From what I understand, Rice was pushing those on their short list to make sure all their letters of rec were on file (in the event that one or more was missing).
Regarding the 'what qualifies as a short list' question. My impression is that a long list are candidates that are being contacted for phone interviews, approx 7-15 people. Short lists are 3-4 candidates that are flown out for interviews.
On the topic of Rice and whether they had an inside candidate. I doubt that is the case. At many schools review begins well before the deadline (this is the case at my R1). They still read the apps that come in the day before the deadline but by that time they've already reviewed the apps that came in previous weeks. This allows them to act quickly after the deadline. I think getting apps in early may be to our advantage.
If Rice is only asking people for piece of their application package that should have been sent in the first place, I wouldn't take that as a sign that they even have a long list.
i have to agree with the previous post. asking for materials is a good sign, but doesn't necessarily mean they have a short list. committees will go through may lists; it's the final short list that matters (ie, probably a list of 5 apps, with 3 clear top choices). those top 3 are the folks who get asked to visit.
Rice's email didn't just ask for more materials or for missing parts of the application. It explicitly stated that the recipient was on the short list.
Here's a proposal for those of us that did the ASA employment service:
Keep track of the applications that you send to schools you interviewed with in NYC. That way we can collect data on the actual effects of these interviews.
I'm sending apps to 8 schools I interviewed with. Let's see what happens!
IUP just notified me that my application is complete with what they wanted from me. If I am correct, this should be the second notice from the department. I don't know what this means when the deadline passed over a month ago. Interesting.
I received snail mail from Rice that acknowledging receipt of my application. No EEOO info was requested. According to their website, they are generating a short list, but that was updated a week ago.
IUP also notified me that all my materials were received.
Wow, schools are moving VERY fast! I haven't heard from Chicago or Rice. The same people have prob been shortlisted for both (as well as Berkeley...), right?. Is it just me or should I not have bothered without a SF/AJS/ASR sole pub???
there is an interesting thread developing in the "pass the time" forum about the whole SF/ASR/AJS issue. apparently social forces doesn't have a very high impact factor anymore (based on citations). however, i think it still has that residual "wow" factor.
"University of Chicago has asked for additional materials"
Also, if possible I'd like to know a bit more about the circumstances of the request, such as- is this a person who sent in one writing sample and so they are asking for another one or two, or is this is a person who already sent in 3 writing samples [which may be a better indicator that this person is being shortlisted]?
As someone who has sat on searches before, trust me, they will not ask you for more materials unless they are interested. If they aren't interested, they don't care if your file is not complete.
We go on your cover letter and CV; typically we won't read the rest of your stuff unless we are interested.
The exception may be schools who have to comply with HR departments' requests for complete files on all applicants.
Thanks. I understood that to be the case. What I was trying to figure out is that, Chicago asked for a "small sample of written." One applicant may have sent in 3 papers, another one paper. So the question: does the fact that Chicago asked some for more information imply that they are not interested in those they didn't ask, or could they be interested in both of these hypothetical people but don't feel the need to contact the one who already sent 3 papers in until they move to the short list phase?
I specifically asked my advisor (a wise old well-connected sociologist) if I should bother applying to open searches in the top 10. Hu said No. And not because I don't have pubs ( I do, two sole-authored) or grants or "potential." Hu said the the Top 10 watch each other closely. They all want the "Next Big Person in X" where X is an established field (ie. organizations, race/class/gender, stratification, methods). My particular field of expertise, while rigorous, is not only cutting edge but it's also fairly interdisciplinary. Hu said that I fall into the category of "intellectually deviant" (see Zuckerman). If I can't be snugly placed into a well-defined category, then no one on a search committee will likely go to bat for me. To break out of this illegitimacy, I have to have a sole-authored in a Top Journal (yes, AJS, ASR, or SF) and a whole lot of Buzz in the networks.
Since neither of my two pubs is in AJS/ASR/SF and I'm intellectually deviant (a phrase that really does crack me up), I didn't bother applying to open searches in the Top 10. It seemed like a waste of my time.
Hu did tell me something I'd heard before: depts that are looking to move up in the rankings are far more likely to take chances on the intellectually deviant. So I applied to lower-ranked R1s and tried to generate as much Buzz there as I could.
It's unclear to me how much of this is true for highly ranked SLACs. I'd appreciate hearing any of your thoughts about this.
Lastly, I completely understand the adage: you won't know unless you apply.
I guess my philosophy was to shoot for the moon. It might be a waste of my time to apply to the top 10, but how much time does it really take? You've already got all of the materials prepped.
10:28: No problem. Again, I'm not sure that it means anything. There could be twenty others that got requests for chapters. I'm trying to be cautiously optimistic.
9:36 - from one intellectual deviant to another, I'd say that some of the people at SLACs I've spoken to seem to be among the most interested in us oddballs. But I don't really know much or have any solid evidence -- just my own personal experiences at an "elite" SLAC and my sense from chatting with faculty at other SLACs (both some that are hiring and some that are not).
lets hope that we are both right that the lower-ranked R1s and the elite SLACs appreciate the deviants.
I went middle-range jobs, all second-tier R1 and R2 places. I have heard from no one and some places started reviewing almost a month ago.
I think it is true there are 3-4 hot candidates on the market each year (look through the cv's of the top school and you can even pick them out individually!) and the top places rush for them early.
The rest of us might have to wait a little longer...
Buzz...hard to create it yourself. I have seen it develop when someone publishes an article and people talk about the article, especially if it is slightly unusual in some way. For example, I have heard multiple people in the past year make reference to an article that a grad student published in a tier-2 journal because it was a strong article on an unusual subject (maybe one of you "intellectual deviants" wrote it!).
I have also heard the names of a few grad students at other schools mentioned in the context of "Oh, did you hear that XXXXXX already has a book contract for his dissertation?" or "Have you read that paper by XXXXXX where she developed a whole new understanding of X?"
I think it tends to be things outside of the usual pathways that gets buzz going and lodges your name in people's heads.
12:43 you are correct. Each year there are some potential "superstars" on the market, and they clog things up until they finally accept a position. Once they do, things REALLY open up at the top schools because there is a rush to get second and third choice candidates before they've signed elsewhere.
In my limited experience, there's usually one or two from Princeton; one or two from Berkeley; one from Harvard; and one or two each from UCLA, UW-Madison, and Michigan. This is totally unscientific. Look at the people those programs hired last year and it will give you an idea.
We have one in my department this year - got invitation letters from search committee chairs at several top schools asking for an application. We had one last year too, and that person accepted a position in September.
I think things will open up for the rest of us in a month or two.
my method is to look up people in the dept I want a job in, find out who they are in some capacity (grad alum? editor of a journal? sitting on some committee?) - then I try to figure if they are connected to someone I know myself - esp. a committee member. Once I find the connection, I specifically request that the person I know generate some (positive) Buzz about me, my work, my pubs, my potential, whatever...
If I just ask my committee to speak on my behalf, who knows what might happen... but if I give them solid names and connections, they all seem very inclined to actually do the work. I've made it easy for them.
the issue that complicates the market is that each department has its own application deadline. some departments aren't even looking at apps until november or december. if that's the top choice for a "superstar," then we all have to wait for him/her to find out what's happening at that top choice school. even if they get other offers, they will hold out for their top choice. i mean, why wouldn't they? they obviously know many depts want them, so there's no risk of losing anything by stalling.
Umm...perhaps because they're human beings like the rest of us, and just because it looks to everyone that they ought not to be concerned, they don't quite buy it, and they're still concerned?
I believe the point is that once someone gets an offer the power balance begins to change. No longer does the hiring committee have all the power. Once they make an offer, the candidate then can shape the course of events (within reason). If the candidate is savvy, he or she will "use" the market to their benefit. I don't think anyone is suggesting they shouldn't. They most definitely should. The unintended consequence, though, is that others in the market will have to wait for offers (or interviews) until those positions are officially rejected.
I personally believe those heavily recruited candidates know they are desirable to many departments. It is obvious. If someone is unsure whether they are one of these major players, chances are they aren't. I'm from a Top 10 department, and my experience there is that everyone knows when there's a "buzz" about a candidate.
Just to follow up with a thought...there are clear indications that people are interested in your work. Did your university put out a press release about great findings from your research? Did this generate further interest in the mainstream media and lead to important interviews? Have top departments invited you to present your research? Is your MA or other research widely cited? Has your research produced a set of articles in top journal or book prospectus from a top academic publishing house? We are clearly talking about only 3 or 4 top scholars each year.
I second that - if you are a star candidate, you know it. If you have to ask, you aren't.
Which is not to say you aren't a great candidate! But we're talking about the 3-5 candidates a year who all the top schools scramble for. The candidate with a book contract for the diss, multiple ASR/AJS pubs as a sole or first author, and collaborative projects with well-known senior professors outside of the home department.
I just want to caution people though that just because you're not one of the "superstars" doesn't mean you won't get a great job! We're talking literally about a tiny handful of people.
Received the following from the University of Alabama at Birmingham:
We received a number of applications from highly qualified persons such as yourself and are gratified by that response. The committee will begin to review applications as soon as the application process closes on October 15. We expect to begin inviting candidates for a campus visit by the end of October or early November. If we need more information before then we will be in touch with you.
