It's normal for people in a competitive situation to "turn on each other" because each is an obstacle to the others' strivings. Competitors scramble for scarce resources and use whatever winning advantages they can muster -- pretty face, "diverse" skin color, old-boy recommendations, even personal scholarly achievement! Resentment builds when one sees others getting the prizes that "should have been ours." So then we can accuse the winners of unfair play, and we derogate the prizes itself --who wants to part of those stuffy, elite, faculties anyway!?
This competitive behavior is not unique to capitalism; you'll find it just as much (or worse) in, say, communist China's civil service and college exams, or in preindustrial competitions to become warlord or favorite son.
Does it then not make sense that competitors who are best at mobilizing their resources to win the tenure-track position then constitute departments of personalities for whom competition, resentment, and complaining ("venting") is normal behavior?
yes, having gone through this before, I can tell you that things will most definitely slack off for a couple weeks - including this blog. it was so frustrating last year! holiday spirit...yeah.
Surely I'm not the only one who is deeply annoyed at the having to pay ASA's membership dues just to look at a paltry few job postings... I think the dues increased this year as well.
Deeply annoyed - yes! This was the first time I paid the membership as 'unemployed'. I've been unemployed in past, but this time it's hard to accept. A national award, sole-authored pubs, and having taught many courses obviously didn't help me this year. I'm lucky to have a partner who can pay the bills.
Yeah I also paid to see that there were exactly zero new jobs posted since the new year. How come the conference fee is so damn expensive for students and the unemployed, by the way? What exactly do I get for my ninety dollars except that handsome tote-bag with whatever hideous logo the ASA president's 10 year old kid apparently drew for the conference this year?
With the conference fee, the cost of my shared hotel room and flight, meals, cabs and incidentals (I always end up needing to shell out at least $100 for a new pair of suit pants, a dressy blouse, shoes...whatever) ASA ends up costing me about $1,000. That's out of an annual salary of about $10,000, mind you.
The conference bag last year was so terrible that i threw it away the minute i got it. at least in years past i could use it later for groceries. last years just sucked!
You don't HAVE to go to the conference, you know. I've punted it in previous years, as have people I know this past year, who were even on the job market. We mostly know that the job market circus there doesn't matter for much, other than unnecessary stress.
I've had much better experiences presenting, getting feedback, and meeting people at smaller, more specialized conferences, as well.
I agree that smaller conferences yield better feedback. On the other hand, the one job offer I got this year was from a department I met at ASA. The SC told me during the fly-out interview that they had been looking for my application packet after having such a positive ASA interview. They're a great department too, so don't totally toss out the conference benefits...
What's all the complaining about paying ASA dues? Many folks go to meetings not just for job information but for exchange of sociological knowledge, chatting with specialty peers, learning about teaching methods, seeing new books, speaking out at council and Section meetings, and other professional activities.
I agree that ASA is a necessary evil for the most part (in years to come, when I'm not crippled with job market stress and attendance doesn't suck up literally a tenth of my annual salary, I might even enjoy it...if only for the chance to see old friends from grad school.)
This year I also know that I got a fly-out interview because I did a sit-down with the school at the ASA job fair. The SC member that I met with at ASA actually emailed me personally before the application deadline to make sure I was still planning on applying, and then I got a fly out (probably solely because that SC member was really lobbying for me.) Unfortunately I didn't end up being the first choice candidate and I didn't get the job...so I guess it didn't get me very much in the end. Except, you know, having my hopes cruelly raised and then dashed.
I'll still go next year anyway, though, because with schools getting a few hundred applicants for each job, getting into the top three because someone remembered liking you during a face-to-face meeting really can improve your odds.
Yeah, that tote from last year was extra shitty. What was it made out of, paper pulp?
I also loved last year's slogan, "Worlds of Work." Being on the job market sure the hell made ASA FEEL like worlds of work. What would the slogan be for an ASA during one's second year on the job market, I wonder? "Worlds of Self-Loathing", "Infinite Suffering", "The New Politics of hahhahhahha YOU LOSE!"
If i don't get a job, i will look for work with a neoconservative think tank that wants to reform higher ed, and i will give them a very detailed report card on Sociology that can help with the taxpayer's revolt against this inherently useless and fraudulent discipline, and I think that tenure should be rid of because of the corruption and fraud that it perpetuates (many of the "ignorant masses" that you sociologists like to chide tend to agree with me)
Found out I didn't get a job at an R1 that I interviewed at (non-sociology job). The person who did has been an assistant professor at an R1 for 4 years, with many publications, grants, awards, oh and did I mention received his Ph.D. at the same institution we both interviewed at. Like I even had a shot.
One of my advisors was good enough to remind me that, since I didn't get a job this year, by next year I'll look like I have been in grad school "too long," and that this might count against me on the job market. Great, thanks. That massive economic collapse? Apparently In addition to working my ass to finish all my PhD requirements while publishing and teaching full time, I should have put a little more effort into singlehandedly solving the sub-prime loan crisis.
10:03 - I don't think anyone cares how long you are in grad school. Of all the many reasons people are not getting jobs right now, that isn't one of them. I mean, I know it sucks to stay in school another year. But it won't really hurt your job chances.
i applied for 51 jobs this year. i was on 0 short lists. i got 0 interviews. i got 0 job offers.
without even getting in to have frustrating and emotionally draining and demoralizing this has been...i don't really know what went so wrong for me. so i'm really scared about doing it again next year. since i don't know what i did wrong, won't i just make those same mistakes again?
do i sound like an idiot in my cover letter? do my recommendations say i suck? is my research agenda unclear or not defined? do i come across like i hate teaching? do i just come across like a snotty bitch? I DON'T KNOW!!!
I got 2 interviews, was already turned down for a job at one of them and probably wouldn't take a job at the second even if it were offered to me (which it most likely won't be,) because my campus visit was so bad. Was on at least one short list for a job that got cancelled.
Net result? Same as you 10:29. I doubt it has anything to do with you. The job market just went south and even teeny tiny rural SLACs got inundated with CVs from people with AJS publications.
Um...also, lower and mid-tier universities and colleges who snap up academic hotshots in a tight market might want to think about what'll happen with their new trophy hires when the market eases up. OR they might want to think about what it'll be like to work for the next 2-3 years with some pretentious douche who resents the fact that s/he was "made to settle" for a temporary job at Podunk U and broadcasts that fact at every possible opportunity.
You know, unless ya'll ENJOY going through the job search process every two years and putting up with sulking divas in the meantime.
I think it's a tough call. I don't think everyone in that situation is a "diva". I've tried very hard in my job search to only apply to places that I would be willing to stay long-term. My knowledge of any given place is very limited, so it's often hard to tell what a place might be like.
In this market, though, it does make a sense to take a job if you get an offer. Of course, I haven't been offered a job, so I don't have to worry about the problem....
10:44: I've had similar thoughts, although I didn't think in terms of 'trophy hires,' but yes: I know I was passed over for fancier folks who everyone knows will be leaving in 2-3 yrs. Some depts are so prestige-hungry that they would rather have the short term gains of being associated with a Top 10 Hire (and his/her social networks) that they don't mind s/he will be keeping one foot out the door... What does that say about their feelings for their students? Sure, Top 10 'star hires' can still care abt students and teach from a particular school of thought, but there is something to be said for a longer term investment in an academic community.
Personally, I can't wait to dig in and really commit to a place and, unfortunately, that matters very little. I actually want to be at a (ranking-wise) 'bad' school to teach less privileged populations... I don't want to use them as a stepping stone.
Oh, and to add to the pile: 40 applications, eight cancellations/hiring freezes, three shortlists, two interviews, zero offers.
I agree! My "dream job" would be a place where I can settle in, develop good collaborative working relationships with my colleagues, and mentor students. Although I graduated from a "top department", I don't want my career to be at a place similar to where I went to graduate school because I think the environment placed competition for prestige over collaboration on research.
Of course, I don't have any job at all right now! But I did only apply to places I either knew I would stay at long-term or didn't have enough information about to know. And I did a couple of phone interviews where I learned enough to know that it wouldn't be a good permanent home for me so I declined to pursue my candidacy there. I still think that was the right thing to do, although I possibly could have gotten an offer from such a place.
On the flip side, when a department does hire someone they know will use the place as a stepping-stone and leave after a couple years, well, the kind of get what they deserve.
We at mid-tier universities do not want "sulking divas" (post 10:44), but do want to build up the intellectual quality of our programs by employing new colleagues who can do research and teach and are au courant with the field.
Any "sulking diva" should be forewarned that the job market is unlikely to improve enough to make it easy to move . Another department doesn't want a potential colleague who has already spent several years in a tenure-track position who who might abandon any new position just as readily.
The sulking diva who feels s/he is "slumming" at a lower-ranked school may get rejected for tenure or retention because of bad attitude. Then the diva will have to warble the Death March from Aida, because who will want to hire someone was was actually turned away by that unprestigious school, O shame of shames?!
I need to vent: I'm very fortunate in that I've had some campus interviews and I still have a few more coming up. But I'm obsessing over one of the jobs. I interviewed there and am their #2 candidate and can't help but continue to think about whether or not the #1 choice will take the job or not. I don't know who it is, I don't know their situation, but every day I find myself trying to guess if they are going to take this job or turn it down. Anyone else out there trying to get into the minds of other, unknown job candidates? How do you let it go?
7:21 Indeed "The Sulking Divas" would be a fantastic band name. Featuring smash hits such as:
"I'm too good to be working here (nah nah nah)" "You're just my Stepping Stone" (Monkees remix) "I'm so much smarter than all of you (why can't you see that?)" "Starter Job" (feat. T-Pain) "I don't 'do' Committees (and I don't teach Intro)"
and that all time chart topper: "Don't you wish you'd hired candidate #2 (instead of a douche like me?)" (radio version)
11:38 - i was also had an interview at a dream job location. I didn't get the offer and haven't heard anything for weeks. I was shattered when I didn't 'the' call. I will be for quite sometime. So close.... and I have no more interviews....
Yeah, I was in the same situation. One dream job interview--a great dept, great location, great people, and in a perfect site for my future research--it had everything, and I sat by the phone in agony for weeks waiting to hear. And I didn't get it. I had a miserable Christmas and I'm still so heartbroken I feel like I just got dumped.
