next »

[farm_boy]

OK, so here's the deal: I'm a middle-aged former prof. who made some questionable decisions a few years ago, and I'm thinking of returning to academia, but just for 3 or 4 years before I head overseas.

Is it even remotely possible that I could find a job as a VAP?  Or are those jobs reserved for young, super-assertive ABDs or recent PhDs?

[yellowtractor]

I was on a VAP SC last year, and this was also one of my questions (given that I spent some time out of academia before coming back several years ago).  I teach at a private SLAC.

The short answer is that while there was no obvious prejudice against VAP applicants of the sort you describe--in fact, my school and department are known for encouraging "non-traditional" candidates--it worked out to the same thing in practice.

Why?  Because we privileged teaching credentials above all else (for a VAP).  We wanted someone we could plug into particular courses.  Candidates whose teaching credentials were not current, and/or not impressive in at least one of the two areas we were advertising, didn't make the initial cut.

We also wanted evidence of sustained professional engagement (conference papers, publications, etc.).  Those who had spent time outside of academia--for whatever reason, in whatever role--tended to be lacking in these areas too.

With the academic job market so competitive in the humanities, we never had to dip anywhere remotely outside a core pool of up-to-date, qualified candidates.

I wound up earning an extra degree in order to reinvigorate/update my academic c.v., after returning from several years outside academia.  There is also the adjuncting option, though it is both dispiriting and uncertain, as so many threads attest.  Good luck.

[systeme_d_]

We just hired two VAPs at my place this past week.  I will list what the SC loved, not just what I preferred.

PhD in hand, preferably from a department highly-ranked in our field.

Teaching experience (over a range of classes, not just intro and not just upper-level specialized classes).

Appropriate languages for applicant's area of specialization.

Letter explaining why the VAP applicant wanted the gig with us -- how it would serve his/her goals, and why our department/university in particular would be a good fit for her/him.

Letter showing familiarity with what types of classes we offered, and which ones he/she would be able to teach immediately.  (The phrase "could hit the ground running" was enthusiastically repeated by several members of the SC.)  

A couple of publications, or if just out of the gate, a couple of articles or a book in process.

Letters of rec that assured us (in various ways) that the applicant was dedicated to teaching, and easy to get along with/upbeat/a team player.

Here's what the SC did not like:

Training in a field other than ours, with no substantial prep in our field other than teaching a class or three.
A history of very spotty employment.
Less than supportive letters of rec.  (There were many.)
Close to a decade of VAPping/adjuncting.
Terrible writing samples.  Lack of theoretical sophistication was a particular problem for those trained in fields other than ours.

I hope this helps!

[farm_boy]

Thanks Systeme and Yellow for your detailed replies.

I don't think I have a chance in hell at getting a VAP job.  I haven't published anything in 10 years.

But I have been doing public school teaching.  Maybe I could get a job as Instructor, but that would cut my salary in half or more.

[egret]

We just did a search for a VAP at my regional state school. Because we're a teaching institution and the position is teaching heavy, my department above all wants to hire people with demonstrated teaching ability who look like they'll be able to handle the teaching load. Thus, promising graduate students without extensive teaching experience (or just TAships or only a few classes of less than 20 students) are looked on with considerable suspicion.

Publications are nice, but since it's understood that this is a teaching position, they're not given anywhere near as much weight as they would be for a TT hire.

The person we hired is someone who isn't a brand new PhD. This person does have current experience though - we also had applications from people who had done their PhDs 15 and 20 years ago. Unless their teaching experience was recent we didn't even consider them.

[bacardiandlime]

Here's what the SC did not like:

Training in a field other than ours, with no substantial prep in our field other than teaching a class or three.
A history of very spotty employment.
Less than supportive letters of rec.  (There were many.)
Close to a decade of VAPping/adjuncting.
Terrible writing samples.  Lack of theoretical sophistication was a particular problem for those trained in fields other than ours.

Could you elaborate?
My impression is that letters from research supervisors tend to be research-focused, "JoJo is making a groundbreaking contribution to the field of X, with his work on basketweaving in space..." and nothing about JoJo being a good teacher, and that this is a killer for teaching-focused jobs. Or do you mean actually denigratory letters?

[yellowtractor]

(Let me slide in here and say that if you know, or suspect, that your letter(s) from advisors do not address your teaching, you would do very well indeed to ensure that at least one of your letters does address your teaching.  Even if this means specifically inviting a prof or colleague to one of your classes and asking that prof or college to address the issue specifically.)

The last time I sat on an SC for a VAP, the most common genre of "less than supportive letters of rec" was the one-paragraph "Yeah, I remember X from one of my seminars.  He was competent.  I'm sure he would make a fine addition to the faculty of your institution."

I always wanted to contact those candidates and give them a heads-up, but of course we're not allowed to do that.

[systeme_d_]

Yes, YT describes the "less-than-supportive" letter of rec quite well.

