We were just told by our dean that we should interview no more than 6 candidates at the APA, and we will be able to bring only 2 in for on-campus interviews. In our search three years ago, we interviewed nearly 20 at the APA, and brought 4 to campus. The search committee is funded for only a one-night stay in New York and must do all the interviewing in a single afternoon.This seems an drastic scaling-back of the typical search. Any one else hearing this kind of thing?
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Scaled-back Searches
A reader writes:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
This is just stupid. It is unfathomable that this is a good use of their search budget. Why not phone or video interview 20 and bring 3-5 to campus for the same money?
We really have no one to blame but the APA. Let's have a convention where the primary attendees are poor job seekers and departments looking to hire these poor job seekers. Let's have this convention in New York City, the most expensive city in the US. Then, to top it off, let's have it at what is close to the most expensive hotel in the city and let's do it at the most expensive time of the year (between Christmas and New Years).
These guys are morons.
Though I generally have few good things to say about the APA, in their defense it should be noted that the conference rate at the hotel is dirt cheap. $158/night is about what you'd pay at a Comfort Inn anywhere within 300 miles. Hell, most people who rent apartments in Manhattan are paying more.
Rumor around my depart is that our tenure track search will be cancelled by the end of the week.
But why on earth interview 20 people at the APA? This may be too few, but 20 is ridiculous
Anon 11:48, One also needs to keep in mind things about the search process. In limiting an initial applicant pool of interviewees, one is also then limiting the list of candidates a search committee can go back into in the case that the very short list of on-campus candidates does not pan out. Limiting the on-campus to only two people increases the risk that both of these candidates will have other offers. Even in cases of 4 on-campus candidates, there remains some possibility that a search committee will need to "dip back" into the pool.
Narrowing down hundreds of applications to a first short list of around 20 is pretty much giving an adequate number of strong applicants a chance to represent themselves. Having been on such committees, I can say that there were many applicants we wanted to meet--not simply "see" on paper. I'm unsure how ridiculous this is, as the benefit of interviewing roughly 20 applicants casts somewhat of a wider net with respect to a diversity of applicants. We all agree on the merits of each candidate in this group, yet strong preferences have yet to solidify fully. (Whether interviews are conducted in person or by phone/video is another matter.) On-campus interviews of 4 candidates, likewise, permit different, very strong candidates an opportunity to shine. Don't forget that search committees are competing for the strongest candidates, but are simultaneously trying to find the most qualified candidate who is the best fit for their institution. The difference between 12 and 20 and 2 and 4 may seem small, although for the candidates this difference may allow additional strong candidates to emerge.
The highest number we ever interviewed was 18 over two days. It was, I admit, a modest mistake. We were exhausted by the middle of day two. O
n the other hand, we felt we did think we did some justice to the many excellent candidates. I think 20 is crazy, even on a three day schedule.
As to on-campus visits: last year, we were reduced to 3 for a TT position. Then, we had to do phone interviews as the initial step in a contract search and were told just bring candidates in sequentially. If we were ‘happy’ with the first on-site person, we were to hire her/him and stop.
We were, in fact, very happy with the first on-site candidate, but I wonder if we did a disservice to the second candidate – who simply could not come as quickly as the person who was able to come to campus quickly.
I do not think we can blame the APA too much. LOTS of people attend because they want to hear or are presenting in sessions.
Of course, at the Eastern, there is a great deal of hiring/interviewing going on. In all fairness, it is simply not true that "the primary attendees are poor job seekers and departments looking to hire these poor job seekers." Indeed, I look forward to an Eastern at which I do NOT have to interview anyone.
I DO sympathize with complaints about the dates and costs. However, the dates work for most East Coast academics, and over time most have wanted to attend meetings in big cities that (a) might be of interest to their families and (b) are easy to get to by major airlines/trains, etc. And let’s not forget, this is the Eastern meeting; so, it is designed for faculty form eastern schools.
The problem is that the APA and its meetings were not originally designed to be primarily hiring venues.
The New York meetings are invariably the best attended, in large measure, it seems, because of the fabulous hotel rates for out-of-towners.
This is especially true now that Europeans can visit here so cheaply and push up hotel rates. Rumor has it that the NY Marriott wanted to move the APA 2010 meeting out to some distant suburb so it could rent the rooms at much higher prices to Europeans, but the APA Exec Committee rejected the offer, even though the sleeping rooms would have been much cheaper.
Post a Comment