I just got a rejection letter from UConn for a position I applied for in the fall. Not a big deal, because I wasn't overly excited about it, but what I do take issue with is the fact that the application deadline was in August... its May. That kind of timeline wouldn't be too bad if I had gone for an interview or made the short list, but the chair goes out of his way in the letter to let me know that I didn't even make the short list. So, it took 7 months to send out rejection letters to people that weren't even being considered after the first cut? WTF? Then to specifically point that out in the letter? I don't even care about the job, just the way search committees feel they can treat the cattle. I guess its just one more example...

• Add them to the "schools to fear" wiki. Giving them a bad reputation the only weapon we have.

http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Universities_to_fear

• While it pisses me off that they took forever to get back to me, I don't think that the actions of this particular search committee should be used to represent the university, or even the department. Plus, if everyone put a department on that page just because they took a ridiculously long time to inform them about the results of a search, the page would be full within a couple of weeks. Just something to remember when I am in the position to be sending out the letters.
• I meant to add them to the "fear" list because it sounds like they were rude, not because they took so long. Most schools take forever to get back to you, but they don't need to be nasty about it.

So many of us are singing the same song these days. I'm wondering what the dubious record is for silence after a campus interview. After two full days of meals and meetings I left on February 14. On March 4 I emailed the SC chair. Silence. Out of desperation on April 4 I emailed the provost. He replied telling me they were "looking at another candidate." It is now May 6 and I have not heard anything official from any quarter at that school. I know they don't want me but feel that a courteous letter would help repair the damage to my dignity and self-esteem. So, wikis, how much silence have you got?

I'm with ya! During my campus visit the SC went on about how great the competition was within the first 20 mins of meeting me. OK, thanks for wasting my time and making me feel LAME. They seemed to warm up to me during my visit, then silence. 2 months and counting. I'm cool with it because I landed my dream job! However, I think it is disrespectful not to inform the candidates about the search periodically. I suspect they are just protecting themselves if a candidate backs out. My take is that SILENCE=NO OFFER. My opinion of them is very low right now. And, you know, OUR opinion of THEM counts for something. Oh yeah, I bought my flight 3 months ago and not a penny.

• I assume that they still don't have a contract signed for their new hire, so they're covering their butts. What I don't understand is why they think ignoring us and stringing us along like this is going to somehow keep us in reserve and not piss us off. The only reason not to tell candidates before the contract is signed is that they might need to go to their second choice should the deal fall through with first choice. But after three months of string-along, if a school came to me with an offer, I'd tell them to bite me.
• I sent out 25 applications this year. To date, I've received five rejection letters or e-mails. Considering that I wasn't even interviewed for any of these jobs, and that almost all of the positions have been filled (according to the wiki), the 20% response rate goes beyond pathetic.

Dear Search Committee:

for Christ's sake, call me already, would ya?

We had a wonderful time together: a terrific interview; I loved you and you loved me. But things have changed. Where my mind was once full with a calm and mildly smug certainty that you would hire me, it is now full of doubt and the products of a wild imagination. Indeed, while waiting for your call over the past five weeks, some unhealthy things have happened to our relationship. The fact of the matter is that I cannot stop imagining you all (as in the search committee)-- I can't stop imagining you all in loincloths, grunting and jumping around a fluorescent-lit undergraduate classroom with large cucumbers lodged in your rear ends. I imagine you like this constantly now, as if you were engaged in some sort of primal process to decide upon a candidate.

So, could give me a call? I believe it would do wonders for the unhealthy landscape of my imagination, and possibly even more for your long-term kharma.

Sincerely,

your loving candidate

P.S. if you do call tomorrow with an offer, please disregard the above.

• Dear Candidate,

We did have a wonderful time and we have been thinking about you recently. However, we have been seeing a few people and are not ready just yet to settle down. I know its hard to know that we are not being faithful, but unfortunately, there is not much you can do about it. Even on a weekend night when you haven't made any plans hoping we'll call, we're going to leave you sitting by the phone, staring into the greying twilight. But you'll wait... we know. Its just that we have a lot of options and can't decide, so we draw the process out, disregarding your desire for closure. Even if we exclusively start dating one of the others, we still won't let you know until after they sign the marriage certificate - and that could take some time as we negotiate a prenuptial agreement. We're sorry for your degrading mental state, but its not you, its us. Sincerely, your indifferent committee

• Good question, and a fair one. I was 27 when I finished my PhD and started my first job. I have found that age is often an issue for other people, but the best thing I* can do is ignore it, not get defensive, and trust that my "authority" will come through my capability in my field. I find when I just act natural and don't make age an issue, then others don't either. So, although I know it's difficult, I suggest just rising above it, recognizing that other people's issues are just their issues, and just be yourself. THey're just working out/testing/wrestling with their own insecurities. Just be yourself. Don't be condescending, but don't give in to others' issues and needs to make your age (and really, their age) an issue.Does that make any sense?
• While I don't doubt they were snarky, you sound pretty defensive/threatened yourself. If you weren't you wouldn't need to justify why you really are better than they are (down to having better ideas, which is just...ouch. I believe you have more publications, grants etc, but you really have no way of knowing whether your ideas are categorically more unique than theirs). So I agree with the previous commenter that you have to let everyone else's issues be what they are and it's probably best not to react to them. And I absolutely believe these grad students have issues--but it might also be good to get to the bottom of your own insecurities as well. There's no reason you can't concentrate on putting them at ease by taking an interest in their work and their ideas.
• I think the prior comment/recommendation is solid.

Thanks. I agree with you guys... haha, even about ME being insecure to some degree. While I was with the grad students I acted naturally and talked to them like I would talk to other interviewers/colleagues. Later, I realized how awkward the situation really felt and stewed/fumed a little over some of their comments. I think I took the right approach with them, but I need to learn not to let this stuff bother me so much.

• Gosh, thanks for asking. That's very kind of you. No, I haven't heard anything. As you can imagine, I am pretty unhappy about it and not feeling especially hopeful.
• Yes, it is disheartening. I remembered b/c I am in same position. Have not yet heard and it's been 2 weeks; will start 3rd week this week. I assume I'll hear soon, but who knows. Fortunately, I have a new visit coming up so something to focus on. But I can commiserate.
• Well, it's nice to commiserate, at the very least. There is something oddly comforting about coming to this page and seeing so many other similarly frustrated people. It does help to have other positions to focus energy on, so that's good news for you. Glad to hear it! I don't yet have anything else to distract me, but I already do have a tenure-track job, so it's not like I'll be unemployed after this year. I just want a new one. Good luck to you!!! Maybe we'll both hear good news this week. (One can hope...)

• Yep, and I find it a bit of a tempest in a teapot. The prevailing argument seems to be that only those who have received offers, and formally accepted them, are entitled to announce their identities to the world at large. In my field, however (history), departments commonly make this information known to the non-selected masses who applied for the job. So, wouldn't this be public record, and thus eminently postable on the wiki, even though it's not being disseminated by the concerned party? More generally, I'm not sure why there's so much fuss about post-search "disclosure" (although I certainly understand how revealing the identities of finalists, or interviewees, before they've accepted a position could jeopardize their employment, either current or prospective...)
• Would you mind posting your comment on the discussion page on the art history page where this discussion unfolded, for the benefit of my art history colleagues?
• Sounds like a good idea.

