is it appropriate to contact the department?"

To do what, remind them that they haven't invited you to an interview yet?

They already know. Sit tight.

Anonymous said...

anon 625: i agree you have to sit tight, though I understand that that's very hard to do.

this waiting game is excruciating..

tangentially, i think the job market process would be *much* more humane if it were simply a shorter process. whats wrong with december 15th deadlines, skype interviews in late january and fly-outs in february?

as it is, the whole process can ruin much of a schoolyear. this is preposterous. now that we're liberated from the old-style JFPs and the APA interviews, this does not have to be an 8 month process anymore.

of course, the timeframe itself doesn't address the root problem, which is that the adjunctification of the university has made TT jobs a rarity. but the timeframe of the application process is an easily fixable aspect which could dramatically improve the quality of lives for those on the market (and perhaps for SCs as well).

Anonymous said...

WTF? Did Portland and Scranton REALLY schedule interviews on a Saturday???

Anonymous said...

@2:37 sending interview requests over the weekend is not unusual. What's odd is the the application deadline for Scranton was less than a week ago. A turn around time that fast is definitely unusual. Perhaps they had a crop of strong applicants who submitted way in advance of the deadline? A favored candidate already picked out? The most impressive organizational skills I've ever seen from philosophers? Or maybe someone is just messing with the wiki. I have no idea.

Anonymous said...

Yes

Anonymous said...

Presumably, people sometimes post to the wiki a day or two (or more) later than they receive the interview request. Obviously, the fact that something shows up on the wiki on Saturday doesn't mean the interviews were scheduled on Saturday...

Anonymous said...

Yes, Portland scheduled first-round interviews on Saturday.

Anonymous said...

Do people think that there's a lot of activity that's not being reflected on the wiki? Or just a little?

Anonymous said...

With a few exceptions, my experience has been that when I get an interview, someone else updates the wiki almost immediately--as in, I get off the phone, and someone has made the relevant change before I get the chance.

Anonymous said...

@8:46. The best way to think of the wiki is in the same way you would think of a gossipy friend or colleague you know you shouldn't listen to. Not always accurate, doesn't necessarily have the full story, likely to miss something big. You look not because it's good information, but because it's the only information.

Anonymous said...

Dear snarky 2:06 -

In my department, 1 year faculty teach 1 class more per year than TT folk. They get as much travel funding as TT folk. They don't get stuck with any more intro classes than TT folk. They get paid about 90% as much, with full benefits. They're not eligible for sabbaticals - but neither is anyone else in their first year. It's not TT, but it's not so bad either. Please identify yourself if you apply for a 1-year job with us - you don't strike me as the kind of person I'd want to help to stick around.

Anonymous said...

For those candidates whose interviewers asked you not to post on the wiki, you now have information that would allow you to update the form on how those departments are conducting their first-round interviews, if that information isn't up already. So you could fill out the form that Jaded, PhD posted at:

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1T5f40BhT7vU0l8n12oJ8IWCtteLKj19PMgIFXg8RrXY/viewform

Anonymous said...

5:19,

I'll identify myself now: I'm the philosopher who thinks that non-TT faculty shouldn't be exploited. I'm sure I'll be easy to spot!

Anonymous said...

6:40 PM,

Departments actually ask people not to update the wiki?

Derek Bowman said...

@5:19

How about you identify yourself and take a stand in favor of your department's practices?

Two points.
1. You're right, that doesn't sound that bad - certainly not compared to many of the alternatives. In light of that, you should be standing up publicly advocating for schools with worse hiring practices to follow your lead.

For example, what have you done to keep your administration from offering worse terms of employment, and how can other schools replicate your success?

2. You can publicly explain why, if your department has reliable teaching needs, it's a good use of your time, your office and HR staff's time, and applicants' time to do 1-year searches year after year.

I'm a term by term adjunct, I'm currently on the market, and I post under my own name. What's your excuse?

Anonymous said...

University Alabama PFO came in today, no number of applicants given.

Anonymous said...

What is happening at Wooster? I see two different dates for first-rounds. Are they all scheduled? Anyone know?

Anonymous said...

@1:22, was it Huntsville or the Tuscaloosa mind job?

Anonymous said...

@ 2:25 Huntsville came today.

Anonymous said...

Has anyone heard anything from Notre Dame de Namur? The wiki listed first round interviews on Dec 1, but just today I received an email from HR letting me know that my application was with the search committee. Anyone have any word on what's up here?

Anonymous said...

Did Alabama send out PFOs via email? I didn't get one, nor an interview. WTF?

Anonymous said...

Sigh. I already have the feeling of emptiness that is not-getting-any-interviews-at-all.

Anonymous said...

PFO from Alberta (post-doc) -- no mention of number of applicants: "it was very difficult to choose from among the many incredibly strong applications we received"

it was a pretty thoughtful PFO.

