nah--I'm gonna hold off on that til everything is signed & sealed. i will say this--i am definitely not one of the "stars" that everyone is waiting on. I didn't interview at any top 20 schools, only went on 3 interviews total, and accepted my first offer. So my acceptance only affects a small handful of people (and in a positive way for most of them).
That said, I do feel like I won the job lottery. it's a perfect fit for me in every respect.
Anyway: good luck on your searches everyone! The rejections suck (I got at least 50 of them), but you forget about those pretty quickly after it's over...
I just got an offer from a SLAC, the only place I have interviewed so far. I have a handful of apps pending at schools not listed on wiki...
I can imagine a scenario where I would be extremely happy there and one in which I would be less satisfied. Anyone have any advice on how they made their decisions to accept a position, or what kinds of questions to ask the dean? Negotiation strategies? Experiencs at SLAC?
I heard (from somebody there) that the UAB position went to somebody from UConn. This makes me feel that some of us from lower ranked schools have a chance this year.
Congrats to whomever received the offer from UCSD (I noticed it on the Wiki)! Anonymously speaking, I'm wondering if SD is your "dream job" or whether instead there are other contending offers that might be more appealing for you?
[sorry about the duplicate, it gets tricky deciding where to post sometimes!]
I know we're not naming names of those on the market, but it would be nice if we named the people who have accepted jobs. Or at least if those of us who have accepted jobs would name themselves.
why? if you only know who accepted a job and don't know where else they had offers, there doesn't seem to be much to be gained from learning (now) who took which jobs. is it just curiosity?
well, one of the reasons we aren't naming the names of candidates is so this doesn't turn into a forum for gossip. Any time individuals are being discussed in an anonymous forum, you have the potential for nastiness. Obviously it will all become public eventually, but that will happen after this blog has died down, and when there is less of an audience for gossip.
I still haven't heard a great reason for listing the names here.
The reason I see for letting people know who's gotten a job is so that we can know who we are no longer competing against. If I know I am on the shortlist with someone somewhere, and they have already accepted an offer somewhere else, that is useful information.
I think it's more likely that people want to see who has beaten them out for particular jobs, and look at their CVs, etc. Which can be educational, certainly.
I think not naming people who are currently on the market is a good idea. But the "nastiness and gossip" thing just doesn't hold true once someone has already accepted a position. As such, I would agree that it would be a good idea to list names of those who are NO LONGER on the market.
As someone who isn't a soc or poli sci person, but who applied to a couple jobs in both fields, I have to say: this forum is so much more supportive and healthier than the poli sci one. It might be because you're just a nicer bunch of people (butter butter), but I also think that the naming thing fuels a lot of nasty gossip over there.
On the other hand, I understand the usefulness of knowing names, so perhaps encouraging folks who've accepted an offer to name themselves is a happy medium.
"But the 'nastiness and gossip' thing just doesn't hold true once someone has already accepted a position."
You seriously believe that professors are somehow above the fray?
This blog has been a valuable resource because it is both informative and supportive. I believe it is so supportive because we are sociologists, but also because it is impersonal. Maybe it will continue to be supportive if we name names. Maybe it won't. But I'm not sure it will be very "educational" for me to see the CV's of people who got the jobs I applied for. They are either going to be clearly better than me--from better schools, with better publications and more famous advisors--or they are not. Either way, it will be depressing, not educational.
Just my $.02. If people are determined to name names, go for it.
I fully agree with "anonymous for anonymity in perpetuity". I have looked up some invited candidates' cv's and it was nothing but depressing. why? because i can't suddenly change my educational institution or get a pub in AJS (my research wouldn't fit well) or get a better advisor after i have already completed my diss. of course you might say, well, then don't look up the names. i tried but couldn't resist. helena
I have to agree that I just don't see the point of naming names. You can always check new hires after all is said and done. There's nothing the information will help any of us with NOW anyway. And as I've said before, while it might be frustrating, it remains true that there is no magic formula for what gets one a job. I have no pubs and had 2 interviews, and I know people with several pubs with no interviews... hearing names and seeing CVs will only make us say, "oh, THAT'S why I didn't get the job" or "&*%#!!! I should've gotten that job instead!" How is either helpful?
I like to think of it along the lines of that book, "He's just not that into you" - so often people wonder why Mr. or Ms. X doesn't want to be in a relationship with them... "oh, what's wrong with me? Did s/he find someone smarter/prettier/thinner/(fill in appropriate adjective here)?" When in reality it's just "they're not that into you." It doesn't matter why... it won't make you feel better. And if it will help you do better next time, there is plenty of time between when new hires are publicly announced and the next round of jobs next year to tweak your presentation style or whatnot. It's about finding the right fit in a very tight job market. It sucks, but it's reality. Learning who beat you out won't tell you WHY they beat you out, and won't make you feel better.
I still haven't seen a good reason against it (posting somewhere those who have accepted positions) being helpful in seeing who has cleared the market and is no longer in competition for particular positions. I couldn't give two craps about comparing myself to those who have been hired (because as been stated here - ad naseum - there is a lot of "randomness" in the system). But when I know that myself and 2 other people are up for the same job, knowing that one of them has already accepted a job elsewhere would definitely be useful information.
I vote NO to naming those who have accepted jobs or even individuals naming themselves if they have accepted jobs (easy for someone to masquerade as another person on an anonymous board). How certain is the acceptance? How certain are "we" that someone is off the market? Is that person still in negotiation elsewhere?
I'm here for information about the search process, not about people who have applied for those positions.
I know I'm up against folks who already have TTs, currently hold postdocs, or are ABD like me. My research area is odd enough so that comparing myself to others is useless.
The question asked was whether there was really any opposition, and you need only read the last several posts to see that there has been clear opposition expressed. There are more posts in favor to date, but we cannot know how many people these represent, and the tendency over time is toward opposition (with several posts opposing the idea signed by distinct individuals).
It strikes me as kind of silly to propose a vote on an anonymous forum where anyone can post numerous times posing as different people, but for what it's worth another vote for NO.
Mills
And by the way, as should be evident by now, you could create a situation in which it appears that people are in favor, but you can't force people to divulge information if they don't want to. They can "vote" by simply not naming names or not visiting this part of the blog if others do. And the administrator has the ultimate say, in any case.
Mills: you are, of course right; people can effectively vote with their feet (or mouse clicks). From the discussion above, however, it seems that there are enough people who would participate in viewing/sharing/correcting the names of those who have accepted positions. An informal vote wouldn't necessarily be the deciding factor, but it would at least give us a gauge of where the consensus is.
You do raise a good point that there is the potential for voter fraud; and while hardly an ideal solution, maybe we should agree that votes will only count if people give some indication of who they are.
If I were taking this vote idea at all seriously, I would point out that the timing (during the holidays) could not be worse. You would have to include those like Claude, who has come out in opposition to the idea but said on the old blog that he was away on vacation. We can assume that this is the case for a number of people.
But I really can't take it seriously. The suggestion that only votes for which people "give some indication of who they are" will count is a totally insufficient measure against voter fraud. This is compounded by the fact that none of those who were in favor on the old blog, as I recall, even identified themselves with a pseudonym, so any number of fake ones could be invented.
I vote Nay. It is kind of late in the process to name names. Further, I do not understand the purpose of naming names other than to satisfy curiosity. We will all know who accepted positions next fall semester when new faculty are added to websites. For those interested in who you were competing against, I suggest checking out these websites in fall 07. If you are interested in learning who gets jobs based on credentials, visit departmental websites and check out the CVs of faculty hired in the past few years. I know that other rumour mills (e.g. Middle Eastern Studies) list names and I can't quite figure out the purpose other than scorekeeping and, as someone mentioned in a previous post, unintentionally (or not) creating hype about specific candidates.
In addition, I understand that people are going to be out of town (myself included), but I assume that those of us on the job market will still be checking this site occasionally over the holidays (I know I will).
I'm afraid I'm a bit confused about why this is coming up again as an issue for debate. It seems all of the arguments, pro and con, have been raised, here and on the old blog. Several of us have said that we think naming those who have accepted positions is a bad idea, for numerous reasons, but we haven't said that we would try to stop you from doing it if you're so inclined (how could we, really?).
A few people have said that they oppose it and won't participate, but that if you're that determined you should just go ahead and do it. Maybe other people will want to join you and add information, maybe they won't. Maybe others will not want to share but will keep visiting to receive the information, maybe not. Maybe the administrator will allow it, maybe not.
(My deepest apologies in advance to those who have ethical objections to this idea for even suggesting it. I don't claim to speak for everyone, and some may see even this suggestion as unacceptable. And I don't want to dissuade anyone from posting more - especially nay - votes. It's just that this whole discussion has become seriously tiresome.)
And I suppose the same thing some of us proposed on the old blog in the case of naming people who were interviewing or had been offered jobs would come in handy here to protect those who have a deep-rooted objection: If you're going to start naming names you could give some advance warning, so those who don't want to see them can be forewarned (and maybe the administrator could be asked to add a statement to this effect on the original page, like the warnings provided with movie reviews that include spoilers).
Believe me, this had me tired out long, long ago. There's always the solution proposed a (large) number of times on the old blog: setting up a new blog for this purpose and posting the link here for those interested. Just make this stop, I beg you.
on the old blog, someone challenged the name-namers to come up with an example of how naming names actually changed someone's behavior. i don't think anyone has successfully addressed this question, even in the hypothetical.
but regardless, this debate is really tiresome. if you must name names, you should: a) start with your own; b) do it on some other site.
congrats to the person who's landing at princeton! to satisfy my curiosity - is this the non-western societies job or the open position that's been accepted?
The reason that the debate never dies is that this type of info can be genuinely useful, and even encouraging. I thought that I had been rejected after 3 months of hearing nothing from a certain poli sci department, but according to their wiki, at least one (maybe two) of the finalists has accepted a position elsewhere. So maybe I still have a shot.
Of course, candidates are regularly smeared on the board over there, and I haven't been able to keep myself from looking at this guy's CV, which is an ego-beater.
Really, for my purposes, if folks consistently noted when an offer had been rejected or a finalist had withdrawn, it would be almost as helpful as knowing names. And it would save me from my own ill-advised curiosity regarding specifics. So if there is a vote, I'd choose no.
Let's face it, the ONLY reason to name names is to satisfy our own curiosity. Naming people will NOT affect our chance of getting a job. Knowing the name of the person that got the job when we know that the job has been accepted is pointless. If you want to see how you "compare" you can easily go to any department's website and look at the faculty who have been hired in the past year or two. Would I like to know? Sure, and if people named others, I would certainly look up their vita. But, the fact of the matter is, I wouldn't do it because I wouldn't want it done to me. And if you are so keen on naming names, I like the suggestion that you start with your own. George
This recurrent call for those of us in favor of naming names to name ours is probably the silliest, least creative tactic to end the discussion one could come up with. Not that I'm opposed to sharing my name, but if we do start to name names on here, for obvious reasons, the sources of that information would need to remain anonymous. So, I agree that there are reasons not to name names, but trying to stop the debate by calling on people to share their own names is playing politics.
Proposals are on the table. If you're genuinely interested in finding a workable solution to this, and not simply in fomenting discord for its own sake, it's time to fish or cut bait. Respectfully,
Why is it important that your anonymity be preserved but not the names of those with job offers? What is one "obvious" reason? I would think saying, "I'm So and So and I heard John Smith got a job," is worse for John Smith than for So and So. And while you say you're willing to share your name, you haven't and you clearly won't. Really big of you to insult and ridicule others when you have the luxury to remain anonymous - obviously a benefit you see not point in extending to others.
One obvious reason is obvious. You really think people are going to provide information regarding who took what jobs if they can't do so anonymously? Some of this information is sensitive to departments, and I could imagine that if so-and-so started naming names, search committees and department heads might not be pleased. I would hardly consider making public information about who has already taken a job constituting ridicule or insult. You would?
"The reason that the debate never dies is that this type of info can be genuinely useful, and even encouraging. I thought that I had been rejected after 3 months of hearing nothing from a certain poli sci department, but according to their wiki, at least one (maybe two) of the finalists has accepted a position elsewhere. So maybe I still have a shot."
Encouraging is not the same as helpful. If you really want to know whether you still have a shot, email the departments. As soon as I had a couple interviews scheduled, my advisor told me to email all my preferred schools to find out whether I was still being considered. I emailed about 15 places, and heard back from 13 of them within 48 hours. It's much better than seeing something posted on a blog, that may or may not be bullshit.
In your example, not only could you have probably gotten that information from the departments themselves, but it probably didn't change any decision you made. I mean, you didn't go ahead & turn down a bunch of interviews just because your chances improved at this school, did you?
so why don't we do it on a volunteer basis. People who are reading this can post about themselves and their new jobs. "My name is so and so, I got a job at X university"
I had phoned that department, and they would only tell me that the search was "ongoing". Maybe e-mail is a better way to get specific info on whether one is/n't being considered; I'll try that next time.
