next »

[new_old_tt]

I have been on this forum for a while. I leaned that the ultimate success is to get tenured. But this criterion somehow leaves deeply unsatisfied.

A few years ago, I had to choose between two jobs. I asked a wise friend, who told me that a good job  broadens your future job prospect and a bad one narrows it. I followed his advice and chose a non-tenure track research position which allowed me to pursue some exciting new area. Although I am only on tenure track now, I feel that I am much more competitive on the job market than if I had taken the other job.

So here is my question. After 3, 5, or 10 years on a job, are you more competitive or less competitive on the job market? I think those sought after in the market are the truly successful ones. Otherwise, tenure may be indeed the protection in need.

[malvolio]

Well partly that depends on what you mean by more competitive. As I understand it, many schools are wary of hiring associate professors because they have greater expectations in terms of salary and bonuses, while a brand new PhD will work for food and be happy about it (for a year or two at least).

But I reject your dichotomy as false--it is not a question of deadwood tenure track vs. vibrant enriching non-tenure track. Nor have I ever gotten the idea that "the ultimate success is to get tenured." Yes, it is a huge accomplishment because it is very hard to do, but that doesn't make it a success in and of itself, just a marker of success, and one type of success at that.

I think most people on this forum would agree that "ultimate success" would be tenure track position at a school they love, with colleagues they like, in an area of the country that makes them happy, and the balance of teaching and research that most appeals to the individual. Given the near impossibility of that, many people are willing to take job security as a major criteria, but just as many people throw themselves back onto the uncertainties of the job market in hopes of a better life.

But to answer (finally) your question directly--yes. After 6 years at my current job, I would be much more competitive on the job market today. 90% of my publications came after I took this job. I've taught at least 5 courses wholly or partly outside my main area, making me an appealingly flexible candidate. And I've not only been on committees, I've chaired them, and gotten stuff done.

But I won't be taking my spiffy new self anywhere, and not because I'm deadwood looking to stagnate safely for the next 30 years. I'm actually happy at my school, and I can continue to grow right here.

[nada_cum_laude]

Well said malvolio. 

I have been asked 3 times this year to apply for jobs at "better" departments (apparently satisfying the OP's criterion), and have declined to pursue them.  I confess to not totally understanding the desire to keep "moving up".  I am at a place I like.  We are close to family.  I have good friends on the faculty.  I teach courses I enjoy.  I can recruit good graduate students.  I have the resources that I need to do good research and I am extremely productive here.  The weather is nice.  I have season tickets to sporting and cultural events that are important to me.  *That* is success as I've defined it, even if I'm no longer on the "superstar" track.

[prytania3]

After 4 years, I'm not more competitive. In fact, I'm screwed. I guess that's why I've started taking accounting courses.

Interesting way of looking at things.

[oldfullprof]

Different tendencies work at cross purposes.  There's no question that I improved my chances with masters comprehensives by publishing a lot.  I did my undergrad at one, and have only worked in masters comprehensives (aside from work at a CC in grad school).  In fact, during my last search I was interviewed at all of the masters comprehensives at which I applied.

I now have a tenured job at a very good, desirably-located masters comprehensive.

But never underestimate the power of stigma in academia.  In spite of publishing way more than untenured people in my wife's R-1 department before I had tenure, I've never been able to land even one R-1 interview, or even one SLAC interview.

This is probably due to:

Being older
Having a long and varied career
Having varied research interests
Having done a lot of teaching
Not having a flavor of the month research area
Not having attended an R-1 or SLAC as an undergrad

[bigsky]

It depends on what you do in those years. Our Dean looks carefully at pubs after PhD. I am in the sciences and most people do postdocs prior to getting a position. As a result, one typically goes from a job where you are researching/publishing full time to TT position where that time is split with teaching, advising, committee work, etc. If you can maintain (even accelerate) your productivity then you are in a great situation. I have a very good grant record and an ok pub record. I am not looking to go on the market (5 years here) but if I were to I would need to increase my publication output to be competitive. I have some colleagues that would probably find it impossible to move because of their research productivity while here.

[heraclitus]

I think new old TT asks a very good question.  All of the responses make sense, except if you're teaching at an institution where you're limited in the courses that you teach (i.e., unable to teach courses in your field of specialization) or you're teaching at a community college.

For example, this past fall I went on the job market with 4 + years of full-time teaching experience, a book-length publication in my field, and over a dozen conference presentations.  As a young, new faculty member at my old school, I had coordinated an entire area of a large department for three years, overseeing and hiring 20 part-time faculty and more than 5 or 6 full-time faculty.  I was involved in some way in just about every major initiative of the school both from the administration and faculty side.  My evaluations were glowing, and people looked at me as one of the "stars" of the school.  I had taught many courses in many related fields and piloted new programs.  Based on this, I had confidence re-entering the job market 4 years after my first attempt.

The results were not what I expected. 

I did find a new position, but my work was not assessed in the way I expected because of the institution.  I know that I lost jobs to people just finishing graduate school without this background, in scholarship, teaching, and administration. 

For me, another year or two at my old institution would have made it extremely difficult to make a move to a school that involved a vertical change (into a different caliber), even though my credentials would have been that much stronger given my trajectory.  Without the book publication, too, it would have been very difficult as well. 

On the positive side, I would have been a strong candidate at a similar school.  I could have been very, very selective at this level and the few schools that were comparable that I applied to contacted me immediately for an interview.  I do think these are things to weigh, and your choices can have an impact in the future.

As a final note, I am very happy with the path that I took.   

[iceberry]

If by competitive you mean, ability to find an equivalent position at similar or higher ranked institutions, then it is almost certainly the case that most people are less competitive after a few years.  Especially post tenure.

That's just the way the job market works. 

To not be "competitive" in this sense doesn't mean you can't achieve success by your own standards.

It's just a fact that at many/most places the bar for hiring a senior colleague from outside is going to be higher than for hiring a new PhD or promoting someone internally [and I believe there is research that documents this.] 

To give an example, assume you were a hot candidate on the junior market.  At the job you chose, 6 top pubs were needed for tenure.  You have 8 pubs and are almost a shoo-in for tenure at your school.  Unless those 8 pubs were unusual however, it is unlikely that you would be just as "hot" on the associate market as you were on the junior market.  Why?  Because many schools cannot hire at the senior level as easily, so the standards are different.

Moreover, salaries are very non-linear at the senior level.  While entry level salaries may differ by 15%, 25% or 35% from lowest to highest tier, salaries at the senior level can vary by 50%, 100%, or (very rarely) over 200% at the highest levels (when comparing highest paid to lowest paid fulls and associates in the same department).  Even more when comparing salaries across schools.

[iceberry]

I would add as a follow up:  This works -- almost perversely -- in reverse for the top superstars.

Assume that in your profession you were widely regarded as one of the top 2 or 3 candidates in the country when you became an assistant.   You had your pick of schools, were offered a salary bonus and a few extra research goodies. 12 years later, you are now viewed as among the top 2 or 3 profs at your level and in your cohort.  Suddenly, your market is vastly better than it was when  you first came out.  Mobility is easy and salary offers and research perks -- in popular fields -- likely to seem outrageous to the rest of the world.

[johnr]

I asked a wise friend, who told me that a good job  broadens your future job prospect and a bad one narrows it.

I don't know. I had to choose between a job at a typical, run of the mill, RI type univeristy in the midwest and, a job at a  wonderful masters comprehensive university in a beautiful town on the west coast.  I think that the RI would have made me more competitive, but I chose the good job instead.