(I know it is a generic response but posted in case anyone who didn't get it wanted to know their time frame)
I propose a moratorium on all this "superstar" talk. We don't need to reproduce status hierarchies all the time. I know action might be a little slow right now, but aren't there better topics to discuss?
I saw above and on the wiki that SUNY Albany asked for more material. This seems strange given the deadline hasn't even passed! I'm assuming some people probably also just sent in their applications. Any thoughts on what's happening. An inside candidate maybe?
No inside candidate at SUNY Albany. They have already gotten around 60 app. so far. Could just be that somebody forgot to include something. Keep in mind that these schools have to start looking at these packets as they are coming in. They can't wait to get bombarded with 150 at the deadline. The people on the search committee still have classes to teach and research to get out.
Wait! Before we abandon the superstar topic, I want to remind us that "superstar" status is a social construction. The buzz that builds around a person on the job market can actually be based on very little, but that buzz can then take on a life of its own, and suddenly the top departments are engaged in an irrational and, frankly, incomprehensible competition to hire an alleged star. And, yes, the superstar does get their pick of job that year, and the rest of us are held up. But over time people's records start to speak for themselves, and when good sociologists are seriously underplaced, they have the opportunity to move. And when alleged superstars who take top jobs end up facing formidable tenure standards, it eventually becomes clear that the faddish pursuit of a star candidate, usually based on too little information, was a bad idea for both department and superstar both.
Given that SUNY Albany had asked only letter and CV in the job announcement, some applicants who were requested to send in more materials are likely to be on its short or long list. Congratulations, and one more crossing out from my own list.
Thank you 6:04. it's posts like yours that keep me coming back to the blog! i echo 7:17 and cross Albany off my list. time to wonder about another job... any news from UCI?
It may be too soon to cross Albany of the list. I received an email yesterday saying that they had received my application (including letters of recommendation) and that they would begin reviewing my application within the next few days. I suspect that the request for more information is on a rolling basis at this point.
How many people do you think Albany has asked for additional materials from? In the ASA ad, it says "finalists will be asked to provide additional materials..."
Does it strike anyone else that "asked for more materials" (e.g., Pitt wants solo-authored pubs) is not quite synonymous with having a shortlist? I wonder if it might be misleading to represent both those categories together on the wiki with a mere slash (/)...
The two categories- more materials and short list- are certainly not synonmous. I know in some of the instances they ask for more materials because maybe one person submitted 3 articles but one or more were not sole authored and so they want evidence of individual scholarship that others may have already provided.
Also, with schools with multiple openings like Chicago, we should keep in mind that though they say they are "open" they often have substantive areas in mind and so see the four positions as distinct. Thus, they could be moving on some applicants for some positions while not having moved on other applicants for other positions.
I wonder if it is productive to keep asking "what about this school or that school?" There are over 100 openings, and I think we should assume that people will post when they have information. So maybe, and i say this politely, we should not keep asking about our favorite school. That way this section can just contain more concise information about the evolving status of searches.
If they asked for more materials you are on the short list. Otherwise they wouldn't bother.
It also means, though, that the file you initially sent has not convinced them to fly you in. They want to make sure that you will actually finish your dissertation or publish those papers that you claimed to be in progress. Asking for more materials is essentially asking for evidence of all that.
It could of course be the case that a particular candidate has supplied all the necessary information and they were convinced and they did not need additional evidence to fly you in.
So to cut it short, if you were asked to provide more materials, you are on the short list. If you were not asked, it does not mean that you are not, it might mean that you have already given them all they need and they will call you.
I agree that schools that have asked for more materials should not be listed on the main wiki under short list. These are not the same things. If you are on a short list you will know you are on a short list. Asking for more materials just means you made the first cut and maybe a long short list, but not the top 20 or 10.
Yes, "short list" on the wiki is incorrect. For me, and in common parlance at my top 5 dept where I'm a grad student, "short list" is the same as being invited out for an interview. "Long list" is the semifinals, where you might be asked for more materials if your file isn't fat enough yet, or if the school only asked for minimal info in the first round.
I was the student member on our search committee in a previous year, and we asked for materials from people who were on this long list but never made it out to be interviewed, i.e., on the short list. But there were plenty of people on that semifinal list who were never asked for more info either, so they never knew if they were in the top 10 or top 150 (BTW, long list was around 15; short list was 4-6). Also, as a candidate myself in another search, I was personally asked with an exuberant and explicitly congratulatory email for more materials, but did not make the final cut for a short list to be flown out. After all, a short list is obviously shorter than other lists, so some people have to be cut. Those extra materials I sent, while not necessarily bad, were not as good as (or not as matching the idiosyncratic whims of the search committee as) those of others on the long list, so they went onto the short list instead of me.
From these examples in my experience, I would definitely agree that the sociology wiki is misleading on this front, and perhaps "short list" should be deleted altogether as a category if "asked for more materials" and "scheduled interviews" already capture the long/short divide more descriptively, and actually as accurately as anyone outside the faculty at a school in question can know during the middle of this secretive process.
Do they capture the whole picture? I'm not certain. I got a call telling me I was on a shortlist, but I was neither asked for more materials nor asked for an interview at this point. Some schools do initial calls with the shortlist and then decide who to invite. This can take a matter of days or weeks -- depends on how quickly the bureaucratic wheels turn at that particular university. The same thing happened 3 years ago when I was on the market. That particular school told me it could be up to 3 weeks before the dean granted the department funds for candidate travel. The call was to let me know to "hold on," but I ended up accepting elsewhere.
I made the changes on the wiki to distinguish between "short-list" and "materials asked" b/c they are not necessarily the same thing. I put "?" after albany and kentucky b/c I don't know which category they fall under. Hopefully, the individuals who originally posted those schools will make the appropriate changes.
Can someone confirm that IU has a short list, and didn't just ask for materials? Sorry for redundancy between this blog and the wiki list. My request stems from the previous confusing list that combined short list and request for more materials.
I apologize if some think this question is misplaced, but would anyone comment on schools' requests for more TEACHING materials? I.E., a school that originally asked only for research materials and CV, then followed up with a candidate by requesting teaching evidence. Thanks alot.
4:09 I had the same thing happen with a school this year. Basically they asked if I am still interested and told me more about the position to ensure I know the details and still have an interest. This generally means they have a shortlist and are making certain people are interested before they finalize who gets to visit. The school I talked with said they would have another committee meeting where he'd report back his "findings," and then I'd hear back from them shortly. You've clearly piqued their interest at UK, so good luck.
5:37 I had the same experience. One school asked for my teaching evaluation, although they did not say they wanted them in the ad. Hopefully it means a long short list at least. By the way, this happened more than 2 weeks before the deadline.
5:09, a friend of mine was asked (actually, a couple weeks ago) for more materials from Berkeley. I don't know what she was asked for, but I know she sent everything originally in the ad. But, I didn't update the wiki...p.s. and actually, someone did post here about Berkeley around that time (not me)
Pepperdine sent a letter acknowledging receipt of my application. Review will begin October 1st. Note that according to ASA Job Bank and the Pepperdine website, review would not begin until Nov 30th. I don't know if this is a typo in the letter or the job post, or if they are simply starting review really early.
Also, Washington State tri-cities sent me a letter suggesting that I apply there, in which case I can simply have the Pullman campus forward my application materials. They obviously got my info from the Pullman campus, but I'm not reading much into it.
That's an impossible question to answer. The problem is that there is a lot of variability in the process. Some schools meet shortly after the deadline, some schools can drag it out for a longer time. Then some school need to wait for formal budgetary approval before notifying candidates. The length of the process really depends on the school and a whole host of other factors that you and I don't know about.
I know some people have insisted otherwise, but it's clear that many committees start reading apps as they come in, so they can move quickly after the closing date. It's also my experience from being on a search committee that did this, that apps received earlier get a better look (since there are fewer applications and more time) than those received right at the deadline. Seems a good lesson that it MAY help (and certainly can't hurt) to send your materials well before the deadline.
For the people who added UMaryland-College Park and UNC-Greensboro to the section of "Places that have asked for more materials", would you be willing to post on here what they asked for you to send? Thanks!
UNC-Greensboro - teaching evals, tho they didn't ask for them in their original ad. Their deadline hasn't passed yet, but the email said they were contacting people they thought might be on their long short list to make sure all materials were there.
It seems like the places that had the open searches are the ones who have been the quickest to ask for more materials and make their short lists. I bet they got literally 250 applications. They probably picked their top choices way before the deadline. Especially since we're talking about top schools here (Indiana, Maryland-College Park), they probably have their pick of some of the best applicants on the market.
That is interesting about the Pepperdine app. I have not yet sent in my application because as you mention, the deadline is the end of November. However, I am thinking that I will probably get in it earlier. I too struggled with the statement of faith. Guess I dance around the subject of being a godless heathen! HA!
I'm pretty sure that EVERYONE who applied for the Washington State - Pullman position got the letter from WSU - Tri Cities. I say this because I got the letter.
I find the qualifications for the Tri Cities WSU curious: The successful candidate has to be able to teach ALL of the following: statistics, research methods, social theory, + his/her area of specialization. That's quite a handful!
Where candidates informed that they are on short-lists? Can anyone confirm that they were notified?
It does seem odd that candidates would be informed that they are on a short-list and not be asked to schedule a flyout. Why would schools inform candidates that they are short-listed and not follow it up with an interview?
