“I recently completed an interview for a TT job. Everything went well — they spoke to my references, I did a teaching demo. It’s now been over a month and I’ve heard absolutely nothing from them, even after following up with HR and the committee about their timeline. Should I assume they’re still making a decision? Since I was one of only three finalists for the job, I find it hard to imagine they’d give me complete radio silence instead of letting me know I wasn’t selected.”
Or more briefly, “A few weeks ago, I had a campus visit for a lecturer position at a Liberal Arts Institution. How long do you wait from an on-campus interview to an offer/rejection?“
There are no pleasant answers to this. The fact is, it’s become normative for search committees to ghost candidates EVEN AFTER THEY CAME FOR A CAMPUS VISIT! That means, even after you spent hours in their company. Even after you broke bread with them over dinner.What to do?
If you made it to the campus visit, and they told you a timeline, wait until that timeline has passed and then write to ask. Here is wording you can use; send this to the Search Committee Chair:
“Dear XX, I am writing to inquire about the status of the search. If possible I’d like to know if I am still under consideration. I enjoyed meeting the faculty there and I remain very interested in the position. Thank you, XXX”
I can’t promise they’ll respond, but I want you to know that after a certain period of time, you ARE entitled to inquire. If they did not give you a timeline, then wait about 4 weeks and write then.
In terms of WHY search committees routinely ghost candidates now? Well, I don’t know. It’s been a growing practice for many years. I think search committee members are overwhelmed and if firm procedures have not been set in place whereby the administrative assistant is tasked with sending notifications early in the search, and the search chair doesn’t make a note to do near the end… well, it falls through the cracks.
I have to wonder, too, if search committees feel a kind of guilt or shame about the job market now and want to just make the bad parts disappear. It’s delightful to offer someone a job (I know! I did it when I was Chair.) And it’s truly wrenching to send those rejection emails. Someone without a strong ethical commitment could, I can imagine, just…. take the avoidance route.
There is no excuse for that, needless to say. I’m not excusing, just speculating.
As Kel and I always say: search committees – do better.
Feel free to share your stories in comments!
I think this post makes some presumptions about the power of the search committee. I think a more plausible explanation is institutional forces: sunk costs in expensive HR software and concerns about lawsuits. In our institution, HR has instructed us to notify candidates only when an offer has been accepted and then only through a form letter via the HR portal. Since faculty have limited access to the HR portal (oh, and who is this admin asst of whom you speak? We share a few admin across multiple depts, so this task falls to faculty), we can’t easily tell if the messages successfully go out, if the email address typed in the system matches the one on the CV, etc. And of course this may also be months after interview, depending on negotiations!
We do informally notify folks who interviewed know when an offer of accepted, and we often call for that. but technically we are not really supposed to do so.. We can, however, respond to inquiries about the status of the search (e.g., “campus interviews were last month,” “an offer has been made,” etc.), – but it is a lot to respond to all 300+ folks who applied.
It’s been a few years now, but when I was dept. chair, the university absolutely forbade providing any information to candidates until the offer was signed, sealed and delivered – which could take a while with negotiations about salary and start-up. In one case there were some issues with hiring an international candidate, and the whole thing dragged on for months. Eventually I wrote an informal personal email to the unsuccessful candidates who had done campus visits, apologizing profusely for the delay and explaining that I was breaking the rules by telling them anything even at that stage. Absurd, frustrating. Now I’m more senior and might be more tempted to make my own rules about this.
I’m in the exact position of the OP. Great Zoom interview, successful campus visit, total silence. Granted, it has been a little less than a month but not hearing anything at all is dispiriting to say the least. Plus candidates for this position aren’t posting to the Wiki, so that’s no help. I’m lucky enough to have a job so can afford to wait for a response. But I really feel for candidates who don’t have jobs and are left in limbo with few options. The post-campus interview period if the worst part of being on the market, IMHO.
Very confused by the professors posting about HR regulations. When it comes to the Zoom interview and campus visit stages, most committees are only dealing with around 20 candidates. In my experience, interview invites all come by personal email from the search chair. Surely it is possible to also email candidates at these stages to inform them whether the committee has made campus visit invitations and/or extended job offers. A simple “we have made an offer to a candidate, but your application will remain active until that offer is accepted” would go a long way.
I am also struck by the clockwork “our hands are tied” response from faculty… always the same.
