next »

[humanista]

The other thing I wish I knew: how much prestige matters and mobility in academia is rarely upward and mostly downward.. I went to a top 20 instead of a top 5 department for certain personal reasons without realizing how much it would affect my job prospects. As it turns out, in my field almost half the faculty in PhD granting departments come from the same 5 schools.

True dat. (Well, in my field maybe the same fifteen schools.) I could have gone the Ivy or other elite school route, but went to a slightly lower ranked school (also for personal reasons). I ended up OK, but I sometimes wonder if I would have had an easier time (lower teaching load, less oppressive service load, more money and time for research, and ultimately more money). On the other hand, if I had gone to a hoity toity school, I may not have gotten an offer from a school like the one where I am and maybe wouldn't have gotten a job at all. The wiki pages are full of people who went to the "right" programs and never ended up with a T-T job of any kind.

[paulsa]

The other thing I wish I knew: how much prestige matters and mobility in academia is rarely upward and mostly downward.. I went to a top 20 instead of a top 5 department for certain personal reasons without realizing how much it would affect my job prospects. As it turns out, in my field almost half the faculty in PhD granting departments come from the same 5 schools.

True dat. (Well, in my field maybe the same fifteen schools.) I could have gone the Ivy or other elite school route, but went to a slightly lower ranked school (also for personal reasons). I ended up OK, but I sometimes wonder if I would have had an easier time (lower teaching load, less oppressive service load, more money and time for research, and ultimately more money). On the other hand, if I had gone to a hoity toity school, I may not have gotten an offer from a school like the one where I am and maybe wouldn't have gotten a job at all. The wiki pages are full of people who went to the "right" programs and never ended up with a T-T job of any kind.

This raises an interesting question, and one I've definitely been thinking about during this application cycle & one which I think particularly applies to those in the humanities/liberal arts (other fields seem, from my perspective, better at finding slots for people at different career stages).

There seems to be this middle area from which landing a TT job poses unique difficulties. If you have the makings (education, articles, awards, books, etc) to become a real hot shot in your field but are not yet actually a hot shot, everybody has a reason not to want you. In a year when the market is so crowded and few jobs are out there, the handful of  really good jobs (low teaching loads, a big name university, etc) are going to the very well established names in field who want to change location for whatever reason. In the meantime, those running the searches for less desirable jobs want nothing to do with you because they're afraid you'll jilt them at the first opportunity down the road. It makes sense from their point of view, a lot of times, to hire somebody who is ABD at a "second tier" university over somebody with an Ivy League education, a published dissertation, etc.

[locutus]

It sounds like a lot of you wish these fora had existed to help you out.

I tell my grad students to read the fora, but they often say they don't have time, they have paper deadlines, and the like.

Some of the best advice I've ever gotten was to start reading the Chronicle. In general it has been very edifying.

[msparticularity]

The other thing I wish I knew: how much prestige matters and mobility in academia is rarely upward and mostly downward.. I went to a top 20 instead of a top 5 department for certain personal reasons without realizing how much it would affect my job prospects. As it turns out, in my field almost half the faculty in PhD granting departments come from the same 5 schools.

True dat. (Well, in my field maybe the same fifteen schools.) I could have gone the Ivy or other elite school route, but went to a slightly lower ranked school (also for personal reasons). I ended up OK, but I sometimes wonder if I would have had an easier time (lower teaching load, less oppressive service load, more money and time for research, and ultimately more money). On the other hand, if I had gone to a hoity toity school, I may not have gotten an offer from a school like the one where I am and maybe wouldn't have gotten a job at all. The wiki pages are full of people who went to the "right" programs and never ended up with a T-T job of any kind.

This raises an interesting question, and one I've definitely been thinking about during this application cycle & one which I think particularly applies to those in the humanities/liberal arts (other fields seem, from my perspective, better at finding slots for people at different career stages).

There seems to be this middle area from which landing a TT job poses unique difficulties. If you have the makings (education, articles, awards, books, etc) to become a real hot shot in your field but are not yet actually a hot shot, everybody has a reason not to want you. In a year when the market is so crowded and few jobs are out there, the handful of  really good jobs (low teaching loads, a big name university, etc) are going to the very well established names in field who want to change location for whatever reason. In the meantime, those running the searches for less desirable jobs want nothing to do with you because they're afraid you'll jilt them at the first opportunity down the road. It makes sense from their point of view, a lot of times, to hire somebody who is ABD at a "second tier" university over somebody with an Ivy League education, a published dissertation, etc.

