|
|
Post by sociology1 on Jul 30, 2009 11:19:56 GMT -5
Hello all,
Any (preferably informed) thoughts on what exactly area of specialization descriptions by employers mean in job ads - that is, how "firm" they are? To give three relevant examples, one ad reads:
"Candidates should have a specialization in the topic of race and ethnic relations, as well as one or more of the following: urban studies, law/crime/deviance, and youth/family. We are interested in applicants whose research relates to the regions of South Asia or Latin America."
Another ad reads:
"The position is open with respect to substantive fields and methodological approach. However, we are especially interested in candidates with primary research and teaching interests that focus on the dynamics of race, class and gender in urban environments, including such subfields as urban inequality and labor markets; residential segregation and neighborhood development; poverty and social policy; crime and criminal justice; urban politics and social movements; and labor and community organizations. "
A final example: "Areas of specialization: Feminist sociological theory and research specializing in gender and sexualities. Preference will be given to scholars who can collaborate with other faculty members working in health, education, immigration or social sustainability. Emphasis in race/ethnicity and class as well as gender in research and teaching."
Should the first one be read to mean that anyone doing race might as well apply if interested, especially if one's work plausibly related to anything else listed there? (There probably aren't many people doing race AND one of the 3 subfields they mention AND one of the regions the mention.) Should the second be read to mean they have a preference for the (very broad) areas listed but would also be interested in other candidates with very good records, regardless of field? And should the final one be read to indicate that if you're not doing gender/sexuality, don't bother to apply (unless maybe you are the most accomplished person on the market this year and really want to be at that school)?
Thanks ...
|
|
|
|
Post by PL on Jul 30, 2009 11:48:04 GMT -5
Well, I can tell you with respect to the second one - I think it's my school. It's been tagged an 'urban' job by the admin, though that's meant broadly. But someone someplace will probably (though who knows?) have to make the case that it's able to be urban. We tried to hire someone senior last year, which didn't work out (why it's junior). Because the school is a complicated institutional space.
To answer you, I think your reading is probably accurate. But I'm not in a position to speak with 100% certainty about the dept.'s motives and whatnot, truly.
And btw, as an asst-prof, I hope I'm not overstepping by posting. This is my first time browsing the board, and I already feel like a parent looking at a kid's FB page...
|
|
|
|
Post by happy i removed my on Jul 30, 2009 12:05:28 GMT -5
naked booze cruise pics, PL! We welcome your presence and your knowledge!
As to the first example, apparently the school really is trying to find someone who does work on those regions and it's an important criteria...
Another ad for a symbolic interactionist really just wants to make sure you are capable of teaching contemporary theory to both graduate students and undergraduates...
|
|
|
|
Post by pseudonym on Jul 30, 2009 12:22:40 GMT -5
Regarding the poster's question, I think it's wise to apply for positions that interest you and make your case in your cover letter. I think it helps if you research the school and find out what kinds of courses are offered, departmental/faculty specialties, etc. and make references to them in your letter. You want to show that you'd be a good fit (without overstepping bounds, however). Highlight the ways that your research interests fit with the specifics in the posting. I don't think it's a bad idea to admit that you may not specifically fit ALL the areas listed, because it is likely that no one would. Regarding the final question about stellar qualifications and your preferred institution--I don't think that will get you very far. If you're tops in the subfield of criminology, for example, and you've never specifically examined gender differences in crime and are uninterested in feminist theory, your credentials might mean very little--even if you are a star and would love to work there. They need someone who can fill the position--and they have a huge pool of applicants to choose from who would likely be a better fit.
Regarding the asst. prof. who replied--I think it's important to have a variety of perspectives on this board, especially those with an "insider's" view. I think it helps a lot--but I am interested to know why faculty members are interested in this board to begin with? I'm glad you're on the board, but what compells you to do so when you are already employed? Are you altruistic--trying to help your fellow future colleagues? Are you on a hiring committee and interested in what prospective candidates might be thinking about? I would love to know!
|
|
|
|
Post by travelbug on Jul 30, 2009 12:24:49 GMT -5
I wouldn't over-analyze the wording of the job ads. They often list several related specialties, and it can be hard to figure out which one is most important to the search committee, and in fact, they themselves often don't know. It is definitely great to look for ads for which you are a good fit, but don't let that scare you away from applying either. In the past couple years of being on the job market, I saw several cases in which the candidates who were eventually hired didn't seem like a very close fit with the description in the job posting.
|
|
|
|
Post by buddymama on Jul 30, 2009 12:30:20 GMT -5
I am an already employed asst professor looking to make a move--I wish I was solely being altruistic. As an employer would not lurk to get inside info on the candidates and will not provide my department with info from the list, except for to remind them how difficult it is to be on the market and how candidates have started these sites to try to make this process more transparent (meaning that we, as hiring departments, don't). It feels a bit awkward being on the boards for various reasons, but when it seems appropriate, I try to chime in with whatever perspective I can give. I'm also on a hiring committee this year, which makes this even more awkward.
|
|
macy
New Member
Posts: 10 
|
Post by macy on Jul 30, 2009 12:38:41 GMT -5
It is often difficult to tell which requirements are set in stone and, to echo Travelbug's comments, often the hiring committee/dept are not sure themselves. In one of the examples in the first post, I can tell you that every single requirement is important (I don't want to say which job as it might expose me).
It is best to make your case for your fit. You can't worry about the rest.
