CHE: Why I’m Planning to Leave My Ph.D. Program

[Mobius]

For the job searches delayed or cancelled due to lack of applicants, well, its just what I have said, and what you said. There aren't enough applicants to proceed. That is to say, in a very small pool (less than 5 sometimes), often there isn't anyone good enough to interview, and when there is, they sometimes take the job, then leave. I am not claiming that this is anything but probably a bad sign for my school, just saying that there are probably quite a few people out there who could apply but don't. Maybe some have good reasons not to, and I'd rather they not if they don't want to be here. But then some of the same people might be saying "there aren't any jobs for me."  I don't have any proof that this is happening. I just throw it out there as a hypothesis.

I've read enough quit lit and have read statements that there aren't enough jobs in places they want to live, which is usually a large university town or on the coast. Unfortunately, there are also fewer TT lines, but we know that application pools for many rural places are small.

[Hibush]

For the job searches delayed or cancelled due to lack of applicants, well, its just what I have said, and what you said. There aren't enough applicants to proceed. That is to say, in a very small pool (less than 5 sometimes), often there isn't anyone good enough to interview, and when there is, they sometimes take the job, then leave. I am not claiming that this is anything but probably a bad sign for my school, just saying that there are probably quite a few people out there who could apply but don't. Maybe some have good reasons not to, and I'd rather they not if they don't want to be here. But then some of the same people might be saying "there aren't any jobs for me."  I don't have any proof that this is happening. I just throw it out there as a hypothesis.

I've read enough quit lit and have read statements that there aren't enough jobs in places they want to live, which is usually a large university town or on the coast. Unfortunately, there are also fewer TT lines, but we know that application pools for many rural places are small.

Salary is likely to play a significant role. The ADP salary survey came out yesterday. People who stayed in the same job over the last year saw an average pay increase of 7%. Those who changed jobs saw an increase of 16%.  If a college's salary increased are not keeping up with the rest of the job market, they are not going to be able to hire.

[dismalist]

There's surely selection bias in those who obtained 16% raises, whereas for those with a 7% increase [tad less than inflation [8%+], there's a real wage cut.

Jumping jobs is not the answer for everyone.

[Hibush]

There's surely selection bias in those who obtained 16% raises, whereas for those with a 7% increase [tad less than inflation [8%+], there's a real wage cut.

Jumping jobs is not the answer for everyone.

There is definitely selection there. But there are apparently a fair number of schools that have has 0% raises this year, and the same of continuing faculty for a number of years. Those are in trouble. Will the faculty at those schools grumble, thinking that is the inevitable norm or will they jump?

[Ruralguy]

Though salary probably paid a role, we did get a 5% increase this year, though that was the first raise in several years. We've slipped in AAUP percentile, but those numbers are averages, not medians, and also don't take local COL into account.  In any case, we're not low for academia, but definitely low compared to other jobs using the same experience, at least in some cases. But its probably location, some aspects of college mission, and teaching load that matter more to people than precise salary, so long as it isn't low for academia. Although I suppose there are some who don't realize there are higher paying jobs out there until after they've applied for tenure track jobs,

[dismalist]

There's surely selection bias in those who obtained 16% raises, whereas for those with a 7% increase [tad less than inflation [8%+], there's a real wage cut.

Jumping jobs is not the answer for everyone.

There is definitely selection there. But there are apparently a fair number of schools that have has 0% raises this year, and the same of continuing faculty for a number of years. Those are in trouble. Will the faculty at those schools grumble, thinking that is the inevitable norm or will they jump?

That's a serious question. There are situations in which the 0% wage increase can save an institution. People in those situations have to figure out whether they're better off staying or leaving. Alas, I think that's where selection comes in. They can't all leave and get a 16% raise.