There are many reasons why short-listed people are not immediately asked for interviews. The first is that short lists often include up to 5 people. Most schools will only bring in 2 to 3 people for a position. This means they'll need to weed out a couple from the short list. This might be asking for more materials or a phone interview. Another reason is that several schools are acting quickly (some already have interviews scheduled), so if a department has its eye on a couple folks but know it'll take time to get funds allocated for travel, they want to let the finalists know something. Otherwise the good candidates might go elsewhere. Sometimes people grab the first offer they get. There are other reasons as well, but this should give you an idea of the complexity. For many departments hiring is a long, slow process, which gets frustrating because you have to deal with presidents, provosts, deans, HR, etc.
I wasn't on the market last year, and so this year is the first that I'm checking this blog and the wiki. Does anyone have a sense from last year how common it is for a department to schedule interviews without that information making it to the wiki or the blog? Or (more likely) what the time delay can look like? I'm guessing that not everyone on the market uses the blog and wiki, and so there's a chance that some information won't find its way here, at least not right away. Thanks.
Thanks 7:42 and 8:44...I'm more of the pina colada/tanktop type anyway. And I *hate* shoveling snow. At this point, any information I can use to rationalize away my disappointment is welcome and appreciated!
For the person who posted about UMaryland having a long-short list, was it for the Open position or for the CJ position? They are recruiting for two with two different search committees. Thanks!
I wouldn't necessarily assume you are out of the running for a position just because they are on the wiki (especially as shorlist or request for materials). Some schools (particularly those who have been screening applications as they come in) only contact their top one or two candidates to signal their interest, and to make sure those canidates notify them if they get another offer.
Also, some people with inside info (e.g. Search Committee members) may accidentally update the wiki before all the finalists have been contacted. Not that I did that or anything.
Do you think that the schools who already met with candidates at ASA might not schedule phone interviews with them, even if they are on the short list?
I'm really crossing my fingers for the Wells job here! Did any of you who have gotten phone interviews with them also have an interview with them at ASA?
Perhaps we could figure out what's going on with "asked for more materials" versus "long short list" versus "short list" distinctions if we knew how many people were contacted for additional materials- was it 5 or 30?
So would folks who were "asked for more materials" from Maryland/Albany/Pitt/Berkeley/UNC kindly raise their hands?
interesting idea. people could add a tick mark on the wiki list next to the school name if the school asked them for additional materials, interview or whatever. of course this leaves out people not watching the wiki, but gives those of us here some general idea if 6 or 7 tick marks show up for a school. obviously that's a long list and nothing to get too excited about yet.
thanks for playing along. it's so much easier to see all the Xs on the wiki page versus scrolling through the blogger list here and trying to keep track.
Can someone please put an X for Albany for me. It is currently 5 'X' and mine should take it to 6. My virus software keeps blocking the verification code on the wiki and I can't edit the page!
I just looked at the Wiki. Before there is too much confusion is it okay if I move the 'Wells (phone interview)' out of the 'Interviews Scheduled' category to the 'short list' category. I think we want to distinguish phone interviews from fly outs. What you do all think?
I think moving Wells from the interview list is appropriate. Phone interviews are used to narrow down the long-short list to the fly-out list. Thus, I think it should be in the asked for more material section since a phone interview is really asking for more information.
Congratulations. I hear that you’ve come up with a shortlist. 24 hours after the closing deadline.
Though you probably don’t care to know, I would like to remind you that I have invested much time, energy, and money in my career. I also spent countless hours writing, polishing, and editing that letter that you apparently spent less than 5 minutes reading. Wish I could get through so many materials that quickly. Is that why you’re at PU? Putting together that packet with all the materials you requested also took some effort, not to mention money. It would have been nice to have at least a semblance of a shot at the job at PU. You might recall that your job ad didn’t indicate “if you don’t work with Professor So and So, or weren’t contacted by our Important Professor X you need not apply.” I actually thought (stupid, stupid me) that the job was open for everyone. I should have known better. I am a sociologist after all. It’s not a meritocracy. And networks count.
Signed: An aspiring assistant professor coming from a top-ten program
Why did you bother to send me a letter asking me to apply if you were not going to both reading my application packet anyway? What is the point of an application deadline if you were going to have a shortlist on the day of the deadline? I could have saved my $5.00 I used to mail the packet priority mail and had a nice glass of wine, bottle of beer, or better yet- double shot of rum. Here's to meritocracy...
Sincerely, An aspiring assistant professor from a top ranked R1
I emphatize with your feelings. The thing is, your publication record is what really matters (I don't like that it's way I'm just saying it). If the prestigious university received several applications with 5 and more publications each, then that's the end of the review process. What's not meritocratic exactly? Those people that they selected published more than you have. And you are getting angry that they have not read your cover letter (which I am sure was full of brilliant ideas) carefully????
I'm not saying I like this system. As a matter of fact I think it sucks. But given its structure and logic, I'm not surprised that they were able to pick people so quickly.
We received close to 200 positions for our search for a particular specialty. We have to move quickly to compete with other top schools. I'm not saying it's perfect, but our cursory look at your CV is all we have time for. If we like what we see (pubs counting most, obviously), we'll read your cover letter and the rest of your packet.
It's true that knowing of you before we look at your packet is helpful, and many times that happens through networks. But it also happens if we've seen something you've published in a top journal, or if we're on a session together at ASA.
I'm sorry that things are this competitive, but they are. And remember, you're also competing against productive assistant profs looking to move up, who are generally very good bets.
I do understand your frustration, and I wish you luck.
Whenever possible, please do us the courtesy of actually communicating directly with applicants throughout the candidate selection process. I fully realize that I am a second- or even third-tier candidate given my lack of publications in top journals. Now that you have a short list, or maybe just a long short list, or maybe even just a long long list, please just take the time to send me a quick email telling me that you are not interested in me. All politeness aside, there's not a snowball's chance in heck that all the 50 candidates you like more than me are going to turn you down. I'd like some closure here.
Thanks, Top-5 Department Publication-less Graduate Student
I think that highly competitive universities should ask for just CVs then for the first round, and ask for more materials after the shortlist. If you only look at CVs why make candidates send all the other materials? I know some universities are moving toward a more "lean" application and I think it totally makes sense.
I think people are putting too much emphasis on publications I know people who were employed in top places without a single single-author publication. I was told by search committee member at a NY school that they look first where you come from, your CV, references and then other stuff.
I second that. Think about issues of external validity when generalizing from the faculty sample that's checking this blog at all. Internet-savvy (perhaps a blogger?), quick at turning a good idea into a paper, hyperproductive in a quantifiable kind of way.
A second point: is this blog at risk of becoming performative? Are committees using it to make quality valuations by observing each other in conditions of high uncertainty?
Dear 3:33 The reality is that standard procedure for almost every committee is that letters of rejection will not be sent until the search is complete. It ain't over 'til it's over. Usually several months. It is not reasonable to expect committee to send hundreds of e-mails to keep applicants up-to-date on the status of their search.
In the "real" (non-academic) world, one would not expect any response at all, so don't torture yourself. The more you can send 'em out and let 'em go, the more your sanity will be preserved....
I just hope that enough faculty members will get word of the sentiments on this blog to have some sort of effect on the whole process. If you're not going to read papers, don't ask for them! Do you realize how long it takes and how much it costs to make copies for those of us applying to several dozen jobs? If you're reading materials BEFORE the deadline, let people know it might be to their advantage to submit materials early. And I'm not even going to touch upon the gatekeping function of "pubs"
I am at a R1 that is currently hiring. All everyone talks about is pubs, pubs and pubs. SC's will not even bother to look at other elements of your application if you have no single authored pubs. What I find funny is when some of these *stars* (no offense to you stars out there) actually come for an interview and flub their job talks which totally turns off our faculty. As others have pointed out, Pubs might get you an initial interview, but there is much more to the hiring process. A candidate who is not as competitive in the beginning might look much better after the first round of interviews.
IDK--perhaps I am just telling myself this to ease my own pain!
As a PhD candidate on the market who has also been on a search committee at a top R1 school, I can empathize with both parties. We read through applications as they came in, and met the day after the deadline to make a short list. Only ten or so applications out of over 150 actually came in those last couple of days. In addition to prioritizing publications, we also weeded out many excellent candidates because they didn't "fill a hole" (e.g. were too similar to existing faculty) or just weren't what we were looking for substantively. Although many positions at top schools are "open", they often have a pretty good idea what they are looking for (or not) going in. It seems like a waste of mental energy to be angry and bitter already given 1) how early it is in the process and 2) the almost innumerable number of factors that go into hiring decisions.
My experience as a graduate student member of a junior search committee at an elite school may or may not have been typical. But here's what it was. One of the search committee members, a senior faculty member, said, "Don't bother reading the files unless they're from a top 20 department." (I guessed that everyone on the committee was supposed to have that top 20 list committed to memory.) Curiously, that same faculty member later on began to advocate for an applicant who was currently at a university no one had ever heard of. But she also had a sole-authored AJS piece. So I guess he was skimming the files anyway. And when he saw that AJS there, he said, "We can save her from obscurity." She didn't end up getting an interview, since there were enough candidates from top programs who also had top publications. But it was clear how these two factors were fetishized. It seemed that coming from an elite program was valued first as a time-saving device for the committee, but that the most important thing of all for getting a job at a good department was AJS, ASR, SF.
