Two Body Problem and Spousal Hiring
When I was the academic VP at Pomona College, I would frequently encounter job candidates facing the two-body problem. A wonderful woman candidate in science applied, and she looked impressive to her department, but unless her partner got a position in the LA area, she would reject the offer. Or, a wonderful black candidate, Asian American candidate, or Latino candidate would appear with the same type of comet tail: a partner who needed a position. I tried to network to find opportunities for partners who were not in academia. The neighborhood colleges networked to try to open doors. We split a position or two, at the candidates' request.
Hiring a spouse to help with successful recruiting of the other spouse is an exceptional hiring process. It keeps the extra position from being posted to the public. Open applications are not accepted for it - it's internal to the recruitment offer. I feel worse about spousal hiring now than I once did, possibly because the job market is so bad in academia today. But I wonder what you think. Is it ever justified to hire, let's say, a white male partner to get a woman scientist who is outstanding in both achievement and contribution of diversity?
A. Yes! She needs that support and the cost is far outweighed by the benefit of the hire.
B. No, these kinds of hiring packages exclude others from job opportunities
C. It's worth it if it adds value to the institution, but not worth it if the partner adds nothing.
Hi,
Does anyone know of a model contract for a husband and wife team who want to split a job 50-50? We want to do it but the places we've applied don't have any experience with doing this.
Hi "logical",
I think you have a strong argument for spousal hiring: it can indeed increase institutional loyalty. I'm still mulling over whether or not that trumps making the slot available to another woman in science. I suppose if I were still dean, I'd have to decide on a case by case basis: how much does the department need diversity? How good a fit are both partners?
cheers,
Laura
In an article in the Chronicle of Higher Education, David A Bell, former academic dean at Johns Hopkins University said, "My experience in the dean's office confirmed my impressions as to the need for spousal hiring. Johns Hopkins simply could not have built its faculty without a willingness to create positions for spouses and partners.
In case after case, that willingness was, by far, the single most important factor in recruitment. We could increase a salary offer by tens of thousands of dollars a year; provide lavish research accounts; promise a scandalous number of sabbatical leaves—none of it mattered if it meant that a candidate still faced the prospect of a long-distance commute or a major professional sacrifice by a spouse."
That's pretty similar to my own experiences as dean at Pomona College. But still, times have changed, academic positions are fewer and more competitive, and I'm no longer quite so sure it's a good idea to shut out good women and minority applicants. At Pomona, many positions have been created recently for white males. I love some of them dearly, but still!!!
cheers,
Laura
I go with C. I think spousal hiring is an important tool in a school's arsenal with respect to hiring diversity. Of course, a spouse should not be hired unless he/she has something to offer. That is not good for anyone. However, if there is a qualified spouse in a field of interest I strongly support using modified hiring procedures. Scripps now has a "Target of Opportunity" process that provides a detailed procedure for any department to follow in such cases. This procedure requires input and acceptance by the departments involved, the APT and the FEC - making sure that the candidate is widely accepted. There was a great article in the Chronicle last year about exactly this topic. If I can find it, I will post the link.
Hi Laura--agreed most women in science have a partner who is also in science. The second biggest profession we marry is in mental health...I won't comment on that one.
This partner choosing is more true in the physical sciences where women are outnumbered more than 3:1, in some cases 9:1, as in astrophysics. My point is that you'd have to be blind to not look around and see that choosing such a partner will affect both your careers for good and for bad. If you're okay with that, terrific, but suddenly being "shocked" or "surprised" when it's an issue is a bit unconvincing to me. I have close friends who've been affected by it and I feel their pain as individuals, but again, they knew the deal when they got married to someone who wanted to stay in academic science. I married someone who is in the entertainment industry which limits my career choices to the LA area. It's not always fun or pretty in the choices I make, but since the marriage is worth more to me than my career, I work it out. If that wasn't the case, I would have moved on long ago.
Hi Helen,
Hmm. Maybe it's because science is somewhat of an obsession, but I've seen convincing data that a preponderance of women in science do have science/math partners. Proximity may explain it. Sure, it makes sense to do otherwise, but it's hard to have time to move out of the lab and meet other people, perhaps. Once you've married a scientist or signed up with one as a partner, the fat's in the fire. But I like the idea of both partners finding a position separately. I'm pretty sure couples try to do this most of the time, and resort to the other strategy when it doesn't quite work out.
cheers,
Laura
B. You try your best for spouses who are not in academic science with networking, but it's up to the couple to make those decisions about whose job will come first. It's not like they don't know it will be a problem when they get married! Generally I see the male take a tenure track position and the female take a soft money position or work in her husband's lab. In that situation there was never a real "job" to take away as it's up to her to get funding with no support from the institution. I have also observed spouses who don't reveal they are married until they achieve two independent positions in different departments. In that case, there is never a question that both were not the top candidate for each position. That is the fairest way to handle their "issue". My solution: don't marry a scientist! There are plenty of interesting partners out there. Marrying another scientist always seemed like more trouble than it was worth...
If you invest in people by hiring their partners, then they are more likely to invest in the institution. Isn't this a good idea, especially when salaries are low, and expected top stay low (if not decrease)?
Today, there are hundreds of applicants for any open job in academia. How can any candidate be so important to hire that you'd spend two jobs to get her? If women are going to climb up the ladder in academia, more of us need to get to the bottom rung. Hiring a female and a male spouse into two positions is slower than hiring two highly qualified women. I don't want to be mean, but I have to pick B.
My department hired a woman and to keep her, hired her spouse part time. It has been hard to manage; they got divorced and yet are still colleagues. But both of them still say it was good that the department did this. And we have two very strong faculty members. I guess I'm for A, but it's important to make sure you really want both spouses.
