Asking for feedback from a search committee?

In our new "how can we help you?" thread, a reader asks:

Is it ever okay to ask a hiring committee (e.g. the chair) for feedback on your job market materials if you were denied an interview? Here's the scenario I have in mind: a school posts an ad which is a very good fit for you, you spend a significant amount of time on your materials (e.g. tailoring cover letter to the job, etc.), but they don't even interview you. In that situation, is it okay to ask the hiring committee for feedback and advice, purely in the spirit of trying to improve your materials? Or is that too much of an ask?

Hmm...I've heard of people asking for feedback from committees that interviewed them, which I'd be curious to hear people's experiences with. But I don't know if I've heard of people asking for feedback when they weren't interviewed.

What does everyone think?

Comments

[Search Committee Member]

I wouldn't. Search committees get hundreds of applications and asking them to go back and look at your specific application and give you feedback is annoying.

Having been on a committee this year, most applications were rejected either because they weren't actually in the right subject area or because the applicant had no/few/poorly-placed publications.

Furthermore, each committee is looking for something different so the feedback you get is likely to be generic adn something anyone could have told you (e.g., not enough publications) or overly specific (we wanted someone in philosophy of physics and ethics even though we didn't write that in the ad) and therefore not useful.

[don't be too optimistic]

I asked a few committees long ago - 1990s - and I did get some helpful feedback. In one case, the chair of the committee said I had a strong file, but I just needed to publish more. (I think it was my first year on the market). BUT ... things have changed. People have gotten more litigious. So when I was working at a State College, we were told by HR to say NOTHING to candidates who were not offered the job. HR did not want anyone having any grounds for making a fuss. State Colleges in particular are fearful of this, and the state I was in did not support the colleges well, so they could not afford to be faced with legal action. So I would bet that you would have a hard time getting feedback. With that said, sometimes one of your advocates can get information that is helpful. In my case, two months into the first semester, one place that interviewed me, and did NOT hire me, said to my letter writer, we made a mistake with the person we hired. It did not do me much good - I still needed a permanent job.

[Anonybons]

I would echo the first comment above. Search committees can get many, many applications and they have to do all sorts of work to run the search. I wouldn't ask people to do extra work like this. Furthermore I don't know that it would be that helpful since the next job you apply for will (likely) be at another school and people read files differently, and so what you learn might not generalize. If you want advice I would ask your advisor or something.

[marketeer#9999999]

I would absolutely not ask for this feedback unless I was one of the finalists. Asking for this kind of feedback without having even received a flyout seems presumptuous -- to say nothing of asking for this feedback without even having made it to the first-round interview stage. Imagine if the hundreds of candidates who apply for each job started requesting this information from search committees...

[The Real SLAC Prof]

No, that's never OK. Hundreds of people who think they are perfect matches apply for jobs and are "denied" interviews.

A potentially unpopular hot take: you seem to be edging close to an attitude of entitlement. I understand that the job market is horrible and brutal, but you are not entitled to an interview no matter how much time you spend on your materials or how close of a fit you think you are for the job. I understand that you are not explicitly stating that you are entitled to these things, but the question and some of the language used expresses this attitude to my ear. For your own sake, I would encourage you to rein yourself in. The perception of an entitled attitude (which is different from self-confidence) can actually make it much harder to get a job.

Having said that, you are entitled to feedback on your job materials from your graduate program. I hope you will reach out to your advisor or other mentors if you are struggling on the market.

[Marcus Arvan]

@The Real SLAC Prof: I disagree with the hot take, in that I don't think the OP asked the question in any kind of presumptuous way--they mostly just seem perplexed, which I think is reasonable (particularly for someone who might be on the market for the first time / may not be aware of just how many "perfect fit" applicants apply for the same position, rendering it impossible for most of those candidates to be interviewed).

That said, I thought it important to share your comment, as the OP should probably be aware that hiring committee members might have such a negative reaction.

[rein it in]

@The Real SLAC Prof, another form of entitlement is reading an entirely tone-neutral question from a vulnerable junior member of the profession in what is perhaps the least charitable way. OP does not claim to have been entitled to an interview request they did not receive, but is asking a genuine question about the norms concerning a hostile, strange, alienating process.

You might consider taking your own advice: rein it in, and don't take yourself to be entitled to what you haven't earned.

