next »

[cannonprinter]

Hello,

I am planning to leave a TT position to be with my spouse after 5+ years of long-distance marriage. However, with some other family problems, this long-distance situation simply became unbearable. At the same time, I've lost my passion for research and come to want to focus more on teaching in the past several years, though I will probably make tenure next year, with sufficient publication, teaching, and service records. 

I've applied for several full-time lecturer positions and just had an on-campus interview with a R1 university.

The first question every SC member asked was "so, why are you leaving your TT position?" I was prepared for this question and told them how I came to realize that teaching is my passion and what I like about the position, but no one seemed to be completely happy with my answer (and they looked at me as if I was a fugitive who committed a crime at my current univ). They, however, looked assuaged after I mentioned my family situation.

So my question is, should I be more up front about my family situation if I am invited to another interview? What is the best approach in this situation? I feel that I probably shouldn't say that I've lost interest in research as it doesn't sound so positive.....

Any advice would be appreciated. 

 

[southerntransplant]

Telling an SC member at an R1 that you're not that into research is probably not a good idea . The long-distance marriage situation is more of a tenable explanation, so I'd lead with that.

[prytania3]

Telling an SC member at an R1 that you're not that into research is probably not a good idea . The long-distance marriage situation is more of a tenable explanation, so I'd lead with that.

I was just going to say--know thy audience. The whole purpose of an R1 (well, maybe not the whole purpose but a lot of it) is research and publication, and you tell them you've lost your passion?

I think it's perfectly reasonable that you would leave a tt position for your family, but maybe you ought to rethink the types of schools you are applying to.

[daniel_von_flanagan]

If someone 5 years into a tt position applies to us, in the absence of other information I assume it is their tenure year and they are just using us as a backup, and the app gets downrated or tossed.  Spousal proximity is a different kettle of fish, a completely legitimate reason to leave a tt position. - DvF

[totoro]

Yet on so many other threads people are advised not to mention why they really want to move because SCs will be insulted that you just picked them due to location. It seems to be a Catch-22.

[daniel_von_flanagan]

Yet on so many other threads people are advised not to mention why they really want to move because SCs will be insulted that you just picked them due to location. It seems to be a Catch-22.

I don't believe those threads.  I think there is a mythology of SC psychology which was originally created and promulgated by people who have little experience from the hiring side of the job market, and which has taken a life of its own through mindless repetition. - DvF

[totoro]

Yet on so many other threads people are advised not to mention why they really want to move because SCs will be insulted that you just picked them due to location. It seems to be a Catch-22.

I don't believe those threads.  I think there is a mythology of SC psychology which was originally created and promulgated by people who have little experience from the hiring side of the job market, and which has taken a life of its own through mindless repetition. - DvF

These people are often claiming search committee experience when making these statements. Based on my experience all I cared about was whether the candidate was good, not why they wanted to come. I have a phone interview on Tuesday and am really wondering what to say if they ask me why I want to go there. I applied primarily because I think it could provide a two body solution. Both of us would move from here to there in this case. My wife is working on grant applications with her former PhD adviser who is in another department at this university. He is a big star and he has met with people in the department I am applying to.

[daniel_von_flanagan]

Yet on so many other threads people are advised not to mention why they really want to move because SCs will be insulted that you just picked them due to location. It seems to be a Catch-22.

I don't believe those threads.  I think there is a mythology of SC psychology which was originally created and promulgated by people who have little experience from the hiring side of the job market, and which has taken a life of its own through mindless repetition. - DvF

These people are often claiming search committee experience when making these statements.

Then they move over to chat boards where they claim to be 13-year-old girls.

Based on my experience all I cared about was whether the candidate was good, not why they wanted to come.

This is generally true, but it is useful to have some confidence that they really want to come.  No department wants to be a doormat, which in this context either means a backup school for tenure-year applicants, a lever for a salary hike at the current institution, or a brief stopping ground for someone en route to a better place.  If someone on a tt or with tenure applies to my department, I really do want to hear something that tells me that the candidate views us as better than where they are, either for personal or for professional reasons.  - DvF

[the_honey_badger]

Yet on so many other threads people are advised not to mention why they really want to move because SCs will be insulted that you just picked them due to location. It seems to be a Catch-22.

I don't believe those threads.  I think there is a mythology of SC psychology which was originally created and promulgated by people who have little experience from the hiring side of the job market, and which has taken a life of its own through mindless repetition. - DvF

These people are often claiming search committee experience when making these statements.

Then they move over to chat boards where they claim to be 13-year-old girls.

Based on my experience all I cared about was whether the candidate was good, not why they wanted to come.

This is generally true, but it is useful to have some confidence that they really want to come.  No department wants to be a doormat, which in this context either means a backup school for tenure-year applicants, a lever for a salary hike at the current institution, or a brief stopping ground for someone en route to a better place.  If someone on a tt or with tenure applies to my department, I really do want to hear something that tells me that the candidate views us as better than where they are, either for personal or for professional reasons.  - DvF

All of this is true including two short-time but prominent posters who I stumbled across in real-life a couple of years ago---one was a grad student in my own program and the other an abd I was on a panel with. Both happily told me they loved the CHE forums! ("You should visit them, I'm XXX on there. Say hi!"  What they didn't realize was that I recognized both usernames because I was always baffled by some of the "advice" they gave on job search and research threads.