Did it change any decision I made? No, I suppose not. Though I've been watching that job closely because I'm wondering whether Poli Sci folks would seriously consider me and whether it's worth applying for similar positions. (If I were to scan through the CVs of those who got interviews, it might also help me get a sense of that.) Yes, I'm sure it's best to e-mail the department directly and ask whether they'd consider hiring someone outside the discipline. But generally speaking, if we could always get prompt, reliable responses from departments, then we wouldn't need this board, would we?
Regarding encouragement and helpfulness, yes, they aren't always the same thing. But they can be when you're trying to muster up the confidence to send out your 50th application after hearing nothing back from the first 49. The information on these boards is as much about soothing the nerves as it is about strategy, and in that sense, "did this information ease your uncertainty/nail-biting?" seems to me as valid a question as "would you have done anything differently?"
All that said, I'd remind you that you're arguing a point with someone who is convinced that the no-name policy is the right one. So, chill.
The post in response to yours was answering it as you presented it: as an intended contribution to the discussion about naming names. I didn’t respond to your post because I thought you argued with your initial contention as well as anyone when you said:
“Really, for my purposes, if folks consistently noted when an offer had been rejected or a finalist had withdrawn, it would be almost as helpful as knowing names. And it would save me from my own ill-advised curiosity regarding specifics. So if there is a vote, I'd choose no.”
You’re not making an argument in favor of naming names - in fact you explicitly vote against it - and I think you could have made this more clear. It was this issue that I was referring to in my earlier post, and you presented yours as an intervention in that discussion, which it wasn’t, really. As I understand it, knowing that an offer has been declined is the information you think is helpful or encouraging, and this doesn’t have anything to do with knowing the name of the person who declined it.
While the “almost as helpful” was problematic (especially since you point out that seeing the person’s CV was an “ego-beater” and call your curiosity “ill-advised” - which seem to work against your argument that this information in your case has proven encouraging; also I disagree that seeing CVs of the interviewed candidates is any more helpful than reading the CVs of those hired over the past few years), I thought that your suggestion that people consistently update the wiki about declined offers made sense as far as it went. But I disagree about how far this is, and agree with whoever responded to your original post. I think you have an exaggerated idea of the value of this information. The best place to get reliable information about the status of a search or your own candidacy is from the department itself. When you heard from them that the search was ongoing, that was more information than you had obtained from the wiki, and unlike the information on the wiki you know that it is accurate.
Seeing on the wiki that someone turned down an offer - even assuming this was correct - didn’t even tell you whether they were continuing with the search, never mind anything about your personal status. Nor can anyone on the wiki or this board tell you whether a political science department would consider you seriously. You can only get that information from them. (The more general question is an important one. My sense is that it is very difficult for us to break into poli sci departments, while the reverse is easier. This may be due to what Abbott in the book recommended on the old blog calls the “caravansary quality” of sociology, which is not shared by political science. I may post the question on one of their blogs though to see if anyone can offer any insight...) So really any sense of encouragement or certainty or confidence about your specific situation gained from these sources is largely without foundation.
To use an analogy (this has a ring of familiarity, so if anyone has used it in the past and I’m adopting it as my own, sorry): You have a romantic interest in an acquaintance. You hear through the grapevine that this person has become engaged, but later that the engagement was broken by the other party and that the couple has split up. You could find this development, though unpleasant for your crushee, encouraging in the sense that the person you like is now single again. But that’s as far as it goes. You don’t know when he or she will be ready to start dating again or want to be in another relationship. But what you really don’t know is what this means for you. The person may have been carrying a small torch for you all this time (though this is doubtful given the engagement to someone else), may think of you as a friend but the relationship could develop into something more serious later, or may not be interested in you romantically at all, ever. I don’t think that knowing that your “dream mate” may be free without knowing anything about his or her specific interest (or lack thereof) in you would typically lead you to feel more confident and to get out and date more. In fact, it could lead you to become so fixated on the possibility of this relationship that you ignore other real possibilities right around you.
When we talk on here about departments doing sequential searches, schools listed on the wiki as having already invited candidates contacting people months later, and such, I think it’s with the understanding that, first, these are very general possibilities and sources of hope that may not necessarily apply to us individually; and that, second, this information is more fodder for delusional thinking than any sort of useful guide to action. When I see that an offer has been declined somewhere I applied, do I have momentary fantasies about the urgent email from them informing me that just when they thought they were going to scrap the search they discovered my application materials, which had fallen behind a file cabinet, and have received the go-ahead from the dean to bring me in for a job talk? Sadly, yes. Then rational thinking returns. Then I check my emails for the hundredth time that day. And so it goes...
What a wonderful, pragmatic post, Mills. I approach the idea of naming names as I do with any other question. How is this likely to make me feel? By naming names it seems like it could instill false hopes and a lot of snarkiness among fellow applicants (sociologists, snarky? Say it ain't so!) without giving us what we really want to know (am I still in the running?) I have decided, as is often the case, that ignorance is bliss.
First, Claude - it's not "still going" it's new people asking the same questions. Probably indicates there being some merit to it. I've chosen to abide by the norm because the person who set this thing up dictated as such on the front page. I still don't think it's well-reasoned though.
Second, and this one I have been holding back for a while, but since the person above took a little swipe at Mills, I'll ask the question that's been amusing me for a while - Does anyone else on here find it ironic that the person who chose the pseudonym Mills has taken it upon him/herself to be the voice of reason, summarizing what everyone thinks (even though there is clear disagreement), both here and on the old blog? It can't be just me that finds the immense irony in that, can it?
Let's face it, I think most of us wants to know the names of the folks who got jobs (so we can look up their vita, etc.), so I do understand where it is all coming from. If someone did name the person who got a job at a place I really really liked, I certainly will look them up. HOWEVER, I don't want to be named and if I don't want to be named, I'm not going to advocate that we name others. The ONLY reason to name names is to fulfill our own curiosity. YES, I want to know who beat me out of so and so job - but so what? I'll find out later if I really still want to know in August or September but I'm pretty sure that by then I won't give a rat's #$%@&. More importantly, the person who got the job was most likely not any more "qualified" than any of us who didn't get that particular job. The job market is a crap shoot - and there are MANY reasons why "they" didn't call you. I heard from one of my committee members that one place didn't call me because "they" didn't think I'd come and if I came I would be desperate to leave, I have NO control over what "they" think. I did find out who got that job, he/she had NO pubs, little teaching experience, etc. Let it go.
you say the case against naming names is not well-reasoned. but if that is true, the case for it is even more poorly reasoned. Thus far, the only "argument" for it is that it would be "helpful" to know if a person you were competing with had already accepted a job. but of course, this is assertion, not argument.
I wonder how, exactly, it would be helpful? would you turn down a bunch of interviews based on something you saw in the wiki? even assuming the information was good, it would be stupid to turn down other interviews. I don't think anyone has come up with an example of how the wiki provided (or could provide) unique information that caused someone's behavior to change.
On the other side of the argument, we have the possibility that naming names could adversely affect someone's candidacy or negotiating, as well as the stark example of the other disciplines' blogs, which involved (by all accounts) a lot of personal sniping.
I apologize for repeating the what others have argued more deftly, but it's a little annoying when people say there is poor reasoning behind the stance we have taken here.
Well, if another anonymous poster takes a snipe at me, you should certainly feel free to let loose the reins of civility and do so yourself. That makes perfect sense. Are we sociologists on a professional forum or contestants by the pool on America’s Next Top Model?
A) Ad hominem attacks, telling people to “chill,” characterizing stating/explaining one’s disagreement as “freaking out,” and the like are the last refuge of those who have lost on the terrain of reasoned argument, an implicit admission of defeat. I accept them as such.
B) The fact that an issue has been raised repeatedly, by posters new or old, means nothing about its merit. I could raise the claim on here every day that it would be useful to know the sign that Saturn was in when a job ad was posted or the color of the walls in the rooms where search committees are deliberating. I could even be joined by a majority as expressed in a “vote.” Would these assertions then have merit?
C) When I assumed the collective voice of reason, I did not mean to include you. My sincerest apologies.
You all seem to think that re-iterating the same points that have already been made, which we clearly don't agree on are going to be enough to convince us. While it may not change behaviors, it definitely would serve to level the information differential between those of us searching and those on search committees, which was the point of this thing all along, I thought. Apparently not. Clearly, we disagree on how best to achieve that.
While Mills seems convinced that ad hominem attacks are "signs of defeat," let me propose another alternative, which is consistent with his "claiming the voice of reason" - that those of us who have an alternate opinion have come to recognize that reason isn't sufficient for argument here with people who havedug their heels in. We've just come to recognize that you genuinely think you are "the collective voice of reason" despite the fact that there are plenty who disagree with you. Again, the irony of your name choice only serves to astound all the more! Thanks for the laughs.
Insulting me/us/these blogs has done nothing to strengthen the case for naming names. It has only harmed your cause, since I imagine people would be much less likely to share names with those so readily toss aside reasoned discussion and resort to insults and personal attacks.
The administrator of this blog has established a policy of not naming names. Therefore, those who wish to do so need to do it elsewhere. (Incidentally, the IR blog has a new policy. If anyone is interested, they're at
http://irrumormill.blogspot.com/
If you scroll down a bit, you can see that they've also set up a thread for discussion of the policy change.)
Reasonable, intelligent people - again, I make no pretense to speak for you here - can read the arguments that have been made on both/all sides of the issue and decide how they want to proceed. Your attempts to change people's minds or behavior through badgering, insults, or evading or refusing to engage with the substance of their arguments will, I expect (and hope), continue to prove futile.
I stopped trying to convince a long time ago. I have agreed to follow the administrator's policy here; you want me to think it's right. Those are two wholly different issues. I just think you need to lighten up a little, step down from the pedestal you've placed yourself on, and recognize that some things aren't as clear-cut, well-supported, open-and-shut as you seem to think.
It frightens me to think that such closed-to-discussion folks as yourself will be the educators of the near future - in areas such as sociology no less. I don't think you have to agree with me. I also don't think you I have to agree with you on this one. It's not a "right or wrong" question. It's one of opinion. That's the irony at this point. It has nothing at all to do with naming names or not any more, as far as I am concerned. It's clear to me that that is not going to happen here. I've conceded that fact, and am ok with it. But I would hope that you can recognize that your attempts to squelch dialogue, by pointing out how "clearly inferior" the alternatives to your own opinion are, are wholly unfruitful when it's a fuzzy area. It's time to move on, I agree. But I also hope you (and I, and others - since this has been a public discussion) can see through the "this is the way it should be" frame you've placed around it. I'm afraid that's not going to happen.
Very well, then. If you’re no longer trying to make a case for naming names, have accepted that it isn’t going to happen, and have moved on from that debate, that’s good enough for me. If this is the case, we have nothing more to discuss. Best of luck to you,
"While it may not change behaviors, it definitely would serve to level the information differential between those of us searching and those on search committees..."
Finally a namer acknowledges that naming names would not help with any decisions. But *this* is the best reason for doing it? "Leveling the information differential" serves what end, exactly? And btw, I'm not convinced that there is such a huge information differential--unless you are a superstar, the search committees generally seem to have little idea where you applied or where you are interviewing.
"...which was the point of this thing all along, I thought."
this thing has lots of points: it provides information about the status of job searches, mutual support & encouragement to candidates, helpful links to sources for other jobs, and solid advice on interviewing and negotiating. simply "leveling the information differential," that is, assuming one exists, does not strike me as a worthy end in itself.
"It frightens me to think that such closed-to-discussion folks as yourself will be the educators of the near future"
It should frighten you that future educators won't take the initiative to start a new site for their purposes. It cracks me up that none of the people in favor of naming names have bothered to create a different site for that purpose. It must be easier to come here and piss on good folks like Mills than to do the handful of mouse clicks it takes to start a new blog?
I give this one more day and then I'm done checking it. This back and forth argument is making me tired. Regardless of differing opinions on the purpose and utility of this site, I can bet at least most of us would agree that this isn't it....
I'm here and glad to see there's an exchange of information taking place and that the argument seems to be in the past (on the other post locations if not on this one).
Wow. I hadn't checked this for a while, so I hadn't seen your response to my earlier post, Mills. Your response was very thoughtful, well-reasoned, and helpful -- thanks.
As for telling someone to "chill" being "the last refuge of those who have lost on the terrain of reasoned argument, an implicit admission of defeat," well, I think that's a little silly. If nothing else, I think my ambivalence -- and perhaps my lack of familiarity with the job search process -- came through pretty clearly in my two posts. Then I was promptly associated with a pro-name position with which I sympathized but disagreed. Maybe it was my fault for trying to think out loud or understand both sides of an intense, polarized, and protracted debate.
But another of part of me believes that we should be able to do such thinking on a blog, in the same way that we allow students to fly test balloons in section. It's nice to be in a public forum that's not a chessboard. So Mills, though I'm sure you're a decent person, and I know you make cogent and convincing arguments (I'll gladly admit being convinced, if not "defeated"), again I'd urge you to loosen up a little, man. The same goes for the rabid pro-namers.