I total agree about the publication issue and believe that schools which uses quantity as their measure will miss many good candidates and most likely even the best candidates. However, we all know the harsh realities of academia, and we ourselves have become products in this process, not to mention that the measure of our worth is in how MUCH (not how interesting or innovative) we produce. So, I think a more positive way to view the situation is to ask yourself do you want to end up in a school, any school, that evaluates and measures their faculty in such a primitive manner? Really, I can understand that schools want to know you can publish, but how many articles do you need to prove this? I think those of us who get bypassed because we haven't "produced enough" may be lucky in the long run..and end up in a place which also values quality, innovation and contribution.
Hang in there and realize this is the dirty reality of academia which is being led by many of these "beloved" R1 "publishing" factories.
I know an easier way to count the number of Xs. When my department announces their short list, or when I get a definitive idea, I will come here and update that x count for my department. You do the same for your department. If you know anything just share it.
I don't think it's unethical to share this kind of information. We aren't naming any names are we? ;)
I can understand the Top-10 departments only looking at publications as a way to screen candidates. If pubs are required for tenure and nothing else matters, fine. I don't want to be at a cut-throat top department anyway. But I'm really lost as to how other departments make their short-list decisions. Other than the ubiquitous who has more publications", it seems that it is largely out of our control.
Can I just say, for any search committee people reading this: this whole process is really hard on us. Please don't make it more stressful than it has to be. I'd really like departments who only consider candidates with top-journal pubs to just put that in the job posting. "If you don't have a sole-authored publication in ASR, AJS, or SF, then save your $3.20 in postage and have a beer on us."
i am a student at a top-5 department. in the five years that i have been here, i have been to every job talk given by every candidate invited for an interview. i can tell you this:
we have hired someone without a single publication in a sociology journal.
we have hired someone who totally bombed the job talk.
we have hired someone who had better offers from other departments but accepted out offer because we have a prestigious name.
we have hired someone who was the weakest candidate interviewed but s/he had substantive interests that fit with the people we have here.
i don't know anything about the applicants not invited for interviews - our department doesn't allow a student to sit on the search committee. but at least among the candidates who were interviewed, it has been very random.
I have a friend with more then one sole author ASJ, ASR, SF publication who is not at an R1 and s/he has yet to be contacted by anyone. Remember the ASR piece on the caste system in sociology, in which like hires like regardless of publications? S/he swears by it.
So it is at least ambiguous if publications or big name/advisor matter more.
I am a student at a top 5 department and I have seen the exact same thing (my department does allow students to sit in on the process so we are not from the same school). So when people ask that publications is the key--I don't buy it. I am sure it is part of the criteria but not all. It not a science, not even close.
From my experience, CVs are the fast way to cull applicants. A good CV is easy to spot and certainly moves the candidate to the next level of review. At that point, the cover letter and letters of support come into play.
Publications matter of course, but the BIGGEST issue we see at a smaller school is FIT. We don't want people who already do what others do (with the exception of having multiple folks who can and WILL teach stats, theory, methods). Even with open searches, there has to be an element of fit into the existing dept. If there are people who already do what you do, why would they want another? How does that help distribute the teaching load or help with advising student research? Candidates who stand out in open searches are those who are willing to cover some of the basics (stats, theory, methods) but could also do something new and innovative for that department.
And when he saw that AJS there, he said, "We can save her from obscurity."
This - from 5:48's post - is the first thing in 15 years that has made me question whether I want to be a sociologist a all. How profoundly disgusting a thing to say.
About the X's, the instructions on the wiki say to add an X when you personally are asked for materials, put on a shortlist, etc. I don't know if this is the best plan. It would clearly give an undercount, but it would also avoid an overcount, which is possible if people add X's for other people they know. If one person on a shortlist tells two friends and they both post an X, that's a problem. I don't know the solution.
I agree. No names. The anonymity of this blog is truly unique to the culture of the academe. Here we can be ourselves, express our innermost anxieties and our triumphs, and we will not be judged for it the remainder of our careers.
Yes, no names and I think we should close that topic until people want to divulge that info themselves. BTW, are all the people being shortlisted 'stars'? Do you all have lots of solo authored pubs, come from a Top 5 dept, etc? I read on the Passing Time section of someone shortlisted at 4 places (including Chicago!)....
How about this-- if you're at a school and you know something (like the number of people on a short list), post the info on wiki but use an asterix - * - instead of an X.
Is anyone applying to schools in SoCal such as Cal Poly Pomona, USC, UCI etc? Both Cal Poly and UCI's deadline have passed. Just wondering if I'm the only one or if they are slow on contacting people for interviews (I know I read a while back that a few have sent in apps to Pepperdine) Thanks!!
You're not the only one. They're being slow. At least that's how it looks. Does anyone have any inside information...just a description of what stage they're at (UCI and Cal Poly)?
Anybody knows anything about Riverside? Their deadline was a month ago. I have received a letter from them that says they have not received my letters yet and I should provide that information asap. I'm a little stressed.
2,327 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 2327 Newer› Newest»6:56
From what I understand, Rice was pushing those on their short list to make sure all their letters of rec were on file (in the event that one or more was missing).
Regarding the 'what qualifies as a short list' question.
My impression is that a long list are candidates that are being contacted for phone interviews, approx 7-15 people. Short lists are 3-4 candidates that are flown out for interviews.
On the topic of Rice and whether they had an inside candidate. I doubt that is the case. At many schools review begins well before the deadline (this is the case at my R1). They still read the apps that come in the day before the deadline but by that time they've already reviewed the apps that came in previous weeks. This allows them to act quickly after the deadline. I think getting apps in early may be to our advantage.
I applied for the Sarah Lawrence STS position as well, and have heard nothing.
If Rice is only asking people for piece of their application package that should have been sent in the first place, I wouldn't take that as a sign that they even have a long list.
i have to agree with the previous post. asking for materials is a good sign, but doesn't necessarily mean they have a short list. committees will go through may lists; it's the final short list that matters (ie, probably a list of 5 apps, with 3 clear top choices). those top 3 are the folks who get asked to visit.
Rice's email didn't just ask for more materials or for missing parts of the application. It explicitly stated that the recipient was on the short list.
Here's a proposal for those of us that did the ASA employment service:
Keep track of the applications that you send to schools you interviewed with in NYC. That way we can collect data on the actual effects of these interviews.
I'm sending apps to 8 schools I interviewed with. Let's see what happens!
Did Rice notify anyone by mail (snail and not e-mail)about the short list? Did they send out EOE letters by snail mail?
IUP just notified me that my application is complete with what they wanted from me. If I am correct, this should be the second notice from the department. I don't know what this means when the deadline passed over a month ago. Interesting.
I received snail mail from Rice that acknowledging receipt of my application. No EEOO info was requested. According to their website, they are generating a short list, but that was updated a week ago.
IUP also notified me that all my materials were received.
URichmond has "moved on to the next phase" of their search and has requested more materials.
Anyone hear anything at all from UT San Antonio?
Rice has scheduled on-campus interviews.
Wow.
11 days after the deadline.
University of Chicago has asked for additional materials
Wow, schools are moving VERY fast! I haven't heard from Chicago or Rice. The same people have prob been shortlisted for both (as well as Berkeley...), right?. Is it just me or should I not have bothered without a SF/AJS/ASR sole pub???
Does a request for additional materials (specifically, dissertation chapters) necessarily mean you are shortlisted?
If U Richmond and Berkeley have shortlists/made requests for info, why aren't they listed on the wiki?
there is an interesting thread developing in the "pass the time" forum about the whole SF/ASR/AJS issue. apparently social forces doesn't have a very high impact factor anymore (based on citations). however, i think it still has that residual "wow" factor.
ahhh...institutionalization at work.
MORE INFO ON CHICAGO?
Re: September 26, 2007 1:25 PM
"University of Chicago has asked for additional materials"
Also, if possible I'd like to know a bit more about the circumstances of the request, such as- is this a person who sent in one writing sample and so they are asking for another one or two, or is this is a person who already sent in 3 writing samples [which may be a better indicator that this person is being shortlisted]?
As someone who has sat on searches before, trust me, they will not ask you for more materials unless they are interested. If they aren't interested, they don't care if your file is not complete.
We go on your cover letter and CV; typically we won't read the rest of your stuff unless we are interested.
The exception may be schools who have to comply with HR departments' requests for complete files on all applicants.
8:24-
Thanks. I understood that to be the case. What I was trying to figure out is that, Chicago asked for a "small sample of written." One applicant may have sent in 3 papers, another one paper. So the question: does the fact that Chicago asked some for more information imply that they are not interested in those they didn't ask, or could they be interested in both of these hypothetical people but don't feel the need to contact the one who already sent 3 papers in until they move to the short list phase?
8:32, 8:24 here. I see what you mean.
Actually, I sent four publications, and Chicago still requested dissertation chapters.
to 6:05,
I specifically asked my advisor (a wise old well-connected sociologist) if I should bother applying to open searches in the top 10. Hu said No. And not because I don't have pubs ( I do, two sole-authored) or grants or "potential." Hu said the the Top 10 watch each other closely. They all want the "Next Big Person in X" where X is an established field (ie. organizations, race/class/gender, stratification, methods). My particular field of expertise, while rigorous, is not only cutting edge but it's also fairly interdisciplinary. Hu said that I fall into the category of "intellectually deviant" (see Zuckerman). If I can't be snugly placed into a well-defined category, then no one on a search committee will likely go to bat for me. To break out of this illegitimacy, I have to have a sole-authored in a Top Journal (yes, AJS, ASR, or SF) and a whole lot of Buzz in the networks.
