post_id
stringlengths 5
7
| domain
stringclasses 18
values | upvote_ratio
float64 0.5
1
| history
stringlengths 22
39.2k
| c_root_id_A
stringlengths 7
7
| c_root_id_B
stringlengths 7
7
| created_at_utc_A
int64 1.28B
1.67B
| created_at_utc_B
int64 1.28B
1.67B
| score_A
int64 2
43.5k
| score_B
int64 2
43.2k
| human_ref_A
stringlengths 0
10.7k
| human_ref_B
stringlengths 0
10.8k
| labels
int64 0
1
| seconds_difference
float64 0
145M
| score_ratio
float64 1
3.72k
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
hck2kr | askacademia_train | 0.99 | If you could start your PhD life from scratch, what one thing would you do differently? Hindsight hour! | fvfwyxn | fvfxt51 | 1,592,662,646 | 1,592,663,181 | 9 | 36 | Really nothing. | Save money. Go to lab everyday from 10-6. Stop procrastinating about experiments. Ignore your labmates. Your experiments are equally important, don’t be like “yeah I can wait” Go to gym. | 0 | 535 | 4 |
hck2kr | askacademia_train | 0.99 | If you could start your PhD life from scratch, what one thing would you do differently? Hindsight hour! | fvfsyo9 | fvg0wvf | 1,592,659,982 | 1,592,665,045 | 21 | 26 | Not apply to so many fellowships. I started grad school with enough fellowship money to never rely on my boss. The downside: he literally never gave a shit when the project I was put on completely failed (out of our control, literature was not reproducible) which had me running in circles for a few years because he wanted me to “just figure it out”. He really only cares about progress and writing papers when there’s funding on the line. | Back everything up to the cloud. EVERYTHING. I know this is basic stuff but I had what I felt was a good system of backing up to a physical hard drive but apparently I missed some crucial stuff, so when my lab flooded and my laptop was destroyed a couple months ago, I lost a lot of hard work. My external drive also would have been destroyed if I hadn’t randomly taken it home a few days before. So yeah. Cloud or die. | 0 | 5,063 | 1.238095 |
hck2kr | askacademia_train | 0.99 | If you could start your PhD life from scratch, what one thing would you do differently? Hindsight hour! | fvg0wvf | fvftbxv | 1,592,665,045 | 1,592,660,237 | 26 | 15 | Back everything up to the cloud. EVERYTHING. I know this is basic stuff but I had what I felt was a good system of backing up to a physical hard drive but apparently I missed some crucial stuff, so when my lab flooded and my laptop was destroyed a couple months ago, I lost a lot of hard work. My external drive also would have been destroyed if I hadn’t randomly taken it home a few days before. So yeah. Cloud or die. | Have a better balance. Prioritize regular time away from research and work out regularly. Mental illness is incredibly common among doctoral students. | 1 | 4,808 | 1.733333 |
hck2kr | askacademia_train | 0.99 | If you could start your PhD life from scratch, what one thing would you do differently? Hindsight hour! | fvg0wvf | fvfyeo3 | 1,592,665,045 | 1,592,663,554 | 26 | 14 | Back everything up to the cloud. EVERYTHING. I know this is basic stuff but I had what I felt was a good system of backing up to a physical hard drive but apparently I missed some crucial stuff, so when my lab flooded and my laptop was destroyed a couple months ago, I lost a lot of hard work. My external drive also would have been destroyed if I hadn’t randomly taken it home a few days before. So yeah. Cloud or die. | Get an MS degree in Data Science and run away - not do the PhD at all. | 1 | 1,491 | 1.857143 |
hck2kr | askacademia_train | 0.99 | If you could start your PhD life from scratch, what one thing would you do differently? Hindsight hour! | fvg0wvf | fvfsntt | 1,592,665,045 | 1,592,659,774 | 26 | 12 | Back everything up to the cloud. EVERYTHING. I know this is basic stuff but I had what I felt was a good system of backing up to a physical hard drive but apparently I missed some crucial stuff, so when my lab flooded and my laptop was destroyed a couple months ago, I lost a lot of hard work. My external drive also would have been destroyed if I hadn’t randomly taken it home a few days before. So yeah. Cloud or die. | I would try not to date as much. And definitely agree with having dissertation committee members who agree with each other. I do think I had a pretty good time otherwise | 1 | 5,271 | 2.166667 |
hck2kr | askacademia_train | 0.99 | If you could start your PhD life from scratch, what one thing would you do differently? Hindsight hour! | fvftq32 | fvg0wvf | 1,592,660,508 | 1,592,665,045 | 13 | 26 | I would have left. After harassment and negligence of the department and university, the abuse of graduate students, I wish I had walked away. | Back everything up to the cloud. EVERYTHING. I know this is basic stuff but I had what I felt was a good system of backing up to a physical hard drive but apparently I missed some crucial stuff, so when my lab flooded and my laptop was destroyed a couple months ago, I lost a lot of hard work. My external drive also would have been destroyed if I hadn’t randomly taken it home a few days before. So yeah. Cloud or die. | 0 | 4,537 | 2 |
hck2kr | askacademia_train | 0.99 | If you could start your PhD life from scratch, what one thing would you do differently? Hindsight hour! | fvfxd9z | fvg0wvf | 1,592,662,903 | 1,592,665,045 | 12 | 26 | Ask people to collaborate! I had a wonderful PhD experience, but I could have put more effort into taking advantage of the amazing kindness and knowledge in my department and related departments. | Back everything up to the cloud. EVERYTHING. I know this is basic stuff but I had what I felt was a good system of backing up to a physical hard drive but apparently I missed some crucial stuff, so when my lab flooded and my laptop was destroyed a couple months ago, I lost a lot of hard work. My external drive also would have been destroyed if I hadn’t randomly taken it home a few days before. So yeah. Cloud or die. | 0 | 2,142 | 2.166667 |
hck2kr | askacademia_train | 0.99 | If you could start your PhD life from scratch, what one thing would you do differently? Hindsight hour! | fvg0wvf | fvfwyxn | 1,592,665,045 | 1,592,662,646 | 26 | 9 | Back everything up to the cloud. EVERYTHING. I know this is basic stuff but I had what I felt was a good system of backing up to a physical hard drive but apparently I missed some crucial stuff, so when my lab flooded and my laptop was destroyed a couple months ago, I lost a lot of hard work. My external drive also would have been destroyed if I hadn’t randomly taken it home a few days before. So yeah. Cloud or die. | Really nothing. | 1 | 2,399 | 2.888889 |
hck2kr | askacademia_train | 0.99 | If you could start your PhD life from scratch, what one thing would you do differently? Hindsight hour! | fvfsyo9 | fvg2fgj | 1,592,659,982 | 1,592,665,935 | 21 | 25 | Not apply to so many fellowships. I started grad school with enough fellowship money to never rely on my boss. The downside: he literally never gave a shit when the project I was put on completely failed (out of our control, literature was not reproducible) which had me running in circles for a few years because he wanted me to “just figure it out”. He really only cares about progress and writing papers when there’s funding on the line. | Work smarter, not harder; 1. Get referencing software up and running from day one. 2. Get templates for documents/figures ready so I can drop in results. 3. Have a sensible way of organizing files/code (still not sure how to do this! Thoughts please!). | 0 | 5,953 | 1.190476 |
hck2kr | askacademia_train | 0.99 | If you could start your PhD life from scratch, what one thing would you do differently? Hindsight hour! | fvg2fgj | fvftbxv | 1,592,665,935 | 1,592,660,237 | 25 | 15 | Work smarter, not harder; 1. Get referencing software up and running from day one. 2. Get templates for documents/figures ready so I can drop in results. 3. Have a sensible way of organizing files/code (still not sure how to do this! Thoughts please!). | Have a better balance. Prioritize regular time away from research and work out regularly. Mental illness is incredibly common among doctoral students. | 1 | 5,698 | 1.666667 |
hck2kr | askacademia_train | 0.99 | If you could start your PhD life from scratch, what one thing would you do differently? Hindsight hour! | fvfyeo3 | fvg2fgj | 1,592,663,554 | 1,592,665,935 | 14 | 25 | Get an MS degree in Data Science and run away - not do the PhD at all. | Work smarter, not harder; 1. Get referencing software up and running from day one. 2. Get templates for documents/figures ready so I can drop in results. 3. Have a sensible way of organizing files/code (still not sure how to do this! Thoughts please!). | 0 | 2,381 | 1.785714 |
hck2kr | askacademia_train | 0.99 | If you could start your PhD life from scratch, what one thing would you do differently? Hindsight hour! | fvg2fgj | fvfsntt | 1,592,665,935 | 1,592,659,774 | 25 | 12 | Work smarter, not harder; 1. Get referencing software up and running from day one. 2. Get templates for documents/figures ready so I can drop in results. 3. Have a sensible way of organizing files/code (still not sure how to do this! Thoughts please!). | I would try not to date as much. And definitely agree with having dissertation committee members who agree with each other. I do think I had a pretty good time otherwise | 1 | 6,161 | 2.083333 |
hck2kr | askacademia_train | 0.99 | If you could start your PhD life from scratch, what one thing would you do differently? Hindsight hour! | fvg2fgj | fvftq32 | 1,592,665,935 | 1,592,660,508 | 25 | 13 | Work smarter, not harder; 1. Get referencing software up and running from day one. 2. Get templates for documents/figures ready so I can drop in results. 3. Have a sensible way of organizing files/code (still not sure how to do this! Thoughts please!). | I would have left. After harassment and negligence of the department and university, the abuse of graduate students, I wish I had walked away. | 1 | 5,427 | 1.923077 |
hck2kr | askacademia_train | 0.99 | If you could start your PhD life from scratch, what one thing would you do differently? Hindsight hour! | fvg2fgj | fvfxd9z | 1,592,665,935 | 1,592,662,903 | 25 | 12 | Work smarter, not harder; 1. Get referencing software up and running from day one. 2. Get templates for documents/figures ready so I can drop in results. 3. Have a sensible way of organizing files/code (still not sure how to do this! Thoughts please!). | Ask people to collaborate! I had a wonderful PhD experience, but I could have put more effort into taking advantage of the amazing kindness and knowledge in my department and related departments. | 1 | 3,032 | 2.083333 |
hck2kr | askacademia_train | 0.99 | If you could start your PhD life from scratch, what one thing would you do differently? Hindsight hour! | fvg1w2n | fvg2fgj | 1,592,665,616 | 1,592,665,935 | 11 | 25 | Stood up for myself and left my ex sooner. He was emotionally and verbally abusive and it made my time in grad school harder than it had to be. I really enjoyed living by myself once I finally left but doing the logistics of apartment searching and moving in secret was tough. I'm glad I had good friends who let me live with them for a while when things blew up before I was ready. Everything worked out fine but he put me in some significant debt (probably to try and trap me) and had me totally mentally wore down. I could have been much happier in school much earlier. | Work smarter, not harder; 1. Get referencing software up and running from day one. 2. Get templates for documents/figures ready so I can drop in results. 3. Have a sensible way of organizing files/code (still not sure how to do this! Thoughts please!). | 0 | 319 | 2.272727 |
hck2kr | askacademia_train | 0.99 | If you could start your PhD life from scratch, what one thing would you do differently? Hindsight hour! | fvfwyxn | fvg2fgj | 1,592,662,646 | 1,592,665,935 | 9 | 25 | Really nothing. | Work smarter, not harder; 1. Get referencing software up and running from day one. 2. Get templates for documents/figures ready so I can drop in results. 3. Have a sensible way of organizing files/code (still not sure how to do this! Thoughts please!). | 0 | 3,289 | 2.777778 |
hck2kr | askacademia_train | 0.99 | If you could start your PhD life from scratch, what one thing would you do differently? Hindsight hour! | fvfsyo9 | fvfsntt | 1,592,659,982 | 1,592,659,774 | 21 | 12 | Not apply to so many fellowships. I started grad school with enough fellowship money to never rely on my boss. The downside: he literally never gave a shit when the project I was put on completely failed (out of our control, literature was not reproducible) which had me running in circles for a few years because he wanted me to “just figure it out”. He really only cares about progress and writing papers when there’s funding on the line. | I would try not to date as much. And definitely agree with having dissertation committee members who agree with each other. I do think I had a pretty good time otherwise | 1 | 208 | 1.75 |
hck2kr | askacademia_train | 0.99 | If you could start your PhD life from scratch, what one thing would you do differently? Hindsight hour! | fvftbxv | fvfsntt | 1,592,660,237 | 1,592,659,774 | 15 | 12 | Have a better balance. Prioritize regular time away from research and work out regularly. Mental illness is incredibly common among doctoral students. | I would try not to date as much. And definitely agree with having dissertation committee members who agree with each other. I do think I had a pretty good time otherwise | 1 | 463 | 1.25 |
hck2kr | askacademia_train | 0.99 | If you could start your PhD life from scratch, what one thing would you do differently? Hindsight hour! | fvfyeo3 | fvfsntt | 1,592,663,554 | 1,592,659,774 | 14 | 12 | Get an MS degree in Data Science and run away - not do the PhD at all. | I would try not to date as much. And definitely agree with having dissertation committee members who agree with each other. I do think I had a pretty good time otherwise | 1 | 3,780 | 1.166667 |
hck2kr | askacademia_train | 0.99 | If you could start your PhD life from scratch, what one thing would you do differently? Hindsight hour! | fvfyeo3 | fvftq32 | 1,592,663,554 | 1,592,660,508 | 14 | 13 | Get an MS degree in Data Science and run away - not do the PhD at all. | I would have left. After harassment and negligence of the department and university, the abuse of graduate students, I wish I had walked away. | 1 | 3,046 | 1.076923 |
hck2kr | askacademia_train | 0.99 | If you could start your PhD life from scratch, what one thing would you do differently? Hindsight hour! | fvfxd9z | fvfyeo3 | 1,592,662,903 | 1,592,663,554 | 12 | 14 | Ask people to collaborate! I had a wonderful PhD experience, but I could have put more effort into taking advantage of the amazing kindness and knowledge in my department and related departments. | Get an MS degree in Data Science and run away - not do the PhD at all. | 0 | 651 | 1.166667 |
hck2kr | askacademia_train | 0.99 | If you could start your PhD life from scratch, what one thing would you do differently? Hindsight hour! | fvfwyxn | fvfyeo3 | 1,592,662,646 | 1,592,663,554 | 9 | 14 | Really nothing. | Get an MS degree in Data Science and run away - not do the PhD at all. | 0 | 908 | 1.555556 |
hck2kr | askacademia_train | 0.99 | If you could start your PhD life from scratch, what one thing would you do differently? Hindsight hour! | fvfsntt | fvftq32 | 1,592,659,774 | 1,592,660,508 | 12 | 13 | I would try not to date as much. And definitely agree with having dissertation committee members who agree with each other. I do think I had a pretty good time otherwise | I would have left. After harassment and negligence of the department and university, the abuse of graduate students, I wish I had walked away. | 0 | 734 | 1.083333 |
hck2kr | askacademia_train | 0.99 | If you could start your PhD life from scratch, what one thing would you do differently? Hindsight hour! | fvfxd9z | fvfwyxn | 1,592,662,903 | 1,592,662,646 | 12 | 9 | Ask people to collaborate! I had a wonderful PhD experience, but I could have put more effort into taking advantage of the amazing kindness and knowledge in my department and related departments. | Really nothing. | 1 | 257 | 1.333333 |
hck2kr | askacademia_train | 0.99 | If you could start your PhD life from scratch, what one thing would you do differently? Hindsight hour! | fvg1w2n | fvfwyxn | 1,592,665,616 | 1,592,662,646 | 11 | 9 | Stood up for myself and left my ex sooner. He was emotionally and verbally abusive and it made my time in grad school harder than it had to be. I really enjoyed living by myself once I finally left but doing the logistics of apartment searching and moving in secret was tough. I'm glad I had good friends who let me live with them for a while when things blew up before I was ready. Everything worked out fine but he put me in some significant debt (probably to try and trap me) and had me totally mentally wore down. I could have been much happier in school much earlier. | Really nothing. | 1 | 2,970 | 1.222222 |
