And speaking of job ads (as I was in some posts last week), have you ever seen an ad for a faculty position, research scientist, or postdoc and been suspicious that the type or level of detail in the job description indicated that the department had an "inside candidate"?
I have found that this topic comes up quite often in discussions about particular jobs, based on reading (between the lines of) the job description in the advertisement.
Another suspicious aspect of some ads, leading some to wonder about inside candidates, is an application deadline very close to the appearance of the ad.
There are many possible explanations for unusually detailed ads and imminent application deadlines, and I think the existence of an inside candidate is one of the least likely of these explanations (at least in North America, the system with which I am most familiar). (agree/disagree with this assessment?)
And yet, I know they do exist. I have written about this before, and described my own (now ancient) experiences with applying for jobs that real, not just inferred, inside candidates.
What I am interested in is: how common it is for someone to infer (without specific information) the existence of an inside candidate, based only on the job ad, and then not apply for the job?
Or: how common is it to know that there is an inside candidate, and have that piece of information affect your decision to apply (specifically: not apply because you think it is pointless)?
I have found that this topic comes up quite often in discussions about particular jobs, based on reading (between the lines of) the job description in the advertisement.
Another suspicious aspect of some ads, leading some to wonder about inside candidates, is an application deadline very close to the appearance of the ad.
There are many possible explanations for unusually detailed ads and imminent application deadlines, and I think the existence of an inside candidate is one of the least likely of these explanations (at least in North America, the system with which I am most familiar). (agree/disagree with this assessment?)
And yet, I know they do exist. I have written about this before, and described my own (now ancient) experiences with applying for jobs that real, not just inferred, inside candidates.
What I am interested in is: how common it is for someone to infer (without specific information) the existence of an inside candidate, based only on the job ad, and then not apply for the job?
Or: how common is it to know that there is an inside candidate, and have that piece of information affect your decision to apply (specifically: not apply because you think it is pointless)?
27 comments:
When my partner wanted to delay the starting date of his new position at a foreign university, immigration rules required that the university perform another search in the country to prove that there are no qualified citizens for the position at the new start date. The add they placed was very specific since they had a candidate in mind. I would like to believe that adds for "inside jobs" are mostly put out for reasons such as this.
My response to an overly detailed ad would depend on the type of job. In biomedical science, if the ad is for a technician, postdoc, or senior research scientist, I can almost guarantee that the ad is posted to satisfy the requirement that a search be carried out, when there is already a strong internal candidate. I have posted ads like this myself.
In my experience, I think it is much less likely that this is true in faculty job ads. There, the level of detail in a job ad is more influenced by the culture/philosophy of the hiring Department or the search committee. There is always some degree of tension between filling a perceived gap and hiring the best possible person. I have seen different committees vary widely across that spectrum. We have NEVER had a strong internal candidate for a posted faculty position.
Mark P
My experience is same as Mark P (anon at 11:50) - I and others are regularly forced to put out fake ads in order to promote people along non-faculty tracks. E.g., I have a postdoc and want to promote them to soft money research scientist. That requires a search to satisfy EO/AA. I just did this recently, and absolutely hated it (had to phone interview eager outside candidates...) but had no choice if I wanted to promote the person.
At the same time I have never seen a TT faculty search designed for an inside candidate. At my institution we have hired internal candidates to TT positions a number of times, but searches weren't done - apparently they weren't necessary, these were called "hires of opportunity" or something and that must have satisfied EO/AA.
I only know of one hiring situation for which "the fix was in." The ad was not at all targeted at the person in question, but the person had close personal ties in a department that values personal connections over accomplishments, and is good at pretending to be an expert on, well, anything. So the inside preference was hired despite zero background in the field and a research proposal that seeks to do things that were done decades ago (and no, there's no novel twist).
Amazingly, that person eventually got a mediocre paper into a top journal in the subfield, after years of fighting with the editor and reviewers. So this person is guaranteed to get tenure, because the tenure committee can count but can't read. Alas, this person is a perpetual pain in the rear and continues to display shocking ignorance about a great many things, while proclaiming to be qualified to teach those topics and do research on those topics. Such is academia.