Since neither of my two pubs is in AJS/ASR/SF and I'm intellectually deviant (a phrase that really does crack me up), I didn't bother applying to open searches in the Top 10. It seemed like a waste of my time.
Hu did tell me something I'd heard before: depts that are looking to move up in the rankings are far more likely to take chances on the intellectually deviant. So I applied to lower-ranked R1s and tried to generate as much Buzz there as I could.
It's unclear to me how much of this is true for highly ranked SLACs. I'd appreciate hearing any of your thoughts about this.
Lastly, I completely understand the adage: you won't know unless you apply.
speaking on behalf of the unwashed candidates:
What is this buzz and how is it created?
Book contract for diss?
Chapters of diss already published?
Awards for chapters?
Glowing descriptions of diss in ref letters?
Quality of writing samples?
Must ALL of these criteria be met? Or just some?
I guess my philosophy was to shoot for the moon. It might be a waste of my time to apply to the top 10, but how much time does it really take? You've already got all of the materials prepped.
Thanks, September 27, 2007 9:28 AM.
That's the type of info I was looking for. I suppose I can prepare to cross Chicago off my list.
Is there anyone else who has heard from Chicago aside from the one report?
10:28: No problem. Again, I'm not sure that it means anything. There could be twenty others that got requests for chapters. I'm trying to be cautiously optimistic.
Oh, also, I didn't post U of Chicago on the wiki, so there is at least one other out there.
9:36 - from one intellectual deviant to another, I'd say that some of the people at SLACs I've spoken to seem to be among the most interested in us oddballs. But I don't really know much or have any solid evidence -- just my own personal experiences at an "elite" SLAC and my sense from chatting with faculty at other SLACs (both some that are hiring and some that are not).
lets hope that we are both right that the lower-ranked R1s and the elite SLACs appreciate the deviants.
I went middle-range jobs, all second-tier R1 and R2 places. I have heard from no one and some places started reviewing almost a month ago.
I think it is true there are 3-4 hot candidates on the market each year (look through the cv's of the top school and you can even pick them out individually!) and the top places rush for them early.
The rest of us might have to wait a little longer...
9:58 -
Buzz...hard to create it yourself. I have seen it develop when someone publishes an article and people talk about the article, especially if it is slightly unusual in some way. For example, I have heard multiple people in the past year make reference to an article that a grad student published in a tier-2 journal because it was a strong article on an unusual subject (maybe one of you "intellectual deviants" wrote it!).
I have also heard the names of a few grad students at other schools mentioned in the context of "Oh, did you hear that XXXXXX already has a book contract for his dissertation?" or "Have you read that paper by XXXXXX where she developed a whole new understanding of X?"
I think it tends to be things outside of the usual pathways that gets buzz going and lodges your name in people's heads.
12:43 you are correct. Each year there are some potential "superstars" on the market, and they clog things up until they finally accept a position. Once they do, things REALLY open up at the top schools because there is a rush to get second and third choice candidates before they've signed elsewhere.
yeah, that can leave the rest of us waiting until spring, as they negotiate for the best deals.
obviously we don't want to name names but who are these people? what schools do they come from?
In my limited experience, there's usually one or two from Princeton; one or two from Berkeley; one from Harvard; and one or two each from UCLA, UW-Madison, and Michigan. This is totally unscientific. Look at the people those programs hired last year and it will give you an idea.
how do international elite schools fit in? i'm thinking oxbridge/sorbonne here... how are their cv's viewed if they have good pubs...
We have one in my department this year - got invitation letters from search committee chairs at several top schools asking for an application. We had one last year too, and that person accepted a position in September.
I think things will open up for the rest of us in a month or two.
on creating Buzz...
I was the intellectual deviant from earlier...
my method is to look up people in the dept I want a job in, find out who they are in some capacity (grad alum? editor of a journal? sitting on some committee?) - then I try to figure if they are connected to someone I know myself - esp. a committee member. Once I find the connection, I specifically request that the person I know generate some (positive) Buzz about me, my work, my pubs, my potential, whatever...
If I just ask my committee to speak on my behalf, who knows what might happen... but if I give them solid names and connections, they all seem very inclined to actually do the work. I've made it easy for them.
the issue that complicates the market is that each department has its own application deadline. some departments aren't even looking at apps until november or december. if that's the top choice for a "superstar," then we all have to wait for him/her to find out what's happening at that top choice school. even if they get other offers, they will hold out for their top choice. i mean, why wouldn't they? they obviously know many depts want them, so there's no risk of losing anything by stalling.
Umm...perhaps because they're human beings like the rest of us, and just because it looks to everyone that they ought not to be concerned, they don't quite buy it, and they're still concerned?
I believe the point is that once someone gets an offer the power balance begins to change. No longer does the hiring committee have all the power. Once they make an offer, the candidate then can shape the course of events (within reason). If the candidate is savvy, he or she will "use" the market to their benefit. I don't think anyone is suggesting they shouldn't. They most definitely should. The unintended consequence, though, is that others in the market will have to wait for offers (or interviews) until those positions are officially rejected.
I personally believe those heavily recruited candidates know they are desirable to many departments. It is obvious. If someone is unsure whether they are one of these major players, chances are they aren't. I'm from a Top 10 department, and my experience there is that everyone knows when there's a "buzz" about a candidate.
Just to follow up with a thought...there are clear indications that people are interested in your work. Did your university put out a press release about great findings from your research? Did this generate further interest in the mainstream media and lead to important interviews? Have top departments invited you to present your research? Is your MA or other research widely cited? Has your research produced a set of articles in top journal or book prospectus from a top academic publishing house? We are clearly talking about only 3 or 4 top scholars each year.
I second that - if you are a star candidate, you know it. If you have to ask, you aren't.
Which is not to say you aren't a great candidate! But we're talking about the 3-5 candidates a year who all the top schools scramble for. The candidate with a book contract for the diss, multiple ASR/AJS pubs as a sole or first author, and collaborative projects with well-known senior professors outside of the home department.
I just want to caution people though that just because you're not one of the "superstars" doesn't mean you won't get a great job! We're talking literally about a tiny handful of people.
Received the following from the University of Alabama at Birmingham:
We received a number of applications from highly qualified persons such as yourself and are gratified by that response. The committee will begin to review applications as soon as the application process closes on October 15. We expect to begin inviting candidates for a campus visit by the end of October or early November. If we need more information before then we will be in touch with you.
(I know it is a generic response but posted in case anyone who didn't get it wanted to know their time frame)
Albany asked for additional material
Stony Brook is canceling its searches because of a hiring freeze.
I propose a moratorium on all this "superstar" talk. We don't need to reproduce status hierarchies all the time. I know action might be a little slow right now, but aren't there better topics to discuss?
As an intellectual deviant (my new favorite phrase for what I do!) very far removed from superstar status, I second the motion above...
I saw above and on the wiki that SUNY Albany asked for more material. This seems strange given the deadline hasn't even passed! I'm assuming some people probably also just sent in their applications. Any thoughts on what's happening. An inside candidate maybe?
No inside candidate at SUNY Albany. They have already gotten around 60 app. so far. Could just be that somebody forgot to include something. Keep in mind that these schools have to start looking at these packets as they are coming in. They can't wait to get bombarded with 150 at the deadline. The people on the search committee still have classes to teach and research to get out.
Wait! Before we abandon the superstar topic, I want to remind us that "superstar" status is a social construction. The buzz that builds around a person on the job market can actually be based on very little, but that buzz can then take on a life of its own, and suddenly the top departments are engaged in an irrational and, frankly, incomprehensible competition to hire an alleged star. And, yes, the superstar does get their pick of job that year, and the rest of us are held up. But over time people's records start to speak for themselves, and when good sociologists are seriously underplaced, they have the opportunity to move. And when alleged superstars who take top jobs end up facing formidable tenure standards, it eventually becomes clear that the faddish pursuit of a star candidate, usually based on too little information, was a bad idea for both department and superstar both.
Given that SUNY Albany had asked only letter and CV in the job announcement, some applicants who were requested to send in more materials are likely to be on its short or long list. Congratulations, and one more crossing out from my own list.
Thank you 6:04. it's posts like yours that keep me coming back to the blog! i echo 7:17 and cross Albany off my list. time to wonder about another job... any news from UCI?
SUNY Albany Soc, or Criminal Justice?
no news from UCI...
to 7:50 AM: Albany Soc.
Anybody heard from Riverside?
It may be too soon to cross Albany of the list. I received an email yesterday saying that they had received my application (including letters of recommendation) and that they would begin reviewing my application within the next few days. I suspect that the request for more information is on a rolling basis at this point.
Has anyone heard anything from University of Pittsburgh?
6:04- how do you know Albany has received 60 apps so far? Are you affiliated with the dept?
U Pitt was just added to the shortlist/asked for material section on the soc wiki.
How many people do you think Albany has asked for additional materials from? In the ASA ad, it says "finalists will be asked to provide additional materials..."
UPitt asked for more sole authored materials.
Anyone heard from Wright State or Wells?
I know the deadline for WS was Sept 15, but I can't find a deadline listed for Wells.
My letter of receipt from Wells stated that they would begin review at the end of "this" month (I am assuming Sept.).
