14

I'm applying for Lecturer positions in the UK (entry-level faculty, other academic systems might call the position "Assistant Professor").

I just got short-listed for one of the positions I have applied to, and am currently arranging the interview details (time, date, and expenses reimbursement). Going through their forms, I have noticed the following statement:

Candidates who are offered a contract of employment by University of XY but reject the offer lose their entitlement to claim reimbursement of interview expenses.

There is a similar question already. However, the candidate noticed such a clause only after buying the tickets, while I am trying to react to it beforehand.

This strikes me a bit odd. My questions are:

  • Is this a typical procedure for interviews for such positions? Is it a red flag? (Or at least, a yellow one?)
  • Is there a polite way to respond to this, indicating that I do not agree to this policy, but without sounding like I just want them to pay for a tourist visit?
  • These positions have a fixed salary range in the UK, however the call is made across two ranges (simultaneous call for Lecturers and Senior Lecturers), and after all it is still a range. What prevents the University from extending an insultingly low offer to a candidate they do not want to hire, hoping that the candidate would reject it and therefore forfeit their right to expenses reimbursement?
  • I was planning to evaluate this University further as a potential good match for me at the interview (see context below). Since I expect the expenses to be relatively small, should I just risk paying them on my own and go check the University out, even if I decide it is not a good fit?

Some context: This particular University was at the low end of the openings I am applying to. The research profiles of the staff did not look overly attractive, but the facilities were well equipped and I could find a couple of interesting people.

I had almost decided not to apply, when a colleague told me about a Research Centre associated to their University. I haven't originally noticed the Centre as it was not affiliated to the Department I am interested in, but a very different one. However, this Centre is very interesting for my current application domain, and could provide me with invaluable data to continue research in that direction (and bring that domain over to that University).

This Research Centre was the number one reason I decided to apply in the end. I've mentioned my definite interest in it in the application, figuring they would not call me if they were not interested in a collaboration with that Centre.

However, even after deciding to apply, the truth is, this particular University is at the low end of my list. I am serious in considering it as a potential place of employment, due to the presence of the Research Centre. However, with all the negative points still in place, I was going to form my final opinion about that University at the interview, which I think is a reasonable approach - both the candidate and the interviewers should look for a good fit.

When I was in a similar situation before, I rejected to go to the interview and have requested to not be considered further, specifically as I did not think the position was a good enough fit to risk the expenses. This was, however, for an industry interview, the travel expenses would have been much steeper, and they were not covering interview costs under any circumstance.

Patrick Sanan
  • 4,373
  • 1
  • 23
  • 26
penelope
  • 11,580
  • 1
  • 41
  • 82
  • 2
    This answer and associated comment chain would imply that it's a fairly common practice in the UK. – Anyon Jun 03 '19 at 15:54
  • This is another one : https://workplace.stackexchange.com/q/135972/75821 – Solar Mike Jun 03 '19 at 16:05
  • @Anyon yes, that was the question I was originally reading. I'll edit that in. – penelope Jun 03 '19 at 16:06
  • @SolarMike that one seems to be about a reverse situation - companies rescinding their offer or the position all together at the last minute. Here, I am just baffled why "wanting to evaluate a potential employer at the interview" is apparently treated as "bad faith" if my answer is "actually, I don't think it's as good of a fit as I imagined." – penelope Jun 03 '19 at 16:10
  • It was difficult to know which one of the four questions you asked to respond to, but the point about no being reimbursed for the interview was covered in the link I made... – Solar Mike Jun 03 '19 at 16:14
  • @Emilie you could have got the typo in the title... this is not the French Bourse... – Solar Mike Jun 03 '19 at 17:31
  • @SolarMike English is not my first language, so I didn't see that one. – Emilie Jun 04 '19 at 12:25
  • @Emilie ok sorry, it's been annoying me, but I can't find 6 errors to do it... – Solar Mike Jun 04 '19 at 12:34
  • What prevents the University from extending an insultingly low offer to a candidate they do not want to hire, hoping that the candidate would reject it and therefore forfeit their right to expenses reimbursement? Good faith. – user2768 Jun 04 '19 at 13:34
  • 1
    @user2768 So, the guiding taught is that the Universities should protect themselves from the candidates taking the interview in bad faith, but the candidates are at the mercy of the Universities and their good faith. Because the balance of power in such situations is definitely always in favour of the candidate, and never in favour of an institution employing thousands of people? Amazing culture. – penelope Jun 04 '19 at 13:38
  • @penelope Do you seriously believe that a university will make "an insultingly low offer" to avoid reimbursing expenses? Even if you do, that can be gamed: Just accept, get reimbursed, and walk away. Businesses don't play games when making offers. For some universities, a low offer cannot exist, since salaries are defined on a pay scale. – user2768 Jun 04 '19 at 13:46
  • 2
    @user2768 No, don't really think that would happen. I just find the implication (explained in comment above: by putting a mechanism in place that is supposed to enforce candidates acting in good faith, they show they don't trust their candidates, but they expect the candidates to show that equal trust towards them) an off-putting, especially when running a people-based institution such as a University. – penelope Jun 04 '19 at 14:03
  • @penelope I don't think that's the purpose of the mechanism and I doubt the loophole you describe was intentional. It could be removed, e.g., Candidates who are offered a contract of employment by University of XY on the standard pay scale (defined in Z).... – user2768 Jun 04 '19 at 14:09
  • @user2768 I really don't want to get into a guessing game of what they meant when setting the policy. I can see from StrongBad's answer however that my interpretation of it is at least shared by some others: I find it an insulting policy, for the reasons I mentioned above. But I agree: I don't think that was their intention. – penelope Jun 04 '19 at 15:19