n6ljb2 | askacademia_train | 0.99 | People who hire faculty and postdocs, out of the “200 applicants for 1 position” how many were never serious contenders to begin with? And the ones who aren’t serious contenders, what tends to disqualify them? Wrong subfield? Wrong field entirely? Not enough pubs? Low rank university? | gx7vkiy | gx7tcda | 1,620,347,752 | 1,620,346,619 | 272 | 135 | In my experience, it's usually 1/3. We usually have some random people submitting apps, like medical doctors that think they should now be a professor in a completely unrelated field. The next 1/3 is usually missing something big, like pubs or teaching experience. The last 1/3 are where most of the attention is focused, and the difference between those applicants is usually quite nuanced. | 100-150. We scan the list based on university, CVs, references, and bear in mind candidates who come particularly highly recommended. So, you can be considered from a low ranked institution if someone is willing to make calls for you to say you're the best thing since sliced bread, and we also won't really consider people from the top universities either unless they have something special going for them (a comment from faculty or great references/pubs). Field matters for some searches, but not all. | 1 | 1,133 | 2.014815 |
n6ljb2 | askacademia_train | 0.99 | People who hire faculty and postdocs, out of the “200 applicants for 1 position” how many were never serious contenders to begin with? And the ones who aren’t serious contenders, what tends to disqualify them? Wrong subfield? Wrong field entirely? Not enough pubs? Low rank university? | gx7vkiy | gx7til1 | 1,620,347,752 | 1,620,346,706 | 272 | 44 | In my experience, it's usually 1/3. We usually have some random people submitting apps, like medical doctors that think they should now be a professor in a completely unrelated field. The next 1/3 is usually missing something big, like pubs or teaching experience. The last 1/3 are where most of the attention is focused, and the difference between those applicants is usually quite nuanced. | I recently hired another assistant professor. Pool of ~30 applied. ~15 were actually qualified. ~6 were good fits for short list. 3 made final short list. | 1 | 1,046 | 6.181818 |
n6ljb2 | askacademia_train | 0.99 | People who hire faculty and postdocs, out of the “200 applicants for 1 position” how many were never serious contenders to begin with? And the ones who aren’t serious contenders, what tends to disqualify them? Wrong subfield? Wrong field entirely? Not enough pubs? Low rank university? | gx7uqsa | gx7vkiy | 1,620,347,334 | 1,620,347,752 | 37 | 272 | I served on a search committee as an advanced student and we had about 40 applicants. 6 made it to phone interviews and 3 to on-campus lectures. Our search was a joint appointment between two schools so we had to find the best fit for the joint placement, an increasingly difficult task. We had candidates from multiple subfields within psychology. Two of the finalists had next to no teaching experience and the winner has next to none. They had quite a few publications though. Some of the phone interview finalists did not have many publications/came from lower ranking universities. It all depends on the search and search committee on disqualifications. One of the biggest ones was incomplete applications or applications that seemed like a one-size-fits-all (reused for many positions and not much thought into tailoring it to the specific search). Our university is a public state university with ~15k students. | In my experience, it's usually 1/3. We usually have some random people submitting apps, like medical doctors that think they should now be a professor in a completely unrelated field. The next 1/3 is usually missing something big, like pubs or teaching experience. The last 1/3 are where most of the attention is focused, and the difference between those applicants is usually quite nuanced. | 0 | 418 | 7.351351 |
n6ljb2 | askacademia_train | 0.99 | People who hire faculty and postdocs, out of the “200 applicants for 1 position” how many were never serious contenders to begin with? And the ones who aren’t serious contenders, what tends to disqualify them? Wrong subfield? Wrong field entirely? Not enough pubs? Low rank university? | gx7xsv9 | gx7til1 | 1,620,348,901 | 1,620,346,706 | 80 | 44 | I’ve been on med school faculty search committees for a few years. We get 200-400 applications for open calls, with the vast majority applying for their first faculty job. There’s usually around 75-100 “reasonable” applications - a complete application, post-doc experience, reasonable evidence of research productivity (med school so teaching is less important). These are usually easy to narrow down to 10-15 with really good past research (number and quality of papers) and reference letters, with maybe half of those having a truly competitive research statement. We interview 5-10, and offer second visits to 1-3 depending on the year. Most get through the scripted talk on their past research just fine, but fail at the chalk talk where they have to give a reasonable account of what they want to work on, why they think it’s important, and some outline of what they think they should tackle first. These are usually candidates whose research statements weren’t particularly strong, but who we thought worth looking at more carefully. It’s the damnedest thing, but in a pile of several hundred applications from a lot of smart and driven people, you can usually find a handful whose ideas stand head and shoulders above the rest. TL;DR it’s usually the research statement. Very few people can give a coherent account of an interesting problem, explain why they think this is a deep issue, and propose some reasonable approaches. | I recently hired another assistant professor. Pool of ~30 applied. ~15 were actually qualified. ~6 were good fits for short list. 3 made final short list. | 1 | 2,195 | 1.818182 |
n6ljb2 | askacademia_train | 0.99 | People who hire faculty and postdocs, out of the “200 applicants for 1 position” how many were never serious contenders to begin with? And the ones who aren’t serious contenders, what tends to disqualify them? Wrong subfield? Wrong field entirely? Not enough pubs? Low rank university? | gx7xsv9 | gx7uqsa | 1,620,348,901 | 1,620,347,334 | 80 | 37 | I’ve been on med school faculty search committees for a few years. We get 200-400 applications for open calls, with the vast majority applying for their first faculty job. There’s usually around 75-100 “reasonable” applications - a complete application, post-doc experience, reasonable evidence of research productivity (med school so teaching is less important). These are usually easy to narrow down to 10-15 with really good past research (number and quality of papers) and reference letters, with maybe half of those having a truly competitive research statement. We interview 5-10, and offer second visits to 1-3 depending on the year. Most get through the scripted talk on their past research just fine, but fail at the chalk talk where they have to give a reasonable account of what they want to work on, why they think it’s important, and some outline of what they think they should tackle first. These are usually candidates whose research statements weren’t particularly strong, but who we thought worth looking at more carefully. It’s the damnedest thing, but in a pile of several hundred applications from a lot of smart and driven people, you can usually find a handful whose ideas stand head and shoulders above the rest. TL;DR it’s usually the research statement. Very few people can give a coherent account of an interesting problem, explain why they think this is a deep issue, and propose some reasonable approaches. | I served on a search committee as an advanced student and we had about 40 applicants. 6 made it to phone interviews and 3 to on-campus lectures. Our search was a joint appointment between two schools so we had to find the best fit for the joint placement, an increasingly difficult task. We had candidates from multiple subfields within psychology. Two of the finalists had next to no teaching experience and the winner has next to none. They had quite a few publications though. Some of the phone interview finalists did not have many publications/came from lower ranking universities. It all depends on the search and search committee on disqualifications. One of the biggest ones was incomplete applications or applications that seemed like a one-size-fits-all (reused for many positions and not much thought into tailoring it to the specific search). Our university is a public state university with ~15k students. | 1 | 1,567 | 2.162162 |
n6ljb2 | askacademia_train | 0.99 | People who hire faculty and postdocs, out of the “200 applicants for 1 position” how many were never serious contenders to begin with? And the ones who aren’t serious contenders, what tends to disqualify them? Wrong subfield? Wrong field entirely? Not enough pubs? Low rank university? | gx7w3d3 | gx7xsv9 | 1,620,348,017 | 1,620,348,901 | 17 | 80 | I did two postdocs, the first one had 5 applicants, the second was 3 lmao. (Also, both insitutes are great, the 3 applicant one is number 4 in the world for my field... It's just so niche within the field that no one really does it. It's good that whenever I apply it'll probably be less than 10 people, but bad because I only see a handful of jobs per year.) | I’ve been on med school faculty search committees for a few years. We get 200-400 applications for open calls, with the vast majority applying for their first faculty job. There’s usually around 75-100 “reasonable” applications - a complete application, post-doc experience, reasonable evidence of research productivity (med school so teaching is less important). These are usually easy to narrow down to 10-15 with really good past research (number and quality of papers) and reference letters, with maybe half of those having a truly competitive research statement. We interview 5-10, and offer second visits to 1-3 depending on the year. Most get through the scripted talk on their past research just fine, but fail at the chalk talk where they have to give a reasonable account of what they want to work on, why they think it’s important, and some outline of what they think they should tackle first. These are usually candidates whose research statements weren’t particularly strong, but who we thought worth looking at more carefully. It’s the damnedest thing, but in a pile of several hundred applications from a lot of smart and driven people, you can usually find a handful whose ideas stand head and shoulders above the rest. TL;DR it’s usually the research statement. Very few people can give a coherent account of an interesting problem, explain why they think this is a deep issue, and propose some reasonable approaches. | 0 | 884 | 4.705882 |
n6ljb2 | askacademia_train | 0.99 | People who hire faculty and postdocs, out of the “200 applicants for 1 position” how many were never serious contenders to begin with? And the ones who aren’t serious contenders, what tends to disqualify them? Wrong subfield? Wrong field entirely? Not enough pubs? Low rank university? | gx7yizj | gx7til1 | 1,620,349,274 | 1,620,346,706 | 64 | 44 | In my experience, half of the applications are irrelevant or just too stretched (e.g. I asked for an expert in bamboo basket weaving, the candidate has seen a bamboo basket once in their lives or they are an expert in bamboo planting). The next chopping block is on institutional fit. I have worked at teaching institutions almost exclusively. So over-emphasis of research / not talking enough about teaching in cover letter cut candidates out. Then we go with alma mater, experience, research, and - more important than anything else - potential for growth. | I recently hired another assistant professor. Pool of ~30 applied. ~15 were actually qualified. ~6 were good fits for short list. 3 made final short list. | 1 | 2,568 | 1.454545 |
n6ljb2 | askacademia_train | 0.99 | People who hire faculty and postdocs, out of the “200 applicants for 1 position” how many were never serious contenders to begin with? And the ones who aren’t serious contenders, what tends to disqualify them? Wrong subfield? Wrong field entirely? Not enough pubs? Low rank university? | gx7yizj | gx7uqsa | 1,620,349,274 | 1,620,347,334 | 64 | 37 | In my experience, half of the applications are irrelevant or just too stretched (e.g. I asked for an expert in bamboo basket weaving, the candidate has seen a bamboo basket once in their lives or they are an expert in bamboo planting). The next chopping block is on institutional fit. I have worked at teaching institutions almost exclusively. So over-emphasis of research / not talking enough about teaching in cover letter cut candidates out. Then we go with alma mater, experience, research, and - more important than anything else - potential for growth. | I served on a search committee as an advanced student and we had about 40 applicants. 6 made it to phone interviews and 3 to on-campus lectures. Our search was a joint appointment between two schools so we had to find the best fit for the joint placement, an increasingly difficult task. We had candidates from multiple subfields within psychology. Two of the finalists had next to no teaching experience and the winner has next to none. They had quite a few publications though. Some of the phone interview finalists did not have many publications/came from lower ranking universities. It all depends on the search and search committee on disqualifications. One of the biggest ones was incomplete applications or applications that seemed like a one-size-fits-all (reused for many positions and not much thought into tailoring it to the specific search). Our university is a public state university with ~15k students. | 1 | 1,940 | 1.72973 |
n6ljb2 | askacademia_train | 0.99 | People who hire faculty and postdocs, out of the “200 applicants for 1 position” how many were never serious contenders to begin with? And the ones who aren’t serious contenders, what tends to disqualify them? Wrong subfield? Wrong field entirely? Not enough pubs? Low rank university? | gx7yizj | gx7yicc | 1,620,349,274 | 1,620,349,264 | 64 | 27 | In my experience, half of the applications are irrelevant or just too stretched (e.g. I asked for an expert in bamboo basket weaving, the candidate has seen a bamboo basket once in their lives or they are an expert in bamboo planting). The next chopping block is on institutional fit. I have worked at teaching institutions almost exclusively. So over-emphasis of research / not talking enough about teaching in cover letter cut candidates out. Then we go with alma mater, experience, research, and - more important than anything else - potential for growth. | 100+ for one position at an R1, open call for assistant profs (with the possibility we can make up to 2-3 hires off the position, to be clear). Many got knocked out of my pile for wrong angling of the materials for the department in the cover letter, poor CVs (like badly organized or misleading), poorly articulated research vision, and god awful teaching or diversity statements. We asked explicitly for the candidate's best three papers to help resist bean counting, and there is a soft cut if most don't appear in top venues. In CS, students very frequently first author multiple papers and if the best aren't in top conferences or journals, then it's a tough sell. There is worry that the potential faculty member won't produce enough to pass muster for tenure evaluations. | 1 | 10 | 2.37037 |
n6ljb2 | askacademia_train | 0.99 | People who hire faculty and postdocs, out of the “200 applicants for 1 position” how many were never serious contenders to begin with? And the ones who aren’t serious contenders, what tends to disqualify them? Wrong subfield? Wrong field entirely? Not enough pubs? Low rank university? | gx7yizj | gx7w3d3 | 1,620,349,274 | 1,620,348,017 | 64 | 17 | In my experience, half of the applications are irrelevant or just too stretched (e.g. I asked for an expert in bamboo basket weaving, the candidate has seen a bamboo basket once in their lives or they are an expert in bamboo planting). The next chopping block is on institutional fit. I have worked at teaching institutions almost exclusively. So over-emphasis of research / not talking enough about teaching in cover letter cut candidates out. Then we go with alma mater, experience, research, and - more important than anything else - potential for growth. | I did two postdocs, the first one had 5 applicants, the second was 3 lmao. (Also, both insitutes are great, the 3 applicant one is number 4 in the world for my field... It's just so niche within the field that no one really does it. It's good that whenever I apply it'll probably be less than 10 people, but bad because I only see a handful of jobs per year.) | 1 | 1,257 | 3.764706 |
