« Call for Nominations: AALS Administrative Law Section Emerging Scholar Award | Main | James Phillips on McCulloch and Gettysburg »

Thursday, August 25, 2022

Law School Hiring Spreadsheet and Clearinghouse for Questions, 2022-2023

I. The Spreadsheet

In the spreadsheet, you can enter information regarding whether you have received

(a) a first round interview at a school (including the subject areas the school mentioned, if any, as being of particular interest, and whether the interview offer was accepted);

(b)  a callback from a law school and/or accepted it; or

(c) an offer from a law school and/or accepted it; feel free to also leave details about the offer, including teaching load, research leave, etc. A school listed as "offer accepted" may have made more than one offer and may still have some slots open.

Law professors may also choose to provide information that is relevant to the entry-level market.  

Anyone can edit the spreadsheet; I will not be editing it or otherwise monitoring it. It is available here:

II. The Comment Thread

In this comment thread to this post, you can ask questions about the law teaching market, and professors or others can weigh in.

Both questions and answers can be anonymous, but I will delete pure nastiness, irrelevance, and misinformation. If you see something that you know to be wrong, please feel free to let me know via email, sarah*dot*lawsky*at*law*dot*northwestern*dot*edu.

You may want to take a look at the many questions and answers in the threads from 2014-20152015-20162016-2017, 2017-2018, 2018-2019, 2019-2020, 2020-2021, 2021-2022. In general, there's quite a cache of materials relevant to the law job market under the archive categories Getting a Job on the Law Teaching Market and Entry Level Hiring Report.

 

Posted by Sarah Lawsky on August 25, 2022 at 08:36 AM in Getting a Job on the Law Teaching Market | Permalink

Comments

@lateral my school has just started entry level screening interviews; we haven't even looked at the lateral file / applicants yet.

Posted by: committeemember | Sep 19, 2022 12:54:24 PM

On requests for job talk papers

Mmost candidates uploaded their job talk papers through the FAR. We only emailed candidates if they did not do that, and somebody on the committee wanted to see it. Many of those requests have not yet resulted in screeners, and many people got screeners without a request for materials because they had already uploaded it. Like the rest of the process, you can’t read too much into it.

Posted by: Hiring Prof | Sep 19, 2022 10:42:17 AM

"Being from a less privileged background is diversity in itself...Your personal background is a great thing to write about in the diversity statement, along with how that experience informs your teaching and scholarship."


Unless you're white, Christian, and poor... and it's a relational concept, to boot...

The first two tiers hire almost exclusively double-barrelled and triple-barrelled candidates, i.e., JD + PhD and/or fellowship and/or clerkship. Those CV sine qua nons require privilege: to do them, you need the time, resources (e.g., to not have to worry about covering basic necessities), and the ability to eat the opportunity cost of earning a significant salary during those years. Most of the less privileged can't even begin to afford becoming double-barrelled. Yet quite a few top schools require diversity statements.

Regardless, a great many candidates (the double-barrelled and otherwise), unlike their peers in other academic disciplines, lack significant teaching experience and publications; so their "diversity" often isn't (can't be) informing much of anything--other than their rhetoric in a compelled political statement. Claimed scholarly and pedagogical views informed by your background but not backed up by (much if any) ACTUAL experience with scholarly writing or teaching--the things that, you know, define most of the job--may be perfect for law schools, but are basically useless elsewhere.

How long will this charade last? Till the Chinese win this new Cold War?

Posted by: Ever and Anon | Sep 19, 2022 10:37:21 AM

@ever and anon: No, diversity statements do not require privileged experience. Being from a less privileged background is diversity in itself. If anything, it's more compelling than something like two years doing Teach for America or some other more privileged resume builder. Your personal background is a great thing to write about in the diversity statement, along with how that experience informs your teaching and scholarship.

Posted by: anon | Sep 19, 2022 9:01:36 AM

Regarding geographical restrictions, perhaps people should be asking whether there really are good reasons to perpetuate this (insider) norm, and, even if so, whether additional exceptions are warranted. To be frank, the norm doesn't help to undercut the notion of academia being cultish - law schools particularly.

Geography Matters: delighted to learn that you agree with your position.