• This seems to depend on the field. I have never seen this happen in Biology and I have been on three interviews and witnessed over a dozen other searches. What sometimes happens is that faculty will ask probing or leading questions (but not confrontational) to get a feel for comfort level with certain subjects, but this seems to be isolated to the seminar and the committee "exit interview", and is far from universal. The interviews I have been on have all been very friendly. Keep in mind that these people are interviewing a potential colleague. If they are rude during the interview, why would you respect them when you come into the department? Of course, other fields seem to do this differently and it seems, especially from lengthy posts such as some of the ones below, that historians like to piss on each other more than most. Maybe hostile interviews are just another hurdle for historians, I don't know. It would be unusual in most of the sciences, from my experience.
• response: funny you should mention the discipline of "history"..[hint] :)
• I've had 5 campus interviews and served on 2 search committees and never seen the kind of hostility you describe. I did once have a kind of intense group inquisition, but it was more just intense than hostile. And I have had someone confront me privately in a way that indicated s/he was threatened by me and wanted to break me down a bit, but even that was relatively mild (s/he asked aggressively something like, why would someone with your strong qualifications come to this unimpressive school?---as if doubting my intentions, which were absolutely sincere). Other than that, I don't think it is typical, though I agree with the other comment that they will ask probing comments to really test you on your claims, and this can FEEL hostile when you are the one in the hot-seat. Finally, I have one general comment about this topic, which is that I think it is inevitable that there will be at least one unpleasant/hostile person in your department wherever you get hired, so it's actually good (in my opinion) to find out who that person is BEFORE you get the job so that you can be careful once you are there. I didn't know and then found out two years into my job that someone was plotting against me; if I'd known sooner, I might have done a few things differently. For whatever that is worth...
• The more I think about the exit interview, the angrier I get... I think it could have been done in a more collegial manner. Also wondering if i'll ever hear from them again and if I even want to.
• Month later. Email to 'dear applicant' whereas all the courting emails were to me by name. Obviously a distancing strategy. Plus, what committee in their right mind invite a candidate and THEN request writing sample? Isn't that a*& backward? I'm lucky...

• some of those are off-limits - specifically, they are not supposed to ask about marital status and the job offers question is inappropriate. As for where you are from, I think that is innocent enough (i guess unless you are from outside the USA and/or you feel the question is aimed toward unearthing some "identity" issue that you feel is discriminatory).
• I certainly agree that there are some contexts in which any of the above questions are inappropriate. That being said, I have been on a few SCs where the question of martial status arose simply because we wanted to know if we ought to include a tour of local schools, etc in our neighborhood tour (since real estate is rather over-priced, we tried to help people acquaint themselves with the possibilities). Generally, we let the candidate bring up such issues themselves, or asked indirectly. As for the question of other potential job offers, this seems to be further over the pale. Again, however, I can see a well-meaning dept. member attempting to make small talk with such a question. As hard as it is to believe from the job-seekers side, not everything that happens at a campus visit is a well-orchestrated attempt to advance / sabotage / explore your candidacy. This brings me to my final point--something that I have been thinking about writing here for a while. As someone who is on the market again this year, I know it is tough. I know that some SCs can be genuinely rude and careless. Many of the comments here--and on the Universities to Fear page-- seem to me to be results of candidates who have unrealistic expectations of what the search should / will look like. Searches are conducted by professors who have other full-time jobs. Professors are often not the most organized, thoughtful, or, dare I say, socially adept of folks. Mistakes will be made, feet will be stepped on, and hearts will be broken. This does not mean, however, that the university in question is plotting against you.

My apology to the poster whose question I just hi-jacked to go on my own little rant.

• Excuse me, but I don't think it is too much to ask that SCs avoid asking about marital status! They can escort the candidate around the environs of campus and talk about potential places to live and important landmarks without querying the person about their specific details (unless the candidate brings it up, which I'm sure some do and I'm sure sometimes it is to their benefit). I was happy with the way it was done when I visited a campus. They hadn't even scheduled a ride around town, but I asked about it, and then they fit it in. The person who drove me around merely pointed out some of the important landmarks; showed me [her/his] house and then did point out a school and mentioned [her/his] kids went there, but I did not feel obligated to talk about my own status, which I think is fair. AND - note that "marital status" is NOT synonomous with having children! One can be a single mother / father or one can be partnered (gay) and have children.
• You know, I was really uncertain about how to handle the issue of my partner, who is also an academic looking for a job. One of my recommenders told me to take my wedding band off before going to interview. I did it for the conference interviews, but it just did not feel right to me. On my last campus visit - the one I really want - I told everyone at the beginning of the interview that they could dispense with all the federal regulations about asking personal questions, because I have no problem talking about my personal life, and that in order to make sure the "fit" is right, they needed to know where I stood. My partner and I have always agreed that whomever received the tt job first, the other would come along and look for something. Since I was open and frank about this, I received extremely good advice from the committee about helping my partner find work if I were to be offered the job. Now maybe I shot myself in the foot doing this, but I believe in the value of candor in these matters. Time will tell. :-)

On this note, I am still waiting to hear back about a job. I think the last candidate would have just finished up last week. At what point should I start pulling my hair out? At what point is it acceptable to send a little email that asks, "have you made a decision yet?" Like most other people who post here, it's the uncertainty of it all that kills me. If I didn't get the job, that's fine. I'd just like to know so I can mourn and move on. I mean, it's not fine, but bad news would be better than no news at this point...

• I recently received an offer and it took a week for the SC to send their candidate to the deans, then over a week for them to make the phone call. I know I was the first person they called, so two weeks or a little more is not unusual. Good luck and try not to think about it.
• I agree. Give it another week. I also recently received an offer, and in my case it took about a week from their last candidate visiting before I got the call (and about a month after my campus interview). The waiting sucks, but don't pull your hair out yet. Good luck!
• So, you all didn't hear a word from SC until the offer- and did you send an email or anything to thank them for visit? And did they respond. It seems some SC do not...
• I did send e-mails to every faculty and staff member that I met during my visit. Some wrote back, some didn't. None of the replies (either for jobs I didn't get or for the one I did) gave any indication of the eventual outcome ... as it should be.
• I am still struggling over this - I decided to send a thank you to the Chair only and tell her to thank Committee. But I did not email Dean, or Assoc Dean or others I met, and maybe I should have (it may be soon enough that I still could..). I just feel strange emailing everyone - it feels too coercive.
• I always send hand-written thank-you cards (I know there is a school of thought that frowns on this, but my traditional upbringing and gender socialization require me to do this!) via snail mail and, of course, don't hear back from them. In the few cases where an email was sent after the interview (like a quick follow-up about something that came up during the campus visit), I found the email correspondence was short and sweet. And I agree with the above comment that neutrality is as it should be in these things. I actually prefer chairs who are really neutral, almost to the point of being cold, because I have had chairs be really warm and friendly and personable via email and then been surprised to not get the job.

