Our hiring season has concluded: we've made an offer, had it accepted, and are already thinking ahead to our requests for next year. We got lucky: the three candidates we had to campus were almost equally strong and none of them took themselves out of the running. I don't know whether any of them had other offers, but each felt like someone we had every likelihood of being able to hire and someone with every likelihood of being a great colleague.
On the one hand, this is a fantastic feeling. It's great to feel that any one of the finalists could come, could hit the ground running, and really add something to our department. It's also nice--let's face it--to feel that all the candidates took their visit seriously and were sincerely interested in us. On the other hand, having a wealth of strong options means at least mild regrets about what might have been.
I've felt this before about candidates we've lost--there have been plenty of searches where, for one reason or another, I've gotten really invested in some candidate who ultimately took another offer, and sometimes I've even made grumbling comparisons between The One Who Got Away and whoever we eventually hired. (As soon as the hire actually joins us, however, I forget all that. I couldn't even tell you the names of the people whom I fleetingly regarded as Candidates Who Got Away. An actual colleague, working in our department week in and week out, building a research profile and contributing thoughtfully to our curriculum, is always better than some fantasy about someone I never got to see in action.)
But I've never had occasion to feel this about candidates whom we let go. This year, partly because we had such strong candidates, partly because their strengths were so varied, and partly because I was on the search committee, I felt differently. I'm simultaneously thrilled with the person we hired and rather sad about the people we didn't hire. I liked them. I invested a certain amount of energy in imagining them here.
My regret is, of course, nothing compared with the regret of any job candidates who might be reading this, who necessarily invest more energy in the departments that court them than vice-versa. It's hard not to feel let down or even misled when a department has wooed you hard only to choose someone else in the end. But when all the choices are good ones, the deciding factor is often about "fit." (Or it's about something almost entirely arbitrary: a slightly better teaching demo, a publication in a slightly better journal, a tangent in the job talk that really floated one particular faculty member's boat.)
I don't know if it helps to know that hiring departments get emotionally invested in their job candidates, including the ones they don't hire and may never meet again. But for what it's worth, many of us do.
8 comments:
Alas, it doesn't really help. The "fit" thing is particularly killer. When you get called in, you do a ton of work, everyone loves you, and then they give it to the person whose research specialty aligns a bit more obviously with the job description, it's very VERY hard not to feel like you just got strung along; they were *always* going to hire the person who aligns more closely with what they advertised for in the first place.
I've seen a few departments recently that have begun to call people sequentially, having only their first choice to campus and moving on if something goes wrong (candidate gets another job, candidate is unexpectedly terrible.) Given how much work goes into a campus visit -- brand-new teaching demo, brand-new sample syllabi for each specific job, reading articles by faculty members, in addition to the emotional investment -- this seems a lot fairer to the candidates.
I've seen a few departments recently that have begun to call people sequentially, having only their first choice to campus and moving on if something goes wrong (candidate gets another job, candidate is unexpectedly terrible.) Given how much work goes into a campus visit -- brand-new teaching demo, brand-new sample syllabi for each specific job, reading articles by faculty members, in addition to the emotional investment -- this seems a lot fairer to the candidates.
This is fucken horrible, and departments only do this if they are forced to in order to save money on visit expenses. It is absolutely key to be able to compare the strengths and weaknesses of the various candidates after having seen them all up close.
Anyway, on the broader point, yes the faculty in a hiring department get invested int he process, and it is exhilarating to succeed in recruiting your favored candidate(s) and punishing to undergo a failed search.
I'm glad to hear your search ended well.
I think many candidates would be surprised at how often a second choice becomes a first choice during a campus visit when something just clicks. It's not that it always happens, but often enough that having a second visit is really important for departments.
For candidates, while the unsuccessful visit is stressful, it also has the potential to be an important learning experience which might teach someone what they need to be the top choice another time.
For candidates, while the unsuccessful visit is stressful, it also has the potential to be an important learning experience which might teach someone what they need to be the top choice another time.
Oh, and also you are NETWORKING, and if you do really well but don't get the jobbe for whatever reason, it doesn't mean that you haven't impressed people and established relationships that will inure to your benefit as your career progresses.
Anon:
I'm sorry that you've experienced this.
However, I do agree with both Bardiac and CPP. As I've mentioned before, we've actually had candidates who were ranked 4th or 5th (based on their conference interviews) who out-performed those who were higher ranked--and within the top three it's definitely not always clear who's "best" according to all the relevant criteria. Bringing out candidates successively increases the likelihood that a search will fail, and it can make faculty either jump the gun (this person is totally fine! let's make them an offer so we don't lose the line!) OR overly picky (this person is. . . fine. But what's behind Door #2?).
As for fit, sometimes these aren't apparent from jump, and sometimes they change. A department might have written an ad for someone who does X from approach A, but when a candidate who does X from approach B shows up, that makes the department realize that having a B-ist would take the program in some exciting new directions (or they may have discussed hiring a B-ist in past years for different positions). And even if the department eventually decides that A still makes most sense, given their current needs, it doesn't mean that they weren't genuinely considering hiring a B-ist.
I'm not trying to dismiss how much this sucks for a candidate who puts in time, effort, and emotional energy and comes up empty-handed. Nothing salves that feeling or gets you your lost time back. Nor can I blithely promise that all finalists will eventually get equivalently-appealing (or any) jobs elsewhere. But up to a point, anyway, getting the experience and the exposure (if it's a department that already has scholars in your field) isn't a total waste, either.
We're in the midst of our search right now. I agree with you that it's heartening to speak with many clearly wonderful prospects. But at the same time, we're painfully aware that there can be only one hire for one position so we will have to pass by some fabulous prospects on the way.
Our search is concluded--we recruited a fantastic young scholar, and she was my first choice all along so I am particularly thrilled.
I agree with CPP that it's a far better way to go to have 3 or 4 candidates to campus before anyone is offered the job. It's the only fair way to do it--fairer to the top-tier candidates and fair to the hiring department.
Regarding the idea of bringing in candidates sequentially:
1. Very much agree with both Flavia and Comrade Physioprof's comments. My experience is limited, but it's led me to expect that the top person going in will not get the job.
2. From the departmental point of view, there's also a serious problem with that, in that it means the hiring committee has essentially made the whole decision. If you work in a dept where all faculty vote on hires, you're not likely to want to give up the ability to have some say in your future colleague. (This is especially true for junior people, who might not be on the committee but are likely to spend the greatest number of years working with the new hire.) Of course, the cttee has loads of power -- they essentially define the options, and a clever cttee can define them in such a way as to make one candidate seem like the obvious choice.
Post a Comment