n6ljb2 | askacademia_train | 0.99 | People who hire faculty and postdocs, out of the “200 applicants for 1 position” how many were never serious contenders to begin with? And the ones who aren’t serious contenders, what tends to disqualify them? Wrong subfield? Wrong field entirely? Not enough pubs? Low rank university? | gx7yicc | gx81s8g | 1,620,349,264 | 1,620,350,955 | 27 | 30 | 100+ for one position at an R1, open call for assistant profs (with the possibility we can make up to 2-3 hires off the position, to be clear). Many got knocked out of my pile for wrong angling of the materials for the department in the cover letter, poor CVs (like badly organized or misleading), poorly articulated research vision, and god awful teaching or diversity statements. We asked explicitly for the candidate's best three papers to help resist bean counting, and there is a soft cut if most don't appear in top venues. In CS, students very frequently first author multiple papers and if the best aren't in top conferences or journals, then it's a tough sell. There is worry that the potential faculty member won't produce enough to pass muster for tenure evaluations. | SLAC chair here, with decades of hiring experience. I suspect this varies a lot between types of institution and between fields as well. In my case-- mostly humanities and interdisciplinary searches in the SLAC context --I'd say about 10-15% of the applicants in a typical pool are utterly unqualified. For example, in history we *always* get applications from idiot lawyers who are 100% confident that teaching/research is easier than being a lawyer, that their passion for the History Channel qualifies them, and that we'd be fools not to hire them immediately. (Like *every* search in US history, to the point that we'll say "Oh look, here's our lawyer!") We will get 200 applications (or more) for a US position though. So of the 175 that are at least marginally qualified, I'd say half are easily dismissed for not having the right specializations or degrees. Then we can usually drop half of what remains for lacking appropriate experience (for example, we won't hire anyone who doesn't already have experience teaching as instructor of record) or because they have no evident scholarship (pubs & conferences) or because it's clear they have no idea what an SLAC faculty member actually does. So from 200 we might be seriously working with 50-60 applications. In my (now pretty extensive) experience it's usually quite easy to cut a pool from 200 to \~25 or so. Committee members will do that on their own after reading the full files (CV, cover letter, teaching file, LORs, pubs, etc.) then get together to compare lists. I've been involved in over two dozen searches and in almost all of them there was close to unanimous agreement on that first step, which I always take to mean committee members are applying the job description and qualifications fairly consistently as they review applications. Getting from 25 to an interview pool is a bit more challenging usually. | 0 | 1,691 | 1.111111 |
n6ljb2 | askacademia_train | 0.99 | People who hire faculty and postdocs, out of the “200 applicants for 1 position” how many were never serious contenders to begin with? And the ones who aren’t serious contenders, what tends to disqualify them? Wrong subfield? Wrong field entirely? Not enough pubs? Low rank university? | gx7w3d3 | gx81s8g | 1,620,348,017 | 1,620,350,955 | 17 | 30 | I did two postdocs, the first one had 5 applicants, the second was 3 lmao. (Also, both insitutes are great, the 3 applicant one is number 4 in the world for my field... It's just so niche within the field that no one really does it. It's good that whenever I apply it'll probably be less than 10 people, but bad because I only see a handful of jobs per year.) | SLAC chair here, with decades of hiring experience. I suspect this varies a lot between types of institution and between fields as well. In my case-- mostly humanities and interdisciplinary searches in the SLAC context --I'd say about 10-15% of the applicants in a typical pool are utterly unqualified. For example, in history we *always* get applications from idiot lawyers who are 100% confident that teaching/research is easier than being a lawyer, that their passion for the History Channel qualifies them, and that we'd be fools not to hire them immediately. (Like *every* search in US history, to the point that we'll say "Oh look, here's our lawyer!") We will get 200 applications (or more) for a US position though. So of the 175 that are at least marginally qualified, I'd say half are easily dismissed for not having the right specializations or degrees. Then we can usually drop half of what remains for lacking appropriate experience (for example, we won't hire anyone who doesn't already have experience teaching as instructor of record) or because they have no evident scholarship (pubs & conferences) or because it's clear they have no idea what an SLAC faculty member actually does. So from 200 we might be seriously working with 50-60 applications. In my (now pretty extensive) experience it's usually quite easy to cut a pool from 200 to \~25 or so. Committee members will do that on their own after reading the full files (CV, cover letter, teaching file, LORs, pubs, etc.) then get together to compare lists. I've been involved in over two dozen searches and in almost all of them there was close to unanimous agreement on that first step, which I always take to mean committee members are applying the job description and qualifications fairly consistently as they review applications. Getting from 25 to an interview pool is a bit more challenging usually. | 0 | 2,938 | 1.764706 |
n6ljb2 | askacademia_train | 0.99 | People who hire faculty and postdocs, out of the “200 applicants for 1 position” how many were never serious contenders to begin with? And the ones who aren’t serious contenders, what tends to disqualify them? Wrong subfield? Wrong field entirely? Not enough pubs? Low rank university? | gx7yicc | gx89kuc | 1,620,349,264 | 1,620,354,972 | 27 | 29 | 100+ for one position at an R1, open call for assistant profs (with the possibility we can make up to 2-3 hires off the position, to be clear). Many got knocked out of my pile for wrong angling of the materials for the department in the cover letter, poor CVs (like badly organized or misleading), poorly articulated research vision, and god awful teaching or diversity statements. We asked explicitly for the candidate's best three papers to help resist bean counting, and there is a soft cut if most don't appear in top venues. In CS, students very frequently first author multiple papers and if the best aren't in top conferences or journals, then it's a tough sell. There is worry that the potential faculty member won't produce enough to pass muster for tenure evaluations. | I am in humanities so the glut is beyond belief and over the last decade the really depressing thing is how many people are qualified for the job. That wasn’t true a fifteen years ago. Our last search out of 300 plus applications 50 were really, really strong. However, the reality is of the 5 we choose for campus visits after video interviews, four of them were interviewing for 3 other jobs in 2 universities in our region - one much stronger than us, one much weaker. Frankly, that has happened more than not in the last decade, perhaps that is limited to our field that is dependent on an incredibly smart project that can get published and translate into original classes for undergraduates. When it comes to discussions about the job glut nobody wants to be accountable how we always end up fighting over the same four or five folks. With just a little less than a decade to go before calling it a career I have started to wonder about that - if the things we privilege as academics has us miss out on potentially excellent colleagues that just don’t come across as having “it.” | 0 | 5,708 | 1.074074 |
n6ljb2 | askacademia_train | 0.99 | People who hire faculty and postdocs, out of the “200 applicants for 1 position” how many were never serious contenders to begin with? And the ones who aren’t serious contenders, what tends to disqualify them? Wrong subfield? Wrong field entirely? Not enough pubs? Low rank university? | gx7yicc | gx7w3d3 | 1,620,349,264 | 1,620,348,017 | 27 | 17 | 100+ for one position at an R1, open call for assistant profs (with the possibility we can make up to 2-3 hires off the position, to be clear). Many got knocked out of my pile for wrong angling of the materials for the department in the cover letter, poor CVs (like badly organized or misleading), poorly articulated research vision, and god awful teaching or diversity statements. We asked explicitly for the candidate's best three papers to help resist bean counting, and there is a soft cut if most don't appear in top venues. In CS, students very frequently first author multiple papers and if the best aren't in top conferences or journals, then it's a tough sell. There is worry that the potential faculty member won't produce enough to pass muster for tenure evaluations. | I did two postdocs, the first one had 5 applicants, the second was 3 lmao. (Also, both insitutes are great, the 3 applicant one is number 4 in the world for my field... It's just so niche within the field that no one really does it. It's good that whenever I apply it'll probably be less than 10 people, but bad because I only see a handful of jobs per year.) | 1 | 1,247 | 1.588235 |
n6ljb2 | askacademia_train | 0.99 | People who hire faculty and postdocs, out of the “200 applicants for 1 position” how many were never serious contenders to begin with? And the ones who aren’t serious contenders, what tends to disqualify them? Wrong subfield? Wrong field entirely? Not enough pubs? Low rank university? | gx7w3d3 | gx89kuc | 1,620,348,017 | 1,620,354,972 | 17 | 29 | I did two postdocs, the first one had 5 applicants, the second was 3 lmao. (Also, both insitutes are great, the 3 applicant one is number 4 in the world for my field... It's just so niche within the field that no one really does it. It's good that whenever I apply it'll probably be less than 10 people, but bad because I only see a handful of jobs per year.) | I am in humanities so the glut is beyond belief and over the last decade the really depressing thing is how many people are qualified for the job. That wasn’t true a fifteen years ago. Our last search out of 300 plus applications 50 were really, really strong. However, the reality is of the 5 we choose for campus visits after video interviews, four of them were interviewing for 3 other jobs in 2 universities in our region - one much stronger than us, one much weaker. Frankly, that has happened more than not in the last decade, perhaps that is limited to our field that is dependent on an incredibly smart project that can get published and translate into original classes for undergraduates. When it comes to discussions about the job glut nobody wants to be accountable how we always end up fighting over the same four or five folks. With just a little less than a decade to go before calling it a career I have started to wonder about that - if the things we privilege as academics has us miss out on potentially excellent colleagues that just don’t come across as having “it.” | 0 | 6,955 | 1.705882 |
n6ljb2 | askacademia_train | 0.99 | People who hire faculty and postdocs, out of the “200 applicants for 1 position” how many were never serious contenders to begin with? And the ones who aren’t serious contenders, what tends to disqualify them? Wrong subfield? Wrong field entirely? Not enough pubs? Low rank university? | gx89kuc | gx82jyr | 1,620,354,972 | 1,620,351,344 | 29 | 13 | I am in humanities so the glut is beyond belief and over the last decade the really depressing thing is how many people are qualified for the job. That wasn’t true a fifteen years ago. Our last search out of 300 plus applications 50 were really, really strong. However, the reality is of the 5 we choose for campus visits after video interviews, four of them were interviewing for 3 other jobs in 2 universities in our region - one much stronger than us, one much weaker. Frankly, that has happened more than not in the last decade, perhaps that is limited to our field that is dependent on an incredibly smart project that can get published and translate into original classes for undergraduates. When it comes to discussions about the job glut nobody wants to be accountable how we always end up fighting over the same four or five folks. With just a little less than a decade to go before calling it a career I have started to wonder about that - if the things we privilege as academics has us miss out on potentially excellent colleagues that just don’t come across as having “it.” | After serving on a number of faculty hiring committees I was surprised at how many applicants just straight didn't qualify for the position but applied anyway. Many don't have any experience or have the wrong degreev which automatically disqualifies them in most situations. | 1 | 3,628 | 2.230769 |
n6ljb2 | askacademia_train | 0.99 | People who hire faculty and postdocs, out of the “200 applicants for 1 position” how many were never serious contenders to begin with? And the ones who aren’t serious contenders, what tends to disqualify them? Wrong subfield? Wrong field entirely? Not enough pubs? Low rank university? | gx7w3d3 | gx8cnrp | 1,620,348,017 | 1,620,356,631 | 17 | 18 | I did two postdocs, the first one had 5 applicants, the second was 3 lmao. (Also, both insitutes are great, the 3 applicant one is number 4 in the world for my field... It's just so niche within the field that no one really does it. It's good that whenever I apply it'll probably be less than 10 people, but bad because I only see a handful of jobs per year.) | (This is pertaining to searches in the humanities/social sciences, from a department within a STEM school.) When I have run searches I have each member on the committee go through and assign a simple number to each application. -1 means I actively don't like them as a candidate (terrible fit or whatever), 0 means I have no strong feelings either way, 1 means I sort of think they could be interesting, 2 means I am super enthusiastic about them. Everyone obviously has their own reasons for their votes and their own weighting of the numbers. Some people have hard no 2s and some people lean towards 0 where others might lean a 1, but in the end the results are remarkably in sync across the committee. In general this turns about 50% of the people into the 0 or below category, and then a top 20% emerges of lots of 2s and 1s, and then a middle 30% of 1s and 0s. A not super surprising kind of result. (I will note that this method makes the committee discussions very easy — we can see where we agree and don't need to talk much about that, and if someone wants to make a strong case for someone who got left out, they can do so.) The trends among the bottom 50% are pretty similar. Really not germane to the position, for example (someone from an adjacent or wrong field applying — happens constantly, because people are still advised that you should apply to every job no matter what because who knows if the listing is correct etc. etc.). Or dramatically under-performing in terms of productivity (often in a sad way, e.g. someone who has been an adjunct for 10 years and has not published anything in that time — I'm sorry but you're not competitive for a TT job at that point). Or they didn't write a cover letter (or include a CV or some other error — and I do follow up with anyone who doesn't appear to submit all of their materials because I know that online HR systems are crap, but even then). Exceptionally low-ranked universities coupled with everything else. (We're not all about ranking where I am, but if your entire academic career by that point has been at low-ranked places, that is telling.) Chemists who think they can be historians despite no training or relevant publications. Lawyers who think they can do everything, because they're lawyers. Etc. The top 50% are more competitive but the top 20% are just more competitive than the rest. They have great academic pedigrees — not a requirement, but it helps, all other things considered. They wrote great cover letters that made it clear they really were interested in our school and our job. They have really promising publications already, and their research would interact really well with the others in our department. They are just great fits for our specific position. Things like that. We usually manage to do a phone/Skype interview with the top 20% — a lot of interviews. That is just about sorting them into a smaller list of 4-5 to invite to campus. That's where you find out who is articulate, who comes across as engaging, whose enthusiasm is more genuine than others'. Sometimes the best "on paper" candidates fail here because it turns out they simply cannot help but act like they consider our school a "safety" choice and not a real job they want (heads' up, people: there are no safety choices in TT jobs). The final choice after the campus visit is always a difficult one, and less a choice than a ranking, and one that usually requires reconciling a lot of different considerations, and usually has almost everything to do with what we feel we "need" at that moment, and not due to any benefit or defect in the candidate. I always tell graduate students that if it is a job you really are right for you should be able to get into the top 20% if you work at it. That's the result of you doing good on paper (and publications and teaching and a decent school and etc.), and taking the time with the application you need to to make it shine. Whether you can be in the top 10% is a lot harder to control, and whether you get the job will depend on a huge number of factors that are unknown to you and beyond your control. But you have a lot of control over the "first cut." And for pete's sake please don't apply to jobs you are absolutely and objectively not qualified to do — it just wastes your time and everyone else's. If you really aren't sure if you should apply (e.g., if you do something close-enough to the job description to be plausible, but it's not obvious), e-mail the search chair — they will be able to tell you very quickly if it is worth your time to give it a shot. | 0 | 8,614 | 1.058824 |