• E-mail the chair today and ask to whom you should send the receipt for reimbursement and what additional information they need to process it (e.g., mailing address, SS#). They should pay for the shuttle, but sometimes they forget to get receipts while you're there. Sometimes, they prefer you to mail them in afterwards. They should also cover any meals you had in the airport. It's not at all rude of you to ask this, just make sure your e-mail is polite. Oh, and make a photocopy before you send it, just in case it gets lost in the mail.
• Thank you for your responses. It's so funny that you mention the meal at airport, b/c they rushed me to a plane at 5pm and I wasn't going to get home until after 1:30am, so, yes, I ended up eating at the airport on the way back and wondered if I should try to get that back as well. Of course, I'm not sure I saved the receipt b/c I was feeling futile as to whether I would get it back. But I'll check. Anyway, thanks for feedback. I think I'll know better what to do next time...[found my airport dinner receipt! :)]
• So, did they end up reimbursing you?
• You know what, I haven't sent the receipts (yet?), partly b/c I have not heard a peep from them and I feel uncomfortable. I emailed Chair to say thank you (did not mention receipts) - did not get a peep back and still have not. In addition, I had another campus visit to worry about so decided, in a way, to let it go - although now that I have more time, I may indeed mail the receipts with a diplomatic letter. If I get an offer from this new school, then I would love to put in for the reimbursement from the other one...

• 03-20 I think academics is just a hierarchy of rejections... you get them for grants, manuscripts, jobs... everything. I have such a hard time dealing with the rejections too, but just remember your love for what you do and keep going. Eventually, something will work out.

• A lot of that has to do with the administration - at the school where I am VAP now, the provost did not approve the list of searches until the end of September, the job posting came out after CAA, and I never heard from them again, til on APRIL 30th I received a call for a campus visit. Sometimes the search committee members hands are tied - it's just as frustrating for them as for you!
• Re: 3rd post......"Super-qualified" in your eyes does not mean "super-suited" to the institution; this is a unique finishing school with only juniors, seniors, and grads. I am amazed at the tone of this post - couldn't it be that the notification letter was misdirected in the mail? There is no need to aggressively judge the school's behavior. As someone who had a campus visit for this position and was offered the position, I can say the teaching style at UHCL is very collaborative, eclectic, and they are/were looking for someone who can establish connections with colleagues in other academic areas. Perhaps your friend was not suited to THIS dynamic. They are a WONDERFUL group of colleagues; I turned down the offer because it would have meant a serious pay cut for me to come there.... If the salary were higher and I wouldn't have to take a cut in pay to live in a city with a higher cost of living than where I am now, I would have accepted in a HEARTBEAT! Whoever does accept this position in the end will have AMAZING colleagues and a wonderful working environment...
• the third poster again. i think you misunderstood the 'tone' of my email. It wasn't nearly as nasty as you seem to have though it to be. I was simply expressing frustration at the sometimes poor communication during the job process (that this wiki exists seems to serve as evidence that this is a common sentiment.) I was also pointing out that it seems strange that many highly qualified candidates are often not even long-listed for positions at places where, frankly, they would be overqualified. Yes, indeed, the academic job market is about 'fit.' But (and I dont mean Houston here, per se), often 'fit' seems to be a way of hiding the fact that some committees dont want the PhDs from top programs, with curatorial experience, the right teaching exp. etc. In some places a Stanford, Northwestern, or Harvard degree seems to function like a scarlet letter. . . the earlier posters comments with regard to administrative complexities is very interesting and informative, explaining a great deal why this process seems so irregular at times. Thanks for that.
• (separate poster here) It's true that, at some places, having a degree from a top-tier school can count against you -- but only because a lot of schools have a kind of institutional inferiority complex, and don't think that someone from Northwestern or Stanford or Harvard will stay for the long haul. No department wants to hire someone they think is just regarding them as a stepping stone (because doing new searches is a giant hassle), and few departments are willing to take the risk of hiring someone who seems overqualified because the faculty members don't you to come in and outshine them. If you're from a big-name school and genuinely want a job at a smaller institution? You've got to make clear from the outset that you're ready to make that change.
• The 2nd poster (admin comments) I would agree about the "Scarlet letter" syndrome - with an ivy PhD, I am constantly running into this with the smaller institutions. I will get as far as the preliminary interview, and then poof. I have started stressing the fact that I am tired of my peripatetic lifestyle, and that if I accept a job, I intend to integrate into both the academic community and the greater community outside the university, and that it will be for the long haul. You have to make people realize that you are looking for an academic home - not a job.
• I was on a search committee last year, and I am on the market this year. I come from a university on a "lower tier" and we needed to be convinced that the potential hire would really relocate and want to stay at our uni. In addition, "lower tier" universities tend to have less money to bring people on campus. We had to beg from our administrator to bring 2 applicants. If we didn't think you would take the job if it was offered, we didn't invite you because we only had 2 shots to make sure we found the best fit. For those of you from out of the region or from ivy league schools, this is really important to address in your cover letters. We did have concerns if a New Yorker would be happy at our more rural area. Or if someone from Wisconsin could withstand our summers. If we ask directly we will likely get the interview-fabricated answer. It's really hard to know for sure.
• Just a question to the previous poster-- how do you know if people are from, say, NYC or Wisconsin? Based on my cv, you might think I'm from NYC or the Northeast, but I'm actually from a really small, midwestern town (and there's no indication of Smalltown, USA, obviously anywhere on my college/graduate school record). And, as a job seeker, I've received so much conflicting advice on whether to state flat out that I'm looking to return to a place like my hometown!
• Reading c.v.s (b/c in essence they are all the same) is about reading between the lines. We made judgments on regional areas based on c.v.s. If you really want a SLAC or to be in a small city, in my opinion, it seems worthwhile to include your background. Obviously, you have to be selective on which applications you choose to include this point. For example, 2 of the interviews that I had were located in very isolated parts of their state. The schools readily acknowledged this in the interview. Naturally, if I was in your position (where my roots weren't evident) I would have mentioned it in cover letters to those schools. Some schools, however, will take offense at a disclaimer. Though cities like Houston and Dallas might seem provincial or uncultured to those on the east coast, residents have a different view and are very proud of the cultural opportunities.