Question: Are DEI statements somewhat ironic? Do they require that candidates have had the privilege of experiencing educational, professional, and volunteer opportunities (with diverse and under-privileged communities, say) that less privileged candidates might not have been afforded?

Posted by: Ever and Anon | Sep 19, 2022 2:09:18 AM

@xlv and @FAR from diverse. I agree that I am against trick questions, but I'm not sure that this is one of them. I've seen geography preferences play out in other employment settings (other than people going on the FAR), and the advice I've heard in those contexts is similar---to not list them unless the restriction truly is a restriction. If someone is truly restricted by geography, it's probably useful for them to say so up front. Theory being that it's ok if they don't get contacted by schools outside that jurisdiction because, well, the candidate is restricted. Thus, if a candidate says they can't work in Ohio, it seems reasonable to be ok with schools in Ohio passing them over.

@AnonProf---are you sure you aren't make an uninformed assumption yourself about whether candidates are "informed"? Can you say for sure that there aren't schools in Alaska that look at the FAR? Don't some Business Schools consult the FAR? Or perhaps there are some non-Alaska schools out there looking for a scholar who is willing to do some work in Alaska. You really don't know, do you? IMO schools that aren't located in Alaska shouldn't give any weight to someone saying they can't be in Alaska. Besides, if you make assumptions like that now, the candidates you pass over are probably better off avoiding the assumptions you'll make later.

Posted by: geography matters | Sep 18, 2022 10:31:52 PM

Agree with xlv. There should not be trick questions on the FAR. And I would hope the school that is dinging candidates on this question is only doing so for restrictions that are actually related to their school. However, the post makes me suspect not. Although I guess it's good that they did the PSA.

This whole process is discouraging.

What is the point in making candidates submit DEI statements if faculties are going to ding candidates on questions that are not substantive because they look "uninformed?" Are they really that committed to diversity? The candidates that are informed went to HYS or maybe schools like NYU that have substantial programs to make sure their graduates are informed.

Candidates that didn't go to these schools get advice to get a fellowship where they can learn these rules, and are often pointed to the Climenko or Bigelow as the gold standard. But if you look under the hood of those fellowships, you see that among current fellows more than half of those fellows went to HYS and only one went to a school other than a top 10. Given most of their CVs, it feels safe to say they would have likely gotten hired without the help of the fellowship.

Schools should be more creative in their hiring, and they could start by not dinging candidates for arbitrary reasons on their FAR.

Posted by: FAR from diverse | Sep 18, 2022 8:25:12 PM

If there is an unspoken norm that listing "geographic restrictions" will only harm you and/or make you look foolish, and people with insider knowledge are informed of this norm while people without such knowledge are not, surely we should get rid of the "geographic restrictions" question on the FAR form

Posted by: xlv | Sep 18, 2022 7:06:44 PM

@Laterals, I know my school has three callbacks for laterals lined up over the next few weeks, but it's a fairly specific search.

@lull, I hear you. Same for me. Movement early on and then a slow down. Not sure what it means, if anything, but my area is in demand so I'm hoping for some more screeners will come my way soon. Maybe this week is the week!

I definitely fluctuate between confident and nervous.

Posted by: Nervously confident | Sep 18, 2022 6:18:38 PM

@laterals - I'm an entry level candidate and I am also experiencing a lull after scheduling a few screeners early on. Maybe a lot of schools moved early, but there are still a good number of schools yet to move or are still contacting candidates? At least that is what I am hoping.

Posted by: Lull | Sep 18, 2022 6:04:16 PM

Any updates on lateral candidates this year? How is everyone doing with interviews? I've only gotten a couple screeners, no callbacks, and silence from most schools I applied to. I hear many schools don't get to laterals until later, but I'm getting worried...

Posted by: laterals | Sep 18, 2022 5:40:56 PM

I was asked for materials by lots of schools and only about a quarter of the time did it ever amount to anything. I think most of the. best schools asks for materials of most of the fellows and others, depending on what subject they may be looking for. So while it's a better sign than nothing, oftentimes you never hear anything.

That is what is also frustrating about this process; sometimes you don't hear back at all, even after doing a screener or callback. So don't be shocked if you do a screener and hear nothing - or get a form rejection in the spring.

Posted by: anon | Sep 18, 2022 3:41:44 PM

How far in advance of available callback dates do schools generally contact candidates to schedule a callback?

