I disagree with you. Universities have to make the choices that are best
for them. If spousal hires would be so detrimental as your examples
suggest, they would not do them, but reality is that they work well. In
the case I am talking about, the department got extra money for the
additional position, which was a win for the department as well as a win
for the other department that was able to retain her spouse. And the
reality is that most spouses are very suited for academic positions.
What is sorely missing in this discussion is a far more important issue.
namely that most spousal hires are the wives of men. It is one of those
many signs of still existing gender bias in academics, but it is also a
sign of different priorities for men and women in life. This means that
women are far more often decide to go with their husband then men with
their wife. This becomes even more obvious once children are involved. A
block on spousal hires is only going to aggravate this issue.
So, let me ask you a question: would you consider to work in the lab of
your partner without pay (which in many cases is actually not allowed
because of insurance issues)?
Kim
On 8/20/2011 3:13 PM, Aaron T. Dossey wrote:
Consider the alternative that I bet never occurred to the hiring
officials: They could have also decided that it was arrogant for this
"star" to insist that the institution hire their spouse (or child, or
friend, or... whoever else) and that this is a buyer's market for
employers, especially employers of Ph.D. scientists, and that they could
easily replace that "star" and their spouse with 2 or even 3-4 others in
the field currently seeking positions. Let them go. Instead of getting
one "must have" and one "because we have to", why not go look for TWO
"must haves"? Or even 3-4 (considering entry level faculty have less
financial "requirements" and can be "obtained" at lower costs often)
"seem to be very good, let's see what they can do"'s? Multiple benefits:
1) more scientists hired, 2) avoid the dodgy ethics of nepotism, 3)
better bang for the hiring buck and 4) you MIGHT, just MIGHT get someone
even (sit down, get ready for it) BETTER than the "star" you let go? God
duth forbid the blasphemy! :)
Did you also consider the (real life) scenarios I described before and
weigh them against the idea that spousal hiring is either good or
necessary?
Aaron T. Dossey, Ph.D.
Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
http://www.allthingsbugs.com/Curriculum_Vitae.pdf
On 8/20/2011 2:38 PM, Kim van der Linde wrote:
On 8/20/2011 11:46 AM, Aaron T. Dossey wrote:
Maintaining the quality of one's marriage, personal life, sexual
relationships, etc. is not an employer's, University's, Department's,
the tax-payer's (for public institutions and those who receive
government grants/funds) or even society's responsibility.
Correct, it is the universities task to keep the best workforce around
that they can hire. And if they deem that that requires to do a
spousal hire, it is in their own best interest to do the spousal hire.
In the case I am most familiar with, their trophy employee got an
offer from another university, who was willing to hire his spouse. So,
his then and current employer made a counter offer including a spousal
hire as well. It was competition between universities that resulted in
the spousal hire. They did not give a damn about his personal life,
they did not want to loose their trophy hire.
Kim
--
http://www.kimvdlinde.com