• So, you have to prove that you "belong" as part of your credentials, by describing, basically, some key parts of your identity. Does this not strike you as, oh, just a bit ethically unsound? This notion that I (or any candidate) should advertise some aspect of my identity to advantage )or dis-advantage) myself with particular jobs strikes me as offensive. Really, I thought we knew better than this, by now. On what grounds should regional identity be treated as any different from ethicity, gender, class origins, etc? I know just as many urbanites who wish to "escape the city" and start a quieter life, as I do former rural folk come to the big city to "start over;" and I am quite sure this bi-directional exchange is a very common American state-of-affairs.
• Besides that, if thinking more broadly, "lower-tier" schools should be thrilled to have highly qualified "top-tier" recent Ph.D.s on their faculty list, even if they only stay a few years. With the high turnover rate, would come a tremdous influx of fresh ideas and influences. Just think of what that would mean for undergraduates - exposed to some of the best-trained (if young) minds in the field. carpe diem!
• The snobby tone of those discussing "top-tier" schools, aside.... Umm, how much studio art interaction do "Ivy," "top-tier" schools require of their grads? Very little. Many contemporary art history programs are in areas where there is an expectation of interaction with studio faculty and students. Many Ivy PhD's I have seen come off as a little arrogant, as well as unwilling to get in the trenches with studio practitioners. That, too, might be a reason why some search committees have no interest in that "breed" of PhD. It may be good for some programs, but the exclusively academic tone might not sit well with programs where the contemporary art historian needs to do crits and sit on MFA thesis committees.
• By the way, the "thanks for that" comment was totally unnecessary.
• That "snobby" comment was completely uncalled for, and shows exactly what we Ivies are talking about. I spent 15 years as a practicing artist before getting my ivy PhD in art history. And at least half of my cohorts in grad school at our prestigious, snobby Ivy institution were artists on the side as well. What do you say to that?
• As a graduate student on a search committee, my loyalty was to the grad students. We want an advisor who will be there through our dissertation, not someone who will abandon ship when something better comes along.
• "Regional-ism" if that is what you want to call it is no different than SLACS preferring applicants who taught at other SLACS or large state schools preferring applicants who already understand the rigors of the large survey classes.
• At the same time, because I came from a "lower tiered" university why would that make me less competitive for an ivy? My advisor and committee members came from ivies. I have had rigorous training and I have an impressive c.v. My reading list is probably quite comparable to an ivy student. Yes, I am equally capable of providing fresh ideas. (So, I do take insult that a "lower tiered" should be grateful for 2 years with an ivy grad.) A "better" education does not guarantee that one has a stronger work ethic, more creativity, higher intelligence or will be a more successful teacher. However, I understand that my application will be quickly shuffled into the "no" pile at an ivy - such is the job application process. Understanding this, I choose not to waste my time applying to those schools that are considered by others as "out of my league." It's a very subjective and, at times, arcane process.
• Was the snobby comment uncalled for? You speak of "you Ivies" like it's the chalice from which the rest of us should sip. Others speak about how "fortunate" institutions should feel to have them on their faculty. Lame. Could THAT be the reason that "poof" - no interview - happens? Many people I have met from Ivy institutions are solipsistic, egomaniacal know-it-alls; not everyone wants that kind of hyper-competitive presence on their faculty. I agree with the previous poster in many ways; it is the PERSON that constitutes the colleague, not the name on their diploma. Besides, I hear that "supervision" from Ivy League professors often consists of only the loosest affiliations (i.e. write the dissertation, don't bug me again for 5 years, and come back when you're ready). That is hardly an education.
• And that is exactly what I, as an Ivy, am trying to say. We aren't all rich, and we don't all want to wind up in first tier schools after dumping the people who gave us our first real job. I stress once again that most of us want an academic home, not a prestigious job. I spent my first year convinced that the school had made some administrative mistake, and that I was going to be told any minute that I was to clear out my carrel and go home. And as a grad from a no-name, service department of a Southern state university, I am not going to tell you how much I had to put up with, not from my cohorts, but from the faculty who felt I didn't belong there. It was a miserable experience, but I DID get a great education, and I am NOT an egomaniacle snob. I am a PERSON, just like you, with feelings and ideas and desires to share them with others. Get rid of your bitterness towards us - we don't have it any better than you, believe me.
• Why identify as an "Ivy?" WHAT exactly is that? THAT'S what I don't get. You also do an excellent job of illustrating how isolationist the thinking of programs there must be...Your last post is littered with the words "us" and "we," almost as if those with PhD's from "other" institutions are in the batallion across the way. WE are art historians--or at least strive to be given the myriad manifestations of the title and the discipline. If you get to the end of your doctorate and you're tired, that's one thing. But if you get to the end and reflect on it as miserable--a time spent in school that you felt like you needed to apologize for--I feel sorry for you. I am not bitter toward you, at all--just amazed at how many "Ivies" I have run into that seem to think that because they got an Ivy League "education" that (1) they are entitled to a job and (2) every institution in the nation/world would be blessed to have an Ivy graduate (i.e. them) on its faculty.
• I suppose I said "I" and "we" so much because "I" and "we" are tired of being stereotyped by people who, given their liberal education, should know better. And that is the last comment "I" intend to make on this wiki.
• whoh! someone threw a whole lot of fuel on the culture war fire, here. red art history v blue art history, it seems. What would Barrack Obama say?
• It has nothing to do with Red or Blue. It has to do with someone who is angry and bitter about the fact that they couldn't get into a first tier institution and now they can't get a job. The intimation that you can only become a "real" art historian if you avoid the stigma of "Ivy" is preposterous. Get a life, please.
• Think you had better get the life. I HAVE a job, I CHOSE not to go to an Ivy, and I am glad I didn't. Your idea about "first-tier" is completely uninformed, and there is a stigma about Ivies--precisely because of the sort of bravado you just injected into this thread.
• Goodness gracious - do you have to customize shoulder pads to cover the chip on your shoulder? I HAVE a job, too. And I am more interested in education than research. And I don't feel that anyone is "due" a job just because of the coat of arms at the top of their diploma. It's what I've been saying all along - don't stereotype people - Ivies or others. I just came back froma campus vist at a small, state university with minimal funding and miserable facilities, and nearly everyone had degrees from Columbia or Harvard. And they are happy there, because they feel they are contributing to the betterment of society. This does not fit into your narrow-minded view of what "Ivies" are supposed to be. I feel sorry for you, not as a colleague or a fellow scholar, but as a person - you seem so miserable and angry.

