next »

[fedscholar]

Someone was challenging Zharkov's Law in another thread, and I have been pondering it myself.   I generally like it, especially as a way to cope the inevitable rejection that we all endure from time to time. If your chance is 1 in 30, try 30 times. Don't start sniveling until you get to, say, 40 tries with no success. I am resolutely keeping it in mind for interviews. I have had two, and I enjoyed them. Neither resulted in an offer, but I don't think I failed, as I know that most schools invite 3-5 candidates for on-campus interviews. When I get to ten with no offer, then I will start sniveling. Getting those ten interviews is quite another challenge.

However, 1 in 30 odds is off by quite a margin. I can think of four (quite courteous, by the way) rejection letters over the past two years. Here are the numbers of applicants in my field (ecology/environmental science) (223, 276, 150+, 100+), so a crude average of about 187 applicants per position. Over these two years, about 30 positions per year have flown, so if one applied to every single position, it would take approximately 6.23 years to match probabilities. As time-dependent factors we can add in that an individual will likely increase in competitiveness over time if they can find a venue to publish, get grants, and teach. But it could also show a quadratic time effect, where the odds increase then decline for some reason (age, insufficient publication rate,etc.). On the other hand, the longer the mismatch between qualified applicants and jobs exists, the worse the odds will get from pure arithmetic.  I am sure there are other considerations. My point is, Zharkov's Law may work in a general sense, but it may be insufficient to understand success in the macro sense, when supply and demand are so mismatched and time dependent factors are at play.

So, let's give Zharkov's Law a reality check. I don't like tipping holy cows (and undeniably commonsensical laws), especially from such an esteemed poster, but I like to have accurate mental models work with.

Please post from your fields with the number of applicants/job and number of jobs per year, and whatever alternatives or amendments to the Law you can think of. Just curious.

[ruralguy]

There are a lot of reasons why ZL can only be a "rule of thumb".

Its really just saying that assuming all applicants have an event shot, then you better take 100 dart throws if your chance sare 1 in 100 to hit the target.

Of course, its flawed in detail. The primary one I can think of is that applicant's don't have an even shot, because for most jobs, 50% or more are barely even qualified (at least if you take close fit to the position into account). Then the top 10% are usually quite a bit better than the other 40% who are reasonably qualified.

So, the odds are better if you are good, and worse if you are bad. But this should even out so long as you aren't JUST applying to jobs for which you are barely qualified.

So, though I guess i could work towards a model, I'd rather just say that everything evens out to Zharkov's Law unless you are a really good fit for lots of different types of positions. Then, I am sure your chances are MUCH better.  Then it becomes "apply to as many jobs as you think you can fit itnto your schedule if asked to interview"--maybe 10 ish at most?

[mleok]

Well, if you know that there is a small group of highly competitive applicants in the applicant pool, but don't necessarily know if you're "highly competitive," then Zharkov's law gives you a reasonable rule of thumb as to when you might consider seeking alternative employment options.

In particular, if in fedscholar's scenario, one has been actively on the market for 6.23 years, without so much as a campus interview, then chances are high that one won't be successful in securing an academic job. If you've had a bunch of campus interviews, then in principle, one is at least a viable candidate on paper (publications, education, grants, and letters).

If one ends up being rejected from a significant number of them, then there might be something systematic at fault, either in terms of interview skills, the job talk, or perhaps just being in an obscure field in an open search.

[atlchemist]

I have no idea how many applicants there are for the jobs I've applied for. Maybe 50-100? How does one find this out?

In the past four months, there have likely been 50-100 jobs posted in my subfield (counting TT, VAP, CC, and everything else that's full-time). I have applied to eight of them. I am satisfied with my decision. I may not get a job this year, in which case I will work part-time and reapply next year. I have a husband who is in the midst of a seven-year medical fellowship program, and I do not wish to move away from him for the long-term. We hope to have kids in the next few years, and quite honestly my academic career is not the only thing that is important to me. I realize that this will not sit well with many forumites.

However, as an ABD, I have gotten three phone interviews out of these eight applications. (Actually six applications, because one just closed on 1/6, and another closes in February.) I took a very realistic approach to applying for jobs and, this year, only applied for lecture and small-name SLAC positions which value my teaching skills and don't care as much about my research struggles.

I just can't see myself being happy living apart from my H indefinitely for a job. Plus, his career will always be far more lucrative than mine and I will always be the trailing spouse. I am ok with that. I am also ok with never having a TT job (with lecture, contract, CC as alternatives). So this is why I have failed to comply with either the spirit or the letter of Zharkov's Law.

[thehighking]

I think calling it a "law" is sort of silly.

It's at best a metaphor or some sort of guidepost.

For example, I interviewed at one place that received 670 applications, and another that received a little over 300.

Could I send out these many applications? Nope. Impossible. That amount of jobs doesn't exist in my field.

The idea is: apply for as many positions as you plausibly, realistically, and comfortably can. Then see where the chips fall.

That's all you can do.

[zharkov]

Like the Pirates' Code, it is really more of a guideline.

At the risk of tooting my own horn, the first year out, I applied to something like 25 jobs, got two interviews, and two offers.  The average number of applicants seems to be around 25.  One can often find that out by just asking the SC or asking around your own school.

I like ruralguy's corollary about considering your qualifications.  I have found, from being on SCs, that half the apps typically don't meet the quals.  So I would not suggest applying broadly just for the sake of sending out a lot of apps.  But from that SC experience, I suspect a lot of people do just that. Then again, from reading the posts here, there are others who send out just 5 or 8 apps, and post about being shocked they have not gotten any interviews. (Gut feel, 5 or 8 apps is too few for any field.)