2 Answers2

30

This is common in the UK. In general interview expenses are relatively low. Many people take a train in the morning to the university and return home that night, so there might not be any food or lodging costs and only a relatively inexpensive train ticket. For an international candidate arranging flights and trains may require a 3 day stay, as it did for me.

I simply told the department that I was very interested in the position, but was not in a financial position to be able to cover my own interview costs if I found the departmental culture to not be supportive. They gave me a guarantee to cover the costs in writing. If your expenses are more than a train ticket, there is no reason not to ask.

Be aware, the offer may be made the day of the interview and they may want a decision the next day. The UK system doesn't really let you get competing offers.

StrongBad
  • 104,237
  • 30
  • 262
  • 484
  • The offer can be made the same day because the teaching cycle can be about to start and preparation time is therefore short. – Solar Mike Jun 03 '19 at 17:19
  • My expenses would probably be a train ticket (not overly cheap), an evening meal and accommodations for a single night (I am not very close to that Uni within the UK and couldn't arrange a comfortable interview time for same-day travel). Do you think it would be greedy to ask in that case? – penelope Jun 04 '19 at 13:35
  • 2
    @penelope my opinion as a rude yank is probably not helpful, you would be better served by asking a Brit that you work with who you can tell the full story. That said, I find this aspect of the UK interview process insulting, so would probably advise asking and make them decide if they want to reject you because they are cheap. – StrongBad Jun 04 '19 at 14:07
  • 2
    At least I'm not the only one who finds this insulting. Unfortunately, our only current Brit is a junior PhD student, and even most of the British (or otherwise) staff in my team actually was hired from outside of the UK. But, don't worry, I'm collecting the opinion of everybody who's willing to share, and I'll reach my decision based on more than just advice of random strangers on the internet :) – penelope Jun 04 '19 at 15:09
  • +1 for the middle paragraph. There isn't enough evidence to know just how common it is to not pay expenses if the position is offered-but-rejected, but my institution (Guardian UK top 30) has no such clause in its reimbursement policy. – Phil Jun 04 '19 at 16:24
-4

I'm surprised that you are surprised. If this isn't common practice, then I'm surprised. Universities don't have unlimited funds to work with and are interested in building a strong faculty, not gaming some reimbursement system.

The polite way to respond is to say yes or thanks, but no thanks. Your choice. Your risk. But it is their money, after all. I think it unlikely that they would agree to change the policy. I can't think of an incentive to change it unless they are very very interested in you.

The only thing preventing them from making you an insulting low offer in hopes you refuse it is that it would be stupid for them to do that. After all, it implies they really don't want you but would be stuck with you if you accept. I can't imagine that is a good thing for them to do.

If they are within your parameters for an acceptable job then you need to decide whether it is worth the risk of absorbing the cost in case you get a better offer. If it is outside your parameters there is no reason to bother them further. You can, of course, investigate them, if imperfectly, from a distance. But if you need to do that investigation first hand, you need to accept the fact that it will come at some cost, possibly.

You could, of course, interpret the existence of such a policy as an indication that this is fundamentally the wrong place for you to start your career. In that case, just say no. There is no reason to continue.

That is to say, if you find a policy at a potential employer that you find wrong or distasteful, you might suspect that there are other policies that you would find equally offensive or worse. This is especially true if you believe that the policies are in place to take advantage of you since you have little recourse. So, at a minimum, you need to be cautious.

If this place were high on your list for other reasons, you might (gulp) ignore the issue as you might if it is a trivial amount of money.

And, you can try to negotiate a better outcome as user StrongBad was able to do. But I remain skeptical.