• I understand that committees don't always let everyone who applied know when the search is over. There can be 50-100 people that applied. However, I agree that if there were 3 people brought to campus for interviews, the committee chair could call the few people that actually traveled to campus.

• Because it's a buyer's market, unfortunately. When crappy schools in bodunk nowhere get 50 or more applicants, they get to set the rules. It's easier and faster for them to have everything up front. Otherwise, they have to take the extra step and extra time to request and wait for letters. I know this isn't what you wanted to hear, but that's what I've been told by search committee members.

• 2008-03-13 What happened to fairness? It must be a myth. At any rate, depending on your field, you could consider working for the government (USGS for example), private company or start your own company as a consultant. The GS is hiring scientists of all sorts. I'm sure someone will pay for the research you do if you are creative. I wonder if one of your recommendors gave you a bad reference? If you have 2 post-docs (and lots of pubs that come with that) and advising/teaching experience I can't imagine what the problem is. You stuck it out this long because you love what you do. I'd stick with it.
• 2008-03-13 I am in the same position: 2 post-docs, lots of pubs and patents, but I obviously make a mistake somewhere in my applications. I've tried to search in industry but for a creative position they ask for an industrial experience, so in industry I can count only on the entry-level positions for Bachelors. I do not give up to get a position at a University and wish you the same!!!
• 2008-03-14 What worked for me was to have a trusted senior scientist rip my packet to shreds. It was a huge blow to my ego, but once I was done licking my wounds, it improved the packet drastically. On this person's advice, I changed one of my letter-writers from my closest advisor and colleague, who is the best position to evaluate my work, to another referee with a higher profile who doesn't know me as well. And finally, I stopped billing myself as working at the interface of two fields (which is what I do) and instead as a Blabbityblologist, which is someone who works at the interface of these two fields. After three years on the market post-PhD and 75 applications, I just got the offer of my dreams. Good luck!
• 2008-03-25. That's it? Go fed or maybe something's wrong with may materials? The joke's on you - I am a fed. My question was what could I do if I left science all together, not simply academia. And I can tell you cracking the government for a permanent research position is just as hard as academia, except the super-specific criteria are stated up front, and you have to compete with both civilians and current feds with an inside track. So in review, I sacrificed the earning potential of my twenties, settled for less money than my less educated peers in my thirties, and currently hope for an academic job in which I have no job security before trying to get tenure. Yeah, this makes rational sense. But most disturbing is that no one seems to know what else we all could do. Are we so naive and ignorant? What job titles in business are research biologists qualified for?!? Excuse my while I vomit the Kool-aid I drank in college.
• 2008-03-31 I'm the shredded packet person. I misread your post and thought you wanted to stay in research ... I guess I was really responding to the post immediately before mine; I apologize. In answer to your post: What do you want to do? As a research biologist, you have a way of viewing the world (the scientific method) and analytic skills that would be an asset in many areas of business. I know people who've gone to work for pharmaceutical companies, consulting companies, state government, forensics labs ... even one who writes novels (and makes money at it)! It really depends on what you're interested in and what your skills are, and no one can answer that but you. Use your imagination.
• 2008-03-31 I'm not sure the "joke" is on anyone except maybe a person asking for advice, then being hostile to the reponses. However... one possibility is becoming a lawyer. Many large firms actively advertise for people with PhDs for science patent law. The catch is that you have to go to law school, but those firms are willing to pay for law school if you work for them afterwards, meaning you graduate debt-free into a high paying job that few people are qualified for, which puts you in pretty select company from a financial perspective. Ropes and Gray had an ad not too long ago in Science, looking for recent PhDs for this program, and I am sure they are not the only ones who do this.

Beyond that, start-up companies are constantly looking for scientists, depending on your specialty. Its high-risk, but also can be high-reward. Biofuel companies always need molecular people, etc. Without knowing what you "do" its hard to suggest specifics.

• I'm an ecologist.
• Well, Duke has an enviromental law program and tons of people go into environmental consulting, as well. There is also the non-profit route, working for an organisation like the Nature Conservancy, who are always looking for ecologists. On the other hand, industrial companies use ecologists to assess environmental risks. There are lots of possibilities out there, I'm just rattling off the first things that come to mind. Figure out the kind of work you want to do and think about how it could be applied and what types of companies would use that skill set.
• Your lack of knowledge of what else to do is as bad as mine! These are stock answers. Problem is, NGO's don't pay, environmental consulting is past its peak, and more schooling doesn't answer the question. Figure out what kind of work I want to do? What am I, a freshman? At this point I want to pay the mortgage, fund the 529, oh and something for retirement would be nice. I'm talking about leveraging "transferable skills" to do something else entirely.
• If you're an ecologist, you can do stats. Become an actuary.
• OH! You want to do nothing more, change fields and get paid tons of money! Why didn't you say so? Well, I think I have an idea of why you keep getting passed over for things - people don't like working with someone who asks broad questions and then gets mad when others try to help, but can't read their mind. Unfortunately for you, this is not career-specific and the only job I know for assholes is becoming a hot dog, but that doesn't pay well either. Good luck with your search, but I think I'm done here as you clearly seem to know everything.
• I don't think you're being fair here... hotdogs have other sphincters in them too.

• yes, please do convert it to a table! thanks!
• Absolutely! It seems like some people add to the top, others to the bottom and there are comments on discussions in the middle of the page. Makes it all hard to follow - assuming people want to follow articulated frustration. A table like the discussion on the Ecology/Evolution wiki would be a lot easier.
• I think it definately would be easier to follow the threads.
• Thank you to whoever took the time to start the table formating!
• I've got to say--this table is cumbersome and appears to have killed contributions to the page. I'm not a fan.
• You're welcome to change it back if you like, although no one has updated the discussion on the Biology wiki since 3/6, and that's had table formatting for ages, so I'm not sure that's the reason. Perhaps a vote is in order?

• Hear, hear. I sent additional (solicited) materials, and was told by the SC chair that these would be "very helpful" as the SC came up with its interview list. I then discovered through back channels that the list had been determined the week before. Come on, folks--just say "sorry, Charlie" (or some semi-hedged, cover-your-ass equivalent), and let us get on with other things!

• It's easier the second time around. I promise. Now, you have an application packet to build on; you won't be working from scratch. Hang in there.
• reply from previous disheartened poster: thanks so much for the reassurance that it's easier the second time around. I appreciate the encouragement!

• hey, maybe it is your attitude not your CV?
• Not sure why you are so upset. Obviously you wouldn't have been a good fit in that department. Move on.
• I’m allowed to be frustated, disappointed, and pissed off. The search chair has a dog in the race, so it makes sense to rig it such that his special buddy dog wins against slower dogs. I know it’s not a good fit for me, obviously, I’m not a slow dog. And my attitude is just fine – this is the VENTING page. I’m confident that with the patterns shown in this site (high application numbers, low success) that other people feel EXACTLY like I do. It sucks, it hurts, and I definitely learned a thing or two from this site, especially that I am not alone.
• yes, you're entitled to be frustrated, but there's no need to SCREAM at your fellow wiki colleagues!
• 3/10/08 regarding he CV padding. I think everyone does it, but I recently discovered that a peer listed 7 papers "in prep". Give me a break...it is highly unlikely that a grad student is going to have that many in prep. Oddly, this person got numerous interviews. So, I conclude that the previous poster is correct...pad away!!
• "Padding" your CV is lying, and it is unethical. Seriously.