[kaysixteen]

Ok, say there are only 5 applicants for the job, and all of them meet the minimum ad-listed qualifications for the job.   If the job really is 'open', that presumes that the school actually needs someone to fill it, teach the classes etc that the job entails.   What would therefore then be the justification for refusing to hire any of the five, just because, well, the dept had been hoping for someone they'd like better?

[Caracal]

Ok, say there are only 5 applicants for the job, and all of them meet the minimum ad-listed qualifications for the job.   If the job really is 'open', that presumes that the school actually needs someone to fill it, teach the classes etc that the job entails.   What would therefore then be the justification for refusing to hire any of the five, just because, well, the dept had been hoping for someone they'd like better?

Usually job ads say something like "the successful candidate will show excellence in teaching and research and demonstrate collegiality." I assume that usually translates to "maybe, the person we hire at regional SLAC in biology doesn't need to be doing pathbreaking research, but they shouldn't be a fraud whose work is embarrassing," "we need someone who has more charisma in the classroom than a dead fish," and "if the first thing everybody says when we shut off the zoom chat is 'what a colossal a-hole, we aren't bringing you to campus."

[Wahoo Redux]

Ok, say there are only 5 applicants for the job, and all of them meet the minimum ad-listed qualifications for the job.   If the job really is 'open', that presumes that the school actually needs someone to fill it, teach the classes etc that the job entails.   What would therefore then be the justification for refusing to hire any of the five, just because, well, the dept had been hoping for someone they'd like better?

You've never seen the "failed search?"  We lost a line because the department could not find someone they liked better than what they got.

I've also seen it where all 5 finals rejected the campus.

There's a couple of threads on this somewhere.

[Hegemony]

5%? 16%?? The largest raise I've ever gotten, in more than 30 years of the tenure track, was 2.5%. And only in recent years, with the advent of the union, have raises come along every second year. When I was awarded tenure, I asked how much my raise would be. It was $350, which actually was a fairly high percentage of my tiny salary. State flagship here, incidentally.

[marshwiggle]

Ok, say there are only 5 applicants for the job, and all of them meet the minimum ad-listed qualifications for the job.   If the job really is 'open', that presumes that the school actually needs someone to fill it, teach the classes etc that the job entails.   What would therefore then be the justification for refusing to hire any of the five, just because, well, the dept had been hoping for someone they'd like better?

You've never seen the "failed search?"  We lost a line because the department could not find someone they liked better than what they got.

I've also seen it where all 5 finals rejected the campus.

Any idea if this was due to something unforseeable, (like a lower than expected salary offer), or just poor research beforehand by candidates ("Oh, this place is two hours from any airport!!!")?

[jerseyjay]

Ok, say there are only 5 applicants for the job, and all of them meet the minimum ad-listed qualifications for the job.   If the job really is 'open', that presumes that the school actually needs someone to fill it, teach the classes etc that the job entails.   What would therefore then be the justification for refusing to hire any of the five, just because, well, the dept had been hoping for someone they'd like better?

You've never seen the "failed search?"  We lost a line because the department could not find someone they liked better than what they got.

I've also seen it where all 5 finals rejected the campus.

Any idea if this was due to something unforseeable, (like a lower than expected salary offer), or just poor research beforehand by candidates ("Oh, this place is two hours from any airport!!!")?

The situations where I've seen this is in fields that are in high-demand. I think the computer science and nursing departments have had this happen, because the university is competing against non-academic employers and other universities that are more attractive in various ways.

Other than changing the nature of the school or the job (doubling the pay, halving the teaching load), there is not much the school can do.

However, it could also be a function of the committee not making their shortlist on the right criteria. That is, they might pick the people who are on paper the most qualified--more publications, more prestigious degrees, better experience--only to find out that these people were also picked by more attractive places.

In my field (history) this is very rare--there are usually many more applicants than jobs, so even our school can hire Ivy League graduates. Location comes into play here also: we are in a large metropolitan area, so historians, English professors, etc., sometimes want to work here not for us but where we are located. For higher-demand fields, this has the opposite effect.

