Secret Lives of Search Committees - Part 6: career stage

In the comments section of my introductory post to this series, Humanati wrote:

I have a topic that I'd like to see covered: to what extent do search committees really adjust accomplishments and (e.g. teaching) experience to career stage? I ask because of my own experiences of the market this year. Here’s my situation: a few publications (some in top 10, others in top 20 journals), Leiter-ranked R1, great teaching evaluations and a decent (though not overwhelming) amount of teaching experience, went on the market the same time I began a post doc. Not unhappy with the outcome; I did well. But what I found most interesting was the feedback I received (through various channels) from places where I *wasn’t* first choice. I was told time and time again that an important deciding factor was comparative seniority/experience. I often lost out to people who’d been visiting assistant professors or postdocs or assistant professors for 1-3 years already—people who, largely owing to a 1-3 year head start, had slightly more or slightly more impressive publications than me, or slightly more teaching experience than me. This made me suspect that these universities were just favouring a sure thing (someone who has *already* demonstrated that they can get x number of publications, teach y amount of courses a semester) over a slight risk (someone who has demonstrated potential, but less hands-on experience). But then, these prospective employers consistently emphasised how ‘incredibly impressive’ my CV, etc. was *for my career stage*. A related point that a friend has often made to me concerns time spent completing a PhD. I understand that institutional norms play some role in this. But one point that this friend put to me (one with which I’m inclined to agree) is that it can sometimes seem slightly unfair not to take it into account. Suppose Dr. X has one publication and took 9 years to do her PhD, and that Dr. Y has two publications of comparable quality and took 6 years to do her PhD. If all else is equal, I’m inclined to think that Dr. Y is the more impressive candidate! Do search committees ever take this into account—how long a candidate took to do his or her PhD and what he or she accomplished in that time span?

This is a really good query. I've encountered something like it on many job-market discussion boards: if candidate Y has accomplished more than X in shorter amount of time, isn't Y the more impressive candidate, all things being equal?  More generally, do search committee members take into account 'career stage'? If so, how?

I'm very curious to hear from other people who have served on search committees. However, my own sense is that this is probably yet another place where research and teaching jobs differ greatly. Allow me to explain.

Although I've never served on a search committee at a research institution, my guess is that all things being equal, publishing more things in good places quickly (i.e. earlier in one's career) is probably seen as a good thing. However, my guess is also that, a lot of times, search committee members will look at candidates and think not all things are equal. Sure, one candidate (X) may have published more than another candidate (Y) more quickly, but Y may seem to have more 'groundbreaking' philosophical ideas. What about finishing grad school more quickly? Will that be seen as impressive? It is hard for me to say, but let me express one reason why search committee members might demur. My experience is that time to completing the PhD can often be due more to a candidate's mentorship (or lack thereof) than anything else. Some faculty advisors are really helpful churning out PhD's quickly. Other faculty advisors can be unhelpful, standing in their way of the students graduating (I once knew someone who had to wait for 9 months to hear back from their supervisor on the dissertation they submitted). Finally, I know some faculty who think it is bad to finish the PhD too quickly, and who think really great dissertations require time. Consequently, I am doubtful search committee members are likely to read too much into candidates who finish quickly versus those who finish more slowly.

What about teaching jobs? Here, I think, things are far more complicated. Allow me to explain by taking you through a fictional case. Suppose you are on a search committee at a teaching institution. Your department really needs someone to teach courses A, B, and C. Candidate 1 finished grad school in five years, has four publications, and is just beginning a postdoc (like Humanati). Candidate 2 has been in a VAP for 3 years, with three publications. Who is more impressive? The answer is: you don't have enough information yet. However, Candidate 2 may well be more qualified for the job, largely due to having more experience. Why?

Here's the general problem candidates like Candidate 1 often seem to me to face. Many (though not all) grad programs seem to prioritize research, giving their students relatively few opportunities to teach courses independently. Thus, to take a fairly representative case, Candidate 1 (just coming out of grad school) may have only independently taught one class in course A, and no classes in B and C. On the other hand, suppose Candidate 2 not only has several years of experience teaching courses independently, but have also taught A and B several times and C once. In this case, Candidate 2 may be seen as the far more qualified candidate: they have a track record of experience and success directly related to the job. Candidate 1 does not.

The example illustrates a general point I tried to make in my post on 'fit.' It is a mistake to think that what it is 'impressive' in a candidate can be specified independently of the job being applied for. Sure, you may have finished your grad program in five years, and you may have four publications...but if you don't have much teaching experience (especially in relevant areas A, B, and C) it's difficult, at a teaching institution, to evaluate your fitness for the job. This is especially true if you are asked during an interview, "how would you teach B?", and you give a vague answer (due to lack of experience) whereas Candidate 2 gives a very detailed and well-thought-through answer based on their ample experience. 

Finally, there is another issue here. Humanati implies someone recently out of grad school is a 'slight risk' compared to a candidate several years of experience in a non-TT faculty job. My sense, once again, is that many people on the hiring side are likely to demur. One of the things that I do not think many grad students (and postdocs?) understand is how vastly different a full-time faculty job at a teaching institution can be compared to grad school or a research postdoc. I taught plenty in grad school. I also had a 2/2 course load in my one year in a research VAP at the University of British Columbia. Still, when I got to Tampa (a teaching institution), I was completely overwhelmed. The job demands were simply far different than anything I had experience with before. Unlike in grad school or at UBC, when I was able to devote about 75% of my time to research and then teach a little, at Tampa I had to spend about 85% of my time on teaching, and do it (and research) under conditions entirely unlike those I had experience with.

