next »

[spectacle]

I know this used to exist here because I've seen links to it, but the thread must have been destroyed somewhere along the line.  A friend of mine told me about it the other day and I just think it's genius.

So, a lot of us have trouble explaining the job market to our families, for whatever reason - particularly those of us who are first-generation academics.  My parents are high school graduates, so they are eternally baffled by what I do, why I'm still in school and (most infuriatingly), why I don't just "call up Harvard" and tell them how much I'd love to work there.  Because that would show initiative.

Anyway... so my friend was telling me how he read once here how we can explain the job market to our families/non-academic friends using the NFL Draft:

- There are way, way way more talented players than there are spots in the NFL.

- The schools choose the players - the players don't get to pick where they go.

- Just because you start playing with the Steelers doesn't mean you'll get to finish there - you might get traded, choose to become a free agent, etc.

- The first-round pick might be able to call up the Patriots and tell him how thrilled he'd be to play there, but most players can't do that without looking stupid.

- If a player doesn't get drafted, it doesn't mean he's no good.

- The draft happens at a particular time of year - most of the "hires" happen all at once with a little bit of variation depending on teams' needs, budgets, etc.

I love this analogy.  I've found it so useful already - who can help me flesh it out/add to it?  I encourage you to try it.  Seeing that flash of understanding in a previously-skeptical family member's eye is really satisfying.

[elsie]

I used that analogy, only with the NBA, with my brother and found it effective.

[gennimom]

Oh, yeah. I can definitely use this.

[kedves]

I am afraid that for me, the appropriate analogy will be to the national field hockey draft.
(I meant that to be funny, not sad, but maybe there is no way to make it completely funny.)

[airball]

I go with a lottery, but one in which not everyone has the same number of tickets.

Just by sending a letter, you get a ticket. After that:

Degree in hand = 10 tickets
Article in good journal = 5 tickets
Teaching experience = 50 tickets
Degree from same school/league as SCC = 40 tickets
Being too attractive = -30 tickets (Interthreduality alert)

But no matter how many tickets you have in hand, the chances of getting a given job are pretty slim.

airball

[tintern]

You go to an interview (the combine or pro days) where they evaluate you on some things that are very relevant to your job (teaching demos and job talks, etc./running and throwing, etc.) while also subjecting you to some of the most inane questions imaginable, some of which are designed to elicit confessions of marijuana use.

[bread_pirate_naan]

I've found it so useful already - who can help me flesh it out/add to it? 

If you are dealing with NFL-fluent people you can tell them the market, especially in conference-centric job hunting, is like the Combine.  Being on the TT is like a multi-year Combine.  That metaphor is more accurate than the draft.  The trade part is good.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NFL_Scouting_Combine
http://www.nfl.com/combine

[gift_horse]

I remember larryc making that analogy, sometime in the past year.

[unstuck]

I like the idea, but for my mother, who asks questions about football like "now, how do they score a run?" . . . I could try the lottery.  Happily, she usually falls back to, "well, you're smart, you must know what you're doing."  But there's always that bit of uncertainty in her tone.

[bacardiandlime]

Is there some golf analogy for my father? If it could be put in some form related to making the cut at the US Open, I think he might get it... (I know even less about golf than he knows about the academic job market, so someone help me out here)

[chomp96]

Getting a tenure-track job is like getting your PGA Tour card, allowing you to play full-time, and for the big money.  Otherwise, you're don the satellite (minor-league) tours or relying on sponsor's exemptions to play part-time (like an adjunct at a big-name institution). 

There is a multi-step process to get your tour card, but the last phase is the infamous "Q School" (qualifying tournament), in which the top players earn spots.  The competition at the 108-hole Q School is very stiff, as many of those competing have been on the big tour before (just as you might be competing with candidates who have already held a TT position).  I've read that the players say the pressure at the Q School is more intense than at even the US Open.

[temporaryname]

Maybe it's more like the professional hockey draft and leagues?

(d_f_b waits while most of the Americans on the board react with surprise to learning that hockey is played as a professional sport, and that it has leagues.)

Anyway, a player can be drafted straight into the NHL and play there, but that's unlikely (there's your tenure-track hire straight out of grad school). More often, someone gets drafted and sent to the minor leagues, and players have to work their way up (non-tenure-track positions of all sorts--you could think of postdocs as the junior leagues, "freeway adjunct"-type situations as the SPHL and LNAH, full-time lecturer positions as the ECHL, IHL, and CHL, VAPs as the AHL, or maybe as a temporary callup to the NHL). Tenure-track positions are like NHL contracts--and if you don't perform, you can be sent down (tenure denial), and have to work your way back up the system.

Then there's other stuff about trades and such, like in the other scenarios.

Yeah, yeah, I know, it would only work for about 10% of all of your families. But for mine, it's a great analogy!

[canadatourismguy]

Maybe it's more like the professional hockey draft and leagues?

(d_f_b waits while most of the Americans on the board react with surprise to learning that hockey is played as a professional sport, and that it has leagues.)

Anyway, a player can be drafted straight into the NHL and play there, but that's unlikely (there's your tenure-track hire straight out of grad school). More often, someone gets drafted and sent to the minor leagues, and players have to work their way up (non-tenure-track positions of all sorts--you could think of postdocs as the junior leagues, "freeway adjunct"-type situations as the SPHL and LNAH, full-time lecturer positions as the ECHL, IHL, and CHL, VAPs as the AHL, or maybe as a temporary callup to the NHL). Tenure-track positions are like NHL contracts--and if you don't perform, you can be sent down (tenure denial), and have to work your way back up the system.

Then there's other stuff about trades and such, like in the other scenarios.

Yeah, yeah, I know, it would only work for about 10% of all of your families. But for mine, it's a great analogy!

This one works for me...:-)  Though you could use MLB as having a similar structure.

[erzuliefreda]

I wish academia had trades. "Bob's just not a good fit for us here at River Road U. We'll send him over to you folks at Crossroads State, if you'll send us 2 adjuncts, a laptop and a bag of rocks."

[locutus]

Yes sports analogies are very good for explaining things. I have a few different analogies, one for explaining graduate school/postdocs, one for explaining TT jobs.

Here's the one for choosing a postdoc.

Lets say that schools are NBA teams and professors are the starting players. Now think about the NBA. There are teams that are high profile and overall good (The Bulls of the 90s) but that doesn't mean that the players at each position are good (the Bulls never had a great center). I am basically taking a job with one player on one team to learn my position. So lets say that I'm a center. Which would be better situation for me, the high profile team with the mediocre center, or the another team with a center that's having a Hall of Fame career?

I think it works ok.