September 5, 2008
How to Apply When You Already Have a Job
Tenured Radical continues her excellent series on the job search with a great deal of sensible advice for job seekers who are already employed in tenure-track positions. She discusses how to approach the cover letter, how to answer the always touchy “why are you interested in leaving your current position?” question, and how the currently employed should handle other aspects of searching.
Many of the challenges facing such job seekers stem from the often intensely personal nature of academic employment. In my experience, many faculty members treat their academic positions as directly connected with their personal identities. In turn, they identify, in sometimes odd ways, with their employing institutions, and from that alchemy emerges the idea that those who are seeking to move elsewhere are personally insulting those institutions.
A great deal of that phenomenon depends on the institution. The smart job seeker will carefully measure the local climate before following even the very sensible strategies Tenured Radical recommends.
By David Evans | Posted on Fri Sep 5, 01:13 PM | Permalink | CommentIf Kent State Beats Goals, Professors Will Profit
Kent State University is trying a new and unusual tactic to improve its status, retention rate, and fund raising—paying cash bonuses to faculty members if the university exceeds its goals in those areas.
The bonuses are built into a contract, approved last month, that covers 864 full-time, tenure-track faculty members who teach and do research on the university’s eight campuses. Proposed by Lester A. Lefton, Kent State’s president, the “success bonus pool” will be divided among faculty members if the Ohio institution improves retention rates for first-year students and increases the research dollars it generates and the private money raised through its foundation.
The message behind the institutional-performance bonuses, which are much more common in private industry and for university presidents than for professors, is that faculty members should benefit from the work they do that influences those measures of a university’s success, Mr. Lefton said. Be a good partner, and Kent State will be good to you.
“We’re not asking for extra work, but if operating results are better, I want to share this with the faculty,” the president said in an interview with The Chronicle. “We think this is an innovative approach that benefits both faculty and administration, and ultimately benefits our students.”
Paying faculty bonuses tied to institutional performance is highly unusual, said Gary Rhoades, director of the Center for the Study of Higher Education at the University of Arizona and the next general secretary of the American Association of University Professors. Bonus clauses tied to institutional performance are more common in contracts of presidents, provosts, and other senior administrators. —Kathryn Masterson
Click here to read more, and comment below.
By Kathryn Masterson | Posted on Fri Sep 5, 01:04 PM | Permalink | CommentSeptember 4, 2008
Remembering "Paradise"
When I started my first tenure-track position, I found quickly that while I enjoyed earning a paycheck, I missed my doctoral program. I missed the intellectual camaraderie, the mentorship by my professors, and even the small college town where I had lived. I loved my job and my new colleagues, but it was weird being a “genuine adult” after so many years of school.
What do you miss about your days as a graduate student?
By Gene C. Fant Jr. | Posted on Thu Sep 4, 12:37 PM | Permalink | Comment [14]September 3, 2008
Conflict-of-Interest Policies Are Not a Tough Pill to Swallow
Academic medical centers are finding it easier than expected to pull the plug on marketing practices that seek to sway doctors’ prescribing practices, according to a study published this afternoon by The Journal of the American Medical Association.
Fears that faculty members would flee and industry-research financing would dry up if free lunches and gifts were banned have not been realized, the study found. A report of the study’s findings was written by David J. Rothman and Susan Chimonas of Columbia University’s College of Physicians and Surgeons.
Stanford University became the latest institution last month to announce that it was imposing strict limits on industry support for continuing medical education.
In the last two years, at least 25 medical centers have adopted stringent policies aimed at preventing conflicts of interest, the report notes. Among the universities they represent are the entire University of California system, the University of Pennsylvania, and the University of Pittsburgh. In addition to banning free handouts, the policies have restricted access for drug-company representatives seeking to visit academic physicians.
Institutions with strong policies usually have a dean who takes the lead, supported by knowledgeable administrators such as a dean of pharmacy, the study concludes. —Katherine Mangan
By Denise Magner | Posted on Wed Sep 3, 09:05 AM | Permalink | CommentAugust 30, 2008
Salary Information and the Job Search
When candidates consider applying for a position, they are naturally interested in the salary they might be offered. Job ads are replete with language offering “competitive” salaries, or salaries “commensurate with experience and qualifications.” But this language means virtually nothing, as there are no real benchmarks for competitiveness or commensurability in faculty or administrative salaries.
The AAUP’s average salary figures are available on The Chronicle’s website. But these averages are very rough, as they can be grossly distorted by the presence of professional schools, small cadres of faculty at a specific rank, and a variety of other factors. They thus only provide a very rough guess about the “competitiveness” of salaries at a particular institution.
I admit I am puzzled that hiring institutions do not have more complete disclosure of anticipated salary ranges for their searches. I do know that any time specifics of a position are published, they can constrain the search in various ways. Particularly in institutions where salaries are low, publishing a range may prevent some candidates from applying. Publishing a range may lead all candidates to expect to be hired at its top, which will irritate both candidates and those doing the hiring.
The upside of publishing ranges, though, is that prospective applicants for whom the potential salary really is a deal-breaker will not apply. Search committees often put tremendous effort into evaluating candidates—up to and including on-campus visits—only to see the salary offer stop the candidates’ interest in the position. The only consolation for the hiring institution in this situation, and it is a small one, is that a candidate’s withdrawal becomes a data point in an argument for increasing salaries. Meanwhile, everyone’s time and effort is wasted.
By David Evans | Posted on Sat Aug 30, 11:43 AM | Permalink | Comment [21]August 29, 2008
Fair Disclosure?
I keep a list of topics to discuss with prospective faculty candidates in the various searches at my college. I have four informational points that I focus on in every search — our institution, our students, our future plans, and our community.
