I’m following up to Wins and Losses.

Here’s the letter I sent declining the interview.

Hi 4— and 3–,

The conversation with 3– yesterday and 4—‘s follow-up about what {your university} is looking for have raised a few issues that make me doubt that the strengths I would bring to {your university} are what {your university} will value in the tenure and promotion process. Consequently, I think it is best that I decline the invitation for a campus interview at this time.

A longer explanation:

I think 3– knows that I think one of the leading strengths of my application is my ability to work with undergraduates on projects and, in particular, mentor undergraduate research, but this doesn’t seem to be well-placed in the tenure and promotion process at {your university}.

With 4—‘s letter: my current plan of research is interdisciplinary. We would expect publications in good journals, but not necessarily math journals. This, coupled with my conversation with 3–, leaves me wondering how I fit with what {your university} is really looking for.

I would welcome having the invitation revisited later if you feel that I am a better fit for your department than what I am currently seeing.

I also wish you best of luck in your search. Definitely keep doing the phone interviews; it is better for everyone if you interview and hire candidates that can give you what you want.

Best regards,

Dr. Jinx

You want to see flummoxed, the department chair (3–) and search committee chair
(4—) clearly weren’t expecting that. I got a 3 page email reply from the chair, and both urged me to reconsider.

Unfortunately, there was no more clarity in the 3 page email reply from the chair than there was in the initial phone conversation. This department wants undergraduate research and wants to raise its profile. They have no idea how it fits into their department. If it doesn’t produce peer-reviewed research papers in good journals, it really doesn’t matter for much of anything. Notice, we are discussing undergraduate research. If a publication in a good journal is 1/3 of the requirement for me for tenure, this is a fantastic accomplishment for an undergraduate and that undergraduate’s mentor.

And, as valued toward teaching if it doesn’t result in a peer-reviewed publication in a good journal, this is an uncompensated overload.

Not. Impressed.

I think I’ll send them a follow-up on Monday reiterating the problem and stating that this is the sort of mess I am good at cleaning up. I’ll followup that my hourly consulting rate is $250, and I would be happy to help them figure out how undergraduate research should be handled in their department and the tenure and promotion process. If they would prefer not to hire me given my relationship to their search, I would be happy to recommend a colleague.

Or maybe not. We’ll see how much energy I have over the weekend.

In any case, in reply to the previous blog post and follow up, a friend wrote:

I’ve got to tell you, I have been delighted by the thought of you turning down that interview. You are an academic badass Jinx! I hope I can be as good at listening to my intuition and going for what I want instead of whatever is offered to me when I return to the workforce.

You are a hero to me right now!

That made me feel good. I replied, “I think I’m going to have a hard time wiping that cocky smile off my face today.”

I needed it. Some controversy with the department came around to roost again. It appears once again, within my department, that I am mistaken and confused as to what my job duties are. Now, I am a careful and conscientious person. I think that repeated, documentable, problems with this, especially when I have produced evidence in writing about what I’ve been told are my duties that are in conflict with what others are telling the chair, should cause the department chair to stop, look, listen and, for goodness sake, think when given information that once again indicates that I don’t get what I’m supposed to do. Jehosophat.

And could we please take a moment and consider all the things I have done, the level of competence with which they have been done, and the once again, the documented lack of resources that I was given to get them done.

I should have some credit built up by now.

But I’m not tenure-track faculty. I don’t even get the courtesy extended to make me part of the conversation about my duties.

The department chair walked in when I was discussing these issues with my immediate supervisor. He tried to duck out quickly after asking his question. I didn’t let him. I let him know that

1. That I, up until this year, did not want to leave Texas A&M, but I am now on the job market.
2. The lack of clarity with regards to my duties is one of several reasons why I am on the job market. I can no longer see staying at Texas A&M.
3. That lack of clarity, especially this repeated extenuating lack of clarity, in someone’s job duties is unacceptable to me and should be unacceptable to him as department chair.
4. That while I liked him and was glad when he was first appointed chair, this is, in fact, an embarrassment to our department and calls into serious question the professionalism of our administration.
5. The REU principal investigator threw me under the bus. And I am angry about this.
6. I should be included in these discussions about what I am doing and what I am supposed to do.

I was polite, professional, and not about to brook any nonsense. He said I need to hear his side of it. In a meeting. Later. And ducked out of there.

I contacted the dean of faculties to inform them of the situation and request mediation at this meeting. Which is not yet scheduled. I wonder how many weeks this will take.

Academic badass. It was one hell of a stressful day. But bring it on. If we are going to fight this battle, we are going to fight this battle. I am going to do my best to get this crap straightened out for my colleagues’ sakes. Me, however, I think if I get any kind of an acceptable offer I am out of here in the fall. Maybe at the end of the spring.