History News Network puts current events into historical perspective. Subscribe to our newsletter for new perspectives on the ways history continues to resonate in the present. Explore our archive of thousands of original op-eds and curated stories from around the web. Join us to learn more about the past, now.
Many job advertisements contain language similar to the following:
The Department of History of the University of Utah invites applications for a tenure-track assistant professorship in the History of the United States and the World. We prefer a scholar specializing in US relations with Asia, the Middle East, or Latin America.
My question is, how should a prospective applicant read this preference? Personally I think it means that if you specialize in a different area -- say U.S. relations with Europe -- your chances of landing the job are significantly reduced; and that is, in fact, the purpose of stating the preference: as"truth in advertising" and as a means of focusing the pool. My read is that only if a really exceptional European specialist should apply, or if the pool of specialists in the preferred areas proved disappointing, would the European specialist stand a chance.
Recently I have heard others, however, offer a different interpretation: that the preference may well exist only at the margins, and would come into effect only as a means of"breaking a tie" between a highly qualified European specialist and an equally qualified Asian, Middle Eastern, or Latin American specialist. I'm skeptical on this point, and therefore invite a reality check.
It's probably true that newly minted PhDs will apply for any job that fits their qualifications, and will ignore the clause regarding preference. But would this be the case if the ad were for a senior scholar. But would this be the case if the ad were written for a senior position; i.e., one intended to attract well-established associate or full professors? Would a distinguished professor, already ensconced in a good department, be likely to apply given the job description?
As a non-historian, I've been told to look at the recommendatons a bit differently. Using the "reccommendations available upon request" enables the applier to know if he is on a short list.
Also as an outsider, I would expect that a similarly worded application (tweaked for my field) would have a somewhat different result... I would expect to have to CHANGE my specialization to match the advertisment after being hired. How many historians would find this desirable?
Dan Todman -
7/20/2007
I can remember recent debates during which all these different points of view were expressed, and where I think we eventually avoided using 'preference' on the basis that we did genuinely want those who did not match our 'DQs' - as Jonathan had it - to apply.
My own point of view is that I think 'preference' would dissuade an established scholar, but that any really interested party would do best to make an informal approach and find out the lay of the land. That would also reveal the degree to which the department was able to put its own house in order and had actually thought about what it was doing.
I'm not sure that that informal route would be apparent - or attractive - to a new PhD, although they too would benefit from it. Better to focus your application power on the jobs that you can get than to waste it on a shotgun approach, and then get disheartened. This discussion has made me wonder about what skills we teach our new PhDs.
Steven Pierce -
7/20/2007
A slightly different spin from Rebecca Goetz's suggestion: whatever the reason, the search committee or department hasn't yet settled what specifically it's looking for. Absent a reliable source of inside information, I think it's a mistake to infer too much from an ad's text. Similar ads can emerge from very dissimilar department political situations, but it's mostly inscrutable to the outsider.
Mark Grimsley -
7/20/2007
I'm grateful to everyone who has taken time to respond. I've received a few more responses by email, too. All were from senior scholars and all but one said s/he would be less likely to apply for a senior position that specified a preference for a specialization other than their own. One respondent was quite emphatic on the point.
The historian who replied that s/he would not be deterred basically said that if the position were desirable, it would not be a problem to try and "draw to an inside straight."
Rob MacDougall -
7/19/2007
I meant to say "sellers' market," I think: there will be fewer applicants competing for a given senior position than for an entry-level one.
Rob MacDougall -
7/19/2007
...on a search committee, so take what I say with a grain of salt, but my impression, at least since returning to Canada, is that searches for senior positions are much more of a buyer's market than entry level searches.
Where an entry level search will almost always receive so many qualified applicants that even the most mildly-stated preference can be used to whittle down the applicant pool, it can be much harder to get a rich selection of senior searches, especially given the specificity of many department's needs.
The implication for Mark's question might be that in the case of an ad for a senior position, "prefer" actually means what it says: the committee can't count on meeting that criteria, but it's what they would prefer.
Jonathan T. Reynolds -
7/19/2007
Job ads offer a great window into how departments function (or not). Often there are struggles going on between various interest groups to get their preferences included in the add. Overall, I think that adds that are too broad or generic drive away all but the most junior and/or desperate of applicants. From my own perspective, I would now only apply for jobs that matched my research and teaching interests VERY closely.
On a side note, let me just say that being on a search committee is SO different from looking for a job that it simply boggles the mind. If only I had known then what I know now...
David E. Kaiser -
7/19/2007
For the last 35 years or so the job market has been wildly oversubscribed. Faced with 40 candidates for one position, search committees inevitably rely very closely on the specific text of the advertisement. It's the first step in their triage. Indeed, time after time, when the job asks for A, some one who has ONLY done A is preferred to some one who has done plenty of A, but also plenty of B and C. Breadth is death in today's job market.
