Albany has already sent out the schedule for the job talks.They have 4 people scheduled and are planning on making a decision the day after the last interview, which is November 6.
Sure, I'll speculate about Oregon. Sometimes when someone's too gosh-darned nervous-nelly about everything they jump the gun and put something on a list where it doesn't belon.
That and nobody ever considers Oregon, not even enough to pronounce it correctly. Hell, Oregon might have put itself on the Wiki just to generate some interest.
I finally removed Concordia from the "requested more materials." No one could verify whether this was anything more than the form letter. Although we're all aware of how iffy the info on the wiki can be, I'd like to at least keep up the pretense of trying. If I took it off in error, my sincere apologies.
Oregon sent out a very nice letter telling applicants if they were missing any materials. Someone might have mistaken that letter for a request for more materials?
All I know is that I applied there and I have not heard from them.
I am surprised there isn't more concern on this blog about schools like Penn scheduling interviews before their posted deadline has passed. I mentioned this to a colleague in another discipline, who thought it was actually quite unethical. Now, I realize the interviews are taking place after the deadline, but they were obviously scheduled more than a week in advance of it. If they are concerned about being able to catch the hot candidates, why not just make the deadline earlier? I got my applications in several weeks early at most places, but apparently, it is to your advantage to get them in at least a month early. I don't think this is widely known information. When I started applying for jobs last year, many people told me that the deadline is the deadline. That does not seem to be the case anymore.
I think that when we are faculty we should encourage our search committees to use on-line applications and/or the Maryland style initial letter and cv only. It's not very green to be shipping so much paper around to so many places, especially when committees won't go past the letter and cv for many (most?) candidates.
Thanks 3:17. I read the vita of the Penn ABD (pigeons) and that is one truly impressive ABD vita! This dude deserves the interview over me (a fellow ABD)! I feel better (in a way) that I had no shot at that one. I guess it's a mega reality check for me in that I am without book contract and a basket of top solo journal pubs. I think that I will begin to align my expectations to more lower tier schools.
RE: 11:24. It sucks that interviews are scheduled before deadlines, but academe is not 'fair'. It's becoming an even more harsh reality as this process goes on.
At the upper tier schools, it is very rare for someone 'unknown' to get an interview. I imagine that all those people Penn selected were known and likely courted well ahead of time. As far as they are concerned, there is no need to wait for the deadline because they already knew who they wanted to interview. Sucks, but there you go.
At our school, we did start reviewing applications before the deadline, but considered everyone who had their stuff in by the date (mid-Sept). We are still getting applications and rec letters.
Re: Rutgers Gender & Globalization position. I received an acknowledgment email from them a few weeks ago listing their deadline at 10/31. The letter said that they will then move quickly to schedule interviews in the Fall and make a decision in the late Fall or early Spring semester. I think the September deadline was a "we will begin reviewing applications" type of deadline and they must not have received too many by that date.
cpl - I think you should have gotten a letter from Oregon, even if your packet was complete. I don't have it in front of me, but I'm pretty sure it was sent to all applicants (and it did not ask for more materials). I'd get in touch to make sure nothing was lost.
I agree with 2:03. I am also adjusting my expectations. I am an ABD at a top 20 institution, and have nine pubs (some solo and first-author at solid journals). I have been on a lot of shortlists, but haven't gotten interviews at any top 25 schools. At this point, I will be happy with a job at a school that appears on the NRC or US News rankings at all! I heard from my chair that the market is really tight this year...flooded with excellent candidates.
The market might be full of great candidates, but that doesn't mean that sociologists should abandon all the tools of their discipline: setting up impossible designs for effective social action (misleading deadlines) and throwing up their hands instead of attempting institutional change ("that's just how it is"), or more generally letting some bizarre social mystique push everyone into interviewing the same person with the same questionable symbols (e.g., letting the pigeon feathers be pulled over their eyes).
I agree fully with the calls to do electronic applications, and call for more minimal materials for initial reviews. Just because SCs are staffed with real people who have real lives doesn't mean they should have licenses to be completely capricious and idiotic. Get it together people.
As for searchers, I don't think anyone should adjust their expectations downward because someone has a book contract from the dissertation. Not everyone does. Not everyone will ultimately want that same candidate, even if such a candidate has managed to get interviews at a score of most desirable places. And even if SCs do all want the same person, well, fortunately that person will have to make a single decision at some point, as has been said many times in this blog, and the market will start to clear up. No need for anyone to bow down and be rolled over by a book contract. Most of us will have one eventually. And if we had done more fieldwork...as some hyped research this season clearly states the meager amount conducted...well then it might take a bit longer to churn out a book. Therefore, keep up your hopes, use your sociology in approaching this search, and encourage your senior sociologists to do the same.
As impressive as the pigeon's publication record is, lets not forget that he is competing against two asst. profs (one from the Wisconsin-Madison and one from Duke; both with excellent publication and grant records). At any rate, 3 of these 4 are not going to get offers and/or are not going to take the job. It could be the case that none of the 4 take the job. This all means that we are still competing against at least 3 and maybe 4 of these people for other jobs. If any of the 4 of them applied for any of the jobs I did, they would get it over me- hands down.
On another point, why would the Wisconsin-Madison asst prof want to leave the top-ranked soc school after so much success there? He is a UPENN PhD alumnus. Maybe that gives him an edge?
Not to police discussion, but I've seen this type of thread deteriorate on other job search blogs.
First folks start inspecting other people's cv's. Then they start delving into their inner motivations. Next there is some criticisms of their career paths / publication records...
Please, by all means, discuss whatever you like. However, I've seen this conversation played out before and it never ends good.
i 2nd karl's concern. just because an identity is available at another source, please don't enter it into this blog. it serves no purpose. (hey, if you know someone's identity and want to understand their motivations, just e-mail them and ask!!)
I agree with Karl - once we start discussing specific candidates, things can get a little weird and mean-spirited, and I really like that we haven't done that yet.
I agree with Karl. You guys might as well have been naming names. In fact, I don't see how pointing folks to websites with job talks listed is any different than posting their names here.
If people are interested in who is interviewing at particular schools, they can take the time to troll the websites themselves.
1. I meant I had gotten the standard letter from Oregon, but nothing since then.
2. I agree with karl, as we all seem to. Stick to discussing open positions, not people.
3. Hear, hear on the proposal to encourage schools to go green. I spent $50 copying writing samples, student evals, etc. I know the world is several trees down just on my account. Letter + cv = first cut.
I heartily wish that more schools had asked for electronic applications. At this point, I really don't think using electronic applications shuts anyone out. It's probably safe to say that anyone with a dissertation can most likely upload materials or at least email them!
Having said all that, I would like to cheer on the "smaller" schools who only asked for a letter + CV for the first cut -- like U of West GA, for instance.
For the record, I spent far more than $50 on copying and mailing materials all over North America.
It's really horrible to discuss somebody's CV and the chances of getting a job. Worse than naming names. This is not what this blog is for. Instead of analyzing somebody's chances of getting a particular job, you should worry about your own career and spend your time on more productive things!!!!
11:01 and others, I think the point of the previous post was not to "analyze" others CVs but to get people to recognize that the people who are being interviews are highly qualified (probably more so than many of the people on this blog). Thus, all of the whining about not getting an interview at U Penn is probably unwarranted. Chances are that no matter where most of us apply, these 4 individuals will far outdistance the vast majority of us. Its just a reality check- nothing more. People need to calm the heck down!
If places like UPenn wanted any of us, we would know well ahead of time. They don't start with the applications they get. They start by meeting people well ahead of time through colleagues and at conferences. They post a deadline because they have to. Scheduling interviews before the deadline is not unethical. Continuously bringing up whether it is (when people keep saying its not) is whining. As several others have said, the lesson here is to get your materials in early.
11:39, I second your request for information about Amherst. I was really looking forward to getting to interview there as well. They are hiring for open positions, so I am guessing they are looking for the "best fit" for the department. Can anyone confirm that interviews have actually been scheduled at Amherst?
I agree with 11:37. First of all, pointing out public information on a public website does not amount to any breach of confidentiality. Second, the comments that were made about the Penn candidates were respectful. Most were amazing and impressed by their publication record. Most felt reassured that people who deserved to be called in were, in fact, called in. I, for one, am thankful for the postings.
Though I should probably put this on some other discussion thread, it seems appropriate here given the recent posts.
