So far, I'm 0 for 2. I know for sure one of those have made invitations, so I believe that means it will not result in an ASSA/AEA interview. I would love to find out why - I like to think there is a huge stack of applications of people just like me, and so I just assumed this would cause me to get a closer second look. But apparently if it did, they still didn't want to interview me. The other program has not reportedly contacted anyone (at least, based on these comments, as it was an applied micro position).I used the signal mainly to increase the probability of getting an interview with schools I already thought I had a good shot at. So, I didn't think of the signal as helping me get the job, as much as the interview. And then I ultimately was somewhat risk averse in how I chose to use it - like I said, signaling ones in the middle of the pack.
I heard from both. I was strongly interested in both schools, and thought I was a good fit for at least one of them. For co-location reasons, I was really interested in the other school. I have no idea, however, of whether these signals are going to play any part once the AEA interviews are over.
I'm 0 for 2. I also thought I had a good chance there.
I'm 0 for 2. I'm pretty sure both schools have already made calls.
0 out of 2..I thought I had a shot, too..
I got 1 out of 2. I'm honestly slightly surprised that I didn't hear from the other since I thought I'd be a good fit and I've received interviews from much better institutions.
0 for 2... but I don't think either school has made calls.
1 for 2they both kind of knew of my interest beforehand, I sent the signal to strengthen the message
I think I'm 0 for 2 although I don't know if the second made calls yet.I sent one to a very attractive (yet, I thought, reachable) job (this one has made calls if this blog is correct), and one to a mid-range job that I'd be happy with.Any hiring faculty members reading this? Do the signals make a difference?
0/2 for me
2/2 I guess I got lucky...
I have a question about the signals. We are on the buyer side of the market but do not know if we have recieved signals or not. Since we are among the lower tiered schools, I doubt we are the first choice of many sellers unless there was ageographic preference. Would we have been notified if we received no signals?
AFAIK, all signals were transmitted to schools on the 6th so if you did not receive a notification, my guess is that you probably did not receive any signals. Just to be sure, did you advertise in JOE?
0/2 (one school cancelled the search, however)
1 out 2 for me although I have heard the second school has decided yet.
Don't you think the schools we signaled should at least send us a "thank you for your interest" note? I mean, we sent them our signal with lots of love and hope, and they just ignore us like we are rubbish ? :-)
unfortunately, my 2 signals were taken as garbage........
A concern I heard is that some schools do not know how to retrieve their signals. Does anyone know if this is a valid concern?
The signals are sent through email according to the address we provide...
Yes, I realize that. But, I heard that the email might just inform the recipient that they were sent signals, and it would be up to them to retrieve the names somehow.
No, we received the names. The only concern is if there was some ambiguity/problem with the email address. For instance, some school wanting paper submissions may not list an email at all. Some may list the email of an adminstrator who won't know what to do with the signals.I'm 2/2 on signals, but both were obvious matches. I'm changing institutions and doing a selective search, so I was signaling "yes, I really am interested in you in particular".
In my case, I called up the department and specifically asked for the name of the recruiting chair, and specified his/her email address in the signaling form.
Neglected to mention, but I am 2/2 on signals as well.
I am on the "demand" side in a school below top 20. I think once you get outside of top 20, the departments might not look at people who could be "unreachable." So if a strong person from say top 5 schools sends us a signal we would interview, while otherwise might not (this actually happened this year). I recommend sending signals to schools that are slightly below your target to increase their success.
Here is my little data point from the perspective of a search committee member. For our search in a specific applied micro field at a large public research university located in a large metro area, we received 4 signals. We didn't have any interest in any of the people who signaled us, so the signals didn't affect our search.
so, maybe we don't need this game in next year.
10:38 - I will be very interested in reading Roth's assessment of the efficacy of the signals. Where did it make a difference I wonder? Presumably, a signal can only get you an interview conditional on being a subjectively good match in the first place (from the demand's pov). Maybe I simply mis-identified schools for which I was a good match, and that was why I'm 0/2 on signals.