I also customize a few further points that are specific to a particular search. I keep these topics written out to make sure that I do not fail to include them for any particular candidate. I want each candidate to have the same amount of information as the other candidates; I never share any information with one candidate that I would not share with all candidates. Occasionally, if one candidate asks me a question that generates additional information, I’ll go back and contact the other candidates with that information to ensure a level playing field.
I do this because I’ve run into other administrators who offered information to some candidates but not to others. I’ve seen the same thing happen with search committees, where information is shared in ways that veer into unfairness to some candidates. In fact, I often encourage our search committees to write out in advance exactly what kinds of information they will share with candidates, to be clear and consistent.
Have any of you had experiences where candidates received an inappropriate amount of information relative to the search?
By Gene C. Fant Jr. | Posted on Fri Aug 29, 01:20 PM | Permalink | Comment [7]August 26, 2008
Who You Gonna Hitch Your Wagon to?
“Bob” was working in the administration of a high-profile president. The president was very generous in his mentorship of Bob, and one day, out of the blue, Bob himself was invited to interview with a presidential headhunter.
Over a very expensive lunch, the headhunter told Bob that his president was one of the hottest properties in all of higher ed and that several institutions were looking for someone who was a chip off the old block.
“Everyone tells us that you share your president’s skills and sense of vision,” the headhunter said. “We’d really like to explore establishing a relationship with you as a candidate.”
Bob decided not to close any doors, so he agreed to provide a complete CV to the headhunter’s group.
A month later, Bob’s president resigned amid allegations of financial improprieties. Bob never heard from the headhunter again.
Bob’s story makes me think about what one of my mentors once told me: Always be careful about hitching your wagon to someone else’s train. You might find that train going over a cliff one day.
What advice would you share with young faculty members and administrators about working with career mentors?
By Gene C. Fant Jr. | Posted on Tue Aug 26, 06:58 AM | Permalink | Comment [13]August 22, 2008
Finding a Fit at Small Colleges
Like many academics, I am at a small institution that plays host to programs staffed by only a few faculty members. While at a big research university the English department, for example, may have five scholars of Renaissance literature, at small schools like mine the entire English department may comprise five scholars, period.
Graduate school generally conditions candidates to specialize and focus, whereas life at a small institution can force faculty members to generalize and diversify. Some professors thrive on this challenge, becoming wide-ranging, thoughtful instructors in an array of topics. Others do not shed their investment in specialization and thus turn out to be a poor fit at their institution.
From the hiring side, there are two main challenges in finding and hiring colleagues for a small institution. The first is attracting applicants who by temperament and training are inclined to teach in an atmosphere that encourages generalists. The other is to sort those who will not succeed in that atmosphere from those who will.
Such sorting is very difficult. Anyone engaged in hiring at a small institution can tell stories of apparently perfect candidates who flopped miserably in the job, and candidates who elicited skepticism who have become among the strongest faculty on campus.
Candidates can help themselves in this process by seriously assessing their interest in small, teaching-oriented institutions and working hard to convey their understanding of the demands of this kind of position. Despite the challenges in judging candidates in a relatively brief interview, search committees should devise questions and interview activities that elicit information helpful in understanding candidates’ interest and understanding of the work at a small institution.
On both sides, honesty about intentions and concerns can help candidates and search committees improve the odds of making the right decisions.
By David R. Evans | Posted on Fri Aug 22, 11:24 AM | Permalink | Comment [21]August 20, 2008
A Personalized CV
Most general job-hunting books recommend including a section of “personal information” on a résumé. And some Ph.D.‘s, following that advice, include on their CV’s information about their hobbies, spouse, children, and so forth.
I find mention of a candidate’s “hobbies” to be mildly interesting — good conversation material — but never once has that information influenced me to interview a candidate.
Same with details about a candidate’s familiy. With very few exceptions, it’s illegal to include family status in a search-committee deliberations. I have, however, occasionally noted when a spouse is an academic whose specialty is one for which my institution has a search under way. On more than one occasion, I’ve asked for the spouse to send in a CV for the other faculty search.
Putting a “personal information” section on your CV doesn’t bother me one iota, but I am wondering if any search-committee members have strong feelings one way or another about such inclusions? Have such personal details ever influenced your decision to interview (or not) a candidate?
By Gene C. Fant Jr. | Posted on Wed Aug 20, 01:53 PM | Permalink | Comment [30]More Professors Hired as Couples
Thirty-six percent of professors at the nation’s leading universities have partners who are also professors, and the proportion of faculty members who are hired as couples is on the rise. But even the nation’s top research universities usually hire academic couples without written guidelines, raising questions about fairness and academic standards.
Those nuggets of information are among the findings in a hefty new report on academic couples by Stanford University’s Michelle R. Clayman Institute for Gender Research, “Dual-Career Academic Couples: What Universities Need to Know.” The institute’s 98-page study—based on its 2006 survey of 9,043 faculty members at 13 top research universities—is one of the largest and most-detailed examinations yet of faculty couples. The 13 universities are not named in the report, but they are representative of the country’s top research institutions, said Londa Schiebinger, director of the institute and a professor of the history of science at Stanford.
The report’s authors wanted to study couples in academe because, they said, dealing with the so-called two-body problem—professors who have academic partners who want jobs at the same institution—is one of the most vexing issues in faculty hiring.
The practice is also controversial. The Stanford study found that 43 percent of the faculty members it questioned said hiring academic couples “prevents open competition.” Nearly 45 percent said couples working in the same academic department create conflicts of interest, and nearly 30 percent said their departments had hired partners who were underqualified. —Robin Wilson
Read the rest of this article here.
By Denise Magner | Posted on Wed Aug 20, 06:40 AM | Permalink | Comment [1]