December is upon us, so it's been over a month since the AALS Faculty Recruitment Conference concluded at the end of October.
By now, common courtesy would dictate that hiring committees should have been in touch with candidates, providing them with an update on the hiring process. So which schools have failed to do so? We'll put them on our "naughty" list and forward it to Santa.
I did eleven initial interviews. Of the seven who did not call me back, NONE have offered any indication of where things stand.
Offending schools include (among others) Minnesota and UNLV. Really, people, there is no good reason not to give some indication of where things stand- none at all.
Temple, Florida State, Miami, Seattle, Missouri-Columbia, UConn.
From the five schools I met with at AALS, I've gotten two rejections and nothing from the other three. I'm assuming that no word from a school at this point is pretty bad news, right? Or is there a glimmer of hope that all their top choices will fall through and I'll get a call?
Case Western, Tulane
Richmond, UNC.
Shameful behavior that really ought to stop. There's no plausible reason to not send an update at this point.
I had ten interviews and have heard nothing at all from UNC, Univ of Louisville, Cincinnati, John Marshall, and Alabama. Really, people, you can — and should — do better than this.
I still haven't heard from a bunch of schools that I interviewed with at the AALS in the fall of 2000, a decade ago. Do you think I should give up hope?
Nah, Orin- keep believing!
(More seriously, though, I hope your point isn't that because schools have behaved badly for a long time, they shouldn't start behaving with minimal decency towards potential colleagues now, because that would be a really dumb point.)
In response to "waiting", I checked in with our appointments chair last night who confirmed that emails or letters have been sent to everyone Case Western interviewed in DC with an udpate as to where the process is with respect to their candidacies. In fact, our process is still ongoing and we don't have a further update for candidates at this point. If "waiting" would like to contact me offline (in case (s)he didn't receive our original communication), please feel free to do so and I'll follow up.
Univ. of Florida, Valparaiso
Seattle, Suffolk, SMU, shame on you.
As a one time market participant who still can't but hold a judgment against the appointment chairs who followed the lowest common denominator during my process, I would like to say that Jacqueline Lipton is awesome. I did very well by the market substantively, but basic human courtesy is trans-situationally an issue of character – not personal convenience or institutional norm.
Stetson, American (Washington U.), Texas Southern, and Ave Maria. All naughty.
Thank you for that comment, ProDecencyAnon. I'm extremely flattered. Appointments issues are difficult and time consuming for everyone and I'm happy if I helped in any way with your experience on the market.
Anon, I hope I am not making a "really dumb" point. But questions of decency are in part questions of social norms, and there is an ongoing norm in legal academia that not hearing over a long period of time is a ding. I don't like the norm myself, and I personally wouldn't follow it. But I think it's worth pointing out that the norm exists. Whether that point is "really dumb" is in the eye of the beholder, I suppose.
Orin- I think you're confusion the question of whether some behavior is common with whether it's decent. Of course lots of behavior is common, and can be understood, without being decent. And, lots of schools do manage to treat the people they interview decently, so it's not even as if this were a universal practice. Given that, I don't see how the fact that you were treated poorly (as you surely were, it seems) by schools in the past is of any relevance to whether schools should continue acting without minimal decency now.
Jacqueline,
Thank you for the followup. It was a pleasure to meet with you in DC. Perhaps my rejection letter got lost in the mail.
Another issue that you may or may not choose to address — the gossip among candidates was that CWRU was at AALS mostly for show, and is severely restricted as to hiring because of its dean search. So, I wasn't holding my breath for word from CWRU in any event, but I (and at least one other person I know who interview with you) haven't heard anything.
I just checked with another friend who interviewed at CWRU and was told that (s)he did receive a general "status" email from the school. Thus, I probably accidentally deleted the email (or in the case of a letter, it got lost in the mail). It does seem like CWRU has gone out of its way to notify candidates, and not just callback candidates.
Apologies for telling Santa bad things about CWRU, and many thanks to Jacqueline for clearing things up.
No worries, "waiting", and thanks for following up at your end. And no we were not in DC mostly for show. We are definitely in hiring mode this year. We just have a number of different areas we are focusing on and need to work carefully to put together a package of offers that best meets our curricular and scholarly needs.
"Don't be a jerk" is basic common decency. It's why we learned in kindergarten. It's what we (try) to teach our kids. "Please." "Thank you." " I'm sorry." And, finally, "Thank you for taking the time to interview with us but we have decided to hire someone else." Not so complicated. So, no, Orin, we shouldn't accept the "new norm" of rudeness.
In addition, the failure to communicate involves the omission to update candidates, but also ignoring the calls/emails of candidates who have the gall to try to comunicate with the admissions chair. It is all too common to never hear from them, even after calling after a properly lengthy wait in silence.
I agree with the comments above as well – common courtesy is a question of character, not of norms. If you can rise to the level of normal decency in human interaction, maybe you should chair a different committee.
Anyone, besides Orin, care to defend the practice of simply remaining silent? Orin, you don't seem to be vigorously defending the practice, but if you have more to say, I would be interested. To your current posts, I respond with a question parents often ask their small children "if your friends jumped off a bridge, would you?" Of the schools that did not call me back, a few sent short e-mails indicating that I was on their B (or C?) team. Those schools also mentioned that they would touch base in mid-December. While I definitely understand being busy, each e-mail could not have taken more than 5 minutes, and each e-mail was greatly appreciated. Also, academics should be careful about claiming to be "busy" when some of us BigLaw folks have stayed up for 72 straight hours, billed 100+ hours in a week, etc. That is busy. While I realize that I was probably dinged by the schools that did not contact me at all, it would still be nice to know for sure. While I strive to avoid holding grudges, I must admit to already thinking less of those silent committee members and their schools. Communication in situations such as these is common courtesy. I cannot think of a good excuse for remaining completely silent and not sending a two sentence status e-mail or rejection.
Naughty: Buffalo, UNC, Vanderbilt. Nice (rejection or notification of status): Loyola-LA, Mercer.
I now know that if you have not heard from anyone it is of course bad news. But I didn't know this until this year when I actually sat on a hiring committee. One caveat: sometimes schools will put candidates on "hold" until their top choices go through callbacks. So if you have not heard from a school, it MIGHT mean that you are on hold.
Having said that, I went through some pretty amazing instances of discourtesy in my years as a candidate. I remember having phone calls to committee chairs go unreturned in April- not December, mind you, but APRIL! (And no, I'm not telling you who!)
Michael,
Are you now more forthcoming with candidates due to your experience?
Why don't schools notify us sooner? And what if we have had callbacks, but have not heard. Should we give up hope?