How is wiki-posting viewed by people at hiring institutions?

Summary:

There have been a few posts here by search committee chairs, veteran faculty members, etc so it's clear that some people on the institutional hiring side are looking at this wiki. This makes me wonder -- how is wiki-posting viewed by people at hiring institutions?

How is wiki-posting viewed by people at hiring institutions?

Wondering anon (guest) 12 Nov 2010 23:04

There have been a few posts here by search committee chairs, veteran faculty members, etc so it's clear that some people on the institutional hiring side are looking at this wiki. This makes me wonder — how is wiki-posting viewed by people at hiring institutions?

One possibility is that they like it — if applicants have access to this wiki, perhaps institutions are bothered less frequently by requests about the status of the search. Instead, applicants get their information from here. Another possibility is that they dislike it because it takes away their upper hand of controlling the information. For instance, I can imagine a situation in which a search gives a first offer to someone and gives a limited amount of time for them to decide, reasoning that if the first person turns it down, they would quickly offer it to a second person. In the old days before the wiki, the second person wouldn't necessarily know that they were the second choice. However, now that second person can potentially see that an offer was given and could take another offer in the meantime (reasoning that the job is gone).

Anyone want to chime in here? Are there any search committee members lurking with an opinion on this? Have any applicants heard through the grapevine (e.g., from mentors) how hiring institutions view the wiki?

Anon Again (guest) 12 Nov 2010 23:11

I am not currently on a search committee, but have been in the past. (I am currently in a TT position but am looking to move to a better fit.) I suppose I can't speak for everyone, but I can't imagine that search committees have too much of an issue with the wiki, unless false information is being shared. It has been my experience that search chairs/dept chairs are up front with candidates. Usually if someone is a second choice they are told this. You want to keep your line of communication open with your second choice, especially if you are very interested in them, so that they do not take another offer in the meantime.

anon (guest) 13 Nov 2010 00:06

Limited experience here to be sure, but that has not been my experience. Typically I found most search committees are happy to keep us all in the dark so as not to ruffle any feathers. Thus, they'd prefer to overestimate the time until interviews or offers might come with the idea that if the first person turns them down, the other candidates won't necessarily know they weren't the first offer. Same goes with offers for interviews. I imagine they'd prefer that other candidates not know they brought someone in, but are now opening up the search again.

I can see why they would do this for both their and our benefits. Sometimes I wonder if I, as an applicant, am even glad this wiki exists! Sometimes ignorance is indeed blissful!!

Anon Again (guest) 13 Nov 2010 04:30

I think there's a difference between being any old applicant, or being an applicant who was interviewed and then deemed not suitable, and being a second choice. Search committees would be foolish not to stay in contact with their second choice - otherwise the person (wiki or not) would likely assume they aren't in the running to get an offer and take one elsewhere. It makes no sense to be secretive with someone who you would seriously like to hire. I have not personally seen (either from my experience on the market or in my faculty position) instances of SC/Depts doing shady things like never telling a candidate that they brought in for an interview that they didn't get the job - but I have heard stories of these types of things. Still, I maintain that a dept would not treat someone who is truly their second choice this way. (And I think when dept's do these kind of of crappy things it's more out of laziness or disorganization than some sort of information control plan.)

1applicant (guest) 13 Nov 2010 01:26

I think it depends on the culture of the institution. I usually get a very positive impression of the open and honest SCs who tell you their exact time line for next steps (and who even notify you if things get pushed back for some reason). If an institution is going to be secretive and sneaky with the process, it makes you think twice about wanting to work in that environment.

As an example, I had a phone interview with one school that was very vague about when they would make decisions regarding on-site interviews. Then I got a call 3 weeks later saying I was one of the top 3 and the administrative assistant would contact me in 2-3 weeks to make arrangements for a visit. Three weeks later I got an automated rejection letter from HR telling me the position had been filled; it was humiliating. I would hope such cruel behavior wasn't calculated, but I took it as a sign of a dysfunctional/uncongenial department at best. I would assume that department wouldn't have liked it if their strategy was 'leaked.'

In contrast, I’ve had other interviews where they have been very clear and upfront about the process, tell me my place on the list, and stick to the deadlines. I would assume they have no problem with the wiki because they keep everyone informed anyhow. Makes me want to work there even more….

search chair (guest) 14 Nov 2010 15:30

SCs are sometimes hampered in their ability to provide information because of college or university rules. In my case, the Dean's rules stipulate that I can't communicate anything until the offer is made. For this reason, I like the wiki—it's a way for applicants to know what's going on when I'm not allowed to tell them anything. New Dean this year, maybe new rules next search…

search committee veteran (guest) 18 Nov 2010 18:56

I like that this wiki exists. I think it helps both job applicants *and* search committees. We're doing a search of our own this year, and it's been useful for us to see what our 'competition' is and where they are in their searches. And I think it can be extremely helpful to the applicant, especially the more general questions about the interview process.

Our hands are often tied by the administration in what we are permitted to say and when. So I like that updates can be posted anonymously, so that applicants know what's going on, even if we're not able to make any "official" statement. The wiki can also be a way of spreading information in a more timely manner. For example, we are still in the process of printing out the rejection letters to the applicants not on our short list. The letters will go out within the next week or so, but applicants will hear sooner by looking at the status page of this forum.

tiur76iyt (guest) 10 Mar 2011 11:26

I just posted a brand new job ad for my university.
As someone who got my job last year, I think this is quite useful for a place to post and browse job ads. I wouldn't update our progress on the search, though, until we have the hire.

One thing to keep in mind is that the information for interviews, rejections, etc. is not always accurate. I think some people would find it very tempting to put false information out there to indirectly help their chances (even if by demoralizing others).

anon- social (guest) 10 Mar 2011 23:16

I do think it's possible that people might post false information but how on earth would that affect their chances, even indirectly? If you lie about having an interview, you still don't have an interview. If you say a school is somewhere and they're not, it's not like that school goes and changes their mind about what they're doing. I supposed people might not apply to other schools based on info here but that's their own fault because if you're not hearing anything then you obviously know you need to keep applying. All that to say, people might be mean, but if they're mean, it's also stupid.