I specifically did not apply to the "open" searches at any of the top 10 schools. As we have discussed ad nauseam, these searches are NOT open. The people who get those jobs have most of the following going for them: they are from top 10 schools (more like top 5); they were courted and asked to apply; they are already known to the SC; and they are "stars."
I think this kind of hiring scheme does a couple of things: 1) it shuts out other excellent candidates; 2) it discourages innovation and creativity in the entire field; 3) it violates truth in advertising because the searches are not open; and 4) it causes unnecessary anxiety among scores of job applicants. Therefore, I "punished" the top 10 schools by not applying.
Now, you can say this is silly - and you'd be right because one person not applying is not going to hurt any Top 10 SC. But if I wasn't alone in my protest, then the punishment might have some net result on hiring practices.
If you know in your heart that you are not a "star" and you haven't been courted and you're not from a top 5, then consider not applying to top 10 schools as protest. Then tell people here on the blog. Word will get around if enough of us do it.
Stanford's search committee was supposed to meet on Friday again. Does anyone know if they made any decisions, and if they've notified folks who made the cut?
11:55 - I think you might be over generalizing a bit. While some schools do court specific people, call people early, etc, when I was on the search committee of a top 5 school a couple of years ago, the faculty didn't do those things. I think you are right in noting that the criteria used by such schools is biased towards candidates from other top schools, but I'm just not sure that every top place does everything behind our backs. Saying it's all "fixed" is away of saying nothing can be done about it.
I'd argue instead that we need to work on changing people's ideas of what a successful applicant is (i.e., s/he doesn't need to come from a top school with three pubs in AJS or ASR) - a successful applicant should be someone smart, doing interesting work, with potential to continue on that path. From talking with senior faculty, it sounds like in some ways it was more like that thirty years ago. (Emphasis on "in some ways" since we all know other things were different than as well related to race, gender, etc...)
Just my two cents, take it or leave it as you like. :)
Hey, some folks mentioned how much $$ they spent copying and mailing those applications. Remember to save all those job search receipts so that come April 15 you might be able to deduct them from your federal taxes. It's subject to all kinds of restrictions, but might help ease a few budgets.
Can anyone who has been contacted by a SC or hiring department prior to applying tell me what that is like?
I was contacted by 1 school out of the blue and met with them at ASA. Afterwards, we exchanged thank-you notes and that's it. I know that's not what people mean when they say schools court some applicants, but I'm curious what they do.
I'm guessing its not like college sports recruiting and you don't get a new car for your mom ;)
Re: UMass Amherst - it's not a top 10 program but it's an R1 in a great location. In their last couple of searches they have gotten over 300 applications each time. You have to figure that even if only 1/4 of those are really qualified, the chance of any particular person getting an interview there are miniscule, no matter how good you are.
Has anyone heard from Georgia State yet (race & urban position)? Any ideas what they're timeline looks like? Or any ideas whether they're hiring for one or two positions?
I think some people are getting a little ahead of themselves about rigged searches.
I am NOT " from top 10 schools (more like top 5)"
I was NOT "courted and asked to apply" to any jobs
I was NOT "already known to the SC"
I don't recall ever being annointed a "star."
Many good places have passed me over, but some others have shown interest, including top open searches. It is a bit insulting to those who do work hard and struggle in obscurity with student loans when you assume that it must be rigged because you did not get called.
Time to channel Karl here-- the complaining is turning vitriolic.
Look at the rankings, found either earlier on this thread or on a related thread on this site. Someone posted it for the top 65 ranked programs, which covers a lot of them if you wish to go to a research university.
3:21 we're kindered spirits, except that I have been skipped over by open search committees at top places, and am incredibly bitter. The question is how many of you are out there, and whether most of us who are "unkown qunatities" really get picked up by top SCs. The input that we've had on the blog from SCs was not many. The problem, folks, is that there are too many of us. And we're going to perpetutate the problem by taking jobs at lower-ranked research institutions that will keep churning out yet more super-qualified PhDs
400 applications!!? Why are there so many of us? I really dont get this. Wasnt there a time when getting a PhD was hard? Maybe schools need to stop taking in so many new students. I know my incoming cohort was over 20 people. Half dropped out along the way. It is beyond frustrating that we are competing with SO many people.
The Upenn talks (as it should be obvious) are for two diff positions. The ABD guy is going for the culture/race; the other two for the demography. One caveat on superstars and invitation, the pigeon guy is an example of hard work and hardly of stardom. He comes from an R1 deep into the 30s in the rankins, works on a subject absolutely non sexy and has managed to publish an entirely ethnography piece at ASR, a weird accomplishment. I don't imagine departments salivating about him until he sent his CV with the forthcoming ASR pub.
As someone who has pubs in good places who hasn't heard anything yet, I can commiserate with everyone who hasn't heard anything. Still, I find it amusing that so many people are critiquing SCs for choosing people who have demonstrated their ability to do and publish good research over those who just have "potential." I mean, really, is it all that surprising? Realistically, would you expect an SC to take a chance on someone who might do enough to get tenure versus someone who has already shown they've likely got what it takes to get tenure?
I don't mean to disparage those without pubs or not at a top school (I don't have any interviews or even any nibbles, either), but I can't say I'm surprised at who seems to be chosen at this point.
I received a letter from George Washington Univ. confirming that they had received my application and that they would begin reviewing files on October 19.
Hey, can we hear from the people on the Oregon short list. (I was looking at the Wiki, refreshed my browswer 5 mins later and it went from one X to three). How were you all contacted. I take it you were asked for interviews? Congrats!
Re: Oregon. They contacted me via email to let me know i was on their short list and that they are meeting this coming monday (10/29) to make decisions about who to fly out.
Well I'll come clean about being one of the people with an interview at Penn (not the pigeon guy, whose work looks great, btw). FWIW, I didn't have any contact with them before they called me out of the blue. So, unless it was behind the scenes, no "anointing" process took place.
Regarding the supposed power of being at a "top 5," remember that most people from top 5s don't get great jobs (or even particularly good ones). Some might also argue that being the star student at a 20-30 ranked school would be more advantageous than being one of 8 "good" students coming out of the same Top Five U every year. I personally know a couple people who placed MUCH higher than their Ph.D. granting department. It happens when people do really great work.
It's also kind of irksome to see "stardom" completely decoupled from hard work (see e.g., 3:53). I have known some stars over the past few years, and I can testify to how much time and energy they put into what they do. Let's just say--for better or worse--you won't find them at a coffee shop or a protest march. You will find them in their office. Working.
I think it is helpful to remember that the quality of your work is not always reflected in any individual measure of success at any single point in time. Even senior faculty who are considered to be among the best scholars in their field still get rejection letters sometimes from second-tier journals. Applicants who don't even make a single short-list one year have been known to have multiple offers the following year (I have personally known people like this). I know it is stressful, especially when issues of self-worth are tied to professional accomplishment. But the reality is that most people who complete a PhD in sociology find themselves employed and enjoy a successful career.
Along with this, any single person's "success" in this field is due to a lot of factors. Hard work and dedication is an important one, as is having a good mentor and access to resources. There is a Mathew Effect so success begets success. Family situation probably matters. Past life experiences, etc...point being...
Imagine a regression model predicting job market success. You wouldn't have much power with any single variable. But if you include everything we can think of, I still bet you wouldn't get an R-squared of even .5
6:33 here. No argument there. My point was not that hard work is sufficient to attain some specified level of success. That's plainly not true (in the short run, anyway). But I guess I want to dispute the notion that there is some purely exogenous, randomly distributed, "star" quality that just magically gets tacked on to certain random people. It's a comforting theory (and one that is also often applied to explain differential levels of mentoring in grad school) but ultimately it doesn't hold water.
What the heck is with the ongoing disputes about Oregon's search? Over the last 2 weeks information about the status of that position has been somewhat misleading or fabricated, and the wiki's been a battleground of x's and removing x's, etc.
The new UNLV position has piqued my interest, but does anyone know what the deal is with the late posting? The announcement says the deadline in December 10th (kinda late for a decent school like UNLV). And on the department website, it says they began reviewing files April 2, 2007. What's going on here?
Dont know what's going on with the Oregon list. I received an email yesterday saying that I was shortlisted and that they would be making a decision about who to invite next Monday. I added my X - now its gone. About to put it back.
I think Oregon, as other departments that have similar positions within the hierarchy of sociology departments, has become the battleground of our broken expectations.
Few people in this blog feel bad for not having had a chance at Chicago or Berkeley. Many of us will seriously start to question themselves if *not even Oregon was interested.