Posted by: Anon | Sep 18, 2022 12:45:24 PM

I got requests from UCLA and Stanford for materials, but haven’t heard anything else. Interviewed with UC Davis but no word yet on callbacks. Anyone else?

Posted by: Cal schools | Sep 18, 2022 12:21:04 PM

anon - I initially applied to Berkeley directly in addition to submitting the FAR form and received their email.

Wondering—I received an email from UCLA requesting my materials about 2 weeks ago, but have heard nothing since. Haven’t heard anything from the other schools you mention.

Posted by: anonym | Sep 18, 2022 9:26:00 AM

Curious whether the Berkeley email was just to those who could be a fit but hadn't already submitted an application through Berkeley's online portal. Did anyone who had already submitted their materials through Berkeley's application platform, as opposed to FAR, also receive one of these "candidate of interest" emails?

Posted by: anon | Sep 18, 2022 8:43:00 AM

I'm adding this comment as a PSA for those who go through the FAR next year. Please be smart in how you list geographic restrictions. Members of my committee dinged a lot of people for that this year. Mind you, not when the candidates said things like "hey, I can only work in these three states." But when they just listed an assortment of states they don't want to work in without any comments explaining those choices. A couple of people listed "Alaska," which doesn't even have a law school, making them look really uniformed. So, unless you can only work in a handful of states, in my opinion it's better to just list no restrictions at all and then decline the interview requests from places you don't want to work. I'm not saying any of these unwritten "rules" make sense, but I'm tired of seeing good candidates get eliminated simply because they don't realize how answering that question "incorrectly" can get them disqualified. So I mean this to be helpful.

Posted by: AnonProf | Sep 17, 2022 5:55:27 PM

I know there's reportedly 272 FAR candidates in total. Is there any way to know how that breaks down by practice area? (I'm personally applying for business law openings).

Posted by: Subject Areas? | Sep 17, 2022 4:36:24 PM

Thanks for this tip, anon @ Sep 16, 2022 5:33:16 PM! I heard that Berkeley interviewed later in the fall last year.

Has anyone heard from BU, Cornell, Georgetown, Irvine, UCLA, or USC?

Posted by: Wondering | Sep 17, 2022 12:57:31 PM

Count me as disagreeing, strongly, with HiringChair. At this stage of things, I think it's on the appointments committee chair to set up the talk in a place where the candidate is sufficiently distanced that the faculty is comfortable with the speaker not wearing a mask (although that is ultimately up to the speaker). And I agree with others that appointments chairs should be communicating with candidates about what they think the norms are at that school.

CB Candidate, it's hard to offer generalized advice, as it depends on so many idiosyncratic factors: How you feel about particular schools, how well you can assess the odds of getting hired at a particular place, your risk tolerance, your life situation in terms of potentially trying again next year, etc.

Posted by: Orin Kerr | Sep 17, 2022 5:45:25 AM

@holding out hope - I'm in the opposite situation in that several schools that asked me for my job talk paper haven't invited me for a screener. I got a request for my job talk from a top 10 school that felt wildly over inclusive to have reached out to me. Other schools I feel like I should be a competitive candidate and match their hiring needs but I haven't heard since the request for the job talk. If schools are interviewing candidates and I haven't heard, I assume I didn't make the cut so that maybe I can be pleasantly surprised in the event they do get to me.

I think the whole process is like a funnel. Schools will ask for job talk papers from more candidates than they screen. They will screen more candidates than they call back. And they will call back more candidates than they give offers to.

I can't say for sure in your situation, but the tea leaves seem to read that that school might not be the one for you.

Posted by: funnel | Sep 16, 2022 7:01:07 PM

@Wondering: Berkeley emailed first round “candidates of interest” earlier this week inviting them to submit the formal application to proceed to the next round.

Posted by: anon | Sep 16, 2022 5:33:16 PM

Does anyone have advice on how to deal with schools that have vastly different hiring timelines? I’ve received a few callback invitations, but some of the schools I applied to haven’t even started screeners yet. What happens if I get an offer before I know if I’m in serious contention at other schools? Is conventional wisdom to go with bird in hand and take whatever offer I get? Is it too risky to hold out? The callbacks I have are all lower ranked schools. I think I’m an OK candidate, but I hear most people are nowadays.

