An interesting topic of bar-room discussion at the Mid-West - the peculiar psychology of rejection at elite universities. Several of the top universities (Harvard, Yale, Princeton etc) are notorious for how rarely they give tenure to assistant professors in the social sciences and humanities. Smart young people come to the university as assistant profs, teach for several years, are refused tenure en bloc, and depart for other jobs, usually at less prestigious institutions. The tenured professors in these places have usually come from outside - they’re nearly all recruited at a senior level from other universities (sometimes including former rejectees who have done well in the meantime). This creates a very strange atmosphere among junior faculty - they all know that the odds are against them getting tenure, hope that they will be among the rare exceptions, and point with admiration to the few who have managed to buck the system. What’s even more intriguing is the story of those professors who get rejected by an elite university and expelled into the outer darkness, but are then invited back to tenured jobs in the same place a few years later. Anecdotal evidence over beer suggests that a surprisingly large percentage of them accept the offer from the place that rejected them, even when they have other, more attractive offers from equally prestigious universities. If there’s a psychological mechanism to explain this, it’s one that goes against my expectations - ex ante, I would have predicted that people would take some pleasure in rejecting offers from places that had previously rejected them. Revenge, after all, is a dish that’s best served cold. Instead, quite a number of people seem to have a different set of motivations. So what’s going on?
One immediate idea occurred to me—anyone getting an assistant professor offer at thes universities is still the cream of the crop, so even at that time they probably had offers from several other comparable universities.
Which means the place that they started was their dream job, the place they really wanted to be. So, even after getting booted, they chose to come back later because Harvard (or wherever) is where they really wanted to be.
Another thought—if they’ve already spent 3-5 years at a place, they’re familiar with the area and it’s surroundings, the department politics, etc. So they might choose to return to the same place later because they know the area and the school, and so wouldn’t have to relearn a lot of things. While it’s a transient problem, not knowing how to get around or where to find stores and other amenities is pretty annoying while it lasts.
Seems simple to me: if you accept a job at the place where they rejected you before, then every second you’re there is a moment of triumph. “You didn’t think I was good enough, but you came crawling back!”
I have a similar take on this as Doug. In addition to the initial investment of having to learn the ins-and-outs of a place (both the univ and the environment), you also know enough about the department and school to know whether you can be happy there. There is a lot of unknown left with respect to a place even if you know some of your future colleagues and have visited the campus a few times. So when faced with the known vs the unknown, I think people prefer to go with the former assuming they enjoyed it. (Not to mention assuming that they’d enjoy it even more the second time around as they wouldn’t be stressed out junior faculty anymore.)
I have no answer, but the story just reminds me of how ridiculous the whole tenure system appears to most of us outside of academia. What percentage of employees in the real world can get to a point (no matter how hard they’ve worked)where they can no longer worry about getting fired? You all just seem a little spoiled to the rest of us.
This happens in the corporate world too. You don’t get fired, but you don’t get promoted, so you go somewhere else for a higher paying job, then your old company hires you back a few years later several levels above where you left off.
I know tenure looks pretty cushy, and in many ways is, but I don’t think the parallels to the outside world are entirely fair? How many people work in professions where their current employer is the only one in town for their particular skill set? Obviously some, because some people work in company towns. But it’s an awkward position to be in a lot of the time. Very few academics would be able to find an equivalent level job without moving cities if they left their current job. Does that mean we deserve extra job security? Maybe not, but it does mean the cost of job insecurity is higher than in other cases.
I wonder how much of the phenomena Henry describes is driven by a desire to live in a particular city. Do people rejected by Harvard go back to it later if they also have an offer from MIT? Do people go back to Chicago if it’s an option to go to (or stay at) Northwestern? My bet is the sample size here is too small to get any info. In most cases choosing where to work is inseparable from choosing where to live, and preferences about where to live can be overriding.
Pshaw, Anita. Nobody goes into academia for the material benefits. Before the supposedly spoiled state of tenure, you face the following: living on a graduate student stipend for the better part of a decade; geographic relocation with each new job, with pretty much no choice on your part of where you’ll end up; and, if you get a good job as an assistant, another seven or so years knowing that you very likely will be fired no matter how hard you work.