The key to saying something "personal" about motive is about presentation.  You or a recommender wants to mention these things as a "plus" to your application---not the sole reason.  Any sensible person at this stage should know that these questions will be raised and should neutralize the issue.

[totoro]

Yet on so many other threads people are advised not to mention why they really want to move because SCs will be insulted that you just picked them due to location. It seems to be a Catch-22.

I don't believe those threads.  I think there is a mythology of SC psychology which was originally created and promulgated by people who have little experience from the hiring side of the job market, and which has taken a life of its own through mindless repetition. - DvF

These people are often claiming search committee experience when making these statements.

Then they move over to chat boards where they claim to be 13-year-old girls.

Based on my experience all I cared about was whether the candidate was good, not why they wanted to come.

This is generally true, but it is useful to have some confidence that they really want to come.  No department wants to be a doormat, which in this context either means a backup school for tenure-year applicants, a lever for a salary hike at the current institution, or a brief stopping ground for someone en route to a better place.  If someone on a tt or with tenure applies to my department, I really do want to hear something that tells me that the candidate views us as better than where they are, either for personal or for professional reasons.  - DvF

This makes heaps of sense to me. Maybe I have lost out in the past because of bad advice not to mention such things in job applications...

[cannonprinter]

Marry Christmas, and thank you very much for all the helpful suggestions.

In my application letter, I focus on why I think the position at the univ in the city-I-must-go-to is academically interesting to me, though the truth is that I am applying for every full-time teaching position in the city. I then mention the SO issue as a "plus" as belowtheradar suggested.

I was not sure how upfront I can be about the two body problem due to the concern that I may offend SCs by sounding like I picked them just for the location like totoro mentioned. But it seems that it is ok to mention it as long as I don't make it sound like it's the sole reason.

That SC members at the R1 univ didn't buy my "I came to love teaching more" may be due to the type of audience as some of you pointed out. But that was the truth, and this is why I am applying for lecturer positions, not another TT position. Is it that I shouldn't be applied for a lec position at R1 univs?

Thank you everyone for your insight!

[oldfullprof]

You have to have some kind of explanation.  Mine was "promises made to me on hiring were not forthcoming."  I was hired, even though this is a (not recommended) critique of my former employer. 

I'm a veteran of about nine search committees, mostly as chair.

[totoro]

Marry Christmas, and thank you very much for all the helpful suggestions.

In my application letter, I focus on why I think the position at the univ in the city-I-must-go-to is academically interesting to me, though the truth is that I am applying for every full-time teaching position in the city. I then mention the SO issue as a "plus" as belowtheradar suggested.

I was not sure how upfront I can be about the two body problem due to the concern that I may offend SCs by sounding like I picked them just for the location like totoro mentioned. But it seems that it is ok to mention it as long as I don't make it sound like it's the sole reason.

That SC members at the R1 univ didn't buy my "I came to love teaching more" may be due to the type of audience as some of you pointed out. But that was the truth, and this is why I am applying for lecturer positions, not another TT position. Is it that I shouldn't be applied for a lec position at R1 univs?

Thank you everyone for your insight!

I think the problem at the R1 uni would be that they don't want people teaching their students who might disparage the value of research.

[daniel_von_flanagan]

I think the problem at the R1 uni would be that they don't want people teaching their students who might disparage the value of research.

Even more than that, we tend to believe that the fact that we are researchers improves our teaching (at least for the kinds of students who choose to matriculate at an R1).  Moreover, we want people who will contribute to the overall activity of the department.  (I say "we", of course this might not generalize to all schools or departments.  Some might be happy to have teaching specialists that free the research-active faculty up for more research.  Others might be looking for people who are tall, or smell nice.  However, the NRC rankings, whoich put things like grants and publications in the numerator, put all faculty - not just the research-active ones - in the denominator, so any R1 which values its reputation is not going to want to load up on research-inactive people.) - DvF

[totoro]

I think the problem at the R1 uni would be that they don't want people teaching their students who might disparage the value of research.

Even more than that, we tend to believe that the fact that we are researchers improves our teaching (at least for the kinds of students who choose to matriculate at an R1).  Moreover, we want people who will contribute to the overall activity of the department.  (I say "we", of course this might not generalize to all schools or departments.  Some might be happy to have teaching specialists that free the research-active faculty up for more research.  Others might be looking for people who are tall, or smell nice.  However, the NRC rankings, whoich put things like grants and publications in the numerator, put all faculty - not just the research-active ones - in the denominator, so any R1 which values its reputation is not going to want to load up on research-inactive people.) - DvF

The OP was writing about a teaching only post "lecturer" at an R1.