Etiquette in our profession

[Miss manners]

Is it reasonable to expect schools who interviewed candidates to inform candidates about the status of the search? Surely, schools will contact those candidates they chose to invite for an on-campus interview. But is there any reason for schools not to notify those candidates who are not invited for a campus visit that other candidates were contacted? Is it just me, or is there something offensive about finding out that one will not be invited for a campus visit by checking the wiki?

[LAK47]

It certainly isn't just you. As for reasons, the reason I hear floated most often is that there really is no downside to not contacting you. The flyouts may not work out, and if they don't, then the SC can move further down the list. I fail to see though why the SC couldn't contact each person who didn't make the final cut and give him some idea of his standing (e.g. you have no f**king chance, you are are in our holding pattern file).

[Randy]

One Dept Head I know contacts all APA interviewees to tell them where they stand. He has three groups: (a) bring to campus, (b) no way in hell, and (c) maybe. He tells everyone (politely) where they stand.

But this is the exception, not the rule. I've had about 10 APA interviews over the past few years. One school contacted me for an on-campus visit. One school emailed a few months after APA to tell me the search was over. The other eight or so schools? I'm still waiting to hear from them. That is poor behavior, imho. Can't even send an email? A-holes.

[braaaaains]

I received a letter telling me that the decisions re: campus visits had been made, and that I didn't make the cut. The letter also noted the remote possibility that the SC might invite more people. That seems like a reasonable approach, and a polite one, for SCs to take, given the limited number of candidates who were initially interviewed. I can sort of understand not informing hundreds of candidates -- although I've gotten letters from schools that had hundreds of candidates, so it is certainly not supererogatory to inform everyone who didn't make it.

[Randy]

Braaaaaains,

I agree. What bugs me is when the SC's don't bother to tell APA interviewees anything. I don't care if I don't hear from every school I send a file to, but I think it's not too much to ask SC's I've traveled to the APA to meet to keep in touch.

[docs]

It is rude to not contact people who were interviewed.
Still, things go awry: we thought we had emailed everyone at the end of last week, but not all got the email. ouch.

[Guest]

What about candidates who were invited for an on-campus interview? Is it too much to ask of schools to inform candidates that an offer was made? Is it really necessary for candidates to find out that an offer was made to someone else via the wiki?

Perhaps schools think that their first choice might turn down their offer and that consequently they may have to turn to their second or third choice. But do they really think that it is better (for them, or for the other candidates) that the second- or third-choice candidate finds out that she is not the first choice via the wiki rather than via a nicely worded email from the chair of the department about the current status of the chair? I must say, I can’t think of any justification for this behavior. Can anyone?

[useyourtools]

Is it really necessary for candidates to find out that an offer was made to someone else via the wiki?

I agree that this seems incredibly unprofessional, but I also wonder how aware SC's are of the wiki, the market blogs, this discussion board, etc.

In addition to this (and I notice that there has been some discussion of this above, but I will reiterate here): if you interviewed someone at the APA, could you please let that person know what the hell is going on with the search? I mean... honestly... I realize that you said you would be deciding on whom you would invite to campus at the end of January, but we are into the first full week of February. If I look at the wiki, it seems as though one person has been invited to a campus interview, and that supposedly happened two weeks ago. Who knows if this is actually true? Remember, we're not allowed to call to follow up on what is going on because that might seem 'desperate'. Well, we're in a d**n recession... those of us who are seeking substantial, dependable employment are desperate.

And those schools that did not even bother to do APA interviews, which I completely sympathize with, could you please let those of us who applied for the job know if 1) you are still actually hiring for the position; 2) have selected candidates, scheduled interviews, etc.; 3) hired for the position already. If it is sadly the case that you (meaning the SC as a collective) are being held hostage by an anxiety-ridden job candidate, which means you cannot get to a computer or phone, then I completely understand. However, I doubt if this is the case. A uniform BCC stating what is going on with your search that is sent to all of us won't take you that long, and it would be an appreciated gesture. At this point, though, I can honestly only think of one gesture I want to give most SC's.

[la guest]

I remember (vividly) being on the job market. I remember feeling desperate. I also remember wishing SC's would communicate with me more. (Unless I got a job offer, I heard pretty much nothing. Some schools send rejection letters in March or April.) However, I'm not sure I remember feeling entitled to significantly better treatment.

In any case, my perspective did change after being on the other side of the process. A couple facts seem salient. One, the administrations of different universities and colleges have differing policies about how to handle rejections, and in general, the dissemination of information to candidates. Two, there's always a potential conflict of interest between potential candidates and the SC in negotiations: The candidate should with good reason be looking out for herself. If a SC really wants a decision (so they can more forward with their search should the decision be negative) and the candidate wants extra time to consider additional offers not yet forthcoming, the candidate is entitled to the extra time. This can screw a search committee, but tough luck for them. By the same token, if recruiting a candidate is facilitated by not revealing to that candidate that they are the SC's fifth choice, I don't see why they can't strategize accordingly. No? Why are candidates entitled to a better bargaining position in these respects? Finally, chairing a search committee take a lot of time. Hell, just keeping up on whether the Dean is letting the search go forward is a day to day slog. (In fact, why reject people now when the position could be cancelled tomorrow?) The recession is affecting us too.

