Amount of Time Given to Accept Offer

[Curious]

Does anybody know how long one has to make a decision about an offer for a TT job? I know this would be an average, just curious. As well, can these time limits be negotiated?

[marketeer]

two weeks is pretty standard. this two week period might start ticking when you are first informed of the offer, by phone probably, or it might commence when you first receive the official offer letter, which arrives after you've been notified. I am under the impression that this is a field wide standard time, and I think there is something in the APA bylaws about it, such that schools are acting inappropriately if they press you to make a decision in just a day or two.

negotiating more time would be contingent on a number of different factors. if the school making the offer thought there was a chance they would lose their second place candidate in the meantime, it might be hard. If they know that their second place candidate will wait, it will be easier. No school wants to offer you extra time just to eventually get turned down and then find out that their other candidates accepted other offers meanwhile.

I am less clear on issues like getting extra time to find out if another school, making later decisions, will make an offer, so that the candidate has that offer to negotiate a higher salary, etc., at the original school. If you are interested in one school, but want to be able to negotiate there using a later offer, is this a standard thing to be upfront about? Anyone know?

[la guest]

On page 31 of the JFP179, under Offers of Employment, the APA states:

"In normal circumstances, a prospective employee should have at least two weeks for consideration of a written off from a properly authorized academic officer, and responses to offers of positions whose duties begin in the succeeding fall should not be required before January 15. When an employer is unable to honor these conditions, the prospective employee should be given an explanation of the special circumstances that warrant insistence on an earlier decision."

I read this as a suggestion to give the candidates up to two weeks, but there isn't a whole lot anyone can do to enforce this, since a prospective employer can always give an explanation of 'special circumstances' along the lines of "we really have to know NOW or we'll lose other opportunities!"

I've heard of schools asking for an answer on the spot. That seems (to me) unreasonable and rude. However, while it might be natural to think 'why would I want to take a job with unreasonable and rude colleagues?' the truth of it is, most of us want a job, period, and from the fact that search committee employs unreasonable and rude recruiting tactics, it does not follow that they'd be lousy colleagues.

It's basically a crappy situation. If you get pressure from a school, I'd just politely but firmly explain you want to put yourself in a position to accept their offer enthusiastically and happily--and that involves assessing your options in light of the best information available (and this won't be available for at least another week or two).

[Guest]

ALWAYS ask for the offer in writing. ALWAYS. This puts you in a far better position to negotiate. And also buys you a little more time.

Everyone knows that no one can make any fully informed decision until at least the beginning of March, so any pressure before that should be taken as undue.

It is unfortunately not uncommon for some people/depts. to both bully and lie to candidates.

If at anytime you feel bullied or lied to, you should report the matter to the APA.

[la guest]

Feb 7, 2009 13:29:10 GMT -5 @Guest said:

Everyone knows that no one can make any fully informed decision until at least the beginning of March, so any pressure before that should be taken as undue.

I suspect this is probably not true. That is, it may be true that no on can make a "fully informed" decision before March, but it does not seem to be the case that everybody knows this and that search committees asking for a decision before that time are putting undue pressure on candidates. If a search committee makes an offer on February 1st, and waits the two weeks before pressuring the candidate for a decision, this does not appear to be unreasonable and rude.

Feb 7, 2009 13:00:50 GMT -5 @marketeer said:

If you are interested in one school, but want to be able to negotiate there using a later offer, is this a standard thing to be upfront about? Anyone know?

In my experience, it is okay to tell a department that you are being interviewed by, or have other offers from, additional schools. It's okay to name those schools. If you are a capable negotiator, this can give you some leverage. However, if you suck at haggling, or are in any doubt of your skills in this area, I would tread carefully.

partial disclosure: I'm on a search committee, I'm not a job candidate, so take my remarks with a grain of salt.

[philgirl]

I'm one of the lucky ones this year who has gotten multiple offers. From what I can tell, two weeks in a standard time-frame to be offered to make a decision. However, once I got my first offer, I informed the other schools who were looking at me of my timeline. This seemed to put pressure on the others to make decisions. In one case, one of my offers came with a timeline to match one of my other offer timelines (which was less than two weeks by the time I got this offer - but I was ok with that since I need to make a decision by that deadline anyway). It is hard to make sure the timelines of different offers match up, but I've been pretty lucky. You are a bit at the whim of the department offering you a job. But, if they want you badly enough it also seems that you have some room to negotiate with them for more time. You can also push departments into making decisions more quickly if they are seriously interested in you.

