The Secret Lives of Search Committees - Part 4: Staleness

In the comments section of my second post in this series (on "fit"), Daniel Brunson wrote:

Solid advice, but I wonder if you could consider the balance of "do all the things!" with the supposed (?) "stale PhD" phenomenon in a future post.

An excellent query - one I was very concerned with on the job-market myself. Does one's PhDs 'go stale' the longer one is on the market? That is, is more time on the market a disadvantage? And if so, can anything be done to ameliorate it? 

Let me begin with a story. My first year on the market (coming out of Arizona), I got several TT interviews at fairly elite places. While I didn't get any TT offers, I get offered a 2-year non-TT Assistant Professor position at the University of British Columbia. Then, because of a 'two-body problem', I left that job early to take another non-TT VAP job back in the states in Tampa. At that point, my interviews dried up. I not only didn't get interviews at the kinds of elite schools I interviewed with coming out of grad school. For two years straight after getting to Tampa, I got zero interviews. I began to seriously worry my PhD had already gone stale. So, I asked some of my mentors what the deal was. The general impression I got from them was this. When it came to research jobs, yes, I was going stale. Why? Because research jobs care about one's apparent 'trajectory' and 'buzz.' Apparently, by accepting a job at a teaching school (and having not published any major articles in top-journals), I had placed myself on a 'downward' trajectory. Hence, my increasing difficulties competing for research jobs. Fortunately, or so I was told, this didn't mean I was going stale simpliciter. There were two things I could do. I could:

1. Reverse my staleness for research jobs by publishing in top-places, or alternatively
2. Avert staleness for teaching jobs by doing things that would make me more competitive for them (viz. greater breadth of teaching, service, etc.)

For my part, I faced what seemed like a difficult trilemma. I didn't have the same research resources (e.g. research time or network of people to get feedback from) in my new job--and I worried that trying to publish in top-journals would be a losing strategy. This was in part due to how long it takes to publish in top-journals--my job was year-to-year, and I didn't have the time to wait around--but also because I feared that publishing in top-journals might make me into a flight risk at the kinds of (teaching) schools I was on a 'trajectory' for at that point. Every option I faced seemed to me to have risks. But I chose option (2) because it seemed to me the most likely one to improve my chances: I aimed to publish as much as I could in lower-ranked journals, while dramatically increasing the kind of experience necessary for getting teaching jobs (teaching and developing lots of new courses, engaging in service to my college, community, and students, etc.).

The decision paid off. Over the next several years, I only got a few interviews at research schools. However, each year my number of interviews at teaching schools increased: from 2, to 3, to 7, and 13 (during my final year on the market). My takeaway from this as a candidate was this: it's very hard to avoid 'going stale' for research jobs--but it is easy to avoid going stale for teaching jobs. This is because of what each type of job is 'looking for.' Research departments appear to be looking for 'the next big thing.' Thus, the longer you are on the market, the less you look like 'the next big thing'...unless you continually publish in spectacular places (which is really tough to do). On the flip side, teaching schools are more in the market for teaching professionals--that is, candidates with broader experience and a track-record of success in teaching, service, etc. Thus, for teaching schools, staleness would seem to be far less of an issue--provided you actually do things after the PhD that make you more attractive for such jobs (e.g. teaching more classes, more service).

This idea--that staleness is less of an issue for teaching jobs (and indeed, experience a positive!)--not only coheres with my experience as a job-candidate. It coheres with my experience working at a teaching university and serving on several search committees. While search committees at teaching schools do seriously consider and sometimes hire new PhDs, my overwhelming sense is that they may be looked at as "more of a risk" than more-seasoned people who have been teaching longer in non-TT jobs, and that all things being equal, more experience is looked at as a good thing. But this is the crucial thing: more experience is only a good thing, all things being equal. What matters on top of experience, are things like fit, originality, and overall performance (if a search committee has to decide between two candidates with similar experience who fit the job well, the one who better demonstrates high performance--in teaching, research, service, etc.--is likely to win out). 

Fortunately, I think this is good news for people on the market. At least when it comes to teaching schools, it means you can avoid 'going stale' and put yourself in an increasingly good position to get a job--as Tom Cochrane eventually did (after 10 years), as I did (after 7 years), as the former-adjunct at my school who just got promoted to full-professor did, as the former-adjunct we hired this year did, and so on. Getting a full-time, permanent job at a teaching school can be a long and uncertain road, but 'staleness' can be avoided, and if avoided well, can result in being more competitive for teaching jobs. Research jobs? I'm not so sure about. I'd love to hear from readers!