The X's come and go because we are trying to infer too much from the blog. In other words, their presence / absence follow our expectations.
Well said, 6:37. I think that you have captured the essence of the academic job market and the toll it takes on us. Can we start mobilizing to get dpts. to reduce their graduate programs?
The email I received is below. I don't think there is much of an inside story other than they just got late approval for the positions and probably realize that they will get more applicants to select from if they leave the application window open longer.
***************************
Hi,
I am on the sociology search committee at UNLV...can you post our job opening on your blog? We just got approved for 3 positions at the assistant level. We are getting a late start on this and need all the help we can get!!
The mess with the Univ of Oregon X's might be my fault. I went to add an X and I thought it worked. I came back to the site a few hours later, and found out that the page was still open in "edit" mode. Maybe that screwed things up... Sorry.
Would the person or people who 1) posted that Oregon was interviewing when no interviews had been scheduled and who 2) removed the X's from the shortlist section, please say a little about why they did that? Maybe it will make sense to us all once you mention the information you were working with.
8:04 here: sorry 7:52, I didn't get a chance to see your post before I posted. But I don't think that by leaving the page in edit mode you could have erased the X's. You would have needed to actually delete them on your screen.
Interesting. At the same time I know someone who was just asked for more information. I wonder if s/he is a backup or if they have made different levels of progress on deciding pools of candidates for their 2 openings.
Here's a link to an interesting critical assessment of the business of intellectual production and the political economy of academia, written by a senior Princeton historian http://www.historians.org/Perspectives/issues/2007/0710/0710vie1.cfm?Refby=e
9:35, same here. I've had some of my X's go missing. I can understand deleting something that wasn't confirmed if you had info to disprove the rumor, but to delete that someone noted they have an interview or were contacted about something?
UCLA's Center for Society and Genetics is bringing in UCSD's Professor Jenny Reardon for a guest lecture on Oct 29. This was just announced in the last day or two. It's very likely that Reardon is the primary contender for that open rank Soc-Center job.
It would be very difficult to compete as an ABD with Reardon in an open rank search.
A closer look at the colloquium page on their website shows 1 and possibly 2 other candidates in addition to the one noted above. All 3 are pretty awesome. None are ABD.
I think it's safe to say that this job is off the market now.
I put it on the list. I received an email this afternoon requesting a phone interview sometime over the next four days. I do not know why it was later removed.
Maybe SCs are deleting the info in the hopes of slowing candidates' decision-making down - i.e. increasing their chances of hedging their bets? If we're all still holding out hope, then no one's jumping any guns, right?
I too think SC's are up to something. maybe they are deleting them because, if they later have to dip in the reserve pool if the first round of interviewees don't pan out, they don't want anyone to know they had to go to their second choices.
Re: UMASS-Amherst. They contacted me and said they have a long list of 25-30 (and that it's still going to take them a couple weeks to move through it). Remember, they have multiple lines. Just because their name is under the scheduled interviews portion of the wiki does not mean it's over. it ain't over till it's over, baby. hang in there.
Re: Waiver of right to access ltrs of rec (10/22/07 11:17).
I just got one of these, too. There are four options: waive rights to internal & external letters; waive rights to internal letters; w.r. to external letters; and decline to waive.
Does anyone know what happens if you decline in whole or part?
I don't mind waiving my rights to see the letters I solicited on my behalf, but I don't want to waive my rights to other materials. My current dept has become an even more bitter and nasty place, and I don't trust some of my colleagues not to railroad my applications to other schools. Any advice??
I'm fairly sure that your decision whether or not to waive access to any materials cannot be considered in the hiring process. I know that is true for school applications.
1:08 : Yup, I got UMass waiver a few days ago. It's probably dumb, but when I saw that they already had lined up interviews on this blog, I just trashed them....
What have people heard about the UCONN job? It seems that everytime someone asks, no one answers. They've changed to a shortlist, but have people actually been contacted or is this the SC who is posting?
Yes, it was UMass. By "other materials" I was thinking that if through the grapevine they talked to some current co=workers (who aren't very colleagial). The form is vague about who solicited the "letters or statements."
Since they're interviewing already, I guess it doesn't matter. So maybe I won't even waste a 41 cent stamp! Shouldn't paper EO/AA forms come with a SASE?!
"By "other materials" I was thinking that if through the grapevine they talked to some current co=workers (who aren't very colleagial). The form is vague about who solicited the "letters or statements."
I'm sorry - what does this mean? (no rudeness intended, just curious)
2:48, I would think that if something was said about you "through the grapevine" (and not at your request), then you have no rights to that information to waive, yes?
Re: Northwestern. They're moving slower this year than last. There are 2 positions: 1 junior, 1 tenured. They received 300+ applications for the junior position. But as of yet, they're still reviewing files.
I suspect that is an example intentionally vague language used to protect parties from privacy issues. FERPA and other policies are making the process of writing and asking for references a whole lot trickier than in the past. I wouldn't read anything more into it.
Yes, do not read too much into it. And no, it should not impact the hiring decision.
If I was worried about what colleagues might say/do, then I would not waive the right. The SC will have those not-positive solicited materials, so you might as well have the right to defend yourself.
I would recommend some people here to stop being so wary of information. Some of us posting here are neither on the market nor on SCs, but are junior faculty who happen to know information from both colleagues at SCs and on the market and report the info to help those who want to know whether they are going to be called or not for certain jobs. Stop being so paranoid about it and respect the anonimity of the sources! best, bibi
I heard that U-Mass Amherst has only scheduled a subset of its interviews. They have something like 4 positions.The committee is supposed to be meeting this coming Friday to select the next slate (more junior candidates, I believe). They're probably doing their junior folks first, then the senior folks.
7:12, can we get some more information on the Vermont interviews. Has anyone actually gotten contacted yet for an interview? Which position is it for (inequality or public policy)? Thanks!
Tomorrow's the day when Oregon decides whom to fly out. Let's hope they reach beyond the same 5 or 6 people who have already put lots of X's on the wiki. Impress us with your orginiality!
Re: the inequality position at Vermont. There were some phone contacts on Friday to schedule interviews for November. I don't know about the public policy position.
I’m the chair of the recruitment committee at UMass-Amherst (and, therefore, not really anonymous). I hope nobody objects to my posting here. I wanted to say just a few things. 1) I think, as do other members of the recruitment committee, that socrumormill is a terrific thing. We are all in favor of circulating information as freely as possible and insofar as it is compatible with maintaining candidates’ confidentiality. 2) If people think it would be helpful for me to post a note about our process—how we constituted a committee, how we reviewed files, what criteria we used—I would be happy to do that. 3) We have a MINIMUM of four positions, one or two of which may be senior. 4) We have already invited in four candidates, three junior and one senior. 5) We have a short list of about 25 additional names for junior positions. We are meeting on Monday (Oct 29) and intend to issue four more invitations for interviews. I expect to be in touch with those four (if we agree on them) Monday or Tuesday evening. 6) Even after those four invitations, we aren’t done. We have yet to review the full list of senior candidates and will probably do so at a meeting on November 5th. How enthusiastic the committee is about the senior candidates will determine whether we go back to the pool of junior candidates for additional invitations. 7) There is also a chance we will be able to hire as part of a “cluster hiring” that is going on across departments. If this does happen we will be looking specifically for junior people in “science, technology and society” studies or junior people in health. This hire (or hires) would be in addition to the four lines we are already looking at. 8) We received well over 400 applications. Every member of the committee—five faculty and two grad students—made an effort to look at each file and read substantial parts of the writing samples in each. It was a massive task. I thought the level of competition was extremely high (and, like many faculty who serve on recruitment committees, I wound up feeling very fortunate that I’m employed).
I am not so far removed from this whole process—either for myself or for my students—to forget how miserable it is to search for jobs. Demystifying the process might involve occasional moments of pain but my guess is that the more information that circulates, the better off most of us (on both sides of the hiring process) will be.
wow. professor zussman, thank you very much for your candor. it is definitely much appreciated, and I think I can speak for most if not all of us in saying that yes, any further information you can provide us about evaluation criteria would be most helpful.
