next »

[kyotokyoto]

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

Well said!

I should have added something else, but I need to settle down some thoughts....

[acrimone]

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

Well said!

I should have added something else, but I need to settle down some thoughts....

Or maybe not... long term needs have some bearing here, too.  If Candidate A is going to use you as a stepping stone and jet three years later, maybe you might want to go with someone more likely to want stability and predictability.  There are transaction costs to personnel turnovers.

[octoprof]

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

Well said!

I should have added something else, but I need to settle down some thoughts....

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

Well said!

I should have added something else, but I need to settle down some thoughts....

I'll give an example.

A small department in a research-oriented institution needs to hire the equivalent of one-third of its faculty. Let's say the department has 6 full-time lines. Two folks have left or are leaving due to retirement or moving on or whatever.  The remaining four are a mixture of two mid-career (one publishing lots, one publishing some), one very early career (just getting research going, publishing started), and one non-tenure-track (no publishing, doesn't have to because it's a clinical line).  Only one of the current faculty has tenure at the moment. Two more are going to be hired.   Currently, everyone in the college is research active.

So, options:

1) hire two promising new PhDs from good schools (if you can in this low supply/high demand market)
2) hire two mid-career successful researchers (can't afford stars probably, but consistent publishers, yes).
3) hire one of each.

If the location is a good one, and/or the quality of life in the town is good, or other things are attractive with regard to location, you are much more likely to get the mid-career types interested than the young new PhDs (who probably have options for higher ranked schools given the high demand in the field, who probably would rather be at schools more similar to their PhD programs, with a large faculty in the discipline and so forth...).

If you choose option 1, you end up with a dept almost entirely comprised of untenured folks.  This puts a lot of pressure on the sole tenure professor with regard to reviews and committees and such (or you end up getting untenured folks to do more service than they should have to).

Of course, if you choose option 2, you might miss out on the opportunity to get a great researcher (i.e. you might hire someone with a lot of potential who lives up to it).  But, then you might lose them to a bigger, more prestigious dept/school.

So, the new PhD from Fantastic University isn't always the best, or the most likely, or the most hireable (is that a word?) choice.

If the department has had a lot of turnover in the past and is trying to limit that in the future, hiring mid-career folks makes limiting turnover more likely.

Anyhow, all situations are different, but I wanted to give an alternate view of the decision process from the department's point of view.

o.

On preview, yup, acrimone makes my point with regard to turnover and stability goals. Thanks!

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

That's because the research universities can (more likely) afford to risk the turnover or the 6-and-out situation (some might even prefer to do that... use 'em up and don't tenure them).... that the SLAC would prefer not to encounter.

[losemygrip]

This is a perfect example of what I call "the supermodel syndrome." 

Everybody wants to be able to say they hired America's Next Top Scholar.  "My, how discerning you were to find this young, beautiful, brilliant scholar!"  The experienced person is nothing more than a "has-been" in this scenario.  Doesn't matter how good they are.  (Unless they have star cachet like Christie Brinkley--but in fact more of those superstar scholars are like Janice Dickinson.)

It's really quite amazing how frequently this plays out.

[shrek]

It depends though on department needs. If there are more junior faculty in the department some might push for experience. Experience can step right in, develop a new program, supervise graduate students, set up a lab, and is connected in the field. They can potentially become department chair in the nearer future. Youth on the other hand might bring excitment, energy, and ideas that experience won't. Both would be great but I think it depends on the current mix as well.

[oldfullprof]

From my perspective, most top R-1s and SLACs will almost always hire candidate A, the bright shiny penny.  They're not looking for a proven warhorse who will expect some equity and voice on hire.  They usually want someone who, even if shallow, they can shape.  If A has a "fashionable" flavor of the month area, so much the better.  Never underestimate the role of stigma in academia.  A hint of age, a hint of coming from a mediocre place, and the hot places will start to turn up their noses.

I know this because I am candidate B.  I can beat out A at regional state colleges about half the time.  Nowhere else.  Half the time, the same type of people at those places will prefer A too because they want to be like the better places.