I myself wouldn't claim the "law" is any more than a rough rule of thumb, or that it would support some multi-year probability analysis.  Rather, it is just an attempt to answer the question: How many apps should I send out?   I would also add that the "law" is probably meaningless in fields where there is a dramatic imbalance in the market, typically many more applicants than jobs available. 

ETA:  Calling it a "law" was supposed to be tongue in cheek.

[ruralguy]

Also, it depends on how wide of a net an SC decides to cast.

I was once on a search that had to be re-opened twice (3 searches--which, by the way, were preceeded by a bunch of searches for VAPs that had to be closed).

In the last go at it, the Dean asked us to cast the widest nest possible.  He said, and I paraphrase, "You may really really want a bass, but if you catch a clown fish, and think the clownfish is really really cool, then you throw back all of the bass and keep the clown fish"  In a way, we did just that. It didn't work out quite as well as we had hoped, but it was not a disaster either.

In the wide net search, we got 150 apps. In the others, we barely got over 50.

But, again, such things probably even out over the market.

[fedscholar]

Great responses, thanks.

I can agree to the limitations of the "Law", but I don't think "Zharkov's Guideline" has the same "pop." I'm sticking with the Law. Just too cool to drop. Sad to say, in my field it may not apply.

AtlChemist, that is a terrific record for an ABD. I would think that would be encouraging, at least somewhat.

The observation that most applicants are only marginally qualified in most searches seems to argue against the apply everywhere advice I read here often. It seems like it creates headaches all around. For instance in 200+ applicant searches, if one never receives a call, it is hard to guage if one was close (in the qualified, but outgunned class) or was considered unqualified. So, the odds could well be much better.

[timurid]

Even in my somewhat obscure subfield (of History) I would need to send out at least 100 (and perhaps closer to 200) apps each year to be compliant. Yet in each of my first three years on the market there have been about 20-25 tt job postings that I was eligible for (even with a pretty liberal reading of the advertised requirments).
Possible conclusions:

a) Zharkov's law does not apply in the Humanities.
b) The Humanities are FUBAR.

[dalekk]

If you're applying for jobs that get 100 applicants, it's not obscure.

I would also add to the discussion that a great deal depends on what you are willing ot apply to.  VAP/Lecturer/Instructor jobs get far fewer applicants and thus increase your chances.  Also, jobs posted late in the season probably get less than half the applicants b/c people have gotten jobs already and many others have simply given up and stopped looking.  Likewise, applying for jobs in "undesireable" places helps b/c people who are too good to live in Louisiana or North Dakota won't apply.  And, of course, applying at "undesirable" institutions increases your odds as well.  People who only apply to really good t-t jobs on the coasts will have a much harder time b/c those jobs get tons of applicants meanwhile those people are limiting the number of applications being sent out.  I think all of us can do the math on that one.

[atlchemist]

I will partly attribute my "success" (I don't have a job yet but was invited today for two campus interviews) to applying to "less desirable" schools as described by dalekk.

I didn't feel comfortable conducting a nationwide job search, given my family constraints, so I applied to every position I was qualified for within 100 miles. Only 2/8 are TT.

[msparticularity]

b) The Humanities are FUBAR.

I think this is a realistic assessment of many of the fields and subfields in the humanities, as well as some in other areas. In part, I think, what Zharkov's Law can do is to hint that one is in a field in which getting a job is, really and truly, a crapshoot. If there are 200+ applicants for every position, and the number of positions listed each year is, at most, in the 20-30 range (and one is not being selective--at all), then it really is important to develop Plan B sooner rather than later.

Not that one shouldn't decide to take a chance on the market, but that it is very important to recognize that it is a long-shot.

[timurid]

If you're applying for jobs that get 100 applicants, it's not obscure.

The "well known" areas of my discipline average 300-400 apps/job or higher...

[quasihumanist]

Open searches in my discipline approach 1000.

For the top R1s, one can easily tell (by looking at publication lists) that 90% of these applicants have no chance.  Distinctions are more subtle for other types of institutions. 

I look at the webpage and teaching statement for someone hired by a top SLAC, or, better yet, meet him or her, and I can tell in a few minutes why I'm not even close, even if my CV might look more impressive.  However, I can certainly imagine that many people in the market are oblivious to the difference between good teaching and outstanding teaching simply because they have never seen outstanding teaching before.

[monte_rio]

I found Zharkov's Law to be strangely comforting during my multi-year job search (once I got over the brutal shock of how bad the market is for PhDs in the Humanities).

In my field, it is not unusual for open TT positions to get 300+ apps (and I know of one case where the number was over 600); I suspect VAPs get a very high number of apps as well although I don't know about numbers. Each year, my success rate at getting interviews (phone and/or campus) for FT positions was at 5%, until in my last year when I had a 15% success rate (and then received an offer that I accepted). Over four years, I sent out well over 150 apps.

Now, I'm confident that my application and interview skills improved over time, as did my teaching and research. I was a stronger candidate by my fourth year on the market than I had been as a late stage PhD candidate on my first year. However accurate Zharkov's Law may be, having a sense that it may just take time to find the right random fit of applicant and institution helped me lower my expectations for success on any given application, and that was a helpful thought at a key time.

Of course, if 200 or 300 is the average number of apps per FT position for my field, it could easily have been the case that my PhD would have gone stale before I found a job. I was starting to prepare for that eventuality, but it just didn't turn out that way for me...