Posted by: CB candidate | Sep 16, 2022 3:34:21 PM

Any word on Berkeley, BU, Cornell, Georgetown, Irvine, UCLA, or USC?

Posted by: Wondering | Sep 16, 2022 3:30:51 PM

@HiringChair Your sentiment is every job candidate's worst nightmare. It's a secret norm, the violation of which you interpret as some sort of moral defect, which the job candidate is forced to guess. Even if mandatory masking everywhere were still the norm (which it is NOT), it is really quite vicious to assume that everyone accepts and shares your perspective. It's one thing if you ask a person to wear a mask, and they refuse. It's quite another thing entirely for you to expect them to deduce an uncommon preference, which you confuse for a sign of moral responsibility.

Posted by: maskagnostic | Sep 16, 2022 3:13:52 PM

If a school has asked some direct applicants for their updated job talk paper, is it correct to assume that direct applicants who haven't received this request are no longer in the running to be invited for a screener? (where all applicants had to initially submit the job talk paper)

Posted by: holding out hope | Sep 16, 2022 2:52:03 PM

I agree with @covidnorms. We are not mindreaders. I think hiring chairs should inform the candidate what the faculty prefers for callbacks. It is helpful. The candidate is trying to impress your faculty and could never know the norm within the school. Personally, I'll ask hiring chairs in writing what the faculty prefers.

Posted by: CurrentCandidate | Sep 16, 2022 1:16:17 PM

@anon prof

I 100% agree with you. HiringChair, does your school inform candidates that they want them to wear masks during a job talk? If not, it seems wild in my opinion to negatively judge someone for not wearing one. For better or worse, the fact is almost every American has stopped caring about Covid. I certainly don't wear a mask pretty much anywhere other than medical facilities at this point. I will, of course, wear one if there's an expressed desire for me to do so. However, it must be expressed. You're asking your candidates to be mindreaders if you want them to wear a mask but don't tell them.

Posted by: CovidNorms | Sep 16, 2022 10:14:55 AM

@Anon279 Macfarlane has claimed that accommodating disabled students is tantamount to a human rights violation because it "outs" their disabled status. On the same reasoning, she claimed that all people should be presumed to have every possible disability. Mind you, she didn't say this is what the law *should* require (already absurd), but rather asserted that it was what the law *does* require (she also claims to be an "expert" in disability law).

Let me guess her position on COVID protocols for callbacks: law schools should assume all candidates are immunocompromised by default. Claims like that are not constructive contributions to any discussion.

Posted by: grumpus | Sep 16, 2022 2:05:35 AM

People obviously have a wide range of perspectives on professional norms in our current stage of the Covid pandemic (do audiences mask but the speaker doesn't? does everyone mask? does no one mask? I've been to events in the past few months that fit each of these). Norms clearly haven't coalesced.
I think it makes sense for faculty to share local norms for callbacks, and I think it makes sense for candidates to inquire about local norms and to express their own preferences, etc.
I do think it is horribly unfair if faculty are judging candidates on *unexpressed* covid protocols given the unsettled nature of these practices. (And I'd extend that to attire during screeners too. When faculty are wearing t-shirts to Zoom screeners, I'm not sure it's fair to judge a candidate based on their attire. Norms are just too unsettled.) That's my 2 cents.

Posted by: anon prof | Sep 15, 2022 7:37:05 PM

While I understand that some of my colleagues do feel differently, I personally would be concerned about any candidate who wasn't wearing a mask during their job talk as it does show a certain recklessness and disregard for those who have health concerns. Just my perspective, for what it's worth.

Posted by: HiringChair | Sep 15, 2022 7:11:49 PM

Agree with anon below. Many faculty at my school, especially older faculty, yearn for a 100% in-person return of the good ol’ days when everyone was in the office all day every day. Many grumbles about people who join faculty meetings online or don’t join in social lunches. A minefield for candidates and unfair for those with health conditions.

Posted by: also anon | Sep 15, 2022 5:52:35 PM

I don't wish to up the anxiety level for covid-cautious candidates, but I think the questions around covid precautions are important for a perhaps non-obvious reason: the way they plug into a separate schism, over physical presence. I've had this conversation with colleagues at a few schools, so while it's anecdotal I don't think it's entirely unrepresentative.

