By David Baranger & Tayler Sheahan
In our previous post in this series, we (David and Tayler) shared how we navigated the process of securing postdocs in the same city. Here, we’ll talk about how we pulled it off a second time, landing two tenure-track assistant professor positions at the same university (we’re moving to the Medical College of Wisconsin!). In particular, this post will be focused on things we did specific to our two-body problem – this is not a general post about applying for TT jobs, though many of the things we did would also apply to anyone who’s on the job market.
Our strengths
First, it’s important to note that we came into this with a lot going for us. We both have worked in labs that are well-known in their respective fields, and we both hold K99/R00 awards from the NIH. Tayler has also been very successful in gaining visibility in her field, and David had a good number of high-impact publications under his belt going into the application season.
Applications
Apply broadly. We both applied to 30+ jobs. These included both searches specific to our research areas, as well as more general searches. We tried our best to apply to as many jobs in the same cities as we could, though it was not always possible. We had some loose geographic requirements, but otherwise our only requirement was that it looked like a school where we could see ourselves having a successful research career. We applied to both medical schools and arts & sciences positions (and had interviews at both).
Use your network. We reached out to colleagues, mentors, and friends to let them know we were on the job market. This paid off particularly well for Tayler – she was subsequently contacted directly by four search committees that wanted her to apply to positions. She interviewed at all four. A former colleague of Tayler’s even sent around our CVs to different departments at his university, which landed us another two interviews.
Be visible. We both also put in work to be visible in our respective fields, particularly when it was close to application season. We presented at multiple conferences (both posters and talks), and we also spoke at internal events whenever possible. Tayler also had the opportunity to attend group lunches with several visiting faculty speakers, which opened up several doors for her when applying. It can also help to be visible online! Make a website (see ours) and curate your Google Scholar. Having a presence on social media can also be helpful, though it certainly isn’t a requirement.
Keep an open mind. Unless you’re already very familiar with an institution, it can be hard to know whether they may be a strong fit until you visit in person. University websites are frequently out of date or just hard to navigate, and it can be difficult to find key pieces of information. So, keep an open mind, especially when you’re navigating a two-body problem. Go visit the school that isn’t on the top of your list that your partner is enthused about – you might be surprised!
Interviews and negotiations: Be transparent
People have different philosophies about how to approach a two-body problem. Some suggest waiting to bring it up until after the first interview, while others recommend to lead with transparency. In particular, we have been given advice that it can be risky for women on the TT job market to announce the two-body problem early on in the recruitment process. Tayler however, wasn’t concerned about this – her philosophy was that if it is perceived as an issue in the hiring process, then it will likely be perceived as an issue within the department long-term. If that were the case, that environment would not be a good fit!
So, we chose to lead with transparency. We told committees and chairs about our spouse during the first interview (usually on zoom). That is, we communicated that our spouse was on the job market as well, and that we would need for them to also have a position in the same geographic area for us to accept any offers. Happily, this level of transparency never backfired on us. Efforts were made at nearly every school we interviewed at to identify a spot for our spouse, and if this was not possible, departments were very upfront about it, which we are enormously grateful for. And if a school could not accommodate us, we appreciated learning that sooner rather than later.
We also think that it was a good idea to tell committees/chairs about our spouse early on, because finding a second position, especially a TT one, takes time. A partner department needs to be identified, conversations have to happen, potentially a new job ad needs to be created and approved by HR (though in some cases the job ad was created after we had both interviewed and they had decided to make us offers), etc. All of that takes time. In our experience, the amount of time it took to find a position for our spouse ranged from one to five months! So, in order to maximize your chances of finding positions together, we recommend transparency.
It’s also important to be upfront about what you need, especially if you’re the secondary candidate (the “spousal hire”). If you have budget/equipment/resource needs that are non-negotiable, the earlier the department knows about them, the more likely it is that they can get you what you want. The secondary candidate in particular may have very little time to negotiate, so it’s important to know what you need ahead of time and to communicate that to the chair.
Transparency also extends to negotiations. We were lucky enough to get offers from multiple schools, but they all had their own timelines and deadlines (we learned that TT offers often come with a 2-week deadline). What’s more, it happened multiple times that the two offers from the same school came at different times and also had different deadlines (the offers were from different departments, after all). The only way we were able to navigate this was by being transparent with everyone. If we were waiting on details about another offer, we told the schools waiting for us. They were always very understanding, and agreed to extend the offer deadlines for us when possible.
Be patient
The interview process takes a long time, and it felt twice as long with a spouse!! We submitted our first applications in October 2023 and we signed our offer letters in July 2024 – 10 months! A good chunk of that time was because we couldn’t interview at the same time (we have a young child and no family in the area), so we had to stagger our trips. Often this meant that only one of us could do an interview in a given week. It then also took longer to get our offers in some cases, as two hiring committees had to both meet and agree to make offers, and then there were twice as many meetings with the University administration. So – plan ahead! Make sure you have enough funding and budget your time accordingly.
Things will go wrong
Things will go wrong. Largely it will have nothing to do with you or your partner. In one instance, the chair wanted to hire the secondary candidate but the hiring committee was against it due to various internal politics. In another, everyone thought the offer for the secondary candidate was going to go through but a Dean decided against it at the last moment for unexplained reasons. We have since learned that this is pretty common across institutions. So, things will go wrong, just know that they have nothing to do with you or your spouse, your qualifications, or your potential.
Making your big decision!
Decide which factors are most important to you. We were very fortunate to have several dual opportunities to choose from. Ultimately our decision came down to:
o Strong scientific fit for both of us. We compromised such that neither person got their strongest scientific fit, but each of us were very happy with the institution/department we ultimately chose.
o Cost of living. We wanted to make sure we could afford the life we want in whatever city we ended up in.
o Proximity to family/friends. We weren’t sure if we would have the chance to live close to family or friends, but when the opportunity came, we found that we valued it quite highly.
o Gut feeling. Is this a department/community/city where we could see ourselves thriving? Could we imagine working with these colleagues for the next decade(s)?
After working through some of the initial nerves, we both found the faculty interview process to be a very rewarding experience (albeit inherently extremely stressful). It’s so exciting to be able to share your work and vision for your research program with folks who have enthusiasm for your science. Good luck and you got this!
David Baranger, PhD 