Psychologically, when a girl (or boy) dumps you, there’s a part of you that wants to be with them again, a feeling impervious to rationality. Even after time has made you wiser, and you know that the person wasn’t for you, there’s still some kind of unconscious hold they’ve got over you. You wanna return to the scene of the wrong, and right it.
But maybe that’s just me. : )
On the psychology of professor-institution relationships, the best line I know of is attributed to Stanford sociologist John Meyer: Universities are like cows: You want them to give you love, but they can only give you milk.
Highly likely that people go back ‘cos they still have mates who are still there.
yup agree with Andrew, treat em mean to keep em keen.
What percentage of employees in the real world can get to a point (no matter how hard they’ve worked)where they can no longer worry about getting fired
This is a good question? Does anyone know? I imagine it is much higher than, say 100 times the number of people with tenure in Universities. Almost all public schoolteachers, doctors, local government and federal employees, cops, military employees. In the corporate world firing is unusual, so after a while (because of seniority, and usually less than six years) lots of people don’t have to worry unless their corporations go bust. But we have to worry about that too — universities can and do go bust if they are badly enough managed. And successful businesspeople earn many times more than successful professors: more than enough to offset the unlikely risk of being fired.
Anyway, I’m curious about this. Does anyone know?
Check out Aronson and Linder’s gain-loss theory (1965). The people we like most are those who disliked us at the beginning, but then came to like us. One explanation for this is that it demonstrates that the person’s liking for us is not indiscriminate (they have standards).
It may well be going on in this situation. An institution which won’t employ us at time A but will at time B validates us at time B by the very fact that it wouldn’t employ us at time A. It has standards. It won’t employ just anybody. But it will now employ us. And we feel good.
Selection bias in your anecdotage; of course it’s only some who accept the later offer but that’s much more noticeable than never darkening Harvard’s door again.
I know that if my employer refused to renew me after five years, I would devote the rest of my life to enthusiastically vexatious litigation against them (like that embittered former philosopher who hates Oxford University Press with a vengeance). So I’d never appear in that anecdote, at least.
Selection bias in your anecdotage; of course it’s only some who accept the later offer but that’s much more noticeable than never darkening Harvard’s door again.
I know that if my employer refused to renew me after five years, I would devote the rest of my life to enthusiastically vexatious litigation against them (like that embittered former philosopher who hates Oxford University Press with a vengeance). So I’d never appear in that anecdote, at least.
Harry lists “Almost all public schoolteachers, doctors, local government and federal employees, cops, military employees” as having the equivalent of academic tenure. Where I live (California), teachers’ contracts are renewed annually. It is true that union contracts mean that seniority determines who is “riffed” in low-budget years, but academic specialty also enters into this. For example, all the art teachers may lose their jobs. Further, there is termination for cause, albeit with a somewhat lengthy termination process.
Local government employees including cops are similarly subject to being cut due to budget considerations, sometimes via union contracts with seniority provisions. Federal employees are now the subject of mandated outsourcing programs instituted by the Bush administration.
Military officers are typically subject to “up or out” policies, such that if an officer is not promoted he/she is severed from the service. So it doesn’t seem to me that these occupations are so comparable to tenured professorships, though the union seniority situation may have certain parallels.
I gave up academia when I realized that my starting salary in industry would be higher than a tenured prof with a named chair at MIT.
This might be a bit atypical, I was pretty well known in the field. But on the other hand I was not likely to make it on tenure track.
The odd thing is that at this point I spend far more of my time on research than my academic collegues and I have an engineering department to build stuff. OK I am somewhat constrained in what I have to work on, there has to be a commercial application on the horizon. But I felt much more constrained at MIT where every idea had to be sold to our lords and masters at DARPA.
The same certainly does not hold in the humanities. The demand for the skills is not the same.
The bizare part is that some of my collegues at once competing companies have started to drift back into academia. Now they have industrial experience they are much more in demand in academia. They can make up the salary difference by consulting for contacts they found while in industry.
The upshot is that several of these people are working as tenured profs alongside people who tried to stay in the system and work their way up through the ranks where they are currently still chasing tenure.
So cheer up, it could be worse.
Interestingly, at the elite law schools (well, Harvard anyway) tenure is almost automatic once you’re hired. Not quite — there are occasionally some battles. But it’s pretty rare for someone to be turned down.