n6ljb2 | askacademia_train | 0.99 | People who hire faculty and postdocs, out of the “200 applicants for 1 position” how many were never serious contenders to begin with? And the ones who aren’t serious contenders, what tends to disqualify them? Wrong subfield? Wrong field entirely? Not enough pubs? Low rank university? | gx8cnrp | gx82jyr | 1,620,356,631 | 1,620,351,344 | 18 | 13 | (This is pertaining to searches in the humanities/social sciences, from a department within a STEM school.) When I have run searches I have each member on the committee go through and assign a simple number to each application. -1 means I actively don't like them as a candidate (terrible fit or whatever), 0 means I have no strong feelings either way, 1 means I sort of think they could be interesting, 2 means I am super enthusiastic about them. Everyone obviously has their own reasons for their votes and their own weighting of the numbers. Some people have hard no 2s and some people lean towards 0 where others might lean a 1, but in the end the results are remarkably in sync across the committee. In general this turns about 50% of the people into the 0 or below category, and then a top 20% emerges of lots of 2s and 1s, and then a middle 30% of 1s and 0s. A not super surprising kind of result. (I will note that this method makes the committee discussions very easy — we can see where we agree and don't need to talk much about that, and if someone wants to make a strong case for someone who got left out, they can do so.) The trends among the bottom 50% are pretty similar. Really not germane to the position, for example (someone from an adjacent or wrong field applying — happens constantly, because people are still advised that you should apply to every job no matter what because who knows if the listing is correct etc. etc.). Or dramatically under-performing in terms of productivity (often in a sad way, e.g. someone who has been an adjunct for 10 years and has not published anything in that time — I'm sorry but you're not competitive for a TT job at that point). Or they didn't write a cover letter (or include a CV or some other error — and I do follow up with anyone who doesn't appear to submit all of their materials because I know that online HR systems are crap, but even then). Exceptionally low-ranked universities coupled with everything else. (We're not all about ranking where I am, but if your entire academic career by that point has been at low-ranked places, that is telling.) Chemists who think they can be historians despite no training or relevant publications. Lawyers who think they can do everything, because they're lawyers. Etc. The top 50% are more competitive but the top 20% are just more competitive than the rest. They have great academic pedigrees — not a requirement, but it helps, all other things considered. They wrote great cover letters that made it clear they really were interested in our school and our job. They have really promising publications already, and their research would interact really well with the others in our department. They are just great fits for our specific position. Things like that. We usually manage to do a phone/Skype interview with the top 20% — a lot of interviews. That is just about sorting them into a smaller list of 4-5 to invite to campus. That's where you find out who is articulate, who comes across as engaging, whose enthusiasm is more genuine than others'. Sometimes the best "on paper" candidates fail here because it turns out they simply cannot help but act like they consider our school a "safety" choice and not a real job they want (heads' up, people: there are no safety choices in TT jobs). The final choice after the campus visit is always a difficult one, and less a choice than a ranking, and one that usually requires reconciling a lot of different considerations, and usually has almost everything to do with what we feel we "need" at that moment, and not due to any benefit or defect in the candidate. I always tell graduate students that if it is a job you really are right for you should be able to get into the top 20% if you work at it. That's the result of you doing good on paper (and publications and teaching and a decent school and etc.), and taking the time with the application you need to to make it shine. Whether you can be in the top 10% is a lot harder to control, and whether you get the job will depend on a huge number of factors that are unknown to you and beyond your control. But you have a lot of control over the "first cut." And for pete's sake please don't apply to jobs you are absolutely and objectively not qualified to do — it just wastes your time and everyone else's. If you really aren't sure if you should apply (e.g., if you do something close-enough to the job description to be plausible, but it's not obvious), e-mail the search chair — they will be able to tell you very quickly if it is worth your time to give it a shot. | After serving on a number of faculty hiring committees I was surprised at how many applicants just straight didn't qualify for the position but applied anyway. Many don't have any experience or have the wrong degreev which automatically disqualifies them in most situations. | 1 | 5,287 | 1.384615 |
gotajc | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What secret unspoken reasons did your hiring committee choose one candidate over another? Grant writing potential? Color of skin? Length of responses? Interview just a formality so the nepotism isn't as obvious? We all know it exists, but perhaps not specifically. Any details you'd like to share about yours? | frhwt0y | fri1s0l | 1,590,188,171 | 1,590,191,002 | 120 | 256 | Ohhhhh.... I like this one. I'm here for the stories, but let me grab a glass of wine or something. | They had a grant that paid for most of their starting salary for two years. | 0 | 2,831 | 2.133333 |
gotajc | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What secret unspoken reasons did your hiring committee choose one candidate over another? Grant writing potential? Color of skin? Length of responses? Interview just a formality so the nepotism isn't as obvious? We all know it exists, but perhaps not specifically. Any details you'd like to share about yours? | frhzpnx | fri1s0l | 1,590,189,829 | 1,590,191,002 | 27 | 256 | Administrative pressure, sigh | They had a grant that paid for most of their starting salary for two years. | 0 | 1,173 | 9.481481 |
gotajc | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What secret unspoken reasons did your hiring committee choose one candidate over another? Grant writing potential? Color of skin? Length of responses? Interview just a formality so the nepotism isn't as obvious? We all know it exists, but perhaps not specifically. Any details you'd like to share about yours? | frhwt0y | fri6cwz | 1,590,188,171 | 1,590,193,700 | 120 | 208 | Ohhhhh.... I like this one. I'm here for the stories, but let me grab a glass of wine or something. | Wasn't on the committee but when I was a candidate for a TT position at one of the schools where I adjunct, I was told by two separate people who were on the committee (although I can't imagine they were allowed to tell me this but they did) that the committee was divided over whether or not to hire me or someone else because I am a single Mom and several committee members didn't think a single Mom could handle a full time TT position. One of the people who voted against me was my Department Chair at the time (also a Mom). She asked me to stop by her office so she could be the one to tell me I wasn't chosen and why because she thought it would make me feel better to know that it wasn't *me* they didn't like. Narrator: It did not. ​ edited: typo | 0 | 5,529 | 1.733333 |
gotajc | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What secret unspoken reasons did your hiring committee choose one candidate over another? Grant writing potential? Color of skin? Length of responses? Interview just a formality so the nepotism isn't as obvious? We all know it exists, but perhaps not specifically. Any details you'd like to share about yours? | fri2m3o | fri6cwz | 1,590,191,481 | 1,590,193,700 | 111 | 208 | We were deciding between two candidates. One was a postdoc with an impressive set of publications and grants working at an prestigious university. The other was an assistant professor on the tenure track at a teaching-focused institution with far less publications and no grants. No issues with fit for either one and both were hoping to move to the area for family reasons. Our chair (who wasn't on the committee but was advising) wrote in that he'd prefer to restart the search before giving it to the postdoc. His reasoning? That the postdoc wouldn't be happy long-term at our R2. We ended up selecting the assistant professor and will have to see how it works out, but the postdoc still doesn't have a job. I assume other interviews/offers may have been pulled due to covid. It's tough out there, even for really qualified candidates. | Wasn't on the committee but when I was a candidate for a TT position at one of the schools where I adjunct, I was told by two separate people who were on the committee (although I can't imagine they were allowed to tell me this but they did) that the committee was divided over whether or not to hire me or someone else because I am a single Mom and several committee members didn't think a single Mom could handle a full time TT position. One of the people who voted against me was my Department Chair at the time (also a Mom). She asked me to stop by her office so she could be the one to tell me I wasn't chosen and why because she thought it would make me feel better to know that it wasn't *me* they didn't like. Narrator: It did not. ​ edited: typo | 0 | 2,219 | 1.873874 |
gotajc | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What secret unspoken reasons did your hiring committee choose one candidate over another? Grant writing potential? Color of skin? Length of responses? Interview just a formality so the nepotism isn't as obvious? We all know it exists, but perhaps not specifically. Any details you'd like to share about yours? | fri6cwz | fri2w2t | 1,590,193,700 | 1,590,191,642 | 208 | 91 | Wasn't on the committee but when I was a candidate for a TT position at one of the schools where I adjunct, I was told by two separate people who were on the committee (although I can't imagine they were allowed to tell me this but they did) that the committee was divided over whether or not to hire me or someone else because I am a single Mom and several committee members didn't think a single Mom could handle a full time TT position. One of the people who voted against me was my Department Chair at the time (also a Mom). She asked me to stop by her office so she could be the one to tell me I wasn't chosen and why because she thought it would make me feel better to know that it wasn't *me* they didn't like. Narrator: It did not. ​ edited: typo | We interviewed and hired people in spite of them being waaay down the ranked list of initial candidates because they were local; their spouse worked in a much better job in our city and would definitely accept the offer because they had no other options. To be fair we made offers to other, higher ranked candidates first but they didn't accept because we don't pay them the going market rate in our field. We are desperate for faculty to teach classes as we've run out of capacity but their research potentials are very much in doubt. | 1 | 2,058 | 2.285714 |
gotajc | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What secret unspoken reasons did your hiring committee choose one candidate over another? Grant writing potential? Color of skin? Length of responses? Interview just a formality so the nepotism isn't as obvious? We all know it exists, but perhaps not specifically. Any details you'd like to share about yours? | fri6cwz | fri292u | 1,590,193,700 | 1,590,191,274 | 208 | 90 | Wasn't on the committee but when I was a candidate for a TT position at one of the schools where I adjunct, I was told by two separate people who were on the committee (although I can't imagine they were allowed to tell me this but they did) that the committee was divided over whether or not to hire me or someone else because I am a single Mom and several committee members didn't think a single Mom could handle a full time TT position. One of the people who voted against me was my Department Chair at the time (also a Mom). She asked me to stop by her office so she could be the one to tell me I wasn't chosen and why because she thought it would make me feel better to know that it wasn't *me* they didn't like. Narrator: It did not. ​ edited: typo | Diversity. It’s both spoken and very much unspoken. | 1 | 2,426 | 2.311111 |
gotajc | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What secret unspoken reasons did your hiring committee choose one candidate over another? Grant writing potential? Color of skin? Length of responses? Interview just a formality so the nepotism isn't as obvious? We all know it exists, but perhaps not specifically. Any details you'd like to share about yours? | fri6cwz | fri203k | 1,590,193,700 | 1,590,191,130 | 208 | 73 | Wasn't on the committee but when I was a candidate for a TT position at one of the schools where I adjunct, I was told by two separate people who were on the committee (although I can't imagine they were allowed to tell me this but they did) that the committee was divided over whether or not to hire me or someone else because I am a single Mom and several committee members didn't think a single Mom could handle a full time TT position. One of the people who voted against me was my Department Chair at the time (also a Mom). She asked me to stop by her office so she could be the one to tell me I wasn't chosen and why because she thought it would make me feel better to know that it wasn't *me* they didn't like. Narrator: It did not. ​ edited: typo | Availability. Having worked on a VERY related project. Being the “safe” and known choice. Straight number of pubs. The discussion is always enlightening. | 1 | 2,570 | 2.849315 |
gotajc | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What secret unspoken reasons did your hiring committee choose one candidate over another? Grant writing potential? Color of skin? Length of responses? Interview just a formality so the nepotism isn't as obvious? We all know it exists, but perhaps not specifically. Any details you'd like to share about yours? | fri341h | fri6cwz | 1,590,191,771 | 1,590,193,700 | 63 | 208 | I think we actually speak everything and then someone yells “you’re not supposed to say that!” So all of our bad reasons are actually spoken. | Wasn't on the committee but when I was a candidate for a TT position at one of the schools where I adjunct, I was told by two separate people who were on the committee (although I can't imagine they were allowed to tell me this but they did) that the committee was divided over whether or not to hire me or someone else because I am a single Mom and several committee members didn't think a single Mom could handle a full time TT position. One of the people who voted against me was my Department Chair at the time (also a Mom). She asked me to stop by her office so she could be the one to tell me I wasn't chosen and why because she thought it would make me feel better to know that it wasn't *me* they didn't like. Narrator: It did not. ​ edited: typo | 0 | 1,929 | 3.301587 |
gotajc | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What secret unspoken reasons did your hiring committee choose one candidate over another? Grant writing potential? Color of skin? Length of responses? Interview just a formality so the nepotism isn't as obvious? We all know it exists, but perhaps not specifically. Any details you'd like to share about yours? | fri6cwz | fri366g | 1,590,193,700 | 1,590,191,805 | 208 | 54 | Wasn't on the committee but when I was a candidate for a TT position at one of the schools where I adjunct, I was told by two separate people who were on the committee (although I can't imagine they were allowed to tell me this but they did) that the committee was divided over whether or not to hire me or someone else because I am a single Mom and several committee members didn't think a single Mom could handle a full time TT position. One of the people who voted against me was my Department Chair at the time (also a Mom). She asked me to stop by her office so she could be the one to tell me I wasn't chosen and why because she thought it would make me feel better to know that it wasn't *me* they didn't like. Narrator: It did not. ​ edited: typo | We were told the admin said “don’t hire another white male”. It would have been “unspoken” but we are a tight group. | 1 | 1,895 | 3.851852 |
gotajc | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What secret unspoken reasons did your hiring committee choose one candidate over another? Grant writing potential? Color of skin? Length of responses? Interview just a formality so the nepotism isn't as obvious? We all know it exists, but perhaps not specifically. Any details you'd like to share about yours? | fri6cwz | fri3gt4 | 1,590,193,700 | 1,590,191,979 | 208 | 50 | Wasn't on the committee but when I was a candidate for a TT position at one of the schools where I adjunct, I was told by two separate people who were on the committee (although I can't imagine they were allowed to tell me this but they did) that the committee was divided over whether or not to hire me or someone else because I am a single Mom and several committee members didn't think a single Mom could handle a full time TT position. One of the people who voted against me was my Department Chair at the time (also a Mom). She asked me to stop by her office so she could be the one to tell me I wasn't chosen and why because she thought it would make me feel better to know that it wasn't *me* they didn't like. Narrator: It did not. ​ edited: typo | Spouses on top of spouses with a diversity topper. | 1 | 1,721 | 4.16 |
