This is effectively the right answer to my mind. I'll comment, however, that this isn't just how postdoc applications work. It's all applications, including tenure track!

As standard as the practice of not sending rejection letters is, does not take away from the fact how rude this practice is.

The second paragraph is a very flimsy excuse for the standard. In my experience, 19 times out of 20 a dept has clear transitions from “all applications are under consideration” to “we are inviting a shortlist to interview” to “we have now filled the position(s)” (sometimes without the middle step). The department certainly has something to update the rejected candidates on. If the rejection isn’t absolutely final, this can be reflected in the wording — “We do not expect to hire any further candidates from this search” — and it is still very helpful for candidates to be informed.

@TimRias I wonder, do people really care about getting a form "you have not been selected" letter? I have applied to many positions, for some I (eventually) got notified that I have not been selected and oftentimes I simply never heard back from them. I can't say that I feel any different about either of these cases. If you get notified, it's always at a time when it is already 100% clear that I was not selected (1+ year after submission).

@xLeitix Late letters are almost as bad as no letters. The polite thing to do is to send an e-mail when candidates have not made the short list, and when an offer has been made to a candidate. The effort to do is very low. The reason that employers don't is that they feel that this will make candidates less likely to accept in the case they do want get back to them (nobody likes being a "second" choice). This per definition is string the applicants along, which is rude. So, yes, sending letters only after the entire procedure has been concluded is also rude.

@TimRias Oh well. If you are hoping for accurate status updates while the search is still running you will find very few institutions willing to accommodate that hope, whether you consider it rude or not.

in the era of email, i also vote that it is really ridiculous not to send rejections even after someone is hired. We have to consider that it is most likely they just don't want communication, perhaps as advised by the lawyers. That is, perhaps they don't want anyone to say anything to failed candidates that can be used in a lawsuit

@xLeitix Given that I have also seen a fair amount of institutions give exactly those types of updates for (more senior) searches, I'm not convinced that there is anything more to this rude behaviour than people accepting that this is just the way it is done. It deserves a bit more push back.

I can understand why an insutition might not want to provide an update while the search is ongoing, but I see no reason once the search is complete. I diagree with @xLeitix. this can be very helpful for a candidate. Lets say you've applied for 2 positions and get offered the one that is your second choice. You wouldn't want to say yes if there was still a chance you might get the one that is your first choice.

@TimRias Could it be simply a difference in cultural expectations? I recall complaints about rudeness from Europeans when they heard nothing further after interviewing with various Silicon Valley computer industry companies. I explained to them that this is not considered rude but perfectly normal in this industry in this geographic location. Only if the company is interested in pursuing further steps will an applicant be contacted again.

But are they really 'currently considering all job applications'?

@TimRias so departments shouldn't string candidates along, and candidates also shouldn't string departments along, right? Everyone must be fully transparent about their preferences and never keep any information private, or else they are being rude? Is that your position about how the process should work?

@DanRomik re the update - I don't think anyone is suggesting the departmental chair personally emails all the rejected candidates. But a) surely the chair doesn't run all postdoc searches? For us the faculty member who is pi on the grant funding the position would run it. I get that might be different in math, but surely it's a poor use of a chairs tile even so? And b) even if it is the chair, chairs have PAs. Hell, or chair had a PA and a deputy PA. And any job search has someone from HR assigned to it. And I bet all those people are a dab hand with mail merge.

@IanSudbery I’ve shared my perspective, I don’t think I have much to add. Like I said, there are multiple reasons why we don’t send out rejection emails. Lack of manpower is one, but not the only one. In the end, it’s simply not seen as an efficient or practical thing to do, nor a particularly helpful one. In an ideal world maybe we’d do it, in the real world you simply run into all kinds of constraints and you end up dealing with more urgent/useful/important things.

Those saying it's easy simply do not understand what a typical day - They also may not understand the sheer volume of applications that come in. (Well, maybe there is an easy way to message all candidates from mathjobs, but I am not aware of it.)

I find it very strange that as someone who has worked though job applications you write something like "we are currently considering all job applications". When you get the pile of applications you have a handful of people who you would like to hire and may invite to interviews, another handful that you might take if the first handful doesn't work out and some 90% of all applications where you know you are not ever going to offer them a job. I understand you don't want to explain where exactly people in the first two groups are but you can safely tell the 90% you are not hiring them.

@quarague I don’t think it’s appropriate to tell candidates how we ranked them (and as I said, I don’t even think that sort of information is always helpful to the candidates, even if they think it is). So all I can tell people is that we’re considering their applications, even if that’s only true in a purely hypothetical sense.

@quarague I think you and others here are having a hard time wrapping your heads around the idea I articulated that people sometimes think it’s helpful for them to know something when it isn’t actually helpful. As I said, it’s counterintuitive, but this is my opinion based on experience. It’s not universally true of course. Separately from that, departments simply do not always perceive it to be appropriate to share information with candidates, taking into account the department’s own self-interest, the interests of other candidates, and other considerations.

@quarague as for people believing they have a chance when they don’t, that is unfortunate, but I am not responsible for people’s misguided beliefs. “We are considering all applications” is the only response that’s factually true and avoids leaking information that isn’t appropriate to divulge, so that’s why it’s the response I (and most employers in similar situations) use. I hope by posting my perspective here, perhaps some people will learn a useful lesson about how things look from the hiring side and will avoid being misled by this kind of response and developing false hopes.