This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
From an outside (non-academic) perspective this strikes me as fairly banal. All high end firms have spousal placement programs. T1 law firms have deep connections to governments and corporations, so while they don't hire the good-not-outstanding spouse, they ensure he/she gets a respectable, appropriate, job working as an attorney. Academia is both constrained and unconstrained in this way. Its less likely for a T1/T2 job partnership to be available or make sense for the T2 institution in a city, but academia also has way more totally bullshit jobs that "need" to be filled (approximately 70% of positions at colleges didn't exist in 1990 IIRC).
Spousal hiring, in this context, is totally normal. The college is actually getting services on the cheap. Instead of making a real hire for useless DEI officer #7, they get that person for free, instead of paying the researcher that extra amount, and the DEI officer.
In my experience, spousal hires are typically not for things like "DEI officer" (or at least I wouldn't call that a spousal hire) but for research or teaching roles.
I also think your example with law firms is a bit different because if a different organization is doing the spousal hiring then that organization still has incentive to make sure the person they hire meets their standards. Also there are typically far more jobs for lawyers in one city than for, say, theoretical physicists.
It is different for sure. I was just observing that the practice seemed to make sense to me. I am not entirely surprised spousal hires doing go into the admin roles, although they probably should, but I guess universities are actually true believers in that stuff.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Wait, really? I don’t work in those circles but I’ve never heard of such a thing. Have other people heard of this? Is it limited to America / poster’s home country?
In the hedge fund/prop shop space etc. this is pretty rare, especially if your spouse isn't working in that part of finance. If you're moving country they generally will pay the visa fees for your spouse and any children though, and you might be able to use the fact your spouse is losing their job as leverage to increase your own compensation. Generally though your spouse's career will take a hit, which is why it is important to choose your partner early on to be someone who's fine making this sacrifice for you if you eventually plan on making such moves.
Interesting, thanks! From the responses by you and @2rafa, it seems fair to say that in the majority of cases ‘something’ will probably be done to help but that’s very unlikely to extend to actually giving your partner even a low-level job. Or maybe finance is different, and it’s just T1 law that does this?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
In finance what sometimes happens is that if you get moved to, say, Singapore or Hong Kong (or occasionally Paris or even London/NYC) the company - if they really want you - might agree to hire a high-end recruiter for your partner so that they can get a work visa instead of a spouse visa. This is only for long-term roles (eg. if they anticipate you’ll be out there for 5+ years) and for senior positions. It’s arguably more common now because some countries like Singapore have tightened rules on working as a dependant.
You can always go from front office to back office (though it’s a one-way trip), but I can’t imagine a hiring bank finding a front office role for a spouse of someone they recruit or send overseas beyond maybe offering them a good recruiter. But as is not uncommon in law, in these cases one person’s career usually takes a back seat and they move into ops/HR/compliance/investor relations/marketing anyway.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link