next »

[eureko]

Here's a "hypothetical" situation:

Candidate A is a relatively young (20-something) postdoc in what is considered the top department in her particular field.  She is a candidate for a TT position at another university, due mainly to her specialization which the new department considers attractive, as well as some glowing recommendations from some of the heavyweights in the field.  She can't point to many accomplishments (she's only a few years out of grad school), but all signs point to a successful future.

Candidate B is a early-40s tenured prof at a less prestigious institution, but of course has considerably more experience (research, teaching), publications, and demonstrated success.  Her area of specialization is probably less attractive to the new department given its current needs.

Assuming that neither candidate bombs their respective interviews, how in the world could Candidate A be competitive in this scenario?  She obviously is to some degree, otherwise she wouldn't be a candidate.  Can anyone explain how a SC tackles this question?  I can see the merits of youth and energy, but wouldn't the more established candidate be a safer bet?

Any thoughts?

[johnr]

Here's a "hypothetical" situation:

Candidate A is a relatively young (20-something) postdoc in what is considered the top department in her particular field.  She is a candidate for a TT position at another university, due mainly to her specialization which the new department considers attractive, as well as some glowing recommendations from some of the heavyweights in the field.  She can't point to many accomplishments (she's only a few years out of grad school), but all signs point to a successful future.

Candidate B is a early-40s tenured prof at a less prestigious institution, but of course has considerably more experience (research, teaching), publications, and demonstrated success.  Her area of specialization is probably less attractive to the new department given its current needs.

Assuming that neither candidate bombs their respective interviews, how in the world could Candidate A be competitive in this scenario?  She obviously is to some degree, otherwise she wouldn't be a candidate.  Can anyone explain how a SC tackles this question?  I can see the merits of youth and energy, but wouldn't the more established candidate be a safer bet?

Any thoughts?

Candidate B takes the job that you offer her, candidate A takes candidate B's job at lesser university when B leaves.  Seriously though, the decision is often made for us; we can't afford candidate B.   

[scheherazade]

If Candidate B's specialty doesn't fit what the department is looking for, why wouldn't Candidate A have a good shot?  Am I being really naive?

[phydeaux]

I can't answer your question, but I will say that I feel a whole lot like Candidate B. I've been at a 4/4, not terribly research-friendly school for over 10 years, and the time has come to move to place where I can have at least a little more time for scholarship. My vita is respectable (probably above-average, in fact) for someone who's been at a place like mine as long as I have, but I often wonder whether I'll be seen as a good fit for the asst. professorships that make up most of the job ads. Only time will tell--and especially the next few weeks, as I'm in an MLA field and waiting to schedule my first Chicago interview!

[hollow_man]

Don't underestimate the power of

1) the prestige of Candidate A's program; or

2) the perception of Candidate A's "boundless potential"; or

3) the allure of the hot-field-of-the-month.

Having said that... in my field, someone who is "a few years out of grad school"  and really doesn't have accomplishments to point to is probably not a star in the making.

[mended_drum]

How about a story to make the OP feel better?  I know of a search in which candidate B was hired (except this was a full professor rather than an associate) after the sc convinced the dean to pay for the increased rank.  However, the sc loved Candidate A so much that a year later, the scc, who can be relentless in the best of ways, convinced the Dean to go out and hire him as well (luckily, he was on a post-doc for that year).   The department might not have needed profs. in such closely overlapping fields, but they decided that they did need such stimulating colleagues.

[daniel_von_flanagan]

My department would probably be more attracted to A than B, both because we are a bit top-heavy in age.  However, if B has a very strong record, and wants to leave her institution because we are better/more suitable to her abilities, then she would be attractive too. - DvF

[stapler]

If Candidate B's specialty doesn't fit what the department is looking for, why wouldn't Candidate A have a good shot?  Am I being really naive?

I agree.  Candidate A looks more competitive to me, given the basic information provided by the OP. 

The fact is, the longer a candidate is out of the PhD, the more is expected of her/him.  It's not enough for Candidate B to have demonstrated the capacity for success.  To have had teaching and publishing success is really nothing special for someone at this stage in their career.  Lacking the desired specialization, Candidate B may need to have significantly outperformed discipline norms (re: publishing, teaching, etc) in order to be truly competitive here.

[daniel_von_flanagan]

My department would probably be more attracted to A than B, both because we are a bit top-heavy in age.

...and because of the area.  Didn't mean to suppress half my answer. - DvF

[imawakenow]

Assuming that neither candidate bombs their respective interviews, how in the world could Candidate A be competitive in this scenario?  She obviously is to some degree, otherwise she wouldn't be a candidate.  Can anyone explain how a SC tackles this question?  I can see the merits of youth and energy, but wouldn't the more established candidate be a safer bet?

Any thoughts?

A lot is going to depend on the department, but you know Candidate A will be working hard to publish and get tenure. That will be very attractive to some SCs, especially given the top department pedigree and LORs from big names in the field.

[bigsky]

I take it you are candidate B?

I agree with stapler's comments, it doesn't sound like B's accomplishments are in line with A's trajectory. Of course that is merely potential. B could have a few things going for her if she was more mobile than A (didn't have partner/spouse/elderly parent concerns), if this school is in a less than desirable area and they fear A staying briefly and leaving, if B has valued administrative/chair/leadership traits that A lacks, and probably many others.

Based on my experience at my institution with my dean I think A would be strongly favored. In fact, we have been asked to re-consider coandidates that did not make it into our top list because she felt that we might have overlooked them because we were comparing the candidate to someone several years out of grad school. This happens a lot since most of our competitive candidates have postdoctoral experience.

[eureko]

Just as a follow-up: Candidate A (i.e., the postdoc) got the job.

[pink_]

Eureko,
were you one or the other?
In other words, should we offer congrats or condolences?

[kyotokyoto]

There are too many factors. Being more experienced or less is not that decisive.

Although in my MLA field, being less experienced seems to be preferred by R1, and being more experienced preferred by SLACs.

I need to emphasize "seems to."

[octoprof]

Too many variables...

However, let me pose another view.

This could all depend on the make-up of the interviewing department. If the department is largely made up of older, senior, tenured faculty, the infusion of new ideas and a potential colleague who might stay for the long haul, could be good for the department.

On the other hand, if the department is more bottom heavy than top heavy, the more experienced candidate may be a better choice.

If the department is working toward some special accreditation that requires high research output in the near term, candidate B looks better.

This view is all about what the dept needs most in the near term, rather than comparing the candidates relative to one another.