Flagging your career stage/situation in job apps?

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, a reader asks:

I wonder how TT assistant professor folks can flag that they are in their first or second year when applying for TT positions? The worry is that folks on search committees may unwittingly favor assistant professors who are further along the tenure track because these folks will often have more publications and generally a more robust CV.

Two readers replied:

Your CV will do it, so long as you list employment and dates. - Submitted by TT

JuniorTT, it should come across clearly on your CV. That is, your employment history should make explicit when you got your PhD, when you started your job, etc., from which search committees shouldn't have to work too hard to figure out how far along on the tenure track you are. I also don't think there's anything wrong with a cover letter saying: "I'm in my second year of a TT position at X, but I'm interested in your job because Y..." - Submitted by Daniel

Let me add a couple of quick remarks here that I think job applicants in general might find helpful, and then add a question to follow up on Daniel's reply.

One general thing that I think job-candidates should know is that (at least in my experience), your CV is probably going to be the very first thing search-committees look at. The reasons for this are simple: it's the single most condensed and information-rich part of your application, one that will give the reader a clear first impression of (1) whether you're qualified for the position advertised (e.g. do you have the relevant AOS?), (2) whether you're a good fit for what they are looking for (e.g. do you have any real background in AOC areas?, how much teaching experience do you have?), and (3) whether you are an attractive candidate (how much have you published?, where?, and what are your overall accomplishments?). So, just be aware of that: everything else in your application may only get a close look if your CV fits the position and comes across well.

The second thing I want to mention is that (again, in my experience), questions about why a given applicant is applying for the position may indeed arise while reading the CV. For example, if a search-committee member sees that you're in your 5th year of a TT job--and, make no mistake about it, committee members will notice these things--it will immediately occur to them that you may have applied because you're coming up for tenure. This can raise obvious questions: is the candidate only applying 'as a back-up' in case they get denied tenure? When this question arises in your head, the obvious thing to do is to look at the rest of the CV to see if the candidate looks like they're a shoo-in for tenure, or alternatively, whether they look like they won't get it. Depending on how things seem to you there, other questions may arise, such as: "Should we bother interviewing a candidate who looks like they are going to get tenure where they are, given that we cannot offer them a tenured position?" Similarly, if you're in your first or second year of a TT job, once again search committee members are likely to notice--and the obvious questions are again likely to arise in their mind: namely, "Why is this junior TT faculty applying here? Are they simply trying to move to a more attractive university? Might they have a 'two-body problem', with a spouse or partner who is also an academic?", and so on.

All of which brings me to Daniel's reply, and to something that I've long wondered: namely, is it good to say explicitly in a cover letter why you're applying if you are in these kinds of situations? I can say that in at least one case that I am aware of, a cover letter with an explanation helped a candidate, giving their application helpful context. But does it help in general? Are there certain kinds of things (like 'two-body problems') that one shouldn't raise? (Or should one?) I'll be frank: I've heard different things here. So, then, do any readers have any insight here? Should candidates explain why they are applying for a given job? If so, in which cases? In which cases shouldn't they?

Comments

[Rosa]

I think you should address any issues that make it clear that you're serious about the job and/or easy to hire. When I applied out of a TT job for other TT jobs, I mentioned the horrible budget situation at my current university (obviously along with the things I liked about the jobs I was applying for) and I think this probably helped committees to know that I was not just jockeying for a raise or getting a tenure denial back up plan. Those who are in tenured positions or late on the TT clock and are willing to start the tenure clock over should, I think, absolutely say why they are leaving and make it clear that they will restart the clock.

If the issue is something that would make it harder to hire you - like having a 2 body problem - I would definitely not mention it. Committees are likely to think you'll turnt he job down if they can't get a job for your spouse (which they likely can't) or that you're just trying to get an offer to negotiate for a job for your spouse in your current position. The *only* time I would mention it is if a department is hiring for two positions, one in each of your AOS's, and you are both a real catch for the school you are applying to. In that case, it might help the committee feel like they'd actually have a chance of getting and keeping both of you for the longish term.

[Daniel]

Fwiw, I'll add that, in my experience, the worry the OP raises may actually be backward. If a department is doing a junior search, there's usually a reason it's not a senior search or an open search. I've been on search committees where people further along the tenure track with more publicans and more robust CVs than the rest of the field were discounted, because they didn't really look like junior candidates. Exactly what the thinking there was I'm not sure, or perhaps can't remember--was it that they wouldn't really come and were just looking for a backup in case they didn't get tenure? Or to bargain up their salary? Or was it that we felt our own department was top-heavy and wanted more of a junior faculty cohort? I'm not sure. Either way, I think JuniorTT's worry will often be misplaced.

That doesn't address the latter part of Marcus's questions. I don't think I have any special insight there.

[Prof looking to move]

Daniel: why is the assumption that more senior people wouldn't want to move? Especially in this market people with senior-looking CVs struggle to even get jobs. Why is it that just because someone is more established, everyone assumes they might not have lifestyle preferences over where they want to live, or to work in a different kind of department? I'm just trying to understand the rationale here -- it feels like most people seem to think the job you happen to get first is just ordained to you forever, and that feels unfair.

[Looked]

Prof looking ...
As a matter of fact most academics do not move up the status rank from where they end up at 10 years after their Ph.D. This was a finding from an older sociological article. Indeed, if you think about any of the universities you have been at - as a student or faculty member - you realize that most people do not move.