A VAP's Trilemma?

Some comments on my recent post, "A VAP's Dilemma", got me thinking that perhaps VAPs/adjuncts face an even more worrisome trilemma.  

In a number of comments, Rachel suggests that it may be best for a VAP not to spend a great deal of time on teaching, as doing so will make you look like "VAP/adjunct material."  Now consider the following comment by Anon:

I seem to remember someone at the Philosophy Smoker blog claiming that their department didn't want to hire the very best. It would take me too long to track down the posts, but I believe the person was worried that the very best would end up taking jobs elsewhere and that this would make the whole search process a waste of time. That, or the person would be a flight risk, which would require putting together a new search a couple of years down the line. This might be something to keep in mind or it could be that this person's department is just an outlier.

I have to confess that I've had this worry about my own dossier. Given that I've published quite a bit of stuff, have lots of stuff under review, and my research projects are pretty ambitious, I worry sometimes that people at teaching places may look at my CV and say, "This guy clearly wants to be a researcher, and might jump ship."

Anyway, here's the trilemma:

1. If one works one's tail off to become a great teacher, one runs the risk of looking like "VAP/adjunct material."
2. If one works one's tail off to become a great researcher, one runs the risk of looking like a potential flight risk.
3. If one works one's tail off to become a great teacher and great researcher, one also looks like a potential flight risk.

My approach to building myself up as a candidate has been to work my tail off to become the absolute best teacher and researcher I can be. Yet, if Rachel is right about teaching and the point about "being a flight risk" is right, this looks like it may be a mistake. Indeed, everything looks like it may be a mistake.  Wait...what?  Yep, that's right. It looks like just about every seemingly reasonable strategy can blow up in your face.  This in turn suggests to me something that I've heard on numerous comment threads: namely, that the job market is an absolute crapshoot -- no more, no less.  Just about anything can land you a job or disqualify you from one, depending on the search committee. 

Which is why I always come back to this: I think that all I can do is try to become the absolute best teacher, researcher, and colleague I can be, be myself, and let the chips fall where they may. Indeed, I guess I want to say that's all I can do in good faith. I really do appreciate job market advice from all quarters -- but, at the end of the day, I guess I just think it's best to work my tail off, believe in what I do as a researcher, teacher, and colleague, and have faith that some search committee out there can come to believe in them too. At any rate, I guess I'm willing to run with this, come what may. But what do I know? I'm always willing to rethink things. :)

Comments

[Helen]

Hi Marcus: I think you are overthinking it. The market is brutal - that is the long and short of it. And people without a fabulous pedigree start at a serious disadvantage. To echo what Rachel said:
1. I don't think there is any advantage in working your tail off in becoming a fabulous teacher. It may be a good end in itself (it surely seems morally obligatory for us to try to do a good job for the students, given how much they have to invest in their education), but it doesn't help that much on the job market. People want some evidence that you won't be a terrible teacher. They want what I've heard a SC member call a "safe pair of teaching hands". But they don't require the best of the best. Just satisfice. SCs (especially of research-oriented universities) regularly hire people with little teaching experience and no formal teaching evals. Seeing a teaching demonstration, some syllabi, and asking some questions on the interview on how you plan to handle teaching usually gives them the sort of qualitative evidence they require (i.e., you care about teaching, care about students, are not a selfish person who is wholly absorbed in his/her research).
2. Similarly, the marginal value of 1 article if you already have 10 is, well, marginal, except if it's in something like Mind or Noûs. If you have no pedigree, branding is the thing you have to go for. We've talked about this before, where I mentioned that SCs are looking for someone with a well-articulated research program, so that they can consider whether that person would fit their department. A whole bunch of articles without overarching narrative doesn't bring you that. But you've got to aim for people talking about you like this: Oh, X? She's the one who does this stuff about Y. Getting yourself as a brand name in the community, i.e., someone they might think about for invited talks and such. It is very hard, but I think this is one of the best strategies to overcome a lack of pedigree.

[Marcus Arvan]

Hi Helen: thanks for your comment. Yeah, that was sort of what I was trying to get at with this new post -- that maybe it's best not to over-think all of this and simply try to be the best overall philosopher, teacher, and colleague one can be. That being said, I certainly appreciate your point about "branding."

[Rachel]

I still think you're working too hard!