Like others, I admire your candor, and I hope other SCs will follow your lead. I wish I could unload the cloak of anonymity, yet I am still a job aspirant. The question is, how can we move this dialogue further at the institutional level? Do departments have any moral duties towards their graduates? Can they ethically continue admitting and graduating scores of bright, young people who will emerge several years later with useless degrees and many lost opportunities? The profession is obviously in dire straits, yet departments keep churning out more and more graduate students. My own department, a top five that shall not be named, graduated more than 25 last year! I’m doing my fair share by telling anyone who asks for my opinion to stay away from social science/humanity PhD unless they’re independently wealthy, are 120% geographically flexible, and have other career opportunities in mind. Of course, they don’t believe me, but I’m decorated enough that it gives people pause. Are department doing enough to warn their enthusiastic recruit about this? I believe “buyer beware” is the motto.
6:14, you raise a vital question. But let's keep that issue separate from the fact that a SC chair values transparency and has taken the time to post here. I think it's fair to say that UMass-Amherst has just made itself a more desirable pick for job market candidates who might have choices about where to go. Not to mention, it's just the right thing to do. Now, to end with a small suggestion. How about letting those people on the long list know that there's a bit of interest in them? It would go a long way to boosting morale.
7:39, I agree with your comment about being notified if you're on a list of some sort. I think it would help many of us at least feel appreciated in this process. It will still suck not getting an interview, but I would be comforted just knowing that I was considered.
I just saw that Riverside Global Social Change is listed next to Crim on one listing under the scheduled interviews. Anyone know what this is about? Is it an error or can anyone confirm that Riverside is interviewing for the GLobal Social Change position?
Re: UIC & which position -- I have no inside info, but it seems this must be for the position(s) advertised within the Sociology Dept. The Latin American job (mentioned in a question yesterday) is not in the Sociology Dept, but could be construed as having a sociology focus.
"...letting some bizarre social mystique push everyone into interviewing the same person with the same questionable symbols (e.g., letting the pigeon feathers be pulled over their eyes)..."
I see a bunch of schools on the wiki have only one "X" in the "scheduled interview" column. Is this because a lot of folks don't read the wiki, folks don't want to put down their "X", or some schools only fly in one candidate and decide yes or no before flying in another?
Kent State just posted a job on the ASA job bank that looks awfully similar to their current job opening... although the deadline is december 8. Is this a new job, or did they just extend the deadline?
I noticed that UCLA (soc/center for society and genetics) was moved from the "scheduling interviews" back to "has a short list." What does this mean? Are the 2 fantastic looking scholars (one full prof and one asst prof) scheduled to give talks in the next 2 weeks candidates for the position or not? Is my phone going to ring after all?
For the love of Durkheim, stop messing with my mind!
Are you 100% sure about that? I am fairly certain interviews will only be decided upon next week. I don't mean to add to the usual "distrust the blog" mantra, just making sure.
People have indicated that these schools (among others) have contacted interviewees. Have they contacted all those they intend to interview, or only some? Will any of these schools be contacting yet others this week, or have they contacted all they want to for now?
I haven't heard from Concordia since my phone interview. They had several people and might still be working though phone interviews/shortening the list.
Berkeley: I think it is either inaccurate that they scheduled interviews OR they are moving at different paces on both searches. I can confirm Berkeley just asked some finalists for more materials in addition to 3+ writing samples they asked for originally.
Anyone have the scoop on Chicago? I believe they have multiple searches in place but only 2 X's. How many candidates did they invite so far? Are they planning on inviting more? Are they looking to fill any one area in particular? Thanks!
2,327 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 801 – 1000 of 2327 Newer› Newest»Albany has already sent out the schedule for the job talks.They have 4 people scheduled and are planning on making a decision the day after the last interview, which is November 6.
Sure, I'll speculate about Oregon. Sometimes when someone's too gosh-darned nervous-nelly about everything they jump the gun and put something on a list where it doesn't belon.
That and nobody ever considers Oregon, not even enough to pronounce it correctly. Hell, Oregon might have put itself on the Wiki just to generate some interest.
6:58: What is wrong with Oregon?
Yeah, 6:58, what's wrong with Oregon? I imagine it is a highly desirable place to live and work. I imagine Oregon received tons of applications.
I finally removed Concordia from the "requested more materials." No one could verify whether this was anything more than the form letter. Although we're all aware of how iffy the info on the wiki can be, I'd like to at least keep up the pretense of trying. If I took it off in error, my sincere apologies.
7:42, I think that's fine. They are doing phone interviews this week so in terms of "keeping tabs" on the school I don't think it matters anymore.
Oregon sent out a very nice letter telling applicants if they were missing any materials. Someone might have mistaken that letter for a request for more materials?
All I know is that I applied there and I have not heard from them.
-cpl
I am surprised there isn't more concern on this blog about schools like Penn scheduling interviews before their posted deadline has passed. I mentioned this to a colleague in another discipline, who thought it was actually quite unethical. Now, I realize the interviews are taking place after the deadline, but they were obviously scheduled more than a week in advance of it. If they are concerned about being able to catch the hot candidates, why not just make the deadline earlier? I got my applications in several weeks early at most places, but apparently, it is to your advantage to get them in at least a month early. I don't think this is widely known information. When I started applying for jobs last year, many people told me that the deadline is the deadline. That does not seem to be the case anymore.
Does anyone know what's happening with the Rutgers Gender and Globalization position? The deadline was October 15.
I think that when we are faculty we should encourage our search committees to use on-line applications and/or the Maryland style initial letter and cv only. It's not very green to be shipping so much paper around to so many places, especially when committees won't go past the letter and cv for many (most?) candidates.
Sorry, I meant September 15 for the Rutgers deadline.
Thanks 3:17. I read the vita of the Penn ABD (pigeons) and that is one truly impressive ABD vita! This dude deserves the interview over me (a fellow ABD)! I feel better (in a way) that I had no shot at that one. I guess it's a mega reality check for me in that I am without book contract and a basket of top solo journal pubs. I think that I will begin to align my expectations to more lower tier schools.
RE: 11:24. It sucks that interviews are scheduled before deadlines, but academe is not 'fair'. It's becoming an even more harsh reality as this process goes on.
At the upper tier schools, it is very rare for someone 'unknown' to get an interview. I imagine that all those people Penn selected were known and likely courted well ahead of time. As far as they are concerned, there is no need to wait for the deadline because they already knew who they wanted to interview. Sucks, but there you go.
At our school, we did start reviewing applications before the deadline, but considered everyone who had their stuff in by the date (mid-Sept). We are still getting applications and rec letters.
Re: Rutgers Gender & Globalization position. I received an acknowledgment email from them a few weeks ago listing their deadline at 10/31. The letter said that they will then move quickly to schedule interviews in the Fall and make a decision in the late Fall or early Spring semester. I think the September deadline was a "we will begin reviewing applications" type of deadline and they must not have received too many by that date.
I apologize-- for Rutgers it was a letter not an email. Just typed too quickly.
cpl - I think you should have gotten a letter from Oregon, even if your packet was complete. I don't have it in front of me, but I'm pretty sure it was sent to all applicants (and it did not ask for more materials). I'd get in touch to make sure nothing was lost.
I agree with 2:03. I am also adjusting my expectations. I am an ABD at a top 20 institution, and have nine pubs (some solo and first-author at solid journals). I have been on a lot of shortlists, but haven't gotten interviews at any top 25 schools. At this point, I will be happy with a job at a school that appears on the NRC or US News rankings at all! I heard from my chair that the market is really tight this year...flooded with excellent candidates.
The market might be full of great candidates, but that doesn't mean that sociologists should abandon all the tools of their discipline: setting up impossible designs for effective social action (misleading deadlines) and throwing up their hands instead of attempting institutional change ("that's just how it is"), or more generally letting some bizarre social mystique push everyone into interviewing the same person with the same questionable symbols (e.g., letting the pigeon feathers be pulled over their eyes).
I agree fully with the calls to do electronic applications, and call for more minimal materials for initial reviews. Just because SCs are staffed with real people who have real lives doesn't mean they should have licenses to be completely capricious and idiotic. Get it together people.
As for searchers, I don't think anyone should adjust their expectations downward because someone has a book contract from the dissertation. Not everyone does. Not everyone will ultimately want that same candidate, even if such a candidate has managed to get interviews at a score of most desirable places. And even if SCs do all want the same person, well, fortunately that person will have to make a single decision at some point, as has been said many times in this blog, and the market will start to clear up. No need for anyone to bow down and be rolled over by a book contract. Most of us will have one eventually. And if we had done more fieldwork...as some hyped research this season clearly states the meager amount conducted...well then it might take a bit longer to churn out a book. Therefore, keep up your hopes, use your sociology in approaching this search, and encourage your senior sociologists to do the same.
