|
expiring?
Guest
|
 |
« on: February 14, 2006, 07:18:16 AM » |
|
I'm curious about how long a new PhD says "fresh". A year past the defense? Two? Three?
Also, obviously publishing early and often is ideal, but is no publication during the first year of full-time teaching understood? What if there was an publication ABD? Does giving conference papers during this time help?
I should note that I'm asking about the humanities primarily.
Any thoughts woudl be appreciated.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
alice
Guest
|
|
« Reply #1 on: February 14, 2006, 09:33:53 AM » |
|
I have been wondering about this too! I just defended, and I was so happy, proud, and (most of all) RELIEVED that it never occured to me that a clock was ticking in terms of my "freshness."
Say it ain't so, Joe!
[%sig%]
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
anon
Guest
|
|
« Reply #2 on: February 14, 2006, 09:59:37 AM » |
|
I think you could go for 3 years after getting the Ph.D. before people would start wondering what's wrong with you, as long as you were at least doing some academic things (e.g., adjuncting, working on publications). I came up with that number based on what seemed to be the consensus among faculty and administrators in my former department.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
anony
Guest
|
|
« Reply #3 on: February 14, 2006, 10:14:04 AM » |
|
Perhaps we should consider the fact that many postdocs explicitly screen for "freshness," don't they? Some indeed only accept apps. from people whose Ph.Ds were received in the last 3 years. Just a thought.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
old man
Guest
|
|
« Reply #4 on: February 14, 2006, 11:44:15 AM » |
|
i think it really depends. i received my phd in 1994 and just landed my first tenure track job. depends on what you do in the meantime.
i was told my phd was old, but other things i did in the meantime compensated.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Mentos
Guest
|
|
« Reply #5 on: February 14, 2006, 01:00:25 PM » |
|
In this business it's all about freshness baby!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
follow up question
Guest
|
|
« Reply #6 on: February 14, 2006, 02:29:23 PM » |
|
Does this mean, then, that if I don't want to go on the market next fall, I should postpone my defense? (I'm not going on the market for non-work reasons; I was planning to have a year off).
Should I proceed with a spring defense and be done or bump it to next fall to preserve my "freshness"?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
anony
Guest
|
|
« Reply #7 on: February 14, 2006, 04:22:33 PM » |
|
The strategy of postponing the Ph.D. to preserve your "freshness" can work for a spell, so long as you aren't too much *older* than a typical Ph.D candidate in your field (I don't endorse ageism, mind you, I just report on it!), and so long as you don't postpone habitually. If you do take a year off from the search, definitely try to be productive: publish, go to conferences--in a word, be (or at least look) "active" in a way that registers on your cv. Just my thoughts...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
fresh as a daisy
Guest
|
|
« Reply #8 on: February 14, 2006, 09:10:49 PM » |
|
I got my Ph.D. in spring 2001, but was doing non-academic work when I defended. My committee figured I'd have 2-3 years if I decided to pursue academia later on; 4-5 years, they thought, would be too long. I went on the job market in 2004-05 and landed a job exactly four years after getting my degree. I wasn't all that active in my field, but did do some publishing and teaching. I went to an Ivy for graduate school, and unfair as I think this is, I know it made my application stand out.
[%sig%]
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Search Committee Member
Guest
|
|
« Reply #9 on: February 15, 2006, 05:09:46 AM » |
|
In English at a public R-1, I think we believe that you have a year and a bit after your defense to be "new PhD" no matter what you're doing. After that, you need about one publication per year to stay competitive with the newer people. Five years out with no publications -- unless you have been doing something truly striking (no, adjuncting, or even teaching full-time with a 4/4 load, will NOT cut it) -- and you're completely out of the running. The other exception, of course, is that you're five years out, doing anything at all, and a truly brilliant first book has just appeared.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Bookish
Guest
|
|
« Reply #10 on: February 17, 2006, 03:06:54 AM » |
|
I was four years out and landed a job I love at a R1 with a 2-2 teaching load, in the humanities. But I'd kept active and had very good interim teaching jobs (was able to avoid adjuncting). I'd asked the same question about freshness during my last year on the market and was told that since I had been getting very good interest (interviews, campus visits) from committees at good jobs (just never hooked that gold ring itself), I should persist. I do think that the pressure is on not-yet-hired PhDs to publish at least as much if not MORE than their hired peers as time goes on, to remain competitive and show they are "in the game."
I have a friend who got an amazing t-t job at a high-status midwestern R1, six years out. But he had a ton of stuff published including a book, and had been able to find good teaching (non-t-t) jobs year to year. Still, it is very hard waiting and not knowing if such a prolonged search will pay off.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