• I don't disagree that it's tough for academic couples (indeed, I am one half of an academic couple, so I know of what I write). But the truth is that it really IS the right of the department to choose the candidate they think is best for the position and the department in terms of teaching, research, and fit. So, is the outside candidate really merely "flashier," or might he/she actually be stronger, I wonder?
• I will respond to the dubiously sympathetic response directly above. The point is not whether the flashier candidate is stronger, but whether if three candidates are roughly equally qualified for the job (as made evident by the fact that all three made the cut and are finalists), it is morally right for a search committee to throw away a host of considerations and go with the flashier candidate.
• Reply from the "dubiously sympathetic" previous poster: I can certainly understand why you're upset, and the situation must be very disappointing (and truly suck) for the faculty spouse who was a finalist. But you're still referring to the outside candidate as "flashier" which seems quite derisive of his/her qualifications and of the search committee's assessment of them -- it suggests you don't think their chosen candidate is good or serious. Are you perhaps kicking the cat? THe situation is not the fault of the outside candidate you've dismissed as flashy.
• The point of using the word flashier in my original post was to emphasize that the strength of the different candidates ought not to have been incredibly disparate, not to dismiss the person who, through no fault of his or her own, earned the top spot: I'm not even in the same department as my spouse and so I have no way of knowing--at this point--what the other candidates are like, let alone who earned the offer. Besides, I was the flashier (i.e. the one that showed, in the artifical environment of a campus visit, the more attractive attributes) candidate several times when on the job market and I don't subscribe to a silly theory of conservation of virtues according to which "if someone is flashier, then that someone must not be as substantively good," or "Obama gives better speeches, hence he lacks substance." Re: the merits of the search, certain annoying particularities set aside, I don't think I'm qualified to dismiss the search committee's assessment of relative strengths of the candidates, but that is not the point of my venting. I do believe I have a very legitimate grievance with the culture of academics, as I have laid out on this venting page. If I am skeptical of the ability of a search committee to assess the relative strength of candidates, this skepticism is quite generic, and nowhere have I said that it is directed particularly to this search committee. I do know that if I am ever in a search committee, however, I will bring with me a profoundly different moral outlook to the one that seems to have triumphed in our situation. (It is simply not the case that my spouse is an inviable candidate.) And good luck to other couples (especially those in different departments).
• Some of the considerations that institutions should take into account: it is often the case that academic couples (including those of us unlucky enough to work in different departments) who wish to stay together (like us) end up turning down good offers in order to move to a place where they hope to maximize the probability of solving the two-body problem: my wife abandoned a tenure-track at an institution that had no opening for me and turned down an offer at a much more competitive school than the one I'm working for, and I turned down four offers from institutions one or two orders of magnitude more competitive than the one I'm working for. I turned down an unsolicited offer from a wonderful school just last year, out of loyalty to the institution I'm working for (and this is a known fact to the Dean). Also, when a couple works for an institution, it becomes a link to the local community, as it takes roots in the area. So there are some benefits from having a couple work at an institution, especially an institution that is searching to be better linked to the community surrounding it. Finally, unless an institution is an R1 institution, there really should be many ways in which a vast majority of the top twenty or so candidates for a position could all be beneficial to the institution. Are search committees so delusional to think that their grand-task is to find the one person who can get the job done? I suspect not. The thing is, most people in Academia have internalized this culture of free-market competition to a degree so surprising, given the supposed ideological biases of the community, that they react with instinctive suspicion whenever someone--in the venting page of the job search wiki, of all places--vents about a two-body problem and about the lack of conscientiousness of search committees. I could also vent about the way some departments treat adjuncts, but let's not go there.
• On the other hand, there are lots of searches out there that are predetermined ... the school has to conduct an outside search, but there is an inside candidate who is a spouse or other departmental associate. My school is currently in the midst of such a search now. I feel terrible for the hopefuls coming through.
• The fact that, in such a situation, the school has to conduct an outside search only highlights how institutionalized and inflexible the culture of conducting national searches is.
• As sympathetic as I am to academic couples, there are very few other professions where married couples can even entertain the notion that both spouses will be hired by the same employer. And if you're a non-academic married to an academic, you too have to make big sacrifices. This is just a way of saying that having any kind of committed relationship in academia is very tough--a reality that some academic couples easily forget.

• reply to the above post: the "winter seminar series" on the website is for the molecular/cell asst prof search. There's also an ecology & an evolution search, and none of those seminars are posted.

• Why only "nearly"?!? I'd have throttled him on the spot! Evil friend, indeed.

• Reply: I had the same experience last year as the above poster when applying as an ABD to selective positions. But this year went on job market with a finished dissertation, which made all the difference. So don't be too discouraged!
• Reply: Me too. I'm west coast ivy, multiple pubs (incl single author), but ABD. Don't know if I'm just not an attractive hire, if my advisor isn't writting strong letters, or if the ABD things just kills you. V. much appreciate the above reply. Trying to believe it's the ABD status (too many claiming they'll be finished and not actually finishing I guess), because that way I can believe it's not me. Hate that I have to wait a whole year to find out if it really is just me.
• from ABD applicant: thanks. i find this comforting.
• Hmm. I had at least a few interviews when I was a callow ABD with a book about to come out. Now I'm a grizzled Ph.D. with two books, and zippo. Sorry, but that's discouraging.
• Exactly. my experience. ABD is all about potential. When you have actually finished and published you are old and grizzled and uninteresting. They want fresh meat.
• Last year's AHA advice to a room of hundreds was that it was better to go on the market with a finished PhD. I had more interviews ABD than PhD (i.e since then none - except with my local community college and they said I was overqualified!)
• The concerns over being ABD or PhD in hand are being lost in the fact that some fields are drastically changing the rules of the tt hiring game. Some fields are putting an emphasis on teaching skills rather than publications this year. I am ABD and I have been contacted by a bunch of schools for letters and/or more information. I have a few minor publications (i.e.: book reviews) but I think it is my teaching portfolio that gets the attention of potential employers. I have a lot of teaching experience through adjuncting, not just TA'ing. The reviews of my teaching skills from faculty and students have been quite favorable. In my field (anthropology) most tt job ads specifically state that they want to see evidence of effective teaching skills BEYOND TA'ing. The ads also rarely mention a publishing record unless the position is with a prominent school. In my field, the emphasis seems to have shifted to teaching skills and the assumption is that publications will come later. If other fields are doing the same thing, then ABDs with publications who have virtually no teaching experience are at a disadvantage and their departments and universities need to address these issues. With this shift in mind, somebody who has published two books and a bevy of articles might be viewed as over-qualified for a tt asst prof in terms of publishing yet under-qualified in terms of teaching, which might reduce overall interest in the candidate particularly is the school wants to hire a good teacher.
• This is a good point. Of course, if you have a decade of teaching experience (and *not* TA'ing) AND publications, then it's pretty hard to figure out where you've gone wrong. Buyer's market = misery for the sellers.

• I wish you well with that, and though I don't want to come at you with (more) bad news: I'm already in "intensive therapy," and I'm only holding on to my sanity by my fingertips this job season. I suppose the upside is that if I had a shit-ton of money and didn't have to face the academic job market, I'd be able to kiss (most of) my problems goodbye. Enjoy the break, if you're able.

• you're not the only one who feels that way. I don't know what else to say. I haven't submitted anything for publication recently because the last rejection was so mean-spirited I decided I couldn't take it anymore. Academics are assholes. Remind me why we want into their club so badly...?
• Rejections from publishers can be a horrible experience, especially when they are nasty about it. I have recently been accepted for publication with revisions. However, the journal wants me to revise my paper to fall in line with the established conventions of the topic and I was criticized for raising more questions than I actually answer-- despite the fact that my abstract clearly states that I am seeking to challenge old ideas, point out the questions we should be asking, and propose ways to answer them. Additionally, one reviewer's feedback indicated that he read my paper incorrectly and he thinks I was arguing in favor of a point I was actually rejecting. This pointed out a lack of clarity in that section of the paper that I have rectified. But it also leads me to wonder how carefully reviewers read article submissions. When established scholars can publish 5 page blurbs that say nothing or they can publish articles that rehash their old ideas ad nauseum, why can't a new scholar try to pose new questions or alternative ways of approaching old problems? Isn't advancing knowledge supposed to be what academia is about? I think new ideas from fresh young minds make established scholars feel threatened and obsolete and their penchant for cruel criticism and refusing to publish new ideas is based on their own disdain for being challenged.
• Reply to "rejections" (above post): I recently got reviews back from a journal where one reviewer, in the same paragraph, said "The data are poorly presented" then applauded the excellent writing and organization. So... were the data poorly presented or not? Make up your mind. I also got comments saying that I was challenging paradigms with too few data... the reviewer actually said that the paper, and probably the author, was "audacious". You can ALWAYS have more data, but you gotta get the ideas out there to stir the pot! In my view, if they are reacting badly to the ideas you are definitely on to something. Hell, if the letter has "accept" anywhere in there... it's a good thing.
• Hey, maybe we should make a new page for rants about reviewers!