[kyotokyoto]

May I say something subjectively objective? (or objectively subjective?)

Many so-called promising, potential young scholars are actually illusionary.
Over the years I have seen my classmates and friends got new PhDs from top R1s and got great jobs at other R1s. They are so new that their CVs are short. They are often hired when they are still ABDs.

But they are hired because people believe they are promising.

However, years later, these former-future stars prove to be ordinary. They do not publish more journal papers, if any. Most of them do not publish the legendary books, if any. (Some of them do, though). Most of them are just ordinary people rather than stars.

Why do we need to worship the future stars which might not be stars at all?

[octoprof]

May I say something subjectively objective? (or objectively subjective?)

Many so-called promising, potential young scholars are actually illusionary.
Over the years I have seen my classmates and friends got new PhDs from top R1s and got great jobs at other R1s. They are so new that their CVs are short. They are often hired when they are still ABDs.

But they are hired because people believe they are promising.

Yes, and then some of them never actually publish anything... I have witnessed this.  One new PhD given big big bucks at a major research university and after four years he still hasn't submitted a manuscript to a journal, much less published!

[mountain_ivy]

Unfortunately, the title of this thread should probably be "Youth vs. Age" as I think that age discrimination is alive and well in the academy, at least sometimes.  For a while under a previous provost, we pretty grossly discriminated against older candidates.  Now, with a different provost, we're actually hiring the "experienced."  Thank goodness, as we need them.

When I was hired (more than a few provosts back), I was the oldest by far of the five of us who came into the department together.  An older candidate, not hired, filed a complaint.  Because of lil' ole' me, the complaint was dismissed--and I hadn't yet hit the big 5-0.  There are two of us "remants" of the five.

Not pretty........

[dr_crankypants]

Unfortunately, the title of this thread should probably be "Youth vs. Age" as I think that age discrimination is alive and well in the academy, at least sometimes.  For a while under a previous provost, we pretty grossly discriminated against older candidates.  Now, with a different provost, we're actually hiring the "experienced."  Thank goodness, as we need them.

You know, age discrimination goes both ways; there are certainly departments where it's not an advantage to be young, especially if the younger person is viewed as "inexperienced" next to "unproven," or when the older candidate's record is seen as stronger, simply because it's longer.

I strongly suspect, from the way that the OP presented the case, that s/he was candidate B.  But, as someone else pointed out, a big part of the issue is that we expect more experienced candidates to have more experience, more publications, and to have a more polished presentation.  Those are often functions of time, rather than inherent talent.

It's true that there is a starry-eyed fascination with potential.  But a big part of that is that a younger candidate is much more of a blank slate, and the search committees can believe that they will be whatever they're hoping for.  It's not simply the potential of the first candidate; it's also the malleability of that candidate in other people's minds.  They could really develop that sub-theme in the argument, or their book could end up doing X...  With the "proven" scholar, that malleability disappears.  Their book did not do X.  The trajectory of the research agenda is clear; there's no kidding yourself that the candidate is going in that interesting direction you think they ought to.  The candidate's work might be perfectly acceptable, but it's a fixed quantity.  Yes, perhaps this is safer, but that's not necessarily a good thing.  I agree with the poster who said that candidate A's trajectory, even if just potential, sounds more promising than the safe candidate's accomplishments. 

[larryc]

Apples: Crunchy and sweet. Red, but only on the outside. Grow in temperate climates. Can be made into sauce.

Oranges: Chewy and sweet-tart. Pretty much orange all the way through. Grow in tropical climates. Can be made into juice.

[eureko]

By the way, I was/am Candidate A, and have just accepted the position!  This is a department that has done ridiculously well with its (relatively) young hires in recent years, which may explain their willingness to consistently roll the dice on us youngins.

The school is an R1, in case that matters.

[svenc]

By the way, I was/am Candidate A, and have just accepted the position! 

Wow, no one saw that twist coming ...

In all seriousness though, congrats on the position!

[hollow_man]

By the way, I was/am Candidate A, and have just accepted the position! 

Wow, no one saw that twist coming ...

I did. But maybe because I myself am closer to A than B.