gotajc | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What secret unspoken reasons did your hiring committee choose one candidate over another? Grant writing potential? Color of skin? Length of responses? Interview just a formality so the nepotism isn't as obvious? We all know it exists, but perhaps not specifically. Any details you'd like to share about yours? | fri428e | fri6cwz | 1,590,192,330 | 1,590,193,700 | 31 | 208 | Dean’s old phd student - not a bad candidate at all but still didn’t feel right. | Wasn't on the committee but when I was a candidate for a TT position at one of the schools where I adjunct, I was told by two separate people who were on the committee (although I can't imagine they were allowed to tell me this but they did) that the committee was divided over whether or not to hire me or someone else because I am a single Mom and several committee members didn't think a single Mom could handle a full time TT position. One of the people who voted against me was my Department Chair at the time (also a Mom). She asked me to stop by her office so she could be the one to tell me I wasn't chosen and why because she thought it would make me feel better to know that it wasn't *me* they didn't like. Narrator: It did not. ​ edited: typo | 0 | 1,370 | 6.709677 |
gotajc | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What secret unspoken reasons did your hiring committee choose one candidate over another? Grant writing potential? Color of skin? Length of responses? Interview just a formality so the nepotism isn't as obvious? We all know it exists, but perhaps not specifically. Any details you'd like to share about yours? | fri6cwz | frhzpnx | 1,590,193,700 | 1,590,189,829 | 208 | 27 | Wasn't on the committee but when I was a candidate for a TT position at one of the schools where I adjunct, I was told by two separate people who were on the committee (although I can't imagine they were allowed to tell me this but they did) that the committee was divided over whether or not to hire me or someone else because I am a single Mom and several committee members didn't think a single Mom could handle a full time TT position. One of the people who voted against me was my Department Chair at the time (also a Mom). She asked me to stop by her office so she could be the one to tell me I wasn't chosen and why because she thought it would make me feel better to know that it wasn't *me* they didn't like. Narrator: It did not. ​ edited: typo | Administrative pressure, sigh | 1 | 3,871 | 7.703704 |
gotajc | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What secret unspoken reasons did your hiring committee choose one candidate over another? Grant writing potential? Color of skin? Length of responses? Interview just a formality so the nepotism isn't as obvious? We all know it exists, but perhaps not specifically. Any details you'd like to share about yours? | fri97n8 | frhwt0y | 1,590,195,440 | 1,590,188,171 | 147 | 120 | I've been on over two dozen search committees at multiple schools over the years. In my experience they've all not only been fair, but pretty transparent as well. Every one has been an open, international search, and while we've had a few internal candidates none of them ever made the shortlist. The one thing I have seen complicate decisions has been a desire for gender balance-- like all-male departments hoping to hire a female (or the opposite, which we've had too). You obviously can't write that into an ad but it happens all the time. That aside, I've had no interference from deans and as a frequent department chair have not interfered myself. That said, there have been *plenty* of reasons we've dropped people based on their applications or interview performance. For example, I've seen dozens of lawyers apply for academic jobs saying they "would like a change of pace and a lighter workload" and suggesting that since they have a JD and read a few books they'd be great professors. Those are always good for a laugh. Then there were the ones who said overtly sexist or even racist things during their on-campus interviews. Or the guy who we took to dinner with several faculty, ordered a nice steak dinner but told them not to bring anything but the meat, and proceeded to talk about comic books for two hours (and only comic books) despite repeated efforts to bring the conversation around to his research and/or teaching interests (neither of which were related to comic books). | Ohhhhh.... I like this one. I'm here for the stories, but let me grab a glass of wine or something. | 1 | 7,269 | 1.225 |
gotajc | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What secret unspoken reasons did your hiring committee choose one candidate over another? Grant writing potential? Color of skin? Length of responses? Interview just a formality so the nepotism isn't as obvious? We all know it exists, but perhaps not specifically. Any details you'd like to share about yours? | fri2m3o | fri97n8 | 1,590,191,481 | 1,590,195,440 | 111 | 147 | We were deciding between two candidates. One was a postdoc with an impressive set of publications and grants working at an prestigious university. The other was an assistant professor on the tenure track at a teaching-focused institution with far less publications and no grants. No issues with fit for either one and both were hoping to move to the area for family reasons. Our chair (who wasn't on the committee but was advising) wrote in that he'd prefer to restart the search before giving it to the postdoc. His reasoning? That the postdoc wouldn't be happy long-term at our R2. We ended up selecting the assistant professor and will have to see how it works out, but the postdoc still doesn't have a job. I assume other interviews/offers may have been pulled due to covid. It's tough out there, even for really qualified candidates. | I've been on over two dozen search committees at multiple schools over the years. In my experience they've all not only been fair, but pretty transparent as well. Every one has been an open, international search, and while we've had a few internal candidates none of them ever made the shortlist. The one thing I have seen complicate decisions has been a desire for gender balance-- like all-male departments hoping to hire a female (or the opposite, which we've had too). You obviously can't write that into an ad but it happens all the time. That aside, I've had no interference from deans and as a frequent department chair have not interfered myself. That said, there have been *plenty* of reasons we've dropped people based on their applications or interview performance. For example, I've seen dozens of lawyers apply for academic jobs saying they "would like a change of pace and a lighter workload" and suggesting that since they have a JD and read a few books they'd be great professors. Those are always good for a laugh. Then there were the ones who said overtly sexist or even racist things during their on-campus interviews. Or the guy who we took to dinner with several faculty, ordered a nice steak dinner but told them not to bring anything but the meat, and proceeded to talk about comic books for two hours (and only comic books) despite repeated efforts to bring the conversation around to his research and/or teaching interests (neither of which were related to comic books). | 0 | 3,959 | 1.324324 |
gotajc | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What secret unspoken reasons did your hiring committee choose one candidate over another? Grant writing potential? Color of skin? Length of responses? Interview just a formality so the nepotism isn't as obvious? We all know it exists, but perhaps not specifically. Any details you'd like to share about yours? | fri2w2t | fri97n8 | 1,590,191,642 | 1,590,195,440 | 91 | 147 | We interviewed and hired people in spite of them being waaay down the ranked list of initial candidates because they were local; their spouse worked in a much better job in our city and would definitely accept the offer because they had no other options. To be fair we made offers to other, higher ranked candidates first but they didn't accept because we don't pay them the going market rate in our field. We are desperate for faculty to teach classes as we've run out of capacity but their research potentials are very much in doubt. | I've been on over two dozen search committees at multiple schools over the years. In my experience they've all not only been fair, but pretty transparent as well. Every one has been an open, international search, and while we've had a few internal candidates none of them ever made the shortlist. The one thing I have seen complicate decisions has been a desire for gender balance-- like all-male departments hoping to hire a female (or the opposite, which we've had too). You obviously can't write that into an ad but it happens all the time. That aside, I've had no interference from deans and as a frequent department chair have not interfered myself. That said, there have been *plenty* of reasons we've dropped people based on their applications or interview performance. For example, I've seen dozens of lawyers apply for academic jobs saying they "would like a change of pace and a lighter workload" and suggesting that since they have a JD and read a few books they'd be great professors. Those are always good for a laugh. Then there were the ones who said overtly sexist or even racist things during their on-campus interviews. Or the guy who we took to dinner with several faculty, ordered a nice steak dinner but told them not to bring anything but the meat, and proceeded to talk about comic books for two hours (and only comic books) despite repeated efforts to bring the conversation around to his research and/or teaching interests (neither of which were related to comic books). | 0 | 3,798 | 1.615385 |
gotajc | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What secret unspoken reasons did your hiring committee choose one candidate over another? Grant writing potential? Color of skin? Length of responses? Interview just a formality so the nepotism isn't as obvious? We all know it exists, but perhaps not specifically. Any details you'd like to share about yours? | fri97n8 | fri292u | 1,590,195,440 | 1,590,191,274 | 147 | 90 | I've been on over two dozen search committees at multiple schools over the years. In my experience they've all not only been fair, but pretty transparent as well. Every one has been an open, international search, and while we've had a few internal candidates none of them ever made the shortlist. The one thing I have seen complicate decisions has been a desire for gender balance-- like all-male departments hoping to hire a female (or the opposite, which we've had too). You obviously can't write that into an ad but it happens all the time. That aside, I've had no interference from deans and as a frequent department chair have not interfered myself. That said, there have been *plenty* of reasons we've dropped people based on their applications or interview performance. For example, I've seen dozens of lawyers apply for academic jobs saying they "would like a change of pace and a lighter workload" and suggesting that since they have a JD and read a few books they'd be great professors. Those are always good for a laugh. Then there were the ones who said overtly sexist or even racist things during their on-campus interviews. Or the guy who we took to dinner with several faculty, ordered a nice steak dinner but told them not to bring anything but the meat, and proceeded to talk about comic books for two hours (and only comic books) despite repeated efforts to bring the conversation around to his research and/or teaching interests (neither of which were related to comic books). | Diversity. It’s both spoken and very much unspoken. | 1 | 4,166 | 1.633333 |
gotajc | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What secret unspoken reasons did your hiring committee choose one candidate over another? Grant writing potential? Color of skin? Length of responses? Interview just a formality so the nepotism isn't as obvious? We all know it exists, but perhaps not specifically. Any details you'd like to share about yours? | fri203k | fri97n8 | 1,590,191,130 | 1,590,195,440 | 73 | 147 | Availability. Having worked on a VERY related project. Being the “safe” and known choice. Straight number of pubs. The discussion is always enlightening. | I've been on over two dozen search committees at multiple schools over the years. In my experience they've all not only been fair, but pretty transparent as well. Every one has been an open, international search, and while we've had a few internal candidates none of them ever made the shortlist. The one thing I have seen complicate decisions has been a desire for gender balance-- like all-male departments hoping to hire a female (or the opposite, which we've had too). You obviously can't write that into an ad but it happens all the time. That aside, I've had no interference from deans and as a frequent department chair have not interfered myself. That said, there have been *plenty* of reasons we've dropped people based on their applications or interview performance. For example, I've seen dozens of lawyers apply for academic jobs saying they "would like a change of pace and a lighter workload" and suggesting that since they have a JD and read a few books they'd be great professors. Those are always good for a laugh. Then there were the ones who said overtly sexist or even racist things during their on-campus interviews. Or the guy who we took to dinner with several faculty, ordered a nice steak dinner but told them not to bring anything but the meat, and proceeded to talk about comic books for two hours (and only comic books) despite repeated efforts to bring the conversation around to his research and/or teaching interests (neither of which were related to comic books). | 0 | 4,310 | 2.013699 |
gotajc | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What secret unspoken reasons did your hiring committee choose one candidate over another? Grant writing potential? Color of skin? Length of responses? Interview just a formality so the nepotism isn't as obvious? We all know it exists, but perhaps not specifically. Any details you'd like to share about yours? | fri97n8 | fri8403 | 1,590,195,440 | 1,590,194,768 | 147 | 68 | I've been on over two dozen search committees at multiple schools over the years. In my experience they've all not only been fair, but pretty transparent as well. Every one has been an open, international search, and while we've had a few internal candidates none of them ever made the shortlist. The one thing I have seen complicate decisions has been a desire for gender balance-- like all-male departments hoping to hire a female (or the opposite, which we've had too). You obviously can't write that into an ad but it happens all the time. That aside, I've had no interference from deans and as a frequent department chair have not interfered myself. That said, there have been *plenty* of reasons we've dropped people based on their applications or interview performance. For example, I've seen dozens of lawyers apply for academic jobs saying they "would like a change of pace and a lighter workload" and suggesting that since they have a JD and read a few books they'd be great professors. Those are always good for a laugh. Then there were the ones who said overtly sexist or even racist things during their on-campus interviews. Or the guy who we took to dinner with several faculty, ordered a nice steak dinner but told them not to bring anything but the meat, and proceeded to talk about comic books for two hours (and only comic books) despite repeated efforts to bring the conversation around to his research and/or teaching interests (neither of which were related to comic books). | I was a first year TT assistant professor and one full professor made a comment that he didn’t want to work with a “d*ke.” I didn’t know how to respond. I told the department chair and I was told to not talk much about it. I was told that the old full professor would remember it when I came up for tenure. I wish I would have been smarter and went straight to HR. The next search when he said he didn’t want another democrat in the building, I told him I’m no uncertain terms to close his mouth. Went to HR, they told the department chair to remind the grizzled professor not to do that again. | 1 | 672 | 2.161765 |
gotajc | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What secret unspoken reasons did your hiring committee choose one candidate over another? Grant writing potential? Color of skin? Length of responses? Interview just a formality so the nepotism isn't as obvious? We all know it exists, but perhaps not specifically. Any details you'd like to share about yours? | fri341h | fri97n8 | 1,590,191,771 | 1,590,195,440 | 63 | 147 | I think we actually speak everything and then someone yells “you’re not supposed to say that!” So all of our bad reasons are actually spoken. | I've been on over two dozen search committees at multiple schools over the years. In my experience they've all not only been fair, but pretty transparent as well. Every one has been an open, international search, and while we've had a few internal candidates none of them ever made the shortlist. The one thing I have seen complicate decisions has been a desire for gender balance-- like all-male departments hoping to hire a female (or the opposite, which we've had too). You obviously can't write that into an ad but it happens all the time. That aside, I've had no interference from deans and as a frequent department chair have not interfered myself. That said, there have been *plenty* of reasons we've dropped people based on their applications or interview performance. For example, I've seen dozens of lawyers apply for academic jobs saying they "would like a change of pace and a lighter workload" and suggesting that since they have a JD and read a few books they'd be great professors. Those are always good for a laugh. Then there were the ones who said overtly sexist or even racist things during their on-campus interviews. Or the guy who we took to dinner with several faculty, ordered a nice steak dinner but told them not to bring anything but the meat, and proceeded to talk about comic books for two hours (and only comic books) despite repeated efforts to bring the conversation around to his research and/or teaching interests (neither of which were related to comic books). | 0 | 3,669 | 2.333333 |