Anonymous said...

anon 4:58 -- it's still pretty early... looking at my own apps, only about 20 percent have posted interviews to the wiki.

hopefully your feeling of emptiness is replaced with the feeling of fullness that is getting-one-to-two-(or-more!)-interviews

Anonymous said...

@4:04, yes, alabama PFO's were via email.

Anonymous said...

@5:34

Still early? I don't know, i applied to 50+ positions. All bu about 20 of those have set first round interviews, so far nothing. It does not seem early at all.

Anonymous said...

5:34 (this is 4:58):

I appreciate the encouragement. I know that there's still some time, but seeing schools posted on Wiki that I thought I actually had a good shot at makes it hard to shake off the thought that my fate will be the same at other schools as well.

Anonymous said...

YO DUDERS

let's get a new thread going for this week, it is crunch time. GO SMOKERS

Anonymous said...

This profession blows. We have too many PhDs chasing too few jobs. And, I think that every hiring department should take the time to send PFOs. Who cares that in other professions job-seekers are treated like refuse through which to search for a pearl? One would hope that our profession, given how much it sucks when it comes to getting work, would try harder to make vulnerable job searchers feel a little bit less like crap.

"Dear Smoker,

Thank you for your application. Unfortunately, we have narrowed our search down to a short list of candidates and you are not one of those candidates. It is possible that we may revisit our full list of candidates. But, this is very unlikely.

We wish you the best of luck in your job search.

Best,
Search Committee"

Anonymous said...

I don't notice Tulane (Mind) on the wiki. Anyone have info on that one or know to get it posted?

Anonymous said...

4:58/6:59 - being rejected from one school has nothing to do with whether you will be offered an interview at another. I've been offered interviews at schools that felt as though they were way out of my league and summarily dismissed at places that seemed like a good fit. Even similar seeming departments can arrive at radically different lists of top candidates. You can't take one rejection, or even a bundle of rejections as a sign about what anyone else is thinking.

Anonymous said...

"being rejected from one school has nothing to do with whether you will be offered an interview at another... You can't take one rejection, or even a bundle of rejections as a sign about what anyone else is thinking."

This is also true of my experience on the market last year.

Anonymous said...

You can't take one rejection, or even a bundle of rejections as a sign about what anyone else is thinking.

How about 30 rejections from a variety of departments? or 40, or 50?

At what point does the sample size permit a relatively confident projection basis for the remaining applications?

Anonymous said...

@7:51 - never

The odds are something akin to that of rolling dice. Having not turned up a pair of threes on x many previous rolls is no indication that a pair of threes won't come up next time.

Which isn't to say that crap shooting (or philosophy job marketing) is a reasonable use of anyone's time or money. It's just to say that you can't reasonably know in advance.

Anonymous said...

"How about 30 rejections from a variety of departments? or 40, or 50? At what point does the sample size permit a relatively confident projection basis for the remaining applications?"

You are having a banner year if you can get an interview at 10% of the schools you've applied to. One is doing very well if one is rejected from, say, 50 schools, but lands 2 or 3 interviews. Getting one interview, irrespective of number of applications submitted, is a good year. Even top candidates from top programs typically see the majority of their applications rejected.

As for timing, you may get the bulk of your rejections on the front end of the job season. The timing does not tell you anything about whether you will get an interview later. So, there is really no good inference from timing of rejections to hopeless candidacy.

Now, if the rejections are tied to, say, poor CV or generic, non-school-specific cover letter, lack of teaching experience, etc., then that's a different, and perhaps better ground for an inference to hopeless candidacy.

Anonymous said...

A few years ago I was rejected without interview from every school (about 80) to which I applied but one. I interviewed at and was hired as a VAP by that one school.

One of the schools that rejected me without interview that year interviewed and hired me (TT) the following year. it was the only interview I got out of again something like 70-80. It's very difficult to interpret what PFOs mean for future chances. This has all been said before, but for all but the very top candidates, the element of luck is rather large. The best we can do while waiting is get on with working and preparing for next year's market.

Anonymous said...

What's the protocol for thank-you notes for Skype interviews? One for each person in the room? One for each person who asked a question? One addressed to everyone in the room but sent only to the chair?

Anonymous said...

i think Notre Dame de Namur has finished first round phone interviews, but i am not sure. i know they were looking at apps on a rolling basis and have not yet scheduled the on-campus, so there is a chance they are still reading additional applications.

Anonymous said...

i just realized there is a typo in my dissertation title on my cv! face palm!

Anonymous said...

Regarding Derek Bowman's second question above - not all schools hire 1 year positions year after year. We, for instance, use them, but only when someone is on sabbatical, someone has left and we can get a 1 year position approved until we can petition for a TT replacement line the next year, etc.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 239   Newer› Newest»