Nothing to do but get ready to go through the same shit again next year.
6:11. I had exactly the same situation. I felt like it was way worse than getting dumped because it feels like a statement on your life's work. I'm so sorry.
Thanks 10:08. I think I literally spent all of December and half of January crying (and single handedly ruined Christmas for my entire family with my watery eyes and red swollen face.) Still, logging onto this site and reading the bitter lamentations of fellow soc job market roadkill actually helps somehow.
We should have a secret hand signal so we can recognize each other at ASA, or maybe a "Rumor Mill Roadkill" ribbon (black, of course)
not that I didn't know this was the case, but it was reinforced this week - someone who is a prof at an Ivy League school is coming to give a talk (not a job talk, just a regular talk) at my university. His/her CV got sent around to the dept earlier this week (standard practice). I looked to see what this person needed to get a job at their esteemed university when he/she was on the job market. Started his/her job earlier this decade, at an Ivy League school, with a single working paper (published in a working paper series). One working paper. Yes, he/she has had a great career since, with books, articles, grants etc. But still. ONE working paper. How the bar has been ramped up.
8.08, having been on both sides of this, I can say that we have interviewed people with great records on paper who came in and revealed their work to be mind numbingly boring and have interviewed people with only some diss chapters to their name who blew the department away with their ideas/potential. With tenure, it is always open to departments to take a chance on someone 'unproven' if they seem strong enough. Departments are also looking to get in ahead of other departments and snap people up. So these things happen.
Overall though having publications (especially when not in a purely RA capacity) is going to help enormously. Also, it is pretty clear the bar has been raised. On top of that, supply and demand are increasingly out of sync, due to the financial crisis etc. So you are right that things are tougher than they used to be. But departments will still be willing to overlook lack of publications among finishing PhD students along as the written work is brilliant enough, the talk stimulating and the fit good. Your Ivy League working paper-writer seems to have proved the department's judgment correct in this case.
8:08 here, thanks for your comment 1:22. I don't begrudge him/her the job, and am glad that the opportunity was given to prove oneself through their interesting work. And yes, the supply/demand of jobs is horrifically skewed, especially this year (and most likely next as well).
I would only hope that said Ivy League university would, in 2008/2009, still be willing to look at someone with a few good dissertation chapters, or maybe a few co-authored publications, and without at least one single-authored publication in a top journal and/or an advance book contract. But the experiences of me and 90% of my fellow graduate students on the market (have talked with friends at different universities across the country, doing lots of interesting and exciting work), has not been this.
But again, thank you for your thoughtful response.
I think that sexual harassment at all levels of academia is a real and serious problem. I know that SWS (Sociologists for Women in Society) has a task force on sexual harassment and helps both female professors and students deal with the issue. I wonder if the previous poster has been in contact with SWS? I think it's a good idea to continue to build good documentation.
I would say that this issue is much more serious than blowing off steam. It is real, and has profound effects on students. I might differ with the original poster on strategy, but I agree with the intent.
I'm sure the sexual harrassment poster is the same joker that posted about having discovered data holes in top sociologists' papers. This person is a joke. Please don't feed the trolls.
3 of the 4 women on the market in my dept have gone to interviews where something that made them uncomfortable happened (like being asked on a date by a faculty member)...by like in any situation, you don't press charges against your potential employers even after you go back to your hotel room in tears
need to vent here: I'm waiting to hear word from my 1 campus interview. I guess I was lucky in that position, of the 51 (!) that I applied for, was my top choice, with a great fit and good location. Also, it is making the wait excruciating even more than it would be normally. I got word that they were very impressed at my visit and the committee has since inquired to my chair to confirm I will finish. Good signs, I know. But 4 people visited, and as much as I like myself, I am sure I'm not much different than the other 3. I Should know something be next week; I totally everyone's pain. I will be crushed if I don't get this. Indicators that the market will be worse next year only make me feel like if I don't get this 1 I will never be employed. :(
Thanks for everyone's comments. It is nice in a weird way to know others are suffering alongside you. If you see me with a black lapel ribbon at ASA next year you'll be in on the joke!
For the record: 51 jobs applied to (a lot of postage) 3 short lists 3 phone interviews 1 campus interview
i WILL wear the black ribbon at ASA. if you see me with it, please come shake my hand.
which is not to say i struck out this year. i oddly managed to land my name on a few lists and garner a few offers. but that has made this no less gloomy...
...the whole process has taught me a few things. some from my own experience, and some from my colleagues on the market. first, kissing ass matters. if you have a professor to kiss ass on your behalf, that matters even more. the small handful of people from my department who have gotten job offers have all had professors kissing a lotta ass on their behalf. if you don't have a professor willing to kiss on your behalf, start now and scope out places you'd like to work. pick an assistant professor there and email him/her out of the blue to compliment his/her work. after a few emails, suggest a collaboration. take on most of the work and settle for second authorship. and this time next year, you'll have someone on the inside kissing ass on your behalf. yup, seen that work.
second, department prestige doesn't mean shit. i'm at a top-5 department and the majority of folks on the market here have not gotten jobs. SCs don't care whether you're from berkeley or southern northeast texas state. don't even think about trying to coast on your department name.
which brings me to...publications are king. and little things matter. being first author is very different than being second author. change your last name to "aaaabeck" so those pubs where authorship is decided alphabetically land you first. you must publish as a sole or first author. its better to be first at a low journal than third at AJS. trust me on that. send every piece of shit article you have stewing out to someone.
fourth, you are wasting your time applying for jobs if you have not scheduled a defense date. you are up against people who have finished the PhD, are post-docs and assistant professors. as soon as a SC hears "ABD" they think "not gonna finish". don't waste your time on teaching, mentoring, whatever. just get the damn dissertation done.
finally, outsource! write that kick-ass cover letter and then pay a poor english grad student (whose job market prospects are worse than yours) $50 to edit it. make it stuffy and arrogant; that shit sells. don't afraid to say that you're the most awesome thing to hit sociology in fifty years. you are! sell it. talk about that $5 million NSF you're working on. oh, yea!
----
PS: odd random things matter. and here i'm being totally serious. if you've done some research, taught some class, been involved in some service, if it matters to you, go ahead and mention it. all but one of the interview i got were heavily influenced by seemingly random things i included in my cover letter (experience leading a high school sociology club, fluency in an african language, leading college field trips to a prison, etc).
at the end of the day, you are interviewing them as much as they are interviewing you. and if they like some particular unique aspect of your background, you're probably gonna like them too.
I shall be wearing a black ribbon at ASA myself...but I am greatly heartened by the news of Obama's big education stimulus that just landed on the front page of the NYTimes. Biggest edu investment since WWII...I;m crossing my fingers that it passes and that it helps.
What's with rejection letters that actually name who they've hired and go on to tell me how happy they are with their choice, how great he is and even list a couple of his accomplishments? I mean, not even a "thank you for applying," just a "it was a hard decision but we are happy to have so and so join us, blahblahblah?"
I've gotten two rejection letters that named the person they hired. I think they tried to at least say "thanks for applying," but I can't recall since I recycled those long ago.
That rejection letter may be telling you what you'd be curious about anyway. It's more informative than the usual "So many wonderful applicants.." rejection which doesn't tell you anything you beieve or want to know.
Knowing who was the position winner might give you a clue about where you lost out, or perhaps how that department wanted someone you're not -- lucky for you!
Good article on surplus PHDs in Humanities, in Chron Higher Education in late January..."Graduate School in the Humanities...Just Don't Go." It explains how personality, values, and institutional self-interest lead to a surplus of aspiring but non tenure-track -employable faculty wanna-bes.
Here's the problem with being an unemployed sociologist. If you were just like everyone else and bought into the myth of meritocracy, you could blame yourself for not getting a job and take Prozac to cope just like everybody else does.
But you know better--you know too much for your own good, in fact. You took graduate seminars in social theory. You learned that capitalism was unfair, but that as an academic, that was something you didn't have to deal with. Well, now after six months of unsucessful job searches (inside and outside of academia), you start applying Marxist critiques to academia and to the non-academic research world. You realize that the system--not you--is the reason you haven't gotten a job. And what good does blaming the system do you? After all, so much of sociology is about how we don't have any agency and that structure determines what happens to us. Maybe it would be better to just buy into meritocracy and take the Prozac...
9:11, Sure, it may have felt low to be rejected by the "Secretary in Sociology", but it was a hand signed rejection from the secretary, which is super-classy. They do lose points for not including a stamped envelope for the applicant information with which we were graciously provided, though.
Anyone else who had an interview and hasnt heard from them feels like when a person gives you the cold shoulder after a first date?
We went out together, laughed together, shared and felt some solidarity towards one another as we talked about the difficulties of academia, the job market, etc. It really felt nice, especially since they seemed so interested.
And now, here I sit, waiting for a phone call after 10 days, hoping really hard that when they said "you should hear from us within 2 weeks" they really meant "in two weeks" or "after two weeks," which is getting harder and harder to do, given that I was the last one interviewed. And I wonder if they really meant the things they said about me, if the interest was genuine, if anyone will ever make me feel that (academically) desirable again.
Does the fact that only about half of the people I sent "thank you" notes to even replied mean anything? Was I too forthcoming, thinking of themselves as colleagues, when we shared funny stories about the job market, teaching, and academia in general? Was it wrong on my part to feel so comfortable there that I didn't even object about some of the illegal questions they asked during dinner (about partner, kids, etc.)? Were they really that comfortable with me that they told me about their problems with the school administration after they had a glass of wine at dinner, or was it all just a test to see how I reacted? And if it was a test, what was the right answer? Should I have demonstrated more sympathy towards their fight against the administration? Or were they testing me to see if I could live with an administration like that?
Now, I know that in a world where there are more candidates than jobs, some of us will end the year empty handed. But I don't get why the process has to be so cruel and secretive. I mean, don't wine and dine a candidate and pretend to be friendly only to ignore them completely afterwards. And would it be too difficult to make the post interview process more of a two way street? Last time around it was 2 months before being let down. This time the deadline is fast approaching. Would it hurt to say "you are #2 - or 3 or 4, whatever- on our list and we are waiting for a response from the person we offered the job to?" Or at least to say "we are meeting on such and such week, if you don't hear from us then, its because we chose to go another direction?" Brutal honesty works better than a "you will hear from us soon" that turns into never.
