Universities to fear

This page is for applicants to warn others of institutions/departments with less than reputable practices. This way we can all avoid the bad ones!

Back to Academic Jobs Wiki


 * If you wish to post NICE COMMENTS or REBUTTALS, then go on the Universities to love page. This in particular goes for people who delete posts or post insults about other posters. Everyone reading this site knows that the context of many posts are fueled by disgruntled faculty who leave or get let go. That is why we have both a place for good comments (Universities to Love) and bad comments (Universities to Hate). If a place is really good, then they will discredit comments on here during their visits. Deleting comments or insulting others only reflects poorly on the school in question.

Formatting for the tables (FAQ)
How do I add a row to the table?


 * To add a row, select Edit (the blue button at the top of the page). When the Visual Editor window opens, scroll down to the entry that will go before the one you are adding. Right click on that entry, and in the menu that comes up choose Row>Insert Row After. Add your entry by filling in the cells in the new row that is created, but do not hit Enter or Return to add blank lines within the cells. Finally, select Publish (the button on the far right of toolbar at the top of the Visual Editor) to add your entry to the page. [Instructions rewritten for clarity June 2014]

'''Is there a way to fix the line wrapping? The text is stretching out to infinity such that I have to scroll sideways several times to read a sentence.'''


 * Fixed, please do not add extra paragraph breaks in the entries, this will mess up the table.
 * You can add a paragraph by holding Shift while pressing enter.

'''When I right click on the entry, I do not get an option that says "Row." Is there a way around this?'''
 * At least on my computer, it is necessary to click the arrow next to the "Edit" button, and then click "Classic Editor" to make the instructions (i.e., right-click, "insert row after") work.
 * You can always try editing in "Source" mode. Sometimes it is easier for negotiating the tables. Click Edit. Note 2 tabs at the top of the Edit window ("Visual" and "Source"). Click the tab that says "Source." The page will resolve into html format but will still be legible. Scroll down to the section where you want to add your post. Note how the other entries in the table are formatted (school; department; issue/date) as a guideline. Type your post, click "preview" and then "publish" if everything looks okay.

'''The table is so complicated, I am afraid, no one is going to post. '''


 * [Admin.] I agree. I think these tables are a headache for people to edit and discourage participation. They were set up a long time ago by the people who first started the wiki (not me!)--maybe they made sense at that time, but the page has outgrown them by now. I would love to reorganize this page (and Universities to love) to keep all the posts but eliminate the tables and make it easier to add new contributions. I cannot take on this work at this time, however; if anyone would like to volunteer to reformat the page, please leave me a message! --Una74 (talk) 23:18, July 23, 2014 (UTC)

Some formatting etiquette. Before you add your entry, please read this:
DON'T use hard returns before your entry. This will throw the table formatting off and give everyone a headache.

Please add responses using bullet points.
Thank you!

All Entries still present, now divided into Current, Chronic, and Old Tables. I am struck that there are no recent complaints about lack of contact, lack of reimbursement, rudeness, etc. While the market may have gotten worse, there seems to be a rising level of humanity / accountability promoting good behavior.
 * I wish it were that. I think it's that candidates are stark raving terrified. Check out the person on the venting page who was offered a job, given 2 days to answer, and then had the offer rescinded. He/she hasn't posted the details here!
 * I have now!
 * The reason the complaints are dropping is because people don't know about this page, and when they post on the regular one it gets deleted or moved here, doubtless by wiki admins with the best of intentions.

UPDATE (Sept. 2012): Added new section for current issues (problems arising during 2012-13 searches).

Old Issues: Specific Problems with Searches or Departments from Dates Prior to 2010 (and any undated material)
Considering how many universities and colleges never follow up (rejection letter, etc.) on interviews or visits, has this become the standard? Is it even worth complaining about anymore? General Q: how is it possible that any department can get away with NOT reimbursing a visiting candidate for travel expenses? It's appalling. Surely MLA (and other organizations) could do something to monitor or even "motivate" departments who engage in this kind of conduct (e.g., not allowing them to list job postings on the Job Information List the following year). Grad students especially need to be protected from such things.
 * Response #1: No. It's absurd to bitch about this. I cannot count the number of universities that never acknowledged receipt, post-conference interview, post-campus interview, etc. Are you really going to counsel colleagues to avoid applying to X university simply b/c you they sent a formulaic rejection letter or b/c they never sent out a rejection letter? Get over yourselves!
 * Response #2: Maybe it's absurd to get bent out of shape about form letters and such, but it seems fair to ask search committee members to remember that applicants are also colleagues, and those of us who are in this business for the long haul do well to keep that fact in mind, whichever side of the interview table we happen to be on. For more, see Advice to Search Committees, #12.
 * Respnse #3: I don't think it is hubris to be asked to be treated like a human being. Formulaic letters are one thing but deafening silence is demeaning. A tiny excuse is that chairs of search committees (I was one myself and have served as a member of several other search committees) are told never to notify candidates that have been short-listed for the AHA in case none of the campus candidates work out then you don't want the other AHA interviewed candidates to have already taken other jobs. However, I think this is a cruel and stupid rationale. When I chaired the search, I insisted on notifying candidates we interviewed at the AHA but did not invite to campus. I had to do it "unoffically" though by email. Beware those who use the "legal" excuse as cover for their own laziness. The candidates are people and must be treated with at least some modicum of decency.
 * Response #4: If you only submitted an application, it's not worth complaining about. Following a campus visit, sending a rejection when another candidate accepts the position is appropriate.

Q: Can we rename this page "Universities to loathe"? Or, "Universities to hate"? Either go better with "love" as a polar opposite. (I don't know about anyone else, but when I've a bad experience, I don't fear, I loathe). (x2)

Q: This is a fantastic resource, and thanks to whoever invented it! However, it seems like it ought to be encouraged to have people put at least rough dates on their postings below? I don't know how old some of these postings are, but we all know bad administrators can go away and problems be addressed, and it would be fairer to the schools represented if people knew that the complaint was a year out of date, for instance.

Q. Where do find comments from past years? I'm having trouble navigating this site. Please help! (Posted Oct 2012)

Q. This is a great page, but difficult to navigate. Dates/job search years would be useful. Also, entering information seems impossibly complicated -- any way to simplify this or perhaps start a new page?

Q.  At what point do we put all universities on here because someone has had a bad experience? When does whining turn into loathing? And how does one evaluate an anonymous rant?

Q. How does one bitter comment about a department earn that department a place on a list entitled "Chronic Issues"? Is it fair to a department to imply that one disgruntled remark indicates "chronic problems"?