Does anyone know what's up with the Florida State position? The deadline was Oct 1. Do they have interviews set up?
As impressive as the pigeon's publication record is, lets not forget that he is competing against two asst. profs (one from the Wisconsin-Madison and one from Duke; both with excellent publication and grant records). At any rate, 3 of these 4 are not going to get offers and/or are not going to take the job. It could be the case that none of the 4 take the job. This all means that we are still competing against at least 3 and maybe 4 of these people for other jobs. If any of the 4 of them applied for any of the jobs I did, they would get it over me- hands down.
On another point, why would the Wisconsin-Madison asst prof want to leave the top-ranked soc school after so much success there? He is a UPENN PhD alumnus. Maybe that gives him an edge?
Not to police discussion, but I've seen this type of thread deteriorate on other job search blogs.
First folks start inspecting other people's cv's. Then they start delving into their inner motivations. Next there is some criticisms of their career paths / publication records...
Please, by all means, discuss whatever you like. However, I've seen this conversation played out before and it never ends good.
-karl
...receding into the midst
Anyone hear anything from Barnard? Thanks!
Nope, I've heard nothing, not even a "we received your application" letter from Barnard either. Starting to wonder if my application ever got there!
i 2nd karl's concern. just because an identity is available at another source, please don't enter it into this blog. it serves no purpose. (hey, if you know someone's identity and want to understand their motivations, just e-mail them and ask!!)
I agree with Karl - once we start discussing specific candidates, things can get a little weird and mean-spirited, and I really like that we haven't done that yet.
I agree with Karl. You guys might as well have been naming names. In fact, I don't see how pointing folks to websites with job talks listed is any different than posting their names here.
If people are interested in who is interviewing at particular schools, they can take the time to troll the websites themselves.
I agree with myself
-karl
1. I meant I had gotten the standard letter from Oregon, but nothing since then.
2. I agree with karl, as we all seem to. Stick to discussing open positions, not people.
3. Hear, hear on the proposal to encourage schools to go green. I spent $50 copying writing samples, student evals, etc. I know the world is several trees down just on my account. Letter + cv = first cut.
-cpl
I heartily wish that more schools had asked for electronic applications. At this point, I really don't think using electronic applications shuts anyone out. It's probably safe to say that anyone with a dissertation can most likely upload materials or at least email them!
Having said all that, I would like to cheer on the "smaller" schools who only asked for a letter + CV for the first cut -- like U of West GA, for instance.
For the record, I spent far more than $50 on copying and mailing materials all over North America.
It's really horrible to discuss somebody's CV and the chances of getting a job. Worse than naming names. This is not what this blog is for.
Instead of analyzing somebody's chances of getting a particular job, you should worry about your own career and spend your time on more productive things!!!!
How many people have been scheduled at Amherst? I'm crushed, that was one place I thought I might actually get noticed.
11:01 and others, I think the point of the previous post was not to "analyze" others CVs but to get people to recognize that the people who are being interviews are highly qualified (probably more so than many of the people on this blog). Thus, all of the whining about not getting an interview at U Penn is probably unwarranted. Chances are that no matter where most of us apply, these 4 individuals will far outdistance the vast majority of us. Its just a reality check- nothing more. People need to calm the heck down!
Where, exactly, was this whining, 11:37? Or does questioning the ethics of something constitute whining these days? Wow.
If places like UPenn wanted any of us, we would know well ahead of time. They don't start with the applications they get. They start by meeting people well ahead of time through colleagues and at conferences. They post a deadline because they have to. Scheduling interviews before the deadline is not unethical. Continuously bringing up whether it is (when people keep saying its not) is whining. As several others have said, the lesson here is to get your materials in early.
11:39, I second your request for information about Amherst. I was really looking forward to getting to interview there as well. They are hiring for open positions, so I am guessing they are looking for the "best fit" for the department. Can anyone confirm that interviews have actually been scheduled at Amherst?
I agree with 11:37. First of all, pointing out public information on a public website does not amount to any breach of confidentiality. Second, the comments that were made about the Penn candidates were respectful. Most were amazing and impressed by their publication record. Most felt reassured that people who deserved to be called in were, in fact, called in. I, for one, am thankful for the postings.
Though I should probably put this on some other discussion thread, it seems appropriate here given the recent posts.
I specifically did not apply to the "open" searches at any of the top 10 schools. As we have discussed ad nauseam, these searches are NOT open. The people who get those jobs have most of the following going for them: they are from top 10 schools (more like top 5); they were courted and asked to apply; they are already known to the SC; and they are "stars."
I think this kind of hiring scheme does a couple of things: 1) it shuts out other excellent candidates; 2) it discourages innovation and creativity in the entire field; 3) it violates truth in advertising because the searches are not open; and 4) it causes unnecessary anxiety among scores of job applicants. Therefore, I "punished" the top 10 schools by not applying.
Now, you can say this is silly - and you'd be right because one person not applying is not going to hurt any Top 10 SC. But if I wasn't alone in my protest, then the punishment might have some net result on hiring practices.
If you know in your heart that you are not a "star" and you haven't been courted and you're not from a top 5, then consider not applying to top 10 schools as protest. Then tell people here on the blog. Word will get around if enough of us do it.
Seriously, you have nothing to lose, right?
hmmmmm....so no one has word on Cal Poly Pomona yet....the deadline was over a month ago!
Stanford's search committee was supposed to meet on Friday again. Does anyone know if they made any decisions, and if they've notified folks who made the cut?
11:55 - I think you might be over generalizing a bit. While some schools do court specific people, call people early, etc, when I was on the search committee of a top 5 school a couple of years ago, the faculty didn't do those things. I think you are right in noting that the criteria used by such schools is biased towards candidates from other top schools, but I'm just not sure that every top place does everything behind our backs. Saying it's all "fixed" is away of saying nothing can be done about it.
I'd argue instead that we need to work on changing people's ideas of what a successful applicant is (i.e., s/he doesn't need to come from a top school with three pubs in AJS or ASR) - a successful applicant should be someone smart, doing interesting work, with potential to continue on that path. From talking with senior faculty, it sounds like in some ways it was more like that thirty years ago. (Emphasis on "in some ways" since we all know other things were different than as well related to race, gender, etc...)
Just my two cents, take it or leave it as you like. :)
Hey, some folks mentioned how much $$ they spent copying and mailing those applications. Remember to save all those job search receipts so that come April 15 you might be able to deduct them from your federal taxes. It's subject to all kinds of restrictions, but might help ease a few budgets.
Can anyone who has been contacted by a SC or hiring department prior to applying tell me what that is like?
I was contacted by 1 school out of the blue and met with them at ASA. Afterwards, we exchanged thank-you notes and that's it. I know that's not what people mean when they say schools court some applicants, but I'm curious what they do.
I'm guessing its not like college sports recruiting and you don't get a new car for your mom ;)
Re: UMass Amherst - it's not a top 10 program but it's an R1 in a great location. In their last couple of searches they have gotten over 300 applications each time. You have to figure that even if only 1/4 of those are really qualified, the chance of any particular person getting an interview there are miniscule, no matter how good you are.
Has anyone heard from Georgia State yet (race & urban position)? Any ideas what they're timeline looks like? Or any ideas whether they're hiring for one or two positions?
I'm with 1:31. Eager to know about the status of GSU!
I heard Berea has scheduled some phone interviews.
Re: Open searches.
I think some people are getting a little ahead of themselves about rigged searches.
I am NOT " from top 10 schools (more like top 5)"
I was NOT "courted and asked to apply" to any jobs
I was NOT "already known to the SC"
I don't recall ever being annointed a "star."
Many good places have passed me over, but some others have shown interest, including top open searches. It is a bit insulting to those who do work hard and struggle in obscurity with student loans when you assume that it must be rigged because you did not get called.
Time to channel Karl here-- the complaining is turning vitriolic.
My PhD is from abroad so I don't have a good sense of school rankings/prestige etc.
Is Univ. of Maryland- Baltimore a good school?
What about University of Kansas?
Just confirmed with a friend who goes to UMass - they have scheduled interviews. This year, they got over 400 applications.
3:26-
Look at the rankings, found either earlier on this thread or on a related thread on this site. Someone posted it for the top 65 ranked programs, which covers a lot of them if you wish to go to a research university.