gotajc | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What secret unspoken reasons did your hiring committee choose one candidate over another? Grant writing potential? Color of skin? Length of responses? Interview just a formality so the nepotism isn't as obvious? We all know it exists, but perhaps not specifically. Any details you'd like to share about yours? | fri366g | fri97n8 | 1,590,191,805 | 1,590,195,440 | 54 | 147 | We were told the admin said “don’t hire another white male”. It would have been “unspoken” but we are a tight group. | I've been on over two dozen search committees at multiple schools over the years. In my experience they've all not only been fair, but pretty transparent as well. Every one has been an open, international search, and while we've had a few internal candidates none of them ever made the shortlist. The one thing I have seen complicate decisions has been a desire for gender balance-- like all-male departments hoping to hire a female (or the opposite, which we've had too). You obviously can't write that into an ad but it happens all the time. That aside, I've had no interference from deans and as a frequent department chair have not interfered myself. That said, there have been *plenty* of reasons we've dropped people based on their applications or interview performance. For example, I've seen dozens of lawyers apply for academic jobs saying they "would like a change of pace and a lighter workload" and suggesting that since they have a JD and read a few books they'd be great professors. Those are always good for a laugh. Then there were the ones who said overtly sexist or even racist things during their on-campus interviews. Or the guy who we took to dinner with several faculty, ordered a nice steak dinner but told them not to bring anything but the meat, and proceeded to talk about comic books for two hours (and only comic books) despite repeated efforts to bring the conversation around to his research and/or teaching interests (neither of which were related to comic books). | 0 | 3,635 | 2.722222 |
gotajc | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What secret unspoken reasons did your hiring committee choose one candidate over another? Grant writing potential? Color of skin? Length of responses? Interview just a formality so the nepotism isn't as obvious? We all know it exists, but perhaps not specifically. Any details you'd like to share about yours? | fri3gt4 | fri97n8 | 1,590,191,979 | 1,590,195,440 | 50 | 147 | Spouses on top of spouses with a diversity topper. | I've been on over two dozen search committees at multiple schools over the years. In my experience they've all not only been fair, but pretty transparent as well. Every one has been an open, international search, and while we've had a few internal candidates none of them ever made the shortlist. The one thing I have seen complicate decisions has been a desire for gender balance-- like all-male departments hoping to hire a female (or the opposite, which we've had too). You obviously can't write that into an ad but it happens all the time. That aside, I've had no interference from deans and as a frequent department chair have not interfered myself. That said, there have been *plenty* of reasons we've dropped people based on their applications or interview performance. For example, I've seen dozens of lawyers apply for academic jobs saying they "would like a change of pace and a lighter workload" and suggesting that since they have a JD and read a few books they'd be great professors. Those are always good for a laugh. Then there were the ones who said overtly sexist or even racist things during their on-campus interviews. Or the guy who we took to dinner with several faculty, ordered a nice steak dinner but told them not to bring anything but the meat, and proceeded to talk about comic books for two hours (and only comic books) despite repeated efforts to bring the conversation around to his research and/or teaching interests (neither of which were related to comic books). | 0 | 3,461 | 2.94 |
gotajc | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What secret unspoken reasons did your hiring committee choose one candidate over another? Grant writing potential? Color of skin? Length of responses? Interview just a formality so the nepotism isn't as obvious? We all know it exists, but perhaps not specifically. Any details you'd like to share about yours? | fri97n8 | fri428e | 1,590,195,440 | 1,590,192,330 | 147 | 31 | I've been on over two dozen search committees at multiple schools over the years. In my experience they've all not only been fair, but pretty transparent as well. Every one has been an open, international search, and while we've had a few internal candidates none of them ever made the shortlist. The one thing I have seen complicate decisions has been a desire for gender balance-- like all-male departments hoping to hire a female (or the opposite, which we've had too). You obviously can't write that into an ad but it happens all the time. That aside, I've had no interference from deans and as a frequent department chair have not interfered myself. That said, there have been *plenty* of reasons we've dropped people based on their applications or interview performance. For example, I've seen dozens of lawyers apply for academic jobs saying they "would like a change of pace and a lighter workload" and suggesting that since they have a JD and read a few books they'd be great professors. Those are always good for a laugh. Then there were the ones who said overtly sexist or even racist things during their on-campus interviews. Or the guy who we took to dinner with several faculty, ordered a nice steak dinner but told them not to bring anything but the meat, and proceeded to talk about comic books for two hours (and only comic books) despite repeated efforts to bring the conversation around to his research and/or teaching interests (neither of which were related to comic books). | Dean’s old phd student - not a bad candidate at all but still didn’t feel right. | 1 | 3,110 | 4.741935 |
gotajc | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What secret unspoken reasons did your hiring committee choose one candidate over another? Grant writing potential? Color of skin? Length of responses? Interview just a formality so the nepotism isn't as obvious? We all know it exists, but perhaps not specifically. Any details you'd like to share about yours? | fri97n8 | frhzpnx | 1,590,195,440 | 1,590,189,829 | 147 | 27 | I've been on over two dozen search committees at multiple schools over the years. In my experience they've all not only been fair, but pretty transparent as well. Every one has been an open, international search, and while we've had a few internal candidates none of them ever made the shortlist. The one thing I have seen complicate decisions has been a desire for gender balance-- like all-male departments hoping to hire a female (or the opposite, which we've had too). You obviously can't write that into an ad but it happens all the time. That aside, I've had no interference from deans and as a frequent department chair have not interfered myself. That said, there have been *plenty* of reasons we've dropped people based on their applications or interview performance. For example, I've seen dozens of lawyers apply for academic jobs saying they "would like a change of pace and a lighter workload" and suggesting that since they have a JD and read a few books they'd be great professors. Those are always good for a laugh. Then there were the ones who said overtly sexist or even racist things during their on-campus interviews. Or the guy who we took to dinner with several faculty, ordered a nice steak dinner but told them not to bring anything but the meat, and proceeded to talk about comic books for two hours (and only comic books) despite repeated efforts to bring the conversation around to his research and/or teaching interests (neither of which were related to comic books). | Administrative pressure, sigh | 1 | 5,611 | 5.444444 |
gotajc | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What secret unspoken reasons did your hiring committee choose one candidate over another? Grant writing potential? Color of skin? Length of responses? Interview just a formality so the nepotism isn't as obvious? We all know it exists, but perhaps not specifically. Any details you'd like to share about yours? | fri2m3o | fri292u | 1,590,191,481 | 1,590,191,274 | 111 | 90 | We were deciding between two candidates. One was a postdoc with an impressive set of publications and grants working at an prestigious university. The other was an assistant professor on the tenure track at a teaching-focused institution with far less publications and no grants. No issues with fit for either one and both were hoping to move to the area for family reasons. Our chair (who wasn't on the committee but was advising) wrote in that he'd prefer to restart the search before giving it to the postdoc. His reasoning? That the postdoc wouldn't be happy long-term at our R2. We ended up selecting the assistant professor and will have to see how it works out, but the postdoc still doesn't have a job. I assume other interviews/offers may have been pulled due to covid. It's tough out there, even for really qualified candidates. | Diversity. It’s both spoken and very much unspoken. | 1 | 207 | 1.233333 |
gotajc | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What secret unspoken reasons did your hiring committee choose one candidate over another? Grant writing potential? Color of skin? Length of responses? Interview just a formality so the nepotism isn't as obvious? We all know it exists, but perhaps not specifically. Any details you'd like to share about yours? | fri203k | fri2m3o | 1,590,191,130 | 1,590,191,481 | 73 | 111 | Availability. Having worked on a VERY related project. Being the “safe” and known choice. Straight number of pubs. The discussion is always enlightening. | We were deciding between two candidates. One was a postdoc with an impressive set of publications and grants working at an prestigious university. The other was an assistant professor on the tenure track at a teaching-focused institution with far less publications and no grants. No issues with fit for either one and both were hoping to move to the area for family reasons. Our chair (who wasn't on the committee but was advising) wrote in that he'd prefer to restart the search before giving it to the postdoc. His reasoning? That the postdoc wouldn't be happy long-term at our R2. We ended up selecting the assistant professor and will have to see how it works out, but the postdoc still doesn't have a job. I assume other interviews/offers may have been pulled due to covid. It's tough out there, even for really qualified candidates. | 0 | 351 | 1.520548 |
gotajc | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What secret unspoken reasons did your hiring committee choose one candidate over another? Grant writing potential? Color of skin? Length of responses? Interview just a formality so the nepotism isn't as obvious? We all know it exists, but perhaps not specifically. Any details you'd like to share about yours? | frhzpnx | fri2m3o | 1,590,189,829 | 1,590,191,481 | 27 | 111 | Administrative pressure, sigh | We were deciding between two candidates. One was a postdoc with an impressive set of publications and grants working at an prestigious university. The other was an assistant professor on the tenure track at a teaching-focused institution with far less publications and no grants. No issues with fit for either one and both were hoping to move to the area for family reasons. Our chair (who wasn't on the committee but was advising) wrote in that he'd prefer to restart the search before giving it to the postdoc. His reasoning? That the postdoc wouldn't be happy long-term at our R2. We ended up selecting the assistant professor and will have to see how it works out, but the postdoc still doesn't have a job. I assume other interviews/offers may have been pulled due to covid. It's tough out there, even for really qualified candidates. | 0 | 1,652 | 4.111111 |
gotajc | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What secret unspoken reasons did your hiring committee choose one candidate over another? Grant writing potential? Color of skin? Length of responses? Interview just a formality so the nepotism isn't as obvious? We all know it exists, but perhaps not specifically. Any details you'd like to share about yours? | fri292u | fri2w2t | 1,590,191,274 | 1,590,191,642 | 90 | 91 | Diversity. It’s both spoken and very much unspoken. | We interviewed and hired people in spite of them being waaay down the ranked list of initial candidates because they were local; their spouse worked in a much better job in our city and would definitely accept the offer because they had no other options. To be fair we made offers to other, higher ranked candidates first but they didn't accept because we don't pay them the going market rate in our field. We are desperate for faculty to teach classes as we've run out of capacity but their research potentials are very much in doubt. | 0 | 368 | 1.011111 |
gotajc | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What secret unspoken reasons did your hiring committee choose one candidate over another? Grant writing potential? Color of skin? Length of responses? Interview just a formality so the nepotism isn't as obvious? We all know it exists, but perhaps not specifically. Any details you'd like to share about yours? | fri203k | fri2w2t | 1,590,191,130 | 1,590,191,642 | 73 | 91 | Availability. Having worked on a VERY related project. Being the “safe” and known choice. Straight number of pubs. The discussion is always enlightening. | We interviewed and hired people in spite of them being waaay down the ranked list of initial candidates because they were local; their spouse worked in a much better job in our city and would definitely accept the offer because they had no other options. To be fair we made offers to other, higher ranked candidates first but they didn't accept because we don't pay them the going market rate in our field. We are desperate for faculty to teach classes as we've run out of capacity but their research potentials are very much in doubt. | 0 | 512 | 1.246575 |
gotajc | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What secret unspoken reasons did your hiring committee choose one candidate over another? Grant writing potential? Color of skin? Length of responses? Interview just a formality so the nepotism isn't as obvious? We all know it exists, but perhaps not specifically. Any details you'd like to share about yours? | frhzpnx | fri2w2t | 1,590,189,829 | 1,590,191,642 | 27 | 91 | Administrative pressure, sigh | We interviewed and hired people in spite of them being waaay down the ranked list of initial candidates because they were local; their spouse worked in a much better job in our city and would definitely accept the offer because they had no other options. To be fair we made offers to other, higher ranked candidates first but they didn't accept because we don't pay them the going market rate in our field. We are desperate for faculty to teach classes as we've run out of capacity but their research potentials are very much in doubt. | 0 | 1,813 | 3.37037 |
gotajc | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What secret unspoken reasons did your hiring committee choose one candidate over another? Grant writing potential? Color of skin? Length of responses? Interview just a formality so the nepotism isn't as obvious? We all know it exists, but perhaps not specifically. Any details you'd like to share about yours? | fri203k | fri292u | 1,590,191,130 | 1,590,191,274 | 73 | 90 | Availability. Having worked on a VERY related project. Being the “safe” and known choice. Straight number of pubs. The discussion is always enlightening. | Diversity. It’s both spoken and very much unspoken. | 0 | 144 | 1.232877 |
gotajc | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What secret unspoken reasons did your hiring committee choose one candidate over another? Grant writing potential? Color of skin? Length of responses? Interview just a formality so the nepotism isn't as obvious? We all know it exists, but perhaps not specifically. Any details you'd like to share about yours? | frhzpnx | fri292u | 1,590,189,829 | 1,590,191,274 | 27 | 90 | Administrative pressure, sigh | Diversity. It’s both spoken and very much unspoken. | 0 | 1,445 | 3.333333 |
gotajc | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What secret unspoken reasons did your hiring committee choose one candidate over another? Grant writing potential? Color of skin? Length of responses? Interview just a formality so the nepotism isn't as obvious? We all know it exists, but perhaps not specifically. Any details you'd like to share about yours? | frhzpnx | fri203k | 1,590,189,829 | 1,590,191,130 | 27 | 73 | Administrative pressure, sigh | Availability. Having worked on a VERY related project. Being the “safe” and known choice. Straight number of pubs. The discussion is always enlightening. | 0 | 1,301 | 2.703704 |