[tenured prof]

I would say it's definitely too much to ask. Depending on how work is allocated in the committee, not every member of the search committee might have even read your application. In any case, you'd be asking them to do extra work, and it's work of the kind that your advisors in your home department should be doing for you, as TRSP says above. If you interview on campus and don't get hired, then you could ask for feedback from the chair of the department, but otherwise I would suggest you learn to cope with the disappointment like the rest of us.

[whatever]

Ascribing entitlement from a position of power is probably not something one should be doing; it's also probably self-deceptive to think you yourself are not in fact expressing your own secret feeling of having been entitled to your job when you tell others not to come off as entitled. Why is it always senior folks who like to tell us junior folks not to sound entitled? Weird vibes.

[recently hired]

There's no point in asking. Most likely you'll just annoy someone, lessening your chances for the next time they have a job. Even if you get a response, it will be useless.

It happend to me more than once that I was offered feedback (without me asking) after being longlisted or shortlisted and then rejected. I thought this was very kind, but ultimately useless. The feedback I received (exclusively verbal, nothing in writing) was very carefully phrased and each time I thought I was not getting the full story anyway.

For example, in one case I sussed out long after the fact that there was just one person on the committee who did everything to torpedo me. But because the chair (who offered feedback to me) couldn't disclose this as the acutal reason, the feedback also wasn't informative.

I also sometimes ran into people from places I applied to at conferences, and sometimes they'd say something. None of it is ever useful, it is all just disheartening -- they went with someone more specialized, or more broad, or more experienced in this or that. The only thing I learned is that great fit and polished materials aren't a guarantee of anything.

One reason you don't get interviewed is that there's just another person on the market in your exact area and who's just a notch above you in some way. Since there's always competing interests on hiring committees, it is unlikely that two people with very similar profiles both get interviews. So this person just ruins your whole life. But nobody is going to tell you this.

Another reason is that there's a secret requirement that cannot be legally in the ad. Or it just so happens that the committee members all tacitly agree on a requirement but didn't think to put it in the ad. Or that the committee composition changed after the ad was posted and they didn't stick very closely with it. Or that one of your letter-writers is not trusted by someone on the committee. Or they just reject everyone from your school outright because of some ranking or prejudice. Or they already pre-determined who they want and they don't want people on the shortlist that outshine that person (that's my favorite lie to tell myself).

It's all a crapshoot, and nobody will ever tell you the real reasons. The only thing you can do is keep going at it until you are the lucky one.

By all means, however, get feedback from someone about your application materials. If your department does not have a placement committee, ask your advisor.

[OP]

OP here: I was clearly not suggesting that I'm entitled to an interview/job. My PhD granting dept does give feedback on market materials, but I have found much of that advice unhelpful/not true to the market as I've experienced it. As a result, I was simply curious about other possible sources of feedback. Very clear now that this shouldn't be sought from a hiring committee, though.

[The Real SLAC Prof]

Well, I anticipated that my response would be unpopular! Nevertheless, I stand by my assessment.

If you know that hundreds of people are applying for philosophy jobs (the last search we did had over 600 applications), you shouldn't characterize not getting an interview as being "denied" an interview-- you simply didn't get an interview. And you should also be able to appreciate that out of the hundreds of other applicants, some might just be better qualified for the position. I don't understand how someone could wonder if they should seek feedback on their application from a search chair under these conditions unless they think they are somehow deserving of special treatment that the 599 other applicants do not have a right to.

Over my years in the profession, I have seen a lot of ways people end up hurting themselves on the job market. My only motivation in commenting on this blog is to help people make better decisions. While it might be "friendlier" to refrain from pointing out certain problematic attitudes when I see them, is it really a kindness if what I perceive as entitlement ends up costing someone a job down the line?

[Marcus Arvan]

Moderator’s note: I’ve let some pointed comments through in the interest of not prematurely squelching potentially helpful discussion. But I want to remind everyone that this blog’s mission is to provide a supportive forum. Preserving that as moderator can be difficult, as there can be real uncertainty on exactly what the right balance is. So, I’d like to ask commenters to be mindful of the blog’s mission moving forward in this thread. Thanks.

[Daniel Weltman]

I think it's okay to ask for feedback. People can always say no. It's not as if you're demanding anything. However, 1) the feedback if you got it would be useless (for reasons noted above) and 2) asking is likely to annoy people who think it's not okay to ask (for reasons noted above). So, don't ask.

