Smith failed too? With as saturated as the American market is, how are so many search committees this incompetent? Seriously
Smith thinks it's HYP and wasted flyouts on people with better offers.
Failed search thread, 2018-2019
-
Departments need to stop going after the stars if they want to fill their positions. Middling student from top 30 U might not be a research star, but will gladly fill a position and perhaps be a great undergrad instructor. However, these universities send all their offers to top candidates who will obviously accept the offers from the top 10.
So, we get tons of failed searches that would not have failed had "less prestigious" candidates been interviewed.
As a result, we get mass unemployment of PhDs and plenty of failed searches. The jobs are there, the candidates to fill them are there, but the process is so inefficient we get suboptimal results. -
Departments need to stop going after the stars if they want to fill their positions. Middling student from top 30 U might not be a research star, but will gladly fill a position and perhaps be a great undergrad instructor. However, these universities send all their offers to top candidates who will obviously accept the offers from the top 10.
So, we get tons of failed searches that would not have failed had "less prestigious" candidates been interviewed.
As a result, we get mass unemployment of PhDs and plenty of failed searches. The jobs are there, the candidates to fill them are there, but the process is so inefficient we get suboptimal results.That's not why those people don't have jobs.
-
Departments need to stop going after the stars if they want to fill their positions. Middling student from top 30 U might not be a research star, but will gladly fill a position and perhaps be a great undergrad instructor. However, these universities send all their offers to top candidates who will obviously accept the offers from the top 10.
So, we get tons of failed searches that would not have failed had "less prestigious" candidates been interviewed.
As a result, we get mass unemployment of PhDs and plenty of failed searches. The jobs are there, the candidates to fill them are there, but the process is so inefficient we get suboptimal results.That's not why those people don't have jobs.
Yes it is. It literally is. These people apply to many jobs, but are overlooked because departments want to hire the year's rising stars.
-
Departments need to stop going after the stars if they want to fill their positions. Middling student from top 30 U might not be a research star, but will gladly fill a position and perhaps be a great undergrad instructor. However, these universities send all their offers to top candidates who will obviously accept the offers from the top 10.
So, we get tons of failed searches that would not have failed had "less prestigious" candidates been interviewed.
As a result, we get mass unemployment of PhDs and plenty of failed searches. The jobs are there, the candidates to fill them are there, but the process is so inefficient we get suboptimal results.Its not a choice between 'market stars' and 'middling students' from top 30 programs. There are a lot of really great candidates coming from top-30 programs. In a lot of cases, these candidates have better methods training and more research potential than the second- and third-tier candidates from top programs that tend to fill positions at SLACS. The problem is SLACs are continually led astray because they keep chasing pedigree over talent.
-
Its not a choice between 'market stars' and 'middling students' from top 30 programs. There are a lot of really great candidates coming from top-30 programs. In a lot of cases, these candidates have better methods training and more research potential than the second- and third-tier candidates from top programs that tend to fill positions at SLACS. The problem is SLACs are continually led astray because they keep chasing pedigree over talent.
Unimpressive candidates from the Ivies often find homes in SLACs and LACs because if that school
is going to charge mom and dad $65k a year, they need the implied elite status from faculty with PhDs from HYP. -
Can someone explain to me why a search would fail instead of going back to the pool or deciding to relaunch the search in the spring?
#1) Administration pulls the plug.
#2) You didn't get the candidate(s) you want and you have no interest in settling for a warm body.
#3) Search committee realizes itis unlikely to find a consensus candidate.
#4) Belief that the pool will be better next year.
#5) You decide during the search you really want to hire for a different position or in a different field.
#6) You realize you have a pool of crappy candidates and that hiring no one is better than hiring from the pool.
-
Unless your job needs are very specific and unique, it is unlikely to have a lot of these issues happen in a more general search. Generally, a committee has a short list, that they often have a hard time on deciding the top 3 to bring out. Going back to more of the short list is not sacrificing on quality. The problem is that sometimes those have already gotten offers, as well, though less commonly in this job market.
Can someone explain to me why a search would fail instead of going back to the pool or deciding to relaunch the search in the spring?
#1) Administration pulls the plug.
#2) You didn't get the candidate(s) you want and you have no interest in settling for a warm body.
#3) Search committee realizes itis unlikely to find a consensus candidate.
#4) Belief that the pool will be better next year.
#5) You decide during the search you really want to hire for a different position or in a different field.
#6) You realize you have a pool of crappy candidates and that hiring no one is better than hiring from the pool. -
Most of these posts on failed searches are hapless and naive. Outside of LACs and Directionals, the notion that you create a short list and keep going down it until you hire a candidate is straight out of 1996.
It's a buyers market. Plain and simple. Thanks to over saturation of the market most places can be selective. Many are increasingly selective about who they hire. I've been at the same R2 since the early 2000s. When I first started our primary criteria for hiring was a pulse and the ability to teach intro courses. We'd make a short list, invite candidates, and keep going until one accepted. Nowadays we want top candidates and we know if we wait long enough we'll get them. Our Dean knows this too. Our last hire had 2 solo pubs, a top 3 with their advisor, and a book under contract at a top 5 press. 10 years ago they'd have never applied and they certainly wouldn't have accepted our offer. If you look at the degree-granting institutions of departmental faculty, about 2006 there's a major shift. W&M can shoot for a CHYMPS like hire because eventually, they'll land a great candidate. All it costs is a VAP and another round of interviews and invites. There's simply no need to make a list of 15 and keep going down it until #11 accepts. Sure, there are still some places that operate like that. Look at the list of failed searches though - most of them fail because schools overreach. They'll hire a VAP and take another bite of the apple next year.
-
Most of these posts on failed searches are hapless and naive. Outside of LACs and Directionals, the notion that you create a short list and keep going down it until you hire a candidate is straight out of 1996.
It's a buyers market. Plain and simple. Thanks to over saturation of the market most places can be selective. Many are increasingly selective about who they hire. I've been at the same R2 since the early 2000s. When I first started our primary criteria for hiring was a pulse and the ability to teach intro courses. We'd make a short list, invite candidates, and keep going until one accepted. Nowadays we want top candidates and we know if we wait long enough we'll get them. Our Dean knows this too. Our last hire had 2 solo pubs, a top 3 with their advisor, and a book under contract at a top 5 press. 10 years ago they'd have never applied and they certainly wouldn't have accepted our offer. If you look at the degree-granting institutions of departmental faculty, about 2006 there's a major shift. W&M can shoot for a CHYMPS like hire because eventually, they'll land a great candidate. All it costs is a VAP and another round of interviews and invites. There's simply no need to make a list of 15 and keep going down it until #11 accepts. Sure, there are still some places that operate like that. Look at the list of failed searches though - most of them fail because schools overreach. They'll hire a VAP and take another bite of the apple next year.sure, but the thing is that you cannot keep them. they will leave as soon as they have something better.