Some perceive covid cautiousness to be associated with a preference for working from home. There's a faction on faculties now that's very eager to return to the status quo ante circa 2019 (or at least what they remember it to have been). Within a given group of faculty who share this perspective are many distinct motivations. Some are senior and grew up in a more physically present world or aren't as focused on scholarship, which can easily be done remotely; others hold a deeply-felt belief that daily physical presence is an essential property of a law school faculty. Others still are likely taking a cue from conservative politicians, who have polarized the question of covid cautiousness. Underneath all this are proxy wars that divide faculty along scholar/non-scholar, generational, and gender and other identity lines.

This creates a minefield for the candidate, who wants to avoid being seen to take sides in intramural disputes. Our students are going through a version of this in their interview processes and summer jobs as well (though perhaps less so, since most seem to be less cautious than faculty).

Disagreements here will spill over into hiring and other matters concerning the direction of the school. Unfortunately, I have no advice for navigating this beyond what's been suggested (outside dinners, etc.). I would hope that schools would be alert to this--in general, and to avoid drawing inferences that draw them into the danger zone re: disability.

Posted by: anon | Sep 15, 2022 5:26:10 PM

See Kat Macfarlane, arguing schools should provide disability accommodations during law school hiring: https://twitter.com/katamacfarlane/status/1556687119522881539

Posted by: Anon 279 | Sep 15, 2022 5:23:14 PM

@ Posted by: Disability Rights | Sep 15, 2022 1:50:06 PM and others - I think the idea of a post on this is a really good one. If someone would like to write one, email me (fine to do it from a throwaway email if you want to do so anonymously) and we can work out a guest post - if nobody emails me in a couple of days I will reach out to someone I know who might be able to write one.

Posted by: Sarah Lawsky | Sep 15, 2022 2:14:25 PM

Echoing the sentiments about covid safety: for all their representations about celebrating marginalized communities--including the disabled community--schools can do much more to create an environment that is welcoming and safe for everyone during callback interviews. The obvious and easy step is simply having everyone mask during the interviews, rather than forcing interviewees to choose between their careers and their personal health/the health of their families.

Posted by: anon | Sep 15, 2022 1:56:34 PM

This could also be a good topic for a blog post! I’m sure many prawfs have thoughts.

Posted by: Disability Rights | Sep 15, 2022 1:50:06 PM

Anoncall3’s question is important. Unfortunately most candidates will be expected to join in on social events. Depending on where the law school is located, you may stand out if you are wearing a mask indoors. Red states, small towns, and so on will likely have very few if any folks wearing masks indoors.

I expect many candidates will be afraid to disclose health issues or ask for accommodations like masking or outdoor dining. This is unfortunate, because it means that we will likely see disparate burdens for disabled and immunocompromised job candidates. This was always the case, of course, but even more so now.

Personally, if I were on the market this year, I would judge schools by their COVID protocol and whether they even mention the option for people with health needs to ask for accommodations. That would be a strong sign, IMO, that the school has faculty and staff who are knowledgeable about disability issues and at least somewhat care (or want to seem like they care). I expect most committees have not even considered this point.

It would be really impactful if some schools could agree on a standard together to protect candidates. Some statement on disability and health to set the tone for the hiring process. I’m not at one of the schools that could lead the way, but I encourage others to consider this.