Actually, the person you originally instructed to chill was not me. In fact, I didn’t respond to that first post. That said, if you want to put your ideas out there without anyone engaging them, the midst of an “intense, polarized, and protracted debate” is probably not the best moment for it. Send up a test balloon during an air battle and it’s likely to get strafed.
More generally, these repeated admonitions and several other of your remarks give me the impression that you wish to participate in a public discussion only on the condition that you are seen to occupy a sort of protected category, immune from challenge. What you seem to be saying is that you should be able to air your views, including making potentially controversial interventions in a heated debate, while others should not be able to express their disagreement with you for various reasons - you’re ambivalent or ignorant, you mean well, you’re trying to be broad-minded, you stand in general agreement with them, you’re merely thinking out loud, and so on. This all strikes me as extremely defensive. I would also be careful here: You may find that you are successful in discouraging people from stating their disagreement with you, but that this has come at the cost of their discounting your statements and taking you far less seriously.
So while we’re issuing unsolicited advice, I would urge you to let go of this fear, own your statements, and jump into the discussion with both feet; not only to accept others’ disagreement with you as a natural and inevitable part of participation in public life, but to embrace it and appreciate the possibilities it offers.
C - you were trying to understand both sides of a polarized debate? why? why not just stifle any semblance of a discussion by making ridiculous comparisons to torture and murder and genocide?
Kyle (delayed response), I get your point, but think that the collective power of something like this is in its numbers. Since this place had momentum, starting a new one seemed counter-productive. I thought opening it up here instead might work. I was wrong. Either way, we are to a point now where I have to assume many of us know the names of quite a few acceptances at quite a few places, and are seeing the whole process slowly wind down, so the debate is probably moot at this point anyway. I just didn't like the cries to shut the discussion down based on "I am clearly right and you are clearly wrong" logic (not something you were a part of as far as I remember - I have generally appreciated your input here).
it's funny that this debate still simmers. it's really funny that after months and months of bogus arguments and personal attacks, NO ONE has EVER produced an example of how learning the names of successful candidates did anything but satisfy idle curiosity. Mills may ride a horse of some stature, but your consistent personal attacks on him only serve to highlight the absence of a cogent argument in your favor.
I haven't read through all of the posts in this thread, but I can provide an example of how knowing the name of a person who took a job can help. When I went on the market, one of my advisors said, "It's going to be tough for you on the market this year. (Sue Jones) is also on the market, and she's a superstar." Of course, Sue (made up name) could only take one job, but she did end up getting a job for which I was on the short list.
Suppose that Stanford, Wisconsin, and LSU are all hiring in my area. I believe that Sue Jones and I are the top people on the market in the area. All three schools ask me for more materials in October. In November, LSU interviews me and offers me a position. I contact Wisconsin and Stanford to see if I'm still in the running. Wisconsin tells me to feel free to move on with my life without them. Stanford tells me their search is continuing and I'm in the running, but they can't sort it out before I have to give LSU an answer. I now have to decide whether to accept the LSU job or take a chance and wait on Stanford. In that case, knowing whether Sue Jones took the job at Wisconsin could potentially play a determining role in whether I take the LSU job or roll the dice with Stanford.
Sure, but has anyone actually done this? It's pretty crazy to turn down a tenure track job at one school because you saw on the internet that one of the other candidates at the other school was out of the running. That only means your chances have improved slightly--from 25% or 33% (usually) to 33% or 50%.
And that also assumes reliable information--and we already know that, in addition to errors, some folks have actively engaged in disinformation campaigns on the wiki. Heck, even if you were the last candidate standing does not guarantee you the job--there are lots of cancelled searches every year.
Furthermore, even if you are such a gambler, this is information that (in general) you can get more reliably straight from the department itself. they won't always tell you who the other candidates are, but you can find out how many of them are still being considered.
So even this fairly far-fetched scenario (far fetched in the sense that someone bases a major career decision on an internet rumor) fails to demonstrate that names on the wiki has causal impact on career decisions, since the critical information (i.e., the # of candidates in the running) can be gathered more reliably elsewhere. And again, this is just a hypothetical--no one has been able to provide a single real life example of how naming people mattered.
Of course, I am assuming that you took the "LSU" job, and didn't roll the dice on "Stanford" based on Sue's hiring. If you did roll the dice, bravo--you've got a lot of guts.
I posted the Stanford/Wisconsin/LSU example. My comments are simply an example of how knowing the name of someone who took a job can help. It's not about the reliability of internet message boards, on which I claim no expertise.
Stanford/Wisconsin/LSU person again. Although I disagree with the logic of much of your response to my post (I could have a long post on just the 25% to 33% or 33% to 50% part), you are right that it's just a hypothetical, and I now realize that there was a call for actual examples of people being helped by knowing the names of people who took jobs. My apologies.
for those percentages, I assumed (reasonably, I believe) that there are usually 3 or 4 final candidates for a job, and that you lack any information as to their relative ranking. So I'm actually curious about the so-called extensive critique in my logic that you hint at. of course, it's a lot easier to make such claims than it is to carry through with them. so indulge me if you will.
but regardless of the percentages (or whether percentages are even appropriate--which might be your argument), the basic point is that even if the field is narrowed, there remains the significant possiblity that the job is not yours. I think you implicitly agree on that, since you use the term gamble in your original post.
as to the reliability of the internet and the wiki, that is an important aspect of the argument if you are arguing that we should name names here (apologies if you are not making this claim--it's difficult to tell in this sea of anonymity). I think most of the information on this board & the wiki are reliable, but I would hardly base any career decisions on it.
The last thing I wanted coming here was to get in a fight. I just read (incorrectly) the post previous to mine and thought I would provide an example. I’m not willing to spend much time on this, but since you asked for what is wrong with the 25% to 33% or 33% to 50% statement, a few comments.
The statement reflects common misunderstandings of both how the job market works and probability. First, although I don’t have the data, my best guess is that the median number of candidates invited to interview for a job is 2. Second, even if we know the number of invited candidates is 3 or 4, the chances of a job offer, even if all candidates are equal, is greater than 33% or 25%. Candidates decline job offers, departments are impressed with multiple candidates and secure additional lines, candidates cancel scheduled interviews, and so on. (It also happens, although less frequently, that departments are not impressed with any candidates and don’t make any offers.) My best guess is that about 50% of people who interview for jobs in our gig end up with offers.
The probability misunderstanding relates to a common tendency people have to assume that if there are multiple objects in competition for some outcome, then each object has the same likelihood of obtaining the outcome. Just suppose the scenario in which four people are interviewing for a job and one and only one must receive a job offer. All candidates are not created equal, and they don’t all have a 25% chance of getting an offer, just as the Bears didn’t have a 50% chance of winning last night’s Super Bowl. In my example, I already established that I was one of the two top candidates in the area. If the other top candidate is already out of the picture, I would go in believing that my chances were considerably better than 25%. In any case, candidates never enter with equal likelihoods at getting the offer.
I take no stance on whether names should be named here. I don’t know the details of each side of the argument.
If you had read my previous post before providing the pedantic lesson in probability, I explicitly assumed that there were three or four candidates interviewing for the job, not two, and that one dropped out. I realize that candidates are not created equal, but again, I also explicitly assumed there was no information provided about their relative ranking (in my most recent post). I agree that those probabilities are not applicable to your situation.
But more importantly, I think you missed the forest on this one: the point was that even if the top candidate drops, or even if you are the last candidate standing, there remains a possibility that you do not have the job.
You did not establish in your hypothetical that you were one of the top two candidates, only that you BELIEVED yourself to be one of the top two candidates. This is a risky assumption from which to set off, and in this case a questionable one, given that at least one of your top 3 choices (Wisconsin) has not seen fit to interview you. The notion of top candidates in the abstract has only limited value; it does not necessarily follow from your star status that you are the one of the top choices for every position in your area.
The additional factors you bring in do complicate the matter of probabilities, but they work against your basic argument by showing that you have little knowledge of the various factors affecting your chances or the way in which the declining of the offer by sue jones alters them. If, for example, you are being considered for another line, her actions do not affect your odds at all. if you are one of the more borderline candidates vying for the same job, your chances improve very little. It would be reckless indeed to use as a determining factor in making a career altering decision a bit of information --obtained from the internet & which may be inaccurate -- when you lack the critical contextual information necessary to interpret its meaning. Then again anyone intrepid enough to enter this debate is undoubtedly a risk taker.
Stanford example person again. I sense that you both are committed to a position in a debate in which I don't have a horse. Anon #1: You added your comment about assuming no information only after I questioned your application of probability. Anon #2: Whichever direction various factors move the probabilities, the point is the same--it's silly to say that being 1 of 3 candidates implies a 33% chance of a job offer. There are far too many variables at work.
Both of you: I made no claims or statements about internet rumors. I believe I was explicit about this--I provided an example of when *knowing* the name of a candidate who took a job might help. I thought that's what the person had been looking for. I make no claims about the value of learning internet rumors about who might have taken a job.
Anon #2 here. So, to be clear, the example you offered is totally unrelated to the debate that's been ongoing for some time. I apologize for continuing to think that it was intended to speak to that discussion.
But let's take the internet factor out of the mix. As you say, there are far too many variables at play for you to determine your chances -- or to know how they are changed by another candidate's decision -- with any degree of numerical certainty. Thus the information that another candidate is out of the running is of even less value, not more, to you than it would be if you knew for certain that you were one of two or three other candidates with an equal chance of getting the job as a result.
i wasn't going to weigh in on this one the nth time around, but alas i am weak. cannot resist.
the issue of naming names not actually on the table. from my reading of this message board, nobody's put it back on the table since the last throw-down right before the holidays.
the debate is about whether or not reasonable people can disagree about whether or not it's okay to name names and the answer to that question is yes. it's yes. saying yes to that question does not mean that one endorses the idea of naming names - just that one can see how that would be reasonable if we operated according to the norms other disciplines embrace. but we do not. still, it's a reasonable thing to consider.
is that an accurate summary?
now let's get back to talking about interesting and helpful things like: - negotiating research $ - quality of life at various caliber institutions - why we academics tend to be so highly motivated by the allure of prestige - how difficult it is to follow a discussion between x people who all post anonymously
now let's get back to talking about interesting and helpful things like:
- negotiating research $ simple; get all you can get! seriously though, having a concrete and executable plan helps. if you are research-oriented (may or may not be R1), try to ensure that your internal funding will lead directly to external funding. your case is more convincing when you can say "i need $__ to execute this research plan"
- quality of life at various caliber institutions i'm likely being too literal, but still not sure how the "caliber" of institutions is directly related to quality of life. i am at what would be considered a very high caliber institution and can't wait to leave because the qol in the region is unbearable (to me). i have not found all of this generalizing about typologies of institutions to be helpful or informative. there are endless checklists of things to consider when deciding upon a position. it's easy to assess the practical considerations (like teaching load, etc) and how they fit with one's aspirations. i would find it most helpful for this blog to discuss the intangibles (like collegiality, department culture, etc) and how one can get a handle on these important factors before making a decision.
- why we academics tend to be so highly motivated by the allure of prestige in a word - insecurity
- how difficult it is to follow a discussion between x people who all post anonymously not a big problem until posters start launching ad hominem attacks and "last word" skirmishes. thanks for suggesting new directions...
Another thing to keep in mind about research money is what's available outside of the department. I got a nice research package, but I also got a job at a school where there is all kinds of internal support (that's outside of the department). If the school lacks those other resources, I would try to bargain harder for money up front, or guaranteed over a period of time.
If I could send this off-list, believe me, I would. this is a silly dialogue, and i know that stanford's focus on trees has led me to ignore my own forest here. but--when i'm in an online debate with a nitpicker i tend to indulge in some pettiness. apologies--please skip this post if you are interested in anon 13's new direction.
"Anon #1: You added your comment about assuming no information only after I questioned your application of probability."
True--I tried to clarify my assumptions. I'm not sure how this clarification invalidates the estimate, but perhaps I can look forward to another lecture from you on elementary probability.
"All candidates are not created equal, and they don’t all have a 25% chance of getting an offer, just as the Bears didn’t have a 50% chance of winning last night’s Super Bowl."
Of course it's true that the bears didn't have a 50% at winning, and it's also true that our fictional candidate had a 33% at the job. But if you are a villager in rural mongolia, with no knowledge of bears or colts, you would have to assume that each has an even chance of winning. same for our fictional candidate.
But the deeper critique that you missed is that these are not repeated events. you never go up against the same candidates for the same job twice, and these bears and these colts are not going to replay the superbowl. So assigning probabilities to non-repeated events is problematic. That said, it's what people in those situations do, so while problematic in from a probability standpoint, it is valid from a human one.
i'm anon 1 above (call me 33%). i'm not so sure that academics are more prestige driven than others, but if they are, I would say that our collective insecurity is that our placement is a direct reflection on our intelligence. just a hunch.
As with others, I had decided to let this drop (was one calling for the naming of names, then let it go), but then I got an email that satisfied the "how could naming names have changed your behavior" request.
