How much do SLAC hiring committees care about applicants’ career stage?

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

How much do hiring committees at SLACs factor in the career stage of ABD applicants when they assess them? 

I'm an ABD candidate with only two solo-taught courses and a couple of decent publications, and I am not optimistic about landing a job in the next cycle. I know I'll be competing against many non-ABD candidates who have much more teaching experience than I do. 

Some friends have tried to console me by telling me that committees will likely factor in my early career stage (I'm starting year 5 of graduate school in the Fall), but I don't know how much consolation this should provide me. 

After all, Marcus, you gave this compelling analogy about this question back in 2018: "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.'" 

I'm wondering if you think this is still true, and if you have any advice for how I should approach the next AY accordingly. 

I am trying to spend as little time on the market as possible, but I feel so pessimistic about next year that I'm toying with the thought of barely applying at all and waiting until the next cycle after I've got a very polished dissertation with at least 2-3 published chapters and more teaching experience. (There are a few post-doc positions at my institution that are all but guaranteed to us with a decent increase in pay and 3-3 teaching loads.) 

Source for analogy: https://philosopherscocoon.typepad.com/blog/2018/04/secret-lives-of-search-committees-part-6-career-stage.html

Good question! It would be great to hear from readers, including from people who have served on hiring committees and any candidates who were ABD who were hired at an SLAC.

My sense, having hired numerous times at an institution broadly like this, is that people tend to care more about what you’ve done and accomplished—particularly whether a candidate has been able to publish and had a good amount of solo teaching experience (not just as a TA). And of course the actual dossier matters, for example a candidates’ teaching portfolio, including any syllabi, etc. My sense is that, in practice, this may somewhat favor more experienced candidates (post-PhDs who have had more time to publish and gain teaching experience, demonstrating the capacity to publish while having a full teaching load, for example—something that committees may care about too, as publishing while teaching full time is a considerable task that one will be expected to do once on the job). But, to the extent that there may be a bias for more experienced candidates, this will tend to be because more experience is broadly a proxy for things that matter (publishing success, breadth of teaching experience, pedagogical development, etc.). Still, my sense is that ABDs can be competitive for jobs at SLACs—particularly they have published, do interesting work, have significant solo teaching experience, and a good teaching portfolio.

All this being said, I would personally recommend that the OP head out onto the market in full force next year—at least if they have a significant portion of the dissertation done. Having spent many years on the market years ago, my experience was that each year is a total crapshoot. You never know if you’ll get lucky, and at some schools here may well be a bias in favor of “the shiny new” candidate just coming out of grad school. So, I say, go for it. The job market sucks, but it sucks far, far worse once you’re out of grad school—so why not give the game a roll of the dice sooner rather than later?

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

Comments

[JDF]

On the assumption that you'll have funding if you don't get a job this year: nothing stops you from applying for jackpot jobs only this year. Since the same department does not tend to advertise jobs in the same area in consecutive years, you likely won't get a chance again next year.

If you don't have guaranteed funding, just apply to everything and then if you willing and able, do it again next year.

[sahpa]

If you're a 'do or die' person, then you should hit the job market with full force. If, like me, you are not a 'do or die' person – I would have been very unhappy landing far from family in a not-pretty place, for example; or I would very much have not wanted to end up in a department with a bad culture or poor institutional support – then take this year to be more selective. Neither of these options involve 'spending as little time on the job market as possible'. Making a good dossier takes time and effort, and tailoring it takes more time still.

[The Real SLAC Prof]

In the olden days, many SLACs would *only* hire ABDs. The (quaint, creepy) rationale being that working at a SLAC is its own very special thing and being able to "shape" the new hire was imperative, so fresh, pliable, clay was all anyone wanted!

This practice is now a relic of the past, but in some ways the attitude persists. At my institution, for example, we've only recently been able to make senior hires, and there is still *some* preference for people fresh out of graduate school, albeit not at all to the same degree as in the past.