Posted by: Disability Rights | Sep 15, 2022 1:37:36 PM

Hiring chair here passing through to see how we might improve our/the process.
Thanks for posting your thoughts and ideas. If you're curious about our process and my thoughts re some comments posted here,...
* UNLV is still scheduling/completing screening interviews but is also already scheduling callback interviews;
* We are considering/interviewing entry-level and laterals simultaneously; also, we are hiring for two slots and are considering hires for both of those slots simultaneously;
* I cannot imagine doing 85 screening interviews. When there was an IRL conference, my schools tended to screen ~25 candidates if we were hiring for a couple of slots. I would guess that is still roughly the norm, but that's truly a guess. Moving the screening interviews to Zoom screens make it easier to screen more candidates (because of the convenience), but also makes it easier ultimately to screen fewer (because we can proceed in stages without the need to plan for every contingency at stage one);
* Like commenter Brutus said, the elimination of the IRL conference deprives everyone of the anchor that tended to normalize the schedule. Know that schools, too, are operating mostly in the dark as to whether they are ahead, behind, or on pace, relative to everyone else;
* Schools are not inclined to reject anyone outright (or be fully transparent) because of uncertainty about how the process will play out from our end. There are dozens of (maybe the number is 85!) people who would be great law professors for the slots we are trying to fill. We focus our attention first on those whose applications jump out of the stack for whatever reasons. But if we need to go back to the pool that is, fortunately, very deep, then we don't want it to be so obvious that we screwed up by overlooking you our first time through;
* Yes, candidates should cancel callback interviews if they would not accept an offer from the school;
* Questions at callbacks tend to focus on particulars about your scholarship (asked by people who've read your work carefully). I am curious about why you want to be a law professor. Other questions are designed to probe whether you would be a good fit, given the culture, needs, and goals of the school.

Thanks to Sarah Lawsky as well as this and other blogs that improve the flow of information.

Posted by: Thom Main | Sep 15, 2022 12:50:10 PM

Also - what is currently happening at most schools around the social aspects of the callbacks with respect to covid precautions? I still wear a mask everywhere I go and have yet to eat indoors at a restaurant. Slightly worried about having to present my job talk to a room full of unmasked people and then invited out to dinner at a restaurant without outdoor dining.

Are committees asking candidates about preferences? Are they assuming candidates will voice their position? Are candidates put in the position of having to (in)voluntarily disclose any health concerns to the committee?

Posted by: AnonCall3 | Sep 15, 2022 12:45:27 PM

I'd like to echo the below question. Insight about how to best prepare for callbacks (beyond the obvious job-talk prep), would be very helpful!

Posted by: AnonCall2 | Sep 15, 2022 11:34:06 AM

Any insights into common questions asked during callbacks?

Posted by: AnonCall | Sep 15, 2022 4:24:45 AM

Orin, how do you think schools decide who to invite for callbacks if candidates haven't been interviewed by the same people, as in the multiple small interviewing teams format you describe? Are the screeners just sanity checks on those the school already wanted to invite for callbacks anyway based on application materials/recommendations, with a few runner-up candidates for good measure?

Posted by: screener speed dates | Sep 14, 2022 3:39:27 PM

@AnonHiringChair Granular information may be sensitive, but surely a school could just say something vague like, "Not finished doing screeners, have begun callbacks," or "Screeners completed." That would be super helpful. One need not be so brutally specific as to say, "First choice candidates moving on to callbacks; might start screening second string losers if first tier sucks."

Posted by: brutus | Sep 14, 2022 3:29:55 PM

The worst part of the hiring process is the degree to which candidates are kept in the dark. However, part of that is intentional as most schools put candidates in various categories (e.g., callback, alternate pool, presumptive decline, etc.) and they don't necessarily want candidates to know that they are in a secondary grouping as the committees fear it will cause the candidate to be less excited about the school. For instance, many schools openly lie to candidates about the timeframe, making them think the school is further away from making decisions than it actually is. After all, if you tell candidates that you're making decisions on a certain date, then those candidates expect to hear something on that date otherwise they assume they've been passed over. So many schools might say "oh we should know something in a couple of weeks," when in reality they are voting in the next few days.

It's a crappy system, but I very much believe that what I have described here is often at play. Thus I doubt many schools would add the kind of data to the spreadsheet that you are requesting.

Posted by: AnonHiringChair | Sep 14, 2022 3:20:05 PM

The (only) downside to the demise of the meet market is that there is no anchor point to normalize the schedule. Everyone is on a different timeline, and it's totally unclear whether a deluge of screener invites are on their way, or whether you've missed the boat on a much-desired school. It's more than just assuaging anxieties — much planning depends on knowing where schools are in the process.

It would be useful if in addition to the candidate spreadsheet and the committee spreadsheet, there were a third spreadsheet describing where schools are in the process of selecting candidates. I expect that would tend to benefit everyone, and I can't imagine why any schools would want that to be kept private. Alternatively, it could just be an additional column in the committee spreadsheet. Then again, I suppose this could just create more confusion if schools were not timely updating their status.