About a month ago I was informed by a place that they had made an offer to someone for the position I interviewed for, let's call this school UA. Shortly thereafter someone else changed the wiki to read offere accepted at UA.
In the meantime numerous other offers were accepted at numerous other places - and indicated as such on the wiki.
Last week I got an offer for a postdoc somewhere else. Let's call this school UB. This was NOT my ideal position.
I got an email this week asking if I was still interested in the position at UA, because they were extending the search, since the person they offered it to accepted a position elsewhere.
So, had I known who had "accepted" this position at UA, and subsequently saw their name appear somewhere else as accepting a position, I would have had better information to know what to do about UB - probably declining the offer.
Now, luckily for me there was a UC in the equation that was actually my first choice all along, and looks like it might work out. BUT, if UA and UB were the only options, and I had accepted at UB only to find out that I probably would have asked for a while to consider had I had the information available to me with the naming of acceptances' names - I would be really frustrated about this constraint. Luckily for me, they were not the only two options I had. Probablities however suggest that there is someone else out there who might not end up so lucky and may accept at their UB, only to find out that UA was still a possibilty - and that if we had allowed the naming of names they might have known as much and been able to act accordingly.
first of all, this isn't an example of a situation where the wiki helped you make a better decision. we're still waiting for that case.
second, your story is actually a perfect illustration of why NOT to rely on the wiki for career decisions. If there hadn't been a school C, you probably would have accepted the postdoc based on what you saw on the wiki (which mistakenly said that someone had accepted the UA offer). If the wiki hadn't existed, you wouldn't have assumed that UA wasn't an option, and you would have asked for more time from UB. There is really no reason to assume, as you seem to, that the wiki would be correct on the name of the candidate when it was incorrect on whether the offer was accepted.
Given your experience you should be *ignoring* the wiki, not wanting more information from it.
If you genuinely can't see how names would have helped that scenario, then you are just being stubborn. Arguing for shutting down the wiki (in essence what 9:30's argument defaults to) instead of making it more useful, is a great head in the sand approach. I hope that works out well for you.
your story demonstrates that the wiki has errors, and that the information it contains, if acted upon, can lead to costly mistakes. I think you have to agree with that, correct?
assuming you agree on that point, then why would you think that simply changing the naming policy would somehow eliminate the errors from the wiki? If you could somehow guarantee error-free information on the wiki, then *perhaps it would be useful (but again, I believe you can almost always get the pertinent information from the SC's themselves). but you can't, so adding more information will increase the possibility for costly mistakes to be made.
If my head is in the sand, yours is in a much darker place...
The people who are not directly tied to a decision process (the committe, chair and candidate) are much more likely to err on the status of that decision (something that can easily be a source of epculation) than who is making that decision (names aren't as susceptible to being just pulled out of a hat).
So what in the end is your point? You seem to think that the blog and the wiki are useless (and have no room for improvement) - why keep coming back just to make that point?
"The people who are not directly tied to a decision process (the committe, chair and candidate) are much more likely to err on the status of that decision (something that can easily be a source of epculation) than who is making that decision (names aren't as susceptible to being just pulled out of a hat)."
your writing is less than clear here, but to use the previous example, if you are saying that sue jones has a better idea than the search committee or competing candidates of what sue jones is going to do, then yes, that is indisputible. The trick is to reliably get that information from Sue Jones--and there's the rub.
as to your question about the wiki, I rarely looked at it, but occasionaly I would use it to check schools off my list. but I emailed all my top schools as soon as I landed a few interviews (based on advice I got from this blog), so I knew the status of those searches before I saw them on the wiki. I never would make any decisions based on what the wiki said. so I think it's fine for idle curiosity, and for losing hope.
Oh--I must confess: I was fortunate enough to land my dream job this year, so I occasionally take a look at the wiki to make sure it's still listed as "accepted." Yes, I know that's neurotic :)
as far as the blog goes, I found it quite useful--not so much for emotional support (though I know others appreciated that), but because of the advice and information about things like research money, what is a "good" offer, etc. I also enjoy the conversation and the bullshitting.
I think that whoever got 90k must have had multiple other offers or maybe the possiblity of going to a higher paying b-school.
From what I heard last year, top 5 schools made their first offer (before negotiations) in the 60-70k range, with nice research or cost-of-living packages and bonuses. Who knows what people got post-negotiations, though.
I got an offer of $65K plus various extras in start up and research funds. This was BEFORE any negotiations. It's not from a top school, but from one clearly trying to expand and attract people. It's in a high cost-of-living area, though. I could see how, theoretically, someone could get a $90K offer, if he/she was a superstar and had other offers, and perhaps if it includes the various other funds that some are offered on top of the base salary.
From what I heard about last year's market, the absolute top offer was 80k. This year it may have been a few thousand higher, not sure. The 90k figure may include summer salary...
"the debate is about whether or not reasonable people can disagree about whether or not it's okay to name names and the answer to that question is yes....
is that an accurate summary?"
unless you are referring to a different debate on another blog, no. i think most of us believed we were debating whether or not it's okay or useful to name names, an issue which some people--seeing themselves on shaky ground--tried to distract attention from by lobbing personal attacks and accusing their interlocutors of having bizarre and utterly irrelevant motives. what it meant to you personally is different though. not trying to invalidate your assessment if you get a sense of resolution from it. i agree we should move on to more interestng topics, and it looks like we generally are.
I posted above about the 60-70k for the top schools last year and agree with anon 8:16. I didn't get an offer from a top 5 school but still ended up in that salary ballpark, as did the others from my program who went to research schools. My point was that the top candidates likely weren't offered much more in the first round than others at research schools (at least in salary).
There's all this talk about offering up a good reason to name names. Not that I care at all about the issue, but was there ever a good reason suggested as to why we shouldn't?
in short, the increased likelihood of nasty personal attacks (already evidenced here) as well as the possibility of damaging career consequences for candidates (i.e., search committees see them as having accepted a job on the wiki). I'm sure other reasons were covered--if you really care, just go back over this thread and the old blog. On the flip side, no one has been able to come up with a reason for doing it, besides idle curiosity or an eccentric hypothetical scenario.
Back to the money question, I'm blown away by $90k. I was offered low 60's and renegotiated to mid 60's, for a top 30 job. plus $14k in research money & $6k in summer money (plus some moving help). I was (and still am) happy with this offer, but it sounds like others are relatively rolling in it.
FYI...The top offer last year was mid 80s and went to someone at a school that is NOT located in a particularly expensive area. And, I heard that was base salary. This person did have multiple other offers (from what I know).
I can confirm the details of the above post, if "confirm" means "I heard it, too." Actually, I was on the market last year and one of the departments I was negotiating with cited the figure as "Well, that was the top offer." As in, we certainly won't go above that...
At my school (a top 20 dept with lots of money and status deprivation) they chased after a candidate who had an offer from a top 5 dept with lots of money. She ended up getting mid 80's; though we do live in a very expensive area (though faculty get school housing at 60 % the market rate). This is from last year. How much money you can initially make depends on whether you're going to be working at a private or at a public institution. Sociologists are lucky on average, though. An Assistant Professor at the UC system (regardless of school) makes around mid 50's, the star of last year's comp lit market makes 66 K after a bidding war and the salary for an Assistant in Spanish Department goes for around high 40's/low 50's! Bibi
it has been more than two months since my interview. I still haven't heard anything. It seems pessimistic.... Should I make an inquiry about the status of the search process? Or just wait? Could anyone give me some advice? What should we do after an interview? How long does it usually take to know the results? Would all candidates get a word about the search? Thanks!
To not contact you for more than two months after an interview is rude and inconsiderate. Unfortunately, I don't think it's as uncommon as it should be. It certainly wouldn't be out of line for you to contact the department and ask the status of the search.
I was in the same situation as yours. Had a campus interview, waited for two months only to find out from the wiki that they have offered the position to someone else. If you have not been contacted for that long after your visit, I think it is not too pessimistic to assume that you are not their number one choice. Still wish you good luck!
2:41--Think of it this way. The most successful and widely published people in our discipline are for the most part also the people who have been rejected the most times.
I think that dealing with having to be evaluated so often might be the hardest part of our jobs. I am a couple years into tenure at a top 25 department, and the extent to which I doubt whether I am any good at this has gone down each year since graduate school, but it still pops up. I think self-doubts are part of the game, but the good news is that in my case anyway they have diminished over time.
5:40--thanks for your comforting words. I had a great interview, but maybe I have had some misled expectations afterwards that made me feel so bad after knowing they didn't offer me the job. When I went on this interview, I received many compliments after my talk and on the second day. The chair even talked about his vision in me very concretely, such as that I could have my own office (their faculty share office space), what courses he hoped I would develop, etc. I still don't know what went wrong that I didn't get the job. I doubt myself so much that I even thought about quiting academia. Jason.
That stinks Jason. Two things based on my experience to keep in mind. One is that you never know what can derail your candidacy at a school. There are so many things and most of them are unfortunately out of your control. Second, it seems to me that as a rule you should never believe anything people at a school tell you about your candidacy at that school. That unfortunately seems especially true of the postive things.
Hang in there Jason. Getting an interview already shows you're highly regarded. Lots of people get no interviews. The chair could've loved you and maybe someone there decided your work was too similar to theirs, or maybe they didn't like your suit... or maybe you were fabulous but someone else was also fabulous and that other person got one more vote... I know it doesn't help to focus on its arbitrary nature, but I agree with 5:40 you never know what the cause of good or bad outcomes are. Just keep reminding yourself that you were a great candidate and for whatever reason, that wasn't the job for you.
Some information on salaries is publically available (though not necessarily easy to find). This is especially true for the public universities. For example assistant at Wisconsin are typically on the low end of top departments (low 60s). Michigan is doing much better because they have been hurt less by state legislative budget cuts (this is where endowments come in handy) their assistant are in the mid-to uper 60s. The privates are often higher because they have the endowments to make stronger offers but also they are often in expensive east coast cities. (did that senetece sound pornographic to you?)
I left postdoc at an ivy for an asst position. My salary was 9k more in the postdoc than I am making now (mid 60s) but my standard of living is substantially better because the cost of living is a lot lower.
My point here is that the simple $ metric of salaries is not strictly comparable. You will need to go to a cost of living calculator to tell for sure how good your offer is. $90k from Harvard, Berkely, or Columbia is actually not as good as it may sound. 70k in Madison or Ann Arbor is some serious scratch!
You're welcome, Jason. I had a similar experience (doubting myself) and while I found encouragement from loved ones, here is where I also, to my surprise and delight, support from others going through similar difficulties. My friends and loved ones are wonderful, but they aren't on the job market.... So glad I could be of help to you as others were to me!
137 comments:
Is someone going to panic if I ask for names for accepted positions? Doesn't seem like that needs to be kept on the DL.
I'd be curious to see the names as well, especially since it's only a matter of time before they become public.
me too -- i already sort of know who is interviewing where i am but it'd be nice to know who is out of the running since they accepted elsewhere.
I'll be happy to provide my name if I get a position. I have 4 interviews in the next few weeks.
-Mary.
Mary, I know it is not nice but I envy you. Good luck!
So, on that note - anyone want to let us know who accepted offers at Nebraska and UAB?
i've accepted an offer, but i'm not sure i want to say my name until the appointment process is over.
-nick
congrats, nick! can you tell us where? or hint? ;-)
nah--I'm gonna hold off on that til everything is signed & sealed. i will say this--i am definitely not one of the "stars" that everyone is waiting on. I didn't interview at any top 20 schools, only went on 3 interviews total, and accepted my first offer. So my acceptance only affects a small handful of people (and in a positive way for most of them).
That said, I do feel like I won the job lottery. it's a perfect fit for me in every respect.
Anyway: good luck on your searches everyone! The rejections suck (I got at least 50 of them), but you forget about those pretty quickly after it's over...
-nick
CONGRATS NICK!!!!
You offer light at the end of the tunnel!!!!
~MO
Good luck on your interviews Mary!
`MO
Huge congrats, Nick! It's especially great that it's a perfect fit. I can't imagine what a feeling of relief it must be.
Kyle
I just got an offer from a SLAC, the only place I have interviewed so far. I have a handful of apps pending at schools not listed on wiki...
I can imagine a scenario where I would be extremely happy there and one in which I would be less satisfied. Anyone have any advice on how they made their decisions to accept a position, or what kinds of questions to ask the dean? Negotiation strategies? Experiencs at SLAC?
THANKS.
~MO
Congrats, MO. This is huge. Can I ask you what the teaching load is? Can you negotiate about that?
I heard (from somebody there) that the UAB position went to somebody from UConn. This makes me feel that some of us from lower ranked schools have a chance this year.
Especially those from schools like UConn that are shooting up with a bullet. Not that I'm biased...
Jonathan the Husky
The Licoln jobs went to a couple from Penn State who are in postdocs now.
Congrats to whomever received the offer from UCSD (I noticed it on the Wiki)! Anonymously speaking, I'm wondering if SD is your "dream job" or whether instead there are other contending offers that might be more appealing for you?