Any thoughts on why the difference?
Selection bias in your anecdotage; of course it’s only some who accept the later offer
Selection bias the other way, too: it’s only some who accept the earlier offer. People turn down junior jobs at places like Harvard and Yale more often than you might think.
Selection bias in your anecdotage; of course it’s only some who accept the later offer
Selection bias the other way, too. It’s only some who accept the earlier offer. People turn down junior jobs at places like Harvard and Yale more often than you might think.
In the corporate world firing is unusual, so after a while (because of seniority, and usually less than six years) lots of people don’t have to worry unless their corporations go bust.
That might be true for operating companies. It’s not so in the world of professional services, which is boom-or-bust. Banks are notorious for this. They routinely massacre transactional bankers when the markets are sickly. (Bankers are also sacked when the markets are healthy, but in those circumnstances generally pick up a new job in about 15 minutes.) I had lunch with a Deutsche Banker a couple of years ago. He told me he wasn’t sure he’d have a job when he got back to the office. (He didn’t.) And he was only one of many: without exaggeration, I’d say about half the bankers with whom I’d worked personally lost their jobs in the early ’00s. Of course, some of these guys make so much money that, if they aren’t stupid during the boom (as many of them are), they’ve got enough stashed away to ride out the bust.
Even in my own niche of this world, which until recently tried to preserve a (thin) veneer of genteel otherworldliness, nobody is safe. The corridors of many a City and Wall Street law firm were strewn with the corpses of freshly-slaughtered associates not so very long ago. Even partnership - roughly the equivalent of tenure - is no longer a safeguard, and it is far from unknown for partners to be axed or ‘de-equitised’.
From where I sit, academic tenure seems a huge plum indeed, but not a disproportionate compensation for the many sacrifices taking the academic’s path entails. And not so important a compensation as what I, perhaps naively, see as the truly great thing about an academic career: despite all the distractions, one is paid to think about things one really wants to spend one’s time thinking about.
I was told by my tutor at Oxford that, if I were to hit the US job market, I ought to avoid the whole cycle of rejection and focus on ‘upper second-division’ institutions. It’s well established that the top tier colleges work their APs into the ground, and hire from outside.
Didn’t we talk about a paper published recently on related patterns of hiring in the Ivy League which endorses themoabird’s argument? Ah, yes.
I don’t want to get into a debate about whose job sucks worse. But I will point out that unlike most of my colleagues, I enjoy the tenure clock because the sphincter-clenching terror it provokes has pretty much cured my hypochondria. Who has time to worry about the irregular heartbeat? The wet, hacking cough? The burning sensation when I…well, you get the picture. The tenure process has, in a sense, saved me.
Most Americans waste their time on “The Apprentice” and staggering amounts of internet porn. Really, it’s staggering. I just checked.
But not me. Because of the pressure I face for tenure, I barely even pay attention to my classes anymore. Remember my students’ names? I’m fortunate if I can remember what time class is. And where. And in the unlikely event that I do show up, I’m usually so intoxicated by my love of my research, as well as by bourbon, that my students seem to feel free to talk, eat, fornicate, all while I am trying to impart some wisdom that will help them to survive the coming Rapture.
So I focus mostly on my writing, trying to get yet one more article into a journal that’s less-often read than the masthead on Highlights for Children. By the way, my new manuscript takes the form of a Goofus-and-Gallant strip, where Goofus clearly doesn’t understand the relationship between performativities of power and post-colonial hegemony, but Gallant can find the aporia in a Dick Cheney speech in three, uncomplaining minutes.
If I get tenure, I plan to devote the rest of my career to alcoholism and silent, barely contained rage.
I don’t want to get into a debate about whose job sucks worse. But I will point out that unlike most of my colleagues, I enjoy the tenure clock because the sphincter-clenching terror it provokes has pretty much cured my hypochondria. Who has time to worry about the irregular heartbeat? The wet, hacking cough? The burning sensation when I…well, you get the picture. The tenure process has, in a sense, saved me.
Most Americans waste their time on “The Apprentice” and staggering amounts of internet porn. Really, it’s staggering. I just checked.