If I were a good match, the school would automatically know - so there isn't much to signal. I feel that if you send signal to a school, you basically signal that either you are just too good for them or they are just too good for you. In either case you end up signalling that the match is not made in heaven.There is one exception though - if there is some non-academic reason or some other reason that cannot be credibly conveyed via the application materials why the match is good, you might use the AEA signal to signal that. Thus the value of the signal boils down to conveying idiosyncratic information. In that case, it would have made a lot of sense to convey what that factor is in a line or two of text, which again cannot be done in the current system.BTW, I am 0/2
5:36 said: "Thus the value of the signal boils down to conveying idiosyncratic information. In that case, it would have made a lot of sense to convey what that factor is in a line or two of text, which again cannot be done in the current system."Well, ideally this is what the cover letter is for. I responded above as a search committee member that we were not interested in any of the four candidates that signaled us.However, one of the signallers was of some interest to us because of his research interests. But his cover letter was a "Dear committee, here are my application materials" generic letter with no hint that he had any special interest in us. I don't believe that every cover letter has to be personalized, but if you care enough to send us one of your two signals, why not care enough to write a non-generic letter?
Application packets went out in mid November, while the deadline for picking which institutions to signal was not until Dec 3rd or 4th. I suspect that a lot of people, like me, did not decide which schools to send signals to until AFTER all the (generic) cover letters went out. Plus, I was under the impression that the quality of my research would be more important in landing me an interview than how well I could "customize" my cover letters.
To 5:36 "If I were a good match, the school would automatically know"How exactly a school would automatically know that you are a good match?To 9:58 Could it be just intertemporal? At the moment you are sending all the materials you are not certain what the best school would be, but after you have sent everything you start to look more carefully.Also, I can hardly imagine conveying the information about the goodness of the match in the cover letter. Should it look like: I would be happy to work with these and these professors or I like your such ans such research center? This customization is very cheap to perform and I would have assumed it is ignored. Also, harvard job market web site states that the cover letter will never be read by "Professor Dumdum," unless the school is a liberal art college that needs a special sort of cover letter.All this said, I am 0/2 signalling "particularly good match" (not sending signals to bad schools to get a safety net interviews). I heard, though, one of the schools cancelled junior search.
As a buyer (a top liberal arts college) in this market..... the signalling made little difference. We offered one interview to someone who signalled who might otherwise have been marginal. It had no effect on the other 50+ interviews offered.
If you decided to whom you would send signals to after you sent out generic letters, then your preference was not that strong and you were just acting strategically. This is cheap talk.Some personalization of letters can also be cheap talk (e.g., desire to work with Prof. Dumdum). But some is not (e.g., demonstrated geographic preference, spousal concerns).
3:27 wrote:"If you decided to whom you would send signals to after you sent out generic letters, then your preference was not that strong and you were just acting strategically. This is cheap talk."It's not cheap talk if you're only given two signals, does it? There's a cost to signalling in this format, making the talk slightly expensive.
12:55 wrote:"It's not cheap talk if you're only given two signals, does it? There's a cost to signalling in this format, making the talk slightly expensive."Agreed. In this case, it is only 'slightly' expensive and therefore pretty cheap. Especially since signals are received from other candidates who, upon closer examination of CVs, letters, etc., search committees can discover non-academic reason for signaling the institution. Otherwise, this is a matching game with some residual private information about candidate quality (there is much less uncertainty about institution quality). If so, I think that, in equilibrium, signals should largely reflect a candidate's assesment of likely optimal match. The institutions should have made similar rankings of candidates and, except for information uncertainty, would have chosen to interview this candidate even without the signal. Would not a signal then mainly be an attempt to overcome a potential lack of a match due to information uncertainty? Indeed, I suspect that candidate's signals may reflect a tradeoff of a somewhat lower probability of assuring this 'optimal' match for an increased probability of a match to a slightly better department than would occur with optimal sorting.Regards, 3:27
Post a Comment