How about Willamette?
Does it strike anyone else that "asked for more materials" (e.g., Pitt wants solo-authored pubs) is not quite synonymous with having a shortlist? I wonder if it might be misleading to represent both those categories together on the wiki with a mere slash (/)...
The two categories- more materials and short list- are certainly not synonmous. I know in some of the instances they ask for more materials because maybe one person submitted 3 articles but one or more were not sole authored and so they want evidence of individual scholarship that others may have already provided.
Also, with schools with multiple openings like Chicago, we should keep in mind that though they say they are "open" they often have substantive areas in mind and so see the four positions as distinct. Thus, they could be moving on some applicants for some positions while not having moved on other applicants for other positions.
I wonder if it is productive to keep asking "what about this school or that school?" There are over 100 openings, and I think we should assume that people will post when they have information. So maybe, and i say this politely, we should not keep asking about our favorite school. That way this section can just contain more concise information about the evolving status of searches.
If they asked for more materials you are on the short list. Otherwise they wouldn't bother.
It also means, though, that the file you initially sent has not convinced them to fly you in. They want to make sure that you will actually finish your dissertation or publish those papers that you claimed to be in progress. Asking for more materials is essentially asking for evidence of all that.
It could of course be the case that a particular candidate has supplied all the necessary information and they were convinced and they did not need additional evidence to fly you in.
So to cut it short, if you were asked to provide more materials, you are on the short list. If you were not asked, it does not mean that you are not, it might mean that you have already given them all they need and they will call you.
does it make sense?
How was the Chicago person asked for more materials? Via email? Or by phone?
sorry, what exactly is the definition of R-1?
Someone posted on that somewhere on the blog. Poke around.
to 2:23:
email, but I am not the person who wrote the first post
2:23: I wrote the original post. I was also notified via email.
10:49--
"long" short list perhaps. But not short shortlist.
They like you, but they don't yet know if they "like" you like you.
I agree that schools that have asked for more materials should not be listed on the main wiki under short list. These are not the same things. If you are on a short list you will know you are on a short list. Asking for more materials just means you made the first cut and maybe a long short list, but not the top 20 or 10.
Yes, "short list" on the wiki is incorrect. For me, and in common parlance at my top 5 dept where I'm a grad student, "short list" is the same as being invited out for an interview. "Long list" is the semifinals, where you might be asked for more materials if your file isn't fat enough yet, or if the school only asked for minimal info in the first round.
I was the student member on our search committee in a previous year, and we asked for materials from people who were on this long list but never made it out to be interviewed, i.e., on the short list. But there were plenty of people on that semifinal list who were never asked for more info either, so they never knew if they were in the top 10 or top 150 (BTW, long list was around 15; short list was 4-6). Also, as a candidate myself in another search, I was personally asked with an exuberant and explicitly congratulatory email for more materials, but did not make the final cut for a short list to be flown out. After all, a short list is obviously shorter than other lists, so some people have to be cut. Those extra materials I sent, while not necessarily bad, were not as good as (or not as matching the idiosyncratic whims of the search committee as) those of others on the long list, so they went onto the short list instead of me.
From these examples in my experience, I would definitely agree that the sociology wiki is misleading on this front, and perhaps "short list" should be deleted altogether as a category if "asked for more materials" and "scheduled interviews" already capture the long/short divide more descriptively, and actually as accurately as anyone outside the faculty at a school in question can know during the middle of this secretive process.
Do they capture the whole picture? I'm not certain. I got a call telling me I was on a shortlist, but I was neither asked for more materials nor asked for an interview at this point. Some schools do initial calls with the shortlist and then decide who to invite. This can take a matter of days or weeks -- depends on how quickly the bureaucratic wheels turn at that particular university. The same thing happened 3 years ago when I was on the market. That particular school told me it could be up to 3 weeks before the dean granted the department funds for candidate travel. The call was to let me know to "hold on," but I ended up accepting elsewhere.
it's a wiki.
If you think it is set up incorrectly, change it.
So, Indiana and Kentucky? What's the news? What's the process, please?
I noticed that Albany moved to short list (but with a ?) from more materials. Any news on this change?
I made the changes on the wiki to distinguish between "short-list" and "materials asked" b/c they are not necessarily the same thing. I put "?" after albany and kentucky b/c I don't know which category they fall under. Hopefully, the individuals who originally posted those schools will make the appropriate changes.
Can someone confirm that IU has a short list, and didn't just ask for materials? Sorry for redundancy between this blog and the wiki list. My request stems from the previous confusing list that combined short list and request for more materials.
Albany does not yet have a short list but has requested more material from people of interest. I'll change it on the Wiki.
10:04, I'm also curious about Kentucky. I had heard as recently as Friday that they had not yet contacted folks for interviews.
Kentucky called to see if I am still available and interested in the position. I'm not sure what this means exactly.
I apologize if some think this question is misplaced, but would anyone comment on schools' requests for more TEACHING materials? I.E., a school that originally asked only for research materials and CV, then followed up with a candidate by requesting teaching evidence. Thanks alot.
4:09 I had the same thing happen with a school this year. Basically they asked if I am still interested and told me more about the position to ensure I know the details and still have an interest. This generally means they have a shortlist and are making certain people are interested before they finalize who gets to visit. The school I talked with said they would have another committee meeting where he'd report back his "findings," and then I'd hear back from them shortly. You've clearly piqued their interest at UK, so good luck.
7:42 Thanks for the information (and the well wishes). They did say they were compiling a shortlist, but I wasn't sure if that meant I was on it!
5:37 I had the same experience. One school asked for my teaching evaluation, although they did not say they wanted them in the ad. Hopefully it means a long short list at least. By the way, this happened more than 2 weeks before the deadline.
BERKELEY
What's the deal? WIki says "more material" but no one has posted. Who got asked for what? And what did you submit originally?
5:09, a friend of mine was asked (actually, a couple weeks ago) for more materials from Berkeley. I don't know what she was asked for, but I know she sent everything originally in the ad. But, I didn't update the wiki...p.s. and actually, someone did post here about Berkeley around that time (not me)
Let's consider tone when asking for people to divulge information.
No one is obligated to tell anyone about which schools have contacted them and what they requested.
When people want to let others know what "the deal" is, they will.
Can whoever put IU-Bloomington in the shortlist rumor category please explain how they have a shortlist one day after the closing date?
9:20AM -- They didn't post IU as having a short list one day after the closing date; it was the day OF closing at 9:30am EDT.
However, the IU ad didn't say 10/1 was the deadline. It said if your stuff was in before that, you'd receive the fullest consideration. Before that.
Pepperdine sent a letter acknowledging receipt of my application. Review will begin October 1st. Note that according to ASA Job Bank and the Pepperdine website, review would not begin until Nov 30th. I don't know if this is a typo in the letter or the job post, or if they are simply starting review really early.
Also, Washington State tri-cities sent me a letter suggesting that I apply there, in which case I can simply have the Pullman campus forward my application materials. They obviously got my info from the Pullman campus, but I'm not reading much into it.
Once school begin reviewing applications how soon do they come up with a short list?
That's an impossible question to answer. The problem is that there is a lot of variability in the process. Some schools meet shortly after the deadline, some schools can drag it out for a longer time. Then some school need to wait for formal budgetary approval before notifying candidates. The length of the process really depends on the school and a whole host of other factors that you and I don't know about.
did anyone who applied for the WSU job NOT get a letter inviting them to apply for the tri-cities job today?
I know some people have insisted otherwise, but it's clear that many committees start reading apps as they come in, so they can move quickly after the closing date. It's also my experience from being on a search committee that did this, that apps received earlier get a better look (since there are fewer applications and more time) than those received right at the deadline. Seems a good lesson that it MAY help (and certainly can't hurt) to send your materials well before the deadline.
For the people who added UMaryland-College Park and UNC-Greensboro to the section of "Places that have asked for more materials", would you be willing to post on here what they asked for you to send? Thanks!
Maryland made a long short list and asked for letters of rec. (they originally just asked for names of referees).
UNC-Greensboro - teaching evals, tho they didn't ask for them in their original ad. Their deadline hasn't passed yet, but the email said they were contacting people they thought might be on their long short list to make sure all materials were there.
It seems like the places that had the open searches are the ones who have been the quickest to ask for more materials and make their short lists. I bet they got literally 250 applications. They probably picked their top choices way before the deadline. Especially since we're talking about top schools here (Indiana, Maryland-College Park), they probably have their pick of some of the best applicants on the market.
Did UMD ask applicants for letters or did they ask letter writers for letters?
They asked applicants for letters and informed them they are on long short list
That is interesting about the Pepperdine app. I have not yet sent in my application because as you mention, the deadline is the end of November. However, I am thinking that I will probably get in it earlier. I too struggled with the statement of faith. Guess I dance around the subject of being a godless heathen! HA!
12:00 p.m.,
I'm pretty sure that EVERYONE who applied for the Washington State - Pullman position got the letter from WSU - Tri Cities. I say this because I got the letter.
I find the qualifications for the Tri Cities WSU curious: The successful candidate has to be able to teach ALL of the following: statistics, research methods, social theory, + his/her area of specialization. That's quite a handful!
Somebody added Michigan to the wiki (short list)
6:47 - i just saw that (sigh)...and ann arbor seems like such a cool place to live.
7:05 -
It isn't. Unless you really like cold gray skies half the year, its a pretty depressing place to live.
