Xjyuk

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

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.

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.

FWIW, the equivalent position is probably more like Assistant Professor. In many places Associate Professor implies tenure has been achieved.