[sorry about the duplicate, it gets tricky deciding where to post sometimes!]
I know we're not naming names of those on the market, but it would be nice if we named the people who have accepted jobs. Or at least if those of us who have accepted jobs would name themselves.
why? if you only know who accepted a job and don't know where else they had offers, there doesn't seem to be much to be gained from learning (now) who took which jobs. is it just curiosity?
Why not? What is the case to be made against it?
well, one of the reasons we aren't naming the names of candidates is so this doesn't turn into a forum for gossip. Any time individuals are being discussed in an anonymous forum, you have the potential for nastiness. Obviously it will all become public eventually, but that will happen after this blog has died down, and when there is less of an audience for gossip.
I still haven't heard a great reason for listing the names here.
The reason I see for letting people know who's gotten a job is so that we can know who we are no longer competing against. If I know I am on the shortlist with someone somewhere, and they have already accepted an offer somewhere else, that is useful information.
I think it's more likely that people want to see who has beaten them out for particular jobs, and look at their CVs, etc. Which can be educational, certainly.
I think not naming people who are currently on the market is a good idea. But the "nastiness and gossip" thing just doesn't hold true once someone has already accepted a position. As such, I would agree that it would be a good idea to list names of those who are NO LONGER on the market.
As someone who isn't a soc or poli sci person, but who applied to a couple jobs in both fields, I have to say: this forum is so much more supportive and healthier than the poli sci one. It might be because you're just a nicer bunch of people (butter butter), but I also think that the naming thing fuels a lot of nasty gossip over there.
On the other hand, I understand the usefulness of knowing names, so perhaps encouraging folks who've accepted an offer to name themselves is a happy medium.
Columbia has offered the junior position to someone in my department
"But the 'nastiness and gossip' thing just doesn't hold true once someone has already accepted a position."
You seriously believe that professors are somehow above the fray?
This blog has been a valuable resource because it is both informative and supportive. I believe it is so supportive because we are sociologists, but also because it is impersonal. Maybe it will continue to be supportive if we name names. Maybe it won't. But I'm not sure it will be very "educational" for me to see the CV's of people who got the jobs I applied for. They are either going to be clearly better than me--from better schools, with better publications and more famous advisors--or they are not. Either way, it will be depressing, not educational.
Just my $.02. If people are determined to name names, go for it.
-anonymous for anonymity in perpetuity
I fully agree with "anonymous for anonymity in perpetuity". I have looked up some invited candidates' cv's and it was nothing but depressing. why? because i can't suddenly change my educational institution or get a pub in AJS (my research wouldn't fit well) or get a better advisor after i have already completed my diss. of course you might say, well, then don't look up the names. i tried but couldn't resist.
helena
I have to agree that I just don't see the point of naming names. You can always check new hires after all is said and done. There's nothing the information will help any of us with NOW anyway. And as I've said before, while it might be frustrating, it remains true that there is no magic formula for what gets one a job. I have no pubs and had 2 interviews, and I know people with several pubs with no interviews... hearing names and seeing CVs will only make us say, "oh, THAT'S why I didn't get the job" or "&*%#!!! I should've gotten that job instead!" How is either helpful?
I like to think of it along the lines of that book, "He's just not that into you" - so often people wonder why Mr. or Ms. X doesn't want to be in a relationship with them... "oh, what's wrong with me? Did s/he find someone smarter/prettier/thinner/(fill in appropriate adjective here)?" When in reality it's just "they're not that into you." It doesn't matter why... it won't make you feel better. And if it will help you do better next time, there is plenty of time between when new hires are publicly announced and the next round of jobs next year to tweak your presentation style or whatnot. It's about finding the right fit in a very tight job market. It sucks, but it's reality. Learning who beat you out won't tell you WHY they beat you out, and won't make you feel better.
My 2 cents.
Claude
I still haven't seen a good reason against it (posting somewhere those who have accepted positions) being helpful in seeing who has cleared the market and is no longer in competition for particular positions. I couldn't give two craps about comparing myself to those who have been hired (because as been stated here - ad naseum - there is a lot of "randomness" in the system). But when I know that myself and 2 other people are up for the same job, knowing that one of them has already accepted a job elsewhere would definitely be useful information.
it is really not much of a rumor blog without names. just endless hand wringing.
sheesh. if you are really interested in the names debate, check out the old rumor site. it covers everything.
if this blog is just endless handwringing, go start a new blog. or work on your research.
Just to clarify, the old blog is not naming names. In fact, they are more opposed to the idea over there.
In regards to naming the names of people who have accepted positions, is there really any opposition?
Um, see above.
Ummmm. Where? The consensus, by far, seems to be that naming the names of those who have accepted jobs is reasonable. So, let's just take a vote.
Who's in favor of naming names of those who have accepted positions?
One vote here for naming.
-acey
I vote NO to naming those who have accepted jobs or even individuals naming themselves if they have accepted jobs (easy for someone to masquerade as another person on an anonymous board). How certain is the acceptance? How certain are "we" that someone is off the market? Is that person still in negotiation elsewhere?
I'm here for information about the search process, not about people who have applied for those positions.
I know I'm up against folks who already have TTs, currently hold postdocs, or are ABD like me. My research area is odd enough so that comparing myself to others is useless.
Trixie
The question asked was whether there was really any opposition, and you need only read the last several posts to see that there has been clear opposition expressed. There are more posts in favor to date, but we cannot know how many people these represent, and the tendency over time is toward opposition (with several posts opposing the idea signed by distinct individuals).
It strikes me as kind of silly to propose a vote on an anonymous forum where anyone can post numerous times posing as different people, but for what it's worth another vote for NO.
Mills
And by the way, as should be evident by now, you could create a situation in which it appears that people are in favor, but you can't force people to divulge information if they don't want to. They can "vote" by simply not naming names or not visiting this part of the blog if others do. And the administrator has the ultimate say, in any case.
Mills: you are, of course right; people can effectively vote with their feet (or mouse clicks). From the discussion above, however, it seems that there are enough people who would participate in viewing/sharing/correcting the names of those who have accepted positions. An informal vote wouldn't necessarily be the deciding factor, but it would at least give us a gauge of where the consensus is.
You do raise a good point that there is the potential for voter fraud; and while hardly an ideal solution, maybe we should agree that votes will only count if people give some indication of who they are.
So, as of now:
Yeah (1)
Nay (2)
-acey
acey,
If I were taking this vote idea at all seriously, I would point out that the timing (during the holidays) could not be worse. You would have to include those like Claude, who has come out in opposition to the idea but said on the old blog that he was away on vacation. We can assume that this is the case for a number of people.
But I really can't take it seriously. The suggestion that only votes for which people "give some indication of who they are" will count is a totally insufficient measure against voter fraud. This is compounded by the fact that none of those who were in favor on the old blog, as I recall, even identified themselves with a pseudonym, so any number of fake ones could be invented.
It just seems silly. Happy holidays,
Mills
I vote Nay. It is kind of late in the process to name names. Further, I do not understand the purpose of naming names other than to satisfy curiosity. We will all know who accepted positions next fall semester when new faculty are added to websites. For those interested in who you were competing against, I suggest checking out these websites in fall 07. If you are interested in learning who gets jobs based on credentials, visit departmental websites and check out the CVs of faculty hired in the past few years. I know that other rumour mills (e.g. Middle Eastern Studies) list names and I can't quite figure out the purpose other than scorekeeping and, as someone mentioned in a previous post, unintentionally (or not) creating hype about specific candidates.
Mills, how would you go about resolving this issue?
In addition, I understand that people are going to be out of town (myself included), but I assume that those of us on the job market will still be checking this site occasionally over the holidays (I know I will).
Happy Holidays to you as well.
-acey
I'm afraid I'm a bit confused about why this is coming up again as an issue for debate. It seems all of the arguments, pro and con, have been raised, here and on the old blog. Several of us have said that we think naming those who have accepted positions is a bad idea, for numerous reasons, but we haven't said that we would try to stop you from doing it if you're so inclined (how could we, really?).
A few people have said that they oppose it and won't participate, but that if you're that determined you should just go ahead and do it. Maybe other people will want to join you and add information, maybe they won't. Maybe others will not want to share but will keep visiting to receive the information, maybe not. Maybe the administrator will allow it, maybe not.
(My deepest apologies in advance to those who have ethical objections to this idea for even suggesting it. I don't claim to speak for everyone, and some may see even this suggestion as unacceptable. And I don't want to dissuade anyone from posting more - especially nay - votes. It's just that this whole discussion has become seriously tiresome.)
Mills
And I suppose the same thing some of us proposed on the old blog in the case of naming people who were interviewing or had been offered jobs would come in handy here to protect those who have a deep-rooted objection: If you're going to start naming names you could give some advance warning, so those who don't want to see them can be forewarned (and maybe the administrator could be asked to add a statement to this effect on the original page, like the warnings provided with movie reviews that include spoilers).
Mills
We're just calling for a vote, Mills. No need to tire yourself out. Sheesh.
-acey
Believe me, this had me tired out long, long ago. There's always the solution proposed a (large) number of times on the old blog: setting up a new blog for this purpose and posting the link here for those interested. Just make this stop, I beg you.
Mills, again
on the old blog, someone challenged the name-namers to come up with an example of how naming names actually changed someone's behavior. i don't think anyone has successfully addressed this question, even in the hypothetical.
but regardless, this debate is really tiresome. if you must name names, you should: a) start with your own; b) do it on some other site.
congrats to the person who's landing at princeton! to satisfy my curiosity - is this the non-western societies job or the open position that's been accepted?
The reason that the debate never dies is that this type of info can be genuinely useful, and even encouraging. I thought that I had been rejected after 3 months of hearing nothing from a certain poli sci department, but according to their wiki, at least one (maybe two) of the finalists has accepted a position elsewhere. So maybe I still have a shot.
Of course, candidates are regularly smeared on the board over there, and I haven't been able to keep myself from looking at this guy's CV, which is an ego-beater.
Really, for my purposes, if folks consistently noted when an offer had been rejected or a finalist had withdrawn, it would be almost as helpful as knowing names. And it would save me from my own ill-advised curiosity regarding specifics. So if there is a vote, I'd choose no.
C.
Re: Princeton hire
I am putting some things together here, but I am pretty sure that this was for the open search position.
ME
Let's face it, the ONLY reason to name names is to satisfy our own curiosity. Naming people will NOT affect our chance of getting a job. Knowing the name of the person that got the job when we know that the job has been accepted is pointless. If you want to see how you "compare" you can easily go to any department's website and look at the faculty who have been hired in the past year or two. Would I like to know? Sure, and if people named others, I would certainly look up their vita. But, the fact of the matter is, I wouldn't do it because I wouldn't want it done to me. And if you are so keen on naming names, I like the suggestion that you start with your own.
George
This recurrent call for those of us in favor of naming names to name ours is probably the silliest, least creative tactic to end the discussion one could come up with. Not that I'm opposed to sharing my name, but if we do start to name names on here, for obvious reasons, the sources of that information would need to remain anonymous. So, I agree that there are reasons not to name names, but trying to stop the debate by calling on people to share their own names is playing politics.
-acey
acey et al. (if there is an al. this time),
Proposals are on the table. If you're genuinely interested in finding a workable solution to this, and not simply in fomenting discord for its own sake, it's time to fish or cut bait. Respectfully,
Mills
Re: Princeton
I am a 100% sure that it is the open position.
curiosity satiated (for now.) Thanks, ME & 100%!
Why is it important that your anonymity be preserved but not the names of those with job offers? What is one "obvious" reason? I would think saying, "I'm So and So and I heard John Smith got a job," is worse for John Smith than for So and So. And while you say you're willing to share your name, you haven't and you clearly won't. Really big of you to insult and ridicule others when you have the luxury to remain anonymous - obviously a benefit you see not point in extending to others.
One obvious reason is obvious. You really think people are going to provide information regarding who took what jobs if they can't do so anonymously? Some of this information is sensitive to departments, and I could imagine that if so-and-so started naming names, search committees and department heads might not be pleased.
I would hardly consider making public information about who has already taken a job constituting ridicule or insult. You would?
-acey
acey: tell us how naming names, anonymously on the internet, would cause your behavior to change.
"The reason that the debate never dies is that this type of info can be genuinely useful, and even encouraging. I thought that I had been rejected after 3 months of hearing nothing from a certain poli sci department, but according to their wiki, at least one (maybe two) of the finalists has accepted a position elsewhere. So maybe I still have a shot."
Encouraging is not the same as helpful. If you really want to know whether you still have a shot, email the departments. As soon as I had a couple interviews scheduled, my advisor told me to email all my preferred schools to find out whether I was still being considered. I emailed about 15 places, and heard back from 13 of them within 48 hours. It's much better than seeing something posted on a blog, that may or may not be bullshit.