Where I have seen it in history is in subfields that are in demand and have high entry barriers. For example, I have seen searches for Asian or Middle Eastern history fail because they require significant language knowledge and if they are a "hot" subfield, such specialists are harder to find. In most U.S. and European subfields, it is much easier to repurpose oneself: I've plausibly applied as an specialist in teaching U.S. and the World, the history of capitalism in the U.S., labor history, political history, social history, etc., as the latest fads cycle through, and I am sure other PhDs have done the same. If a search for a U.S. historian fails, then something else is going on other than not having a large enough pool of applicants.

To answer the question that Kaysixteen posed: what would be the justification for not hiring somebody, anybody, just because the committee did not find the person they really wanted. Assuming that (a) there is somebody--an adjunct, another full-timer, etc.--who can teach the courses now; and (b) the expectation that the line is not going away, I could see a department keeping the status quo instead of hiring somebody whom (a) they cannot imagine working with for the next 20 years or (b) they don't think is going to be able to get tenure. Because a search fails, in the bigger sense, if you end up with a colleague you don't like, who leaves after two years, or fails to get tenure.

[marshwiggle]

Ok, say there are only 5 applicants for the job, and all of them meet the minimum ad-listed qualifications for the job.   If the job really is 'open', that presumes that the school actually needs someone to fill it, teach the classes etc that the job entails.   What would therefore then be the justification for refusing to hire any of the five, just because, well, the dept had been hoping for someone they'd like better?

You've never seen the "failed search?"  We lost a line because the department could not find someone they liked better than what they got.

I've also seen it where all 5 finals rejected the campus.

Any idea if this was due to something unforseeable, (like a lower than expected salary offer), or just poor research beforehand by candidates ("Oh, this place is two hours from any airport!!!")?

The situations where I've seen this is in fields that are in high-demand. I think the computer science and nursing departments have had this happen, because the university is competing against non-academic employers and other universities that are more attractive in various ways.

Other than changing the nature of the school or the job (doubling the pay, halving the teaching load), there is not much the school can do.

This still leaves me with my question: Is it the committee who doesn't give a reasonable idea of expectations in their advertising so they attract people who would never apply if they knew the situation, or is it the candidates who don't seriously look at the information out there and just apply automatically?

Given how much time and resources get put into searches, these wasted ones are probably more costly than most institutions can afford.

[jerseyjay]

We are what used to be referred to as a "safety school": students will apply to (say), one or two "dream schools," the flagship state university, and us. They apply to us because they don't particularly want to go to our school, they would prefer that than not getting in anywhere. And if they end up going to our school, many plan on transferring out as soon as possible.

I think it is similar for some applicants. They apply for our jobs because they would prefer to work for us than not have any job at all. Sometimes it is easy for a committee to determine who these people are. But not always. And I would imagine (because as I said, we don't have this problem in history) it is hard to not short-list the "best" candidates even though they may not end up taking the job. There also may be an element of self-delusion on the part of the committee about the attractiveness of our school.

The first situation (students applying) creates problems for us, because it makes if very difficult to determine how large the entering class is going to be (because we admit many more students than who attend), which makes it hard to plan how many sections to offer. The second situation makes it hard to hire. But both of these seem to come with the territory of being the type of school we are.

[Ruralguy]

A dept. of seasoned faculty is much more likely to have one or two people who are *looking* for overloads to help them out financially (due to lack of raises) rather than hiring someone who just won't work.

  I have to say its the *candidates* who are either not doing enough research on us, or just making unreasonable demands (for a small institution). A number of first choicers for TT positions here have asked for a TT position for a spouse or partner. This is nearly impossible for us to swing, though I can think of several couples who came here, and then one of the members of the couple who didn't originally have a job finally also got a TT job here several years down the line. But, most of the time they reject the job offer when we don't hand over a guaranteed TT spot to spouse/partner. They might not even be running the job by their spouse until they get an interview.