[Humanati]

I'd advise against asking the search committee for feedback if you didn't at least make the cut for the initial Zoom interviews that some departments do prior to fly-outs. Reason (1): It's not commonly done, so people may potentially make inferences like SLAC Prof above--e.g., that the requester is entitled, or perhaps naive. Reason (2): as someone who's been on search committees who have to sift through 100s of applications, we often have to take people out of the running simply because there are so many other people who are more competitive. Tragically, it's not enough to be a 'perfect fit'; you also have to be a more perfect fit than so many other people are.

[OP]

@The Real SLAC Prof: You understand that applicants are in a position of ignorance regarding how many people apply for a specific job, right? If this information is conveyed to applicants at all (and in my experience it usually is not) it is offered in a rejection email at the end of the process, many months after applying. If that message was sent to me and it said that 600 applications were received, then of course I wouldn't ask for feedback. But again, applicants are frequently in the dark when it comes to this kind of information; I would have thought that that was obvious. There are also desirable positions out there that don't receive anywhere near that number of applications. To assume that that's the kind of job/applicant pool I had in mind when asking my question is uncharitable towards me, to say the least. My question, once again, was not coming from a place of entitlement. I was simply curious about possible sources of feedback for one's market materials, "purely in the spirit of trying to improve one's materials", as I said in my initial post. The question (and it was just that, *a question*), was is it ever okay to *even ask* this kind of thing. To read entitlement into that in the way that you are doing is beyond unreasonable. I really do think that you are the one who needs to rein it in.

[The Real SLAC Prof]

I think we can all assume that most TT positions will receive at least 75 applications and many positions receive 500+. Even if there are "only" 75 applications, you should not be asking search chairs to offer you personal feedback when you don't get an initial interview. And people can express attitudes in all sorts of ways--including in the questions that they ask.

With all advice, people should take what is helpful and leave the rest. I will tell you that the way one comes across can definitely cost applicants jobs. I've seen this multiple times, and it is worth thinking about if one is not having success on the market. I am confident that emphasizing these sorts of soft skills is part of the advice that top departments are giving top candidates. If people want to come at me for directly pointing out something that applicants can alter which could help them avoid alienating search committees and therefore increase the possibility of securing employment, OK. But I'm not really sure what purpose it serves; I thought one of the points of the blog was to provide advice that could help people succeed on the market, not just exchange wholesome bromides that leave unaddressed real problems that could cost candidates jobs.

[tenured prof]

OP, I didn't interpret your post to be entitled, but I can see why TRSP sees it that way. I was on the job market for many years before I landed my current position and, when the searches reported how many applicants they had, they ranged from at least 200 to over 1200 applicants. The job market isn't a meritocracy, and even to assume that you deserved an interview--when you say you were 'denied' an interview, it comes across as if the consequence for you should have been an interview--it seems like you're assuming you're a better candidate than at least hundreds of other people. It also gives a bit of the vibe of when a student gets an A+ on an assignment but not 100% and then they complain about the grade they got. It's also important to note that what's written in the job ad might not reflect precisely what the committee members are looking for but didn't write in the ad. So, even when we're a good fit for the job as described, the committee may not take you to be a good fit for what they're actually looking for. Again, I'd suggest you reach out to profs in your home department, and any other academics in your life who are serving as mentors, for advice on your job materials to make them the best possible, but members of search committees do seem to want the candidates to appear to have some humility, because the search committee has all the power when hiring candidates who don't already have another tenure stream position or at least an offer for one.

[it's just a lot]

For what it's worth I've never heard of a search at an R1 that had fewer than 150 applications (when it's an area with fewer candidates, e.g. AI or non-western), and much more common is 300 plus (when it's a broader area, e.g. "ethics" or "epistemology" or "philosophy of science"). We know that some open searches are getting 850 applications (Mike Titelbaum posted that about the Madison search). I don't think it's a great mystery how many applications places are getting--the answer is pretty much always just "a ton". (Possible exceptions: jobs that are hard to find advertised, community college jobs, jobs with 4-4 loads in places that are perceived to be miserable to live in... but I bet even these are getting quite a lot of applications.)

[Exhausted committee member]

HR would never allow us to respond to such emails, and I can't envision a scenario where, even if we could, such requests would do anything but annoy us. All our faculty are already overburdened with administrative/service work, and asking them to go back and review rejected applications and then write an email that was sufficiently well-worded to give useful feedback while not getting themselves into trouble is asking a lot

We regularly receive similar emails from applicants not admitted to our Grad Program, and nothing we'd be permitted to say would be of benefit, even if we had time to go back through the applications again.