In your example, not only could you have probably gotten that information from the departments themselves, but it probably didn't change any decision you made. I mean, you didn't go ahead & turn down a bunch of interviews just because your chances improved at this school, did you?
so why don't we do it on a volunteer basis. People who are reading this can post about themselves and their new jobs. "My name is so and so, I got a job at X university"
7:39:
I had phoned that department, and they would only tell me that the search was "ongoing". Maybe e-mail is a better way to get specific info on whether one is/n't being considered; I'll try that next time.
Did it change any decision I made? No, I suppose not. Though I've been watching that job closely because I'm wondering whether Poli Sci folks would seriously consider me and whether it's worth applying for similar positions. (If I were to scan through the CVs of those who got interviews, it might also help me get a sense of that.) Yes, I'm sure it's best to e-mail the department directly and ask whether they'd consider hiring someone outside the discipline. But generally speaking, if we could always get prompt, reliable responses from departments, then we wouldn't need this board, would we?
Regarding encouragement and helpfulness, yes, they aren't always the same thing. But they can be when you're trying to muster up the confidence to send out your 50th application after hearing nothing back from the first 49. The information on these boards is as much about soothing the nerves as it is about strategy, and in that sense, "did this information ease your uncertainty/nail-biting?" seems to me as valid a question as "would you have done anything differently?"
All that said, I'd remind you that you're arguing a point with someone who is convinced that the no-name policy is the right one. So, chill.
C.
C.,
The post in response to yours was answering it as you presented it: as an intended contribution to the discussion about naming names. I didn’t respond to your post because I thought you argued with your initial contention as well as anyone when you said:
“Really, for my purposes, if folks consistently noted when an offer had been rejected or a finalist had withdrawn, it would be almost as helpful as knowing names. And it would save me from my own ill-advised curiosity regarding specifics. So if there is a vote, I'd choose no.”
You’re not making an argument in favor of naming names - in fact you explicitly vote against it - and I think you could have made this more clear. It was this issue that I was referring to in my earlier post, and you presented yours as an intervention in that discussion, which it wasn’t, really. As I understand it, knowing that an offer has been declined is the information you think is helpful or encouraging, and this doesn’t have anything to do with knowing the name of the person who declined it.
While the “almost as helpful” was problematic (especially since you point out that seeing the person’s CV was an “ego-beater” and call your curiosity “ill-advised” - which seem to work against your argument that this information in your case has proven encouraging; also I disagree that seeing CVs of the interviewed candidates is any more helpful than reading the CVs of those hired over the past few years), I thought that your suggestion that people consistently update the wiki about declined offers made sense as far as it went. But I disagree about how far this is, and agree with whoever responded to your original post. I think you have an exaggerated idea of the value of this information. The best place to get reliable information about the status of a search or your own candidacy is from the department itself. When you heard from them that the search was ongoing, that was more information than you had obtained from the wiki, and unlike the information on the wiki you know that it is accurate.
Seeing on the wiki that someone turned down an offer - even assuming this was correct - didn’t even tell you whether they were continuing with the search, never mind anything about your personal status. Nor can anyone on the wiki or this board tell you whether a political science department would consider you seriously. You can only get that information from them. (The more general question is an important one. My sense is that it is very difficult for us to break into poli sci departments, while the reverse is easier. This may be due to what Abbott in the book recommended on the old blog calls the “caravansary quality” of sociology, which is not shared by political science. I may post the question on one of their blogs though to see if anyone can offer any insight...) So really any sense of encouragement or certainty or confidence about your specific situation gained from these sources is largely without foundation.
To use an analogy (this has a ring of familiarity, so if anyone has used it in the past and I’m adopting it as my own, sorry): You have a romantic interest in an acquaintance. You hear through the grapevine that this person has become engaged, but later that the engagement was broken by the other party and that the couple has split up. You could find this development, though unpleasant for your crushee, encouraging in the sense that the person you like is now single again. But that’s as far as it goes. You don’t know when he or she will be ready to start dating again or want to be in another relationship. But what you really don’t know is what this means for you. The person may have been carrying a small torch for you all this time (though this is doubtful given the engagement to someone else), may think of you as a friend but the relationship could develop into something more serious later, or may not be interested in you romantically at all, ever. I don’t think that knowing that your “dream mate” may be free without knowing anything about his or her specific interest (or lack thereof) in you would typically lead you to feel more confident and to get out and date more. In fact, it could lead you to become so fixated on the possibility of this relationship that you ignore other real possibilities right around you.
When we talk on here about departments doing sequential searches, schools listed on the wiki as having already invited candidates contacting people months later, and such, I think it’s with the understanding that, first, these are very general possibilities and sources of hope that may not necessarily apply to us individually; and that, second, this information is more fodder for delusional thinking than any sort of useful guide to action. When I see that an offer has been declined somewhere I applied, do I have momentary fantasies about the urgent email from them informing me that just when they thought they were going to scrap the search they discovered my application materials, which had fallen behind a file cabinet, and have received the go-ahead from the dean to bring me in for a job talk? Sadly, yes. Then rational thinking returns. Then I check my emails for the hundredth time that day. And so it goes...
Happy New Year,
Mills
What a wonderful, pragmatic post, Mills. I approach the idea of naming names as I do with any other question. How is this likely to make me feel? By naming names it seems like it could instill false hopes and a lot of snarkiness among fellow applicants (sociologists, snarky? Say it ain't so!) without giving us what we really want to know (am I still in the running?) I have decided, as is often the case, that ignorance is bliss.
Bewildered to see this still going on 2 weeks after I last checked....
I vote no on naming names.
Claude
bewildered to see that mills freaked out on a person who didn't even suggest we name names. sheesh.
Ok, 2 things to chime in on:
First, Claude - it's not "still going" it's new people asking the same questions. Probably indicates there being some merit to it. I've chosen to abide by the norm because the person who set this thing up dictated as such on the front page. I still don't think it's well-reasoned though.
Second, and this one I have been holding back for a while, but since the person above took a little swipe at Mills, I'll ask the question that's been amusing me for a while - Does anyone else on here find it ironic that the person who chose the pseudonym Mills has taken it upon him/herself to be the voice of reason, summarizing what everyone thinks (even though there is clear disagreement), both here and on the old blog? It can't be just me that finds the immense irony in that, can it?
Let's face it, I think most of us wants to know the names of the folks who got jobs (so we can look up their vita, etc.), so I do understand where it is all coming from. If someone did name the person who got a job at a place I really really liked, I certainly will look them up. HOWEVER, I don't want to be named and if I don't want to be named, I'm not going to advocate that we name others. The ONLY reason to name names is to fulfill our own curiosity. YES, I want to know who beat me out of so and so job - but so what? I'll find out later if I really still want to know in August or September but I'm pretty sure that by then I won't give a rat's #$%@&.
More importantly, the person who got the job was most likely not any more "qualified" than any of us who didn't get that particular job. The job market is a crap shoot - and there are MANY reasons why "they" didn't call you. I heard from one of my committee members that one place didn't call me because "they" didn't think I'd come and if I came I would be desperate to leave, I have NO control over what "they" think. I did find out who got that job, he/she had NO pubs, little teaching experience, etc. Let it go.
7:39
you say the case against naming names is not well-reasoned. but if that is true, the case for it is even more poorly reasoned. Thus far, the only "argument" for it is that it would be "helpful" to know if a person you were competing with had already accepted a job. but of course, this is assertion, not argument.
I wonder how, exactly, it would be helpful? would you turn down a bunch of interviews based on something you saw in the wiki? even assuming the information was good, it would be stupid to turn down other interviews. I don't think anyone has come up with an example of how the wiki provided (or could provide) unique information that caused someone's behavior to change.
On the other side of the argument, we have the possibility that naming names could adversely affect someone's candidacy or negotiating, as well as the stark example of the other disciplines' blogs, which involved (by all accounts) a lot of personal sniping.
I apologize for repeating the what others have argued more deftly, but it's a little annoying when people say there is poor reasoning behind the stance we have taken here.
Well, if another anonymous poster takes a snipe at me, you should certainly feel free to let loose the reins of civility and do so yourself. That makes perfect sense. Are we sociologists on a professional forum or contestants by the pool on America’s Next Top Model?
A) Ad hominem attacks, telling people to “chill,” characterizing stating/explaining one’s disagreement as “freaking out,” and the like are the last refuge of those who have lost on the terrain of reasoned argument, an implicit admission of defeat. I accept them as such.
B) The fact that an issue has been raised repeatedly, by posters new or old, means nothing about its merit. I could raise the claim on here every day that it would be useful to know the sign that Saturn was in when a job ad was posted or the color of the walls in the rooms where search committees are deliberating. I could even be joined by a majority as expressed in a “vote.” Would these assertions then have merit?
C) When I assumed the collective voice of reason, I did not mean to include you. My sincerest apologies.
Mills
You all seem to think that re-iterating the same points that have already been made, which we clearly don't agree on are going to be enough to convince us. While it may not change behaviors, it definitely would serve to level the information differential between those of us searching and those on search committees, which was the point of this thing all along, I thought. Apparently not. Clearly, we disagree on how best to achieve that.
While Mills seems convinced that ad hominem attacks are "signs of defeat," let me propose another alternative, which is consistent with his "claiming the voice of reason" - that those of us who have an alternate opinion have come to recognize that reason isn't sufficient for argument here with people who havedug their heels in. We've just come to recognize that you genuinely think you are "the collective voice of reason" despite the fact that there are plenty who disagree with you. Again, the irony of your name choice only serves to astound all the more! Thanks for the laughs.
Insulting me/us/these blogs has done nothing to strengthen the case for naming names. It has only harmed your cause, since I imagine people would be much less likely to share names with those so readily toss aside reasoned discussion and resort to insults and personal attacks.
The administrator of this blog has established a policy of not naming names. Therefore, those who wish to do so need to do it elsewhere. (Incidentally, the IR blog has a new policy. If anyone is interested, they're at
http://irrumormill.blogspot.com/
If you scroll down a bit, you can see that they've also set up a thread for discussion of the policy change.)
Reasonable, intelligent people - again, I make no pretense to speak for you here - can read the arguments that have been made on both/all sides of the issue and decide how they want to proceed. Your attempts to change people's minds or behavior through badgering, insults, or evading or refusing to engage with the substance of their arguments will, I expect (and hope), continue to prove futile.
Mills
I stopped trying to convince a long time ago. I have agreed to follow the administrator's policy here; you want me to think it's right. Those are two wholly different issues. I just think you need to lighten up a little, step down from the pedestal you've placed yourself on, and recognize that some things aren't as clear-cut, well-supported, open-and-shut as you seem to think.
It frightens me to think that such closed-to-discussion folks as yourself will be the educators of the near future - in areas such as sociology no less. I don't think you have to agree with me. I also don't think you I have to agree with you on this one. It's not a "right or wrong" question. It's one of opinion. That's the irony at this point. It has nothing at all to do with naming names or not any more, as far as I am concerned. It's clear to me that that is not going to happen here. I've conceded that fact, and am ok with it. But I would hope that you can recognize that your attempts to squelch dialogue, by pointing out how "clearly inferior" the alternatives to your own opinion are, are wholly unfruitful when it's a fuzzy area. It's time to move on, I agree. But I also hope you (and I, and others - since this has been a public discussion) can see through the "this is the way it should be" frame you've placed around it. I'm afraid that's not going to happen.
Very well, then. If you’re no longer trying to make a case for naming names, have accepted that it isn’t going to happen, and have moved on from that debate, that’s good enough for me. If this is the case, we have nothing more to discuss. Best of luck to you,
Mills
"While it may not change behaviors, it definitely would serve to level the information differential between those of us searching and those on search committees..."
Finally a namer acknowledges that naming names would not help with any decisions. But *this* is the best reason for doing it? "Leveling the information differential" serves what end, exactly? And btw, I'm not convinced that there is such a huge information differential--unless you are a superstar, the search committees generally seem to have little idea where you applied or where you are interviewing.
"...which was the point of this thing all along, I thought."
this thing has lots of points: it provides information about the status of job searches, mutual support & encouragement to candidates, helpful links to sources for other jobs, and solid advice on interviewing and negotiating. simply "leveling the information differential," that is, assuming one exists, does not strike me as a worthy end in itself.
and knock off the personal attacks. it's juvenile--and a great reminder of why we don't want our names out there.
"It frightens me to think that such closed-to-discussion folks as yourself will be the educators of the near future"
It should frighten you that future educators won't take the initiative to start a new site for their purposes. It cracks me up that none of the people in favor of naming names have bothered to create a different site for that purpose. It must be easier to come here and piss on good folks like Mills than to do the handful of mouse clicks it takes to start a new blog?
Kyle
I give this one more day and then I'm done checking it. This back and forth argument is making me tired. Regardless of differing opinions on the purpose and utility of this site, I can bet at least most of us would agree that this isn't it....
Claude
Marymount Manhattan College has made an offer and it's been accepted.
Claude? Claude? Has anyone seen Claude?
I'm here and glad to see there's an exchange of information taking place and that the argument seems to be in the past (on the other post locations if not on this one).
Claude
Wow. I hadn't checked this for a while, so I hadn't seen your response to my earlier post, Mills. Your response was very thoughtful, well-reasoned, and helpful -- thanks.
