A CALL FOR REDUCING THE COST OF THE JOB SEARCH (IN THE US)

an opinion by Oded Goldreich

Every year a cohort of aspiring scientists undergoes an extensively tormenting and time-consuming process called a job search. The process consists of preparing application materials, scheduling and participating in multiple interviews and visits, and finally negotiating with various officers. The purpose of all of this is to allow for a good matching of promising scientists and academic institutes, one that fits the priorities of both the institutes and the candidates. But do we assign sufficient weight to the cost incurred by the latter?

Writing the current text was triggered by reading Roei Tell's account of his job search, which focuses on advice he wishes to offer future generations of job searchers (in the US). While I was aware of the nature of this process, reading a detailed and graphic account of it and of the cost it imposes on the candidates did shock me. In particular, Section 1.1 in Roei's text is titled ``Prepare six work months, 5-10K dollars, and good walking shoes'' and estimates the aggregated work time involved at six months, on the average. I know and trust Roei, let alone that this estimate fits mine (while bearing in mind that there are exceptions). So the question is whether we want this to be the reality and/or agree to this being the cost of the process?

I am well-aware that the hiring decision is extremely important both for the department and for the candidate, but does it have to cost six months of the candidate's life?

I dare say that, as far as I'm aware, this is not the cost incurred by candidates who apply only to departments in Israel, although both these departments and the candidates view the hiring decision even more seriously that in the US (because moving between institutes in Israel is more difficult than in the US).

So what can be done about this disturbing phenomenon? I think the first step is to realize the magnitude of this cost, and to decide to act in order to reduce it. Such an action should be a collective one, since reducing the cost of applying to a single place is unlikely to have much effect, let alone that each place wants to be aligned with the others. So we need a collective decisions to act as well as some brainstorming on how to drastically reduce the cost of the process. Here are some tentative ideas.

• Facilitate submitting the same application material to all departments by not insisting on your own format. Provide only general guidelines regarding the format of the submitted material (e.g., CV+LOP, research statement, and optional teaching and DEI statements), while explicitly stating your flexibility w.r.t details.

  Furthermore, I think that few candidates have something significant to say regarding teaching and DEI, let alone something that is not visible in their CV. There is no point in having them search the web for things that decision makers like to read, let alone that many decision makers don't read these statements.
  Indeed, we should impose on the candidates only with requests that are essential to our evaluation. Such requests are cost-effective; others are not. Clearly, we need a CV+LOP, and a research statement that puts past research in perspective is often useful, let alone that a research statement is candidate-dependent. But there is no reason to insist on a specific format and/or length of the foregoing. Even providing guidelines may be problematic, because the candidates are likely to interpret them as a point in their favor. But maybe if the guidelines are suggested by the community at large, then the cost of following them would be much lower.

• There is no real benefit in having the candidate meet a large number of faculty members, let alone making a schedule that is full of meeting from morning to evening.
  In contrast, the candidates should meet only those who must meet them, and their visit-schedule should contain real breaks, allowing the candidates to be alone, reflect, and walk at leisure in the department or around it.

• Bargaining should be an exception, not the norm.
  The initial offer made by the institute should be the one that it expects most candidates to be satisfied with, and candidates should not be expected to negotiate it. Indeed, in exceptional cases, one should be allowed to negotiate, but this should not be the norm.

SOME REACTIONS AND MY ANSWERS TO THEM

• In contrast to what you say, DEI statements are taken very seriously.

  I assumed that they are taken seriously by some, and I guess that there is a social pressure on all to do the same. As I said, I think this is wrong. While DEI itself is important, having a statement about it, which is typically generated by reproducing various suggestions of others (from the web and from other sources), does not promote DEI nor serves any real purpose. Note that I also opposed teaching statements for similar reasons.
  Of course, there are exceptions, but these are typically visible in the CV, and can be addressed by a cover letter in case of real need. E.g., candidates may have a far more extensive teaching record than usual, or may have specific DEI issues or extensive activities wrt DEI. These are exceptions, not the norm.

• The material required in applications is quite uniform by now, and it does not take much time to adapt to the different departments.

  If you get into the details, then the requirements are not uniform, let alone that some places make quite rigid and unique requirements. For sure, a message saying that the format is flexible does not get through. In particular, if guidelines are provided, then it should be stated loud and clear that following them is optional and that one should not waste time in trying to fit the material to the suggested format.

• The process does not consume six months.

  The estimate of time investment is for the entire process, and it is based on accounts of the victims rather than on wishful thinking. The point is that the candidates try to optimize their chances, and they do follow advice as offered by Roei's text (and other sources). You may say that this optimization is not cost-effective, and I would agree with you, but the candidates don't. It is easy for me and you to say that investing 1/10 of the time and energy will only decrease one's chances by a few percentages, but the candidates don't see it this way and it is not clear if the decision-makers see it this way (see next item). Furthermore, when making this estimate one should take into account the emotional stress that causes candidates not to be time-optimal wrt the process.
  It is a fact that most candidates are getting into emotional stress, and consequently this process consumes 6 months of their life, on average. Indeed, in any case (i.e., no matter what we do), the process will consume much time and emotional energy. The point is trying to reduce the amount of time and energy wasted.

• Meeting many people during an interview visit is a major part of the process and can affect the outcome.

  It should not be so, in my opinion. One should judge based on the track record and its evaluation. We are moving away from this ideal with our current practices. (Indeed, the latter claim deserves a separate essay.)

• The time investment in the process has benefits: One gets the opportunity to summarize one's work so far and prepare a research proposal; one gets experience in presentation and discussion with a wide-range of individuals; and one gets the opportunity to disseminate one's work.

  This is all done under extremely stressful conditions, which, to say the least, is not the best setting for any of these activities.
  In general, I don't believe in forcing people to do things, let alone under such circumstances. In any case, wiping out six month of most candidates' lives is not a reasonable cost, whereas I believe that this is what the current process amounts to.

• It is not clear how you define the subset of individuals that the candidate should meet during the visit.

  This depends on the way the department operates as well as on the scientific profile of each candidate. That is, each department should decide who are the people that should really meet each of the candidates. My impression is that most meetings are quite useless, while some meetings are of some value, which is often overrated.

• It is not clear how to move to a no-bargaining situation in a competitive market.

  This is indeed a real problem. For starters, we should focus on advancing science not on a competition among departments (or individuals). We are not in a market place, we are in academia. More concretely, I was hoping that a communal decision adopted by a few central departments can lead the way. It may be naive, but there is no other way to change the world but to determine what is right and to try to promote it.