Buffy
  • 363,966
  • 84
  • 956
  • 1,406
  • 24
    If this isn't common practice, then I'm surprised. — I'm exactly the opposite. I would be shocked to hear of this practice happening at any university in the United States, and I would take that practice as a clear signal to avoid that university at any cost. — I can't think of an incentive to change it unless they are very very interested in you. — But if they aren't "very very interested in you", then why on earth would they interview you for a faculty position? (tl;dr: The US is not the UK.) – JeffE Jun 03 '19 at 20:18
  • 19
    I agree with @JeffE for the US...at least in my field, it's even the norm for graduate students to have their expenses paid when interviewing. Every program that does so knows that those students are interviewing at other institutions, sometimes a dozen of them, so of course they are not covering those expenses expecting that everyone to actually enroll as a student. The whole point is that it's an investment in finding good candidates, if those good candidates choose to go elsewhere it was still worthwhile to have a chance to interview them. – Bryan Krause Jun 03 '19 at 21:15
  • Don't interpret my first two sentences as approval of such policies. Just as a reflection on the state of the world. – Buffy Jun 03 '19 at 21:20
  • 5
    This answer surprised me. I've never heard of such a condition at a US university I hope no administrator reads this question and thinks it's a good idea. (Parenthetically, this is the first of @Buffy 's almost always excellent answers I've disagreed with.) – Ethan Bolker Jun 04 '19 at 02:25
  • 1
    @EthanBolker, and others: We've been living under a neoliberal regime for forty years and you are surprised that the people with the money make the rules. That is what surprises me, I guess. If you don't like the game, don't play it. If you don't like the regime, change it, but don't imagine that it isn't dominant. – Buffy Jun 04 '19 at 10:13
  • 3
    Some of the comments and objections seem to be US based, but the question wasn't. – Buffy Jun 04 '19 at 10:15
  • I don't understand why so many downvotes; thank you for your input. I might not like it but I believe it to be a valuable contribution. Regarding your last statement: I know I could interpret the existence of such a policy as a red flag for me, but I don't have enough information to decide if I should. Not asking to make my decision for me, but could you maybe elaborate on that part a bit, in the sense of what conclusions or educated guesses I could make based on such a policy? And btw, maybe you want to remove your FWIW as it has been changed in the question. – penelope Jun 04 '19 at 13:44
  • 8
    @Buffy It's because of your surprise at the surprise. This seems to be a pretty UK-unique thing, anyone who is not from the UK should and will be surprised, and this would be a huge red flag elsewhere. The only reason it isn't is special to the UK. – Bryan Krause Jun 04 '19 at 14:42
  • @BryanKrause, but you also focused in your comment on students, not regular positions. You may be in a field in which such funding comes from external sources and so doesn't need to be closely managed, having been built into the grant structure already. Not every field is like that. And not every department has an unlimited budget. But, yes, I don't disagree that such policies can be wrong. I just don't expect that they don't exist. – Buffy Jun 04 '19 at 14:46
  • 1
    @Buffy It's news to me that external funding doesn't have to be closely managed. I'll be sure to just blow money on whatever next cycle. External funding pays for research, not for interviews. I'll just say it again: OP should* be surprised at this arrangement.* Expressing surprise at their surprise makes this sound much more normal than it is. – Bryan Krause Jun 04 '19 at 14:51
  • 1
    @BryanKrause, now you are deliberately misinterpreting what I say. – Buffy Jun 04 '19 at 14:55
  • @Buffy I know the question is UK-centred, but, you indicated in the answer that you're surprised if this isn't common practice - am I to understand that you are familiar with places other than the UK where this is common practice? Or, are simply not familiar with those practices at all, and the arrangement such as the one I describe is what you would expect? – penelope Jun 04 '19 at 15:15
  • I only meant what I literally said. Read the piece on neoliberalism for background. The trends in policies in education for the last forty years have been almost entirely negative. Much of it due to a refusal to fund it adequately. If I remember correctly there were no tuition fees at Oxbridge forty years ago. Undergrads in the US didn't graduate with $80,000 in debt. Elementary school teachers got paid (nearly) a living wage and were respected. – Buffy Jun 04 '19 at 15:27
  • 3
    I agree with the many people who say this is virtually unheard of in North America, at least the the various STEM fields I'm familiar with. I was flown in to multiple universities as a prospective post-doc and faculty member, as was my wife. While on search committees we flew in our candidates. I have direct experience with probably hundreds of similar cases and have never heard of an invited candidate being expected to pay their own way. – iayork Jun 04 '19 at 19:01
  • 1
    @Buffy You meant what you said - that you are actually unfamiliar with the system outside of the US, but you are surprised at my surprise at the policy nonetheless? To justify your surprise, you engage in discussions verging on arguments in the comments, but don't respond to polite clarification requests. Instead drawing on personal experience, you speculate about systems in countries you are not familiar with, express surprise at people unfamiliar with the system being surprised, and you suggest users to read a piece on neoliberalism to understand your answer. Not so valuable after all. – penelope Jun 05 '19 at 13:01
  • 1
    Sorry that I wasn't helpful. I just treat the declining standards of societal (and especially educational) relationships very seriously. Not so long ago your question wouldn't have been raised as the situation wouldn't exist. The decline disturbs, but doesn't surprise, me. – Buffy Jun 05 '19 at 13:14
  • Upvoting because this looks like downvote pile-on. Seriously, I think people need to chill here. – msouth Oct 15 '19 at 15:26