Karen, your lack of understanding of this suggests that you haven’t been on a search committee recently. At my institution, most of the official communications are handled by HR, who makes clear that there may be legal implications to our communicating incorrectly with the candidates. In our case, the committee does not make the final decision or participate in the offer or negotiations, so we never actually know if a particular candidate was offered the position and turned it down, or if they were ever contacted at all, unless the candidate tells us. This makes it difficult to know how to approach a closure communication, even if we did take it upon ourselves to defy HR. If a candidate reaches out to ask, I respond, but that’s the only way that I know what their status is with regard to the search.
This is why, when possible, it’s probably more appropriate to direct status update inquiries to the dean, and not the SC chair. The SC often does not know if an offer has been made, let alone to which candidate. In my department, we cannot even (formally) rank candidates in our recommendations.
whoa no–the Dean will NEVER respond. Ever. Certainly at an R1 or large institution.
I am in this position now, post on-campus interview, some checking in has been successful in getting timelines. I’ve checked in after the latest timeline passed, but no response. However the university required me to pay for my flight and hasn’t reimbursed me yet. Is there a way to check in on the reimbursement without being terribly annoying? Thank you!
I am in the same situation, waiting to hear after the campus visit and have not been reimbursed for my flight yet either. About the reimbursement, I was thinking about contacting the person in administration I met during the visit and to whom I emailed the receipts. Still thinking how I’ll word it.
Can you name the university? We may have the same so I am curious if they did in purpose.
Oh well, Steve Fuller is certainly right about academia being the present archetype of neofeudalism.
It’s even worse when you get on the other side of the looking glass. The level of arbitrary decisions and politics that goes into an alleged meritocracy is shocking. But the pay is good and you usually have autonomy.
Ghosting is the norm. I have been on the job market for 2 years to get out of a toxic institution going downhill fast. I am advanced TT faculty (6th year), but with a solid research and decent funding record (~$2 million in biomedical sciences). I’ve applied to 83 faculty jobs that fit my expertise. Gotten close 7 times as a finalist or in limbo. Here are some fun ghosting examples.
For Institution A, I did initial search chair interview, gave a remote talk, Zoomed with the whole search committee who loved me, search chair started a collab with me, popped the 2-body problem with effusive praise…and 5 months later, nothing.
For Institution B, I went through 10 Zoom interviews (!). Glowingly positive. Chair then had some concerns about slot availability. Answered concerns. Was given job talk opportunity. Chair withdrew opportunity but was emphatic about passing my application along to other Chairs. And 1 month later, nothing.
For Institution C, I went through 9 Zoom interviews. Glowingly positive. At end of 9th interview…nothing. BUT the search Chair has at least responded over the last 3 months to monthly emails with basically “you know how it is, this takes forever.”
What I wonder is: how many candidates in this Zoom era of interviewing get put through 9-10 interviews? Can’t be more than 3-5. I feel for post-docs on the job market and robbing the cradle, but where I work is hell.
It’s noticeable that almost all faculty candidates are suffering a common defective cycle and frustrating experience, but none of them stand for a change or petition? Are we people who should educate university students to be change leaders? Where is our academic initiatives to identifying the policy and process gaps, addressing a pathological condition , and improving the situation?
I wish a day that US post-grad accomplished people work with a known nation-wide database, build a faculty account, and upload their documents to be used by recruiters. Avoiding thousands of parallel applications, universities and faculty recruiters have to search for their HR needs based on professors’ qualifications. and geographic availability. The more we expand conversation about the current awkward hiring environment events, including 13 times relocation for each faculty family, we seal the credibility of the current toxic norms for future applicants to expect a series of anti-dignity and degrading behaviors during selection process. Informing educated professional on how to ignore their own basic human rights to find a suitable job shouldn’t be an honor. Particularly when we are sharing our senior or junior experiential knowledge with other faculty to sacrifice their basic human expectation like hearing a respond from the search committee -who load lots of stress on candidate, and waste their valued energy and life!
As a faculty who worked in various countries, it wouldn’t look a dream to high profile US faculty to deform the colonial slavery of the university job market and replace it by a system meets rights and dignity of higher education professionals!
Is it common practice for a search committee to switch the emphasis of a search for a faculty position in their department midway and completely ignore the advertised position description? I’ve seen sone search committees do that. Isn’t that not only unethical but also illegal?
It’s not unusual at all, and it’s not illegal. It’s just a thing that happens. Often because the ad was written 6 months-1 year earlier so by the time the search is underway the people in charge may have left, and or the financial picture will have been completely different.