In the example cited, the ad clearly states an aversion to any "Euro-centric" scholar. One supposes that various members of the department, firmly convinced that history has paid too much attention to white males, insisted upon this restriction in exchange for approving such a job at all They are most unlikely to turn around and accept a candidate interested in the Atlantic world (which happens to be the region that has actually shaped modern civilization, but never mind about that.)
Lastly, the term "the U.S. and the world" has been used (in one case this was explicitly confirmed to me) as a means of weeding out scholars who do any kind of traditional diplomatic topic, that is, government-to-government relations. Indeed, "international history" is to some extent a code word for the same attempt to define traditional approaches out of the historical profession. And as a result, future generations of undergraduates will learn nothing (at least from history departments) about questions of war and peace.
Rebecca Anne Goetz -
7/19/2007
Mark--if I were a senior scholar looking to move, I wouldn't apply for a job whose ad seemed to exclude my qualifications *unless* I were approached directly by the department in question and invited to apply. (A good senior search does this--runs an ad while also recruiting and inviting applications from desirable candidates.) With that in mind, senior search ads should probably be worded generously--you want to expand the pool of people, not restrict it.
On searches generally: when I see a list of desired subfields, I interpret it in two possible ways: one is Jonathan's--those subfields are a way to correct for what the department lacks, or the department is divided about what it wants and no one can agree what the department needs.
Mark Grimsley -
7/19/2007
Hi Ralph,
I'm awfully sorry--I should have used as my example an ad for a senior search, because that's what I'm driving at. You're right: just about anyone seeking a job would apply for a position in their field, not withstanding an expressed preference. But would the same hold for a senior scholar (associate or full professor) with regard to a position advertised at that level?
My own view is that in a senior search, an expressed preference for another specialization would most likely act as a deterrent. Even senior applicants are typically required to submit three letters of recommendation, which means asking for three favors from other historians. It also requires the composition of a fairly lengthy letter of interest and usually the submission of a sample of one's publications. That's a lot to do if the perceived chance of securing the job is low.
There's also the problem, from a search committee's standpoint, of wooing senior scholars to apply: "We'd be thrilled if you would allow yourself to be considered, but not as thrilled to actually hire you as we would a specialist in a different area or period."
A friend who responded privately to my query had an interesting take: He would, if possible, approach someone in the relevant history department and try to determine the extent to which the department was *really* interested in senior scholars who were not in the preferred area of specialization. Search committees have to report on the number of applications received, the gender and ethnic breakdown, etc., and the "all scholars welcome" provision could just be a device to pad those figures. It could also, of course, be perfectly sincere.
Ralph E. Luker -
7/19/2007
Mark, a) If I were "a distinguished professor, already ensconced in a good department," I suspect that I would not be applying for any assistant professorship elsewhere. Probably not even at Harvard, Yale, etc., because of the odds against an assistant professor getting tenured at those places and the likelihood that I would merely end up going back to "a good department."
b) If I were a U. S. and World historian with sub-specialties in U. S. relations with Europe or Africa and were I applying for jobs these days, I don't think that I would respond to this ad, assuming that Ohio State would be inundated with applications from young historians who met the preferred sub-specialty stipulation.
Jonathan Dresner -
7/19/2007
Mark,
I'd think you'd have served on more search committees than I had, at this point (counting adjunct searches, I'm closing in on double digits), but my experience is that "preference" usually indicates the area where the department is curricularly weak, but there's wiggle room.
Our ads usually distinguish between non-negotiable "minimum qualifications" (MQs) and negotiable "desirable qualifications" (DQs), and I'd read "preference" in this ad to be in the latter category. What this would mean for our searches would really depend -- which is to say, I don't think there's a clear rule one way or the other. In composing our short lists, we've usually gone for the best DQ match unless there was some manifest weakness in the pool that made promoting a strong non-DQ candidate into the first rank plausible.
Mark Grimsley -
7/18/2007
That fits with what I've heard from historians whom I've emailed privately, though I have checked with a human resources person and it is perfectly legitimate to employ the term "preference" or "preferred" even if the preference is exercised at the margins. I would be very curious to know what others think.
Claire B. Potter -
7/18/2007
A senior scholar would probably never be advertised for by subfield, because if you wanted a distinguished person, you would also want the greatest possible lattitude in choosing one from what would be a relatively small pool. With an entry level job, even with a "preference" for non-European, Utah will get 150-200 applications for this job.
I would have your read on it: that only an outstanding European specialist has a chance against weak candidates iin the preferred subfields.