The professional world outside academia is tough but at least they are upfront about it. No feigned interest, no informal meetings, and when they dont want you, they let you know straight away.
The process is already difficult enough for people to feign interest and sympathy only to dump someone without even a "thanks."
Hang in there. Sometimes it takes a while for the Dean and Provost to sign off on an offer. 10 days is a long wait for you (given the tough market), but for the administration, it's probably too soon.
Pittsburg sent possibly the ugliest rejection letter. First, they couldn't be bothered to use actual letterhead. No, they write the letter on letterhead and then copy it on crappy thin white paper. But the best is that some pool sap then had to take all those xeroxed rejection letter and type - on a typewriter (!) - the names and addresses to send them to. Mine was all off-center with some wacky punctuation like a period after my first name and a comma after my middle initial.
Oh, and they spelled my name wrong. And they mis-spelled the name of the state I live in. And they mis-spelled the work "Department".
Makes me so very glad I didn't get that job. Can you imagine working somewhere where the department chair thinks that's the most effective way to send out rejection letters? I know a mail merge is tough the first time you do it, but really...
Those who are complaining about errors in rejection letters and delays in being informed of decisions (or apparent rudeness) should try some role-taking. Departments are overwhelmed by a wave of applications, often hundreds for one job. A small, already busy, office staff cannot always track applications, get the spelling right, have the type of stationery you prefer, and so forth.
Faculty are under legal constraints about what they can tell you, and when, and why you were not selected. Maybe it makes you feel better to displace aggression on those people, but from an insider's stance, I can say it's not so much capitalism or arrogance as sheer bureaucracy -- which will be an obstacle in ANY department where you do get a position.
Holy crap, when will people stop policing what others say in a VENT thread? Isnt VENTING what a vent thread is all about? And it is specially disconcerting when SC members come here to talk about how rough they have it. Care to switch with any of those either unemployed or adjuncting for minimal pay? THAT is precisely the sort of arrogance people refer to around here: SC members getting so caught up in their own obligations that they cannot even empathize with the applicants.
In any case, proofreading, doing a mail merge, and sending out a letter is certainly not that hard, given how many that do so in an adequate manner.
Letters that are photocopied, letters that are rude, letters that are sloppy, letters that in no way acknowledge the efforts of the applicant, but instead praise the candidate who did get it are all awful.
Even worse are the places who do not even contact those rejected, especially those who interviewed, after a confirmed hire.
Give me an excel file with the name of all applicants and a word file with a 2 paragraph letter that basically says "thanks for applying, applicants were great, sorry you didnt get it, good luck" and I will have 200 perfectly adequate rejection letters ready within the hour.
I agree with 1:53--this is a venting forum. Maybe it will be easier for all of us to empathize with the hard work that faculty members and department secretaries have to do in their search processes when we actually have our own jobs. For now, we are un- or under-employed and need to reach out to others like us so we can cope with our gloomy realties. It's difficult for us to be cheerful when most of us have spent 7+ years doing graduate work, all the while thinking that it was worth it because we were carving out our own space in academia. I feel cheated out of my opportunity to shine, and demoralized due to the bleak projections for next year. I was really excited to start living the life I've always dreamed of, and now I have to put it off even longer and pray that my moment will come. I'm so sorry you are all in this position as well. None of us deserves this--good luck to you all.
Lately, I've been having a lot of regrets about what I chose to do with my life. I love sociology, but had I known I might not actually be able to be what I set out to be, I might have chosen to do something else. Right now I'm sure my department is telling admitted grad students that they can complete the program in 5 years and then go onto a tenure- track faculty job at (insert the name of any top 40 department). Most of these new students probably don't know that it will take more like 6-7 years to complete the program, at which time they'll discover that not only can't they get a tt job but that their prospects for a non-academic research position are equally bleak because, like tt jobs, there are just too few positions and too many qualified people. That's when the faculty will change their tunes and tell the students that the only way they can get a job is to get a postdoc. At that point, the student will wonder whether a postdoc will really change their chances of getting a job, or whether it's just another false promise designed to perpetuate the academic labor system. Sound familiar?
Sometimes I think about how if had I purused any other career, I could have actually been what I set out to be. There's no doubt in my mind that if I had gone to law school, I would have actually been a lawyer. Had I gotten a degree in education, I don't think anyone would have denied me a job as a teacher. Heck, I could've completed med school and a residency by now--and I'm sure there would have been some job waiting for me when I was done. Only being a sociology professor was unattainable. Most of us are extremely bright and talented people that could have done anything with our lives. I shutter when I think about how much talent society has lost to the false promise of an academic career in sociology. There's some suggested research on sociologists and sociology to send to ASA...
jeesh, this is the vent forum, not have a big 'ol pity party for ourselves forum. i know people in the federal government with phds in sociology and they are living the live of riley. i know people in the private sector with phds in sociology and it is the same story. however, i must say, with your attitude, you are most suited for academia, with all the other pathetic cruds who have never spent a day in the real world and who squabble over the most ridiculous things.
To 5:32: I am one of the pity-party posters. I have been in the "real world" since the late 1980's. I decided I wanted more out of life than working in secretary pools and restaurants, so I went back to school (while working full-time jobs in and outside of academia and taking care of my family) in the mid 90's and I have been there EVER SINCE. I have worked hard in academia, I'm tired, and I want a position that I love and I deserve. I have maintained a positive attitude and have done everything I can to make lemonade out of lemons during my search process. I just wanted to express my frustration to others in the same boat and you won't even let me have that. If you don't want to hear pitiful sob-stories about job searching, don't read the posts. What does venting mean to you anyway? Is it when people write posts with swear words and vow revenge on academia? I think it's perfectly appropiate to pity ourselves in this section--including the people who have never spent a day in the real world.
Rejected applicants and everyone else have the right to post and vent whatever they wish. Trying to show you the other side of the interaction is not to "police" your comments. A rejection letter with errors or delays doesn't mean that you are not valued in the discipline, nor that you were rejected with a casual or disdainful attitude on the part of the hiring faculty. (And how would it make you feel better to believe that?)
Good preparation for your eventual faculty position should include an accurate perception of how committees, department offices, and administrative policies actually work. You'll find that out someday, so why not now?
"A rejection letter with errors or delays doesn't mean that you are not valued in the discipline, nor that you were rejected with a casual or disdainful attitude on the part of the hiring faculty."
I don't know about being valued in the discipline or not. But rejection letters with errors, or photocopied, or whatever most definitely indicates a casual or disdainful attitude on the part of the hiring faculty.
And most of us here are very familiar with the obligations of the hiring faculty. Many of us have probably witnessed that taking place. Saying "oh, poor hiring committe, their job is SO HARD" is really poor form.
Most, if not all of us, have received a large share of rejection letters (since I dont know anyone who is 1 for 1 in job applications), so we have a fairly large frame of reference when it comes to them. Here. people have been venting about the most outrageous ones. We think they are outrageous because we can actually compare them to non-outrageous ones. We think they are outrageous because we know that writing a letter of rejection and doing a mail merge takes less than thirty minutes. We think they are outrageous because we know quite well what would happen to our chances of getting a job somewhere if our cover letters contained the same amount of misspellings and wrong names.
And I find it funny, to say the least, that you are so concerned about getting the plight of the incompetent hiring committee out there. After all, it is a perspective that actually dominates academia.
It is the voice of the person who is not considered worthy of even a 5 minute phone call after spending days preparing for an interview, and then actually doing the presentations for the interview, all for free, that needs to be heard.
"Good preparation for your eventual faculty position should include an accurate perception of how committees, department offices, and administrative policies actually work."
And a good part of that preparation is actually knowing that 10 to fifteen minutes spent proof reading a rejection letter, or calling the interviewees that didnt get the job, goes a long way in establishing the professionalism of the faculty. We already know quite well the work that goes on both sides of a hiring decision. Making excuses for those who don't have the decency of even writing a personalized email to someone who spent several days preparing for an interview doesnt add any knowledge about how to be an adequate faculty member. Making excuses for someone who thinks that proof reading a one page letter is below them doesnt add any knowledge about how to be an adequate faculty member. In fact, it perpetuates douchebaggery.
So by pointing out the most egregious cases of disrespect from hiring committees, these vents can actually improve the process in some way.
Focusing on the etiquette by which you are rejected is a distraction from the real problems of the job market. It's like picking on your partner's grammar mistakes when you're having a fight about some serious issue.
There seems to be a disagreement here about what is normative in the style and processing of rejection letters or phone calls. Earlier there were posts about doctoral students from elite universities (with large office staffs and faculty size) now having to apply to smaller, underfunded colleges (with few office staff, less mailing sophistication, and overworked faculty) -- the "Sulking Diva" as a poster cleverly put it. No wonder that some applicants are shocked at what would be poor style or "disrespect" in their own more affluent department.
That discrepancy is just one of the many shocks these applicants would encounter if they HAD gotten the position at the campus with fewer resources at every turn.
reread the specific places that have been named: tulane, pitt, unnamed top schools. None of them exactly small and underfunded. So it is not an issue of sulking divas.
Furthermore, talking about etiquette does tell us about the larger job market picture as a whole, which is the devaluing of job candidates throughout all ranks of departments. And I would bet that how poorly job candidates are treated is probably highly correlated with how adjuncts are treated, and maybe even with how assistant professors are treated.
Is there "a devaluing of job candidates through all ranks of departments?" There is a buyers' market this year, which could produce a devaluation of any single applicant because of the oversupply of them. But what about at the top end of candidates who do get the offers-- are salary offers and startup packages worse than usual too? I'm hearing about generous salary packages, released time, positions for spouses, lab and travel funds.
Maybe supply-and-demand doesn't apply to the top end, which instead is more like courtship: competing departments throw themselves at the "one and only" applicant for whom there is no substitute from the many "other fish in the sea."
And how is the market affected by the fact that each applicant is applying to many more positions than in former years -- a devaluation of departments by not showing any preference or favorites among them? The mass application style does create the impression that there are more candidates on the market than is true. A department might think that there are three times as many applicants as usual, but in fact it's the same cohort size just applying to thrice as many positions.
Could everyone please lighten up re: the rejection letters?? These letters are sent by department secretaries who are overworked and underpaid MUCH more so than even the most put-upon grad students.