Like buddymama, I'm an ass't prof looking to make a move. But I'm also happy to chime in with help when I can because I have been on the hiring side as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by asst prof on Jul 30, 2009 13:17:38 GMT -5
I'm not sure why faculty roam these boards. I remember the rumor mills of years past and always come back for more.
As for job ads.
During our last search, once the deadline had passed, we had all the files brought into the conference room and then the chair asked: "okay, what do we really want?"
Some job ads may state exactly what a dept wants, some may not. You'll never know, and they probably don't even know until it comes down to ranking candidates.
Just come up with your best strategy to deal with this uncertainty.
|
|
|
|
Post by an noni mouse on Jul 30, 2009 15:44:01 GMT -5
Overly broad ads are generally the result of 1 of 3 processes:
- "We want someone to teach undergrad class X, but other than that are open to hiring great candidates from mildly related areas"
- Dept. and administration don't agree on what they want. This happened at my alma matter: the admin wanted a senior hire for their 'global health" initiative, dept. wanted a senior hire in political economy. Dept got a little creative and purposefully vague on the ad they sent the admin.
- internal dept. politics that mean that they have someone who can teach X or Y, but not both, so they need someone for one or the other.
Of course, Im talking about purposefully broad ads. There are also ads that are broad simply because they were poorly written.
|
|
|
|
Post by anonprof on Jul 30, 2009 16:14:03 GMT -5
I'm also current TT faculty, and have been reading the boards for something like four years. I don't keep up with everything, but honestly -- being on the market is kind of like being exposed to something addictive. It is hard (for me at least) to withdraw from the frenetic anxiety/energy, even though I have no plans to move anywhere. And occasionally, I chime in with something that is supposed to be calming/helpful. I like the feeling of community here, too.
Does that make sense? I hope so. It's not meant to be creepy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Elite on Jul 30, 2009 18:25:50 GMT -5
Overly broad ads are generally the result of 1 of 3 processes: Additionally, EEO law requires that a department must establish clear criteria for hiring a particular candidate from a pool of candidates. Consequently, I tend to view some of these convoluted adds as a legal protection for when the 'best' candidate is selected, while still having some leeway in who they hire. |
|
|
|
Post by anonymouse on Jul 30, 2009 19:09:32 GMT -5
Or, rather, specific wording in job ads would allow a plausible defense in the case of a discrimination lawsuit filed against the University. I believe federal EEO law says nothing about requirements for specific language in job ads, though I could be mistaken. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Yes, the effect is the same, but we might as well be precise about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by damastes on Jul 30, 2009 22:58:55 GMT -5
Or, rather, specific wording in job ads would allow a plausible defense in the case of a discrimination lawsuit filed against the University. I believe federal EEO law says nothing about requirements for specific language in job ads, though I could be mistaken. Correct me if I'm wrong. Yes, the effect is the same, but we might as well be precise about it. I think you're right about the EEO law. The danger I see with being too specific can make life difficult. The number of people who use SEM models to examine democracy on nations in the South Pacific is small, and would yield very few applications. A poorly written ad on 'democratic processes using quantitative methods, with experience in South Pacific politics preferred,' would likely get many more applicants. Its a case where applicants may want clarity, but departments are rewarded for some degree of obtuseness. |
|
|
|
Post by nowhereland on Aug 8, 2009 2:56:30 GMT -5
A final example: "Areas of specialization: Feminist sociological theory and research specializing in gender and sexualities. Preference will be given to scholars who can collaborate with other faculty members working in health, education, immigration or social sustainability. Emphasis in race/ethnicity and class as well as gender in research and teaching." (cut) And should the final one be read to indicate that if you're not doing gender/sexuality, don't bother to apply (unless maybe you are the most accomplished person on the market this year and really want to be at that school)? Thanks ... I think that if you don't deal with gender and/or sexuality at all in your work then there's little reason to apply. From what I've been told, PSU really is specifically looking for someone in this area. |
|
tnrd
New Member
Posts: 28 
|
Post by tnrd on Aug 12, 2009 17:51:36 GMT -5
sociology1 raises very good questions. Unfortunately, there is no generally applicable response other than the boring and unhelpful: “it depends”. In some cases, depts really are looking for something very specific. In others, as people have noted above, there are administrative reasons for the particular wording. In yet others, there is disagreement in the dept about which way to go so they post something and figure it out later. What to take away from this as a candidate? You might as well apply. Yes, there is some financial cost to it and some energy involved, but it's nothing compared to all the work you've put into your career as is. What *is* important is that if you get called in for an interview, you read the ad again and think about how you fit. It's rather unfortunate to bring someone in and then not have the person address anything in the ad. (I've seen that happen.) It makes it really easy for those on the faculty who are not interested in the candidate to make their case against the person ("no match for the position advertised"). PL - There are several faculty members on the board and I suspect people welcome that. However, you might want to think about what details of your dept you give out, that is, how your colleagues would view details of your searches being discussed publicly. Also, you probably realize that with the info you gave us, we now have a good idea of who you are (of course, there's always the possibility that someone's pretending to be PL from your school). Why hang out here when already with a job? Another good question.  I'm interested in having a better understanding of how candidates think about the process. I think it's important for the health of academia to debunk myths. I also want to have a better sense of what would be most helpful in the realm of mentoring in my own school. Finally, following some of these conversations helps in figuring out how we should advertise our own positions to target people well. |
|
I'm interested in having a better understanding of how candidates think about the process. I think it's important for the health of academia to debunk myths. I also want to have a better sense of what would be most helpful in the realm of mentoring in my own school. Finally, following some of these conversations helps in figuring out how we should advertise our own positions to target people well.