I agree with Mark P. I think this practice is extremely common for non-tenure track type positions. My wife was actually asked to write an announcement for a research position for which she was an inside candidate, so of course she tailored it to fit her perfectly. Advertising the job was a formality the university had to go through.
This is not unique to academics in any way. I'd say tenure track jobs are an outlier in how they are intended to attract such a large applicant pool so late in the hiring decision process. Generally organizations identify individuals they are looking to hire long before a position is advertised.
If I were to become a department head, I would certainly adopt the management strategy of identifying top prospects among postdocs and senior grads for faculty positions and vet them prior to or early in the search process. (I am surprised this practice is not more common, at least in my field.) I would still want broad ads and a large applicant pool though. With the poor job market in recent years, there are great hires to be made by any department that is in the position to do so.
When I was on the job market last year, I saw an ad for a biology position at a mid-size liberal arts school. The ad specified they wanted a neurobiologist who used a highly-specialized piece of equipment to study a particular phenomenon in a very specific species of fish (the ad detailed this fish down to its subtype and primary habitat). Curious, I checked the dept. website, and saw that there was a visiting faculty member who, lo and behold, was working on that very species of fish. Just checked their website again, and this same faculty member is now listed as "assistant professor".
Well, I don't know how common it is, but I offer n=1: I just ignored an add (did not apply) because it was way too specific and screamed "internal/already chosen" candidate.
Long ago I worked in the lab of a Major Player, who was recruited to Top Institution. The position was generally advertised for AA/EO reasons, but it was so targeted it might have read "must have goatee and prefer a monocle"* This was a very strategic recruitment, and they were creating the position--heck, a division for him to head--so there was no way they would have hired anyone else.
*For illustrative purposes; no relationship to persons living or dead.
"I would like to believe that adds for "inside jobs" are mostly put out for reasons such as this."
"Advertising the job was a formality the university had to go through."
"I and others are regularly forced to put out fake ads in order to promote people along non-faculty tracks. E.g., I have a postdoc and want to promote them to soft money research scientist. That requires a search to satisfy EO/AA."
There is something disturbing about how rampant inside hiring appears to be and how disrespected the process of following the rules is. Everyone here seems to take it for granted that the rules are useless and not worth following in their own personal cases - is that true?? I guess I'm naive, but if the university or funding agency is supported by taxpayer funds, are these sorts of promotions ethical, especially when they violate rules established to promote AA/EO? Are you all saying the system is broken?
It seems relatively common for civil servant research positions to be only open for one week from the announcement -the federal legal minimum is 5 days. I have always suspected this was because an inside candidate was already identified, but recently I was privy to an opening where this was definitely the case. I did not apply, because I knew the insider,... who got the job.
I had an observatory site director tell me to my face that he had decided to hire an internal candidate (for the equivalent of a TT job) and asked me, a woman (who would have loved to have had that very job), how he could advertise the job to women.
This was a number of years ago, but from reading the comments, I see this kind of thing still goes on.
I have also heard of these specific ads as cover for pre-selected external candidates as well.
In fairness, we should consider that Trailing Spouse hires also flagrantly circumvent the spirit of the law that requires advertising positions.
This is a two-edged sword. Some people see it as a farce if there is an obvious person in mind when the job announcement was written. On the other hand, hiring people without advertising the position reeks of nepotism. Also, some funding agencies will only provide funding if one has a specific person in mind for the job (otherwise it is too much trouble to do the paperwork), but the university which actually administers the position has a rule that all jobs must be advertized. I once saw a very specific job ad and knew immediately whom it was for. At the bottom, it said "internal candidates will very probably apply". I think this was a case when it was obvious to all concerned who would be hired (he probably had written the application himself), but an ad was required by the university. At least this is honest and saves people from wasting time while fulfilling the wishes of those who want an advertisement.
