Tips or success stories on leaving then returning to academia?

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

I am curious to hear about any advice/success stories of those who left academia (due to geographic and financial constraints) and then returned. I understand it’s probably not recommended, but I’m still curious about how search committees perceive these types of candidates. Are they seen as unappealing or not serious candidates? The advice I’ve heard so far is to adjunct on the side and to continue research activities. (If this has been asked before, could you/someone provide the link to the post, please?) Thank you!

I don't know if we've discussed this before, but it's a good question! I suspect a lot probably has to do with what you've done in the interim (while you are out of academia). Have you published at all? Continued teaching in some capacity? In any case, I really don't know how search committees perceive candidates who have been away from academia for a while.

Do any readers have any helpful tips, experiences, or other insights to share?

Comments

[a friend]

I had a colleague who became a consultant at one of the big firms for a few years, starting right after he finished his PhD. During that time he published a philosophy book with a very good publisher (think, one of the best). And then he took a job at a 4 year college. He was somewhat exceptional - (i) he was willing to take a giant drop in pay, (ii) he was active when he was away from academia (publishing his book), (iii) and he is a very effective writer. Also, he was lucky to apply to a place where his time away did not work against him. It can be done, though.

[SLAC Prof]

Over many searches, I can recall seeing a handful of applications that fit this profile, and none made it to the second round. I don't think anyone thought they were unappealing simply because they took time away, but it is very hard to do serious work in another field and continue to keep up a research profile in philosophy. And there are so many other applicants who don't face these difficulties.

One thing to keep in mind: you and ideally at least one of your letter writers will need to offer a narration of the time away from professional philosophy and the desire to return. And you'll need to have a compelling story to avoid looking like a dilettante and/or flight risk. It would be best if the story made you look like a *more* attractive candidate in virtue of the time away.

[try to leave it out and come up with some story if you can]

I had the opportunity to just leave it out of my CV. I took a 10 month job, but it happened to be when a (visiting and poorly funded) post doc ended early in the year, and secured something mid next year. So month-wise it was a brief departure, but year-wise it was nonexistent. I published 2 papers in very decent journals during my 10 month non-academic job. I doubted I could have came back if it were not for the no-gap on my CV though.

[Bill Vanderburgh]

It strikes me that two factors play a big role in how leaving and attempting to reenter academia will go. One is how long you are out, and the other is the level you are at when you leave.

On the first, shorter is better, and keeping up with some teaching and research is better. There is probably some point at which successful reentry is nigh impossible because you have been out "too long": probably, no one can specify what that time period is.

On the second, it is probably easier to go from an adjunct to out and back to an adjunct position, than, say, from associate professor to out and back to associate professor. There are so few jobs for mid-career folks that you'd have to commit to starting over on the tenure track. And then you run into second-guessing about whether you are a serious candidate, whether you would really be happy in a junior role, whether you would stay, etc.

In our own recent searches, even folks who were currently in tenure-track or tenured positions, i.e., with no gap, didn't usually fare well. (Though we did hire one exceptional candidate who was already on the tenure track elsewhere, out of five offers we have made in recent years.)

There are so many good "traditional" candidates that committees don't have to try to figure out unusual cases, so sometimes (I think) they just don't bother. This is the hardest hurdle to overcome, and the candidate essentially has no control over it.

[Tim]

I have a one year gap in my CV. But during that time, I continued to publish. I was able to get a more research focused position after the one year gap, presumably because of those publications.

[it can be done!]

I am now tenured, but left a TT job and spent 2 years out of academia.
When I went back on the job market, I tried to take control of the narrative by addressing the gap directly and asking a colleague at my previous job to write a letter speaking to the circumstances under which I left. When I spoke with hiring committees, I wove my time away directly in to the story of why I wanted the job.
Being honest worked for me. But, I was also exceedingly lucky.

[Santa Monica]

People take people seriously who take things seriously. There are a thousand other challenges that come with entering a competitive career, but I fully suspect that you needn't worry about being given due consideration at the application stage.