Public university budgets have basically gone down the toilet over the past 2 years. Money spent on bond paper letterhead means money NOT spent on hiring new faculty or TAs.
Sorry that you got lame-ass rejection letters, but that DOESN'T mean that the SC gave your file a full and thorough review.
Oops - mistyped 4:23. That doesn't mean that the SC *failed* to give your file a thorough and fair review. They probably did. They just didn't have the time or money to send a hand-calligraphied rejection letter. Sorry.
and what is the excuse for the departments who never get back to even those who interviewed there?
By the way, while secretaries are in charge of making the copies and mailing them out, I severely doubt they are the ones who make the decisions as to when to send them out, or the decisions as to what to include in them.
This is not a "job candidate vs the secretary" vent, and if the head of the search committee is delegating all these things to the secretary, it is another sign of how unprofessional they are.
And I say this as someone who would write letters of rejection in my part time job in the graduate school.
I am leaving academia, and thus noticing just how bad academia is. We sociologists write all this crap about inequality, unequal opportunities, abuses of power and so on on the 'corporate world" but we so completely neglect the academic world, which is oh so much worse.
Quick comparison: academic job search: unclear job posting, vague specialty description. 2 months to be contacted to schedule interview. Interview full of illegal questions, people dozing off during job talk, clear division in department over who to hire, so that half the people are openly aggressive towards me, half are ultra defensive of me. Consistent name dropping all around. Get back home, 2 months later I still have not been reimbursed or received anything from them. Search committee chair did not even reply to my thank you note.
Corporate world, private research company: Job posting clearly delineated all responsibilities. Notice of interview one week later. Interview another week later, all expenses paid upfront. interview concise, upfront about needs and expectations, no illegal questions, no ego stroking, no vilification of differing points of view. Person responsible for search replied to thank you note and actually provided feedback. Told that they would have an answer in one week. Had answer in four days.
Adviser "sad that I am not going to put degree to good use," I bought a house, spouse is pregnant, and I dont have to worry about tenure. The above examples are probably extremes, but I cant imagine anyone in the corporate world getting away with fuzzy job postings and stringing candidates along for 3 or 4 months.
I agree with the letter stuff- I have the feeling that it is an indication of the kind of department you applied to...
That said, instead of just complaining about the bad ones, I think I would like to point out a good one. St. Olaf College in Minnesota- best damn rejection letter I've ever received. I know they're not R1 and prestigious and everything, but if I were to go off of that letter it really seems like the kind of place that I would enjoy working.
I second the thoughts on St. Olaf's letter. I received it today and I think that I will keep it as a model for rejecting candidates in the future. By the way, St. Olaf is a top-50 liberal arts school, so I wouldn't knock their prestige.
Congratulations 8:51! I need that glimmer of hope--I still have apps out in places where they haven't started reviewing yet. I made the mistake of reading old Chronicle articles about the search process--one person wrote an article called "Six Times is a Charm", detailing his/her six-year search process. Eeeeeeek! Hopefully that won't be our fate as well. I'm so glad you were able to land a job--please cross your fingers for the rest of us!
Lack of decent rejection letters (or even receiving one at all) can be an indication of the dept culture. Our SC chair didn't send any out (and seemed baffled at the suggestion when I mentioned it).
The dept secretary's duties are determined by the chair. If rejection letters are a priority, the chair needs to reduce the priority of other jobs. If the dept chair doesn't care, you can figure out what the letters will look like.
I'm the one who posted about the really awful Pitt rejection. Having received 40+ rejection letters, I promise you it was far and away the worst! And yes, I do think that it probably says something about a department's resources when a 30-minute mail merge is skipped in favor of what had to be hours of hand-typing on photocopied letters.
But my bigger reason for posting was just because I laughed a lot when I got the letter. Hopefully some of you did too.
No sour grapes here - I am very happily putting my PhD to use with a great research non-profit and would strongly encourage anyone considering that route to go for it. I love my job and look forward to going to work every day! Its been 5 months and I still love it was much as I did on Day 1. No regrets.
Who needs a rejection letter? If you don't get invited for an interview and then get an offer letter, guess what? You didn't get the job! The SC can't tell you why you didn't get it.
Read Goffman's "On Cooling the Mark Out: Some Aspects of Adaptation to Failure"
I nee to vent about all you fucktards. The sense of entitlement on here is annoying. You do not deserve a job, you have to earn it and sometimes your best isn't good enough. There's a song about this.
I will not sing a chain gang song I will not walk the line The company store won't have my soul And l won't have his dime You could take my job and shove it If I just had one to give You could take my pain and love it But you won't know how I live
Here's an interesting twist on the rejection letter thread. About a month ago, I received a rejection letter from Michigan's business school. This week, a member of the faculty in my department received a letter from Michigan thanking him for writing a letter on my behalf. But I neither asked him to write a letter or indicate that he would, nor did he even write one. Riddle me that one, Batman!
I received a rejection letter from a department I had not applied to. Perhaps it was a preemptive strike? Just in case you thought about applying here...don't.
A colleague of mine just came back from an ACJS meeting and tells me that the school representatives were upset with the job candidate turnout at their employment exchange.
I hope those of you who have not landed on a job yet continue looking for a job. DON'T GIVE UP!! This might only apply to CRIM and CJ positions, but I think there are still schools out there desperately looking to hire.
Well to continue with praising thoughtful, non-dehumanizing, rejection letters, I just received a lovely rejection e-mail from the University of Mississippi. It was very thoughtful, and even personalized! It still sucks, but at least I felt like they appreciated the time and effort I put into applying.
"Employment Services at ESS has been cancelled due to the fact that not one employer has registered for the meeting. A sign of the economic times, I suppose, but this is a new one for us. I will shred any checks I have received. I apologize in advance and wish you well in your search for employment in these challenging time."
This ESS news is stark, although unsurprising news. Not having anyone interested in hiring PhDs should be a major concern for any academic discipline. There is a great deal of indifference, I suspect, amongst the higher ups in the ASA. Will there be a panel in San Francisco on what to do with the PhDs that our programs are minting?? The only thing that we can do, I guess, is 'bear down.'
A couple of recent posts raised the question of mysterious departmental letters going to applicants who didn't apply or to recommenders who didn't write a letter. The answer to the latter may be that the SC or a staffer mixed up the recommenders of two applicants from the same doctoral program, and thanked the writer for the wrong student applicant. The other problem, of getting a rejection letter when one didn't apply, might be the result of applicants asking for letters of recommendation and then deciding not to apply. Our SC noted letters arriving for applicants who had no file yet with any personal expression of interest in the position, and who never did apply. We inferred that the applicant must have given a list that recommenders followed more thoroughly than did the applicants themselves.
When applicant pools were more shallow, we might have contacted the applicant to inquire if they intended to apply, especially if the letters were enthusiastic. But a department may have thanked all "applicants," even those with an incomplete file.
i'm the one who was rejected for a job i did not apply for. in my case, i never even had that department on my radar but i did apply to another department in the same system. my guess is that one department forwarded their rejections to the other department for consideration.
Who knows where to download XRumer 5.0 Palladium? Help, please. All recommend this program to effectively advertise on the Internet, this is the best program!
What bothers me the most is the fact that whenever you apply for a job, they ask you for 3-5 recommendations in advance. It's hard to disturb others asking for recommendations when you don't even know whether your application was taken into account. I think it would be better to require recommendations only for the candidates that remain in the last stage of the selection process; at the beginning it would be enough only a list of people who could recommend you.
534 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 401 – 534 of 534It's normal for people in a competitive situation to "turn on each other" because each is an obstacle to the others' strivings. Competitors scramble for scarce resources and use whatever winning advantages they can muster -- pretty face, "diverse" skin color, old-boy recommendations, even personal scholarly achievement! Resentment builds when one sees others getting the prizes that "should have been ours." So then we can accuse the winners of unfair play, and we derogate the prizes itself --who wants to part of those stuffy, elite, faculties anyway!?
This competitive behavior is not unique to capitalism; you'll find it just as much (or worse) in, say, communist China's civil service and college exams, or in preindustrial competitions to become warlord or favorite son.
Does it then not make sense that competitors who are best at mobilizing their resources to win the tenure-track position then constitute departments of personalities for whom competition, resentment, and complaining ("venting") is normal behavior?
Now that's a thoughtful vent! But, alas, I am unemployed. Though, not resentful. Just... unemployed.
will things shut down for a couple of weeks now? can someone who has been through this nightmare before tell us what to expect?! thanks.
yes, having gone through this before, I can tell you that things will most definitely slack off for a couple weeks - including this blog. it was so frustrating last year! holiday spirit...yeah.
it will be quiet until after jan. 1
THANKS! all i want for christmas is a job.........
and your two front teeth? :-)
Merry Christmas everyone!
A PhD comic for us all:
http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive/phd122208s.gif
http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/archives/vol7no2/v7no2_Devlin.pdf
I think I'm in withdrawal. I'm so used to reading these boards.
2:26 -- shameless self promotion or something else?
Surely I'm not the only one who is deeply annoyed at the having to pay ASA's membership dues just to look at a paltry few job postings... I think the dues increased this year as well.
Deeply annoyed - yes! This was the first time I paid the membership as 'unemployed'. I've been unemployed in past, but this time it's hard to accept. A national award, sole-authored pubs, and having taught many courses obviously didn't help me this year. I'm lucky to have a partner who can pay the bills.
Yea, ASA claimed a "cost of living increase" in dues. I was sure grumpy when I paid the hefty dues to see three new jobs.
Yeah I also paid to see that there were exactly zero new jobs posted since the new year. How come the conference fee is so damn expensive for students and the unemployed, by the way? What exactly do I get for my ninety dollars except that handsome tote-bag with whatever hideous logo the ASA president's 10 year old kid apparently drew for the conference this year?
With the conference fee, the cost of my shared hotel room and flight, meals, cabs and incidentals (I always end up needing to shell out at least $100 for a new pair of suit pants, a dressy blouse, shoes...whatever) ASA ends up costing me about $1,000. That's out of an annual salary of about $10,000, mind you.
The conference bag last year was so terrible that i threw it away the minute i got it. at least in years past i could use it later for groceries. last years just sucked!