There isn't really a conflict. It is good to advertise to give everyone a chance, but if there is an obviously best candidate he shouldn't be refused just because he is internal. Of course, a job description which is so specific that only one person could fit it makes a search a farce, but again this might be required by someone involved.
Of course, a search as a way of legitimizing hiring a particular person makes sense only if it is a matter of public record who the applicants were. In Scandinavia, this is the case. There are also external (i.e. non-Scandinavian) referees who rank the candidates and write a paragraph about each explaining the position in the ranking. This is public as well (at least to all the applicants).
This is a two-edged sword. Some people see it as a farce if there is an obvious person in mind when the job announcement was written. On the other hand, hiring people without advertising the position reeks of nepotism. Also, some funding agencies will only provide funding if one has a specific person in mind for the job (otherwise it is too much trouble to do the paperwork), but the university which actually administers the position has a rule that all jobs must be advertized. I once saw a very specific job ad and knew immediately whom it was for. At the bottom, it said "internal candidates will very probably apply". I think this was a case when it was obvious to all concerned who would be hired (he probably had written the application himself), but an ad was required by the university. At least this is honest and saves people from wasting time while fulfilling the wishes of those who want an advertisement.
There isn't really a conflict. It is good to advertise to give everyone a chance, but if there is an obviously best candidate he shouldn't be refused just because he is internal. Of course, a job description which is so specific that only one person could fit it makes a search a farce, but again this might be required by someone involved.
Of course, a search as a way of legitimizing hiring a particular person makes sense only if it is a matter of public record who the applicants were. In Scandinavia, this is the case. There are also external (i.e. non-Scandinavian) referees who rank the candidates and write a paragraph about each explaining the position in the ranking. This is public as well (at least to all the applicants).
I am very surprised at how some folks here are so cavalier to admit that they have posted fake ads. This is extremely insulting and unethical.
I know a colleague who only applied for a job because they knew it was going to be an inside position, and knew they were better qualified, and wanted to (perhaps) ruffle a few feathers.
I'm surprised at the amount of negativity attached to inside hiring, or whatever you want to call it. (And I am not someone who has benefitted from it.) Some commenters equate it with nepotism. It could be, but there are all kinds of completely ethical reasons to identify a top candidate or set of candidates prior to officially announcing a search.
Fellowships, grants, and awards should be an open and egalitarian process. The process of institution building is different and it requires a range of strategies to attract, hire, and retain the appropriate mix of talent that a department or organization needs to try to achieve their strategic goals.
It may feel to those of us who are job candidates (I am currently seeking a faculty position) that the whole process is unfair, but I ultimately want to work with a group of colleagues that are brought together for well-thought reasons to create a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts. I hope that institution leaders are thinking this way too and using all strategies at their disposal to build strong departments. That ultimately benefits us all.
Cautionary note, however. Employing strategies that trend toward active recruitment over treating faculty positions more like fellowship awards may have the effect of building institutions filled with people who look and act a lot like each other. With good leadership, though, active recruitment can be used for to counter instead of propagate institutional discrimination.
I too agree that this happens quite often. I've seen several instances of it (including my current position), and I agree that it is far more common for more junior positions. I also think that it's probably the way many industries work. You always hear how important it is to have a good network, even in fields far outside science.
When I was finishing my thesis, a colleague at another institution was making noises about me doing a postdoc there. He asked for a research statement. A week after I sent it, they advertised for a postdoc position that obviously paraphrased my statement. I did not go there, so even though it was pretty much written for me, the job ended up being competitive. I guess that makes me think it could be worthwhile to apply for positions that look as though they are meant for one person.
"There is something disturbing about how rampant inside hiring appears to be and how disrespected the process of following the rules is. Everyone here seems to take it for granted that the rules are useless and not worth following in their own personal cases - is that true?? I guess I'm naive, but if the university or funding agency is supported by taxpayer funds, are these sorts of promotions ethical, especially when they violate rules established to promote AA/EO? Are you all saying the system is broken?"