I agree. If you like to shovel piles of snow and have ice flying at your face, Michigan is the place for you.
It's not that bad--way better than 90 degrees and 100% humidity for 11 months out of the year like some places further south...
Re: short-lists at Michigan and UI
Where candidates informed that they are on short-lists? Can anyone confirm that they were notified?
It does seem odd that candidates would be informed that they are on a short-list and not be asked to schedule a flyout. Why would schools inform candidates that they are short-listed and not follow it up with an interview?
There are many reasons why short-listed people are not immediately asked for interviews. The first is that short lists often include up to 5 people. Most schools will only bring in 2 to 3 people for a position. This means they'll need to weed out a couple from the short list. This might be asking for more materials or a phone interview. Another reason is that several schools are acting quickly (some already have interviews scheduled), so if a department has its eye on a couple folks but know it'll take time to get funds allocated for travel, they want to let the finalists know something. Otherwise the good candidates might go elsewhere. Sometimes people grab the first offer they get. There are other reasons as well, but this should give you an idea of the complexity. For many departments hiring is a long, slow process, which gets frustrating because you have to deal with presidents, provosts, deans, HR, etc.
I wasn't on the market last year, and so this year is the first that I'm checking this blog and the wiki. Does anyone have a sense from last year how common it is for a department to schedule interviews without that information making it to the wiki or the blog? Or (more likely) what the time delay can look like? I'm guessing that not everyone on the market uses the blog and wiki, and so there's a chance that some information won't find its way here, at least not right away. Thanks.
Thanks 7:42 and 8:44...I'm more of the pina colada/tanktop type anyway. And I *hate* shoveling snow. At this point, any information I can use to rationalize away my disappointment is welcome and appreciated!
For the person who posted about UMaryland having a long-short list, was it for the Open position or for the CJ position? They are recruiting for two with two different search committees. Thanks!
For the open position.
Wells has sent out emails to schedule phone interviews.
Just wondering: did any of the Wells phone interview folks meet with them at the ASA? ...
Thanks!
I wouldn't necessarily assume you are out of the running for a position just because they are on the wiki (especially as shorlist or request for materials). Some schools (particularly those who have been screening applications as they come in) only contact their top one or two candidates to signal their interest, and to make sure those canidates notify them if they get another offer.
Also, some people with inside info (e.g. Search Committee members) may accidentally update the wiki before all the finalists have been contacted. Not that I did that or anything.
;-)
RE: Wells.
I don't believe all the Wells folks met with them at ASA.
I'm curious about the Wells jobs. I'm at a top 10 with one sole author and they wouldn't even meet with me at the employment service...
Do you think that the schools who already met with candidates at ASA might not schedule phone interviews with them, even if they are on the short list?
I'm really crossing my fingers for the Wells job here! Did any of you who have gotten phone interviews with them also have an interview with them at ASA?
2:07
how long would you say it usually takes to notify all finalists?
Unfortunately, an unintended consequence of giving out inside information is that it makes it a harder to assess the reliability of the wiki.
Perhaps we could figure out what's going on with "asked for more materials" versus "long short list" versus "short list" distinctions if we knew how many people were contacted for additional materials- was it 5 or 30?
So would folks who were "asked for more materials" from Maryland/Albany/Pitt/Berkeley/UNC kindly raise their hands?
thank you!
here's one hand raised for maryland. the search committee chair described theirs as a "still somewhat lengthy list" (btw).
interesting idea. people could add a tick mark on the wiki list next to the school name if the school asked them for additional materials, interview or whatever. of course this leaves out people not watching the wiki, but gives those of us here some general idea if 6 or 7 tick marks show up for a school. obviously that's a long list and nothing to get too excited about yet.
I second that idea!
another hand raised for maryland.
Can I politely ask those that were contacted by Maryland--do you do quantitative work or qualitative work?
I know that the position was advertised as "open" but have a feeling that they are looking for someone who does qualitative work. But I am not sure.
The UMD list does not consist of only qualitative researchers.
My hand is for UNC-asked for teaching evals
One for Albany.
Great idea by the way. This will help us to have a better understanding of how the job market works.
Albany in the house.
Albany here. That's a third.
I put X next to schools that asked for additional materials on the wiki. So far it's 3 for Albany, 2 for Maryland, 1 for UNC.
Let's hear it from others.
If you were asked for more materials please find the name of the school and put a check mark.
thanks for playing along. it's so much easier to see all the Xs on the wiki page versus scrolling through the blogger list here and trying to keep track.
Maryland- I do qualitative, btw.
Maryland: I do quantitative and quantitative. (mainly quantitative, though)
I mean, quantitative and qualitative.
Can someone please put an X for Albany for me. It is currently 5 'X' and mine should take it to 6. My virus software keeps blocking the verification code on the wiki and I can't edit the page!
5:39
Done!
Thank you 6:36!
I just looked at the Wiki. Before there is too much confusion is it okay if I move the 'Wells (phone interview)' out of the 'Interviews Scheduled' category to the 'short list' category. I think we want to distinguish phone interviews from fly outs. What you do all think?
I think moving Wells from the interview list is appropriate. Phone interviews are used to narrow down the long-short list to the fly-out list. Thus, I think it should be in the asked for more material section since a phone interview is really asking for more information.
Dear Search Committee at Prestigious University,
Congratulations. I hear that you’ve come up with a shortlist. 24 hours after the closing deadline.
Though you probably don’t care to know, I would like to remind you that I have invested much time, energy, and money in my career. I also spent countless hours writing, polishing, and editing that letter that you apparently spent less than 5 minutes reading. Wish I could get through so many materials that quickly. Is that why you’re at PU? Putting together that packet with all the materials you requested also took some effort, not to mention money. It would have been nice to have at least a semblance of a shot at the job at PU. You might recall that your job ad didn’t indicate “if you don’t work with Professor So and So, or weren’t contacted by our Important Professor X you need not apply.” I actually thought (stupid, stupid me) that the job was open for everyone. I should have known better. I am a sociologist after all. It’s not a meritocracy. And networks count.
Signed: An aspiring assistant professor coming from a top-ten program
Dear Search Committee Chair,
Why did you bother to send me a letter asking me to apply if you were not going to both reading my application packet anyway? What is the point of an application deadline if you were going to have a shortlist on the day of the deadline? I could have saved my $5.00 I used to mail the packet priority mail and had a nice glass of wine, bottle of beer, or better yet- double shot of rum. Here's to meritocracy...
Sincerely, An aspiring assistant professor from a top ranked R1
I emphatize with your feelings. The thing is, your publication record is what really matters (I don't like that it's way I'm just saying it). If the prestigious university received several applications with 5 and more publications each, then that's the end of the review process. What's not meritocratic exactly? Those people that they selected published more than you have. And you are getting angry that they have not read your cover letter (which I am sure was full of brilliant ideas) carefully????
I'm not saying I like this system. As a matter of fact I think it sucks. But given its structure and logic, I'm not surprised that they were able to pick people so quickly.
I am sure there should be more Xs next to school names on the wiki (U Pitt has only contacted one person???)
More information, given that this is a market, helps all of us. So please don't be shy, put an X if you have heard from somewhere.
I put the X next to Pitt and I was not the one who put it on the wiki in the first place or who commented earlier that they were contacted.
Dear Accomplished Applicants,
We received close to 200 positions for our search for a particular specialty. We have to move quickly to compete with other top schools. I'm not saying it's perfect, but our cursory look at your CV is all we have time for. If we like what we see (pubs counting most, obviously), we'll read your cover letter and the rest of your packet.
It's true that knowing of you before we look at your packet is helpful, and many times that happens through networks. But it also happens if we've seen something you've published in a top journal, or if we're on a session together at ASA.
I'm sorry that things are this competitive, but they are. And remember, you're also competing against productive assistant profs looking to move up, who are generally very good bets.
I do understand your frustration, and I wish you luck.
Sincerely,
Search Committee Member, R1
I concur. I think it's pubs first, and all the other stuff is on the margins.
Dear Search Committee:
Whenever possible, please do us the courtesy of actually communicating directly with applicants throughout the candidate selection process. I fully realize that I am a second- or even third-tier candidate given my lack of publications in top journals. Now that you have a short list, or maybe just a long short list, or maybe even just a long long list, please just take the time to send me a quick email telling me that you are not interested in me. All politeness aside, there's not a snowball's chance in heck that all the 50 candidates you like more than me are going to turn you down. I'd like some closure here.
Thanks,
Top-5 Department Publication-less Graduate Student
This is just all so sad. I knew this would be hard but...
I don't mind a quick review, but it is disheartening to realize that one's materials had not even arrived when the decisions were made.
Also, does any of this belong on the Information and Inquiries thread? Eh?
I think that highly competitive universities should ask for just CVs then for the first round, and ask for more materials after the shortlist. If you only look at CVs why make candidates send all the other materials? I know some universities are moving toward a more "lean" application and I think it totally makes sense.
I think people are putting too much emphasis on publications I know people who were employed in top places without a single single-author publication. I was told by search committee member at a NY school that they look first where you come from, your CV, references and then other stuff.
I second that. Think about issues of external validity when generalizing from the faculty sample that's checking this blog at all. Internet-savvy (perhaps a blogger?), quick at turning a good idea into a paper, hyperproductive in a quantifiable kind of way.