First, I had a 3/3 teaching load and had to teach classes (like Ancient and Business Ethics) that I had never taught before. Second, my classes were much longer than normal (4-credit hours per week per class instead of 3, which is a much larger difference than it might appear). Third, I was expected to teach a one-credit 'introduction to college' class, publish research, serve on committees, work with student groups; and so on. Despite always having excellent teaching reviews in grad school, my teaching evaluations my first two years at Tampa were an abject disaster. I also had little time to do research, and little access to the kinds of research resources (e.g. people down the hall to get feedback from) than I had in grad school or at UBC. Fortunately, after a few years of mistakes and experimentation, I found a way adapt. First, I had to completely revamp my teaching, going from a basic Socratic teaching style to someone who does this kind of stuff. Second, I had to find a way to get research done and published despite having to spend about 85% of my time during the school year (as a matter of necessity) on teaching and service rather than research. Alas, while I was able to adapt, I only did it by the skin of my teeth (there were many times when it was unclear whether I would be able to do so)...and I've known others who weren't able to adapt.

What's the lesson I took away from this? Answer: someone coming straight out of grad school or a research postdoc may not be considered 'slightly' more risky than someone with several years of experience in a full-time non-TT VAP. They may be regarded--for good reason--as a huge risk. People on the hiring side at a teaching institution know from experience how difficult it can be to adapt to their kind of institution, and may have seen 'green' hires from grad school not fare well. Consequently, they may prefer someone--for good reason--with a substantial track record of success in an institution like theirs. The best analogy I can think of here is drafting NFL quarterbacks out of college. Anyone who pays attention to the NFL knows this is a huge risk. About half of them go onto have good careers, and the other half are total "busts." Although it sometimes makes sense for a team to take that risk, oftentimes teams hire veteran quarterbacks from other teams--quarterbacks who have already shown some success in the NFL, and are more of a 'known quantity.' Is this unfair, either in the NFL or in its analogous form in the philosophy job-market? Not if a track-record of relevant experience and success are fair to take into account.

None of this is to say that search-committee members won't be impressed by candidates who have accomplished a lot early in their career. My sense is they will, all things being equal. Further, my sense is that truly superlative candidates who have gone out of their way to get job-relevant experience (e.g. in grad school) can beat out candidates with more experience (so, Humanati should take some solace in that). My point is simply that, in many cases, all things aren't equal. Oftentimes, one finds oneself with dozens of similarly accomplished candidates. In these cases, relevant career experience (teaching more classes, in a similar job, etc.) may well be the tie-breaker--and, if my remarks above are right, for good reason: experience matters. Grad students, grad programs, postdocs, etc., should know this--and my sense, unfortunately, is that all too many don't. Some programs seem to prioritize getting their students far more (teaching and service) experience than other programs do. Similarly, some candidates seem to go out of their way to get more experience than other candidates do. For jobs at teaching institutions like mine, this can make a real difference.

But these are just my thoughts, based on my experiences. If my thoughts here are off-base or idiosyncratic (or conversely, if they are accurate), it would great to find out from other search committee members!

Comments

[Amanda]

I have seen a few posts on how your first TT job is way harder than grad school. Well, I think this really depends on how you did grad school. I went from grad school to a 3/3 teaching load school and grad school was harder. In grad school, at one point, I taught a 4/4 at two different institutions and was finishing a dissertation, on the market etc. A tt job is a relief. Just putting that out there. I don't think I am the only one with this experience, but I do know it is completely different from those who have deals at Harvard or NYU.

[Marcus Arvan]

Hi Amanda: That's super-interesting! I'd like to run a post on it. My understanding is that some (many?) grad programs actively deter their students from doing what you did. I'd be curious to hear more about why you had such a heavy teaching load in grad school and whether you think that helped on the job-market.

Anyway, I'll run a post on your comment soon. I think it's a great issue to discuss.

[Amanda]

Okay sounds good Marcus. I had a heavy teaching load because I wanted to get experience teaching my own classes, and I needed money for the summer. I had to teach one class to earn my tuition at my grad program, and then the others I did for money/ teaching experience. Funny by the time I graduated, my program had a much better summer deal for grad students, but when I entered and the first 4 years I was there, you had no summer funding. (My school is Leiter mid-ranked) My first year I worked a minimum wage job over the summer. After that I tried to save money through adjuncting. Year 4 was my worst grad school year. I was so busy teaching and hardly got any research done. Luckily, I did earn a research fellowship, so ended up with a semester of no teaching for my last year (I adjunct the first semester of the fellowship).

I have no doubt that having a lot of solo teaching experience helped me get interviews at teaching schools. I think I could have done less, and that might have been a better balance. But teaching a few different adjunct courses is immensely helpful for teaching jobs. I am less sure on this, but I think it might have helped to some degree with research schools too (I had about 2/3 teaching school interviews and 1/3 research school). I suspect some committees were impressed that I published while teaching so much. However, I also think I would have been better off, overall, with the research schools if I traded some of those teaching schools for elite publications.

[Amanda]

traded teaching *years* , not schools.