Posted by: brutus | Sep 14, 2022 2:56:37 PM

@new_to_academic_market Surely it is bad form to DO the callback if you KNOW that you wouldn't take a job at that school. However, it's also imprudent to cancel the callback simply because you have callbacks at other schools, since none of those are guaranteed to result in an offer. If you could plausibly see yourself accepting the offer, then it's not bad to have a backup — it could very well be where you end up teaching.

Posted by: brutus | Sep 14, 2022 2:47:50 PM

If you change your mind about a callback, it would be really inexcusable to note back out, IMO. The committee and the faculty have a super heavy lift when it comes coordinating each callback -- it would be crappy to put faculty through that if you've changed your mind. Trust me, they'll appreciate you letting them know (and they'll understand).

Posted by: AnonHiringChair | Sep 14, 2022 2:08:31 PM

Is it bad form to accept a call-back interview and later withdraw if other call-backs at preferred schools are scheduled?

Posted by: new_to_academic_market | Sep 14, 2022 11:59:49 AM

One more thought: Even pre-covid, the number of screening interviews varied by school. For example, when I was on the entry-level market, in the dark ages of 2000, NYU Law sent out a blast e-mail to all the candidates who had screening interviews with NYU. Whoever sent the blast e-mail didn't know the difference between cc and bcc, so they cc'd the entire list of interviewees and you could see who got an NYU interview. My recollection is that it was a very large list, somewhere around 70+ interviewees. (So come to think of it, maybe I have heard of 85 screeners!) The irony was that NYU had a reputation for hiring few if any entry-level candidates; the unconfirmed rumor was that they interviewed entry-levels just for information to see who might be an eventual lateral hire. And I don't think they hired any entry-levels that year. Anyway, point is, it was a really really large list of screening interviews.

Posted by: Orin Kerr | Sep 14, 2022 6:53:52 AM

I haven't heard of 85 screeners, but I have seen that Zoom can enable a larger number of screening interviews than occurred in person. For example, I know of at least one school that divided the first-round interviews among several sets of faculty. Each set included a mix of committee members and regular faculty, and each set interviewed only a portion of the set getting 1st round interviews. I assume that would have been difficult in-person, as it would have required flying everyone DC.

Posted by: Orin Kerr | Sep 14, 2022 5:58:38 AM

That’s all I have to say.

Posted by: 85 screeners, lmao | Sep 13, 2022 11:59:09 PM

AnonProf's 85-screener experience is (obviously) not necessarily representative, and I don't think they can fairly extrapolate to say that across the board, "getting a screening interview just means much less these days." We're doing a comparable number of screeners to what we did at the meat market. So, the number of candidates with a screening interview, like everything else in a post-Marriott-Wardman-Park world, will vary by school.

Posted by: Committee Member | Sep 13, 2022 8:32:00 PM

Unless you’re hiring for 8-10 vastly different lines, 85 screeners seems like a poor use of resources for the school and an incredibly unfair waste of the candidates’ time.

Posted by: Really? | Sep 13, 2022 6:12:14 PM

To add another data point on timing, some schools I applied to are nearly done with callbacks, while others have not sent our invites for screeners yet. Makes it hard for us!

Posted by: candidate timing | Sep 13, 2022 5:36:21 PM

85?! How do you ever convince anyone to serve on Appointments? Does your committee do nothing else for months?

Posted by: Insanity | Sep 13, 2022 5:33:16 PM

AnonProf,

85 screeners? For how many positions. How can you even remember everyone you interviewed?

Posted by: anon | Sep 13, 2022 2:47:21 PM

One thing that folks should keep in mind is that it used to be more meaningful to get a first round interview than it is now. Why do I say this? Well, when we had to interview in D.C., there was a limit to how many interviews we could schedule (usually around 25 max). But now, we can (and do!) spend weeks interviewing. My school did close to 85 screeners this year, yet we will have about the same number of callbacks as before. So, sadly, getting a screening interview just means much less these days.

Posted by: AnonProf | Sep 13, 2022 2:21:06 PM

@question: it means (roughly) there was a screening interview, and the person has been notified that they're not getting a callback.

Posted by: Another applicant | Sep 13, 2022 1:10:39 PM

What does the column ding after screener mean?

Posted by: question | Sep 13, 2022 12:58:45 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.