gotajc | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What secret unspoken reasons did your hiring committee choose one candidate over another? Grant writing potential? Color of skin? Length of responses? Interview just a formality so the nepotism isn't as obvious? We all know it exists, but perhaps not specifically. Any details you'd like to share about yours? | fri8403 | fri341h | 1,590,194,768 | 1,590,191,771 | 68 | 63 | I was a first year TT assistant professor and one full professor made a comment that he didn’t want to work with a “d*ke.” I didn’t know how to respond. I told the department chair and I was told to not talk much about it. I was told that the old full professor would remember it when I came up for tenure. I wish I would have been smarter and went straight to HR. The next search when he said he didn’t want another democrat in the building, I told him I’m no uncertain terms to close his mouth. Went to HR, they told the department chair to remind the grizzled professor not to do that again. | I think we actually speak everything and then someone yells “you’re not supposed to say that!” So all of our bad reasons are actually spoken. | 1 | 2,997 | 1.079365 |
gotajc | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What secret unspoken reasons did your hiring committee choose one candidate over another? Grant writing potential? Color of skin? Length of responses? Interview just a formality so the nepotism isn't as obvious? We all know it exists, but perhaps not specifically. Any details you'd like to share about yours? | fri8403 | fri366g | 1,590,194,768 | 1,590,191,805 | 68 | 54 | I was a first year TT assistant professor and one full professor made a comment that he didn’t want to work with a “d*ke.” I didn’t know how to respond. I told the department chair and I was told to not talk much about it. I was told that the old full professor would remember it when I came up for tenure. I wish I would have been smarter and went straight to HR. The next search when he said he didn’t want another democrat in the building, I told him I’m no uncertain terms to close his mouth. Went to HR, they told the department chair to remind the grizzled professor not to do that again. | We were told the admin said “don’t hire another white male”. It would have been “unspoken” but we are a tight group. | 1 | 2,963 | 1.259259 |
gotajc | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What secret unspoken reasons did your hiring committee choose one candidate over another? Grant writing potential? Color of skin? Length of responses? Interview just a formality so the nepotism isn't as obvious? We all know it exists, but perhaps not specifically. Any details you'd like to share about yours? | fri3gt4 | fri8403 | 1,590,191,979 | 1,590,194,768 | 50 | 68 | Spouses on top of spouses with a diversity topper. | I was a first year TT assistant professor and one full professor made a comment that he didn’t want to work with a “d*ke.” I didn’t know how to respond. I told the department chair and I was told to not talk much about it. I was told that the old full professor would remember it when I came up for tenure. I wish I would have been smarter and went straight to HR. The next search when he said he didn’t want another democrat in the building, I told him I’m no uncertain terms to close his mouth. Went to HR, they told the department chair to remind the grizzled professor not to do that again. | 0 | 2,789 | 1.36 |
gotajc | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What secret unspoken reasons did your hiring committee choose one candidate over another? Grant writing potential? Color of skin? Length of responses? Interview just a formality so the nepotism isn't as obvious? We all know it exists, but perhaps not specifically. Any details you'd like to share about yours? | fri428e | fri8403 | 1,590,192,330 | 1,590,194,768 | 31 | 68 | Dean’s old phd student - not a bad candidate at all but still didn’t feel right. | I was a first year TT assistant professor and one full professor made a comment that he didn’t want to work with a “d*ke.” I didn’t know how to respond. I told the department chair and I was told to not talk much about it. I was told that the old full professor would remember it when I came up for tenure. I wish I would have been smarter and went straight to HR. The next search when he said he didn’t want another democrat in the building, I told him I’m no uncertain terms to close his mouth. Went to HR, they told the department chair to remind the grizzled professor not to do that again. | 0 | 2,438 | 2.193548 |
gotajc | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What secret unspoken reasons did your hiring committee choose one candidate over another? Grant writing potential? Color of skin? Length of responses? Interview just a formality so the nepotism isn't as obvious? We all know it exists, but perhaps not specifically. Any details you'd like to share about yours? | frhzpnx | fri8403 | 1,590,189,829 | 1,590,194,768 | 27 | 68 | Administrative pressure, sigh | I was a first year TT assistant professor and one full professor made a comment that he didn’t want to work with a “d*ke.” I didn’t know how to respond. I told the department chair and I was told to not talk much about it. I was told that the old full professor would remember it when I came up for tenure. I wish I would have been smarter and went straight to HR. The next search when he said he didn’t want another democrat in the building, I told him I’m no uncertain terms to close his mouth. Went to HR, they told the department chair to remind the grizzled professor not to do that again. | 0 | 4,939 | 2.518519 |
gotajc | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What secret unspoken reasons did your hiring committee choose one candidate over another? Grant writing potential? Color of skin? Length of responses? Interview just a formality so the nepotism isn't as obvious? We all know it exists, but perhaps not specifically. Any details you'd like to share about yours? | fri341h | frhzpnx | 1,590,191,771 | 1,590,189,829 | 63 | 27 | I think we actually speak everything and then someone yells “you’re not supposed to say that!” So all of our bad reasons are actually spoken. | Administrative pressure, sigh | 1 | 1,942 | 2.333333 |
gotajc | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What secret unspoken reasons did your hiring committee choose one candidate over another? Grant writing potential? Color of skin? Length of responses? Interview just a formality so the nepotism isn't as obvious? We all know it exists, but perhaps not specifically. Any details you'd like to share about yours? | fri366g | frhzpnx | 1,590,191,805 | 1,590,189,829 | 54 | 27 | We were told the admin said “don’t hire another white male”. It would have been “unspoken” but we are a tight group. | Administrative pressure, sigh | 1 | 1,976 | 2 |
gotajc | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What secret unspoken reasons did your hiring committee choose one candidate over another? Grant writing potential? Color of skin? Length of responses? Interview just a formality so the nepotism isn't as obvious? We all know it exists, but perhaps not specifically. Any details you'd like to share about yours? | frhzpnx | fri3gt4 | 1,590,189,829 | 1,590,191,979 | 27 | 50 | Administrative pressure, sigh | Spouses on top of spouses with a diversity topper. | 0 | 2,150 | 1.851852 |
gotajc | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What secret unspoken reasons did your hiring committee choose one candidate over another? Grant writing potential? Color of skin? Length of responses? Interview just a formality so the nepotism isn't as obvious? We all know it exists, but perhaps not specifically. Any details you'd like to share about yours? | fri428e | frie9el | 1,590,192,330 | 1,590,198,563 | 31 | 48 | Dean’s old phd student - not a bad candidate at all but still didn’t feel right. | Diversity is more important than academic qualifications, experience, innovation, personality, etc. It’s unspoken at the hiring committee level, but obvious at the administrative/president’s level. On multiple occasions the past few years we’ve had the president select significantly underqualified minority females with poor references over white males with excellent track records and glowing references. Edit: Downvotes? I thought this post was for unspoken personal hiring experiences. Perhaps it’s not true at your institution, but it definitely and repeatedly is at mine. | 0 | 6,233 | 1.548387 |
gotajc | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What secret unspoken reasons did your hiring committee choose one candidate over another? Grant writing potential? Color of skin? Length of responses? Interview just a formality so the nepotism isn't as obvious? We all know it exists, but perhaps not specifically. Any details you'd like to share about yours? | frhzpnx | frie9el | 1,590,189,829 | 1,590,198,563 | 27 | 48 | Administrative pressure, sigh | Diversity is more important than academic qualifications, experience, innovation, personality, etc. It’s unspoken at the hiring committee level, but obvious at the administrative/president’s level. On multiple occasions the past few years we’ve had the president select significantly underqualified minority females with poor references over white males with excellent track records and glowing references. Edit: Downvotes? I thought this post was for unspoken personal hiring experiences. Perhaps it’s not true at your institution, but it definitely and repeatedly is at mine. | 0 | 8,734 | 1.777778 |
gotajc | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What secret unspoken reasons did your hiring committee choose one candidate over another? Grant writing potential? Color of skin? Length of responses? Interview just a formality so the nepotism isn't as obvious? We all know it exists, but perhaps not specifically. Any details you'd like to share about yours? | frie9el | friadq4 | 1,590,198,563 | 1,590,196,153 | 48 | 23 | Diversity is more important than academic qualifications, experience, innovation, personality, etc. It’s unspoken at the hiring committee level, but obvious at the administrative/president’s level. On multiple occasions the past few years we’ve had the president select significantly underqualified minority females with poor references over white males with excellent track records and glowing references. Edit: Downvotes? I thought this post was for unspoken personal hiring experiences. Perhaps it’s not true at your institution, but it definitely and repeatedly is at mine. | Enthusiasm for the job. We even turned down an internal candidate whom we know. She’s a great colleague but she was not excited at all during her interview. | 1 | 2,410 | 2.086957 |
gotajc | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What secret unspoken reasons did your hiring committee choose one candidate over another? Grant writing potential? Color of skin? Length of responses? Interview just a formality so the nepotism isn't as obvious? We all know it exists, but perhaps not specifically. Any details you'd like to share about yours? | frit8tn | fri428e | 1,590,208,807 | 1,590,192,330 | 39 | 31 | My PI has told me he will never hire a woman with children again. He also said he will always ask women what their husbands do for work, since the pay is so low they'd be struggling to survive without a decent second income. | Dean’s old phd student - not a bad candidate at all but still didn’t feel right. | 1 | 16,477 | 1.258065 |
gotajc | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What secret unspoken reasons did your hiring committee choose one candidate over another? Grant writing potential? Color of skin? Length of responses? Interview just a formality so the nepotism isn't as obvious? We all know it exists, but perhaps not specifically. Any details you'd like to share about yours? | frhzpnx | frit8tn | 1,590,189,829 | 1,590,208,807 | 27 | 39 | Administrative pressure, sigh | My PI has told me he will never hire a woman with children again. He also said he will always ask women what their husbands do for work, since the pay is so low they'd be struggling to survive without a decent second income. | 0 | 18,978 | 1.444444 |
gotajc | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What secret unspoken reasons did your hiring committee choose one candidate over another? Grant writing potential? Color of skin? Length of responses? Interview just a formality so the nepotism isn't as obvious? We all know it exists, but perhaps not specifically. Any details you'd like to share about yours? | friadq4 | frit8tn | 1,590,196,153 | 1,590,208,807 | 23 | 39 | Enthusiasm for the job. We even turned down an internal candidate whom we know. She’s a great colleague but she was not excited at all during her interview. | My PI has told me he will never hire a woman with children again. He also said he will always ask women what their husbands do for work, since the pay is so low they'd be struggling to survive without a decent second income. | 0 | 12,654 | 1.695652 |
gotajc | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What secret unspoken reasons did your hiring committee choose one candidate over another? Grant writing potential? Color of skin? Length of responses? Interview just a formality so the nepotism isn't as obvious? We all know it exists, but perhaps not specifically. Any details you'd like to share about yours? | fri428e | friulsv | 1,590,192,330 | 1,590,209,866 | 31 | 35 | Dean’s old phd student - not a bad candidate at all but still didn’t feel right. | Welp, as an adjunct who's tried for 6 years to get a full-time lectureship, this thread has been both enlightening and sickening. I feel better and worse. | 0 | 17,536 | 1.129032 |
gotajc | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What secret unspoken reasons did your hiring committee choose one candidate over another? Grant writing potential? Color of skin? Length of responses? Interview just a formality so the nepotism isn't as obvious? We all know it exists, but perhaps not specifically. Any details you'd like to share about yours? | frhzpnx | fri428e | 1,590,189,829 | 1,590,192,330 | 27 | 31 | Administrative pressure, sigh | Dean’s old phd student - not a bad candidate at all but still didn’t feel right. | 0 | 2,501 | 1.148148 |
gotajc | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What secret unspoken reasons did your hiring committee choose one candidate over another? Grant writing potential? Color of skin? Length of responses? Interview just a formality so the nepotism isn't as obvious? We all know it exists, but perhaps not specifically. Any details you'd like to share about yours? | frhzpnx | friulsv | 1,590,189,829 | 1,590,209,866 | 27 | 35 | Administrative pressure, sigh | Welp, as an adjunct who's tried for 6 years to get a full-time lectureship, this thread has been both enlightening and sickening. I feel better and worse. | 0 | 20,037 | 1.296296 |
gotajc | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What secret unspoken reasons did your hiring committee choose one candidate over another? Grant writing potential? Color of skin? Length of responses? Interview just a formality so the nepotism isn't as obvious? We all know it exists, but perhaps not specifically. Any details you'd like to share about yours? | friadq4 | friulsv | 1,590,196,153 | 1,590,209,866 | 23 | 35 | Enthusiasm for the job. We even turned down an internal candidate whom we know. She’s a great colleague but she was not excited at all during her interview. | Welp, as an adjunct who's tried for 6 years to get a full-time lectureship, this thread has been both enlightening and sickening. I feel better and worse. | 0 | 13,713 | 1.521739 |
ojneii | askacademia_train | 0.98 | Is it normal to become more convinced your discipline is detached from practical reality the more you study it? I know this might read as a trollish post, but I *promise* I'm serious. So, I'm currently halfway through my Adv. MSc. International Relations & Diplomacy, and while my undergrad was a Liberal Arts BA, that was also heavily IR-focused. Honestly? I love it, but only in the context of academic bickering about pointless minutae that do not matter outside the walls of the faculty - the more I've studied IR theories, the less my remarks of "we're a humanities field trying to masquerade as a hard science" and "if you open the dictionary to 'Ivory Tower Academia' you'll find a picture of our faculty" have become jokes. I know there's always going to be a difference between academic theory and practices in reality - you clearly *need* to perform abstractions when creating a theory, but several of the main theories in my field just feel like they fall apart at the first dose of being exposed to the outside. I've always had this feeling to some extent, but it's grown rather than diminished, and I'm now actually worried whether or not I'll be able to put any conviction whatsoever in my master's thesis next year. Is this just a natural side effect of learning more about your field's theoretical frameworks and therefore being exposed to case studies where they *don't* work more, or am I just seriously disillusioned/too cynical? TL;DR starting to feel like my entire field desperately needs to go touch grass and talk to people, is that normal? | h53cgj4 | h53d3lg | 1,626,217,438 | 1,626,217,768 | 42 | 70 | Well the main problem is IR, which is not only detached but also theoretically, methodologically, and normatively bankrupt lollll | I've always viewed this kind of academia vs real world as being like haute couture vs high street fashion. You're not supposed to wear haute couture it's an exercise in skill and creativity to the extreme. And although haute couture isn't meant to be worn it does influence what the next high street fashions will be. Academia is kind of the same, it's an exercise in itself but it does influence and trickle down to the real world in real and important, albeit in unpredictable, ways. | 0 | 330 | 1.666667 |