But these are just my thoughts and experiences on 'staleness.' What are yours?

Comments

[Number Three]

You had 13 flyouts to teaching schools your final year? You didn't burn out? Any advice on maintaining sanity in those circumstances?

[anonymous]

Massive amounts of alcohol.

[Fresh, not stale]

What makes files or applicants look stale are extended periods with no research productivity. Even at teaching places, we want to know if you can manage a number of tasks, teaching, research and service. If you are showing signs of struggling, given the market, it is not worth taking a chance. At a typical teaching college, a department will always push for someone who has still managed to keep their research moving along. Then they will be a sure thing for tenure.

[Amanda]

I think Marcus meant 13 first-round interviews, not flyouts, right? I don't know how anyone could manage 13 flyouts - just logistically. I had 4 flyouts one year and the time, energy, and mental stress were incredible. Flyouts are very time and energy consuming. This is frustrating, because when you are doing them you are under of a ton of pressure to work to improve your CV, which you might not have a lot of time to do. This is one of many reasons I recommend against not applying to schools when you think you wouldn't want to live there. Some recommend to apply anyway for interview experience. I think the time is too high a cost, as well as the pressure to take the job if it is offered to you.

While it is uncommon, I do know a few people who went from teaching state schools with 4-4 loads to R1 programs with PhD programs, many years after their PhD. The key of course was maintaining an impressive research record, which is incredibly hard to do when teaching a 4-4 load. I don't know how they did it. Anyway, I know one friend in particular who got his PhD at a fairly late age, meandered around adjuncting for 12 years, and then finally got a TT position at a state school. He was hired for that post at age 54. I think what mattered to that school was simply he had lots of teaching experience, a solid research profile for a teaching school, and was a good fit for the department.

[Marcus Arvan]

Number Three: Yeah sorry, that sentence was ambiguous. It was 13 first-round interviews my final year. I've corrected the sentence.

[I want to be fresh]

"What makes files or applicants look stale are extended periods with no research productivity. Even at teaching places, we want to know if you can manage a number of tasks, teaching, research and service."

I agree with this, but I don't think that regularly producing good research necessarily makes one look fresh. I'm on the tenure track at a research university and have been on the market for the last two years in search of another job. I handle admin, a full teaching load, supervise a few PhD students and publish about 2-3 articles a year in good generalist and specialist venues. I haven't had much success on the market though (two skypes and one on-campus this year, only one Skype last year). Perhaps this has to do with my AOS, in which case it seems like there isn't too much I can do to improve my chances in the short run.

[Amanda]

Wanting to be fresh, why are you trying to move? Are you looking to move from a research to a teaching job?

[I want to be fresh]

Climate of the department, but also I'm abroad and want to (eventually) get back to the US. I've been applying to both research and teaching jobs, but mostly research. My sense is that there are so few research jobs and so many impressive candidates that it is a bit of a lottery. Perhaps all one can do in the short run is to continue to buy lottery tickets by publishing papers, applying for grants, etc.

Any thoughts on how to improve one's chances in the medium run?

[Amanda]

I think if you are coming in near the end of your assistant professor years (like you have been at the other place 4-6 years, or more really) research schools are looking to higher someone who is a top player in their field. There are just too many people out there with impressive publications for that to stand out. So you need to be known for a particular thing, be part of the small group of people at the very top of your speciality, etc. You might have this given what you said about your AOS. In that case, it is just really a matter of waiting until a research school is particularly looking for your AOS.

If you really want to move back to the US, I would at least try for teaching schools with a 2-2 load. They usually care a lot about impressive publications, and the fact you are specifically looking to move for location reasons is a plush for them. They would also like all your administration experience. Basically, the research market is very difficult, and so depending on how much you want to move, you might want to expand that search.

[I want to be fresh]

Hi Amanda, thanks for the response. Yeah, I think it will take many tries to land something. I've made two attempts and I've still got a few more tries before I come to the end of my assistant professor years. Part of why I was trying to leave soon is because once you get to the late-assistant/early-associate level I was worried the standards would jump considerably and, as you mention, research schools may expect such a candidate to be a 'top player.' I don't want to bank on that happening! Haha