3:21 we're kindered spirits, except that I have been skipped over by open search committees at top places, and am incredibly bitter. The question is how many of you are out there, and whether most of us who are "unkown qunatities" really get picked up by top SCs. The input that we've had on the blog from SCs was not many.
The problem, folks, is that there are too many of us. And we're going to perpetutate the problem by taking jobs at lower-ranked research institutions that will keep churning out yet more super-qualified PhDs
400 applications!!? Why are there so many of us? I really dont get this. Wasnt there a time when getting a PhD was hard? Maybe schools need to stop taking in so many new students. I know my incoming cohort was over 20 people. Half dropped out along the way. It is beyond frustrating that we are competing with SO many people.
The Upenn talks (as it should be obvious) are for two diff positions. The ABD guy is going for the culture/race; the other two for the demography.
One caveat on superstars and invitation, the pigeon guy is an example of hard work and hardly of stardom. He comes from an R1 deep into the 30s in the rankins, works on a subject absolutely non sexy and has managed to publish an entirely ethnography piece at ASR, a weird accomplishment.
I don't imagine departments salivating about him until he sent his CV with the forthcoming ASR pub.
absolutely! kudos for the pigeon guy. it makes me happy to see someone with that profile make it to the top! good for you!
As someone who has pubs in good places who hasn't heard anything yet, I can commiserate with everyone who hasn't heard anything. Still, I find it amusing that so many people are critiquing SCs for choosing people who have demonstrated their ability to do and publish good research over those who just have "potential." I mean, really, is it all that surprising? Realistically, would you expect an SC to take a chance on someone who might do enough to get tenure versus someone who has already shown they've likely got what it takes to get tenure?
I don't mean to disparage those without pubs or not at a top school (I don't have any interviews or even any nibbles, either), but I can't say I'm surprised at who seems to be chosen at this point.
For whomever posted on the wiki about the Purdue AASRC position, can you please let us know what additional materials they requested? Thanks!
I received a letter from George Washington Univ. confirming that they had received my application and that they would begin reviewing files on October 19.
I was the person who posted about Purdue AASRC. I was asked to send additional writing samples.
Hey, can we hear from the people on the Oregon short list. (I was looking at the Wiki, refreshed my browswer 5 mins later and it went from one X to three). How were you all contacted. I take it you were asked for interviews? Congrats!
Riverside people... crim or world system? Thanks and good luck!
Any more news from U. of Maryland-college park?
Riverside: crim. I updated on the wiki. Thanks! :)
Berkeley: Someone added that they have 5 finalists, but no one has owned up to an interview. Can anyone explain?
Are they narrowing to 2-3 interviews?
Re: Oregon. They contacted me via email to let me know i was on their short list and that they are meeting this coming monday (10/29) to make decisions about who to fly out.
UNLV just opened its search for 3 new positions. Check the posting on jobs.
Well I'll come clean about being one of the people with an interview at Penn (not the pigeon guy, whose work looks great, btw). FWIW, I didn't have any contact with them before they called me out of the blue. So, unless it was behind the scenes, no "anointing" process took place.
Regarding the supposed power of being at a "top 5," remember that most people from top 5s don't get great jobs (or even particularly good ones). Some might also argue that being the star student at a 20-30 ranked school would be more advantageous than being one of 8 "good" students coming out of the same Top Five U every year. I personally know a couple people who placed MUCH higher than their Ph.D. granting department. It happens when people do really great work.
It's also kind of irksome to see "stardom" completely decoupled from hard work (see e.g., 3:53). I have known some stars over the past few years, and I can testify to how much time and energy they put into what they do. Let's just say--for better or worse--you won't find them at a coffee shop or a protest march. You will find them in their office. Working.
I think it is helpful to remember that the quality of your work is not always reflected in any individual measure of success at any single point in time. Even senior faculty who are considered to be among the best scholars in their field still get rejection letters sometimes from second-tier journals. Applicants who don't even make a single short-list one year have been known to have multiple offers the following year (I have personally known people like this). I know it is stressful, especially when issues of self-worth are tied to professional accomplishment. But the reality is that most people who complete a PhD in sociology find themselves employed and enjoy a successful career.
Along with this, any single person's "success" in this field is due to a lot of factors. Hard work and dedication is an important one, as is having a good mentor and access to resources. There is a Mathew Effect so success begets success. Family situation probably matters. Past life experiences, etc...point being...
Imagine a regression model predicting job market success. You wouldn't have much power with any single variable. But if you include everything we can think of, I still bet you wouldn't get an R-squared of even .5
6:50,
6:33 here. No argument there. My point was not that hard work is sufficient to attain some specified level of success. That's plainly not true (in the short run, anyway). But I guess I want to dispute the notion that there is some purely exogenous, randomly distributed, "star" quality that just magically gets tacked on to certain random people. It's a comforting theory (and one that is also often applied to explain differential levels of mentoring in grad school) but ultimately it doesn't hold water.
FYI: In the last hour, someone deleted the 4Xs on the Univ. of Oregon shortlist update.
6:33/7:21 -
I agree. I think we're both making the same point.
6:50
What the heck is with the ongoing disputes about Oregon's search? Over the last 2 weeks information about the status of that position has been somewhat misleading or fabricated, and the wiki's been a battleground of x's and removing x's, etc.
The new UNLV position has piqued my interest, but does anyone know what the deal is with the late posting? The announcement says the deadline in December 10th (kinda late for a decent school like UNLV). And on the department website, it says they began reviewing files April 2, 2007. What's going on here?
Maybe if we add more X's to the wiki, we can *make* schools fly more people in for interviews.
-Karl
Colbert '08 "I'm doing it!"
Dont know what's going on with the Oregon list. I received an email yesterday saying that I was shortlisted and that they would be making a decision about who to invite next Monday. I added my X - now its gone. About to put it back.
I think Oregon, as other departments that have similar positions within the hierarchy of sociology departments, has become the battleground of our broken expectations.
Few people in this blog feel bad for not having had a chance at Chicago or Berkeley. Many of us will seriously start to question themselves if *not even Oregon was interested.
The X's come and go because we are trying to infer too much from the blog. In other words, their presence / absence follow our expectations.
Well said, 6:37. I think that you have captured the essence of the academic job market and the toll it takes on us. Can we start mobilizing to get dpts. to reduce their graduate programs?
I agree with 7:16. Departments are accepted too many grad students. The market is saturated!
re: UNLV
The email I received is below. I don't think there is much of an inside story other than they just got late approval for the positions and probably realize that they will get more applicants to select from if they leave the application window open longer.
***************************
Hi,
I am on the sociology search committee at UNLV...can you post our job opening on your blog? We just got approved for 3 positions at the assistant level. We are getting a late start on this and need all the help we can get!!
Thanks,
Re: Berkeley- I know of someone who has an interview there, so (if you believe me) they actually have scheduled interviews.
The mess with the Univ of Oregon X's might be my fault. I went to add an X and I thought it worked. I came back to the site a few hours later, and found out that the page was still open in "edit" mode. Maybe that screwed things up... Sorry.
Would the person or people who 1) posted that Oregon was interviewing when no interviews had been scheduled and who 2) removed the X's from the shortlist section, please say a little about why they did that? Maybe it will make sense to us all once you mention the information you were working with.
8:04 here: sorry 7:52, I didn't get a chance to see your post before I posted. But I don't think that by leaving the page in edit mode you could have erased the X's. You would have needed to actually delete them on your screen.
Re: berkeley
Interesting. At the same time I know someone who was just asked for more information. I wonder if s/he is a backup or if they have made different levels of progress on deciding pools of candidates for their 2 openings.
Here's a link to an interesting critical assessment of the business of intellectual production and the political economy of academia, written by a senior Princeton historian http://www.historians.org/Perspectives/issues/2007/0710/0710vie1.cfm?Refby=e
Has anyone heard anything about either of the Puget Sound positions (med or theory)? Thank you.
RE: Missing Xs. I've also had some of my Xs for other schools go missing. Something is odd is going on with the wiki.
RE: UPS. No word yet, but their deadline isn't up until the 26th, I think.
9:35, same here. I've had some of my X's go missing. I can understand deleting something that wasn't confirmed if you had info to disprove the rumor, but to delete that someone noted they have an interview or were contacted about something?
Backing up the wiki.
I've cut and paste the wiki into a word doc and saved in my files. Others might consider doing the same every now and then...
just in case there is some real hanky-wiki-panky going on.
-karl
UCLA's Center for Society and Genetics is bringing in UCSD's Professor Jenny Reardon for a guest lecture on Oct 29. This was just announced in the last day or two. It's very likely that Reardon is the primary contender for that open rank Soc-Center job.