But not me. Because of the pressure I face for tenure, I barely even pay attention to my classes anymore. Remember my students’ names? I’m fortunate if I can remember what time class is. And where. And in the unlikely event that I do show up, I’m usually so intoxicated by my love of my research, as well as by bourbon, that my students seem to feel free to talk, eat, fornicate, all while I am trying to impart some wisdom that will help them to survive the coming Rapture.
So I focus mostly on my writing, trying to get yet one more article into a journal that’s less-often read than the masthead on Highlights for Children. By the way, my new manuscript takes the form of a Goofus-and-Gallant strip, where Goofus clearly doesn’t understand the relationship between performativities of power and post-colonial hegemony, but Gallant can find the aporia in a Dick Cheney speech in three, uncomplaining minutes.
If I get tenure, I plan to devote the rest of my career to alcoholism and silent, barely contained rage.
As a tangent to the dicussion about tenure above, in my 7 years in the non-academic job market, I’ve met many, many, many times more people who are lazy and do little work and just skate by than I did in my 8 years in academia.
Tenure is a nice gig, I’m sure, although as others point out the path you take to get there is one of the worst imaginable (in terms of pay, pressure, and prospects.) But, even if you’re jealous from afar, you can relax knowing that 95+% of professors who have tenure are still working extremely hard, certainly as hard as the majority in private industry, in my experience.
Sorry cafl, I was in a wierd mood when I wrote that. I take your point about the military, and also some public school teachers — though I would say that it is relatively easy to avoid being a vulnerable art/music/phys ed teacher, and become, instead, a less-vulnerable english/science/math teacher (though I understand that phys ed is, in the US, and bizarrely, a good bet for future administrators.
Here’s a conjecture based on dave and doug turnbull’s comments. The tenure process actually habituates people to working pretty hard. Its true that you can slack off after tenure, but you have lost the inclination to do it by then. You are habiutuated to writing a lot, you’ve got your teaching into a sufficiently good state that you keep that up for the next decade, you’ve raised other people’s expectations about your productivity, and don’t want to let them down. Most research universities, in addition, predicate raises after tenure on the judgements of your peers. My university takes both research and teaching reasonably seriously in that judgment. Big raises are predicated on the ability to get soemone else to hire you. So there are still considerable incentives to work moderately hard, in addition to the habits you’ve picked up. So maybe tenure actually makes people work harder post tenure. Those sectors in which people have de-facto but not de-jure tenure might do well to imitate it….
An old friend who left Harvard before her tenure decision, and is now at another elite institution, told me that she decided “to say FUCK YOU to Harvard before Harvard could say FUCK YOU to me.” I love that spirit. If only a lot more did the same thing.
I like the idea of tenure. I wish everyone could have it, just like I wish everyone could have federally funded single-payer health insurance the way my parents do.
But given that not everyone has it, doesn’t it seem like a classic case of keeping the workers down and divided by inducing inter-worker rivalry with an artificially scarce reward? House prof vs. field prof?
(I miss the Invisible Adjunct.)
As for the original question, I think the psychological mechanism you’re reaching for is “parental approval” or “integration of the outcast.” Some people have the gumption to reject a group that once rejected them; other people are likely to gush “You like me! You really like me!” I’ve certainly felt the latter impulse often enough, embarrassing though it is.
Jesus, you have got to be the worst fucking revenge cook I’ve ever read! Rejecting the invitation? What is that, is that a revenge, that’s a breadcrumb!
Let me tell you how it is when I serve up my revenge.
I read the invitation at an awards ceremony with the President of the University there, make some droll remarks about the quality of said institution, announce the free download of a five hundred page satire in ebook format attacking said institution, spit in his wine, leave, and moon him at the door. Later, my intellectual lackeys catch him on the way home and steal his lunch money.
This is for starters.
Next follows a spiteful course over several decades, op-eds in which the University, faculty, and President of my ire are ridiculed. Reviews of research and books from members of said institutions are naturally always going to be the nastiest imaginable, and because of my natural talent for nastiness the most enjoyable and widest reported reviews in any publication. Fistfights, poisonings, and lurid sex and drug scandals at conferences will also be an integral part of my revenge programme. I will seduce the wife of the President of the University, and post our sexual escapades on the internet. Whenever I travel through the city where this institution is located I will pass by its campus with a diaretic dalmation and neglect to scoop the poop when I leave.
Those bastards will rue the day they ever tangled with me.
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review