As people have noted in past answers to questions on this blog, the idea that the more publications you have as a grad student, the more hirable you will be is false. At my institution, having more than one or two publications has not significantly increased someone's chance of making the short list. And here the same holds for teaching: we wouldn't hire someone who never taught their own class, and certainly teaching experience is helpful and strengthens one's candidacy, but if you have two solo-taught courses, you have cleared the bar. You won't be made dramatically more attractive to us simply by teaching a few more courses or having a couple more publications. And while we want some assurances that you will defend your dissertation before starting the job, no one knows or cares how polished your dissertation is.

In short: at my SLAC there is no advantage of waiting another year to go on the market simply in the hopes of getting one or two more publications or teaching a few more classes. You are as hirable to us today as you would be a year from now.

[that kind of SLAC]

SLAC means two different things: (i) a SELECTIVE liberal arts colleges, like Williams, or (ii) a SMALL liberal arts college, like the various state colleges that cater mostly to undergraduates. I worked at the latter sort of place. We were against ABDs, both for TT jobs and for visiting positions. Why? There is no guarantee that the new hire will get their work done and complete their PhD. In the TT case, this is a disaster, as they are unlikely to get tenure. In the VAP case it is also bad, as they will be paid less (no PhD), and they will be divided on what they are doing --- their dissertation or their heavy teaching load.

[AnonymousJT]

Yeah I work at an R2 which in some ways is like a medium sized SLAC. I don't think the OP would be competitive here. You need to have finished (or nearly) finished your PhD and you would want more teaching experience. Many of the people we interview have taught more courses and this would matter to us since teaching is a thing here. So I don't think you would be helping yourself (maybe other places are different). Five years in is not that long anyway (I took eight years to finish and landed a job my first time out), so I'm not sure your situation is so bad anyways from what I can see.

[G Daddi]

I landed a tt position at a SLAC this past year. It is an interesting place, particularly because much of the regular job advice you hear now isn't totally applicable.
First and foremost, what matters is fit. Do you seem like you'll get along with current faculty? Do you have a background than aligns with the mission of the university? Do you have experience with or an interest in *this kind of place*? I had defended when I interviewed for my job, which certainly helped. But what seems to have mattered most was that I would be happy being a part of the bigger thing that is *this kind of university*.
Second, teaching experience. Unless you're interviewing at a fancy, selective school, you're likely to work with students that are, shall we say, aren't the best. How do you work with these students? What have you done that engages these students? Do you have a method that aligns with, or at least interests, your colleagues?
Third, publications matter, but really not all that much. At many SLACs, you can publish in the International Journal of God Knows What Studies and get tenure. This isn't true everywhere, but, for a lot of places, what matters is that you show promise to get a handful of things published. That said, I had a better CV coming out of grad school than most full professors at my university (roughly 10 papers in good journals). Most of my department, however, didn't care. The one, younger faculty member in my department knew that my recent AJP article was a 'big deal', but no one else cared. All they cared about was that I evinced an ability to publish enough; they just don't want to worry about you failing to meet (the low) bar for tenure.
In all, then, what a lot of SLACs care about is: can you successfully teach these kinds of students in this kind of environment. Nothing really proves that you can; but teaching experience does a better job than publications do.
Rant over!

[recent-ish SLAC hire]

I second Marcus' advice to go for it. I got two SLAC job offers while ABD and am happily employed at one, where I have served on a search committee.

Re: my own hire, I don't have any obvious superstar qualities and I think my success reflects a combination of good luck (pretty sure I was the second choice for my current job) and good fit between me and the openings that particular year. I can see the reasons for the good fit in retrospect, but they weren't at all obvious from the job postings.

Re: hiring committee, we looked at (and interviewed) everyone from ABD to highly published people with multiple postdocs and short-term positions. Apart from evidence of quality teaching we looked for research that was interesting to us as non-specialists. Prior to the interview stage, that meant research that was explained well in the cover letter since we don't ask for research statements. We would absolutely have given OP a close look with that record if the other things were in place.

We're in an interesting category of SLAC that I don't see mentioned on here very often. Not tippy top, but regionally prestigious, financially stable, and working to build a national profile. I have great students, a 3/2 teaching load, and real research expectations.