You don't HAVE to go to the conference, you know. I've punted it in previous years, as have people I know this past year, who were even on the job market. We mostly know that the job market circus there doesn't matter for much, other than unnecessary stress.
I've had much better experiences presenting, getting feedback, and meeting people at smaller, more specialized conferences, as well.
I agree that smaller conferences yield better feedback. On the other hand, the one job offer I got this year was from a department I met at ASA. The SC told me during the fly-out interview that they had been looking for my application packet after having such a positive ASA interview. They're a great department too, so don't totally toss out the conference benefits...
What's all the complaining about paying ASA dues? Many folks go to meetings not just for job information but for exchange of sociological knowledge, chatting with specialty peers, learning about teaching methods, seeing new books, speaking out at council and Section meetings, and other professional activities.
I agree that ASA is a necessary evil for the most part (in years to come, when I'm not crippled with job market stress and attendance doesn't suck up literally a tenth of my annual salary, I might even enjoy it...if only for the chance to see old friends from grad school.)
This year I also know that I got a fly-out interview because I did a sit-down with the school at the ASA job fair. The SC member that I met with at ASA actually emailed me personally before the application deadline to make sure I was still planning on applying, and then I got a fly out (probably solely because that SC member was really lobbying for me.) Unfortunately I didn't end up being the first choice candidate and I didn't get the job...so I guess it didn't get me very much in the end. Except, you know, having my hopes cruelly raised and then dashed.
I'll still go next year anyway, though, because with schools getting a few hundred applicants for each job, getting into the top three because someone remembered liking you during a face-to-face meeting really can improve your odds.
Yeah, that tote from last year was extra shitty. What was it made out of, paper pulp?
I also loved last year's slogan, "Worlds of Work." Being on the job market sure the hell made ASA FEEL like worlds of work. What would the slogan be for an ASA during one's second year on the job market, I wonder? "Worlds of Self-Loathing", "Infinite Suffering", "The New Politics of hahhahhahha YOU LOSE!"
I'm pretty sure the ASA conference themes are created by randomly selecting any 3 words out of the introduction to a sociology textbook.
"exchange of sociological knowledge" - hahahahaha!!!!! that's a good one!!!
i'm ready to smash my DGS in his fat fucking mouth
i hope there is a taxpayer's revolt against sociology and many of the tenured assholes have to go back out into the real world
10:44 Why exactly does your Director of Grad Studies need a fat fucking mouth smashing?
Re: 12:44
Uh, I have to say that I don't agree because that would mean we wouldn't get jobs either.
Don't most of the people on here want to get jobs?
If i don't get a job, i will look for work with a neoconservative think tank that wants to reform higher ed, and i will give them a very detailed report card on Sociology that can help with the taxpayer's revolt against this inherently useless and fraudulent discipline, and I think that tenure should be rid of because of the corruption and fraud that it perpetuates (many of the "ignorant masses" that you sociologists like to chide tend to agree with me)
"venting" please, not thoughtless ranting.
Found out I didn't get a job at an R1 that I interviewed at (non-sociology job). The person who did has been an assistant professor at an R1 for 4 years, with many publications, grants, awards, oh and did I mention received his Ph.D. at the same institution we both interviewed at. Like I even had a shot.
One of my advisors was good enough to remind me that, since I didn't get a job this year, by next year I'll look like I have been in grad school "too long," and that this might count against me on the job market. Great, thanks. That massive economic collapse? Apparently In addition to working my ass to finish all my PhD requirements while publishing and teaching full time, I should have put a little more effort into singlehandedly solving the sub-prime loan crisis.
10:03 - I don't think anyone cares how long you are in grad school. Of all the many reasons people are not getting jobs right now, that isn't one of them. I mean, I know it sucks to stay in school another year. But it won't really hurt your job chances.
random vent...
i applied for 51 jobs this year.
i was on 0 short lists.
i got 0 interviews.
i got 0 job offers.
without even getting in to have frustrating and emotionally draining and demoralizing this has been...i don't really know what went so wrong for me. so i'm really scared about doing it again next year. since i don't know what i did wrong, won't i just make those same mistakes again?
do i sound like an idiot in my cover letter? do my recommendations say i suck? is my research agenda unclear or not defined? do i come across like i hate teaching? do i just come across like a snotty bitch? I DON'T KNOW!!!
guess i got 9 months to figure it out...
I applied to 30something jobs this year.
I got 2 interviews, was already turned down for a job at one of them and probably wouldn't take a job at the second even if it were offered to me (which it most likely won't be,) because my campus visit was so bad. Was on at least one short list for a job that got cancelled.
Net result? Same as you 10:29. I doubt it has anything to do with you. The job market just went south and even teeny tiny rural SLACs got inundated with CVs from people with AJS publications.
Um...also, lower and mid-tier universities and colleges who snap up academic hotshots in a tight market might want to think about what'll happen with their new trophy hires when the market eases up. OR they might want to think about what it'll be like to work for the next 2-3 years with some pretentious douche who resents the fact that s/he was "made to settle" for a temporary job at Podunk U and broadcasts that fact at every possible opportunity.
You know, unless ya'll ENJOY going through the job search process every two years and putting up with sulking divas in the meantime.
10:35 - thanks. i'm sorry you fared the same as i did, but it does make me feel a litter better about doing this again. i appreciate it!
I think it's a tough call. I don't think everyone in that situation is a "diva". I've tried very hard in my job search to only apply to places that I would be willing to stay long-term. My knowledge of any given place is very limited, so it's often hard to tell what a place might be like.
In this market, though, it does make a sense to take a job if you get an offer. Of course, I haven't been offered a job, so I don't have to worry about the problem....
10:44: I've had similar thoughts, although I didn't think in terms of 'trophy hires,' but yes: I know I was passed over for fancier folks who everyone knows will be leaving in 2-3 yrs. Some depts are so prestige-hungry that they would rather have the short term gains of being associated with a Top 10 Hire (and his/her social networks) that they don't mind s/he will be keeping one foot out the door... What does that say about their feelings for their students? Sure, Top 10 'star hires' can still care abt students and teach from a particular school of thought, but there is something to be said for a longer term investment in an academic community.
Personally, I can't wait to dig in and really commit to a place and, unfortunately, that matters very little. I actually want to be at a (ranking-wise) 'bad' school to teach less privileged populations... I don't want to use them as a stepping stone.
Oh, and to add to the pile: 40 applications, eight cancellations/hiring freezes, three shortlists, two interviews, zero offers.
I agree! My "dream job" would be a place where I can settle in, develop good collaborative working relationships with my colleagues, and mentor students. Although I graduated from a "top department", I don't want my career to be at a place similar to where I went to graduate school because I think the environment placed competition for prestige over collaboration on research.
Of course, I don't have any job at all right now! But I did only apply to places I either knew I would stay at long-term or didn't have enough information about to know. And I did a couple of phone interviews where I learned enough to know that it wouldn't be a good permanent home for me so I declined to pursue my candidacy there. I still think that was the right thing to do, although I possibly could have gotten an offer from such a place.
On the flip side, when a department does hire someone they know will use the place as a stepping-stone and leave after a couple years, well, the kind of get what they deserve.
We at mid-tier universities do not want "sulking divas" (post 10:44), but do want to build up the intellectual quality of our programs by employing new colleagues who can do research and teach and are au courant with the field.
Any "sulking diva" should be forewarned that the job market is unlikely to improve enough to make it easy to move . Another department doesn't want a potential colleague who has already spent several years in a tenure-track position who who might abandon any new position just as readily.
The sulking diva who feels s/he is "slumming" at a lower-ranked school may get rejected for tenure or retention because of bad attitude. Then the diva will have to warble the Death March from Aida, because who will want to hire someone was was actually turned away by that unprestigious school, O shame of shames?!
Sulking Divas would be a good name for a band.
Do I have to have talent, or can I join right away? I'm really good at walking around demanding just the right kind of mineral water.
I need to vent: I'm very fortunate in that I've had some campus interviews and I still have a few more coming up. But I'm obsessing over one of the jobs. I interviewed there and am their #2 candidate and can't help but continue to think about whether or not the #1 choice will take the job or not. I don't know who it is, I don't know their situation, but every day I find myself trying to guess if they are going to take this job or turn it down. Anyone else out there trying to get into the minds of other, unknown job candidates? How do you let it go?
Re: 11:38
How do you know that you're the #2 choice? Did the search committee contact you? Did they promise to contact you if the #1 accepts?
Tha waiting sucks.
7:21 Indeed "The Sulking Divas" would be a fantastic band name. Featuring smash hits such as:
"I'm too good to be working here (nah nah nah)"
"You're just my Stepping Stone" (Monkees remix)
"I'm so much smarter than all of you (why can't you see that?)"
"Starter Job" (feat. T-Pain)
"I don't 'do' Committees (and I don't teach Intro)"
and that all time chart topper:
"Don't you wish you'd hired candidate #2 (instead of a douche like me?)" (radio version)
11:38 - i was also had an interview at a dream job location. I didn't get the offer and haven't heard anything for weeks. I was shattered when I didn't 'the' call. I will be for quite sometime. So close.... and I have no more interviews....
Yeah, I was in the same situation. One dream job interview--a great dept, great location, great people, and in a perfect site for my future research--it had everything, and I sat by the phone in agony for weeks waiting to hear. And I didn't get it. I had a miserable Christmas and I'm still so heartbroken I feel like I just got dumped.
Nothing to do but get ready to go through the same shit again next year.
3:08pm, well played!
Instead of "Sulking Divas," how about some sociological terms for disgruntled ambitious new faculty stuck in Disappointment Land?
-- the Latent Dysfunctions?
-- Lumpenproletariat Taking Their Lumps?
-- Regression to the Meanies?
-- An Office in Heartbreak Hotel?
6:11. I had exactly the same situation. I felt like it was way worse than getting dumped because it feels like a statement on your life's work. I'm so sorry.
Thanks 10:08. I think I literally spent all of December and half of January crying (and single handedly ruined Christmas for my entire family with my watery eyes and red swollen face.) Still, logging onto this site and reading the bitter lamentations of fellow soc job market roadkill actually helps somehow.
We should have a secret hand signal so we can recognize each other at ASA, or maybe a "Rumor Mill Roadkill" ribbon (black, of course)
The "Rumor Mill Roadkill Ribbon" cracks me up. Cheers for maintaining a sense of humor!