As for telling someone to "chill" being "the last refuge of those who have lost on the terrain of reasoned argument, an implicit admission of defeat," well, I think that's a little silly. If nothing else, I think my ambivalence -- and perhaps my lack of familiarity with the job search process -- came through pretty clearly in my two posts. Then I was promptly associated with a pro-name position with which I sympathized but disagreed. Maybe it was my fault for trying to think out loud or understand both sides of an intense, polarized, and protracted debate.
But another of part of me believes that we should be able to do such thinking on a blog, in the same way that we allow students to fly test balloons in section. It's nice to be in a public forum that's not a chessboard. So Mills, though I'm sure you're a decent person, and I know you make cogent and convincing arguments (I'll gladly admit being convinced, if not "defeated"), again I'd urge you to loosen up a little, man. The same goes for the rabid pro-namers.
C., master of the ambivalent post
Hi C. :),
Thank you for the compliments mixed in there.
Actually, the person you originally instructed to chill was not me. In fact, I didn’t respond to that first post. That said, if you want to put your ideas out there without anyone engaging them, the midst of an “intense, polarized, and protracted debate” is probably not the best moment for it. Send up a test balloon during an air battle and it’s likely to get strafed.
More generally, these repeated admonitions and several other of your remarks give me the impression that you wish to participate in a public discussion only on the condition that you are seen to occupy a sort of protected category, immune from challenge. What you seem to be saying is that you should be able to air your views, including making potentially controversial interventions in a heated debate, while others should not be able to express their disagreement with you for various reasons - you’re ambivalent or ignorant, you mean well, you’re trying to be broad-minded, you stand in general agreement with them, you’re merely thinking out loud, and so on. This all strikes me as extremely defensive. I would also be careful here: You may find that you are successful in discouraging people from stating their disagreement with you, but that this has come at the cost of their discounting your statements and taking you far less seriously.
So while we’re issuing unsolicited advice, I would urge you to let go of this fear, own your statements, and jump into the discussion with both feet; not only to accept others’ disagreement with you as a natural and inevitable part of participation in public life, but to embrace it and appreciate the possibilities it offers.
Mills
C - you were trying to understand both sides of a polarized debate? why? why not just stifle any semblance of a discussion by making ridiculous comparisons to torture and murder and genocide?
Kyle (delayed response),
I get your point, but think that the collective power of something like this is in its numbers. Since this place had momentum, starting a new one seemed counter-productive. I thought opening it up here instead might work. I was wrong. Either way, we are to a point now where I have to assume many of us know the names of quite a few acceptances at quite a few places, and are seeing the whole process slowly wind down, so the debate is probably moot at this point anyway. I just didn't like the cries to shut the discussion down based on "I am clearly right and you are clearly wrong" logic (not something you were a part of as far as I remember - I have generally appreciated your input here).
- One previously calling for the naming of names
Mills,
Since "chill" does not seem to be working - whether directed at you or not; let me try another tack - "Blow it out your a$$".
- amused by 6:13's post
it's funny that this debate still simmers. it's really funny that after months and months of bogus arguments and personal attacks, NO ONE has EVER produced an example of how learning the names of successful candidates did anything but satisfy idle curiosity. Mills may ride a horse of some stature, but your consistent personal attacks on him only serve to highlight the absence of a cogent argument in your favor.
I haven't read through all of the posts in this thread, but I can provide an example of how knowing the name of a person who took a job can help. When I went on the market, one of my advisors said, "It's going to be tough for you on the market this year. (Sue Jones) is also on the market, and she's a superstar." Of course, Sue (made up name) could only take one job, but she did end up getting a job for which I was on the short list.
Suppose that Stanford, Wisconsin, and LSU are all hiring in my area. I believe that Sue Jones and I are the top people on the market in the area. All three schools ask me for more materials in October. In November, LSU interviews me and offers me a position. I contact Wisconsin and Stanford to see if I'm still in the running. Wisconsin tells me to feel free to move on with my life without them. Stanford tells me their search is continuing and I'm in the running, but they can't sort it out before I have to give LSU an answer. I now have to decide whether to accept the LSU job or take a chance and wait on Stanford. In that case, knowing whether Sue Jones took the job at Wisconsin could potentially play a determining role in whether I take the LSU job or roll the dice with Stanford.
Sure, but has anyone actually done this? It's pretty crazy to turn down a tenure track job at one school because you saw on the internet that one of the other candidates at the other school was out of the running. That only means your chances have improved slightly--from 25% or 33% (usually) to 33% or 50%.
And that also assumes reliable information--and we already know that, in addition to errors, some folks have actively engaged in disinformation campaigns on the wiki. Heck, even if you were the last candidate standing does not guarantee you the job--there are lots of cancelled searches every year.
Furthermore, even if you are such a gambler, this is information that (in general) you can get more reliably straight from the department itself. they won't always tell you who the other candidates are, but you can find out how many of them are still being considered.
So even this fairly far-fetched scenario (far fetched in the sense that someone bases a major career decision on an internet rumor) fails to demonstrate that names on the wiki has causal impact on career decisions, since the critical information (i.e., the # of candidates in the running) can be gathered more reliably elsewhere. And again, this is just a hypothetical--no one has been able to provide a single real life example of how naming people mattered.
Of course, I am assuming that you took the "LSU" job, and didn't roll the dice on "Stanford" based on Sue's hiring. If you did roll the dice, bravo--you've got a lot of guts.
I posted the Stanford/Wisconsin/LSU example. My comments are simply an example of how knowing the name of someone who took a job can help. It's not about the reliability of internet message boards, on which I claim no expertise.
Stanford/Wisconsin/LSU person again. Although I disagree with the logic of much of your response to my post (I could have a long post on just the 25% to 33% or 33% to 50% part), you are right that it's just a hypothetical, and I now realize that there was a call for actual examples of people being helped by knowing the names of people who took jobs. My apologies.
for those percentages, I assumed (reasonably, I believe) that there are usually 3 or 4 final candidates for a job, and that you lack any information as to their relative ranking. So I'm actually curious about the so-called extensive critique in my logic that you hint at. of course, it's a lot easier to make such claims than it is to carry through with them. so indulge me if you will.
but regardless of the percentages (or whether percentages are even appropriate--which might be your argument), the basic point is that even if the field is narrowed, there remains the significant possiblity that the job is not yours. I think you implicitly agree on that, since you use the term gamble in your original post.
as to the reliability of the internet and the wiki, that is an important aspect of the argument if you are arguing that we should name names here (apologies if you are not making this claim--it's difficult to tell in this sea of anonymity). I think most of the information on this board & the wiki are reliable, but I would hardly base any career decisions on it.
The last thing I wanted coming here was to get in a fight. I just read (incorrectly) the post previous to mine and thought I would provide an example. I’m not willing to spend much time on this, but since you asked for what is wrong with the 25% to 33% or 33% to 50% statement, a few comments.
The statement reflects common misunderstandings of both how the job market works and probability. First, although I don’t have the data, my best guess is that the median number of candidates invited to interview for a job is 2. Second, even if we know the number of invited candidates is 3 or 4, the chances of a job offer, even if all candidates are equal, is greater than 33% or 25%. Candidates decline job offers, departments are impressed with multiple candidates and secure additional lines, candidates cancel scheduled interviews, and so on. (It also happens, although less frequently, that departments are not impressed with any candidates and don’t make any offers.) My best guess is that about 50% of people who interview for jobs in our gig end up with offers.
The probability misunderstanding relates to a common tendency people have to assume that if there are multiple objects in competition for some outcome, then each object has the same likelihood of obtaining the outcome. Just suppose the scenario in which four people are interviewing for a job and one and only one must receive a job offer. All candidates are not created equal, and they don’t all have a 25% chance of getting an offer, just as the Bears didn’t have a 50% chance of winning last night’s Super Bowl. In my example, I already established that I was one of the two top candidates in the area. If the other top candidate is already out of the picture, I would go in believing that my chances were considerably better than 25%. In any case, candidates never enter with equal likelihoods at getting the offer.
I take no stance on whether names should be named here. I don’t know the details of each side of the argument.
If you had read my previous post before providing the pedantic lesson in probability, I explicitly assumed that there were three or four candidates interviewing for the job, not two, and that one dropped out. I realize that candidates are not created equal, but again, I also explicitly assumed there was no information provided about their relative ranking (in my most recent post). I agree that those probabilities are not applicable to your situation.
But more importantly, I think you missed the forest on this one: the point was that even if the top candidate drops, or even if you are the last candidate standing, there remains a possibility that you do not have the job.
anon, you did miss the forest.
You did not establish in your hypothetical that you were one of the top two candidates, only that you BELIEVED yourself to be one of the top two candidates. This is a risky assumption from which to set off, and in this case a questionable one, given that at least one of your top 3 choices (Wisconsin) has not seen fit to interview you. The notion of top candidates in the abstract has only limited value; it does not necessarily follow from your star status that you are the one of the top choices for every position in your area.
The additional factors you bring in do complicate the matter of probabilities, but they work against your basic argument by showing that you have little knowledge of the various factors affecting your chances or the way in which the declining of the offer by sue jones alters them. If, for example, you are being considered for another line, her actions do not affect your odds at all. if you are one of the more borderline candidates vying for the same job, your chances improve very little. It would be reckless indeed to use as a determining factor in making a career altering decision a bit of information --obtained from the internet & which may be inaccurate -- when you lack the critical contextual information necessary to interpret its meaning. Then again anyone intrepid enough to enter this debate is undoubtedly a risk taker.
Stanford example person again. I sense that you both are committed to a position in a debate in which I don't have a horse. Anon #1: You added your comment about assuming no information only after I questioned your application of probability. Anon #2: Whichever direction various factors move the probabilities, the point is the same--it's silly to say that being 1 of 3 candidates implies a 33% chance of a job offer. There are far too many variables at work.
Both of you: I made no claims or statements about internet rumors. I believe I was explicit about this--I provided an example of when *knowing* the name of a candidate who took a job might help. I thought that's what the person had been looking for. I make no claims about the value of learning internet rumors about who might have taken a job.
Anon #2 here. So, to be clear, the example you offered is totally unrelated to the debate that's been ongoing for some time. I apologize for continuing to think that it was intended to speak to that discussion.
But let's take the internet factor out of the mix. As you say, there are far too many variables at play for you to determine your chances -- or to know how they are changed by another candidate's decision -- with any degree of numerical certainty. Thus the information that another candidate is out of the running is of even less value, not more, to you than it would be if you knew for certain that you were one of two or three other candidates with an equal chance of getting the job as a result.
Am I the only one chuckling, feeling sorry for "Stanford example" poster -- so quickly, unwittingly caught up in the debate.
Yikes. Things have become a lot less cordial. A lot more like the Poly Sci blogs we'd heard so much about.
i wasn't going to weigh in on this one the nth time around, but alas i am weak. cannot resist.
the issue of naming names not actually on the table. from my reading of this message board, nobody's put it back on the table since the last throw-down right before the holidays.
the debate is about whether or not reasonable people can disagree about whether or not it's okay to name names and the answer to that question is yes. it's yes. saying yes to that question does not mean that one endorses the idea of naming names - just that one can see how that would be reasonable if we operated according to the norms other disciplines embrace. but we do not. still, it's a reasonable thing to consider.
is that an accurate summary?
now let's get back to talking about interesting and helpful things like:
- negotiating research $
- quality of life at various caliber institutions
- why we academics tend to be so highly motivated by the allure of prestige
- how difficult it is to follow a discussion between x people who all post anonymously
- anon13
now let's get back to talking about interesting and helpful things like:
- negotiating research $
simple; get all you can get! seriously though, having a concrete and executable plan helps. if you are research-oriented (may or may not be R1), try to ensure that your internal funding will lead directly to external funding. your case is more convincing when you can say "i need $__ to execute this research plan"
- quality of life at various caliber institutions
i'm likely being too literal, but still not sure how the "caliber" of institutions is directly related to quality of life. i am at what would be considered a very high caliber institution and can't wait to leave because the qol in the region is unbearable (to me). i have not found all of this generalizing about typologies of institutions to be helpful or informative. there are endless checklists of things to consider when deciding upon a position. it's easy to assess the practical considerations (like teaching load, etc) and how they fit with one's aspirations. i would find it most helpful for this blog to discuss the intangibles (like collegiality, department culture, etc) and how one can get a handle on these important factors before making a decision.
- why we academics tend to be so highly motivated by the allure of prestige
in a word - insecurity
- how difficult it is to follow a discussion between x people who all post anonymously
not a big problem until posters start launching ad hominem attacks and "last word" skirmishes. thanks for suggesting new directions...
Another thing to keep in mind about research money is what's available outside of the department. I got a nice research package, but I also got a job at a school where there is all kinds of internal support (that's outside of the department). If the school lacks those other resources, I would try to bargain harder for money up front, or guaranteed over a period of time.
