|
|
Post by bs detector on Jan 28, 2011 12:57:48 GMT -5
I see another school has been added to the failed search list. Am I the only one who finds this "failed search" business more than slightly bogus? With the glut of candidates in the market and the freeze in hiring at so many state institutions, I find it incredibly difficult to believe that these departments can't find anyone to hire.
Here's another more plausible reason for these "failed searches": these departments had no intention of hiring in the first place but want to make it appear (to other departments and students) as if they are doing well. So they put an ad out, spend a couple thousand dollars to fly people out (which is cheap relative to a 6-year contract), and they say, goshdarnit, we really wanted to hire, but no one is good enough for us. It's just a reputational game, which is why we are seeing these "failed searches" at the top departments, not the bottom ones.
By the way, in the business world, this kind of thing happens all the time. So guys, don't feel so bad; there was no real search to begin with.
|
|
|
|
Post by idoubtit on Jan 28, 2011 13:29:30 GMT -5
i really doubt Denison and Boston College are used the failed search option as a reputational game. What's more likely is the dean would not let them offer jobs to candidate 2 or 3, or would not approve flying more people out for interviewing.
|
|
|
|
Post by idoubtit on Jan 28, 2011 13:40:15 GMT -5
with that said, I agree failed searches anywhere are extremely annoying with the plethora of great candidates out there. i think often these things are out the hands of the departments - but who knows.
|
|
|
|
Post by No on Jan 28, 2011 14:56:04 GMT -5
I really doubt that departments are playing games. The most common reason for a failed search: school flies out two or three candidates; school makes offer to their top choice; top choice has multiple offers and turns down this school's offer; school makes offer to second choice; this candidate mulls it over and turns it down; or, choice two has already accepted another job by the time school gets an offer to him or her. Budget for flying candidates out for an interview is now spent and it's too late in the game to go back and find alternate candidates anyway. Thus, the search has failed and school will try again the following year.
|
|
|
|
Post by agree with no but on Jan 28, 2011 15:07:45 GMT -5
i agree with none's assessment...
but, i also wonder is some of the problem stems from the stage of the process where departments decide who to bring out. it seems like at least some of the time departments end up in the situation 'no' describes because they try to outpunch their weight class. or, in the case of failed searches where no offers are made, the committee decided that they really want someone who does X even though they brought in three or four candidates who don't do X.
|
|
|
|
Post by agree on Jan 28, 2011 15:07:53 GMT -5
I agree, I don't think departments are playing games. But I do suspect many are over shooting right now and that is leading to failed searches. It seems like they all go after the same top 6 or so candidates, and they can't all get them. It'd be nice if the schools could be a little more aware of who they can get and who they can't so that they don't end up with failed searches.
|
|
|
|
Post by multiple talks on Jan 28, 2011 16:39:54 GMT -5
Departments seek to recruit the best that they can get, and people tend to look for similar things when recruiting. The net result is something like a winner take all, where relatively few people get the vast amount of action. Failed searches result because of the limited resources that can be devoted to recruitment. So if a department brings in a couple of people, in all likelihood these individuals are being recruited elsewhere. These departments simply lost out on the more limited market.
|
|
|
|
Post by well on Jan 28, 2011 17:01:21 GMT -5
Then they need to think more broadly. Especially in this market, there is no way that there are only a dozen good, qualified people. Failed searches are a waste of everyone's money, time, and energy. Departments and their search committees can hardly be surprised that they give three offers and all their candidates have accepted or are in talks elsewhere if they only bring in hotshots, or take a long time to extend offers, or allow people they've extended an offer to to sit on it for two months, etc.
We also clearly need to refine the way we do this. Part of the problem, I think, is the timing of ASA, which is far too early to do meaningful first round interviews there like happens in most other disciplines. It's easier to know who will be a good fit on campus if you have had a face-to-face interview already.
|
|
|
|
Post by bs detector on Jan 28, 2011 17:37:24 GMT -5
I take your point(s), especially with Denison, where it looks like they made offers (didn't see that thread earlier). But I'm not fully convinced that there is no gamesmanship.
Perhaps the Dean may put a limit on the recruiting budget for some departments, but come on, compared to the cost of a multi-year employment contract, shelling out a couple of hundred dollars for travel and hotel per candidate is peanuts. (Especially for Harvard and Princeton.) In addition, if departments do all tend to converge on the same candidates, don't you think the better strategy for a particular school would be to NOT bring in the most attractive ones but the second-most attractive ones (just relying on my game theory and the John Nash movie).
I agree that many schools are overshooting, but I think most of these second-tier schools are successful in doing that in this market. What does it mean for top schools like Princeton and NYU to overshoot?
|
|
|
|
Post by bs detector on Jan 28, 2011 17:39:38 GMT -5
By the way, what does it mean that this is not happening in other markets like poli sci, econ, or history? I never hear of failed searches there.
|
|
|
|
Post by prfo on Jan 28, 2011 19:37:37 GMT -5
Bs detector,
As a member of a "top department" that had a failed search last year and who has colleagues in other top departments with a failed search, you are not right about the reasons. It is true that we obsess over status--of the candidate and ourselves. But it's absurd to say we had no plan to hire. We are fighting deans to get lines--harvard, NYU, columbia, and others had hiring freezes for a couple years--and we want to hire. The biggest reason is simple, even if this too is "bs": we cannot agree on who to hire. Most departments are huge on trying to get consensus or near-consensus, so when opinions are all over the place it is taken as a signal that no candidate will satisfy the department. Given that most "elite" schools DO have the luxury of not hiring anyone, they decide to try again next year. They loathe doing this, because they will sometimes lose the line--and yes, we do know and are not pleased that it makes us look bad.
P.s.--there are PLENTY of failed searches in other departments. At my prior job it happened in anth and econ, in my current school it happened in urban studies and policy. If you get to know profs in other disciplines, you will find it happens a lot.
|
|