I'm totally in for the black ribbon. Love it.
Maybe we can co-opt the conference theme. "The New Politics of Unemployment"..."The New Politics of I'll Kiss Ass for a Job"...
black ribbon is a hilarious idea.
not that I didn't know this was the case, but it was reinforced this week -
someone who is a prof at an Ivy League school is coming to give a talk (not a job talk, just a regular talk) at my university. His/her CV got sent around to the dept earlier this week (standard practice). I looked to see what this person needed to get a job at their esteemed university when he/she was on the job market. Started his/her job earlier this decade, at an Ivy League school, with a single working paper (published in a working paper series). One working paper. Yes, he/she has had a great career since, with books, articles, grants etc. But still.
ONE working paper.
How the bar has been ramped up.
8.08, having been on both sides of this, I can say that we have interviewed people with great records on paper who came in and revealed their work to be mind numbingly boring and have interviewed people with only some diss chapters to their name who blew the department away with their ideas/potential. With tenure, it is always open to departments to take a chance on someone 'unproven' if they seem strong enough. Departments are also looking to get in ahead of other departments and snap people up. So these things happen.
Overall though having publications (especially when not in a purely RA capacity) is going to help enormously. Also, it is pretty clear the bar has been raised. On top of that, supply and demand are increasingly out of sync, due to the financial crisis etc. So you are right that things are tougher than they used to be. But departments will still be willing to overlook lack of publications among finishing PhD students along as the written work is brilliant enough, the talk stimulating and the fit good. Your Ivy League working paper-writer seems to have proved the department's judgment correct in this case.
8:08 here, thanks for your comment 1:22. I don't begrudge him/her the job, and am glad that the opportunity was given to prove oneself through their interesting work. And yes, the supply/demand of jobs is horrifically skewed, especially this year (and most likely next as well).
I would only hope that said Ivy League university would, in 2008/2009, still be willing to look at someone with a few good dissertation chapters, or maybe a few co-authored publications, and without at least one single-authored publication in a top journal and/or an advance book contract. But the experiences of me and 90% of my fellow graduate students on the market (have talked with friends at different universities across the country, doing lots of interesting and exciting work), has not been this.
But again, thank you for your thoughtful response.
NOTICE TO SEXUALLY-HARASSING TENURED PROFESSORS: WE ARE COMING FOR YOU!
-scathing critiques
-sexual harassment? we have files of people across the country (including Wisconsin, Berkeley, Cornell, Harvard)
-A "take back the night" at the next ASA where we name names? Maybe.
Be prepared.
I'm intrigued... what's this about? Who's being/has been sexually harassed?
Is it possible that the Committee to Uncover Sexual Harassment is the same as the Committee to Uncover Fraud by Tenured Professors?
Hey, whatever helps a person blow off some steam.
I think that sexual harassment at all levels of academia is a real and serious problem. I know that SWS (Sociologists for Women in Society) has a task force on sexual harassment and helps both female professors and students deal with the issue. I wonder if the previous poster has been in contact with SWS? I think it's a good idea to continue to build good documentation.
I would say that this issue is much more serious than blowing off steam. It is real, and has profound effects on students. I might differ with the original poster on strategy, but I agree with the intent.
I'm sure the sexual harrassment poster is the same joker that posted about having discovered data holes in top sociologists' papers. This person is a joke. Please don't feed the trolls.
Sexual harassment is RAMPANT.
3 of the 4 women on the market in my dept have gone to interviews where something that made them uncomfortable happened (like being asked on a date by a faculty member)...by like in any situation, you don't press charges against your potential employers even after you go back to your hotel room in tears
huh - that's never happened to any of my female friends on the market. and during the 5 interviews i've had, its never happened to me.
weird.
need to vent here: I'm waiting to hear word from my 1 campus interview. I guess I was lucky in that position, of the 51 (!) that I applied for, was my top choice, with a great fit and good location. Also, it is making the wait excruciating even more than it would be normally. I got word that they were very impressed at my visit and the committee has since inquired to my chair to confirm I will finish. Good signs, I know. But 4 people visited, and as much as I like myself, I am sure I'm not much different than the other 3. I Should know something be next week; I totally everyone's pain. I will be crushed if I don't get this. Indicators that the market will be worse next year only make me feel like if I don't get this 1 I will never be employed. :(
Thanks for everyone's comments. It is nice in a weird way to know others are suffering alongside you. If you see me with a black lapel ribbon at ASA next year you'll be in on the joke!
For the record:
51 jobs applied to (a lot of postage)
3 short lists
3 phone interviews
1 campus interview
What happens if you are at a very bad (lowest of the low ranked) dept. but did really well with publishing and professional accomplishment?
i WILL wear the black ribbon at ASA. if you see me with it, please come shake my hand.
which is not to say i struck out this year. i oddly managed to land my name on a few lists and garner a few offers. but that has made this no less gloomy...
...the whole process has taught me a few things. some from my own experience, and some from my colleagues on the market. first, kissing ass matters. if you have a professor to kiss ass on your behalf, that matters even more. the small handful of people from my department who have gotten job offers have all had professors kissing a lotta ass on their behalf. if you don't have a professor willing to kiss on your behalf, start now and scope out places you'd like to work. pick an assistant professor there and email him/her out of the blue to compliment his/her work. after a few emails, suggest a collaboration. take on most of the work and settle for second authorship. and this time next year, you'll have someone on the inside kissing ass on your behalf. yup, seen that work.
second, department prestige doesn't mean shit. i'm at a top-5 department and the majority of folks on the market here have not gotten jobs. SCs don't care whether you're from berkeley or southern northeast texas state. don't even think about trying to coast on your department name.
which brings me to...publications are king. and little things matter. being first author is very different than being second author. change your last name to "aaaabeck" so those pubs where authorship is decided alphabetically land you first. you must publish as a sole or first author. its better to be first at a low journal than third at AJS. trust me on that. send every piece of shit article you have stewing out to someone.
fourth, you are wasting your time applying for jobs if you have not scheduled a defense date. you are up against people who have finished the PhD, are post-docs and assistant professors. as soon as a SC hears "ABD" they think "not gonna finish". don't waste your time on teaching, mentoring, whatever. just get the damn dissertation done.
finally, outsource! write that kick-ass cover letter and then pay a poor english grad student (whose job market prospects are worse than yours) $50 to edit it. make it stuffy and arrogant; that shit sells. don't afraid to say that you're the most awesome thing to hit sociology in fifty years. you are! sell it. talk about that $5 million NSF you're working on. oh, yea!
----
PS: odd random things matter. and here i'm being totally serious. if you've done some research, taught some class, been involved in some service, if it matters to you, go ahead and mention it. all but one of the interview i got were heavily influenced by seemingly random things i included in my cover letter (experience leading a high school sociology club, fluency in an african language, leading college field trips to a prison, etc).
at the end of the day, you are interviewing them as much as they are interviewing you. and if they like some particular unique aspect of your background, you're probably gonna like them too.
best of luck to everyone.
look for the black ribbon.
I shall be wearing a black ribbon at ASA myself...but I am greatly heartened by the news of Obama's big education stimulus that just landed on the front page of the NYTimes. Biggest edu investment since WWII...I;m crossing my fingers that it passes and that it helps.
What's with rejection letters that actually name who they've hired and go on to tell me how happy they are with their choice, how great he is and even list a couple of his accomplishments? I mean, not even a "thank you for applying," just a "it was a hard decision but we are happy to have so and so join us, blahblahblah?"
wow, someone did that? how tacky!!
that's fucked up and unethical...we all have google and know how to click on the faculty link
I've gotten two rejection letters that named the person they hired. I think they tried to at least say "thanks for applying," but I can't recall since I recycled those long ago.
Indiana University-Bloomington (crim) did that.
That rejection letter may be telling you what you'd be curious about anyway. It's more informative than the usual "So many wonderful applicants.." rejection which doesn't tell you anything you beieve or want to know.
Knowing who was the position winner might give you a clue about where you lost out, or perhaps how that department wanted someone you're not -- lucky for you!
IU is a terrible dept full of careerist jerks...wouldn't want to go there.
If I was interested in knowing who they've decided to hire, google would suffice.
Going on and on about how great he is and how happy they are is basically rubbing it in.
"Thank you for applying, sorry you didnt get it" is not nearly as bad as that.
I prefer indifference over gloating.
Not to mention the fact that the candidate(s) must be really embarrassed!
I cannot believe the crap options that I have left. ARRRGH.
Good article on surplus PHDs in Humanities, in Chron Higher Education in late January..."Graduate School in the Humanities...Just Don't Go." It explains how personality, values, and institutional self-interest lead to a surplus of aspiring but non tenure-track -employable faculty wanna-bes.
Tulane's rejection letter is the tackiest of all the rejection letters I have received.
Here's the problem with being an unemployed sociologist. If you were just like everyone else and bought into the myth of meritocracy, you could blame yourself for not getting a job and take Prozac to cope just like everybody else does.
But you know better--you know too much for your own good, in fact. You took graduate seminars in social theory. You learned that capitalism was unfair, but that as an academic, that was something you didn't have to deal with. Well, now after six months of unsucessful job searches (inside and outside of academia), you start applying Marxist critiques to academia and to the non-academic research world. You realize that the system--not you--is the reason you haven't gotten a job. And what good does blaming the system do you? After all, so much of sociology is about how we don't have any agency and that structure determines what happens to us. Maybe it would be better to just buy into meritocracy and take the Prozac...
well...maybe...i didn't get a job because i'm not as well published as other candidates. so, yea. it was me, really.
9:11,
Sure, it may have felt low to be rejected by the "Secretary in Sociology", but it was a hand signed rejection from the secretary, which is super-classy. They do lose points for not including a stamped envelope for the applicant information with which we were graciously provided, though.
Off topic,
I heard that tulane cancelled their grad/PhD program... is that true?
Anyone else who had an interview and hasnt heard from them feels like when a person gives you the cold shoulder after a first date?
We went out together, laughed together, shared and felt some solidarity towards one another as we talked about the difficulties of academia, the job market, etc. It really felt nice, especially since they seemed so interested.
And now, here I sit, waiting for a phone call after 10 days, hoping really hard that when they said "you should hear from us within 2 weeks" they really meant "in two weeks" or "after two weeks," which is getting harder and harder to do, given that I was the last one interviewed. And I wonder if they really meant the things they said about me, if the interest was genuine, if anyone will ever make me feel that (academically) desirable again.