I don't know if this is helpful as it is mostly a confirmation of what's been said, but for what its worth...

[p]

I wish I were a phil girl.

[improfound]

I was given 10 days. My sense was that if I had a good reason to ask for more time, I could have gotten it. Since I had no other offer, I didn't have a good reason.

It's nice of the APA to encourage universities to give us 2 weeks. However, job candidates will negotiate with a dean or vice-president, or someone like that. These people don't give a rat's ass about what the APA says. So don't expect the APA's statement to have much weight.

Finally, I want to second something someone said above. ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS get everything in writing. Everything. The dean who hires you might promise you something, then retire, get fired, or whatever. The dean who replaces her will not be inclined to honor those promises unless they are in writing. And sometimes, deans forget (to put it charitably) what they promise. Right now my partner (also an academic) is getting screwed out of some research monies that were promised when she got hired. The dean seems to be denying that he made those promises...

[la guest]

Feb 8, 2009 12:17:01 GMT -5 @improfound said:

It's nice of the APA to encourage universities to give us 2 weeks. However, job candidates will negotiate with a dean or vice-president, or someone like that. These people don't give a rat's ass about what the APA says. So don't expect the APA's statement to have much weight.

This is exactly right. However, if a candidate contacts the search committee and reports that the Administration is putting undue pressure on the candidate, it is possible for the chair of the search committee to go back and explain discipline-wide procedures (e.g. two weeks). It may not make a difference to the administrator, but candidates shouldn't be shy about broaching the issue.

[frustrated job candidate]

If a school refuses to give a candidate two weeks to consider an offer and provides no explanation of why there are special circumstances that warrant their insistence on a quick response(and the SC can’t or won’t help in the matter), is there any point in notifying the APA about this? And if so, who should one contact? (Can schools really bully job candidates with no repercussions whatsoever?)

[anonymous]

I don't think there's anything the APA can do about it, especially if the pressure is coming from the administration rather than the department. The APA seems to have enough difficulty fulfilling its routine tasks in an efficient manner, so I don't have much confidence in its ability to intervene and advocate on anyone's behalf.

Curiously, assuming it's an administrator with whom you're negotiating, did you explain to her/him that it's normal in our discipline for candidates to have two weeks to consider an offer? And how little time are they giving you?

[anon]

Apparently the APA uses the symbol "†" to indicate Censured Institutions. What does an institution have to do to receive this dishonorable symbol next to its name?

Clearly, however, it doesn’t make much difference. The market is so tight that I doubt that anyone would not apply for a position because there is a "†" next to the school’s name. In fact, while I was applying for jobs I didn’t even know what this symbol was supposed to represent, so it clearly didn’t influence me in any way. Is there anyone out there who did not/would not apply for a position (or turn down a position) because the institution in question was censured by the APA?

[anonymous and single]

Feb 16, 2009 18:53:47 GMT -5 @frustrated job candidate said:

If a school refuses to give a candidate two weeks to consider an offer... Can schools really bully job candidates with no repercussions whatsoever?

Well, there is at least one repercussion, though it's not immediate. Assuming the job is a TT position, both the department and (presumably) the administration have an interest in the new hire sticking around for a while. If I felt bullied into accepting a job, I'd have fewer reservations about leaving that job for a better one after a year or two.

Assuming there's no conflict between the department and the administration about hiring you, pressuring a candidate to sign without adequate time to consider the offer just seems like a bad way to start a working relationship.

[la guest]

I doubt very seriously (but don't know for sure) that contacting the APA will have any effect whatsoever. The APA claims (in the JFP) that they censure institutions for (1) breach of academic freedom, and (2) questionable employment practices. My impression is that the "questionable employment practices" that warrant APA censure tend to be firing people (or failing to tenure them) on the basis of, for example, their academic views. I would be extremely surprised to find that an institution is censured for demanding an answer to a job offer in 5 days rather than the recommended two weeks.

I agree that one may (and perhaps should) feel less commitment to an institution that has pressured them into a speedy decision; and that this isn't the most promising indicator of a healthy future working environment. Keep in mind, however, that a surprising number of academics are socially inept and insecure. The SC wants the process to be settled and it is difficult for individuals to override the natural urge to resist any situation where they feel they are being taken advantage of, regardless of how unjustified this feeling is in fact. Try to keep this in mind when dealing with SC's and administrators. By this I do not mean 'be willing to concede ground'. Instead, I merely mean 'be as nice and sympathetic as possible without giving up any ground.'