When my department has passed over folks from Ivies and R1s for jobs, it has been less about fear of being jilted and far more about their lack of preparation to do some part of the job as advertised. To put this in terms of this thread, one thing to know is that many, many departments will be concerned if a candidate has no experience in teaching independently, and/or no background in teaching the typical intro-level or service courses that are generally offered in the field. While we are not a "teaching intensive" program, teaching is still a significant portion of the bigger picture.

IOW, even if you have a fabulous research preparation at a top university and lovely publications, it may improve your chances if you also have at least some teaching experience.

[paulsa]

The other thing I wish I knew: how much prestige matters and mobility in academia is rarely upward and mostly downward.. I went to a top 20 instead of a top 5 department for certain personal reasons without realizing how much it would affect my job prospects. As it turns out, in my field almost half the faculty in PhD granting departments come from the same 5 schools.

True dat. (Well, in my field maybe the same fifteen schools.) I could have gone the Ivy or other elite school route, but went to a slightly lower ranked school (also for personal reasons). I ended up OK, but I sometimes wonder if I would have had an easier time (lower teaching load, less oppressive service load, more money and time for research, and ultimately more money). On the other hand, if I had gone to a hoity toity school, I may not have gotten an offer from a school like the one where I am and maybe wouldn't have gotten a job at all. The wiki pages are full of people who went to the "right" programs and never ended up with a T-T job of any kind.

This raises an interesting question, and one I've definitely been thinking about during this application cycle & one which I think particularly applies to those in the humanities/liberal arts (other fields seem, from my perspective, better at finding slots for people at different career stages).

There seems to be this middle area from which landing a TT job poses unique difficulties. If you have the makings (education, articles, awards, books, etc) to become a real hot shot in your field but are not yet actually a hot shot, everybody has a reason not to want you. In a year when the market is so crowded and few jobs are out there, the handful of  really good jobs (low teaching loads, a big name university, etc) are going to the very well established names in field who want to change location for whatever reason. In the meantime, those running the searches for less desirable jobs want nothing to do with you because they're afraid you'll jilt them at the first opportunity down the road. It makes sense from their point of view, a lot of times, to hire somebody who is ABD at a "second tier" university over somebody with an Ivy League education, a published dissertation, etc.

When my department has passed over folks from Ivies and R1s for jobs, it has been less about fear of being jilted and far more about their lack of preparation to do some part of the job as advertised. To put this in terms of this thread, one thing to know is that many, many departments will be concerned if a candidate has no experience in teaching independently, and/or no background in teaching the typical intro-level or service courses that are generally offered in the field. While we are not a "teaching intensive" program, teaching is still a significant portion of the bigger picture.

IOW, even if you have a fabulous research preparation at a top university and lovely publications, it may improve your chances if you also have at least some teaching experience.

What you're saying makes good sense. I'm actually thinking of something slightly different, scenarios that resemble the following:

Applicant A: Ivy League PhD, published dissertation, second book under contract, successive VAP appointments at both Ivy League and teaching colleges, glowing rec letters, good interpersonal skills and no obvious personality defects.

Applicant B: Newly minted PhD from respectable second tier university, a published dissertation chapter and a few conference presentations, teaching experience as a TA, glowing rec letters, good interpersonal skills and no obvious personality defects. 

So assuming that all of the above were true (that Applicant A didn't actually have poison rec letters or a bad personality), why and when does a department decide to hire Applicant B?

[tc2004]

I have no advice to add to the topic. I am however taking notes, this thread will be very helpful both now and in the future for me...Gracias.

[prephd]

So assuming that all of the above were true (that Applicant A didn't actually have poison rec letters or a bad personality), why and when does a department decide to hire Applicant B?

I can't say for sure, other than "fit," meaning that Applicant B's specialty (or lack thereof) was more aligned with the department's needs.

Things I wish I had known:

That I'd need to save up my vacation days and block out the calendar during February.

That I really could have been more selective in my applications (I've sent out nearly 30 so far). Of course, I sorted job ads first by requirements. Because there were still too many to reasonably apply for, after sorting by requirements, I sorted by geographical location. Apparently, my geographical criteria of "within 60 miles of a large city" is still a bit too broad. And apparently, place matters more to me than I thought it did. (Or more to me than it did in my 20s.) After going on some interviews in places I couldn't have imagined I'd hate so much, I'm glad to know now more of what I'm looking for. That experience will be valuable to me next year if I do this again.

I wish I'd known how often I'd have to calmly explain the academic hiring process to people outside of academia. I've learned that hardly anybody understands how it works, and I've perfected a one-minute run-down of the academic hiring process. I've also perfected a one-minute run-down of a professor's duties for those people who say some form of, "it will be awesome to only work 15 hours a week."

[humanista]

I wish I'd known how often I'd have to calmly explain the academic hiring process to people outside of academia. I've learned that hardly anybody understands how it works, and I've perfected a one-minute run-down of the academic hiring process. I've also perfected a one-minute run-down of a professor's duties for those people who say some form of, "it will be awesome to only work 15 hours a week."

