Showing posts with label Academia. Show all posts

Ph.D.'s Gotta Ph.D.: 4 Ways Academic Staffing Differs from Traditional Staffing

by Matthew Stollak on Tuesday, March 3, 2015



As we head into spring, most colleges and universities are currently wrapping up or have already completed, their search for tenure-track faculty members.  Having served on five search committees for our department over the past four years, and as an outside member for several other searches, here are four ways academic staffing differs from traditional staffing.

1.  Faculty run the search, not HR.

From writing the job placement ads to corresponding with potential candidates who respond, it is the faculty members on the committee responsible for conducting and leading the search. They are the ones who travel to conferences to interview prospective candidates. They are the ones sifting through (often) hundreds of vitae to narrow the field (no ATS here).  They are the ones on the phone interviewing their top 10 candidates.  They are the ones who host the top 3-4 candidates on the on-campus interview and recommend their choice to the Dean for approval.  HR will review the placement ad, conduct background checks, and work with the Dean on salary recommendations, but, for the most part, it is the faculty's show.

Why faculty, and not HR?  Presumably only other faculty members are uniquely qualified to judge the merits of other faculty on topics such as quality of research.

2.  A.C.R.E.A.M. (Academic Calendars Rule Everything Around Me)

Unlike traditional recruiting, the academic calendar is the master that oversees the search.  There is only one date that most colleges and universities use to guide their decision - the start of the Fall quarter or semester.  One of our current searches is in its last throes.  Unless a miracle candidate suddenly falls in our lap, we will begin our search for a tenure-track management professor this summer for someone to start in August of 2016. Yes, August 2016.  

The job placement ad will be sent out in June of 2015.  The major academic conference (Academy of Management) takes place in August of 2015 (in Vancouver).  Not only is it the meeting place for sharing and discussion of the latest in academic research, but it is the largest job fair for academics (we interviewed 32 candidates during the conference several years ago).  Fall 2015 will be a review of additional vitae, and, if lucky, phone/skype interviews with the top 8-10 candidates.  If all goes well, top candidates will be invited to campus in November, with a recommendation (if any) to hire by December of 2015.  As the Fall schedule is being set in February/March, colleges and universities want someone in place to be able to offer the courses needed for students to graduate. Most want to be able to offer a name next to the course instead of "TBD" or "Staff" (though if your last name is "Staff," you'll be teaching A LOT of courses).  Which means....

3.  ....Your hire may not start for several months

A new academic hire usually will not start in two weeks after being selected.  For some positions, it may be 8-10 months before he or she steps foot on campus to begin the new role.  It is unusual for a new hire to start at the beginning of the spring semester/quarter.  There is certainly a "secondary" market that exists in the spring consisting of those not initially chosen in the Fall, as well as those colleges and universities dealing with the ripple effect of someone departing.  Colleges and universities also recognize that a faculty member may always leave, and its too disruptive to try to find a replacement in that short time for a specific set of courses.

4. A new hire is on board a minimum of two years

Colleges and universities not only hire slow, but fire even slower.  Most tenure-track hires are often given two or three years to show proficiency in the classroom.  Scholarship takes several years to come to fruition.  Unless the hire clearly demonstrates incompetency or does something so egregious to warrant termination, he or she will be with the organization for several years before potentially losing his or her job for poor performance.

So, HR folk, is academia doing it wrong?





The Academic Version of "Unemployed Need Not Apply"

by Matthew Stollak on Monday, September 24, 2012

Check out this recent ad for a Humanities position at Colorado State University.   Focus on the following:

Required qualifications:
1. Ph.D. in English or American Studies or closely related area awarded between 2010 and time of appointment.
2. A promising record of scholarship/research in pre-1900 American literature and culture.
3. Ability to teach a range of subjects in American literature and culture between 1600 and 1900.

A similar recent job posting at Harvard University for an Assistant Professor of Comparative Literature, “Applicants must have received the PhD or equivalent degree in the past three years (2009 or later), or show clear evidence of planned receipt of the degree by the beginning of employment.” 

What do you notice? Go ahead...take a minute....
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Well, items #2 and #3 do not seem out of the ordinary - these seem like reasonable requirements for the position.  However, #1 for CSU, as well as the Harvard ad, is interesting and has ginned up a little controversy (note...both ads have changed).

 Much like we've seen in the private sector, academics were not immune to the vagaries of the economy.  If you completed your Ph.D., and entered the job market in 2007, 2008, or 2009, you may have had difficulty finding a tenure track academic position.  Now, with ads such as those filed above, we have the academic equivalent of "unemployed need not apply."

 Are there reasons to narrow the candidate search in such a manner?  It could be economic.  Someone with 3 or less years of academic experience will take longer to apply for tenure and promotion, and the accompanying bump in salary.  With an average salary increase of 1.4% from 2009-2010 to 2010-2011, earning tenure and promotion is often the only way for professors to see a significant bump in compensation.  As a result, delaying the promotion decision can positively affect the bottom line for colleges and universities.

 Another reason may be that CSU or Harvard might already have an internal candidate, such as a visiting assistant professor, and are trying to keep the applicant pool small.  

A third reason might be similar to the NBA draft, where a team would rather take a chance on a college sophomore's "tremendous upside potential," than a college senior's "experience" that's good, but not great.  In this instance, a college might prefer the freshly minted graduate, than a less malleable individual with a couple of academic years under his or her belt.

 However, the start of such a trend is worrisome for an already difficult job market, where it might take as many as 3 years to land a tenure track position.  One might have spent two or three years serving as an adjunct while trying to publish an article or two.  I might be a promising academic who might have had an illness, or family issues (such as caring for a sick parent), or served in the military that might adjust one's tenure clock.  Or, I might have found a tenure track position, and simply want to relocate to another area of the country.

It also affects the time one spends in graduate school.  Future academicians may delay the time that they finish so they will have a more established publication record, to, subsequently, become more competitive in the job market. 

 When I entered the academic job market in 1994, supply of labor exceeded the number of jobs available, and it took 6 months to find a visiting position. When I finally found a tenure track position, and built up a number of years of experience, I wanted to find a job a little closer to my parents. Such mobility may be a thing of the past.