It would be very difficult to compete as an ABD with Reardon in an open rank search.
re: UCLA CSG/Soc
A closer look at the colloquium page on their website shows 1 and possibly 2 other candidates in addition to the one noted above. All 3 are pretty awesome. None are ABD.
I think it's safe to say that this job is off the market now.
Re: Berkeley. They have scheduled some talks, but they're not done with their list.
Bowdoin:
Am I seeing things? I could have sworn somebody put them on the phone interviews list, but now they are gone!
Am a new user of this blog.
When it says UMASS has scheduled interviews, it does not mean those have been selected have been contacted, right?
Apologies if this is a dumb question. Has anyone heard back from UMASS then?
re: Bowdoin.
I put it on the list. I received an email this afternoon requesting a phone interview sometime over the next four days. I do not know why it was later removed.
6:41 -
Yes, people have heard from UMass if they are still in the running.
University of Dayton has a short list (research methods/stats position).
Eckerd is bringing in three candidates. They hope to make a decision this semester.
I also noticed that the wiki post about phone interviews at the University of Redlands has been removed too. Something fishy is going on for sure.
Maybe SCs are deleting the info in the hopes of slowing candidates' decision-making down - i.e. increasing their chances of hedging their bets? If we're all still holding out hope, then no one's jumping any guns, right?
I too think SC's are up to something. maybe they are deleting them because, if they later have to dip in the reserve pool if the first round of interviewees don't pan out, they don't want anyone to know they had to go to their second choices.
9.41 and following posts... let's not go to the dark side, it doesn't help anyone.
RE trying to get schools to accept fewer graduate students...it's never going to happen. who would teach all of the undergrad courses?
Re: UMASS-Amherst. They contacted me and said they have a long list of 25-30 (and that it's still going to take them a couple weeks to move through it). Remember, they have multiple lines. Just because their name is under the scheduled interviews portion of the wiki does not mean it's over. it ain't over till it's over, baby. hang in there.
Dartmouth added to the interview pile. Another dream bites the dust.
-karl
Re: Waiver of right to access ltrs of rec (10/22/07 11:17).
I just got one of these, too. There are four options: waive rights to internal & external letters; waive rights to internal letters; w.r. to external letters; and decline to waive.
Does anyone know what happens if you decline in whole or part?
I don't mind waiving my rights to see the letters I solicited on my behalf, but I don't want to waive my rights to other materials. My current dept has become an even more bitter and nasty place, and I don't trust some of my colleagues not to railroad my applications to other schools. Any advice??
12:42,
What other materials might those be? I just assumed the waiver were for the letters of recs.
I'm fairly sure that your decision whether or not to waive access to any materials cannot be considered in the hiring process. I know that is true for school applications.
RE: UMASS,
Waivers for Letter of Recommendations, etc. They just send that to everyone right?
1:08 : Yup, I got UMass waiver a few days ago. It's probably dumb, but when I saw that they already had lined up interviews on this blog, I just trashed them....
What have people heard about the UCONN job? It seems that everytime someone asks, no one answers. They've changed to a shortlist, but have people actually been contacted or is this the SC who is posting?
Yes, it was UMass. By "other materials" I was thinking that if through the grapevine they talked to some current co=workers (who aren't very colleagial). The form is vague about who solicited the "letters or statements."
Since they're interviewing already, I guess it doesn't matter. So maybe I won't even waste a 41 cent stamp! Shouldn't paper EO/AA forms come with a SASE?!
UAB was supposed to be meeting this week. Has that ship sailed?
Maryland-
My friend (ABD) was called for an interview. They have 2 pools for this open rank position- junior and tenured. Over 200 applications...
I didn't post on wiki because I am not the one who got the interview.
"By "other materials" I was thinking that if through the grapevine they talked to some current co=workers (who aren't very colleagial). The form is vague about who solicited the "letters or statements."
I'm sorry - what does this mean? (no rudeness intended, just curious)
2:48, I would think that if something was said about you "through the grapevine" (and not at your request), then you have no rights to that information to waive, yes?
I received a request for an on campus interview for Santa Clara University.
congrats on the interview at Santa Clara! sounds like a sweet sweet job.
Not that I need to be crushed again, but is there any inside scoop on Northwestern? It's been almost 4 weeks since their deadline.
Re: Northwestern. They're moving slower this year than last. There are 2 positions: 1 junior, 1 tenured. They received 300+ applications for the junior position. But as of yet, they're still reviewing files.
Any news from Oberlin?
RE: waiver for "other materials"
I suspect that is an example intentionally vague language used to protect parties from privacy issues. FERPA and other policies are making the process of writing and asking for references a whole lot trickier than in the past. I wouldn't read anything more into it.
Yes, do not read too much into it. And no, it should not impact the hiring decision.
If I was worried about what colleagues might say/do, then I would not waive the right. The SC will have those not-positive solicited materials, so you might as well have the right to defend yourself.
UAB has scheduled interviews.
Just got a letter from Cornell acknowledging that they have my materials. WHo are they kidding? They've been on Wiki for a while now!
UAB - the med soc position?
Any news from Illinois at Chicago?
re: IU-Chicago
My guess is the news is going to be slow. They have something like 4 or 5 searches running - there have been 2 new ones added recently.
The deadlines for some of the earlier open searches were changed, too, to allow more time for recipients to get materials in.
any inside scoop on Riverside?
I would recommend some people here to stop being so wary of information. Some of us posting here are neither on the market nor on SCs, but are junior faculty who happen to know information from both colleagues at SCs and on the market and report the info to help those who want to know whether they are going to be called or not for certain jobs. Stop being so paranoid about it and respect the anonimity of the sources!
best,
bibi
RE: UI-Chicago,
I'm going to disagree with 8:19pm. I'd watch for some news on the searches with earlier deadlines in the next week or two.
Any specifics on Akron? They are now on the wiki under scheduled interviews . . .
Any news on Kent State, UConn, or Vermont?
Is Purdue on the wiki under interviews scheduled for the inequality position?
Any news on the Michigan State Quant Position? The wiki says they've scheduled interviews. Have they got all their interviews lined up by now?
Also, any news on the MSU position in Global Urban Studies? It's interdisciplinary, but the apps were to be sent to a Sociology department address.
TO BIBI-thanks! I for one appreciate any inside information.
Kent State has started to schedule interviews.
Vermont has started to schedule interviews.
I heard that U-Mass Amherst has only scheduled a subset of its interviews. They have something like 4 positions.The committee is supposed to be meeting this coming Friday to select the next slate (more junior candidates, I believe). They're probably doing their junior folks first, then the senior folks.
Oops- this is 7:15 again. scratch the "I believe" in my previous posting. U Mass is discussing junior candidates this Friday.
Akron has started to schedule interviews
Maryland:
Can we confirm from anyone else that they have contacted interviewees?
Re: NYU
Someone posted that they are interviewing 7 people? How many positions do they have opened?
In general, how many people do schools invited for every open position?
Thanks!
NYU has at least 2 positions, and they may hire 3 if they have enough strong candidates.
Generally, schools call in 3 people. Some call in more if they have the money.
Some, like Wisconsin, call one at a time. If they are blown away by the first, they end there. if not, they call the next.
7:12, can we get some more information on the Vermont interviews. Has anyone actually gotten contacted yet for an interview? Which position is it for (inequality or public policy)? Thanks!
Yes, I'd like to know more information about the Vermont search too, please. Thank you.
Tomorrow's the day when Oregon decides whom to fly out. Let's hope they reach beyond the same 5 or 6 people who have already put lots of X's on the wiki. Impress us with your orginiality!
Re: the inequality position at Vermont. There were some phone contacts on Friday to schedule interviews for November. I don't know about the public policy position.
Hi,
I’m the chair of the recruitment committee at UMass-Amherst (and, therefore, not really anonymous). I hope nobody objects to my posting here. I wanted to say just a few things.
1) I think, as do other members of the recruitment committee, that socrumormill is a terrific thing. We are all in favor of circulating information as freely as possible and insofar as it is compatible with maintaining candidates’ confidentiality.
2) If people think it would be helpful for me to post a note about our process—how we constituted a committee, how we reviewed files, what criteria we used—I would be happy to do that.
3) We have a MINIMUM of four positions, one or two of which may be senior.
4) We have already invited in four candidates, three junior and one senior.