If I could send this off-list, believe me, I would. this is a silly dialogue, and i know that stanford's focus on trees has led me to ignore my own forest here. but--when i'm in an online debate with a nitpicker i tend to indulge in some pettiness. apologies--please skip this post if you are interested in anon 13's new direction.
"Anon #1: You added your comment about assuming no information only after I questioned your application of probability."
True--I tried to clarify my assumptions. I'm not sure how this clarification invalidates the estimate, but perhaps I can look forward to another lecture from you on elementary probability.
"All candidates are not created equal, and they don’t all have a 25% chance of getting an offer, just as the Bears didn’t have a 50% chance of winning last night’s Super Bowl."
Of course it's true that the bears didn't have a 50% at winning, and it's also true that our fictional candidate had a 33% at the job. But if you are a villager in rural mongolia, with no knowledge of bears or colts, you would have to assume that each has an even chance of winning. same for our fictional candidate.
But the deeper critique that you missed is that these are not repeated events. you never go up against the same candidates for the same job twice, and these bears and these colts are not going to replay the superbowl. So assigning probabilities to non-repeated events is problematic. That said, it's what people in those situations do, so while problematic in from a probability standpoint, it is valid from a human one.
i'm anon 1 above (call me 33%). i'm not so sure that academics are more prestige driven than others, but if they are, I would say that our collective insecurity is that our placement is a direct reflection on our intelligence. just a hunch.
As with others, I had decided to let this drop (was one calling for the naming of names, then let it go), but then I got an email that satisfied the "how could naming names have changed your behavior" request.
About a month ago I was informed by a place that they had made an offer to someone for the position I interviewed for, let's call this school UA. Shortly thereafter someone else changed the wiki to read offere accepted at UA.
In the meantime numerous other offers were accepted at numerous other places - and indicated as such on the wiki.
Last week I got an offer for a postdoc somewhere else. Let's call this school UB. This was NOT my ideal position.
I got an email this week asking if I was still interested in the position at UA, because they were extending the search, since the person they offered it to accepted a position elsewhere.
So, had I known who had "accepted" this position at UA, and subsequently saw their name appear somewhere else as accepting a position, I would have had better information to know what to do about UB - probably declining the offer.
Now, luckily for me there was a UC in the equation that was actually my first choice all along, and looks like it might work out. BUT, if UA and UB were the only options, and I had accepted at UB only to find out that I probably would have asked for a while to consider had I had the information available to me with the naming of acceptances' names - I would be really frustrated about this constraint. Luckily for me, they were not the only two options I had. Probablities however suggest that there is someone else out there who might not end up so lucky and may accept at their UB, only to find out that UA was still a possibilty - and that if we had allowed the naming of names they might have known as much and been able to act accordingly.
first of all, this isn't an example of a situation where the wiki helped you make a better decision. we're still waiting for that case.
second, your story is actually a perfect illustration of why NOT to rely on the wiki for career decisions. If there hadn't been a school C, you probably would have accepted the postdoc based on what you saw on the wiki (which mistakenly said that someone had accepted the UA offer). If the wiki hadn't existed, you wouldn't have assumed that UA wasn't an option, and you would have asked for more time from UB. There is really no reason to assume, as you seem to, that the wiki would be correct on the name of the candidate when it was incorrect on whether the offer was accepted.
Given your experience you should be *ignoring* the wiki, not wanting more information from it.
If you genuinely can't see how names would have helped that scenario, then you are just being stubborn. Arguing for shutting down the wiki (in essence what 9:30's argument defaults to) instead of making it more useful, is a great head in the sand approach. I hope that works out well for you.
your story demonstrates that the wiki has errors, and that the information it contains, if acted upon, can lead to costly mistakes. I think you have to agree with that, correct?
assuming you agree on that point, then why would you think that simply changing the naming policy would somehow eliminate the errors from the wiki? If you could somehow guarantee error-free information on the wiki, then *perhaps it would be useful (but again, I believe you can almost always get the pertinent information from the SC's themselves). but you can't, so adding more information will increase the possibility for costly mistakes to be made.
If my head is in the sand, yours is in a much darker place...
ouch...9:46 with the smackdown...
The people who are not directly tied to a decision process (the committe, chair and candidate) are much more likely to err on the status of that decision (something that can easily be a source of epculation) than who is making that decision (names aren't as susceptible to being just pulled out of a hat).
So what in the end is your point? You seem to think that the blog and the wiki are useless (and have no room for improvement) - why keep coming back just to make that point?
"The people who are not directly tied to a decision process (the committe, chair and candidate) are much more likely to err on the status of that decision (something that can easily be a source of epculation) than who is making that decision (names aren't as susceptible to being just pulled out of a hat)."
your writing is less than clear here, but to use the previous example, if you are saying that sue jones has a better idea than the search committee or competing candidates of what sue jones is going to do, then yes, that is indisputible. The trick is to reliably get that information from Sue Jones--and there's the rub.
as to your question about the wiki, I rarely looked at it, but occasionaly I would use it to check schools off my list. but I emailed all my top schools as soon as I landed a few interviews (based on advice I got from this blog), so I knew the status of those searches before I saw them on the wiki. I never would make any decisions based on what the wiki said. so I think it's fine for idle curiosity, and for losing hope.
Oh--I must confess: I was fortunate enough to land my dream job this year, so I occasionally take a look at the wiki to make sure it's still listed as "accepted." Yes, I know that's neurotic :)
as far as the blog goes, I found it quite useful--not so much for emotional support (though I know others appreciated that), but because of the advice and information about things like research money, what is a "good" offer, etc. I also enjoy the conversation and the bullshitting.
What kind of salaries are top-20 schools offering. I heard someone on the market last year accepted an offer at a top5 school for $90k.
I think that whoever got 90k must have had multiple other offers or maybe the possiblity of going to a higher paying b-school.
From what I heard last year, top 5 schools made their first offer (before negotiations) in the 60-70k range, with nice research or cost-of-living packages and bonuses. Who knows what people got post-negotiations, though.
I got an offer of $65K plus various extras in start up and research funds. This was BEFORE any negotiations. It's not from a top school, but from one clearly trying to expand and attract people. It's in a high cost-of-living area, though. I could see how, theoretically, someone could get a $90K offer, if he/she was a superstar and had other offers, and perhaps if it includes the various other funds that some are offered on top of the base salary.
From what I heard about last year's market, the absolute top offer was 80k. This year it may have been a few thousand higher, not sure.
The 90k figure may include summer salary...
"the debate is about whether or not reasonable people can disagree about whether or not it's okay to name names and the answer to that question is yes....
is that an accurate summary?"
unless you are referring to a different debate on another blog, no. i think most of us believed we were debating whether or not it's okay or useful to name names, an issue which some people--seeing themselves on shaky ground--tried to distract attention from by lobbing personal attacks and accusing their interlocutors of having bizarre and utterly irrelevant motives. what it meant to you personally is different though. not trying to invalidate your assessment if you get a sense of resolution from it. i agree we should move on to more interestng topics, and it looks like we generally are.
I posted above about the 60-70k for the top schools last year and agree with anon 8:16. I didn't get an offer from a top 5 school but still ended up in that salary ballpark, as did the others from my program who went to research schools. My point was that the top candidates likely weren't offered much more in the first round than others at research schools (at least in salary).
There's all this talk about offering up a good reason to name names. Not that I care at all about the issue, but was there ever a good reason suggested as to why we shouldn't?
in short, the increased likelihood of nasty personal attacks (already evidenced here) as well as the possibility of damaging career consequences for candidates (i.e., search committees see them as having accepted a job on the wiki). I'm sure other reasons were covered--if you really care, just go back over this thread and the old blog. On the flip side, no one has been able to come up with a reason for doing it, besides idle curiosity or an eccentric hypothetical scenario.
Back to the money question, I'm blown away by $90k. I was offered low 60's and renegotiated to mid 60's, for a top 30 job. plus $14k in research money & $6k in summer money (plus some moving help). I was (and still am) happy with this offer, but it sounds like others are relatively rolling in it.
You should be happy with the offer. It's a good one.
I wouldn't imagine any new assistant professors living large or anything. I think that the top offer was in an unusually expensive place to live.
FYI...The top offer last year was mid 80s and went to someone at a school that is NOT located in a particularly expensive area. And, I heard that was base salary. This person did have multiple other offers (from what I know).
I can confirm the details of the above post, if "confirm" means "I heard it, too." Actually, I was on the market last year and one of the departments I was negotiating with cited the figure as "Well, that was the top offer." As in, we certainly won't go above that...
p.s. I think any offer in the 60s is a good one! Upper 60s, you're probably doing better than 90% of other first-year assistants (in sociology).
At my school (a top 20 dept with lots of money and status deprivation) they chased after a candidate who had an offer from a top 5 dept with lots of money. She ended up getting mid 80's; though we do live in a very expensive area (though faculty get school housing at 60 % the market rate). This is from last year.
How much money you can initially make depends on whether you're going to be working at a private or at a public institution.
Sociologists are lucky on average, though. An Assistant Professor at the UC system (regardless of school) makes around mid 50's, the star of last year's comp lit market makes 66 K after a bidding war and the salary for an Assistant in Spanish Department goes for around high 40's/low 50's!
Bibi
I forgot to say the person who makes mid 50s K at the UC System is an Assistant Professor in History.
sorry,
bibi
it has been more than two months since my interview. I still haven't heard anything. It seems pessimistic.... Should I make an inquiry about the status of the search process? Or just wait? Could anyone give me some advice? What should we do after an interview? How long does it usually take to know the results? Would all candidates get a word about the search? Thanks!
To not contact you for more than two months after an interview is rude and inconsiderate. Unfortunately, I don't think it's as uncommon as it should be. It certainly wouldn't be out of line for you to contact the department and ask the status of the search.
I agree with 6:51. You're well within your rights to drop them a line.
I was in the same situation, and checked in with the department last week. I'm still in the running, despite having interviewed in early December.
C.
I was in the same situation as yours. Had a campus interview, waited for two months only to find out from the wiki that they have offered the position to someone else. If you have not been contacted for that long after your visit, I think it is not too pessimistic to assume that you are not their number one choice. Still wish you good luck!
Any advice concerning how to cope with frustrations and self doubts after being rejected?
2:41--Think of it this way. The most successful and widely published people in our discipline are for the most part also the people who have been rejected the most times.
I think that dealing with having to be evaluated so often might be the hardest part of our jobs. I am a couple years into tenure at a top 25 department, and the extent to which I doubt whether I am any good at this has gone down each year since graduate school, but it still pops up. I think self-doubts are part of the game, but the good news is that in my case anyway they have diminished over time.
5:40--thanks for your comforting words. I had a great interview, but maybe I have had some misled expectations afterwards that made me feel so bad after knowing they didn't offer me the job. When I went on this interview, I received many compliments after my talk and on the second day. The chair even talked about his vision in me very concretely, such as that I could have my own office (their faculty share office space), what courses he hoped I would develop, etc. I still don't know what went wrong that I didn't get the job. I doubt myself so much that I even thought about quiting academia.
Jason.
That stinks Jason. Two things based on my experience to keep in mind. One is that you never know what can derail your candidacy at a school. There are so many things and most of them are unfortunately out of your control. Second, it seems to me that as a rule you should never believe anything people at a school tell you about your candidacy at that school. That unfortunately seems especially true of the postive things.
5:40
Hang in there Jason. Getting an interview already shows you're highly regarded. Lots of people get no interviews. The chair could've loved you and maybe someone there decided your work was too similar to theirs, or maybe they didn't like your suit... or maybe you were fabulous but someone else was also fabulous and that other person got one more vote... I know it doesn't help to focus on its arbitrary nature, but I agree with 5:40 you never know what the cause of good or bad outcomes are. Just keep reminding yourself that you were a great candidate and for whatever reason, that wasn't the job for you.
Claude
Some information on salaries is publically available (though not necessarily easy to find). This is especially true for the public universities. For example assistant at Wisconsin are typically on the low end of top departments (low 60s). Michigan is doing much better because they have been hurt less by state legislative budget cuts (this is where endowments come in handy) their assistant are in the mid-to uper 60s. The privates are often higher because they have the endowments to make stronger offers but also they are often in expensive east coast cities. (did that senetece sound pornographic to you?)
I left postdoc at an ivy for an asst position. My salary was 9k more in the postdoc than I am making now (mid 60s) but my standard of living is substantially better because the cost of living is a lot lower.
My point here is that the simple $ metric of salaries is not strictly comparable. You will need to go to a cost of living calculator to tell for sure how good your offer is. $90k from Harvard, Berkely, or Columbia is actually not as good as it may sound. 70k in Madison or Ann Arbor is some serious scratch!
To 5:40 and Claude:
Thank you. I didn't expect to find comfort here, but what you said did comfort and enocurage me. Really appreciate it!!
Jason
You're welcome, Jason. I had a similar experience (doubting myself) and while I found encouragement from loved ones, here is where I also, to my surprise and delight, support from others going through similar difficulties. My friends and loved ones are wonderful, but they aren't on the job market.... So glad I could be of help to you as others were to me!
Claude
Post a Comment