[OP]

Apologies for perhaps letting a few words slip into my initial post which may have suggested an attitude I genuinely do not hold, but I would have thought that people on this blog would be a little more understanding of how frustrating this process can be from the applicant's perspective. I'm sorry that you have a lot of applications to read; but there are people on the market who have rent to pay and mouths to feed, and they are often in a situation where it's unclear how they are going to do that. In imagining a situation in which I am "denied" an interview, I am *not* in anyway suggesting that I am a better candidate than hundreds of other people (as tenured prof has suggested). If a poster can't assume the most minimal level of charity in asking a question, then I'm not sure how this blog is supposed to serve its purpose.

[the value of feedback]

Is there really any point in getting feedback from a committee? It seems that whether you get denied an interview depends a lot on that peculiar committee and their preferences, given that there are just so many excellent candidates. Were you to revise your materials with a specific committee's preferences, could you be risking another interview denial by a different committee which would've really liked your original materials?

[Patrick Lin]

Having chaired several search committees, I'd say it's ok to ask for feedback, but I wouldn't expect anything useful or anything at all.

The top reason for this is that Human Resources is now closely involved with every search for liability reasons (incl. discrimination claims), and they wouldn't allow such feedback to be communicated to the candidate because it's an unnecessary risk for the school, e.g., if you feel aggrieved.

Every member of the search committee knows this or should know it, as this is possibly a fireable offense, depending on the org. So, your asking would show that you're not familiar with how academic hiring goes ... which might be ok since you don't have anything to lose at that point (and I'd hope that wouldn't be held against you in future searches with them, if you're a new-ish PhD).

If you have a good colleague in the interviewing department, perhaps they can covertly and unofficially give you feedback. But I assume this isn't the case for you (the OP), in which case there's nothing to be plausibly gained ... so why ask at all?

Best of luck on the job market. Sadly, I don't expect it (or anything) will ever get easier, only harder. :(

[OP]

@Patrick Lin: thank you (and to others) for the point about HR prohibitions vis-a-vis sharing any feedback/info with applicants. This is the kind of thing that is actually helpful from the perspective of someone who's on the other side of this process. It is also, to my mind, a legitimate reason to not reach out to a hiring committee chair/member (as opposed to something like potentially annoying them, which isn't).

[My two cents]

I want to weigh in on the issue of tone and feedback to say that I appreciate hearing perspectives like TRSP's. Fwiw, I'm junior, non-tenure / suffering on the market, and I also read the original question as potentially giving off an entitled vibe. None of us is above sub-conscious entitlement; it also doesn't mean that there was any entitlement at all just because what was written came across to someone like that. Look, I bristle when I read "tenured prof" tell someone on the job market to "learn to cope with disappointment like the rest of us." But I at least learn something *about* such people, and just maybe I have something to learn *from* them, too. I find the responses that sometimes come up on here, dismissing someone's opinion due to positionality, totally out of place. Speaking for myself, I find the mission of this blog best served when readers are forthcoming with their views, so long as they are stated respectfully (and I thought TRSP's was). Of course, I get that this cuts both ways and appreciate that OP and others might express a different sentiment.

[Jakub]

I'm surprised how many people try to discourage the OP asking for something that should be provided by default. Yes, in some countries (that value transparency) people are entitled to get every information an institution stores about them. This includes the reasoning why they didn't make it to an interview. There must be the minutes from the search committee meeting. -- Of course, I'm describing an ideal world that doesn't exist.

I do not believe that the primary reason candidates should avoid asking search committees for feedback is the fear of annoyance or potential penalties in future applications. It is actually illegal to penalize individuals for seeking feedback. Often, candidates are rejected for reasons that could lead to lawsuits or are outright illegal. This is likely why many institutions prohibit providing such feedback.

[Santa's helper]

OP
Not to create extra work for Marcus, but if you want feedback on your application package, you can arrange through Marcus, to send it to me. I will read it and give you feedback. I have done this before for others (and at least once, mediated by Marcus).

[tired]

@Jakub and others: I think sometimes there is a mistake that is made on the part of (reasonably upset and stressed and angry!) job candidates in thinking about academic labor more broadly.

Often on this blog you see the attitude: anyone with a tenure track job has "made it" and thus owes the rest of us... endless work hours.

But in fact, your goals align with ours (the elite/tenured/etc.) in the following respect: you actually shouldn't want us to do endless volunteer labor for our institutions. Our institutions exploit us AND they exploit adjuncts, lecturers, etc.; it's all part of the same equation.