By the way, the wiki is dreadfully incomplete. I know of at least a dozen job offers or on-campus interviews that are not listed on the wiki.

[Guest]

La guest: I don’t think it is a question of entitlement. Rather, as the title of this thread suggest, it is a question of etiquette. The point being made, as I understand it, is that SC’s could easily treat candidates with more dignity than they do, and this would come at no cost (or at least very little cost) to them. And yet, oddly enough, they do not do so. This is simply bad manners. I doubt that not telling a candidate that the department made an offer to someone else would place the department in a worse bargaining position should the department eventually decide to make an offer to the second runner up. Also, although I realize that people on SCs are busy, it really doesn’t take all that much time to write an email saying something like this: “Dear candidate, we really enjoyed having you visit our campus, and we think very highly of you and your work. However, as I am sure you understand, there were many outstanding people on the market this year, and the people we brought to campus were all superb. At present we decided to make an offer to one of the other candidates. Nevertheless, should s/he decide not to accept our offer, we will definitely be in touch with you again. Best wishes, Chair SC.” Now it took me 2 minutes to write this. Are you really saying that SC members are too busy to write something like this to the two or three other candidates they invited for a campus visit? Seriously?! Again, it’s not a matter of entitlement, but simply a question of basic good manners. Even though we are philosophers we can still behave like human beings, can’t we?

And while we are on the topic, why don’t you update the wiki if you know so much? It would be a nice thing to do for all those stressed out job candidates out there—I’m sure many people would appreciate it.

[la guest]

it's not my place to update the wiki. That's terrible manners. especially when it is sufficiently easy to trace one's IP address back to the city of origin; I don't want friends and acquaintances believing that I think it's my place to report on their business.

It's really easy to wonder why the chair of search committee can't take two minutes out of their day to email YOU personally with an update, when it is just you doing the wondering and fretting. It is quite a different matter from the perspective of the chair of a search committee who feels beholden to scores of other individuals and cannot reasonable address all their various questions and concerns.

We could go back and forth on this. I think candidates are justified in their frustration over the lack of information about their status. However, you need to take into account the fact that candidates are quite simply obsessing over the issue. Search committees, on the other hand, are playing their cards close to their chest and the complaints I'm seeing above come off as pathetic attempts to displace blame on search committees for the miserable state of the job market. We know it sticks; trust me. I hate being on a search committee. I hate relying on colleagues to treat candidates with all the dignity they deserve. It's a horribly imperfect system and whining about failing to get day to day updates is asking for something that is just beyond what most chairs of an SC can handle. Sorry to be cruel, but live with it.

[la guest]

...and by the way, my institution does send out exactly the messages to candidates that you suggest and keeps them up-to-date on the situation. I point this out because although we've made an effort to communicate openly, I'm still not convinced that doing so constitutes a minimal obligation on the part of every SC.

[anonymous and single]

la guest,

Thanks for weighing-in. I was struck by one line from your first post which unfortunately wasn't addressed by the response from "Guest", namely that:

the administrations of different universities and colleges have differing policies about how to handle rejections, and in general, the dissemination of information to candidates.

I'm on the market, and while I know the actions of SC's are often constrained by university administrators, it hadn't occurred to me SC's might be constrained with respect to their communications with candidates. Is this a wide-spread practice? And, if so, how restrictive are the constraints? For example, do they typically only affect the communication of offers and rejections, or do they extend to the kinds of "updates on the process" for which many candidates are desperate?

[useyourtools]

la guest:

"failing to get day to day updates is asking for something that is just beyond what most chairs of an SC can handle."

No one is asking for this.

Of course candidates are obsessing over the issue: after 9+ years of schooling, most candidates are incredibly concerned that they will not be employed now that they have graduated. If the rants come off as 'pathetic' to someone who has a permanent position, well, that's your privilege to judge them that way. As I am sure you understand, candidates cannot exactly rant and engage in any sort of catharsis to non-academics (there is such a disconnect between academic and non-academic job searches that just trying to explain how our market works is exhausting), so this kind of venue serves as a convenient medium for discussion and a bit of harmless ranting. I do not really see the point in judging the rants of those of us who feel the stress of not having yet secured a position for next year.

No one is blaming SC's for the failure of the economic market. I just think it is helpful for those people who are no longer on the market to remember just how in the dark most people on the market actually are, especially since there is such a disparity between the hiring practices of each university. Also, winter begins to wear on some of us after awhile. I wonder if this process would be a bit more bearable if it were done during the warmer months.

[umgumma]

I don't think la guest was claiming that the rants were 'pathetic' full stop. As I understand it, the claim was rather against rants that were "pathetic attempts to displace blame on search committees for the miserable state of the job market". In other words, don't blame search committees for something that is not under their control.

I should say that it is a good thing, however, for candidates to have a forum (and an anonymous one) for venting frustration. There is a lot to be frustrated about.