A second point: is this blog at risk of becoming performative? Are committees using it to make quality valuations by observing each other in conditions of high uncertainty?
Dear 3:33
The reality is that standard procedure for almost every committee is that letters of rejection will not be sent until the search is complete. It ain't over 'til it's over. Usually several months. It is not reasonable to expect committee to send hundreds of e-mails to keep applicants up-to-date on the status of their search.
In the "real" (non-academic) world, one would not expect any response at all, so don't torture yourself. The more you can send 'em out and let 'em go, the more your sanity will be preserved....
I just hope that enough faculty members will get word of the sentiments on this blog to have some sort of effect on the whole process. If you're not going to read papers, don't ask for them! Do you realize how long it takes and how much it costs to make copies for those of us applying to several dozen jobs? If you're reading materials BEFORE the deadline, let people know it might be to their advantage to submit materials early. And I'm not even going to touch upon the gatekeping function of "pubs"
I am at a R1 that is currently hiring. All everyone talks about is pubs, pubs and pubs. SC's will not even bother to look at other elements of your application if you have no single authored pubs. What I find funny is when some of these *stars* (no offense to you stars out there) actually come for an interview and flub their job talks which totally turns off our faculty. As others have pointed out, Pubs might get you an initial interview, but there is much more to the hiring process. A candidate who is not as competitive in the beginning might look much better after the first round of interviews.
IDK--perhaps I am just telling myself this to ease my own pain!
As a PhD candidate on the market who has also been on a search committee at a top R1 school, I can empathize with both parties. We read through applications as they came in, and met the day after the deadline to make a short list. Only ten or so applications out of over 150 actually came in those last couple of days. In addition to prioritizing publications, we also weeded out many excellent candidates because they didn't "fill a hole" (e.g. were too similar to existing faculty) or just weren't what we were looking for substantively. Although many positions at top schools are "open", they often have a pretty good idea what they are looking for (or not) going in. It seems like a waste of mental energy to be angry and bitter already given 1) how early it is in the process and 2) the almost innumerable number of factors that go into hiring decisions.
My experience as a graduate student member of a junior search committee at an elite school may or may not have been typical. But here's what it was. One of the search committee members, a senior faculty member, said, "Don't bother reading the files unless they're from a top 20 department." (I guessed that everyone on the committee was supposed to have that top 20 list committed to memory.) Curiously, that same faculty member later on began to advocate for an applicant who was currently at a university no one had ever heard of. But she also had a sole-authored AJS piece. So I guess he was skimming the files anyway. And when he saw that AJS there, he said, "We can save her from obscurity." She didn't end up getting an interview, since there were enough candidates from top programs who also had top publications. But it was clear how these two factors were fetishized. It seemed that coming from an elite program was valued first as a time-saving device for the committee, but that the most important thing of all for getting a job at a good department was AJS, ASR, SF.
Hey all-
I total agree about the publication issue and believe that schools which uses quantity as their measure will miss many good candidates and most likely even the best candidates. However, we all know the harsh realities of academia, and we ourselves have become products in this process, not to mention that the measure of our worth is in how MUCH (not how interesting or innovative) we produce. So, I think a more positive way to view the situation is to ask yourself do you want to end up in a school, any school, that evaluates and measures their faculty in such a primitive manner? Really, I can understand that schools want to know you can publish, but how many articles do you need to prove this? I think those of us who get bypassed because we haven't "produced enough" may be lucky in the long run..and end up in a place which also values quality, innovation and contribution.
Hang in there and realize this is the dirty reality of academia which is being led by many of these "beloved" R1 "publishing" factories.
I know an easier way to count the number of Xs. When my department announces their short list, or when I get a definitive idea, I will come here and update that x count for my department. You do the same for your department. If you know anything just share it.
I don't think it's unethical to share this kind of information. We aren't naming any names are we?
;)
I can understand the Top-10 departments only looking at publications as a way to screen candidates. If pubs are required for tenure and nothing else matters, fine. I don't want to be at a cut-throat top department anyway. But I'm really lost as to how other departments make their short-list decisions. Other than the ubiquitous who has more publications", it seems that it is largely out of our control.
Can I just say, for any search committee people reading this: this whole process is really hard on us. Please don't make it more stressful than it has to be. I'd really like departments who only consider candidates with top-journal pubs to just put that in the job posting. "If you don't have a sole-authored publication in ASR, AJS, or SF, then save your $3.20 in postage and have a beer on us."
i am a student at a top-5 department. in the five years that i have been here, i have been to every job talk given by every candidate invited for an interview. i can tell you this:
we have hired someone without a single publication in a sociology journal.
we have hired someone who totally bombed the job talk.
we have hired someone who had better offers from other departments but accepted out offer because we have a prestigious name.
we have hired someone who was the weakest candidate interviewed but s/he had substantive interests that fit with the people we have here.
i don't know anything about the applicants not invited for interviews - our department doesn't allow a student to sit on the search committee. but at least among the candidates who were interviewed, it has been very random.
I suppose the grass is always greener...
I have a friend with more then one sole author ASJ, ASR, SF publication who is not at an R1 and s/he has yet to be contacted by anyone. Remember the ASR piece on the caste system in sociology, in which like hires like regardless of publications? S/he swears by it.
So it is at least ambiguous if publications or big name/advisor matter more.
I am a student at a top 5 department and I have seen the exact same thing (my department does allow students to sit in on the process so we are not from the same school). So when people ask that publications is the key--I don't buy it. I am sure it is part of the criteria but not all. It not a science, not even close.
From my experience, CVs are the fast way to cull applicants. A good CV is easy to spot and certainly moves the candidate to the next level of review. At that point, the cover letter and letters of support come into play.
Publications matter of course, but the BIGGEST issue we see at a smaller school is FIT. We don't want people who already do what others do (with the exception of having multiple folks who can and WILL teach stats, theory, methods). Even with open searches, there has to be an element of fit into the existing dept. If there are people who already do what you do, why would they want another? How does that help distribute the teaching load or help with advising student research? Candidates who stand out in open searches are those who are willing to cover some of the basics (stats, theory, methods) but could also do something new and innovative for that department.
And when he saw that AJS there, he said, "We can save her from obscurity."
This - from 5:48's post - is the first thing in 15 years that has made me question whether I want to be a sociologist a all. How profoundly disgusting a thing to say.
7:37- I understand what you mean, but it seems to me the professor made a "matter of fact" statement whether we like it or not.
Since these Xs were added, I have been so obsessed with them, I keep checking every minute. Am I the only one?
Hey 6:09
re: adding X's when you have inside info.
I don't think it's unethical at all, and it would be greatly appreciated. Please do it! Thanks for offering.
About the X's, the instructions on the wiki say to add an X when you personally are asked for materials, put on a shortlist, etc. I don't know if this is the best plan. It would clearly give an undercount, but it would also avoid an overcount, which is possible if people add X's for other people they know. If one person on a shortlist tells two friends and they both post an X, that's a problem. I don't know the solution.
Well, one solution would be to name names.
**ducks**
no names
I absolutely second the no names comment - there is nothing to be gained from learning candidates names.
Absolutely no names. Once you name names, this blog can easily degenerate into maliciousness. Please no names.
I agree. No names. The anonymity of this blog is truly unique to the culture of the academe. Here we can be ourselves, express our innermost anxieties and our triumphs, and we will not be judged for it the remainder of our careers.
Yes, no names and I think we should close that topic until people want to divulge that info themselves. BTW, are all the people being shortlisted 'stars'? Do you all have lots of solo authored pubs, come from a Top 5 dept, etc? I read on the Passing Time section of someone shortlisted at 4 places (including Chicago!)....
How about this-- if you're at a school and you know something (like the number of people on a short list), post the info on wiki but use an asterix - * - instead of an X.
Ay yay yay! All these -, *, etc. are just too much!
Just curious, how many folks are on multiple shortlists? I'm trying to figure out how to interpret all the Xs -- how many are the same people?
So far two shortlists for me -- my 2nd and 3rd choice. Neither is a top dept. Really impatient for my top choice school's deadline to arrive.
I don't think that Xs are reliable. Hard to believe that most schools contacted one or two people
Is anyone applying to schools in SoCal such as Cal Poly Pomona, USC, UCI etc? Both Cal Poly and UCI's deadline have passed. Just wondering if I'm the only one or if they are slow on contacting people for interviews (I know I read a while back that a few have sent in apps to Pepperdine) Thanks!!
You're not the only one. They're being slow. At least that's how it looks. Does anyone have any inside information...just a description of what stage they're at (UCI and Cal Poly)?
Great to know 5:20! Thanks.
Dear 2:04 pm:
Don't assume that all job applicants will visit this blog. I think bloggers here cover merely a third of the entire population of job candidates.
UCI does not yet have a short list.
Anybody knows anything about Riverside? Their deadline was a month ago. I have received a letter from them that says they have not received my letters yet and I should provide that information asap. I'm a little stressed.
Sorry to 'go fishing' for information, but... has anyone heard anything from American or UMBC?
Thanks!
Someone (sadly, not me) updated the history of science/STS wiki to say that Sarah Lawrence College had scheduled phone interviews.
University of Pittsburgh scheduled an interview????
While I was in favor of the Xs, I admit, I'm becoming increasingly suspicious of them.
Me too...UMaryland- 10 Xs?
UAlbany would not ask that many people for more info either...
Post a Comment