Given this, I truly don't think that some people are getting just how much work a search is, that that is work that falls under our 30% (or whatever) of our contract that is "service", but that tenure-line faculty are often truly maxing out and then going way, way beyond that 30% if they are doing things like running searches.

I think a balance needs to be struck here. I absolutely think that tenure line folks need to devote some of their time advocating for graduate students, adjuncts, etc., especially at their own universities but also in the global profession. I think there is a moral demand that they use their protected voice to speak up about the structural problems.

What I don't think is a good use of their (our) time is being beholden to each individual job applicant who might want to know more about their situation, and then having the reasoning be "well you have a fancy job and I don't, you've won and I haven't, so stop complaining about the additional labor you are doing". In fact, the adjunctification of higher ed has ALSO made things worse and worse for tenure line faculty (just think about JUST how much service we are doing, and the fact that adjuncts aren't doing that service, as our departments shrink); what you should want, structurally, is for tenure line faculty to steadfastly refuse to do more service than their contract allows for, so that the university can see that it can't keep exploiting people in this way.

So, no, it is not a good use of tenure line faculty's time to give feedback to individual job candidates. It is a good use of their time to advocate for actual change/policies/etc. that benefit those not on the tenure track. But it's a mistake in reasoning, if you want tenure line faculty who are in solidarity with you, to think that what we should be spending our time on is individual feedback about job applications. Indeed, it is a mistake in reasoning to think we should be spending more of our time on anything that is technically service to our university, and that that is somehow justified by the fact that we won the lottery and you didn't. Instead, we should all be working together to change the horrible working conditions of higher education more broadly. Individual feedback on job applications is not the way to do that.

[OP]

@tired and others: what's frustrating from my pov is the suggestion that merely asking something like the above is an indication of entitlement, or an expression of unreasonable expectations vis-a-vis committee members. It isn't. You are free to say no. I think saying no is reasonable for many reasons, some of which were stated above. There is no expectation that committee members will engage in endless hours of charity work, personally mentoring hundreds of applicants. As I made clear in my question, I realize that this is an ask. My question was is it ever okay to even ask, and if so, under what circumstances. If it's never okay to ask, then fine, question answered. However, don't come at me as if just asking the question reveals some kind of unacknowledged sense of entitlement on my part. The sentiment, expressed by many in response to my initial question, of "that will annoy us so don't you dare, and it may hurt your chances of a job with us in the future" is outrageous and unreasonable.

[being practical]

@OP if it is normal that people will be annoyed by such requests isn't it wise to not email people even if in a kingdom of ends people will not be annoyed and would answer your request? Or are we asking whether it is OK to ask given perfect rather than realistic circumstances?

[tired]

I didn't do any of that at all, for what it's worth. I never said "don't ask". I never "came at you". I never expressed any of the sentiments about being annoyed or the "don't you dare" sentiments. I just tried to explain why I think it's a mistake for job applicants to think this is the right use of faculty's time. And as I thought I made clear, my response wasn't even directed at you, it was directed at the further discussion of the issues in the comments.

[OP]

@tired: I wasn't attributing those points to you. Those were points that others have said/suggested. Apologies for the confusion.

@being practical: After the responses here, I will not be reaching out to chairs/committee members under any circumstances. Obviously, I was asking whether it was okay to ask under actual and not ideal circumstances (I'm not on the counterfactual market). I didn't think it was an unreasonable or problematic question, but some seem to disagree.

[tenured prof]

@My two cents, thanks for the reminder about positionality. I hadn't posted on this blog in a while, and so it hadn't occurred to me that job seekers asking for advice might dismiss my advice just because it's coming from someone with tenure. It could be that many people on here aren't aware of the gauntlet that many of us, now in tenured positions, went through. I spent several years on the job market and was rejected from hundreds of positions before I got my current job. When I mentioned coping with disappointment, it's because I do think academia involves more disappointment than 'success'. Even journal articles tend to be rejected from one or more journals before they're accepted at another. Again, the rejections tend to be far more numerous than the acceptances. As for whether it's okay to annoy faculty members, I think this may be a generational difference. I've had grad students who don't seem concerned about annoying or even offending members of committees deciding on fellowship awards or conference programs, even when it could lead to worse outcomes for those students. When I was applying for tenure-track jobs, there were times when I would reapply to a university, when a year or more down the line they advertised another job. Why would I want to annoy them when I want something from them? Again, this may be a generational difference but, if you want something from people in older generations, then I think it's a good idea to learn the soft skills TRSP talks about above.