Does the fact that only about half of the people I sent "thank you" notes to even replied mean anything? Was I too forthcoming, thinking of themselves as colleagues, when we shared funny stories about the job market, teaching, and academia in general? Was it wrong on my part to feel so comfortable there that I didn't even object about some of the illegal questions they asked during dinner (about partner, kids, etc.)? Were they really that comfortable with me that they told me about their problems with the school administration after they had a glass of wine at dinner, or was it all just a test to see how I reacted? And if it was a test, what was the right answer? Should I have demonstrated more sympathy towards their fight against the administration? Or were they testing me to see if I could live with an administration like that?
Now, I know that in a world where there are more candidates than jobs, some of us will end the year empty handed. But I don't get why the process has to be so cruel and secretive. I mean, don't wine and dine a candidate and pretend to be friendly only to ignore them completely afterwards. And would it be too difficult to make the post interview process more of a two way street? Last time around it was 2 months before being let down. This time the deadline is fast approaching. Would it hurt to say "you are #2 - or 3 or 4, whatever- on our list and we are waiting for a response from the person we offered the job to?" Or at least to say "we are meeting on such and such week, if you don't hear from us then, its because we chose to go another direction?" Brutal honesty works better than a "you will hear from us soon" that turns into never.
The professional world outside academia is tough but at least they are upfront about it. No feigned interest, no informal meetings, and when they dont want you, they let you know straight away.
The process is already difficult enough for people to feign interest and sympathy only to dump someone without even a "thanks."
9:03
Hang in there. Sometimes it takes a while for the Dean and Provost to sign off on an offer. 10 days is a long wait for you (given the tough market), but for the administration, it's probably too soon.
Good luck, though. I hope you get the offer.
Pittsburg sent possibly the ugliest rejection letter. First, they couldn't be bothered to use actual letterhead. No, they write the letter on letterhead and then copy it on crappy thin white paper. But the best is that some pool sap then had to take all those xeroxed rejection letter and type - on a typewriter (!) - the names and addresses to send them to. Mine was all off-center with some wacky punctuation like a period after my first name and a comma after my middle initial.
Oh, and they spelled my name wrong. And they mis-spelled the name of the state I live in. And they mis-spelled the work "Department".
Makes me so very glad I didn't get that job. Can you imagine working somewhere where the department chair thinks that's the most effective way to send out rejection letters? I know a mail merge is tough the first time you do it, but really...
Grapes, meet Sour
Sour called, it wants its Grapes back
fuck.
Those who are complaining about errors in rejection letters and delays in being informed of decisions (or apparent rudeness) should try some role-taking. Departments are overwhelmed by a wave of applications, often hundreds for one job. A small, already busy, office staff cannot always track applications, get the spelling right, have the type of stationery you prefer, and so forth.
Faculty are under legal constraints about what they can tell you, and when, and why you were not selected. Maybe it makes you feel better to displace aggression on those people, but from an insider's stance, I can say it's not so much capitalism or arrogance as sheer bureaucracy -- which will be an obstacle in ANY department where you do get a position.
Holy crap, when will people stop policing what others say in a VENT thread? Isnt VENTING what a vent thread is all about? And it is specially disconcerting when SC members come here to talk about how rough they have it. Care to switch with any of those either unemployed or adjuncting for minimal pay? THAT is precisely the sort of arrogance people refer to around here: SC members getting so caught up in their own obligations that they cannot even empathize with the applicants.
In any case, proofreading, doing a mail merge, and sending out a letter is certainly not that hard, given how many that do so in an adequate manner.
Letters that are photocopied, letters that are rude, letters that are sloppy, letters that in no way acknowledge the efforts of the applicant, but instead praise the candidate who did get it are all awful.
Even worse are the places who do not even contact those rejected, especially those who interviewed, after a confirmed hire.
Give me an excel file with the name of all applicants and a word file with a 2 paragraph letter that basically says "thanks for applying, applicants were great, sorry you didnt get it, good luck" and I will have 200 perfectly adequate rejection letters ready within the hour.
I agree with 1:53--this is a venting forum. Maybe it will be easier for all of us to empathize with the hard work that faculty members and department secretaries have to do in their search processes when we actually have our own jobs. For now, we are un- or under-employed and need to reach out to others like us so we can cope with our gloomy realties. It's difficult for us to be cheerful when most of us have spent 7+ years doing graduate work, all the while thinking that it was worth it because we were carving out our own space in academia. I feel cheated out of my opportunity to shine, and demoralized due to the bleak projections for next year. I was really excited to start living the life I've always dreamed of, and now I have to put it off even longer and pray that my moment will come. I'm so sorry you are all in this position as well. None of us deserves this--good luck to you all.
i can't help but think that 1:39 is from Pitt, the land of photocopied rejection letters.
Lately, I've been having a lot of regrets about what I chose to do with my life. I love sociology, but had I known I might not actually be able to be what I set out to be, I might have chosen to do something else. Right now I'm sure my department is telling admitted grad students that they can complete the program in 5 years and then go onto a tenure- track faculty job at (insert the name of any top 40 department). Most of these new students probably don't know that it will take more like 6-7 years to complete the program, at which time they'll discover that not only can't they get a tt job but that their prospects for a non-academic research position are equally bleak because, like tt jobs, there are just too few positions and too many qualified people. That's when the faculty will change their tunes and tell the students that the only way they can get a job is to get a postdoc. At that point, the student will wonder whether a postdoc will really change their chances of getting a job, or whether it's just another false promise designed to perpetuate the academic labor system. Sound familiar?
Sometimes I think about how if had I purused any other career, I could have actually been what I set out to be. There's no doubt in my mind that if I had gone to law school, I would have actually been a lawyer. Had I gotten a degree in education, I don't think anyone would have denied me a job as a teacher. Heck, I could've completed med school and a residency by now--and I'm sure there would have been some job waiting for me when I was done. Only being a sociology professor was unattainable. Most of us are extremely bright and talented people that could have done anything with our lives. I shutter when I think about how much talent society has lost to the false promise of an academic career in sociology. There's some suggested research on sociologists and sociology to send to ASA...
jeesh, this is the vent forum, not have a big 'ol pity party for ourselves forum. i know people in the federal government with phds in sociology and they are living the live of riley. i know people in the private sector with phds in sociology and it is the same story. however, i must say, with your attitude, you are most suited for academia, with all the other pathetic cruds who have never spent a day in the real world and who squabble over the most ridiculous things.
To 5:32: I am one of the pity-party posters. I have been in the "real world" since the late 1980's. I decided I wanted more out of life than working in secretary pools and restaurants, so I went back to school (while working full-time jobs in and outside of academia and taking care of my family) in the mid 90's and I have been there EVER SINCE. I have worked hard in academia, I'm tired, and I want a position that I love and I deserve. I have maintained a positive attitude and have done everything I can to make lemonade out of lemons during my search process. I just wanted to express my frustration to others in the same boat and you won't even let me have that. If you don't want to hear pitiful sob-stories about job searching, don't read the posts. What does venting mean to you anyway? Is it when people write posts with swear words and vow revenge on academia? I think it's perfectly appropiate to pity ourselves in this section--including the people who have never spent a day in the real world.
Rejected applicants and everyone else have the right to post and vent whatever they wish. Trying to show you the other side of the interaction is not to "police" your comments. A rejection letter with errors or delays doesn't mean that you are not valued in the discipline, nor that you were rejected with a casual or disdainful attitude on the part of the hiring faculty. (And how would it make you feel better to believe that?)
Good preparation for your eventual faculty position should include an accurate perception of how committees, department offices, and administrative policies actually work. You'll find that out someday, so why not now?
"A rejection letter with errors or delays doesn't mean that you are not valued in the discipline, nor that you were rejected with a casual or disdainful attitude on the part of the hiring faculty."
I don't know about being valued in the discipline or not.
But rejection letters with errors, or photocopied, or whatever most definitely indicates a casual or disdainful attitude on the part of the hiring faculty.
And most of us here are very familiar with the obligations of the hiring faculty. Many of us have probably witnessed that taking place. Saying "oh, poor hiring committe, their job is SO HARD" is really poor form.
Most, if not all of us, have received a large share of rejection letters (since I dont know anyone who is 1 for 1 in job applications), so we have a fairly large frame of reference when it comes to them. Here. people have been venting about the most outrageous ones. We think they are outrageous because we can actually compare them to non-outrageous ones. We think they are outrageous because we know that writing a letter of rejection and doing a mail merge takes less than thirty minutes. We think they are outrageous because we know quite well what would happen to our chances of getting a job somewhere if our cover letters contained the same amount of misspellings and wrong names.
And I find it funny, to say the least, that you are so concerned about getting the plight of the incompetent hiring committee out there. After all, it is a perspective that actually dominates academia.
It is the voice of the person who is not considered worthy of even a 5 minute phone call after spending days preparing for an interview, and then actually doing the presentations for the interview, all for free, that needs to be heard.
"Good preparation for your eventual faculty position should include an accurate perception of how committees, department offices, and administrative policies actually work."
And a good part of that preparation is actually knowing that 10 to fifteen minutes spent proof reading a rejection letter, or calling the interviewees that didnt get the job, goes a long way in establishing the professionalism of the faculty. We already know quite well the work that goes on both sides of a hiring decision. Making excuses for those who don't have the decency of even writing a personalized email to someone who spent several days preparing for an interview doesnt add any knowledge about how to be an adequate faculty member. Making excuses for someone who thinks that proof reading a one page letter is below them doesnt add any knowledge about how to be an adequate faculty member. In fact, it perpetuates douchebaggery.
So by pointing out the most egregious cases of disrespect from hiring committees, these vents can actually improve the process in some way.
1:21, extremely well said. Down with douchebaggery in academia!
Focusing on the etiquette by which you are rejected is a distraction from the real problems of the job market. It's like picking on your partner's grammar mistakes when you're having a fight about some serious issue.
There seems to be a disagreement here about what is normative in the style and processing of rejection letters or phone calls. Earlier there were posts about doctoral students from elite universities (with large office staffs and faculty size) now having to apply to smaller, underfunded colleges (with few office staff, less mailing sophistication, and overworked faculty) -- the "Sulking Diva" as a poster cleverly put it. No wonder that some applicants are shocked at what would be poor style or "disrespect" in their own more affluent department.