I would really love to have a one-minute rundown of these two things for non-academics, the "elevator talk" on the realities of academic hiring and work. Would you mind sharing? Do you use anything like the NFL analogy that has been floated here?

[prephd]

The job search: Unlike most jobs, the academic hiring process is done at a glacial pace. Advertisements go out in September, you send applications in October and November, get calls in December or January, go on interviews in February, and the hiring is done by April. In some cases, it even takes longer than that. And, unlike school districts, it's unheard of to send in an unsolicited application. Very few universities have departments of X, and of those that do, I've got to wait for someone to die or retire before they advertise for a position. I can't apply to nearby schools because they're not hiring.

The professor's job: Teaching is less than one-third of a professor's job. If you teach four classes a semester (12 hours), then you will likely spend three hours prepping for every hour of class (36 hours). That's already 50 hours of work each week. Then, on top of that, you are also expected to conduct research, supervise interns in the field, write and publish articles and books, present at conferences, participate in local and national organizations, serve on committees and attend department and college meetings. The day seems more flexible than a 9-to-5 job, because many of those things can be done from the couch or desk, but they still have to get done.

[msparticularity]

The other thing I wish I knew: how much prestige matters and mobility in academia is rarely upward and mostly downward.. I went to a top 20 instead of a top 5 department for certain personal reasons without realizing how much it would affect my job prospects. As it turns out, in my field almost half the faculty in PhD granting departments come from the same 5 schools.

True dat. (Well, in my field maybe the same fifteen schools.) I could have gone the Ivy or other elite school route, but went to a slightly lower ranked school (also for personal reasons). I ended up OK, but I sometimes wonder if I would have had an easier time (lower teaching load, less oppressive service load, more money and time for research, and ultimately more money). On the other hand, if I had gone to a hoity toity school, I may not have gotten an offer from a school like the one where I am and maybe wouldn't have gotten a job at all. The wiki pages are full of people who went to the "right" programs and never ended up with a T-T job of any kind.

This raises an interesting question, and one I've definitely been thinking about during this application cycle & one which I think particularly applies to those in the humanities/liberal arts (other fields seem, from my perspective, better at finding slots for people at different career stages).

There seems to be this middle area from which landing a TT job poses unique difficulties. If you have the makings (education, articles, awards, books, etc) to become a real hot shot in your field but are not yet actually a hot shot, everybody has a reason not to want you. In a year when the market is so crowded and few jobs are out there, the handful of  really good jobs (low teaching loads, a big name university, etc) are going to the very well established names in field who want to change location for whatever reason. In the meantime, those running the searches for less desirable jobs want nothing to do with you because they're afraid you'll jilt them at the first opportunity down the road. It makes sense from their point of view, a lot of times, to hire somebody who is ABD at a "second tier" university over somebody with an Ivy League education, a published dissertation, etc.

When my department has passed over folks from Ivies and R1s for jobs, it has been less about fear of being jilted and far more about their lack of preparation to do some part of the job as advertised. To put this in terms of this thread, one thing to know is that many, many departments will be concerned if a candidate has no experience in teaching independently, and/or no background in teaching the typical intro-level or service courses that are generally offered in the field. While we are not a "teaching intensive" program, teaching is still a significant portion of the bigger picture.

IOW, even if you have a fabulous research preparation at a top university and lovely publications, it may improve your chances if you also have at least some teaching experience.

What you're saying makes good sense. I'm actually thinking of something slightly different, scenarios that resemble the following:

Applicant A: Ivy League PhD, published dissertation, second book under contract, successive VAP appointments at both Ivy League and teaching colleges, glowing rec letters, good interpersonal skills and no obvious personality defects.

Applicant B: Newly minted PhD from respectable second tier university, a published dissertation chapter and a few conference presentations, teaching experience as a TA, glowing rec letters, good interpersonal skills and no obvious personality defects. 

So assuming that all of the above were true (that Applicant A didn't actually have poison rec letters or a bad personality), why and when does a department decide to hire Applicant B?

My experience was that it can be less a case of the department second-guessing Applicant A's commitment, and more a case of the person indicating there is a serious problem by: a) asking everyone they talk to how few days per week they can "get away with" being on campus; 2) asking whether it would be all right for them to live with a partner 500-3000 miles away and rearrange class schedules so they can just commute into town every couple of weeks to teach; 3) recoiling in shock at the news that we don't have the kinds of funding and facilities that s/he thought of as an irreducible minimum; or 4) failing to take any interest at all in the programs and courses offered by our department; or 5) very vocally expressing grave doubts about living here.

