Nexon's problem might be Harry Potter. Otherwise the academic market does seem capricious.

There are probably a lot of reasons I didn't get more interviews; indeed, I'm sure they were very good reasons from the perspective of the particular institutions I applied to. I do tend to side with Dan D. here, in that I think you can make a very good case for "global rationality." Of course, I say that having landed quite well, so 'grain of salt' and all that.

In fact, I'm not sure I would agree with Dan's implicit "networks" vs. "rationality" claim. As I'll write about in a follow up post, I think a reliance on recommenders and (even) phone calls is highly rational behavior given the paucity of good information in searches for junior-level positions.

My own thoughts on the Potter issue can be found here.

I've often heard it said that the only process more nerve-wracking than interviewing for a job is conducting the interviewer. I myself secured jobs on at least two occasions because I happened along after other applicants had been rejected and the people doing the hiring were desperate to get the process over with.

Knowing little about academic hiring, I just wondered this: is there any benefit to the career of an academic or university official who pulls the trigger on a really good hire? Does a hire that bombs damage the careers of the people who approved it?

"The academic job market, as I've witnessed it, is a globally rational but locally capricious system. Some people will undoubtedly slip through the cracks -- but on the whole, talent is recognized and rewarded."

Sorry, but neither DD nor DN has much credibility here. Both talented, well-pedigreed, and sitting in plum jobs. But there are lots of extremely talented people, people who even perform very well, who maybe aren't as well pedigreed or for lots of other reasons underplace. Hell, there's an entire underclass on the exploitation track who are probably neither adequately recognized nor rewarded.

I say this having recently landed a *gasp* dream job after toiling for several years in an underplacement. So it's not borne of bitterness. But I don't think DD or DN have much of a clue about what most job seekers are facing.

To follow up on anonymous' post: there's a risk of engaging in the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy vis-à-vis the "global rationality" claim. In brief, getting a job at a more prestigious institution leads, generally, to better resources which, in turn, leads to more productivity, etc. etc.

"The academic job market, as I've witnessed it, is a globally rational but locally capricious system. Some people will undoubtedly slip through the cracks -- but on the whole, talent is recognized and rewarded."

The first half sounds good, but the second half is more doubtful, for the simple reason that the supply of talented people is significantly larger than the number of 'plum' positions. Or perhaps the second part is true for large values of the word 'some'.

Um, if offers depend on interview performance, but access to interviews is controlled by an old boy network, than access to jobs is controlled by the old boy network. That is simple transitivity and borne out by 20,000 years of human experience. True, a specific individual who gets the interview may do poorly and be rejected. But the next interviewee in line will be selected by the old boy network, not by merit. The "by merit" people are only interviewed to make the statistics that must be turned in to the EEOC office look good.

Cranky

I'd have to concur that networking is alive and well. The one interview I scored for an adjunct position after getting my master's (and I applied widely) was with an interviewer whose son had attended the same undergraduate institution I had. I know other equally qualified people who applied for the position, and who wanted it just as much, who were not offered interviews. Surely two things worked in my favor: the interviewer recognized the name of J. Random Small School atop my CV, and he was able to ask his son if he knew anything about me. If it hadn't been for those two factors, I would have received the same "sorry, but" letter my colleagues got instead of the much more personalized rejection that came to me.

I'll take your workd for it that the market recognizes and rewards talent with some degree of accuracy, but there's a fundamental irrationality further down the ladder: Universities are creating more Ph.D.s than the market can absorb at the wage rates Ph.D.s are willing to accept. This appears to be less true in physical and life sciences and engineering, where there are many positions outside academia for Ph.D.s, but there are far more humanities and social-science Ph.D.s than can be absorbed into positions where a Ph.D. is a positive benefit.

This probably leads, if the hiring market is globally rational, to an increased quality of research professors over time, but does not help the egos of the bottom 80% of Ph.D.-holders.

"Knowing little about academic hiring, I just wondered this: is there any benefit to the career of an academic or university official who pulls the trigger on a really good hire? Does a hire that bombs damage the careers of the people who approved it?"

Yes and yes. We have hired some doozies, and everyone remembers who pulled the trigger on those ones.

"but there are far more humanities and social-science Ph.D.s than can be absorbed into positions where a Ph.D. is a positive benefit."

Not for economics. It is hard to hire for economics - there are not mnay excess bodies around.

"I'll take your workd for it that the market recognizes and rewards talent with some degree of accuracy, but there's a fundamental irrationality further down the ladder: Universities are creating more Ph.D.s than the market can absorb at the wage rates Ph.D.s are willing to accept."

On oversupply of PhD's would imply an oversupply of PhD programs, would it not? A little truth in advertising for PhD programs might be in order? And a little downsizing as well. Arguably a lot of research could be offshored to India or China and done a lot more cheaply.