• you know what, though? dealing with one really great school can change your mind about all of it. I'm interviewing with a place that is completely unlike my graduate institution. It's a beautiful thing and it gives me hope.

• Welcome to my world. My department couldn't even get it together to post the ad before MLA. And yesterday the chair of the search committee circulated an e-mail pleading for us to contact people we might know who could apply. Response of a senior colleague to my fuming: "Don't worry, we'll get someone." Like a chicken!

• Reply to the last post. What? Someone deleted the entire Linguistics Wiki? What a colossal jerk.
• religion is gone, too. except for biblical studies.
• religion is gone, too. except for biblical studies That actually sounds somehow profound.

• Response to above post: I was adjuncting last year and the department wanted to fill a three year temp position. O the day they began reviewing applications, I watched 3 old white males rifle through the file of about 150 applicants and I heard them say they were specifically looking for minority women. One of them took an application for further review that was from a person whose name was neutral in terms of gender and ethnicity (think a name like Jordan Lee, which I just made up). 5 mins later, he came back into the office and told the other two "Nope. White male." The job eventually went to a woman of SE Asian background.
• Aw, stop complaining. At least people don't assume because you're of SE Asian background you are some sort of obvious immigrant and "speak English REALLY well!!" despite the possibility you may have been BORN in the US and received a 99th percentile in the GRE verbal section. Furthermore, in my place of work, I'd like to see more Asian Americans. There is not one in the whole huge department. Then again, the Chronicle had an article today stating that Asian Americans lose out because of Affirmative Action. So go figure. The people who get tenure more than anyone else are white males. Why are you so scared that your "supremacy" is in trouble? HypocRISY.

• Your above points are well taken. However, I do know this, our department is currently advertising both nationally and locally for a tenure-track position in ... Reading the ads one would think there is truely an opening. But what is really taking place is that the funding source (e.g., soft vs. hard) for the person currently here is changing, which requires a new "search." It is very sad to see the mail come in each day with applications from persons who stand no chance of even the slightest consideration, as the position is filled. But you would never know this from reading the solicitation. Perhaps universities need to change the way they do business on these matters because it's wasting a lot peoples time.
• Wow, that's certainly an edifying and rather depressing tale! As if it isn't already hard enough for candidates to compete for jobs that really exist... to go through all that for a mirage is really a shame.
• I was at a CSU for a 1yr temp teaching position. The students loved me, I filled a major need in coursework, and when the dept. advertised for a position that I could have easily filled they completely passed me up and didn't even give me an interview. Talk about uncomfortable and hurting, try going to a welcome social for an interview candidate that is there for a job that you applied for as an "in house";. It all depends on what the search committee wants. Me, I was too much of an integrated biologist and not a "true" discipline.
• I know how that goes. I was an "inside" candidate for a job (there as a visiting lecturer), and didn't make it to on-campus stage. The search committee then asked me if I'd attend the job talks, so that they could get my "input" on the quality of the candidates' research and presentations (none of the SC members, of course, had any expertise in the field). I conveniently managed to have other commitments (at three different times, no less!)

• my diss director forgot at least one of mine--I know because the school contacted me about it. Who knows what became of the others....? I'm sure I've been rejected from those places by now. you would hope they would take their responsibility seriously.

• I don't feel sorry for you. That said, I think you're right. Everyone faces their own set of issues.

• Reply: very well put; you've captured my feelings perfectly.

• "your research interests don't appeal to the department" is not a negative evaluation of your qualifications. I think that's the point. They're telling you it was something benign, something beyond your control--something you couldn't or shouldn't change. Something some other department might want. Some of the rest of it...they may not even be conscious of worry about how many times you've been around the block. rejection sucks but I think it would be difficult and unnecessary for them to tell you why you were rejected in blunt terms. Oh, also...I have friends who have gotten letters than told them "you were strong in x and y but we needed someone stronger in z." So if they're telling you it's not about your qualifications, maybe it isn't.
• [different respondent] It might be asking too much for search committees to give specific reasons for every applicant. BUT the original point, I think, is right: I much prefer a simple rejection without any attempt to make me feel better. All I ask for is professionalism! Say you went another way, the end. I don't need consolation, especially since it tends to seem self-aggrandizing. I still remember one rejection I received, many years ago, that empathized about how disappointed I must be, and encouraged me to keep at it. (I wasn't that disappointed! Actually I got a better job than that one!) The rejections I *don't* remember are the simple ones. So I second the request -- Search Committees: Dispense with the patronizing!
• I don't see why search committees are so busy that they can't write two sentences to candidates who have first-round interviews (so the 8-15 on the short list) why they didn't get to the next stage. We invest our time and money and put our egos on the line to go through this process. If there's not going to be a job at the end of it, I'd like, at least, to be ABLE TO LEARN SOMETHING FROM IT. Instead, one is left wondering what went wrong and then having to consider everything as a possibility, which just amounts to trying to see why some mystery people could find fault with ANY and EVERYTHING about one's research, personality, self-presentation, etc. And that's just a crappy position to be left in for a year.* Okay, okay...this is the same respondent from 4 responses ago. i think first round candidates deserve two sentences describing why they weren't pursued. meanwhile, I got a rejection today that addressed me as "Miss" and I'm inexplicably annoyed by this. I mean....wtf? Miss? That's Ms. Jackson if you're nasty.
• I got one that actually called me "Dr." (thanks for noticing), and then proceeded to get my LAST NAME WRONG. Not just misspelled, wrong. Oddly enough, the name on the envelope was correct.
• Thing is, sometimes it really is hard for search committees to give any productive feedback. How does it really help to know that one of the other candidates happens to be able to offer a course that the SC chair has been wishing someone would offer for ten years even though it's not listed anywhere in the ad/description? Or even that you mentioned a theory/author/whatever that happens to be the pet hate of one of the committee's most cantankerous members and hence that person got a bee in their bonnet about you and it was easier for the rest of the SC to give in and agree on another candidate? Those aren't things that are going to help you improve your application for another job - they're just circumstances beyond your control. You don't learn anything from them except that this whole thing is a crapshoot. That being said, I know people who write back to a SC after first-round interviews and (politely) ask for feedback on how they could improve their application. They've got answers, too. So it's always an option, if it's so infuriating.

• totally normal.
• Yep, totally normal. Over and above that, the fact that you've had one paper published and one accepted while still a graduate student is a GOOD sign -- most definitely NOT an indication of "deficiencies," and NOT a reason to "steer clear" of an academic career. On the contrary: congratulations on such a good batting average!
• I got a job, turned it down, and now I'm thinking of dropping out. You do not have any deficiencies to speak of, my friend.