I don't think that's the problem. I think a lot of places would rather hire internally simply because it's more efficient and you know what you're getting. It's a lot easier to hire someone who already knows the ropes, the equipment, who to talk to, how the organization functions, and can hit the ground running. When you are vetting external candidates, you go through a lengthy process of reviewing apps and interviewing, neither of which really gives you a good idea of how the person functions.
We've been burned by outside candidates a lot more than internal. There are the ones who are using the job offer to get a better offer someplace else, meaning we've been strung along only to give it to an internal candidate anyway. And then there are the ones who are just dunces. I can remember one in particular who looked awesome on paper (advanced degrees and lots of experience) and turned out to be dumb as a brick. After a year and a half, he hadn't managed to complete some of the most basic tasks assigned to him. After he was let go, we hired a recent grad who'd interned in our lab (and whom we knew was exceptionally competent), and he completed the whole project in less than three months.
Maybe it's not fair, but I think it's easier to deal with the evil you know than finding the one that came out of left field.
I think the inside job is common for hiring federal scientists - I had an offer from a federal agency where they told me the order of operations was 1) I accept the job, and 2) they advertise the job on usajobs written specifically for me and my skill set before 3) they can officially offer me the job.
I didn't end up accepting it, so I can only speak from hearsay.
"I think a lot of places would rather hire internally simply because it's more efficient and you know what you're getting."
It saves YOU time, but it wastes the applicants' time.
Advertising honestly should not prevent anyone from hiring from inside, unless that is written in to the rules also.
With regard to non TT positions, I do not think, in general, the system is broken. If I truly found a more qualified candidate in a search with an interral candidate, I might well hire them, but usually the "pool" for technician and senior scientist positions (i.e., apps through the formal process) is very thin, and given our HR Department, most are not even remotely qualified.
Mark P
Why is it a waste of applicant's time more than any other job they didn't end up getting? It's not like anyone makes people apply to job ads. I might say interviewing people without really wanting to consider them seriously would be a waste of everyone's time and resources, but just applying costs nothing (used to cost to mail the material, but now not even that).
Really, GMP, that's how you apply for jobs- you just spam a generic version of your CV or something? That's all there is to it? I'm asking seriously. No one has said that they don't even interview anyone, but maybe that's the case. But what about the AA/EO goals? Are they still being fulfilled? How can we be sure?
I just wanted to share a different possible scenario.
My significant other applied for a job where he was convinced that the ad was written with an internal candidate in mind (and it was, as he found later). However, he was so well qualified that they ended up opening a second position and hiring both him and the internal candidate.
Applying for internal positions is not always a waste of time (based on a limited sample of 1 experience).
I was wanted by a good university because outside of my studies I had collected a dataset they wanted to have access to. Of course, one cannot put "have a large and useful dataset" into a job advert. So I ended up writing my own ad, making it as specific as possible to my other skills.
In the end they got around the bureaucratic issues and just hired me without the ad.
After I graduated UG, a professor I'd done research with as an undergrad wanted to hire me for a year-long position to work on the research, which fit nicely with my desire to take a year off before grad school. They posted such an ad, but didn't even make me apply. I get the impression it's quite standard.
Our department has once posted a faculty position for which we had an inside candidate (after years of unsuccessfully trying to move the person to the tenure track).
The job description was written fairly broadly (as we always do), and we seriously interviewed several candidates, but the inside person really was way better than the other candidates and ended up with the job. He has proven to be one of the best hires we've made.
Some of our best other hires have been "targets of opportunity"—a special type of hire that is made without a budgeted position or an advertisement. They require an enormous political effort on campus to convince deans and chancellors that the person is available and simply too good to miss the opportunity. For one assistant prof, we ended up getting letters of support from 3 different divisions on campus that this person was a superstar (science, engineering, and social science). Given that we have not been budgeted a normal hire in years (we're about half the size that long-range planning said we should be by now), we have had to rely on these unusual mechanisms to get any faculty at all.
Post a Comment