They're usually about half a page long, or even shorter.   They sometimes list the classes Applicant took with Professor.   One memorable letter said that a seminar paper was "submitted in a timely fashion." 

If that's the best thing a professor can say about your work, well, there you go.

[john_proctor]

In all seriousness,

None of the VAPs at programs I've worked with really "applied."  True, we advertized, and they sent in documents.

And we "interviewed" them.

But, always (in my experience) the faculty member closest to the subfield contacted professor XYZ at program ABC and asked for 'recomendations.'

We always hired one of those.  8 times out of 10, sight unseen.

[bacardiandlime]

We always hired one of those.  8 times out of 10, sight unseen.

Wow, the elusive "fake search" appears! So you actually interviewed candidates, then hired someone you'd never seen or spoken to?

[t_r_b]

We always hired one of those.  8 times out of 10, sight unseen.

Wow, the elusive "fake search" appears! So you actually interviewed candidates, then hired someone you'd never seen or spoken to?

I suspect you've misread JP's post. It's not that the search is faked, or that candidates get interviewed just for show (though this does happen), but rather that candidates who come recommended by Professor A's old drinking buddy have a strong advantage.

Networks matter. They just do. Those who feel at a disadvantage because of this fact can either gripe about the unfairness of it all and remain unemployed or put themselves out there and get the attention of prominent scholars who might drop their names at useful times. The world is not a fair place. Complaining about the unfairness will not help you. Learning to work the unfairness to your advantage will.

As far as hiring someone sight unseen, I'm guessing that many VAP searches lack the funding to do on-campus interviews. The drinking buddy tells Prof. A that Kid B is the hottest thing going, Prof. A and Co. talk to Kid B on the phone, Kid B sounds reasonably competent. Let's say two other candidates also sounded reasonably competent on the phone, but otherwise you don't know squat about them. Whom would you hire?

[bacardiandlime]

I was kidding, t_r_b. The accusation of "fake search" gets thrown around on these fora like people claiming the Moon Landing was fake.

[yellowtractor]

I was kidding, t_r_b. The accusation of "fake search" gets thrown around on these fora like people claiming the Moon Landing was fake.

It's not that the moon landing was "fake."  It's that it wasn't tenure-track.

[t_r_b]

I was kidding, t_r_b. The accusation of "fake search" gets thrown around on these fora like people claiming the Moon Landing was fake.

It's not that the moon landing was "fake."  It's that it wasn't tenure-track.

Besides, Neil Armstrong got that job only because his advisor went to college with the head of NASA. The search was totally rigged.

This offers a perfectly good excuse for me to direct my dear fellow forumites to the latest and greatest in Moon-related truthfinding:

http://www.revisionism.nl/Moon/The-Mad-Revisionist.htm

[john_proctor]

We always hired one of those.  8 times out of 10, sight unseen.

Wow, the elusive "fake search" appears! So you actually interviewed candidates, then hired someone you'd never seen or spoken to?

I suspect you've misread JP's post. It's not that the search is faked, or that candidates get interviewed just for show (though this does happen), but rather that candidates who come recommended by Professor A's old drinking buddy have a strong advantage.

Networks matter. They just do. Those who feel at a disadvantage because of this fact can either gripe about the unfairness of it all and remain unemployed or put themselves out there and get the attention of prominent scholars who might drop their names at useful times. The world is not a fair place. Complaining about the unfairness will not help you. Learning to work the unfairness to your advantage will.

As far as hiring someone sight unseen, I'm guessing that many VAP searches lack the funding to do on-campus interviews. The drinking buddy tells Prof. A that Kid B is the hottest thing going, Prof. A and Co. talk to Kid B on the phone, Kid B sounds reasonably competent. Let's say two other candidates also sounded reasonably competent on the phone, but otherwise you don't know squat about them. Whom would you hire?

eeyup.

I'm not going to invest 100+ hours for a studied search for someone who's only being hired for a semester or two. 

Not to mention the expense.

I've posted it before, but this is worth noting: A typical search - from meetings drafting the job description, through careful review of applications, to pre-inverviews, to on-site interviews to offer and close - can take about 150 to 200 hours.  Times 5 (for each member of the sc).  Our dept. average salary is about $65k or so.  So that's about 30 weeks worth of billable hours (if we calculated it that way).  Not to mention the lost efficiency of the sc members with their other jobs. 

Institutional investment is up around 40 grand.

And I'm not even factoring in the time adjusting and orienting the newbie will take.

Now, if we hire someone tt, we'll recoup that loss over a year or two of enhanced efficency and a stronger department. 

But a single semester/term?

Indeed, we often get a VAP just to cover the shortfall in productivity during the next term while the tt faculty conduct a full search for a permanent, tt appointment.  It's cheaper to spend the 40 or so grand for the adjunct and not have the lost productivity and time.

It's not "fake."  We're not pretending to do a search to cover our asses as we appoint someone "just so."

And it's not tenure track (your head might explode at this, but I've never worked for a program that even advertized for part-time adjuncts).