That discrepancy is just one of the many shocks these applicants would encounter if they HAD gotten the position at the campus with fewer resources at every turn.
9:23
reread the specific places that have been named: tulane, pitt, unnamed top schools. None of them exactly small and underfunded. So it is not an issue of sulking divas.
Furthermore, talking about etiquette does tell us about the larger job market picture as a whole, which is the devaluing of job candidates throughout all ranks of departments. And I would bet that how poorly job candidates are treated is probably highly correlated with how adjuncts are treated, and maybe even with how assistant professors are treated.
Is there "a devaluing of job candidates through all ranks of departments?" There is a buyers' market this year, which could produce a devaluation of any single applicant because of the oversupply of them. But what about at the top end of candidates who do get the offers-- are salary offers and startup packages worse than usual too? I'm hearing about generous salary packages, released time, positions for spouses, lab and travel funds.
Maybe supply-and-demand doesn't apply to the top end, which instead is more like courtship: competing departments throw themselves at the "one and only" applicant for whom there is no substitute from the many "other fish in the sea."
And how is the market affected by the fact that each applicant is applying to many more positions than in former years -- a devaluation of departments by not showing any preference or favorites among them? The mass application style does create the impression that there are more candidates on the market than is true. A department might think that there are three times as many applicants as usual, but in fact it's the same cohort size just applying to thrice as many positions.
Could everyone please lighten up re: the rejection letters?? These letters are sent by department secretaries who are overworked and underpaid MUCH more so than even the most put-upon grad students.
Public university budgets have basically gone down the toilet over the past 2 years. Money spent on bond paper letterhead means money NOT spent on hiring new faculty or TAs.
Sorry that you got lame-ass rejection letters, but that DOESN'T mean that the SC gave your file a full and thorough review.
Oops - mistyped 4:23. That doesn't mean that the SC *failed* to give your file a thorough and fair review. They probably did. They just didn't have the time or money to send a hand-calligraphied rejection letter. Sorry.
and what is the excuse for the departments who never get back to even those who interviewed there?
By the way, while secretaries are in charge of making the copies and mailing them out, I severely doubt they are the ones who make the decisions as to when to send them out, or the decisions as to what to include in them.
This is not a "job candidate vs the secretary" vent, and if the head of the search committee is delegating all these things to the secretary, it is another sign of how unprofessional they are.
And I say this as someone who would write letters of rejection in my part time job in the graduate school.
I am leaving academia, and thus noticing just how bad academia is. We sociologists write all this crap about inequality, unequal opportunities, abuses of power and so on on the 'corporate world" but we so completely neglect the academic world, which is oh so much worse.
Quick comparison:
academic job search: unclear job posting, vague specialty description. 2 months to be contacted to schedule interview. Interview full of illegal questions, people dozing off during job talk, clear division in department over who to hire, so that half the people are openly aggressive towards me, half are ultra defensive of me. Consistent name dropping all around. Get back home, 2 months later I still have not been reimbursed or received anything from them. Search committee chair did not even reply to my thank you note.
Corporate world, private research company: Job posting clearly delineated all responsibilities. Notice of interview one week later. Interview another week later, all expenses paid upfront. interview concise, upfront about needs and expectations, no illegal questions, no ego stroking, no vilification of differing points of view. Person responsible for search replied to thank you note and actually provided feedback. Told that they would have an answer in one week. Had answer in four days.
Adviser "sad that I am not going to put degree to good use," I bought a house, spouse is pregnant, and I dont have to worry about tenure. The above examples are probably extremes, but I cant imagine anyone in the corporate world getting away with fuzzy job postings and stringing candidates along for 3 or 4 months.
I agree with the letter stuff- I have the feeling that it is an indication of the kind of department you applied to...
That said, instead of just complaining about the bad ones, I think I would like to point out a good one. St. Olaf College in Minnesota- best damn rejection letter I've ever received. I know they're not R1 and prestigious and everything, but if I were to go off of that letter it really seems like the kind of place that I would enjoy working.
I second the thoughts on St. Olaf's letter. I received it today and I think that I will keep it as a model for rejecting candidates in the future. By the way, St. Olaf is a top-50 liberal arts school, so I wouldn't knock their prestige.
Well all. I got a job! I did! I applied for 56ish. I got ZERO phone interviews and ONE campus visit. One was all I needed. There is still hope.
Congratulations 8:51! I need that glimmer of hope--I still have apps out in places where they haven't started reviewing yet. I made the mistake of reading old Chronicle articles about the search process--one person wrote an article called "Six Times is a Charm", detailing his/her six-year search process. Eeeeeeek! Hopefully that won't be our fate as well. I'm so glad you were able to land a job--please cross your fingers for the rest of us!
Lack of decent rejection letters (or even receiving one at all) can be an indication of the dept culture. Our SC chair didn't send any out (and seemed baffled at the suggestion when I mentioned it).
The dept secretary's duties are determined by the chair. If rejection letters are a priority, the chair needs to reduce the priority of other jobs. If the dept chair doesn't care, you can figure out what the letters will look like.
I'm the one who posted about the really awful Pitt rejection. Having received 40+ rejection letters, I promise you it was far and away the worst! And yes, I do think that it probably says something about a department's resources when a 30-minute mail merge is skipped in favor of what had to be hours of hand-typing on photocopied letters.
But my bigger reason for posting was just because I laughed a lot when I got the letter. Hopefully some of you did too.
No sour grapes here - I am very happily putting my PhD to use with a great research non-profit and would strongly encourage anyone considering that route to go for it. I love my job and look forward to going to work every day! Its been 5 months and I still love it was much as I did on Day 1. No regrets.
Who needs a rejection letter? If you don't get invited for an interview and then get an offer letter, guess what? You didn't get the job! The SC can't tell you why you didn't get it.
Read Goffman's "On Cooling the Mark Out: Some Aspects of Adaptation to Failure"
oh my gosh, did you just tell a bunch of sociology PhDs to read Goffman? Seriously??
Sheesh.
Go back yourself and read Presentation of Self if you need a reminder that things like rejection letters and how they are written do mean something.
I nee to vent about all you fucktards.
The sense of entitlement on here is annoying. You do not deserve a job, you have to earn it and sometimes your best isn't good enough. There's a song about this.
so what are you gonna do now?
What would the best song titles be for this forum?
"Take this Job and Shove It"
"Born to Lose (I've Lived My Life in Vain)"
"Don't You Feel Like Crying?"
"Eve of Destruction"
"On the Road Again"
"Hey, Mr. Postman, Won't You Look and See?" (if there's a letter - o yeah -- in your bag for me)
I will not sing a chain gang song
I will not walk the line
The company store won't have my soul
And l won't have his dime
You could take my job and shove it
If I just had one to give
You could take my pain and love it
But you won't know how I live
Here's an interesting twist on the rejection letter thread. About a month ago, I received a rejection letter from Michigan's business school. This week, a member of the faculty in my department received a letter from Michigan thanking him for writing a letter on my behalf. But I neither asked him to write a letter or indicate that he would, nor did he even write one. Riddle me that one, Batman!
I received a rejection letter from a department I had not applied to. Perhaps it was a preemptive strike? Just in case you thought about applying here...don't.
A colleague of mine just came back from an ACJS meeting and tells me that the school representatives were upset with the job candidate turnout at their employment exchange.
I hope those of you who have not landed on a job yet continue looking for a job. DON'T GIVE UP!! This might only apply to CRIM and CJ positions, but I think there are still schools out there desperately looking to hire.
Well to continue with praising thoughtful, non-dehumanizing, rejection letters, I just received a lovely rejection e-mail from the University of Mississippi. It was very thoughtful, and even personalized! It still sucks, but at least I felt like they appreciated the time and effort I put into applying.
From the ESS Employment Service:
"Employment Services at ESS has been cancelled due to the fact that not one employer has registered for the meeting. A sign of the economic times, I suppose, but this is a new one for us. I will shred any checks I have received. I apologize in advance and wish you well in your search for employment in these challenging time."
This ESS news is stark, although unsurprising news. Not having anyone interested in hiring PhDs should be a major concern for any academic discipline. There is a great deal of indifference, I suspect, amongst the higher ups in the ASA. Will there be a panel in San Francisco on what to do with the PhDs that our programs are minting?? The only thing that we can do, I guess, is 'bear down.'
A couple of recent posts raised the question of mysterious departmental letters going to applicants who didn't apply or to recommenders who didn't write a letter. The answer to the latter may be that the SC or a staffer mixed up the recommenders of two applicants from the same doctoral program, and thanked the writer for the wrong student applicant. The other problem, of getting a rejection letter when one didn't apply, might be the result of applicants asking for letters of recommendation and then deciding not to apply. Our SC noted letters arriving for applicants who had no file yet with any personal expression of interest in the position, and who never did apply. We inferred that the applicant must have given a list that recommenders followed more thoroughly than did the applicants themselves.
When applicant pools were more shallow, we might have contacted the applicant to inquire if they intended to apply, especially if the letters were enthusiastic. But a department may have thanked all "applicants," even those with an incomplete file.
i'm the one who was rejected for a job i did not apply for. in my case, i never even had that department on my radar but i did apply to another department in the same system. my guess is that one department forwarded their rejections to the other department for consideration.
Did not get Mellon Fellowship. POOP.
I'm sorry 6:15! The job search is so frustrating this year!
Harvard kids having a public feud:
http://profile.blogspot.com/2004/06/body-background-colorblack-body.html
Ellie Powell Harvard Yale
what about those wonderful depts. who still havent refunded travel expenses 2 months after the interview, and have not replied to emails either?
Know why you're all unemployed? Sociology is worthless bullshit.
Who knows where to download XRumer 5.0 Palladium?
Help, please. All recommend this program to effectively advertise on the Internet, this is the best program!
What bothers me the most is the fact that whenever you apply for a job, they ask you for 3-5 recommendations in advance. It's hard to disturb others asking for recommendations when you don't even know whether your application was taken into account. I think it would be better to require recommendations only for the candidates that remain in the last stage of the selection process; at the beginning it would be enough only a list of people who could recommend you.
Post a Comment