• I get job rejections addressed "Dear Dr." and I'm ABD. Either they can't read the part of my cover letter where I tell them I'm ABD or they assume somebody with my hefty teaching portfolio and my hefty CV must be a PhD. Either way, you can tell when a rejection letter is a form letter and when it's personalized. I agree that search committees could tell 8-10 candidates why they lost out on the job. It would take two lines at most. It's not a lot to ask since we have to sell out money to send the initial application, then the supporting materials, then go to the conference on our own dime for first round interviews. We spend about $1000 a year looking for jobs and all we get are patronizing rejection letters that address us improperly.
• Don't you love it when you get a rejection letter that says "We decided to go with a candidate that more closely meets the needs of the department."-- when the job ad was so general you had no idea what their immediate needs were? Departments that can't bother to post specific job descriptions should be required to return application materials to the 900 applicants who applied who didn't "meet the specific needs of the department." If they had to return application materials, maybe they wouldn't post wide-open job descriptions.
• Previous poster: my boss (at an R1) told me that often their dept has a very specific research area in mind, but they need to advertise a more broad job description to increase the number of applicants. According to him, they do this to convince the dean that they did an exhaustive search and indeed got the best candidate possible.

• many thanks to the previous SC poster for adding your perspective on the job-search saga. It helps to know that there is a rational and concerned agenda behind the travails of us lowly job-searchers! I would like to say, though, that despite the undoubtedly awful task of informing 89 people that they did not get the job, it really IS possible to do so in a dignified and respectful manner. I just had a rejection letter from an institution I interviewed with at the AHA; the SC chair personalized the letter and referred explicitly to my research topic and to the teaching agenda I discussed with the committee at the AHA. The SC chair then explained explicitly why I was not selected for a campus interview. It's true that this level of (very thoughtful) communication is surely time-consuming, yet clearly it really is "do-able" -- and certainly, there is no reason why SCs should simply ignore us when rejecting us -- which feels unnecessarily demeaning. So I do sympathize with your perspective and am truly appreciative that you took the time to share it, but at the same time, we job searchers really do deserve to have the benefit of clear and direct communication. There is no reason a SC chair cannot: ONE: send out emails to rejected applicant who did not get AHA interviews. I don't care if it is a list of 89 people. Write a f---ing batch email, for goodness sake. I'm not "yelling" at the above poster - it sounds as if you did indeed write an email. But I am yelling at all the many SC chairs who don't bother to do this. How disrespectful! TWO: Write individualized emails to AHA interviewees to whom the SC is not giving campus interviews, such that they know the search outcome and can plan their own futures/time/energy accordingly. Even (yet another) batch email to the 10-12 AHA interviewees who did not make the campus short list would be better than the disheartening - and again, disrespectful - silence. I am sure that the process is arduous for the SC members, too. The difference is that you - the SC - are in the happy position of professional "power" while we - the job seekers - are powerless. As the above poster correctly stated, "our [the SC's] future is not at stake." All the more reason, therefore, to make the effort to treat your potential future colleagues with respect.

• Thank you so much previous poster for your uplifting story, and best wishes for a productive job search this time around!
• Could you say more about how you adressed the age issue? (Did you let them know how old you are?)
• You know, its been funny this year. I have eliminated absolutely everything from my CV that points to a "mature" candidate - the Scholarship for Non-Traditional Women, my first degree in the 70's, etc. But at my age, you can't hide it for long. What I have discovered is that many departments actually appreciate the life experience. Since I was an artist of sorts in my previous life, I am able to relate to the studio element in the department, so I went ahead and mentioned it in my phone interviews. By the time we met face to face, they already knew that I was at least in my 40's. I am up to four campus interviews at this point, and I notice that the search committee members are all roughly my age or older - that might have something to do with it. One of my undergrad professors mentioned that sometimes there is an advantage to being older, because the university will not have to pay into your retirement plan as much and for as long - so there's that to consider as well.
• I am also a "mature" candidate, and want to second the sentiment expressed above. I thought carefully about how to present my life experience on paper. My first career was in theater and I've now gone into history, but use theatrical sources in my work. For that reason, I decided to retain a section on my CV where I discussed, briefly, "other professional experience," replete with some dates that made my "maturity" evident. I not only did not find my age a disadvantage, but if anything I sensed in at least a few of my interviews that it was a decided advantage. And, in one of my interviews, the search committee members actually said as much. For the record: I had 8 AHA (i.e. first round) interviews, 2 campus interviews, was offered both jobs, and accepted one of them. I will be almost 48 when I start the job. In short, I didn't find age was something I had to deal with at all.
• Yes, and if I have to go through this again next year, I am going to put my previous experience (which was also in theater) back into the CV. Invariably SC members have asked me why I did not in the first place, since it intersected so well with my current interests. Interdiscipinality rules these day - in history and in art history!
• Hmmm. I want to believe that age is not a key factor, but this runs counter to much I've heard elsewhere. I wonder if it's less important in some fields than others? or does it vary with instituional culture? Perhaps people who have served on search committees would weigh in here with their experience? I don't expect that age comes up per se, but probably appears disguised as another concern (?).
• I think that, in my case, the CV outweighed the age factor. I have been visiting for four years (I am the person who started this thread), but in those years I have put in a considerable amount of university service in addition to teaching and managing to squeak one article out (4/4 teaching load - eeek!). Every campus visit I had, they mentioned the fact that they felt I would be able to step into committee work (after my first year) without missing a beat. I have a sneaking suspicion that my interviewers were equating my "maturity" with my ability to serve the university well. I don't think our recommenders stress this part of our job description enough, and it really counts for something in the end.
• Wow, I just read this thread for the first time and it is inspirational. I've been feeling so old in the face of these committees... and I am younger than thread author above... Well, I have an on-campus int. coming up with people who actually sounded like they valued my experience etc. so that's good.
• to the person above who has the on-campus interview coming up. I'm the "mature" poster who will start my first tt job at age 48, and I just wanted to wish you good luck. I don't wish to be so Polyanna as to suggest that age never makes a difference -- but I do know that there really are committees out there for whom it's not a key factor. Also, i agree with the other "mature" poster (who began this thread) that service and life/community experience more generally can also count. So, break a leg!!
• Thanks from the first poster. Today the search committee meets to make the decision at my first choice institution. The chair told me during my visit that an offer would be made immediately thereafter. I feel like I am about to throw up. I don't know which is worse - having no idea about the time frame (as in the case of my other two campus visits) or knowing exactly when they will call. This is when I truly feel that I am too old for this business. Sitting at home knitting sweaters for my grandchildren (hypothetical, I hope!) sounds really good right now.
• To the above "campus interviewee": so, what happened? how did it go?
• I am the "Wow" poster and campus interviewee (late 30s). It went pretty well, but don't know yet (it is still soon after my visit, and they had one more). In general, I think my life exp helped, altho who knows (I do also look young, which can help or hurt). Maybe I'll find out soon...

• It's a crap shoot. Don't take it personally. It will get a lot worse when you finally do get a job, and discover that all your colleagues are freaking backbiting maniacs who keep a set of sharpened knives behind their office doors to use on the first person to cross them.