And even so, we'd probably be willing to roll the dice on your Applicant A. :)

[tandem]

The job search: Unlike most jobs, the academic hiring process is done at a glacial pace. Advertisements go out in September, you send applications in October and November, get calls in December or January, go on interviews in February, and the hiring is done by April. In some cases, it even takes longer than that. And, unlike school districts, it's unheard of to send in an unsolicited application. Very few universities have departments of X, and of those that do, I've got to wait for someone to die or retire before they advertise for a position. I can't apply to nearby schools because they're not hiring.

The professor's job: Teaching is less than one-third of a professor's job. If you teach four classes a semester (12 hours), then you will likely spend three hours prepping for every hour of class (36 hours). That's already 50 hours of work each week. Then, on top of that, you are also expected to conduct research, supervise interns in the field, write and publish articles and books, present at conferences, participate in local and national organizations, serve on committees and attend department and college meetings. The day seems more flexible than a 9-to-5 job, because many of those things can be done from the couch or desk, but they still have to get done.

Thanks, prephd!  These are concise little gems.  If the job market does not work out for you this year, I suggest you get a laminator machine thing and print these out on cards to sell in batches of 100 to all on the market. 

[humanista]

The job search: Unlike most jobs, the academic hiring process is done at a glacial pace. Advertisements go out in September, you send applications in October and November, get calls in December or January, go on interviews in February, and the hiring is done by April. In some cases, it even takes longer than that. And, unlike school districts, it's unheard of to send in an unsolicited application. Very few universities have departments of X, and of those that do, I've got to wait for someone to die or retire before they advertise for a position. I can't apply to nearby schools because they're not hiring.

The professor's job: Teaching is less than one-third of a professor's job. If you teach four classes a semester (12 hours), then you will likely spend three hours prepping for every hour of class (36 hours). That's already 50 hours of work each week. Then, on top of that, you are also expected to conduct research, supervise interns in the field, write and publish articles and books, present at conferences, participate in local and national organizations, serve on committees and attend department and college meetings. The day seems more flexible than a 9-to-5 job, because many of those things can be done from the couch or desk, but they still have to get done.

Great, prephd---thanks!

[oldfullprof]

Applicant A: Ivy League PhD, published dissertation, second book under contract, successive VAP appointments at both Ivy League and teaching colleges, glowing rec letters, good interpersonal skills and no obvious personality defects.

Applicant B: Newly minted PhD from respectable second tier university, a published dissertation chapter and a few conference presentations, teaching experience as a TA, glowing rec letters, good interpersonal skills and no obvious personality defects. 

So assuming that all of the above were true (that Applicant A didn't actually have poison rec letters or a bad personality), why and when does a department decide to hire Applicant B?

A rural state teaching college should prefer candidate B because candidate A will try to leave.  Our econ dept at ________ hired three candidate As and they all left.  We never interviewed candidate As (and a few applied.)  We interviewed candidate A- once, and it turned out that she was shopping for a spousal hire, and was mainly doing practice interviews at the behest of Dr Baloonhead (who included his inch thick vita with the rec letter).  As SC chair, I had a good time throwing that one in the trash.

[august_leo]

I've perfected a one-minute run-down of the academic hiring process.

I've also perfected a one-minute run-down of a professor's duties for those people who say some form of, "it will be awesome to only work 15 hours a week."

Prephd, are you willing to share these either as a post or PM? They sound great!

[temporaryname]

Applicant A: Ivy League PhD, published dissertation, second book under contract, successive VAP appointments at both Ivy League and teaching colleges, glowing rec letters, good interpersonal skills and no obvious personality defects.

Applicant B: Newly minted PhD from respectable second tier university, a published dissertation chapter and a few conference presentations, teaching experience as a TA, glowing rec letters, good interpersonal skills and no obvious personality defects. 

So assuming that all of the above were true (that Applicant A didn't actually have poison rec letters or a bad personality), why and when does a department decide to hire Applicant B?

A rural state teaching college should prefer candidate B because candidate A will try to leave.  Our econ dept at ________ hired three candidate As and they all left.  We never interviewed candidate As (and a few applied.)  We interviewed candidate A- once, and it turned out that she was shopping for a spousal hire, and was mainly doing practice interviews at the behest of Dr Baloonhead (who included his inch thick vita with the rec letter).  As SC chair, I had a good time throwing that one in the trash.

Some candidate As love teaching, and prefer rural to urban, and have produced all that research simply because that's what was required of them where they were as opposed to where they'd rather be--you may have passed up on a perfect fit.

Now, if candidate A didn't make some nod to those facts in their cover letter, well, then it's their own fault--but if those nods were there and you ignored them, aren't you simply limiting your options unnecessarily?