ojneii | askacademia_train | 0.98 | Is it normal to become more convinced your discipline is detached from practical reality the more you study it? I know this might read as a trollish post, but I *promise* I'm serious. So, I'm currently halfway through my Adv. MSc. International Relations & Diplomacy, and while my undergrad was a Liberal Arts BA, that was also heavily IR-focused. Honestly? I love it, but only in the context of academic bickering about pointless minutae that do not matter outside the walls of the faculty - the more I've studied IR theories, the less my remarks of "we're a humanities field trying to masquerade as a hard science" and "if you open the dictionary to 'Ivory Tower Academia' you'll find a picture of our faculty" have become jokes. I know there's always going to be a difference between academic theory and practices in reality - you clearly *need* to perform abstractions when creating a theory, but several of the main theories in my field just feel like they fall apart at the first dose of being exposed to the outside. I've always had this feeling to some extent, but it's grown rather than diminished, and I'm now actually worried whether or not I'll be able to put any conviction whatsoever in my master's thesis next year. Is this just a natural side effect of learning more about your field's theoretical frameworks and therefore being exposed to case studies where they *don't* work more, or am I just seriously disillusioned/too cynical? TL;DR starting to feel like my entire field desperately needs to go touch grass and talk to people, is that normal? | h52r71z | h53d3lg | 1,626,207,362 | 1,626,217,768 | 24 | 70 | I came from history now I'm doing a PhD in IR and I'm not a fan of the discipline, so I get your point! But if you want to go for it you gotta reframe some things for yourself. While most education programmes still assign the "Great Debates" from the 1990s, that's not at all representative of the type of stuff that gets published these days. Thank God we're not in the 1990s anymore.most people in practice work on mid range theory on a specific subject. Then it becomes a lot more concrete.But beyond the Great Douchebags they're also a ton of of amazing scholars - but I don't know what area you work on so I can't recommend much Have you read beyond the classic theoretical debates and looked into other approaches? Postcolonial IR, queer IR, critical IR, Foucault, poststructuralism, grams I, bourdieau, Latour, etc etc? Try to read broad and wildly and especially read stuff you're unfamiliar with and that's outside your comfort zone I get the sense that you're frustrated that people dress up their opinion as an IR theory? It drives mental too, but remind yourself that all science is ideological, as the sociology of scientific knowledge has shown us. Have you looked into qualitative methodologies too? Europeans are much more into qual while Americans love quant, if you're frustrated with the US empirical slant | I've always viewed this kind of academia vs real world as being like haute couture vs high street fashion. You're not supposed to wear haute couture it's an exercise in skill and creativity to the extreme. And although haute couture isn't meant to be worn it does influence what the next high street fashions will be. Academia is kind of the same, it's an exercise in itself but it does influence and trickle down to the real world in real and important, albeit in unpredictable, ways. | 0 | 10,406 | 2.916667 |
ojneii | askacademia_train | 0.98 | Is it normal to become more convinced your discipline is detached from practical reality the more you study it? I know this might read as a trollish post, but I *promise* I'm serious. So, I'm currently halfway through my Adv. MSc. International Relations & Diplomacy, and while my undergrad was a Liberal Arts BA, that was also heavily IR-focused. Honestly? I love it, but only in the context of academic bickering about pointless minutae that do not matter outside the walls of the faculty - the more I've studied IR theories, the less my remarks of "we're a humanities field trying to masquerade as a hard science" and "if you open the dictionary to 'Ivory Tower Academia' you'll find a picture of our faculty" have become jokes. I know there's always going to be a difference between academic theory and practices in reality - you clearly *need* to perform abstractions when creating a theory, but several of the main theories in my field just feel like they fall apart at the first dose of being exposed to the outside. I've always had this feeling to some extent, but it's grown rather than diminished, and I'm now actually worried whether or not I'll be able to put any conviction whatsoever in my master's thesis next year. Is this just a natural side effect of learning more about your field's theoretical frameworks and therefore being exposed to case studies where they *don't* work more, or am I just seriously disillusioned/too cynical? TL;DR starting to feel like my entire field desperately needs to go touch grass and talk to people, is that normal? | h53ac3m | h53d3lg | 1,626,216,356 | 1,626,217,768 | 15 | 70 | I'm not in IR, I'm an American and a historian trying to wrap up my dissertation, and while the theories and methodology we use make sense to me, I'm working on something rather obscure to Americans and I can't help but feel like it *doesn't mean anything* when I compare my work to Americanists whose subjects deal with the most politically charged debates of the day. I can't help but admire those who work on the American West, American South, and the Civil Rights Movement. That isn't to say that I don't love my topic--I work on French colonialism in North Africa--nor that it lacks continuing relevance in the Mediterranean, but it just *feels* unimportant from my vantage point, and that's ok. Knowing that I feel this way, my aim is to get a job outside of research when I finish it, whether in teaching or some other, non-academic field. I know that it's normal to feel this about our research and work, but it's not something that I can digest as easily as many other academics can. | I've always viewed this kind of academia vs real world as being like haute couture vs high street fashion. You're not supposed to wear haute couture it's an exercise in skill and creativity to the extreme. And although haute couture isn't meant to be worn it does influence what the next high street fashions will be. Academia is kind of the same, it's an exercise in itself but it does influence and trickle down to the real world in real and important, albeit in unpredictable, ways. | 0 | 1,412 | 4.666667 |
ojneii | askacademia_train | 0.98 | Is it normal to become more convinced your discipline is detached from practical reality the more you study it? I know this might read as a trollish post, but I *promise* I'm serious. So, I'm currently halfway through my Adv. MSc. International Relations & Diplomacy, and while my undergrad was a Liberal Arts BA, that was also heavily IR-focused. Honestly? I love it, but only in the context of academic bickering about pointless minutae that do not matter outside the walls of the faculty - the more I've studied IR theories, the less my remarks of "we're a humanities field trying to masquerade as a hard science" and "if you open the dictionary to 'Ivory Tower Academia' you'll find a picture of our faculty" have become jokes. I know there's always going to be a difference between academic theory and practices in reality - you clearly *need* to perform abstractions when creating a theory, but several of the main theories in my field just feel like they fall apart at the first dose of being exposed to the outside. I've always had this feeling to some extent, but it's grown rather than diminished, and I'm now actually worried whether or not I'll be able to put any conviction whatsoever in my master's thesis next year. Is this just a natural side effect of learning more about your field's theoretical frameworks and therefore being exposed to case studies where they *don't* work more, or am I just seriously disillusioned/too cynical? TL;DR starting to feel like my entire field desperately needs to go touch grass and talk to people, is that normal? | h53d3lg | h538pcl | 1,626,217,768 | 1,626,215,542 | 70 | 4 | I've always viewed this kind of academia vs real world as being like haute couture vs high street fashion. You're not supposed to wear haute couture it's an exercise in skill and creativity to the extreme. And although haute couture isn't meant to be worn it does influence what the next high street fashions will be. Academia is kind of the same, it's an exercise in itself but it does influence and trickle down to the real world in real and important, albeit in unpredictable, ways. | I think most in the field are probably aware and working towards creating better theories, or more predictable ones. Based on a theory, we can expect something to happen, but even a cancer doctor has to make the treatment based on the type of cancer, the body of the person, and cancer response to treatment. It is a human making decisions, not a theory. | 1 | 2,226 | 17.5 |
ojneii | askacademia_train | 0.98 | Is it normal to become more convinced your discipline is detached from practical reality the more you study it? I know this might read as a trollish post, but I *promise* I'm serious. So, I'm currently halfway through my Adv. MSc. International Relations & Diplomacy, and while my undergrad was a Liberal Arts BA, that was also heavily IR-focused. Honestly? I love it, but only in the context of academic bickering about pointless minutae that do not matter outside the walls of the faculty - the more I've studied IR theories, the less my remarks of "we're a humanities field trying to masquerade as a hard science" and "if you open the dictionary to 'Ivory Tower Academia' you'll find a picture of our faculty" have become jokes. I know there's always going to be a difference between academic theory and practices in reality - you clearly *need* to perform abstractions when creating a theory, but several of the main theories in my field just feel like they fall apart at the first dose of being exposed to the outside. I've always had this feeling to some extent, but it's grown rather than diminished, and I'm now actually worried whether or not I'll be able to put any conviction whatsoever in my master's thesis next year. Is this just a natural side effect of learning more about your field's theoretical frameworks and therefore being exposed to case studies where they *don't* work more, or am I just seriously disillusioned/too cynical? TL;DR starting to feel like my entire field desperately needs to go touch grass and talk to people, is that normal? | h53cgj4 | h52r71z | 1,626,217,438 | 1,626,207,362 | 42 | 24 | Well the main problem is IR, which is not only detached but also theoretically, methodologically, and normatively bankrupt lollll | I came from history now I'm doing a PhD in IR and I'm not a fan of the discipline, so I get your point! But if you want to go for it you gotta reframe some things for yourself. While most education programmes still assign the "Great Debates" from the 1990s, that's not at all representative of the type of stuff that gets published these days. Thank God we're not in the 1990s anymore.most people in practice work on mid range theory on a specific subject. Then it becomes a lot more concrete.But beyond the Great Douchebags they're also a ton of of amazing scholars - but I don't know what area you work on so I can't recommend much Have you read beyond the classic theoretical debates and looked into other approaches? Postcolonial IR, queer IR, critical IR, Foucault, poststructuralism, grams I, bourdieau, Latour, etc etc? Try to read broad and wildly and especially read stuff you're unfamiliar with and that's outside your comfort zone I get the sense that you're frustrated that people dress up their opinion as an IR theory? It drives mental too, but remind yourself that all science is ideological, as the sociology of scientific knowledge has shown us. Have you looked into qualitative methodologies too? Europeans are much more into qual while Americans love quant, if you're frustrated with the US empirical slant | 1 | 10,076 | 1.75 |
ojneii | askacademia_train | 0.98 | Is it normal to become more convinced your discipline is detached from practical reality the more you study it? I know this might read as a trollish post, but I *promise* I'm serious. So, I'm currently halfway through my Adv. MSc. International Relations & Diplomacy, and while my undergrad was a Liberal Arts BA, that was also heavily IR-focused. Honestly? I love it, but only in the context of academic bickering about pointless minutae that do not matter outside the walls of the faculty - the more I've studied IR theories, the less my remarks of "we're a humanities field trying to masquerade as a hard science" and "if you open the dictionary to 'Ivory Tower Academia' you'll find a picture of our faculty" have become jokes. I know there's always going to be a difference between academic theory and practices in reality - you clearly *need* to perform abstractions when creating a theory, but several of the main theories in my field just feel like they fall apart at the first dose of being exposed to the outside. I've always had this feeling to some extent, but it's grown rather than diminished, and I'm now actually worried whether or not I'll be able to put any conviction whatsoever in my master's thesis next year. Is this just a natural side effect of learning more about your field's theoretical frameworks and therefore being exposed to case studies where they *don't* work more, or am I just seriously disillusioned/too cynical? TL;DR starting to feel like my entire field desperately needs to go touch grass and talk to people, is that normal? | h53ac3m | h53cgj4 | 1,626,216,356 | 1,626,217,438 | 15 | 42 | I'm not in IR, I'm an American and a historian trying to wrap up my dissertation, and while the theories and methodology we use make sense to me, I'm working on something rather obscure to Americans and I can't help but feel like it *doesn't mean anything* when I compare my work to Americanists whose subjects deal with the most politically charged debates of the day. I can't help but admire those who work on the American West, American South, and the Civil Rights Movement. That isn't to say that I don't love my topic--I work on French colonialism in North Africa--nor that it lacks continuing relevance in the Mediterranean, but it just *feels* unimportant from my vantage point, and that's ok. Knowing that I feel this way, my aim is to get a job outside of research when I finish it, whether in teaching or some other, non-academic field. I know that it's normal to feel this about our research and work, but it's not something that I can digest as easily as many other academics can. | Well the main problem is IR, which is not only detached but also theoretically, methodologically, and normatively bankrupt lollll | 0 | 1,082 | 2.8 |
ojneii | askacademia_train | 0.98 | Is it normal to become more convinced your discipline is detached from practical reality the more you study it? I know this might read as a trollish post, but I *promise* I'm serious. So, I'm currently halfway through my Adv. MSc. International Relations & Diplomacy, and while my undergrad was a Liberal Arts BA, that was also heavily IR-focused. Honestly? I love it, but only in the context of academic bickering about pointless minutae that do not matter outside the walls of the faculty - the more I've studied IR theories, the less my remarks of "we're a humanities field trying to masquerade as a hard science" and "if you open the dictionary to 'Ivory Tower Academia' you'll find a picture of our faculty" have become jokes. I know there's always going to be a difference between academic theory and practices in reality - you clearly *need* to perform abstractions when creating a theory, but several of the main theories in my field just feel like they fall apart at the first dose of being exposed to the outside. I've always had this feeling to some extent, but it's grown rather than diminished, and I'm now actually worried whether or not I'll be able to put any conviction whatsoever in my master's thesis next year. Is this just a natural side effect of learning more about your field's theoretical frameworks and therefore being exposed to case studies where they *don't* work more, or am I just seriously disillusioned/too cynical? TL;DR starting to feel like my entire field desperately needs to go touch grass and talk to people, is that normal? | h538pcl | h53cgj4 | 1,626,215,542 | 1,626,217,438 | 4 | 42 | I think most in the field are probably aware and working towards creating better theories, or more predictable ones. Based on a theory, we can expect something to happen, but even a cancer doctor has to make the treatment based on the type of cancer, the body of the person, and cancer response to treatment. It is a human making decisions, not a theory. | Well the main problem is IR, which is not only detached but also theoretically, methodologically, and normatively bankrupt lollll | 0 | 1,896 | 10.5 |
Subsets and Splits
No saved queries yet
Save your SQL queries to embed, download, and access them later. Queries will appear here once saved.