5) We have a short list of about 25 additional names for junior positions. We are meeting on Monday (Oct 29) and intend to issue four more invitations for interviews. I expect to be in touch with those four (if we agree on them) Monday or Tuesday evening.
6) Even after those four invitations, we aren’t done. We have yet to review the full list of senior candidates and will probably do so at a meeting on November 5th. How enthusiastic the committee is about the senior candidates will determine whether we go back to the pool of junior candidates for additional invitations.
7) There is also a chance we will be able to hire as part of a “cluster hiring” that is going on across departments. If this does happen we will be looking specifically for junior people in “science, technology and society” studies or junior people in health. This hire (or hires) would be in addition to the four lines we are already looking at.
8) We received well over 400 applications. Every member of the committee—five faculty and two grad students—made an effort to look at each file and read substantial parts of the writing samples in each. It was a massive task. I thought the level of competition was extremely high (and, like many faculty who serve on recruitment committees, I wound up feeling very fortunate that I’m employed).
I am not so far removed from this whole process—either for myself or for my students—to forget how miserable it is to search for jobs. Demystifying the process might involve occasional moments of pain but my guess is that the more information that circulates, the better off most of us (on both sides of the hiring process) will be.
Robert Zussman
wow. professor zussman, thank you very much for your candor. it is definitely much appreciated, and I think I can speak for most if not all of us in saying that yes, any further information you can provide us about evaluation criteria would be most helpful.
Thank you Robert!
-karl
Robert:
You are such a nice person. I hope you invite me and I get to work with you!!!!
Professor Zussman,
Like others, I admire your candor, and I hope other SCs will follow your lead. I wish I could unload the cloak of anonymity, yet I am still a job aspirant. The question is, how can we move this dialogue further at the institutional level? Do departments have any moral duties towards their graduates? Can they ethically continue admitting and graduating scores of bright, young people who will emerge several years later with useless degrees and many lost opportunities? The profession is obviously in dire straits, yet departments keep churning out more and more graduate students. My own department, a top five that shall not be named, graduated more than 25 last year! I’m doing my fair share by telling anyone who asks for my opinion to stay away from social science/humanity PhD unless they’re independently wealthy, are 120% geographically flexible, and have other career opportunities in mind. Of course, they don’t believe me, but I’m decorated enough that it gives people pause. Are department doing enough to warn their enthusiastic recruit about this? I believe “buyer beware” is the motto.
6:14, you raise a vital question. But let's keep that issue separate from the fact that a SC chair values transparency and has taken the time to post here. I think it's fair to say that UMass-Amherst has just made itself a more desirable pick for job market candidates who might have choices about where to go. Not to mention, it's just the right thing to do. Now, to end with a small suggestion. How about letting those people on the long list know that there's a bit of interest in them? It would go a long way to boosting morale.
10:30 -
I did not apply to UMass-Amherst, but in any case I still say, thank you.
7:39, I agree with your comment about being notified if you're on a list of some sort. I think it would help many of us at least feel appreciated in this process. It will still suck not getting an interview, but I would be comforted just knowing that I was considered.
Another request for info on the demographer position in the Cornell Policy Analysis and Management dept - any news?
And what's up with UConn? They appear to have a shortlist now for awhile.
The SC at Cornell (PAM) is meeting this week to make recommendations for candidates.
Does anyone have any info about the Wesleyan job? It read a little like an insider job, but I'm wondering if anyone has heard from them.
Professor Zussman:
Thank you for the information! It seems that the rumors about your department having some great people on faculty are true!
-cpl
Anyone know anything about the search at American University? Thanks!
MSU Quant position -- there are three candidates scheduled for campus interviews starting this week.
Any info on the MSU Population/Environmental Soc position?
UI Chicago is now on the Wiki as scheduling interviews.
Is this for the orgs, med soc, Latin American, or open search?
No info yet on the MSU Pop/Env position. I assume the committee has met (not sure about this) but no announcements regarding interviews.
Does anyone have any additional info for U of Colorado? I notice they are now on the Wiki as scheduling interviews.
And is that U of Colorado Denver or Boulder?
It's University of Colorado, Boulder. They started scheduling interviews last Friday.
Any news on Ohio State?
Any info about UCOnn?
I just saw that Riverside Global Social Change is listed next to Crim on one listing under the scheduled interviews. Anyone know what this is about? Is it an error or can anyone confirm that Riverside is interviewing for the GLobal Social Change position?
Another request for more info on UI Chicago. Which position?
I've heard from a friend who is a student there that UI Chicago is scheduling interviews for all the advertised positions-organizations, labor etc.
Too bad, I really liked that job:(
Is the info on riverside global social change accurate? Can somebody confirm?
Re: UIC & which position -- I have no inside info, but it seems this must be for the position(s) advertised within the Sociology Dept. The Latin American job (mentioned in a question yesterday) is not in the Sociology Dept, but could be construed as having a sociology focus.
Loyola University Chicago is scheduling interviews.
What about some of the other openish searches at the "smaller" universities: Suffolk, American, Wesleyan, Tufts, and University of MD- Baltimore?
I've heard nothing about any of these schools.
And while I'm here, a friend wants to know about the medical soc position at Southwestern. Any news there?
any scoop on the brown spatial analysis position?
"...letting some bizarre social mystique push everyone into interviewing the same person with the same questionable symbols (e.g., letting the pigeon feathers be pulled over their eyes)..."
Don't be hatin on the rats with wings y'all.
Re: UIC. I put an X for org. Sorry for taking so long to respond.
Re: Suffolk. Got a note that they were supposed to review applications in mid-October. No news from them after that.
Re: Tufts. Review should take place in mid-Nov.
newbie here.
I see a bunch of schools on the wiki have only one "X" in the "scheduled interview" column. Is this because a lot of folks don't read the wiki, folks don't want to put down their "X", or some schools only fly in one candidate and decide yes or no before flying in another?
12:08- I think it is a little bit of all those things!
Any scoop on U of Kansas (economic sociology)?
Can somebody please give more info on Riverside (political econ/ global)?
Ball State has a shortlist.
Kent State just posted a job on the ASA job bank that looks awfully similar to their current job opening... although the deadline is december 8. Is this a new job, or did they just extend the deadline?
-karl
9:56, Southwestern has started to schedule interviews.
Kansas (econ soc) is deciding today on who to bring in.
Can anyone who was notified that they were on the Oregon long list verify that they have been contacted for a fly in?
I noticed that UCLA (soc/center for society and genetics) was moved from the "scheduling interviews" back to "has a short list." What does this mean? Are the 2 fantastic looking scholars (one full prof and one asst prof) scheduled to give talks in the next 2 weeks candidates for the position or not? Is my phone going to ring after all?
For the love of Durkheim, stop messing with my mind!
re: kent state.
It's for a different campus. Sorry for the bother.
-karl
Re: Northwestern on the wiki.
Are you 100% sure about that? I am fairly certain interviews will only be decided upon next week. I don't mean to add to the usual "distrust the blog" mantra, just making sure.
Oregon did start making contacts today for fly in interviews.
Re: Maryland, UIC, Loyola-Chi, and Oregon.
People have indicated that these schools (among others) have contacted interviewees. Have they contacted all those they intend to interview, or only some? Will any of these schools be contacting yet others this week, or have they contacted all they want to for now?
UIC - I am confident they will call more people, believe me. Don't give up!!
Has anyone heard back from Concordia since the phone interview?
Northwestern isn't deciding on interviews until (at least?) next week, but invited one candidate in advance of that partly for scheduling reasons.
1:48:
Do you think Kansas will call people this week? How many, do you know?
thanks!!!
Suffolk is scheduling phone interviews.
I haven't heard from Concordia since my phone interview. They had several people and might still be working though phone interviews/shortening the list.
I have heard from Northwestern, so there is at least 1 interview.
What's up with Berkeley -- it says 5 on the list, but no Xs -- can anyone confirm?
Do any of these schools have "second rounds" if they don't like the people they get in the 1st round?
Swarthmore? Any word?
Maryland: they called everyone at once.
Berkeley: I think it is either inaccurate that they scheduled interviews OR they are moving at different paces on both searches. I can confirm Berkeley just asked some finalists for more materials in addition to 3+ writing samples they asked for originally.
Anyone have the scoop on Chicago? I believe they have multiple searches in place but only 2 X's. How many candidates did they invite so far? Are they planning on inviting more? Are they looking to fill any one area in particular? Thanks!
Post a Comment